GBH
Kramel, 04 Sep 2005 17:54:47
The whole issue in merely a knee-jerk New Labour pandering to the moral
minority. You only have to read the adjectives used to see that it's less about
protecting society than it is about legislating against activities that a
small amount of prudes find distasteful. Mary Whitehouse will be cheering from
her grave.
The issue is fundamental. One the politicians write the legislation they
leave it in the hands of others to deliver it. The police, Crown Prosection
Service and courts. Do you want to have to risk going to court in order to
prove that you are not a danger to society? To prove that your
bedromm/garage/dungeon activities are consensual and don't leave lasting marks?
If the courts make a mistake following a pub fight you risk a crimianl
record for assault.
If the courts make a mistake following a BDSM scene at which intercourse
took place will it be assault or sexual assault?
Imagine what the outcome of a record for sexual assault will do to your life.
The consultation is based on the flawed hypothesis that watching a
pornographic image somehow transforms you into a sexual monster. Any legislation
based on a flawed premis is bound to be also flawed.
The BBC had it measured accurate when they had to invited a lady from
Scottish Women Against Pornography (NB against porn, not against violent crime).
The lady argued that there was evidence that all sexually depraived murderers
had seen porn - duh. They also drink water, but nobody is trying to ban that.
The sad fact is that few laws reach the statute books in the same form as
they started the parliamentary process. Extend that to the public consultation
process and you can guarantee that what we are reading today will not be
100% reflective of what ends up being law.
There is no need for this law, it serves no real benefit beyond what is
already enacted in statute. But it does add real risks to those that practice
BDSM at not harm to society.
We must oppose this start to finish, top to bottom, in its entirity.
In a message dated 04/09/2005 17:26:56 GMT Standard Time, mail@pandemos.net
writes:
> I have read the proposal, as I am sure most of us
> have. I think it is inconsistant in places, but is
> generally a good idea. I was initially concerned about
> definitions of serious sexual violence, but tend to
> think that the definition of GBH is a reasonable place
> to draw the line.
I think everyone would agreee that we don't want images of GBH floating
around, but the difficulty is that what BDSM players may regard as
GBH/ABH could well be different from what the police or CPS view as GBH/ABH.
> I think the only real task for the BDSM community in
> all this is to highlight the concept of consent.
The consultation document only mentions consent in passing. My reading
of this is that the government doesn't consider consent to be a material
factor.
The consultation document focuses on the possible effect extreme porn
can have on the viewer, and whether or not such material is morally
acceptable in today's society. Consent doesn't have much of a bearing on
either of these areas. If consent is present or not, the images are the
same.
For me, it would be better to attack the proposals on the twin bases
that material shouldn't be banned because it *might* have negative
effects on those who view it, and that the government can't prohibit
freedom of expression of a minority because a majority deems what is
expressed to be objectionable. Freedom of expression isn't the sole
preserve of a 'moral majority'.
--
dan brusca
http://pandemos.net - Domina directory, fetish resource
http://pandemos2.net - femdom and fetish photo site
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D106
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)