Draft letter to a member of the House of Lords

Nigel Meek, 15 Oct 2005 17:51:31

The cross-bencher Lord Monson – one of the 92 hereditary peers who survived the chop – is the President of the Society for Individual Freedom – albeit one of its more “conservative" members – of which I’m the editor and membership secretary. As such I’ve written the following letter to him (to be sent on SIF headed paper). However, I’d value any comments on it before I actually get it in the post. There are a small number of other parliamentarians with whom I have at least some connection and with suitable topping and tailing the basic text might also serve for them.

Many thanks,

Nigel Meek




Dear Lord Monson,

Unfortunately you were unable to attend the SIF’s Executive Committee meeting on the 4th October (but were able to attend the AGM later in the day). As will be detailed in the minutes of the EC meeting once they are published, I reported that “wearing multiple hats” as a senior member of the SIF as well as the Libertarian Alliance and the Campaign Against Censorship I attended a first meeting of the Backlash campaign. Since then I have attended a further meeting and made other modest contributions to the campaign.

Backlash is an umbrella group formed to co-ordinate opposition to Home Office and Scottish Executive proposals to legislate against the possession of “extreme pornographic” material which, in practice, largely means sado-masochistic pornography. There are a huge number of reasons to oppose these moves. However, the most important is surely the principled libertarian one that, as that great liberal Herbert Spencer said and which is prominently featured on the back cover of the SIF’s journal, The Individual, “Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”

At the moment these proposals are at the consultation stage. The Libertarian Alliance has issued a press release (copy enclosed) on the subject utterly condemning any such proposals and the Campaign Against Censorship will be sending a critical formal submission in the very near future.

The views of those attending the SIF EC on the 4th October were also cool to the proposals since they are obviously contrary to the notion of “individual freedom”. I doubt that the SIF will be able to send its own formal submission to the consultation process. However, if and when the matter reaches the Lords, I would urge you to oppose these proposals in much the same manner as I am sure that you oppose the Race and Religious Hatred Bill and the Terrorism Bill. All of these should be seen as a consistent pattern on the part of an authoritarian and censorious government and need to be opposed accordingly.

The Backlash website can be found at http://www.unfettered.co.uk/backlash/index.html. In the meantime I am currently writing an article on the matter for the next issue of The Individual.

Yours sincerely,

etc.


zak, 15 Oct 2005 20:44:44

Further to Nigel's posting, here is the text of the letter I wrote to my
MP, which anyone
who wishes to is free to nick chunks of.


Dear Mr Ottaway

Regarding: Home Office Consultation on Extreme Internet Pornography

You may be aware of the proposed changes in the law regarding this: I wish
to bring to
your attention the fact that the whole thing has, as is usual, been drawn
up by people who
think there is something inherently wrong with pornography, masturbation
and any form of
sexual behaviour outside the marital missionary position. The proposed
legislation is
irrational, unnecessary and will not work because, as the proposers clearly
fail to
understand, there are substantial differences between an image, its
context, a fantasy and
reality.
Please bear in mind the following points when the time comes to vote on
this bill:

It has never been possible to demonstrate a direct causal link between
viewing images and
acting out undesirable behaviours. Psychotics can be triggered into harming
themselves and
others by images, stories, concepts or even sounds that others would find
entirely
innocuous.
And if it were true that the viewing of “violent pornography” in itself
turned every
viewer into a dangerous sexual criminal then both the Obscene Publications
Squad and all
members of the British Board of Film Classifiers would have to be
permanently incarcerated
in order to do their jobs without endangering the public at large.
If images of violence against women are to be banned then not only will the
whole
entertainment industry have a sudden problem, but charities working to
combat domestic
violence will find themselves facing difficulties when it comes to
producing images that
provoke
discussion and/or donations. The same would apply to charities such as
Amnesty
International and others working to combat torture and it would be
impossible to justify
the display of a crucifix which is, after all, a depiction of a man being
tortured to
death.
Laws already exist to enable those who kidnap, assault, rape and murder
others to be
prosecuted. In the case of entertainment material which has involved actual
assault,
sexual or otherwise, on unconsenting parties, the perpetrators should be
prosecuted for
this crime: what images may have been created are pretty much incidental.
Images created
with the assistance of willing actors and special effects - or images
created by the
manipulation of photographs on a computer - should not be prohibited.
Finally, far more brutal crimes have been committed in the name of religion
(any and all
religions) than by viewers of pornography, horror films, manga, video games
or any other
form of entertainment medi

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


Amelie, 16 Oct 2005 12:02:31

some good points here - I especially liked the reference to the crucifix!
----- Original Message -----
, 16 Oct 2005 12:02:31
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 8:44 PM


Further to Nigel's posting, here is the text of the letter I wrote to my
MP, which anyone
who wishes to is free to nick chunks of.


Dear Mr Ottaway

Regarding: Home Office Consultation on Extreme Internet Pornography

You may be aware of the proposed changes in the law regarding this: I wish
to bring to
your attention the fact that the whole thing has, as is usual, been drawn
up by people who
think there is something inherently wrong with pornography, masturbation
and any form of
sexual behaviour outside the marital missionary position. The proposed
legislation is
irrational, unnecessary and will not work because, as the proposers clearly
fail to
understand, there are substantial differences between an image, its
context, a fantasy and
reality.
Please bear in mind the following points when the time comes to vote on
this bill:

It has never been possible to demonstrate a direct causal link between
viewing images and
acting out undesirable behaviours. Psychotics can be triggered into harming
themselves and
others by images, stories, concepts or even sounds that others would find
entirely
innocuous.
And if it were true that the viewing of "violent pornography" in itself
turned every
viewer into a dangerous sexual criminal then both the Obscene Publications
Squad and all
members of the British Board of Film Classifiers would have to be
permanently incarcerated
in order to do their jobs without endangering the public at large.
If images of violence against women are to be banned then not only will the
whole
entertainment industry have a sudden problem, but charities working to
combat domestic
violence will find themselves facing difficulties when it comes to
producing images that
provoke
discussion and/or donations. The same would apply to charities such as
Amnesty
International and others working to combat torture and it would be
impossible to justify
the display of a crucifix which is, after all, a depiction of a man being
tortured to
death.
Laws already exist to enable those who kidnap, assault, rape and murder
others to be
prosecuted. In the case of entertainment material which has involved actual
assault,
sexual or otherwise, on unconsenting parties, the perpetrators should be
prosecuted for
this crime: what images may have been created are pretty much incidental.
Images created
with the assistance of willing actors and special effects - or images
created by the
manipulation of photographs on a computer - should not be prohibited.
Finally, far more brutal crimes have been committed in the name of religion
(any and all
religions) than by viewers of pornography, horror films, manga, video games
or any other
form of entertainment medi

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .






--
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%3D1488


Nigel Meek, 16 Oct 2005 12:14:24

Indeed, many thanks. I've also found parts of Zak's letter helpful.

Nigel Meek



Author wrote:
> some good points here - I especially liked the reference to the crucifix!
> ----- Original Message -----
: , 16 Oct 2005 12:14:24
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 8:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [backlash] Draft letter to a member of the House of Lords
> Further to Nigel's posting, here is the text of the letter I wrote to my
> MP, which anyone
> who wishes to is free to nick chunks of.
> Dear Mr Ottaway
> Regarding: Home Office Consultation on Extreme Internet Pornography
> You may be aware of the proposed changes in the law regarding this: I wish
> to bring to
> your attention the fact that the whole thing has, as is usual, been drawn
> up by people who
> think there is something inherently wrong with pornography, masturbation
> and any form of
> sexual behaviour outside the marital missionary position. The proposed
> legislation is
> irrational, unnecessary and will not work because, as the proposers clearly
> fail to
> understand, there are substantial differences between an image, its
> context, a fantasy and
> reality.
> Please bear in mind the following points when the time comes to vote on
> this bill:
> It has never been possible to demonstrate a direct causal link between
> viewing images and
> acting out undesirable behaviours. Psychotics can be triggered into harming
> themselves and
> others by images, stories, concepts or even sounds that others would find
> entirely
> innocuous.
> And if it were true that the viewing of "violent pornography" in itself
> turned every
> viewer into a dangerous sexual criminal then both the Obscene Publications
> Squad and all
> members of the British Board of Film Classifiers would have to be
> permanently incarcerated
> in order to do their jobs without endangering the public at large.
> If images of violence against women are to be banned then not only will the
> whole
> entertainment industry have a sudden problem, but charities working to
> combat domestic
> violence will find themselves facing difficulties when it comes to
> producing images that
> provoke
> discussion and/or donations. The same would apply to charities such as
> Amnesty
> International and others working to combat torture and it would be
> impossible to justify
> the display of a crucifix which is, after all, a depiction of a man being
> tortured to
> death.
> Laws already exist to enable those who kidnap, assault, rape and murder
> others to be
> prosecuted. In the case of entertainment material which has involved actual
> assault,
> sexual or otherwise, on unconsenting parties, the perpetrators should be
> prosecuted for
> this crime: what images may have been created are pretty much incidental.
> Images created
> with the assistance of willing actors and special effects - or images
> created by the
> manipulation of photographs on a computer - should not be prohibited.
> Finally, far more brutal crimes have been committed in the name of religion
> (any and all
> religions) than by viewers of pornography, horror films, manga, video games
> or any other
> form of entertainment medi
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
> --
> 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%3D1488


Amelie, 16 Oct 2005 12:55:35

asolutely!
----- Original Message -----
, 16 Oct 2005 12:55:35
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 5:51 PM


The cross-bencher Lord Monson - one of the 92 hereditary peers who survived
the chop - is the President of the Society for Individual Freedom - albeit
one of its more "conservative" members - of which I'm the editor and
membership secretary. As such I've written the following letter to him (to
be sent on SIF headed paper). However, I'd value any comments on it before
I actually get it in the post. There are a small number of other
parliamentarians with whom I have at least some connection and with suitable
topping and tailing the basic text might also serve for them.

Many thanks,

Nigel Meek




Dear Lord Monson,

Unfortunately you were unable to attend the SIF's Executive Committee
meeting on the 4th October (but were able to attend the AGM later in the
day). As will be detailed in the minutes of the EC meeting once they are
published, I reported that "wearing multiple hats" as a senior member of the
SIF as well as the Libertarian Alliance and the Campaign Against Censorship
I attended a first meeting of the Backlash campaign. Since then I have
attended a further meeting and made other modest contributions to the
campaign.

Backlash is an umbrella group formed to co-ordinate opposition to Home
Office and Scottish Executive proposals to legislate against the possession
of "extreme pornographic" material which, in practice, largely means
sado-masochistic pornography. There are a huge number of reasons to oppose
these moves. However, the most important is surely the principled
libertarian one that, as that great liberal Herbert Spencer said and which
is prominently featured on the back cover of the SIF's journal, The
Individual, "Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he
infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

At the moment these proposals are at the consultation stage. The
Libertarian Alliance has issued a press release (copy enclosed) on the
subject utterly condemning any such proposals and the Campaign Against
Censorship will be sending a critical formal submission in the very near
future.

The views of those attending the SIF EC on the 4th October were also cool to
the proposals since they are obviously contrary to the notion of "individual
freedom". I doubt that the SIF will be able to send its own formal
submission to the consultation process. However, if and when the matter
reaches the Lords, I would urge you to oppose these proposals in much the
same manner as I am sure that you oppose the Race and Religious Hatred Bill
and the Terrorism Bill. All of these should be seen as a consistent pattern
on the part of an authoritarian and censorious government and need to be
opposed accordingly.

The Backlash website can be found at
http://www.unfettered.co.uk/backlash/index.html. In the meantime I am
currently writing an article on the matter for the next issue of The
Individual.

Yours sincerely,

etc.






--
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%3D1480


Paul Tavener, 16 Oct 2005 16:32:20

I don’t know how old Lord Monson is but if he’s elderly 70’s + then it might be worth mentioning something about citizens of continental Europe enjoying more freedom than citizens in the UK. This sometimes strikes a cord with those who remember the war.


Amelie, 16 Oct 2005 17:40:47

is it worth mentioning that the fastest growing group of bdsm practitioners
are men and women of retirement age? - just a thought - we could attract
support from the pensioners' lobby!!
----- Original Message -----
, 16 Oct 2005 17:40:47
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 4:32 PM


I don't know how old Lord Monson is but if he's elderly 70's + then it might
be worth mentioning something about citizens of continental Europe enjoying
more freedom than citizens in the UK. This sometimes strikes a cord with
those who remember the war.








--
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%3D1537


demolitionred, 17 Oct 2005 09:13:19

Is it ok for us to publish these ( without destinatio or signature on the web as examples of how to write a letter?


Would it also be ok to use extracts for my planned countdown to December 2nd?


Nigel Meek, 17 Oct 2005 09:31:23

Yes. I’ve nearly finished a couple of letters (as opposed to the draft that I posted earlier) and I’ll post the basic text later on.

I’m sure that other Backlash members will find fault with what I’ve done. However, for my part perhaps the most important thing is to get the message across that (a) someone who is willing and able to construct a polite and coherent letter but who (b) is not personally involved in the activities under threat nevertheless (c) for a number of reasons opposes moves to increase censorship.

Nigel Meek


Libertarian Alliance (http://www.libertarian.co.uk)
Campaign Against Censorship (http://www.dlas.org.uk/index.html)
Society for Individual Freedom (http://www.individualist.org.uk)

Author wrote:
> Is it ok for us to publish these ( without destinatio or signature on the web as examples of how to write a letter?
> Would it also be ok to use extracts for my planned countdown to December 2nd?


zak, 17 Oct 2005 12:37:19

Original Message:
-----------------
demolitionred@yahoo.com, 17 Oct 2005 12:37:19


Is it ok for us to publish these ( without destinatio or signature on the
web as examples
of how to write a letter?


Would it also be ok to use extracts for my planned countdown to December
2nd?



Help yourself to mine.

ZJK





--
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%3D157

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


Amelie, 17 Oct 2005 12:41:50

take anything of mine anywhere you find it, and welcome.
----- Original Message -----
, 17 Oct 2005 12:41:50
To:
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:37 PM


Original Message:
-----------------
demolitionred@yahoo.com, 17 Oct 2005 12:41:50


Is it ok for us to publish these ( without destinatio or signature on the
web as examples
of how to write a letter?


Would it also be ok to use extracts for my planned countdown to December
2nd?



Help yourself to mine.

ZJK





--
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%3D157

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .






--
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%3D1595


Graham Marsden, 17 Oct 2005 18:42:17

> demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Is it ok for us to publish these ( without destinatio or signature on the
> web as examples of how to write a letter?

You're welcome to use my MP letter if you want.

Cheers,
Graham.


Morgarth, 18 Oct 2005 00:19:29

Author wrote:
> The cross-bencher Lord Monson – one of the 92 hereditary peers who survived the chop – is the President of the Society for Individual Freedom – albeit one of its more “conservative" members – ....


An interesting peer - demolitionred asked the research group if there had ever been prosecutions for bestiality and necrophilia. While chassing these down in Hansard I discovered that Lord Monson is the only peer or MP to have asked such a question in the house since 1988. He, with Lord Lucas, also questioned the way these offences were included within the Sexual Offences Bill during the Lords Committee stage.


See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030519/text/30519-23.htm#30519-23_para16 for the discussion.

The government position was stated as "We have drawn the line where we have drawn the line. There is no merit in saying that that is not this bad or that bad. What one has to do is see where we have drawn the line and ask whether we have done that in the right place."

Which I think means "Tough luck we are going to do it our way"!