Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 6:29 PM
This is a very important campaign. and there are some good things being
written here.
There are some big 'lines in the sand' that we ALL need to be drawing
against this government and this is certainly one of them.
But I worry. And it is these concerns that hold me back from becoming
actively involved in this one.
I worry that you don't fight the law with 'committees', 'focus groups' and
the like. with 'strap lines' and 'mission statements'. you fight the law
with reasoned and coherent argument based soundly in law.
Having meetings to 'decide the agenda for the next meeting' is a mind set
that just leads to procrastination, petty in fighting and nit picking and
parochial arguments to the issues that are based on the 'personal taste' of
the individuals and groups that involve themselves in such things (and don't
get me started on petitions).
Which makes me worry about the involvement of the bdsm community.
It is an unfortunate fact that much of the bdsm community is not a very good
advert for the bdsm community itself. let alone anything else.
Bdsm may well end up being the winning argument for the other side. the
perfect excuse for the 'moral minority' to promote the need for just such a
law. regardless of what actually goes on behind the net curtains of suburban
England.
Take the pro hunting lobby. They took themselves seriously and much of their
argument was based on tradition and 'personal tastes' and the lobby failed.
hunting is now against the law. Rightly or wrongly is unimportant, the fact
that few outside of their 'countryside alliance' took the presentation of
their case seriously is. The bdsm community is not taken seriously by anyone
but themselves and their case based on 'personal taste'.
The case for this law in the 'public consciousness' is going to be a very
easy one to make and those that take a stance against it are going to be
branded with all manner of misinformation and untruths. and 'bdsm' is going
to become a liability when trying to make the case against it.
Arguments such as 'is bdsm innate or learnt' have fuck all to do with this
campaign and if they do. then it is very quickly going to end up dead in the
water and my rights are going to be eroded because they couldn't leave off
ramming their 'alternative' sexuality down everyone's throat.
This is a very important campaign. but it's not about dirty pictures or
'sexuality'.
J.
--
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%3D1947
Graham Marsden, 20 Oct 2005 20:22:59
jaydoubleue@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Arguments such as \x{2018}is bdsm innate or learnt\x{2019} have fuck all to do with
> this campaign and if they do\x{2026} then it is very quickly going to end up
> dead in the water and my rights are going to be eroded because they
> couldn\x{2019}t leave off ramming their \x{2018}alternative\x{2019} sexuality down
> everyone\x{2019}s throat.
Excuse me, but *who* exactly here is trying to ram anything down
anyone's throat?
All the BDSM community wants is the *right* to enjoy their own sexuality
*without* anyone trying to tell them what they can or cannot do or look
at or think about.
> This is a very important campaign\x{2026} but it\x{2019}s not about dirty pictures or
> \x{2018}sexuality\x{2019}.
No, it's about the Home Office and the Government trying to "ram down
people's throats" the idea that *they* can tell us what is or isn't
"acceptable" for people to view and what sort of images "do not have a
place in society".
And that *includes* BDSM imagery.
Cheers,
Graham.
Manniq, 20 Oct 2005 20:48:34
Well, I am sure you will set off another debate - but I can't help but feel you are wrong.
Convergent thinking. Very annoying, when you have an idea that is actually a stroke of genius - and by the time you get to the board, you find two other people have had it as well already.
Same thing with large ideas and small - and for my money, to do with the fact that there is less originality in the world than people think. Just natural responses to common problems.
Anyway, I was going to post the link below, only to find that Laurence got there before me with some observations about group dynamics and how campaigns get together. But on second thoughts, the link is still relevant.
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadtem2.html
There is, understandably, a lot of impatience about. Not least because the timescale of the consultation process means we have to do all of the above - norming, forming, etc. - in far too short a time. We will just about be starting to function as a team after December 2.
But for all the frustration of the exchanges on here, I DO sense a degree of coming together: people who have never worked together before; never done anything more serious than played; gradually, gradually evolving into quite a decent team. Informal, yes. But a team, nonetheless.
Your other point, I won't pick on, other than to say that bdsm is what it is. It is demanding the right to be, rather than to be allowed to be, so long as it changes totally from what it is and conforms.
There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the CA: they put down markers for the future; but in the end were up against an entrenched Labour majority. Similar applies to us - which is all the more reason why we need to campaign as who we are, not who they would prefer us to be.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> This is a very important campaign… and there are some good things being written here.
> There are some big ‘lines in the sand’ that we ALL need to be drawing against this government and this is certainly one of them.
> But I worry. And it is these concerns that hold me back from becoming actively involved in this one.
> I worry that you don’t fight the law with ‘committees’, ‘focus groups’ and the like… with ‘strap lines’ and ‘mission statements’… you fight the law with reasoned and coherent argument based soundly in law.
> Having meetings to ‘decide the agenda for the next meeting’ is a mind set that just leads to procrastination, petty in fighting and nit picking and parochial arguments to the issues that are based on the ‘personal taste’ of the individuals and groups that involve themselves in such things (and don’t get me started on petitions).
> Which makes me worry about the involvement of the bdsm community.
> It is an unfortunate fact that much of the bdsm community is not a very good advert for the bdsm community itself… let alone anything else.
> Bdsm may well end up being the winning argument for the other side… the perfect excuse for the ‘moral minority’ to promote the need for just such a law… regardless of what actually goes on behind the net curtains of suburban England.
> Take the pro hunting lobby. They took themselves seriously and much of their argument was based on tradition and ‘personal tastes’ and the lobby failed… hunting is now against the law. Rightly or wrongly is unimportant, the fact that few outside of their ‘countryside alliance’ took the presentation of their case seriously is. The bdsm community is not taken seriously by anyone but themselves and their case based on ‘personal taste’.
> The case for this law in the ‘public consciousness’ is going to be a very easy one to make and those that take a stance against it are going to be branded with all manner of misinformation and untruths… and ‘bdsm’ is going to become a liability when trying to make the case against it.
> Arguments such as ‘is bdsm innate or learnt’ have fuck all to do with this campaign and if they do… then it is very quickly going to end up dead in the water and my rights are going to be eroded because they couldn’t leave off ramming their ‘alternative’ sexuality down everyone’s throat.
> This is a very important campaign… but it’s not about dirty pictures or ‘sexuality’.
> J.
>
>
AV8R, 20 Oct 2005 21:24:56
Author wrote:
> This is a very important campaign… and there are some good things being written here.
> There are some big ‘lines in the sand’ that we ALL need to be drawing against this government and this is certainly one of them.
> But I worry. And it is these concerns that hold me back from becoming actively involved in this one.
> I worry that you don’t fight the law with ‘committees’, ‘focus groups’ and the like… with ‘strap lines’ and ‘mission statements’… you fight the law with reasoned and coherent argument based soundly in law.
But as has so often been pointed out to me on this board, THERE IS NO LAW yet, therefore there is no legal argument to fight.
This proposal is soundly rooted in politics, not law. Special interest groups have targeted an element of pornography on the internet that they find objectionable, nothing more, nothing less.
And the only way to fight politicians and special interest groups is with political lobbying, education campaigns, PR efforts, press and media presence, etc etc etc.
> Having meetings to ‘decide the agenda for the next meeting’ is a mind set that just leads to procrastination, petty in fighting and nit picking and parochial arguments to the issues that are based on the ‘personal taste’ of the individuals and groups that involve themselves in such things (and don’t get me started on petitions).
So what would you suggest? I would agree to some point that commitees, meetings, agenda's, trying to keep everyone happy, etc etc, can be a pretty monumental waste of time by comparison to a dedicated, well funded, efficient, aggressive, business oriented approach, where the project is managed effectively and the team is dedicated.
But with almost no funding and with trying to keep an incredibly diverse group of people and organisations happy and involved, there is precious little choice.
> Which makes me worry about the involvement of the bdsm community.
> It is an unfortunate fact that much of the bdsm community is not a very good advert for the bdsm community itself… let alone anything else.
Unfortunately you may well be right, but not for the reasons I suspect you think you are.
The BDSM community in the UK has a long way to go with regards to becoming an effective force. Which is unfortunate, as in the meantime our rights are being eroded and our representative bodies seem to take on and/or accomplish very little. There may be good reasons for this, there may not be. I just make the observation.
All one needs to do is look at other countries to see just what can be accomplished in the field of BDSM rights with unity, focus, proper funding, and a majority of the community that is not apathetic to the point of self destruction. The UK BDSM community, sadly, still seems to not really care too much, with a few obvious exceptions. (those contributing to backlash being a notable exception)
> Bdsm may well end up being the winning argument for the other side… the perfect excuse for the ‘moral minority’ to promote the need for just such a law… regardless of what actually goes on behind the net curtains of suburban England.
And if this is true, then it is nothing more than shameless sexual discrimination and a perfect example of why we as a community need to be MORE active politically, educationally, legally, etc etc etc. Not less.
> Take the pro hunting lobby. They took themselves seriously and much of their argument was based on tradition and ‘personal tastes’ and the lobby failed… hunting is now against the law. Rightly or wrongly is unimportant, the fact that few outside of their ‘countryside alliance’ took the presentation of their case seriously is.
Good point, and one that I frequently make when arguing that "free speech" is not an argument the govt will even remotely begin to take seriously, and we must now start planning an effective BDSM rights oriented "plan b".
The terrorism and gun control laws are another fine example of individual rights being trampled by a bunch of nanny state do-gooders, and all those causes had vastly more support than any theoretical free speech cause does.
But it should be noted that the hunting lobby was so effective with media oriented demonstrations and well paid lobbyists, that the legislation became so technically diluted that hunting itself is now just as popular and successful as ever.
Which was just fine with Blair and co, as they got to claim a political victory, whilst not really changing anything at all.
A strategy we should well consider here, with regards to letting bestiality and Necro be the sacrificial lambs....
>The bdsm community is not taken seriously by anyone but themselves and their case based on ‘personal taste’.
Possibly, and if so we only have ourselves to blame, for as a community hiding in the closet all these years, and being so politically inactive we are seen as a "soft target".
> The case for this law in the ‘public consciousness’ is going to be a very easy one to make and those that take a stance against it are going to be branded with all manner of misinformation and untruths… and ‘bdsm’ is going to become a liability when trying to make the case against it.
Actually, the case would be very difficult for the "public consciousness" and govt if this community had actually fought and won the recognition as an "alternative sexuality" that we deserve. Other countries have recognised BDSM as a sexuality. Its long past due for the UK govt to do so. Discrimination based on sexuality is illegal. end of case.
> Arguments such as ‘is bdsm innate or learnt’ have fuck all to do with this campaign and if they do… then it is very quickly going to end up dead in the water and my rights are going to be eroded because they couldn’t leave off ramming their ‘alternative’ sexuality down everyone’s throat.
> This is a very important campaign… but it’s not about dirty pictures or ‘sexuality’.
Actually it is ONLY about dirty pictures and sexuality. The proposed legislation would specifically and ONLY ban pictures of bestiality, necrophilia or sexual violence.
Therefore it only effects your rights to view dirty pictures, and absolutely NOTHING else.
There are no other rights to erode here,(even the free speech argument in practice is limited only to free speech with regards to pictures of bestiality, sexual violence and necrophilia) and if you are not concerned about BDSM, then that only leaves Necrophilia or Bestiality.
Which one do you think has a better chance of gaining ANY public support.
As for ramming "alternative sexuality" down everyone elses throats, the BDSM community has been collectively hiding under the bed for the last 10 years, trying ridiculously hard not to offend anyone.
And we can all see how little good that has done.
The time to fight for equal rights is long overdue, and had we done it years ago, we probably wouldnt be in this mess today.
Av8r.
zak, 21 Oct 2005 00:41:10
Original Message:
-----------------
jaydoubleue@yahoo.co.uk, 21 Oct 2005 00:41:10
This is a very important campaign… and there are some good things being
written here.
There are some big ‘lines in the sand’ that we ALL need to be drawing
against this
government and this is certainly one of them.
Arguments such as ‘is bdsm innate or learnt’ have fuck all to do with this
campaign and if
they do… then it is very quickly going to end up dead in the water and my
rights are going
to be eroded because they couldn’t leave off ramming their ‘alternative’
sexuality down
everyone’s throat.
This is a very important campaign… but it’s not about dirty pictures or
‘sexuality’.
J.
Indeed. It doesn't matter what images a person wants to look at: looking at
images is not
and should never be a crime. Same goes for making images.
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%3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
AV8R, 21 Oct 2005 00:50:41
Author wrote:
>Indeed. It doesn't matter what images a person wants to look at: looking at images is not and should never be a crime.
That is incorrect. Looking at and possesing images of child pornography is already illegal. There is ample precedent along those lines.
>Same goes for making images.zjk
Same goes for precedent re child porn, but also the obscenity laws in the UK have a very strict set of guidelines re what is acceptable for production and publication.
Its all very well to have these principled ideas that "no" images should be illegal.
But thats simply not very realistic given the society we actually live in, as opposed to wished we lived in, and totally at odds with the current legal situation.
zak, 21 Oct 2005 01:04:16
Original Message:
-----------------
av8r0344@hotmail.com, 21 Oct 2005 01:04:16
Author wrote:
>Indeed. It doesn't matter what images a person wants to look at: looking
at images is not
and should never be a crime.
That is incorrect. Looking at and possesing images of child pornography is
already
illegal. There is ample precedent along those lines.
Only because a crime is (usually) committed in the making of the images - a
child cannot
give consent. and when it is a matter of images provably made by
manipulating computer
data, drawings etc... is it still a crime?
>Same goes for making images.zjk
Same goes for precedent re child porn, but also the obscenity laws in the
UK have a very
strict set of guidelines re what is acceptable for production and
publication.
Its all very well to have these principled ideas that "no" images should be
illegal.
But thats simply not very realistic given the society we actually live in,
as opposed to
wished we lived in, and totally at odds with the current legal situation.
That is not, however, an excuse for giving up a) the principle or b) the
fight.
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%
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Graham Marsden, 21 Oct 2005 03:31:59
av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Indeed. It doesn't matter what images a person wants to look at:
>>looking at images is not and should never be a crime.
>
> That is incorrect. Looking at and possesing images of child
> pornography is already illegal. There is ample precedent along
> those lines.
See the stuff I've just posted in a previous message about legitimate
photographers and photographic collectors who have fallen foul of the
law on this.
> Its all very well to have these principled ideas that "no" images
> should be illegal.
>
> But thats simply not very realistic given the society we actually
> live in, as opposed to wished we lived in, and totally at odds with
> the current legal situation.
So because having principles is not "realistic given the society we
actually live in" we should throw them away when they're inconvenient?
(Hmm, that sounds like Charles Clarke speaking again! :-) )
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 21 Oct 2005 05:07:41
In message <380-2200510420234256515@M2W114.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>Indeed. It doesn't matter what images a person wants to look at: looking at
>images is not
>and should never be a crime. Same goes for making images.
>zjk
Unfortunately, the existing law is that it is not only illegal to
possess indecent images of children but that it is unlawful to "make"
such images. When the Protection of Children Act was passed by
Parliament, that was supposed to mean taking and/or printing
photographs, but the law was subsequently misinterpreted to include
getting a computer to "make" an image from the data in a file. That
offence should have been mere possession but, as "making" carries worse
penalties, paedophiles are usually charged with both offences.
I expect the Jesuitical Goggins would like to do the same with images
he's decided he doesn't like. Perhaps BDSM reminds him of the Spanish
Inquisition?
--
< Paul >
demolitionred, 21 Oct 2005 06:17:50
To answer the point of the OP, we are consulting a QC who is an expert on Human Rights Law, we are consulting civil servants so that we can complain that the consultatio process had not adhered to the governemnt's own guidelines and lastly we are meeting with MPs -- who already sympathise and have made public statements to that effect -- in a few weeks time to get their view s on how best to sell our view to the public at large.
To answer Ameilie's point;
A policeman even a desk sergeant is not your average man on the Clapham omnibus. He is someone that is exposed daily to lawlessness and someone who is trained to beleive laws solve society's problems.
Most of the people I have spoken to in the vanilla world have ben very open to discussion. They do not jnow it is already illegal to mak and view images of acts of paedophilia and when they are told this is just about what consenting adults do, they are often affronted.
They do blindly beleive that the net causes harm and this is where I beleive our arguments has to be strong.
Who are the most atrocious villains? were they inspire by the net? whether sex criminals Brady or the Yorkshire ripper or dictators, violence of the highest order existed before the net and we have one case here where looking at images on the net provoked someone who was obvioulsy already wired wrong to act.
which brings me to what I think is the second area where we have to be strong. if the net does make some sickos think their behaviour is ok or move them up a level, how do we stop them viewing images? Is it not ok to limit our freedoms to stop them going out to harm.
I think the rights of an unrecognised sexuality that feels it has to hide is an argument but not the major one ad one that has to be handled carefully. We will know mre about that after our chts with the QX and the MPs.
zak, 21 Oct 2005 10:04:08
Original Message:
-----------------
demolitionred@yahoo.com, 21 Oct 2005 10:04:08
which brings me to what I think is the second area where we have to be
strong. if the net
does make some sickos think their behaviour is ok or move them up a level,
how do we stop
them viewing images? Is it not ok to limit our freedoms to stop them going
out to harm.
Our contention is surely that it is *not* Ok for the Government to remove
rights from m
illions of people on the off-chance that one or two people will commit
crimes and claim to
have been inspired by evil internet pornography. Much better cases could be
made for
banning private car ownership, banning the possession, sale or consumption
of alcohol and
instigating a total curfew for everyone as these measures MIGHT cut down a
crime or two.
But people wouldn't stand for this much interference with their behaviour,
would the
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
John Thow, 21 Oct 2005 10:54:32
> Our contention is surely that it is *not* Ok for the Government to remove
> rights from m
> illions of people on the off-chance that one or two people will commit
> crimes and claim to
> have been inspired by evil internet pornography. Much better cases could be
> made for
> banning private car ownership, banning the possession, sale or consumption
> of alcohol and
And more to the point, whilst the research suggests that any link
between sexually vioent porn and actual abuse is even less strong than
for 'vanilla porn' and non-sexually vioent material.
In other words, if the intention is to prevent a few rare cases of
actual abuse, fuelled by the consumption of images, there is a much
better (though still lousy) case for controlling 'normal' images of sex
and violence.
This is the key question - Why is it only when sex comes into the
equation that society goes haywire? Vera Baird MP's contention is that
looking at such abusive images is criminally abusive itself. In other
words the viewer is criminally responsible for the image (even though no
crime may have taken place). She makes no such claim for non-sexually
violent material, which is just as likely (if highly unlikely) to lead
to actual abuse. The whole idea is crazy. We cannot hold the viewer of
an image responsible for that image.
This might be a useful approach - compare the approaches taken to sexual
and non-sexual violent material. Both are highly unlikely to lead to
copy-cat abuse, but there is more evidence to suggest a link with
no-sexually violent material. A viewer of non-sexual violence has no
controls put upon them whatsoever but the minute it is thought that sex
is involved, the full force of the state comes into play. Why?
As you say, Zak, people would not tolerate being made criminals for
looking at Last Temptation of Christ or Dawn of the Dead or Scream or
Seven or Spooks (which showed a woman having her head plunged into a
deep fat fryer).
They would not tolerate being crminalised for watching 'real' violence
such as wrestling or boxing, rugby or Jackass.
So why does sex change things? Why in the imagination, is sexual
violence deemed to be so much worse than non-sexual violence, such that
anyone, even just the mildly curious, is considered by the state to be a
dangerous individual, worthy of being imprisoned for 5 years and
labelled as a sex offender?
To me the is the key 'faultline' in the HMG argument.
JT
Chris, 21 Oct 2005 11:44:34
I suspect that Vera Baird's misguided logic is yet another hangover form the
child pornography debate, viz. if the subject of the image is an abusive
act, then the viewing helps create demand that gives rise to the creation of
the image, and by extension the abusive act in the first place.
It ignores the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the images under
debate here (despite, perhaps, appearances to the contrary) are images of
fantasy activity, the creation of which involved only consenting
participants. Therefore the rest of the argument is absurd and irrelevant.
Unless, of course, Ms Baird is going down the sexist, pseudo-feminist line
that the images are exclusively of women being abused (even though they
aren't) and that anything showing a woman's "bits" is inherently abusive. I
do hope she isn't that ignorant (or so cynical as to assume that the public
is that ignorant and can be easily manipulated).
----Original Message Follows----
John Thow , 21 Oct 2005 11:44:34
"This is the key question - Why is it only when sex comes into the
equation that society goes haywire? Vera Baird MP's contention is that
looking at such abusive images is criminally abusive itself. In other
words the viewer is criminally responsible for the image (even though no
crime may have taken place). She makes no such claim for non-sexually
violent material, which is just as likely (if highly unlikely) to lead
to actual abuse. The whole idea is crazy. We cannot hold the viewer of
an image responsible for that image."
Paul C. Dickie, 21 Oct 2005 17:52:41
In message , chris m
wrote:
>I suspect that Vera Baird's misguided logic is yet another hangover form the
>child pornography debate, viz. if the subject of the image is an abusive
>act, then the viewing helps create demand that gives rise to the creation of
>the image, and by extension the abusive act in the first place.
Yes, it certainly seems to be based on that premise. Alternatively, it
could be based on the twice-born God-botherer's notion that, if a man
should look on a woman with lust in his mind, then he has already
committed the sin of adultery... and Ms. Baird is merely trying to save
everyone from perdition.
I've never seen her walking, so I'd not know if she wears a spiked chain
on her thigh or sack-cloth knickers. Do you suppose she might?
>It ignores the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the images under
>debate here (despite, perhaps, appearances to the contrary) are images of
>fantasy activity, the creation of which involved only consenting
>participants. Therefore the rest of the argument is absurd and irrelevant.
Unless, of course, one subscribes to the nutty, femminazi belief that
*any* depiction of an undraped wench is a form of abuse perpetrated on
wimmin-kind by the evil males of the society they share.
Most of such 'wimmin' are so plain (or even plug-ugly) that not even
David Blunkett would ask to take their photograph.
>Unless, of course, Ms Baird is going down the sexist, pseudo-feminist line
>that the images are exclusively of women being abused (even though they
>aren't) and that anything showing a woman's "bits" is inherently abusive. I
>do hope she isn't that ignorant (or so cynical as to assume that the public
>is that ignorant and can be easily manipulated).
As she declared "the argument has already been won", I really do suspect
that she may be intellectually disingenuous and that, should she so
desire, she might be able to twist the skin off a fart.
--
< Paul >
«No Name Set», 21 Oct 2005 18:08:41
junk here....
jaydoubleue@yahoo.co.uk writes:
I worry that you don’t fight the law with ‘committees’, ‘focus groups’ and the like… with ‘strap lines’ and ‘mission statements’… you fight the law with
reasoned and coherent argument based soundly in law .
One can fight the governemnt with all the reasoned and coherentargument, with all the law, all the Reason and Evidence andprinciple - including all the governemnt's own reason andevidence - and indeed one must have that on one's side.
All of that will still get sold down the river by thisgovernment before the interests of a vocal collection of publicopinion - even a small minority of public opinion. Half a dozenbackbenchers who could sway a crucial vote may be enough.
Public opinion won't necessarily stop them - millions on thestreeets of London haven't swayed this government - but theprospect of ridicule and public derision that just might givethem pause for thought shouldn't be dismissed.
--Rosemary
Graham Marsden, 21 Oct 2005 18:14:05
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>I suspect that Vera Baird's misguided logic is yet another hangover form the
>>child pornography debate,
>
> I've never seen her walking, so I'd not know if she wears a spiked chain
> on her thigh or sack-cloth knickers. Do you suppose she might?
Hush! You might give people naughty ideas...!!
Cheers,
Graham.
Manniq, 21 Oct 2005 18:35:12
That's not exactly 'ample precedent'.
The idea that looking at should be a crime entered the law with child porn. Some of us opposed that idea on principle at the time, arguing that the law should deal with actual harm, rather than the theory of same.
Other jurisdictions - most notably the US of A accepted that argument.
Note: there is a clear distinction between criminalising some aspects of publishing and criminalising possession.
Unfortunately, the law now has ONE precedent in this area. But that's pretty much it.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> >Indeed. It doesn't matter what images a person wants to look at: looking at images is not and should never be a crime.
> That is incorrect. Looking at and possesing images of child pornography is already illegal. There is ample precedent along those lines.
> >Same goes for making images.zjk
> Same goes for precedent re child porn, but also the obscenity laws in the UK have a very strict set of guidelines re what is acceptable for production and publication.
> Its all very well to have these principled ideas that "no" images should be illegal.
> But thats simply not very realistic given the society we actually live in, as opposed to wished we lived in, and totally at odds with the current legal situation.
Paul C. Dickie, 21 Oct 2005 23:49:55
In message <43592013.9030506@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
wrote:
>Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>
>>>I suspect that Vera Baird's misguided logic is yet another hangover form the
>>>child pornography debate,
>>
>> I've never seen her walking, so I'd not know if she wears a spiked chain
>> on her thigh or sack-cloth knickers. Do you suppose she might?
>
>Hush! You might give people naughty ideas...!!
Such as introducing the silly woman to the rough end of a pineapple?
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 22 Oct 2005 00:03:32
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>>I've never seen her walking, so I'd not know if she wears a spiked chain
>>>on her thigh or sack-cloth knickers. Do you suppose she might?
>>
>>Hush! You might give people naughty ideas...!!
>
> Such as introducing the silly woman to the rough end of a pineapple?
That is between you and your therapist :-)
Err, the idea, that is, not the pineapple...!
Well, not unless...
Nothing to see, move along there!
Cheers,
Graham.
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 01:45:45
line here to be eaten
"chris m" writes:
Unless, of course, Ms Baird is going down the sexist, pseudo-feminist line
that the images are exclusively of women being abused (even though they
aren't) and that anything showing a woman's "bits" is inherently abusive. I
In which case, her "killer question" is to ask "what about gay
men's material?" - in which case she'll either not hae a clue,
having never thught of it, and bluster, or else launch into an
anti-gay tirade and show herself up badly. One can only hope
the audience is not largely made up of virulent homophobes.
--
Rosemary
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 01:45:51
stuff
"Paul C. Dickie" writes:
Most of such 'wimmin' are so plain (or even plug-ugly) that not even
David Blunkett would ask to take their photograph.
In your very own, personal and oh-so-humble opinion, of course?
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder......
--
Rosemary
Paul C. Dickie, 22 Oct 2005 05:55:24
In message <45898@umbilical.demon.co.uk>, Rosemary emon.co.uk> wrote:
>"chris m" writes:
> Unless, of course, Ms Baird is going down the sexist, pseudo-feminist line
> that the images are exclusively of women being abused (even though they
> aren't) and that anything showing a woman's "bits" is inherently abusive. I
>
>In which case, her "killer question" is to ask "what about gay
>men's material?" - in which case she'll either not hae a clue,
>having never thught of it, and bluster, or else launch into an
>anti-gay tirade and show herself up badly. One can only hope
>the audience is not largely made up of virulent homophobes.
I suspect the audience would comprise not a few latent homophobes,
together with some of those *strange* folk who once seemed to think that
homosexualists 'promoted' their 'lifestyle' via local authorities and/or
the books available in the public libraries.
Some of them might even spell "sodomite" correctly.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie, 22 Oct 2005 06:03:14
In message <45899@umbilical.demon.co.uk>, Rosemary emon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Paul C. Dickie" writes:
> Most of such 'wimmin' are so plain (or even plug-ugly) that not even
> David Blunkett would ask to take their photograph.
>
>In your very own, personal and oh-so-humble opinion, of course?
Name one who isn't. From what I've seen of such creatures, there isn't
one who wouldn't be an admirable scarecrow.
As for Paul Goggins, I only wonder which village is now sadly deprived
of its idiot...
>Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder......
Confronted with such ravishing "beauties" as Clare Short, I can only
thank God for myopia.
--
< Paul >
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 10:51:45
just for light relief, I look like a cross between an aging Russian Shot
Putter and a traffic warden, with hair my son describes as halfway between a
brillo pad and an afghan hound - but my beloved silver thinks I am a
princess, and sometimes I even feel like one. BDSM is all about trust and
the suspension of disbelief - perhaps you should relax, Paul, and look
deeper. Amelie.
----- Original Message -----
"Paul C. Dickie"
, 22 Oct 2005 10:51:45
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:01 AM
> In message <45899@umbilical.demon.co.uk>, Rosemary > emon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Paul C. Dickie" writes:
>> Most of such 'wimmin' are so plain (or even plug-ugly) that not even
>> David Blunkett would ask to take their photograph.
>>
>>In your very own, personal and oh-so-humble opinion, of course?
>
> Name one who isn't. From what I've seen of such creatures, there isn't
> one who wouldn't be an admirable scarecrow.
>
> As for Paul Goggins, I only wonder which village is now sadly deprived
> of its idiot...
>
>>Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder......
>
> Confronted with such ravishing "beauties" as Clare Short, I can only
> thank God for myopia.
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D2091
>
>
Paul C. Dickie, 22 Oct 2005 16:12:00
In message <008f01c5d6ee$104b54a0$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>just for light relief, I look like a cross between an aging Russian Shot
>Putter and a traffic warden, with hair my son describes as halfway between a
>brillo pad and an afghan hound - but my beloved silver thinks I am a
>princess, and sometimes I even feel like one. BDSM is all about trust and
>the suspension of disbelief - perhaps you should relax, Paul, and look
>deeper. Amelie.
And one of my favourite subbies could be described as 'Nora Batty on
steroids', but she does drift off into subspace at the least touch...
I do look deeper but, with those silly 'wimmin', there is either nothing
much there or else the 'inner self' is even uglier than the visage they
present to the world.
--
< Paul >
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 21:29:14
It never ceases to amaze me how many straight blokes say how
ugly Martina Navratilova is. Given her many years' status as
No. 1 lesbian sex idol, I suppose we should be thankful that
the yay-long queue is *only* of women.
OTOH, the pictures accompanying everything to do with the
"beauty" part of the health and beauty industry strike me as
horribly ugly and unnatural.
But then, I'm no doubt as ugly as a scarecrow myself. And
anyone who wants my bad eyesight is welcome to it.
Rosemary
"Paul C. Dickie" writes:
In message <45899@umbilical.demon.co.uk>, Rosemary emon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Paul C. Dickie" writes:
> Most of such 'wimmin' are so plain (or even plug-ugly) that not even
> David Blunkett would ask to take their photograph.
>
>In your very own, personal and oh-so-humble opinion, of course?
Name one who isn't. From what I've seen of such creatures, there isn't
one who wouldn't be an admirable scarecrow.
As for Paul Goggins, I only wonder which village is now sadly deprived
of its idiot...
>Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder......
Confronted with such ravishing "beauties" as Clare Short, I can only
thank God for myopia.
--
Rosemary