Previous - and inconsistent - government thinking
Manniq, 05 Sep 2005 23:44:19
First, apologies again for cross-posting - but since this references links and documents, I think it is valid to do so. I do hope I am not the only person with an appetite for wading through this stuff.
Two other documents that those interested in this campaign might wish to peruse are:
Setting the Boundaries, which can be found in the July section of
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/closed/papers2000.html
and is the consultation paper that preceded the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which can be found at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#67
Why are these relevant? Well, if you look at the language, etc. you will see that there seems to be a clear line running through all this stuff.
You will see some odd inconsistencies: the latest consultation paper discusses making it an offence to look at images of oral sex with animals. All very well, but the SOA does not. SO presumably it is OK to DO it, but not to look at pictures of it?
The SOA also puts forward penalties of two years imprisonment for bestiality and necrophilia....er, whilst the consultation doc suggests three years for VIEWING such images.
And there is a sorry streak of sexism running through all of it. The consultation paper sees flashing as a male activity (sorry, but female flashing isn't offensive): and rape is something a man does to a woman, NOT unconsensual sex (which would be the gender neutral option). Much like the current paper, which sees much bdsm as men exploiting women and probably does not realise that there are male subs too!
Enough: go read and weep.
Regards,
M
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2005 00:43:30
manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> The SOA also puts forward penalties of two years imprisonment for
> bestiality and necrophilia....er, whilst the consultation doc
> suggests three years for VIEWING such images.
Now this is exactly the sort of thing we need to point out, the fact
that this is such a knee-jerk reaction that they can't even balance the
penalties with what has gone before.
SnowdropExplodes, 06 Sep 2005 01:02:16
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> The SOA also puts forward penalties of two years
> imprisonment for bestiality and necrophilia....er,
> whilst the consultation doc suggests three years for
> VIEWING such images.
Actually, the consultation paper explicitly mentions
exactly this situation (paragraph 53) and suggests
that some sort of fix would be found for it.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Manniq, 06 Sep 2005 09:11:23
Author wrote:
> --- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The SOA also puts forward penalties of two years
> > imprisonment for bestiality and necrophilia....er,
> > whilst the consultation doc suggests three years for
> > VIEWING such images.
> Actually, the consultation paper explicitly mentions
> exactly this situation (paragraph 53) and suggests
> that some sort of fix would be found for it.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
Agreed - but this is possibly where you and I would differ.
I have no problem whatsoever with fighting the government on what is known. I have been involved in campaigns in the past where people have campaigned on the basis of hysteria and misconception - and the results have often (not always) been disastrous.
However, I would make a distinction between blind hysterical ignorance, and informed spin. There is a lot in the consultation paper that is subjective and for which the government response will easily be 'that is a matter for debate'.
A detail like this, however, just looks careless. They must know that the penalty for bestiality is two years - and therefore they are either proposing a higher penalty for viewing images of it deliberately or incompetently. Doesn't really matter which.
In press terms, this is a good STORY - and I can think of any number of journos who would use a short diary piece pointing out the above (because journos don't care about the nitpicking detail either).
This is NOT a major campaigning plank for us: it IS the sort of thing that one drip feeds to friendly journalists as part of an effort to show how this proposal has been shoddily put together and not thought out.
Regards,
M
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
«No Name Set», 06 Sep 2005 23:13:25
Now, why does that not surprise me?? Well spotted.
manniq@... again
And there is a sorry streak of sexism running through all of it. The consultation paper sees flashing as a male activity (sorry, but female flashing isn't
offensive): and rape is something a man does to a woman, NOT unconsensual sex (which would be the
gender neutral option). Much like the current paper, which sees much bdsm as men exploiting women and probably does not realise that there are male subs too
!
That doesn't surprise me either, and in fact I was expecting that.
It generally does seem to be the case that the anti-porn
campaigners have a view of porn as being male exploitation of
women.
Of course, we can't say it never is - and must have concerns for
those women who are compelled to do 'sex industry work' of
whatever form, whether by brute force, by pimps, or white slave
traffickers, or dire circumstance, whatever. [We've had the
police investigated suspected white slave traffickers near here;
all rather nasty.]
But these anti-porn campaigners never seem to take into account
the existence of gay men's porn (nor the very small amount of
erotica for lesbians by lesbians, nor anything intended for
straight women). And historically anti-porn laws have been
interpreted far more harshly against gay papers (and not
specifically porn mags) than against porn menat for straight
men. And I've never been, nor will ever be, convinced by any
anti-porn arguments that don't take this into account.
In fact, there was one famous case of a gay paper (not a porn
mag, iIRR) which was prosecuted for a certain rather suggestive
picture; the defence suggested this was "as nothing" compared
with what het porn could be purchased in any shop any day, the
judge asked for examples of this and had to adjourn the hearing
to rocover from the shock! I've fairly recently cleared out all
my old filing system and donated all the source material for
such things to the archive, so can only hope someone can trace
this if/where it might help.
--
Rosemary