Thread

liberty is it worth defending?

Silver, 04 Nov 2005 17:18:21

The purpose of my posting really was to encourage a broader front in which to fight our campaign. The suggestion is that the wider public outside bdsm isn’t interested in freedom, liberty and we are doomed to fight the campaign on a bdsm front, is in my opinion doomed to disaster.

How many bdsm-er’s will stand up and be counted? How many will take to the streets and campaign? Very few will want to expose themselves in public or to the media. That means a tired few will be visible and will not impress the authorities or anybody else. In fact, some on our group are too antagonistic to be let loose with the media.

There may very well be an increase in general awareness of bdsm brought about by the campaign but the bill will pass through government without a hitch just as sure as there are little green apples. Frankly, it is nonsense to suggest people aren’t afraid of loss of freedom as it is clear from the proposed legislation must of us, vanilla or not, will be potential criminals. There is real concern about what this bill will mean to all of us.

Does backlash think we are the only group who like to look at pervy pictures, hasn’t it occurred to the group most of us vanilla or not at some stage in our lives look at porn as a natural part of sexuality regardless of orientation. There are so many facets of this legislation that will that will concern a great many, but sadly many won’t know this bill is in consultation and probably will be blissfully unaware that the new legislation has come into affect simply because nobody told them.

Silver.

Paul C. Dickie, 04 Nov 2005 17:41:26

In message <2671106.1131124699404.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, flagoftheunion@hotmail.com wrote:
>There may very well be an increase in general awareness of bdsm brought about by
>the campaign but the bill will pass through government without a hitch just as
>sure as there are little green apples.

And larger, yellow bananas?

Did you see the vote on the Terrorism bill? The 'government' won by *1*
vote, and that bill was ostensibly concerned with national security.

The nonsense proposed by the gormless Goggins merely seeks to deny
freedom of expression and freedom of thought, whilst having no benefit
at all to society as a whole or to the safety of the nation.

What NuLab (and Tory) MPs in marginal constituencies need to know is the
number of votes they would lose were they to vote for such nonsense.

--
< Paul >

Silver, 04 Nov 2005 17:53:05

Author wrote:
> In message <2671106.1131124699404.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, flagoftheunion@hotmail.com wrote:
> >There may very well be an increase in general awareness of bdsm brought about by
> >the campaign but the bill will pass through government without a hitch just as
> >sure as there are little green apples.
> And larger, yellow bananas?
> Did you see the vote on the Terrorism bill? The 'government' won by *1*
> vote, and that bill was ostensibly concerned with national security.
> The nonsense proposed by the gormless Goggins merely seeks to deny
> freedom of expression and freedom of thought, whilst having no benefit
> at all to society as a whole or to the safety of the nation.
> What NuLab (and Tory) MPs in marginal constituencies need to know is the
> number of votes they would lose were they to vote for such nonsense.
> --
> < Paul >

Exactly my point. MPs will worry in marginal seats but not by being threatened by a hand full of kinkys. If the canpaign was broadened to take in some of the other 'freedom' issues and attract vanilla support the government willl think twice about this bill which isn't emotive enough really for the government to want a fight, but if we insist on a 'wishy-washy' campaign which is what some of the group want, then the government have no worries.

Silver.

Morgarth, 04 Nov 2005 18:25:37

Silver wrote:
> Exactly my point. MPs will worry in marginal seats but not by being threatened by a hand full of kinkys. If the canpaign was broadened to take in some of the other 'freedom' issues and attract vanilla support the government willl think twice about this bill which isn't emotive enough really for the government to want a fight, but if we insist on a 'wishy-washy' campaign which is what some of the group want, then the government have no worries.
> Silver.

Liberty and freedom of conscience is always worth defending.

This group is attacking this legislation in one way - that's not the only way and there is no reason why you or other groups should not also attack it such ways as you believe to be appropriate.

Trying to agree amongst ourselves isn't necessary - we all need to get over to the consultation site and make our points in whatever way we believe reflects our own position. The more different angles that are argued the harder time we create for the proponents of this legislation.

If you have a line that will bring more vanilla opposition go to it and recruit them. Get them to submit their objections.

Morgarth

zak, 04 Nov 2005 20:13:09

Original Message:
-----------------

flagoftheunion@hotmail.com, 04 Nov 2005 20:13:09

Paul C. Dickie, 04 Nov 2005 23:39:19

In message <4854838.1131126785973.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, flagoftheunion@hotmail.com wrote:

>> Did you see the vote on the Terrorism bill? The 'government' won by *1*
>> vote, and that bill was ostensibly concerned with national security.
>> The nonsense proposed by the gormless Goggins merely seeks to deny
>> freedom of expression and freedom of thought, whilst having no benefit
>> at all to society as a whole or to the safety of the nation.
>> What NuLab (and Tory) MPs in marginal constituencies need to know is the
>> number of votes they would lose were they to vote for such nonsense.
>
>Exactly my point. MPs will worry in marginal seats but not by being threatened
>by a hand full of kinkys. If the canpaign was broadened to take in some of the
>other 'freedom' issues and attract vanilla support the government willl think
>twice about this bill which isn't emotive enough really for the government to
>want a fight, but if we insist on a 'wishy-washy' campaign which is what some of
>the group want, then the government have no worries.

I've seen no evidence to the effect that anyone wants a 'wishy-washy'
campaign, whilst the various 'celebs' from whom one might seek support
could help take the campaign into a wider and more public arena. One or
two, well-placed newspaper articles, or an open letter or two addressed
to the 'government' [1] and signed by various august personages, could
convince many people that their private lives were under direct threat.

[1] the 'government', of whom I have the gravest doubts of whether they
could successfully run a whelk stall...

Today, some oafs have been sent to gaol for running a race-hate website
and for possessing horrid racial propaganda. Whilst I deplore and
despise such nonsense, gaoling them for 'inciting racial hatred' is not
the remedy; at best, it is not far from the nonsense of 'conspiracy with
person or persons unknown' and, at worst, it becomes another instance of
'thought crime'. The material they possessed and distributed was quite
pathetic, such as details of how to make a petrol bomb; a racially
motivated thug would have to be quite remarkably stupid *not* to know
how to make one, or to realise that the bottle should contain petrol
rather than orange squash.

Although I consider racism to be nonsense and 'white supremacy' to be
dangerous nonsense, I'd much rather those nutters were able to express
their crackpot views than have their foolish ideas suppressed. However,
the law says otherwise -- which is why the neo-nazi menace will continue
but hidden from public scrutiny.

--
< Paul >

doulos, 05 Nov 2005 01:32:42

>
> Exactly my point. MPs will worry in marginal seats but not by being threatened by a hand full of kinkys. If the canpaign was broadened to take in some of the other 'freedom' issues and attract vanilla support the government willl think twice about this bill which isn't emotive enough really for the government to want a fight, but if we insist on a 'wishy-washy' campaign which is what some of the group want, then the government have no worries.
>
> Silver.

I agree with you. But anyone who wants to widen the campaign, is going
to have to... you know... widen the campaign! Notice we have removed
all direct reference to BDSM on the pre-amble on the front page of the
site. The FAQ on the consultation contains barely any reference to it
(beyond a link to a BDSM advice section). I have been contacting some
UK-based left-wing freedom-speaking blogs on the net but haven't had
much luck in creating the meme. They don't reply to me nor do they
make posts about it. They seem rather busy roasting George Galloway
right now. I have had some moderate success elsewhere but the sources
I know about are drying up. If you have any hooks into the mainstream
media/campaign groups that you can think of, post them here and even
try contacting them yourself. I am sure we all agree with widening the
campaign as far as possible.

doulos

chris, 05 Nov 2005 09:50:49

People should only really go to prison for extreme offences such as murder
and violent crimes. Is this not part of the wider issue? How would it be
fair that a person could actually violently murder somebody, and get around
10 years, and someone else could be sharing his cell with him, for aprox. a
third of the time, for possesing a picture. Even though I do not believe
possesing violent pictures/films should be illegal at all, it would at least
help if the law was more proportionately fair in its punishments.

As I say I do not believe in censorship/suppression at all, if the've got to
have something, why not a fine as the maximum penalty?

I really do think there is a big angle here. I'm sure there is quite a bit
in the European human rights convention about putting people in prison. Also
why are the people who bring out these laws and imprison people not held
accountable? Maybe in the future, when society hopefully does become more
free and just, anyone who gets imprisoned for trivial things such as violent
pictures and porn will be able to get compensation and real justice against
the people who imprisoned them. Maybe BACKLASH could develop into such a
"fair justice" seeking group in the future? It must be important to look
ahead, even if the battle does becomes lost against these extreme censorship
regulations, surely the war must continue?

Chris

----- Original Message -----

"doulos" , 05 Nov 2005 09:50:49

To:
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:32 AM

>
> Exactly my point. MPs will worry in marginal seats but not by being
> threatened by a hand full of kinkys. If the canpaign was broadened to take
> in some of the other 'freedom' issues and attract vanilla support the
> government willl think twice about this bill which isn't emotive enough
> really for the government to want a fight, but if we insist on a
> 'wishy-washy' campaign which is what some of the group want, then the
> government have no worries.
>
> Silver.

I agree with you. But anyone who wants to widen the campaign, is going
to have to... you know... widen the campaign! Notice we have removed
all direct reference to BDSM on the pre-amble on the front page of the
site. The FAQ on the consultation contains barely any reference to it
(beyond a link to a BDSM advice section). I have been contacting some
UK-based left-wing freedom-speaking blogs on the net but haven't had
much luck in creating the meme. They don't reply to me nor do they
make posts about it. They seem rather busy roasting George Galloway
right now. I have had some moderate success elsewhere but the sources
I know about are drying up. If you have any hooks into the mainstream
media/campaign groups that you can think of, post them here and even
try contacting them yourself. I am sure we all agree with widening the
campaign as far as possible.

doulos

--
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%3D3038