Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:46 PM
>I wrote to Liberty and Justice along similar lines to what I'd written to
>my MP. No reply yet, although it was only a couple of days ago.
> Amnesty actively support the Longhurst Campaign don't they? Or was this
> just media spin? In any case, it seems they may not have fully understood
> the issues at stake or exactly how authoritarian the proposals are!
>
> T.
>
> Author wrote:
>> What is the progress with these organisations?
>> Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D4050
>
Teddy, 30 Nov 2005 18:36:15
Got a brief, but encouraging response from Liberty today (below). It seems they are intending to participate in the "consultation" process.
Author wrote:
> What is the progress with these organisations?
> Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for this. We will be submitting our response which I will
forward to you when finalised.
Regards
Gareth Crossman
Policy Director
Liberty
-----Original Message-----
Edward Smith [mailto:teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk], 30 Nov 2005 18:36:15
Sent: 29 November 2005 00:50
To: Info
rosalee, 30 Nov 2005 22:44:49
But are they for or against?
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 30 Nov 2005 22:44:49
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:36 PM
Subject: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
Got a brief, but encouraging response from Liberty today (below). It seems they are intending to participate in the "consultation" process.
Author wrote:
> What is the progress with these organisations?
> Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for this. We will be submitting our response which I will
forward to you when finalised.
Regards
Gareth Crossman
Policy Director
Liberty
-----Original Message-----
: Edward Smith [mailto:teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk], 30 Nov 2005 22:44:49
Sent: 29 November 2005 00:50
To: Info
Subject: UK government consultation "On the possession of extreme
pornography"
Dear Sir/Madam,
I hope it is appropriate for members of the public to contact Liberty
directly on matters of proposed government legislation.
I am writing to you to express, in the strongest terms, my concern about
the government's current consultation exercise and proposed legislation
on "extreme pornography". I accept this is a subject area on which it is
generally unattractive to speak out on, however, I consider the proposed
legislation to be most illiberal, authoritarian and an insidious assault
on the freedoms of speech and thought of the citizens of this country.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-300805/
On a point of order, to begin with, the wording of the consultation
document and it's questions (annex A) are not inviting a balanced
response, as they appear to assume (falsely) that all respondants will
agree with the government proposals. Many of the questions also assume
agreement with previous subjective commentary. I hope you will agree
with me that this is not an acceptable way for such a public
consultation on a prospective change in the criminal law to be
conducted!
As someone who values the INDIVIDUAL freedom to decide which consensual
websites are suitable for my consumption, and which are not, I wholly
object to the government making arbitrary interventions and irrationally
threatening ordinary people with the same strictures (rightly) given to
those involved in the immoral practice of child porn. It is not
acceptable to criminalise people on the basis of perceived taste and
decency; rather, evidence of culpable harm to others or society at large
should be the guiding criterion. The document, itself, admits there is
no conclusive evidence of such harm, yet proposes draconian penalties
for the mere possession of material from which the government thinks to
be "abhorrent" or "which has no place in society". (Note the subjective
value statements!).
The legislation will create crimes of context, which will be tantamount
to "thought crimes".
I attach (below) my recent submission to the consultation, which I hope
will set out my full concerns in a suitably concise fashion. I would
urge Liberty to take an interest in putting these most ill-conceived,
moralistic and unjust proposals to a greater level of scrutiny and
reasoned debate than that currently underway in the right-wing press.
All in all, I hope you will agree that this is a very bad piece of
legislation.
Yours Faithfully,
----------------------------------
--
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%3D4069
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 30 Nov 2005 23:02:04
A moot point! I would find it strange if Liberty were to go to the lengths of writing a response SUPPORTING such drastic internet sensorship. If they didn't think the issue worth defending, we would have probably expected silence and no more from them?
T.
Author wrote:
> But are they for or against?
> Ginny
> ----- Original Message -----
om: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 30 Nov 2005 23:02:04
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:36 PM
> Subject: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
> Got a brief, but encouraging response from Liberty today (below). It seems they are intending to participate in the "consultation" process.
> Author wrote:
> > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
> Dear Mr Smith,
> Thank you for this. We will be submitting our response which I will
> forward to you when finalised.
> Regards
> Gareth Crossman
> Policy Director
> Liberty
rosalee, 30 Nov 2005 23:36:16
I'm not so sure but I hope I'm wrong.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 30 Nov 2005 23:36:16
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
A moot point! I would find it strange if Liberty were to go to the lengths of writing a response SUPPORTING such drastic internet sensorship. If they didn't think the issue worth defending, we would have probably expected silence and no more from them?
T.
Author wrote:
> But are they for or against?
> Ginny
> ----- Original Message -----
From: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 30 Nov 2005 23:36:16
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:36 PM
> Subject: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
> Got a brief, but encouraging response from Liberty today (below). It seems they are intending to participate in the "consultation" process.
> Author wrote:
> > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
> Dear Mr Smith,
> Thank you for this. We will be submitting our response which I will
> forward to you when finalised.
> Regards
> Gareth Crossman
> Policy Director
> Liberty
--
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%3D4072
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 07 Dec 2005 10:38:09
Here is the response I got from Amnesty...not within their sphere of interest, apparently.
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the UK government consultation on possession of extreme pornography.
Please allow me to take this opportunity to explain the work that we do and our mission.
Amnesty International works on specific human rights violations and our mission focuses in particular on:
campaigning to abolish the death penalty, torture, and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
ending extra-judicial executions and "disappearances";
protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers;
protecting the human rights of non-combatants in armed conflicts;
working for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners;
seeking the release of all prisoners of conscience.
As you can see from the above, the issue to which you refer does not fall within our mandate, and as such we do not take a position or take action on the matter. We are sorry that we are unable to help you further.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for contacting us and wish you all the very best.
Yours sincerely,
Lili Okuyama
Supporter Care Team
Amnesty International UK
Tel: 020 7033 1777
We have moved! Our new address is:
Amnesty International UK
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London
EC2A 3EA
Author wrote:
> I wrote to Liberty and Justice along similar lines to what I'd written to my MP. No reply yet, although it was only a couple of days ago.
> Amnesty actively support the Longhurst Campaign don't they? Or was this just media spin? In any case, it seems they may not have fully understood the issues at stake or exactly how authoritarian the proposals are!
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
Chris, 07 Dec 2005 10:55:15
That might be a reasonable position for them to take, were it not untrue -
even though they may have been bounced into association with the proposals,
by the bandwagon hitching itself to them rather than the other way around.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16621.shtml
Their own press release links them with Liz Longhurst as part of their "End
Violence Against Women" campaign.
Seems they are wishing to have their cake and eat it. Perhaps they should
be invited to either take a position on this or, if this issue doesn't fall
within their mandate, to distance themselves from the media statements that
suggest they are backing the proposals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4247649.stm
----Original Message Follows----
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 07 Dec 2005 10:55:15
Here is the response I got from Amnesty...not within their sphere of
interest, apparently.
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the UK government consultation on
possession of extreme pornography.
Please allow me to take this opportunity to explain the work that we do and
our mission.
Amnesty International works on specific human rights violations and our
mission focuses in particular on:
campaigning to abolish the death penalty, torture, and other forms of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
ending extra-judicial executions and "disappearances";
protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers;
protecting the human rights of non-combatants in armed conflicts;
working for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners;
seeking the release of all prisoners of conscience.
As you can see from the above, the issue to which you refer does not fall
within our mandate, and as such we do not take a position or take action on
the matter. We are sorry that we are unable to help you further.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for contacting us and
wish you all the very best.
Yours sincerely,
Lili Okuyama
Supporter Care Team
Amnesty International UK
Tel: 020 7033 1777
We have moved! Our new address is:
Amnesty International UK
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London
EC2A 3EA
Author wrote:
> I wrote to Liberty and Justice along similar lines to what I'd written to
my MP. No reply yet, although it was only a couple of days ago.
> Amnesty actively support the Longhurst Campaign don't they? Or was this
just media spin? In any case, it seems they may not have fully understood
the issues at stake or exactly how authoritarian the proposals are!
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
--
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%3D4168
Paul C. Dickie, 07 Dec 2005 16:55:08
In message , chris m
wrote:
>That might be a reasonable position for them to take, were it not untrue -
>even though they may have been bounced into association with the proposals,
>by the bandwagon hitching itself to them rather than the other way around.
>
>http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16621.shtml
>
>Their own press release links them with Liz Longhurst as part of their "End
>Violence Against Women" campaign.
>
>Seems they are wishing to have their cake and eat it. Perhaps they should
>be invited to either take a position on this or, if this issue doesn't fall
>within their mandate, to distance themselves from the media statements that
>suggest they are backing the proposals.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4247649.stm
Exactly. They claim as part of their mandate seeking the freedom of
prisoners of conscience, yet the proposals by goofy, gormless Goggins
would create more prisoners of conscience here in the UK!
--
< Paul >
Paul Tavener, 07 Dec 2005 17:15:38
Teddy,
Might be worth writting back and asking them about this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4247649.stm
Author wrote:
> Here is the response I got from Amnesty...not within their sphere of interest, apparently.
> Dear Mr Smith,
> Thank you for your recent letter regarding the UK government consultation on possession of extreme pornography.
> Please allow me to take this opportunity to explain the work that we do and our mission.
> Amnesty International works on specific human rights violations and our mission focuses in particular on:
> campaigning to abolish the death penalty, torture, and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
> ending extra-judicial executions and "disappearances";
> protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers;
> protecting the human rights of non-combatants in armed conflicts;
> working for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners;
> seeking the release of all prisoners of conscience.
> As you can see from the above, the issue to which you refer does not fall within our mandate, and as such we do not take a position or take action on the matter. We are sorry that we are unable to help you further.
> We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for contacting us and wish you all the very best.
> Yours sincerely,
> Lili Okuyama
> Supporter Care Team
> Amnesty International UK
> Tel: 020 7033 1777
> We have moved! Our new address is:
> Amnesty International UK
> The Human Rights Action Centre
> 17-25 New Inn Yard
> London
> EC2A 3EA
> Author wrote:
> > I wrote to Liberty and Justice along similar lines to what I'd written to my MP. No reply yet, although it was only a couple of days ago.
> > Amnesty actively support the Longhurst Campaign don't they? Or was this just media spin? In any case, it seems they may not have fully understood the issues at stake or exactly how authoritarian the proposals are!
> > T.
> > Author wrote:
> > > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
Teddy, 07 Dec 2005 18:01:21
Hi,
I might well do that! If they are claiming this issue is beyond their remit, then this apparent contradiction needs to be pointed out to them...
T.
Author wrote:
> Teddy,
> Might be worth writting back and asking them about this article
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4247649.stm
> Author wrote:
> > Here is the response I got from Amnesty...not within their sphere of interest, apparently.
> > Dear Mr Smith,
> > Thank you for your recent letter regarding the UK government consultation on possession of extreme pornography.
> > Please allow me to take this opportunity to explain the work that we do and our mission.
> > Amnesty International works on specific human rights violations and our mission focuses in particular on:
> > campaigning to abolish the death penalty, torture, and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
> > ending extra-judicial executions and "disappearances";
> > protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers;
> > protecting the human rights of non-combatants in armed conflicts;
> > working for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners;
> > seeking the release of all prisoners of conscience.
> > As you can see from the above, the issue to which you refer does not fall within our mandate, and as such we do not take a position or take action on the matter. We are sorry that we are unable to help you further.
> > We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for contacting us and wish you all the very best.
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Lili Okuyama
> > Supporter Care Team
> > Amnesty International UK
> > Tel: 020 7033 1777
> > We have moved! Our new address is:
> > Amnesty International UK
> > The Human Rights Action Centre
> > 17-25 New Inn Yard
> > London
> > EC2A 3EA
> > Author wrote:
> > > I wrote to Liberty and Justice along similar lines to what I'd written to my MP. No reply yet, although it was only a couple of days ago.
> > > Amnesty actively support the Longhurst Campaign don't they? Or was this just media spin? In any case, it seems they may not have fully understood the issues at stake or exactly how authoritarian the proposals are!
> > > T.
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > > > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
Teddy, 07 Dec 2005 18:53:00
Done.
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear...
Thank you for your swift reply!
I was interested in your assessment that this issue is outside of the "mission statement" of Amnesty. If this is the case, I would respectfully ask you to explain the following article on the BBC website-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4247649.stm
It is not consistent for you to be associating yourselves with the "other side" in this debate, whilst telling people of my opinion it's outside your remit!
I fully support Amnesty's campaigns against ACTUAL violence towards women. However, the government's proposals to imprison both men and women for 3 years for the mere possession of consensual material it deems to be "abhorrent", without any evidence-based justification or proof of harm, is effectively introducing "thought crimes" into UK law. I do not believe this is a position which Amnesty would wish to take, upon deeper reflection of this issue.
I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.
Yours,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Author wrote:
> Teddy,
> Might be worth writting back and asking them about this article
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4247649.stm
> Author wrote:
> > Here is the response I got from Amnesty...not within their sphere of interest, apparently.
> > Dear Mr Smith,
> > Thank you for your recent letter regarding the UK government consultation on possession of extreme pornography.
> > Please allow me to take this opportunity to explain the work that we do and our mission.
> > Amnesty International works on specific human rights violations and our mission focuses in particular on:
> > campaigning to abolish the death penalty, torture, and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
> > ending extra-judicial executions and "disappearances";
> > protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers;
> > protecting the human rights of non-combatants in armed conflicts;
> > working for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners;
> > seeking the release of all prisoners of conscience.
> > As you can see from the above, the issue to which you refer does not fall within our mandate, and as such we do not take a position or take action on the matter. We are sorry that we are unable to help you further.
> > We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for contacting us and wish you all the very best.
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Lili Okuyama
> > Supporter Care Team
> > Amnesty International UK
> > Tel: 020 7033 1777
> > We have moved! Our new address is:
> > Amnesty International UK
> > The Human Rights Action Centre
> > 17-25 New Inn Yard
> > London
> > EC2A 3EA
> > Author wrote:
> > > I wrote to Liberty and Justice along similar lines to what I'd written to my MP. No reply yet, although it was only a couple of days ago.
> > > Amnesty actively support the Longhurst Campaign don't they? Or was this just media spin? In any case, it seems they may not have fully understood the issues at stake or exactly how authoritarian the proposals are!
> > > T.
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > > > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
Paul C. Dickie, 08 Dec 2005 00:49:35
In message <7439390.1133978486086.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I might well do that! If they are claiming this issue is beyond their remit,
>then this apparent contradiction needs to be pointed out to them...
Perhaps they now support the fundamental freedom to control others?
--
< Paul >
demolitionred, 08 Dec 2005 11:00:09
> Perhaps they now support the fundamental freedom to control others?
> --
> < Paul >
don't we all?
Teddy, 08 Dec 2005 20:33:11
Well, It seems Ginny's concerns were founded...
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml
This is bad. I would suggest that the mission statement of this organisation isn't worth the paper it's written on!
Author wrote:
> I'm not so sure but I hope I'm wrong.
> Ginny
> ----- Original Message -----
om: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 08 Dec 2005 20:33:11
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
> A moot point! I would find it strange if Liberty were to go to the lengths of writing a response SUPPORTING such drastic internet sensorship. If they didn't think the issue worth defending, we would have probably expected silence and no more from them?
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > But are they for or against?
> > Ginny
> > ----- Original Message -----
From: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 08 Dec 2005 20:33:11
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:36 PM
> > Subject: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
> > Got a brief, but encouraging response from Liberty today (below). It seems they are intending to participate in the "consultation" process.
> > Author wrote:
> > > What is the progress with these organisations?
> > > Who has been contacting them, and what is the feedback to date?
> > Dear Mr Smith,
> > Thank you for this. We will be submitting our response which I will
> > forward to you when finalised.
> > Regards
> > Gareth Crossman
> > Policy Director
> > Liberty
>
> --
> 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%3D4072
Roel, 08 Dec 2005 20:56:35
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> Exactly. They claim as part of their mandate seeking the freedom of
> prisoners of conscience, yet the proposals by goofy, gormless Goggins
> would create more prisoners of conscience here in the UK!
But it's a long standing Amnesty tradition that national branches don't
campaign on behalf of prisoners of conscience in their own country. So
if any Amnesty International branches are going to campaign on behalf of
Goggins' future victims, which I sincerely hope (as an AI member), it's
likely to be foreign branches.
Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://yahoo.touwtjes.tk/ - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)
http://www.the-ice-castle.co.uk/forum/
Pandy, 08 Dec 2005 21:12:10
On 12/8/05, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Well, It seems Ginny's concerns were founded...
>
> http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml
>
> This is bad. I would suggest that the mission statement of this organisation isn't worth the paper it's written on!
>
Actually their response isn't bad and does show concern about the
criminalisation of this proposal of a majority of people into
sadomasochism.
I thought it was a well balanced and quite good response, or did I
miss something that you read that I didn't?
pandy
Graham Marsden, 08 Dec 2005 21:35:30
pandoraa wrote:
> I thought it was a well balanced and quite good response, or did I
> miss something that you read that I didn't?
Take, for instance, paragraph 2 where they say "We also accept that the
Government's proposal to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent
pornography a criminal offence is reasonable" and they seem to have
fallen for the "it will disrupt the supply chain" claim which is, of
course, utter nonsense.
Yes, they go on to talk about consensual BDSM etc, but the above
paragraph seems to imply that they haven't grasped what is going on in
this legislation which is very disappointing.
Cheers,
Graham.
rosalee, 08 Dec 2005 21:35:39
I suppose it depends on your definition of 'extreme'. I think it's really worrying. They appear to be broadly in favour of the proposals. And remember this is about people possessing images, not actually doing anything.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: pandoraa, 08 Dec 2005 21:35:39
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
On 12/8/05, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Well, It seems Ginny's concerns were founded...
>
> http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml
>
> This is bad. I would suggest that the mission statement of this organisation isn't worth the paper it's written on!
>
Actually their response isn't bad and does show concern about the
criminalisation of this proposal of a majority of people into
sadomasochism.
I thought it was a well balanced and quite good response, or did I
miss something that you read that I didn't?
pandy
--
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%3D4186
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul C. Dickie, 08 Dec 2005 21:47:32
In message <1625669.1134039587747.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Perhaps they now support the fundamental freedom to control others?
>> --
>> < Paul >
>
>don't we all?
Not without their express and informed consent.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie, 08 Dec 2005 21:54:41
In message <002201c5fc3e$cb0547e0$9600a8c0@Laptop>, rosalee
wrote:
>I suppose it depends on your definition of 'extreme'. I think it's really
>worrying. They appear to be broadly in favour of the proposals. And remember
>this is about people possessing images, not actually doing anything.
They do appear to be more than slightly cephalo-proctally intromitted.
Perhaps someone should refer those oafs to Mr Singh's opinion?
--
< Paul >
Chris, 08 Dec 2005 22:00:43
An additonal concern is that it appears to have been drafted by a barrister
who specialises in human rights, but who hasn't made even a passing
reference to the human rights aspect of the proposals.
http://www.39essex.co.uk/index.php?pro_id=000064
graham , 08 Dec 2005 22:00:43
pandoraa wrote:
>I thought it was a well balanced and quite good response, or did I
>miss something that you read that I didn't?
Take, for instance, paragraph 2 where they say "We also accept that the
Government's proposal to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent
pornography a criminal offence is reasonable" and they seem to have
fallen for the "it will disrupt the supply chain" claim which is, of
course, utter nonsense.
Yes, they go on to talk about consensual BDSM etc, but the above
paragraph seems to imply that they haven't grasped what is going on in
this legislation which is very disappointing.
Cheers,
Graham.
Teddy, 08 Dec 2005 22:03:08
Hi Pandy,
The problem I have is that, whilst they make some points that might be reassuring to those in the "mainstream" of BDSM, they basically SUPPORT the legislation.
I'm not approaching this issue from a BDSM perspective personally, but more from a libertarian/freedom-of-thought one. I believe the idea of criminalising people on the basis of subjective moral distaste, rather than providing any evidence of harm to others or society at large, is wrong in principle. Whilst many would find it nasty, the creation and consumption of "extreme porn" in most forms is a consensual activity at the end of the day, in drastic contrast with child porn; an issue lost on Goggins and his cronies.
Teddy
Author wrote:
> On 12/8/05, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > Well, It seems Ginny's concerns were founded...
> >
> > http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml
> >
> > This is bad. I would suggest that the mission statement of this organisation isn't worth the paper it's written on!
> >
> Actually their response isn't bad and does show concern about the
> criminalisation of this proposal of a majority of people into
> sadomasochism.
> I thought it was a well balanced and quite good response, or did I
> miss something that you read that I didn't?
> pandy
rosalee, 08 Dec 2005 22:29:50
Quite. They admit right at the beginning that they have no proof of harm. And it's not as if the search for it is a recent thing!
Also, I notice they are in favour of realistic depictions being included in the hit list. I've never agreed with the argument that only non-consensual acts (or realistic depictions!) should be included either. Taken to it's logical conclusion, they should be including images from the news, documentaries and mainstream films if that were the case. This is a piece of anti-sex, moralistic propaganda. If they seriously believe it will prevent real abuse, they must be even more stupid than they appear to be.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 08 Dec 2005 22:29:50
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
Hi Pandy,
The problem I have is that, whilst they make some points that might be reassuring to those in the "mainstream" of BDSM, they basically SUPPORT the legislation.
I'm not approaching this issue from a BDSM perspective personally, but more from a libertarian/freedom-of-thought one. I believe the idea of criminalising people on the basis of subjective moral distaste, rather than providing any evidence of harm to others or society at large, is wrong in principle. Whilst many would find it nasty, the creation and consumption of "extreme porn" in most forms is a consensual activity at the end of the day, in drastic contrast with child porn; an issue lost on Goggins and his cronies.
Teddy
Author wrote:
> On 12/8/05, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > Well, It seems Ginny's concerns were founded...
> >
> > http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml
> >
> > This is bad. I would suggest that the mission statement of this organisation isn't worth the paper it's written on!
> >
> Actually their response isn't bad and does show concern about the
> criminalisation of this proposal of a majority of people into
> sadomasochism.
> I thought it was a well balanced and quite good response, or did I
> miss something that you read that I didn't?
> pandy
--
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%3D4193
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
SnowdropExplodes, 09 Dec 2005 00:27:56
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Well, It seems Ginny's concerns were founded...
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml
This is bad. I would suggest that the mission statement of this organisation isn't worth the paper it's written on!
This is the content of the email that I have just sent to Liberty as a result of reading their response paper:
I am writing to you because I am horrified by the implications of your response to the recently closed Home Office "consultation on the possession of extreme pornography".
Paragraph 2 of the response, which was composed by Rory Dunlop, gives the main substance of your response, which appears to be broadly supportive of the Government's position, and makes no mention of the fundamental human rights issues that are involved with this proposal. It is, alas, too late for Liberty to alter their response to the consultation, but I hope that Liberty will reassess their position so that if any bill relating to this issue should be presented to Parliament, Liberty will have a more complete and considered position on the subject.
In paragraph 2 of the response, Rory Dunlop writes, "...we accept that some of the very extreme material mentioned in the paper may encourage or reinforce violent or aberrant behaviour to the detriment of society as a whole." This is a very disturbing proposition, since it appears to state that people must be protected lest they confuse fantasy (the images and movies presented via the internet) with reality. The ability to distinguish reality and fantasy from one another is one of the defining characteristics of a healthy adult mind; if this proposal is to be accepted on the basis of how the mentally unstable respond to the material in question, then the definition of material to be covered must surely be broadened greatly, because there will always be potential triggers in mainstream movies and television.
Furthermore, the proposition that extreme pornography promotes violent sexual behaviour has not been proved - if anything, the many decades of research that have been done have shown that there is no such link. To accept that the material in question encourages or reinforces such behaviour is to fly in the face of research. Even the Government's consultation paper acknowledges that no link has been demonstrated.
It is especially disturbing that, in paragraph 1 of your response, Rory Dunlop implicitly puts extreme pornography created using consenting adult actors, in the same category as child pornography. Child pornography by definition in law, does not involve consenting actors. Furthermore, it can be used in the commission of further crimes as material for "grooming".
Adult pornography, even of the most extreme nature, is produced by consenting adults; where rape or extreme violence appears to be depicted, the participants are acting the roles. The material is used by adults who fantasise about the types of acts depicted, without wanting to put those fantasies into practice. For instance, nobody who fantasises about crucifixion (an extreme fantasy but one that certainly exists) would actually go out and nail someone to a cross (or, equally, go out and ask someone else to nail them to a cross).
The overall effect of the proposals in the government paper is not to prevent the production or distribution of extreme pornography (a proposition that the government makes, and that your response accepts in paragraph 2), but to criminalise innocent people for their sexual fantasies.
Your response paper makes no mention of the human rights issues as raised by the possible conflict with articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Rabinder Singh QC was instructed by the Spanner Trust to provide an opinion on the potential clash and concluded that, "I consider that the legislation as proposed gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual's rights under articles 8 and 10 of the Convention." The opinion highlights the European Court of Human Rights finding on the right to freedom of expression, expressed in Mueller vs Switzerland, "it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population."
It is notable that no other country in Europe, or with a Western-style democracy, has a law making simple possession of such material a criminal offence.
That an organisation such as Liberty, claiming to protect civil liberties and promote human rights, could be even broadly supportive of the Government's proposals, is appalling and abhorrent.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 09 Dec 2005 01:03:29
My own repsonse to Liberty... T.
Dear...
Whilst I respect the autonomy of your organisation and the very positive input it has to many aspect of society, I read with dismay the response of Liberty to the UK government consultation on "extreme pornography", which with reservations appears to tacitly support this legislation.
This is knee-jerk legislation that is proposing to criminalise (and imprison for 3 years) an otherwise law-abiding section of society, not on the basis of overwhelming (or any?) evidence of harm to others or society at large, but on the basis of subjective moral distaste. The "extreme" material in question has no equivalence with child pornography, as it is essentially a victimless and consensual activity, usually involving actors as is the case in violent mainstream films/TV. This is an egregious departure from the principles of free speech and individual choice on which our nation is supposedly founded. "Thought crimes" surely have no place in UK law.
The mission statement of Liberty, as per your homepage, reads thus-
"We believe in a society based on the democratic participation of all its members and the principles of justice, openness, the right to dissent and respect for diversity.
We aim to secure the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and oppose any abuse or excessive power by the state against its people".
If you are telling me, in all conscience, that Liberty actually supports this legislation, then this mission is not worth the paper it's printed on!
Yours,
-------------------------------------
Author wrote:
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Well, It seems Ginny's concerns were founded...
> http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/policy-index-05.shtml
> This is bad. I would suggest that the mission statement of this organisation isn't worth the paper it's written on!
> This is the content of the email that I have just sent to Liberty as a result of reading their response paper:
> I am writing to you because I am horrified by the implications of your response to the recently closed Home Office "consultation on the possession of extreme pornography".
> Paragraph 2 of the response, which was composed by Rory Dunlop, gives the main substance of your response, which appears to be broadly supportive of the Government's position, and makes no mention of the fundamental human rights issues that are involved with this proposal. It is, alas, too late for Liberty to alter their response to the consultation, but I hope that Liberty will reassess their position so that if any bill relating to this issue should be presented to Parliament, Liberty will have a more complete and considered position on the subject.
> In paragraph 2 of the response, Rory Dunlop writes, "...we accept that some of the very extreme material mentioned in the paper may encourage or reinforce violent or aberrant behaviour to the detriment of society as a whole." This is a very disturbing proposition, since it appears to state that people must be protected lest they confuse fantasy (the images and movies presented via the internet) with reality. The ability to distinguish reality and fantasy from one another is one of the defining characteristics of a healthy adult mind; if this proposal is to be accepted on the basis of how the mentally unstable respond to the material in question, then the definition of material to be covered must surely be broadened greatly, because there will always be potential triggers in mainstream movies and television.
> Furthermore, the proposition that extreme pornography promotes violent sexual behaviour has not been proved - if anything, the many decades of research that have been done have shown that there is no such link. To accept that the material in question encourages or reinforces such behaviour is to fly in the face of research. Even the Government's consultation paper acknowledges that no link has been demonstrated.
> It is especially disturbing that, in paragraph 1 of your response, Rory Dunlop implicitly puts extreme pornography created using consenting adult actors, in the same category as child pornography. Child pornography by definition in law, does not involve consenting actors. Furthermore, it can be used in the commission of further crimes as material for "grooming".
> Adult pornography, even of the most extreme nature, is produced by consenting adults; where rape or extreme violence appears to be depicted, the participants are acting the roles. The material is used by adults who fantasise about the types of acts depicted, without wanting to put those fantasies into practice. For instance, nobody who fantasises about crucifixion (an extreme fantasy but one that certainly exists) would actually go out and nail someone to a cross (or, equally, go out and ask someone else to nail them to a cross).
> The overall effect of the proposals in the government paper is not to prevent the production or distribution of extreme pornography (a proposition that the government makes, and that your response accepts in paragraph 2), but to criminalise innocent people for their sexual fantasies.
> Your response paper makes no mention of the human rights issues as raised by the possible conflict with articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Rabinder Singh QC was instructed by the Spanner Trust to provide an opinion on the potential clash and concluded that, "I consider that the legislation as proposed gives rise to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual's rights under articles 8 and 10 of the Convention." The opinion highlights the European Court of Human Rights finding on the right to freedom of expression, expressed in Mueller vs Switzerland, "it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population."
> It is notable that no other country in Europe, or with a Western-style democracy, has a law making simple possession of such material a criminal offence.
> That an organisation such as Liberty, claiming to protect civil liberties and promote human rights, could be even broadly supportive of the Government's proposals, is appalling and abhorrent.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ---------------------------------
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Paul Tavener, 10 Dec 2005 21:35:12
I just sent them an email as well:
Dear Sir,
I was shocked to read Liberties response to the Home Office consultation concerning the possession of extreme pornography.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/extreme-pornographic-material-ho-consultation.PDF
“We also accept the Government’s proposal, to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent pornography a criminal offence, is reasonable.”
This doesn’t sit comfortably with:
“We aim to secure the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and oppose any abuse or excessive power by the state against its people.”
The Government intend to put people in prison for being in possession of material that in most cases would have been acted and where no criminal acts would have occurred. The inclusion of “realistic depictions” in the proposals is outrageous and will cause serious miscarriages of justice.
Notwithstanding the doubts concerning categories, scope and intent that were expressed by Liberty I was surprised that a Human Rights organisation such as Liberty did not condemn these proposals out of hand for Human Rights Abuse. If it is accepted that Governments can introduce laws on the basis of moral arguments, in the acknowledged absence of any proper evidence bowing to one vocal element of popular opinion then it will lead to disaster for us all.
Paul Tavener
Teddy, 10 Dec 2005 21:54:53
There is likely to be a bit of a quieter period between now and the consultation report. I think putting a serious "rocket up the arse" of Liberty is one of the most important things to be done in this time; they need to wake up to what's happening here.
I hope the groupings such as Ofwatch, Melon Farmers, Spanner Trust, FAC, CAC etc. will approach Liberty in an official capacity on this issue. I'm not sure individual's complaints are going to have much impact.
Teddy
Author wrote:
> I just sent them an email as well:
> Dear Sir,
> I was shocked to read Liberties response to the Home Office consultation concerning the possession of extreme pornography.
> http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/extreme-pornographic-material-ho-consultation.PDF
> “We also accept the Government’s proposal, to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent pornography a criminal offence, is reasonable.”
> This doesn’t sit comfortably with:
> “We aim to secure the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and oppose any abuse or excessive power by the state against its people.”
> The Government intend to put people in prison for being in possession of material that in most cases would have been acted and where no criminal acts would have occurred. The inclusion of “realistic depictions” in the proposals is outrageous and will cause serious miscarriages of justice.
> Notwithstanding the doubts concerning categories, scope and intent that were expressed by Liberty I was surprised that a Human Rights organisation such as Liberty did not condemn these proposals out of hand for Human Rights Abuse. If it is accepted that Governments can introduce laws on the basis of moral arguments, in the acknowledged absence of any proper evidence bowing to one vocal element of popular opinion then it will lead to disaster for us all.
> Paul Tavener
>
>
adrian, 10 Dec 2005 23:30:42
Yes, I agree. I'm disappointed and angry at Liberty's position. I
think an open letter to Liberty from Backlash, agreed by as many of
its constituent groups as we can get, would be in order.
My personal thought is to write saying 'if we showed you reasonable
evidence that abuse is rare to non-existent in the making of this
material, that there is at least as much cause to argue that its
existence reduces the chances of abuse and crime, and that its
suppression would infringe the rights of a very large number of
people, would you change your mind?'.
Then we give them that evidence. If they don't then retract what they
said, we at least know where we stand. No doubt there will be
articles and comments in the BDSM and libertarian media about them.
We're not I believe the first to find that Liberty were not interested
in freedom if it had anything to do with sex. But for them to favour
a position which no government in the free world has taken is
jaw-droppingly awful from a body with its name and declared purpose.
On 10/12/05, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> There is likely to be a bit of a quieter period between now and the consultation report. I think putting a serious "rocket up the arse" of Liberty is one of the most important things to be done in this time; they need to wake up to what's happening here.
> I hope the groupings such as Ofwatch, Melon Farmers, Spanner Trust, FAC, CAC etc. will approach Liberty in an official capacity on this issue. I'm not sure individual's complaints are going to have much impact.
>
> Teddy
>
> Author wrote:
> > I just sent them an email as well:
> > Dear Sir,
> > I was shocked to read Liberties response to the Home Office consultation concerning the possession of extreme pornography.
> > http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/extreme-pornographic-material-ho-consultation.PDF
> > "We also accept the Government's proposal, to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent pornography a criminal offence, is reasonable."
> > This doesn't sit comfortably with:
> > "We aim to secure the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and oppose any abuse or excessive power by the state against its people."
> > The Government intend to put people in prison for being in possession of material that in most cases would have been acted and where no criminal acts would have occurred. The inclusion of "realistic depictions" in the proposals is outrageous and will cause serious miscarriages of justice.
> > Notwithstanding the doubts concerning categories, scope and intent that were expressed by Liberty I was surprised that a Human Rights organisation such as Liberty did not condemn these proposals out of hand for Human Rights Abuse. If it is accepted that Governments can introduce laws on the basis of moral arguments, in the acknowledged absence of any proper evidence bowing to one vocal element of popular opinion then it will lead to disaster for us all.
> > Paul Tavener
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D4208
>
zak, 11 Dec 2005 22:18:15
Original Message:
-----------------
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 11 Dec 2005 22:18:15
There is likely to be a bit of a quieter period between now and the
consultation report. I
think putting a serious "rocket up the arse" of Liberty is one of the most
important
things to be done in this time; they need to wake up to what's happening
here.
I hope the groupings such as Ofwatch, Melon Farmers, Spanner Trust, FAC,
CAC etc. will
approach Liberty in an official capacity on this issue. I'm not sure
individual's
complaints are going to have much impact.
Teddy
By all means poke them with pointed sticks but.. does Liberty really
matter? Does anyone
give a flying fuck what they say/do apart from the Liberty executive
commitee themselves?
They've been no use for yea
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Paul Tavener, 11 Dec 2005 23:57:13
I have written to them. Not sure if it will have any effect but who knows.
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 11 Dec 2005 23:57:13
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Amnesty, Liberty, Justice
> There is likely to be a bit of a quieter period between now and the
> consultation report. I
> think putting a serious "rocket up the arse" of Liberty is one of the most
> important
> things to be done in this time; they need to wake up to what's happening
> here.
> I hope the groupings such as Ofwatch, Melon Farmers, Spanner Trust, FAC,
> CAC etc. will
> approach Liberty in an official capacity on this issue. I'm not sure
> individual's
> complaints are going to have much impact.
> Teddy
> By all means poke them with pointed sticks but.. does Liberty really
> matter? Does anyone
> give a flying fuck what they say/do apart from the Liberty executive
> commitee themselves?
> They've been no use for yea
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
SnowdropExplodes, 12 Dec 2005 01:20:42
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:
By all means poke them with pointed sticks but.. does Liberty really
matter? Does anyone
give a flying fuck what they say/do apart from the Liberty executive
commitee themselves?
*****
They matter in as much as while they are supportive of the proposal, the government can turn around and point to a civil liberties group that is supporting this draconian measure, and thereby argue that it can't really be as bad or oppressive as we want to make it out to be.
On the other hand, if we can persuade Liberty to change their opinion and come out against the proposals, then we have a big-name organisation that can garner press coverage and media recognition, even if the government themselves don't take any notice, it may possibly give us a little bit of extra push when it comes to the general public.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
AV8R, 12 Dec 2005 01:56:36
Author wrote:
> "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:
> By all means poke them with pointed sticks but.. does Liberty really
> matter? Does anyone
> give a flying fuck what they say/do apart from the Liberty executive
> commitee themselves?
> *****
> They matter in as much as while they are supportive of the proposal, the government can turn around and point to a civil liberties group that is supporting this draconian measure, and thereby argue that it can't really be as bad or oppressive as we want to make it out to be.
> On the other hand, if we can persuade Liberty to change their opinion and come out against the proposals, then we have a big-name organisation that can garner press coverage and media recognition, even if the government themselves don't take any notice, it may possibly give us a little bit of extra push when it comes to the general public.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
I suspect they will sit on the fence.
As such the govt can point to bits that support their case.
And we can do likewise. ie, "Liberty has raised strong concerns that parts of the govts proposals are "insert critiscism here" and risk jeopardisng blah blah blah"
Better than nothing.
Av8r
> ---------------------------------
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
zak, 12 Dec 2005 16:28:17
Original Message:
-----------------
-OJT- snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com, 12 Dec 2005 16:28:17
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" wrote:
By all means poke them with pointed sticks but.. does Liberty really
matter? Does anyone
give a flying fuck what they say/do apart from the Liberty executive
commitee themselves?
*****
They matter in as much as while they are supportive of the proposal, the
government can
turn around and point to a civil liberties group that is supporting this
draconian
measure, and thereby argue that it can't really be as bad or oppressive as
we want to make
it out to be.
They can point to a symbol on the wall and say god/allah/great umbongo/ any
other
imaginary friend says they're not bad and oppressive if they like. They'd
still be full of
shit. We know that they're wrong and we have to keep saying so.
On the other hand, if we can persuade Liberty to change their opinion and
come out
against the proposals, then we have a big-name organisation that can garner
press coverage
and media recognition, even if the government themselves don't take any
notice, it may
possibly give us a little bit of extra push when it comes to the general
public.
It might. But don;t lets bang anyone's head too hard against brick walls.
THe
anti-porn-moron mindset is unfortunately deeply ingrained in Li
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
«No Name Set», 17 Dec 2005 17:32:26
The trouble with Liberty is that it is not really a single
cohesive organisation. It is a disparate collection of
affiliated groups who are looking for a "respectable" big name
under which to promote their own particular special interests.
And in some cases, special interest supporters who've come to
Liberty as a last resort because they can't get a platform to
gain their own fame and fortune in the "mainstream" of their
chosen special interest groups.
Which leaves the poor staff trying to balance compete interests
at times, and interest the vast bulk of the membership in
anything beyond their particular special interest area.
Incidentally, writing letters to the Liberty staff won't do much
to change their policy. What's needed is motions through their
AGM.
And before that can happen, it needs either individual members
(of Liberty) or, more likely, affiliated organisations, to
propose motions to the Liberty AGM. The more the better, as it
stands more of a chance of getting on th order paper if there is
a lot of interest in the subject.
I rather suspect that the "pornography=violence against women"
lobby will have been active already in getting their views heard
by Liberty, and will likely have motions gong to the AGM. SOme
on the other side can't hurt! The result could be a stormy AGM
as the two sides take up pitched battle positions - been there,
seen that before at such events.
The AGMs used to be in the spring. Is there anyone who's a
member, or a rep for an affiliated group, who can get hold of
the paperwork and, if there's still time, get proposing??
There may be a facility and time-scale for submitting amendments
to motions already sent in - but be aware that the Liberty
Steering Committee always used to ban "Delete All And Insert"
amendments.
Rosemary
--
Rosemary
Polgara, 17 Dec 2005 18:39:42
Rosemary:
> Incidentally, writing letters to the Liberty staff won't do much
> to change their policy. What's needed is motions through their
> AGM.
Details on Liberty's AGM are
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/events/annual-general-meeting/index.shtml
- we need a proposer and a seconder for any motion submitted. From what
I've read, it looks like all motions submitted are considered, unless
they're identical, so we'd just need to put one in. I'm a member of
Liberty. I don't happen to know anyone else who is though and I'm
probably not the best person to be doing the arguing during an AGM.
> The AGMs used to be in the spring. Is there anyone who's a
> member, or a rep for an affiliated group, who can get hold of
> the paperwork and, if there's still time, get proposing??
20th May 2006, London. Deadline for motions 10th March 2006 - that's
ages to write something. It looks like the deadline for amendments is
the same as for motions.
As for the text of the motion, I'm not sure how to go about writing it -
the examples from last year are
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/events/annual-general-meeting/resolutions-05.pdf
and they've all been written in slightly different formats.
To get us started, how about:
This Annual General Meeting notes that:
The Home Office ran a consultation between August and December 2005 on
plans to strengthen the criminal law in respect to possession of extreme
pornographic material. The proposed changes to the law go far beyond
anything needed to protect children from unsuitable images and to
protect those appearing in such images from exploitation. They will
criminalise images of consensual sexual activity between adults. This is
clear infringement of the human right of adults to lead a private family
life without unnecessary interference by the state.
This Annual General Meeting therefore calls on Liberty to:
Lobby the government (and the media) with the aim of persuading the
government to drop its proposals to legislate in this area, working with
other relevant bodies as necessary in pursuit of this aim.
Any thoughts?
adrian, 18 Dec 2005 18:08:36
Glad to have this information about Liberty. But the question arises
in my mind, that if they are an umbrella group, how can they send the
consultation response that they did without a consensus. If this is
supposed to be a view acceptable to a large varied group of
libertarian organisations then God help us all.
But to the practical action, i.e. the AGM motion, it's a great idea,
but I don't see some (IMO) important things in Polgara's motion.
The proposal is wrong because it seeks to ban something for which
there is no evidence of harm. There is evidence that its absence
could conduce to harms of exactly the type that the proposal seeks to
stop. It mistakenly equates a fantasy image with the deed it portrays,
to the extent of imposing penalties as severe as those for the deed
itself. Thereby it encourages a belief in the the minds of the
public, not least the millions of ethical people who have a sexual
interest in the fantasy, that the interest itself is equivalent to
crime. It removes the possibility of many ways of satisfying that
interest safely and ethically.
Of course, the essential ingredient is a speaker in favour of the
motion who can give the supporting evidence clearly in a short space
of time.
Notwithstanding Liberty's abysmal record in the sexual field, should
Backlash consider applying for group membership? Many groups and
individuals have joined and then left in frustration, but it might be
necessary to join and make the attempt even if we were destined for
the same path.
zak, 19 Dec 2005 14:44:39
Original Message:
-----------------
Adrian adrianhb@googlemail.com, 19 Dec 2005 14:44:39
Notwithstanding Liberty's abysmal record in the sexual field, should
Backlash consider applying for group membership? Many groups and
individuals have joined and then left in frustration, but it might be
necessary to join and make the attempt even if we were destined for
the same path.
This is not a bad idea. I beleive something rather similar was done by FAC
in the early
90s: the anti-sex nutter brigade had infiltrated Liberty to a horrifying
extent and so FAC
members joined up and managed to get assorted witless porn-banning
proposals binned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
adrian, 21 Dec 2005 11:30:11
This seems to be the thing to do IMO. Let's see what a few other
people think and have a decision about joining in good time for the
10th. Thanks again for your info.
Paul Tavener, 21 Dec 2005 19:49:25
It sounds like a reasonable idea. How many need to join?
Author wrote:
> This seems to be the thing to do IMO. Let's see what a few other
> people think and have a decision about joining in good time for the
> 10th. Thanks again for your info.
Amelie, 21 Dec 2005 20:32:37
I support the idea.
latest book Hosts of Angels preview, ebook and paperback available from
http://www.lulu.com/content/175757
also feel welcome to visit my free Self-help.Self-esteem site at
http://www.youareunique.co.uk or preview
stories and poems on http://www.tellyouatale.com under pen name Amelia May
Kingston.
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:47 PM
> It sounds like a reasonable idea. How many need to join?
>
> Author wrote:
>> This seems to be the thing to do IMO. Let's see what a few other
>> people think and have a decision about joining in good time for the
>> 10th. Thanks again for your info.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D4249
>
>
Teddy, 09 Jan 2006 02:08:37
Hi All,
Has anyone received a reply from Liberty concerning their awful consultation response? I know that several people complained to them at the time.
Teddy.
Author wrote:
> I just sent them an email as well:
> Dear Sir,
> I was shocked to read Liberties response to the Home Office consultation concerning the possession of extreme pornography.
> http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/extreme-pornographic-material-ho-consultation.PDF
> “We also accept the Government’s proposal, to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent pornography a criminal offence, is reasonable.”
> This doesn’t sit comfortably with:
> “We aim to secure the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and oppose any abuse or excessive power by the state against its people.”
> The Government intend to put people in prison for being in possession of material that in most cases would have been acted and where no criminal acts would have occurred. The inclusion of “realistic depictions” in the proposals is outrageous and will cause serious miscarriages of justice.
> Notwithstanding the doubts concerning categories, scope and intent that were expressed by Liberty I was surprised that a Human Rights organisation such as Liberty did not condemn these proposals out of hand for Human Rights Abuse. If it is accepted that Governments can introduce laws on the basis of moral arguments, in the acknowledged absence of any proper evidence bowing to one vocal element of popular opinion then it will lead to disaster for us all.
> Paul Tavener
>
>
Teddy, 31 Jan 2006 06:49:35
I think an open letter, as previously suggested by Adrian, to Liberty would be one useful venture in this "phoney war" period before the consultation result. Do we have any concensus between the Backlash constituents about what this might contain? I think some of the posts in this thread give an eloquent summary of their total negligence and ineptitude on this issue...
Teddy
Author wrote:
> Yes, I agree. I'm disappointed and angry at Liberty's position. I
> think an open letter to Liberty from Backlash, agreed by as many of
> its constituent groups as we can get, would be in order.
> My personal thought is to write saying 'if we showed you reasonable
> evidence that abuse is rare to non-existent in the making of this
> material, that there is at least as much cause to argue that its
> existence reduces the chances of abuse and crime, and that its
> suppression would infringe the rights of a very large number of
> people, would you change your mind?'.
> Then we give them that evidence. If they don't then retract what they
> said, we at least know where we stand. No doubt there will be
> articles and comments in the BDSM and libertarian media about them.
> We're not I believe the first to find that Liberty were not interested
> in freedom if it had anything to do with sex. But for them to favour
> a position which no government in the free world has taken is
> jaw-droppingly awful from a body with its name and declared purpose.
> On 10/12/05, Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > There is likely to be a bit of a quieter period between now and the consultation report. I think putting a serious "rocket up the arse" of Liberty is one of the most important things to be done in this time; they need to wake up to what's happening here.
> > I hope the groupings such as Ofwatch, Melon Farmers, Spanner Trust, FAC, CAC etc. will approach Liberty in an official capacity on this issue. I'm not sure individual's complaints are going to have much impact.
> >
> > Teddy
> >
> > Author wrote:
> > > I just sent them an email as well:
> > > Dear Sir,
> > > I was shocked to read Liberties response to the Home Office consultation concerning the possession of extreme pornography.
> > > http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/2005/extreme-pornographic-material-ho-consultation.PDF
> > > "We also accept the Government's proposal, to make the possession of extreme and abhorrent pornography a criminal offence, is reasonable."
> > > This doesn't sit comfortably with:
> > > "We aim to secure the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and oppose any abuse or excessive power by the state against its people."
> > > The Government intend to put people in prison for being in possession of material that in most cases would have been acted and where no criminal acts would have occurred. The inclusion of "realistic depictions" in the proposals is outrageous and will cause serious miscarriages of justice.
> > > Notwithstanding the doubts concerning categories, scope and intent that were expressed by Liberty I was surprised that a Human Rights organisation such as Liberty did not condemn these proposals out of hand for Human Rights Abuse. If it is accepted that Governments can introduce laws on the basis of moral arguments, in the acknowledged absence of any proper evidence bowing to one vocal element of popular opinion then it will lead to disaster for us all.
> > > Paul Tavener
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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%3D4208
> >
*** This message has been edited by Teddy on 31 Jan 2006 12:30:11 ***