wrote:
> Peter Green wrote:
> > I would appreciate any advice on an approach I could use in a letter to my MP.
>
> Write your own letter. MPs are more likely to respond to individually
> written letters than lots of identical letters.
Please read what I actually wrote. I asked for advice on an approach
to take, not for someone to write the letter for me.
--
Peter
Peter Green, 11 Sep 2005 16:02:27
: Polgara
, 11 Sep 2005 16:02:27
I just realised why the threading of this message is wrong - you're
communicating with us from seven-and-a-half hours in the future!
:-)
--
Peter
Polgara, 11 Sep 2005 16:08:04
Peter Green:
>>>I would appreciate any advice on an approach I could use in a letter to my MP.
>>
>>Write your own letter. MPs are more likely to respond to individually
>>written letters than lots of identical letters.
>
>
> Please read what I actually wrote. I asked for advice on an approach
> to take, not for someone to write the letter for me.
I did. Often when a group of people gets together to campaign about
something, it's decided that one person/a group of people should put
together one letter that everyone else then uses to send to their own
MPs. I'm suggesting that this isn't the best approach.
Beyond that, the approach I'm going to take when I respond to the Home
Office consultation is to pick their arguments apart line by line ie
(a). the fact that children have access to the internet is *not* a good
reason to legislate to ban certain material, when the real problem is
that children's internet access isn't being appropriately supervised.
(b) the definition of GBH in law isn't the same as the one the CPS uses
when deciding which of the assault offences to prosecute. Anything which
breaks the skin is technically GBH - this will result in images the Home
Office has no intention of criminalising being prohibited. I'm then
going to use the basis of my response to the Home Office as the letter
to my MP - I've a Labour MP and there might be some mileage in pointing
out how illogical his own government is being.
Other tactics you could take - appealing to first principles/the human
rights line/tolerance.
I currently think it's important to point out exactly how wide the
proposed law is - it's criminalising a lot of stuff that I don't think
most MPs will realise falls within the category of 'extreme pornographic
material'.
Polgara, 11 Sep 2005 16:09:08
Peter Green wrote:
: Polgara
, 11 Sep 2005 16:09:08
>
> I just realised why the threading of this message is wrong - you're
> communicating with us from seven-and-a-half hours in the future!
> :-)
Sorry - think I've fixed that now!
Nigel Meek, 11 Sep 2005 16:57:29
Author wrote:
> On 9/11/05, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> > all opposition should be able to get guidance on how to express themselves.
> > We also need to do the same re letters to MP's, meetings with MP's.
> We didn't have time to discuss this in the lobbying group, but I would
> appreciate any advice on an approach I could use in a letter to my MP.
>
> It's Ian Duncan-Smith. :-((
> Or is he a lost cause and a complete waste of time?
> --
> Peter
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. When writing to MPs and similar folk remember that they think that – and in some cases might actually be - they’re important and worthy of respect. E.g. use their proper titles. However, obvious fawning usually doesn’t work either. They pride themselves that they’re not susceptible to such things…
Spend a paragraph explaining in fairly neutral terms what the proposals that you’re objecting to are about. E.g. “As you will know…”. They quite possibly won’t.
Keep it reasonably short and/or focus on a limited area. They have neither the time nor inclination to read your opus on The Rights of Man (and Woman). Line-by-line critiques of entire consultation documents and so on are best left to invited responses to the actual documents or to those few individuals seriously involved in the issue.
Spend a paragraph in conclusion. The basic rules of “Beginning, middle and end” to any piece of prose still hold good.
Keep the language “respectable” at all times.
Try to adopt a “more in sorrow than anger” tone whenever you’re disagreeing with something.
Have someone else proof-read the thing before you send it.
In particular if you’re writing hardcopy, do it properly. E.g. set it out using the generally accepted conventions for letters and use decent paper and printing.
Regarding Conservative politicians in particular, beyond a general appeal to individual liberty and “rolling back the frontiers of the state” and so on, there may be some mileage in noting the parallels between this “extreme pornographic material” issue and the Race and Religious Hatred Bill. E.g. that in both cases they seek to ban “speech” that many no doubt find offensive such as, in the case of the latter, “robust” criticism of Islam. It would be unfortunate if those who opposed such restrictions nevertheless supported restrictions in other areas and so.
Nigel Meek
Libertarian Alliance (http://www.libertarian.co.uk)
Campaign Against Censorship (http://www.dlas.org.uk)
Society for Individual Freedom (http://www.individualist.org.uk)
Nigel Meek, 11 Sep 2005 19:23:51
Author wrote:
>
> I think there should be a few alternatives:
> An anti-censorship version(Fac, Libertarian Alliance and others beleive all attempts to make viewing images -- however distasteful -- should be opposed.
> Others of you want to criminalise the viewing of images of non-consensual acts.
> there are other splits, I'm sure.
>
On a point of clarification, as libertarians we are opposed to non-consensual acts and hence photographs and videos of such acts are nothing less than records of a crime. Nevertheless, criminalisation of mere possession of such images should be opposed because, for example, the police cannot be trusted not to plant evidence and anyway mere possession does not indicate participation in, or approval of, a criminal act.
At a lesser level of opposition to censorship, many would argue that there is a fundamental difference between real photographs and videos and what the consultation document refers to as “realistic depictions”. Most of us would take the view that crimes such as non-consensual sexual assaults can only be conducted by real people on other real people.
Nigel Meek
Libertarian Alliance (http://www.libertarian.co.uk)
Campaign Against Censorship (http://www.dlas.org.uk)
Society for Individual Freedom (http://www.individualist.org.uk)
Graham Marsden, 11 Sep 2005 20:06:00
nigel@libertarian.co.uk wrote:
> On a point of clarification, as libertarians we are opposed to
> non-consensual acts and hence photographs and videos of such
> acts are nothing less than records of a crime. Nevertheless,
> criminalisation of mere possession of such images should be
> opposed because, for example, the police cannot be trusted not
> to plant evidence and anyway mere possession does not indicate
> participation in, or approval of, a criminal act.
No offence, but can I just say that, of the two points above, for this
campaign we should avoid the first one as, whether it's true or not, it
could easily have us written off as simply "loony conspiracy theorists".
I think that we should concentrate on the second one since we can use it
to argue that otherwise watching TV programmes like "Police Stop" etc
could theoretically be outlawed since they show "criminal acts".
> At a lesser level of opposition to censorship, many would argue that
> there is a fundamental difference between real photographs and
> videos and what the consultation document refers to as \x{201C}realistic
> depictions\x{201D}. Most of us would take the view that crimes such as
> non-consensual sexual assaults can only be conducted by real people
> on other real people.
Indeed and, unless you know which context they are shown in, what is the
difference between watching the beheading of Ken Bigley by his
kidnappers and watching any slasher/ chainsaw massacre/ whatever movie?
As has been suggested, showing a compilation of images like that
juxtaposed with images that would become illegal under the proposed law
would point out the fundamental contradictions in its purposes.