Backlash minutes 06/06/06
demolitionred, 09 Jun 2006 22:45:15
Backlash Meeting 7.00PM 6th June 2006
Apologies for absence:
Manniq, Rosalee, Bobette, Nigel, Ian Gurnhill, John Pendal, Paul T
Agenda:
Briefing on Home Office meeting
Where to go from here?
Spanner's John L told the meeting that Spanner and SM Pride met with Home Office. 3 representatives each. 2 and a quarter hour meeting. HO
realised they had need help to re-thinking policy given arguments raised by opponents to the proposals and the opinion of Rabinder Singh.
The two groups argued that it the law is a bad idea full stop, that pornography does not cause sex offences but this was ignored because ministers told Home
Office of need to put forward some proposals.
Since the meeting the HO has asked JL for info on injuries that could be expected during play and whether there would be much blood.
Exxentrix who was SMP spokesman at Home Office meeting but has since resigned said SM Pride have had a discussion with Home Office since the meeting and discussions have identified question of what constitutes portrayal, depiction etc.. He said the government is being cagey in playing “the reasonability card”, saying images that could reasonably be expected to....etc etc…
Government said directly, they must be seen to act upon widespread public opinion against images that create the lunatics in this society to carry out dreadful acts and which undermine moral values.
Ex said the Home Office was talking about negotiating a “reasonable threshold." and was hoping to agree a middle ground of “likelihood of serious disabling injury or death”…
Dem red pointed out that images of most BDSM activities could fall within that definition in the eyes of the police or the CPS.
While Ex said the HO were talking about things like hanging from the neck, finger cutting, genital mutilation etc, DR said really stringent wording is needed so too much flexibility is not given to the police and so the law cannot easily be added to at a later stage if they find new acts abhorrent.
JL suggested Spanner would like to answer this request as well as they reasonably can and ask for a further meeting.
It was suggested that SM pride and Spanner should co-operate and it is far too early to agree a list of activities we would be happy to see criminalised.
Ex suggested it may be worth giving a list of examples of types of activities and the likelihood of injury but the meeting agreed the phrase images of acts likely to cause permanent disability or death was too loose, too open to interpretation and could see all BDSM activity open to prosecution.
It was agreed the notion of consent -- which the Home Office refuses to accept as a criteria -- needs to be put back on the table.
Two separate and simultaneous plans of action were agreed:
Spanner -- hopefully alongside SMPride -- to demonstrate the difficulty of compiling a list and to secure a new meeting.
Other backlash groups and individual supporters to continue to advertise the proposals and to start a campaign whereby individuals ask their MPs whether
images they already look at would be illegal under the proposals so as to demonstrate the absurdity and unworkable nature of the current plans.
To promote widespread activity it was agreed examples form Bizzarre magazine and b horror films etc would be good examples.
David M agreed to compile a list of questions people could send to their MPs. David A said these will be added to the website, along with contact details for MPs.
It was agreed we would all use our networks to encourage viewers of mainstream porn, necro , rock, vampire sites etc also to take part in the campaign.
Dr said selected press are ready to carry an article once there is a clear direction on what readers can do to further the campaign. She said she will do a release about the new campaign.
Ex, Dr and MC said they would compile images for this campaign.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
SnowdropExplodes, 12 Jun 2006 08:11:41
DemolitionRed wrote: Backlash Meeting 7.00PM 6th June 2006
Apologies for absence:
Manniq, Rosalee, Bobette, Nigel, Ian Gurnhill, John Pendal, Paul T
Agenda:
Briefing on Home Office meeting
Where to go from here?
Spanner's John L told the meeting that Spanner and SM Pride met with Home Office. 3 representatives each. 2 and a quarter hour meeting. HO
realised they had need help to re-thinking policy given arguments raised by opponents to the proposals and the opinion of Rabinder Singh.
The two groups argued that it the law is a bad idea full stop, that pornography does not cause sex offences but this was ignored because ministers told Home
Office of need to put forward some proposals.
Since the meeting the HO has asked JL for info on injuries that could be expected during play and whether there would be much blood.
Exxentrix who was SMP spokesman at Home Office meeting but has since resigned said SM Pride have had a discussion with Home Office since the meeting and discussions have identified question of what constitutes portrayal, depiction etc.. He said the government is being cagey in playing “the reasonability card”, saying images that could reasonably be expected to....etc etc…
Government said directly, they must be seen to act upon widespread public opinion against images that create the lunatics in this society to carry out dreadful acts and which undermine moral values.
Ex said the Home Office was talking about negotiating a “reasonable threshold." and was hoping to agree a middle ground of “likelihood of serious disabling injury or death”…
Dem red pointed out that images of most BDSM activities could fall within that definition in the eyes of the police or the CPS.
While Ex said the HO were talking about things like hanging from the neck, finger cutting, genital mutilation etc, DR said really stringent wording is needed so too much flexibility is not given to the police and so the law cannot easily be added to at a later stage if they find new acts abhorrent.
JL suggested Spanner would like to answer this request as well as they reasonably can and ask for a further meeting.
It was suggested that SM pride and Spanner should co-operate and it is far too early to agree a list of activities we would be happy to see criminalised.
Ex suggested it may be worth giving a list of examples of types of activities and the likelihood of injury but the meeting agreed the phrase images of acts likely to cause permanent disability or death was too loose, too open to interpretation and could see all BDSM activity open to prosecution.
It was agreed the notion of consent -- which the Home Office refuses to accept as a criteria -- needs to be put back on the table.
Two separate and simultaneous plans of action were agreed:
Spanner -- hopefully alongside SMPride -- to demonstrate the difficulty of compiling a list and to secure a new meeting.
Other backlash groups and individual supporters to continue to advertise the proposals and to start a campaign whereby individuals ask their MPs whether
images they already look at would be illegal under the proposals so as to demonstrate the absurdity and unworkable nature of the current plans.
Initial thoughts:
In brief:
We should take an attitude of "no retreat, and no surrender". If this is being driven by the ministers' insistence on having some proposals put forward, we seem already to have won the point that the proposals are not actually meaningful or justified. Would it be helpful to ask an MP to put a question as to how far the eventual consultation report will be prejudiced by the ministers' insistence on having some proposals put forward?
At length:
Their so-called "middle ground" is no such thing.
The CPS guidelines for "grievous bodily harm" are as follows:
* injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function;
* injury which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;
* compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
* injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;
* injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
* psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury.
The Home Office position doesn't really seem to represent much (if any) retreat from these guidelines in their definition of "serious violence".
The "reasonability" card is a sign that they really have not understood the import of the Rabinder Singh opinion, which makes it clear that any offence introduced must be such that a person can be expected to know the consequences of their actions. Therefore, there must be clear guidelines as to what might "reasonably be expected to..."
The overall impression that the HO position gives is that they purely want to push their own agenda of hitting "yucky" images, and will scratch around to find any justification they think is reasonable. The driving force for this is "ministers told Home Office of need to put forward some proposals". I think we really need to challenge them on their claim of "widespread public opinion", and challenge them that perhaps it is better for a government not to respond to moral panics, but where possible, to be a calming influence - especially where evidence of harm is dubious, or non-existent. I suspect this "widespread public opinion" is a phantasm they've created from their own desire to do something, and the tabloids obligingly conjured the requisite screaming headlines at appropriate moments.
The proposals that the Home Office have made (as reported here) seem to form a similar pattern to Tony Blair's attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq before it happened - scrabbling around for anything that they can make stick, rather than giving a solid justification in which they actually believe. The "likelihood of injury" argument seems to put the focus on protecting the participants (in whih case we can use the Hollywood argument), whereas the whole "reasonably expected to..." thrust seems to focus on the likelihood of imitation.
Where we talk about consent, I think we need to be careful with our definitions. I am not willing for the Home Office to believe that we find it acceptable for consensually acted depictions of non-consensual activities to be treated in he same way as images of genuinely coerced or non-consensual activities. I think we can use a hypothetical, something like, "what if a husband and wife agree to act out a scene where he 'rapes' her, and contrive to video it or make photographs of the scene, for their later private, personal, enjoyment?"
In respect to material worth using, we should definitely look at using the film "Killing Me Softly", which was passed at 18 and includes an explicit portrayal of breathplay, in which Heather Graham's character is naked and having sex with Joseph Fiennes' character (although the genitals aren't shown) and Joseph Fiennes' character has a long sheet or ribbon wrapped around her neck and uses it to control when she can or can't breathe. This scene, as far as I can tell, wasn't cut in any way, but would appear to be outlawed by the proposals as they stand.
Another film that could be used is "Heathers" in which there's a scene in which one of the Heathers fakes her suicide by hanging. We can use this to show that what appears on-screen needn't be what really happens, and the risk involved need not be very great to the participants.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Graham Marsden, 12 Jun 2006 16:04:53
Hi there,
-OJT- wrote:
> We should take an attitude of "no retreat, and no surrender".
Hear hear!
I cannot see any way in which a "compromise deal" on these issues would
be of use or benefit to us. Any "reasonable man" definition would simply
rely on subjective opinion and would have us continually looking over
our shoulders wondering if we should keep that image "just in case" we
were arrested and our computers examined.
> If this is being driven by the ministers' insistence on having
> some proposals put forward, we seem already to have won the point
> that the proposals are not actually meaningful or justified.
I agree. It seems they're now trying to find a justification for what
they want.
> Would it be helpful to ask an MP to put a question as to how far
> the eventual consultation report will be prejudiced by the
> ministers' insistence on having some proposals put forward?
[...]
> The overall impression that the HO position gives is that they
> purely want to push their own agenda of hitting "yucky" images,
> and will scratch around to find any justification they think is
> reasonable. The driving force for this is "ministers told
> Home Office of need to put forward some proposals". I think
> we really need to challenge them on their claim of "widespread
> public opinion", and challenge them that perhaps it is better
> for a government not to respond to moral panics, but where
> possible, to be a calming influence - especially where evidence
> of harm is dubious, or non-existent. I suspect this
> "widespread public opinion" is a phantasm they've created from
> their own desire to do something, and the tabloids obligingly
> conjured the requisite screaming headlines at appropriate moments.
I think this could be a good idea, especially since they are apparently
asking for these "proposals" *before* the report comes out, which
suggests that they realise there is a fundamental weakness in their
position and they're trying to strengthen it so that when they release
their report, they can say "well, people said X, Y and Z in response to
the consultation, but *now* we're saying this, so all of the objections
aren't valid".
> Where we talk about consent, I think we need to be careful with our
> definitions. I am not willing for the Home Office to believe that
> we find it acceptable for consensually acted depictions of
> non-consensual activities to be treated in he same way as images
> of genuinely coerced or non-consensual activities.
I think on this point we need to push the point of "Burden of Proof" and
"Presumption of Innocence", ie if someone has produced an image it must
be demonstrated that consent was *not* obtained, rather than us having
to provide eg written proof that there was consent.
We can also point out that, of course, in the case of Child Porn, it is
automatically taken that there cannot be consent from a minor, but we're
not talking about Child Porn, we're talking about consenting adults.
> I think we can use a hypothetical, something like, "what if a husband
> and wife agree to act out a scene where he 'rapes' her, and contrive
> to video it or make photographs of the scene, for their later
> private, personal, enjoyment?"
Yes and we can also bring in Regina vs Wilson (the husband who branded
his initials on his consenting wife's bum) where what they did was
deemed to not be illegal and, indeed, nothing to do with the State, but
if they had photographed the branding, they could still be charged with
a crime!
> In respect to material worth using, we should definitely look at using
> the film "Killing Me Softly" [...] Another film that could be used
> is "Heathers" [...]
Plus, of course, Messiah 4, photographs of fakirs with hooks in their
backs et al, as have been previously suggested.
I don't have time to check at the moment, but do we actually have a list
of all the images that people have suggested?
I think the next time someone speaks to the Home Office, it would be an
excellent idea to go along with a scrapbook and video or DVD compilation
of images all of which have been published or broadcast perfectly
legitimately but which would be illegal under the law.
It would also be interesting to intersperse these with images from BDSM
porn/ video etc and have the HO play "pick out the 'legitimate' images"
and see how many they get wrong.
Cheers,
Graham.
zak, 12 Jun 2006 20:09:55
Original Message:
-----------------
DemolitionRed demolitionred@yahoo.com, 12 Jun 2006 20:09:55
Backlash Meeting 7.00PM 6th June 2006
Apologies for absence:
Manniq, Rosalee, Bobette, Nigel, Ian Gurnhill, John Pendal, Paul T
Agenda:
Briefing on Home Office meeting
Where to go from here?
Government said directly, they must be seen to act upon widespread public
opinion against images that create the lunatics in this society to carry
out dreadful acts and which undermine moral values.
Was no one awake enough to point out that more dreadful acts would be
prevented if they banned religion rather than pornography?
There is a far clearer DIRECT CAUSAL LINK between exposure to extreme
religion and the commission of ciolent crimes, after all.
Oh, and to save some of you the time and effort required to start bleating
about how religion is not all bad really and your own particular brand of
it never involeds anything nasty, ooo no,, I'm *aware* of that. To argue
this point is to make the Govt understand the absurdity of banning any form
of artistic or imaginative expression on stupid, prejudiced grounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Paul Tavener, 12 Jun 2006 22:54:25
I think we need to be very careful that we don't let the Government claim that any proposal they come up with has the backing of the BDSM community in any way shape or form.
There is no reasonable threshold to be negotiated and any forced agreement of one would be a disaster in more ways than one.
If the real reason why the proposals are being pushed through is because the Minister wants them is it possible to gain access directly to the Minister? I know this might be difficult, but isn't it worth a try?
If it's not possible there ought to be a very good reason, more than the minister is busy (or more likely) the minister doesn't want to meet any of those nasty violent perv types.
Ministers tend to have all of their information filtered so that they don't drown in paperwork. It might well be that despite everything the minister does not realy grasp the fine detail and the full arguments, only the general thrust and rose tinted filtered summary. If the minister can be approached directly it might be possible to put the case properly to the person who might be able to do something.
It might also be worth pointing out that any law passed would be challenged through the courts all the way to the ECHR and that there is no point in hiding behind statements like we believe it is compatible with the HRA when there is expert opinion of the oposite.
In my opinion key points that need to be got across are:
Any laws must be cristal clear so that people know if they are braking the law or not.
The burden of proof must rest with the prosecutor not with the defence.
Realistic depictions/consentual acts must not be treated in the same way as actual crime.
And last but not least - this whole idea of a dangerous pictures act is a nonsense that will do far more harm than good.
Author wrote:
> DemolitionRed wrote: Backlash Meeting 7.00PM 6th June 2006
> Apologies for absence:
> Manniq, Rosalee, Bobette, Nigel, Ian Gurnhill, John Pendal, Paul T
> Agenda:
> Briefing on Home Office meeting
> Where to go from here?
> Spanner's John L told the meeting that Spanner and SM Pride met with Home Office. 3 representatives each. 2 and a quarter hour meeting. HO
> realised they had need help to re-thinking policy given arguments raised by opponents to the proposals and the opinion of Rabinder Singh.
> The two groups argued that it the law is a bad idea full stop, that pornography does not cause sex offences but this was ignored because ministers told Home
> Office of need to put forward some proposals.
> Since the meeting the HO has asked JL for info on injuries that could be expected during play and whether there would be much blood.
> Exxentrix who was SMP spokesman at Home Office meeting but has since resigned said SM Pride have had a discussion with Home Office since the meeting and discussions have identified question of what constitutes portrayal, depiction etc.. He said the government is being cagey in playing “the reasonability card”, saying images that could reasonably be expected to....etc etc…
> Government said directly, they must be seen to act upon widespread public opinion against images that create the lunatics in this society to carry out dreadful acts and which undermine moral values.
> Ex said the Home Office was talking about negotiating a “reasonable threshold." and was hoping to agree a middle ground of “likelihood of serious disabling injury or death”…
> Dem red pointed out that images of most BDSM activities could fall within that definition in the eyes of the police or the CPS.
> While Ex said the HO were talking about things like hanging from the neck, finger cutting, genital mutilation etc, DR said really stringent wording is needed so too much flexibility is not given to the police and so the law cannot easily be added to at a later stage if they find new acts abhorrent.
> JL suggested Spanner would like to answer this request as well as they reasonably can and ask for a further meeting.
> It was suggested that SM pride and Spanner should co-operate and it is far too early to agree a list of activities we would be happy to see criminalised.
> Ex suggested it may be worth giving a list of examples of types of activities and the likelihood of injury but the meeting agreed the phrase images of acts likely to cause permanent disability or death was too loose, too open to interpretation and could see all BDSM activity open to prosecution.
> It was agreed the notion of consent -- which the Home Office refuses to accept as a criteria -- needs to be put back on the table.
> Two separate and simultaneous plans of action were agreed:
> Spanner -- hopefully alongside SMPride -- to demonstrate the difficulty of compiling a list and to secure a new meeting.
> Other backlash groups and individual supporters to continue to advertise the proposals and to start a campaign whereby individuals ask their MPs whether
> images they already look at would be illegal under the proposals so as to demonstrate the absurdity and unworkable nature of the current plans.
> Initial thoughts:
> In brief:
> We should take an attitude of "no retreat, and no surrender". If this is being driven by the ministers' insistence on having some proposals put forward, we seem already to have won the point that the proposals are not actually meaningful or justified. Would it be helpful to ask an MP to put a question as to how far the eventual consultation report will be prejudiced by the ministers' insistence on having some proposals put forward?
> At length:
> Their so-called "middle ground" is no such thing.
> The CPS guidelines for "grievous bodily harm" are as follows:
> * injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function;
> * injury which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;
> * compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
> * injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;
> * injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
> * psychiatric injury. As with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, appropriate expert evidence is essential to prove the injury.
> The Home Office position doesn't really seem to represent much (if any) retreat from these guidelines in their definition of "serious violence".
> The "reasonability" card is a sign that they really have not understood the import of the Rabinder Singh opinion, which makes it clear that any offence introduced must be such that a person can be expected to know the consequences of their actions. Therefore, there must be clear guidelines as to what might "reasonably be expected to..."
> The overall impression that the HO position gives is that they purely want to push their own agenda of hitting "yucky" images, and will scratch around to find any justification they think is reasonable. The driving force for this is "ministers told Home Office of need to put forward some proposals". I think we really need to challenge them on their claim of "widespread public opinion", and challenge them that perhaps it is better for a government not to respond to moral panics, but where possible, to be a calming influence - especially where evidence of harm is dubious, or non-existent. I suspect this "widespread public opinion" is a phantasm they've created from their own desire to do something, and the tabloids obligingly conjured the requisite screaming headlines at appropriate moments.
> The proposals that the Home Office have made (as reported here) seem to form a similar pattern to Tony Blair's attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq before it happened - scrabbling around for anything that they can make stick, rather than giving a solid justification in which they actually believe. The "likelihood of injury" argument seems to put the focus on protecting the participants (in whih case we can use the Hollywood argument), whereas the whole "reasonably expected to..." thrust seems to focus on the likelihood of imitation.
> Where we talk about consent, I think we need to be careful with our definitions. I am not willing for the Home Office to believe that we find it acceptable for consensually acted depictions of non-consensual activities to be treated in he same way as images of genuinely coerced or non-consensual activities. I think we can use a hypothetical, something like, "what if a husband and wife agree to act out a scene where he 'rapes' her, and contrive to video it or make photographs of the scene, for their later private, personal, enjoyment?"
> In respect to material worth using, we should definitely look at using the film "Killing Me Softly", which was passed at 18 and includes an explicit portrayal of breathplay, in which Heather Graham's character is naked and having sex with Joseph Fiennes' character (although the genitals aren't shown) and Joseph Fiennes' character has a long sheet or ribbon wrapped around her neck and uses it to control when she can or can't breathe. This scene, as far as I can tell, wasn't cut in any way, but would appear to be outlawed by the proposals as they stand.
> Another film that could be used is "Heathers" in which there's a scene in which one of the Heathers fakes her suicide by hanging. We can use this to show that what appears on-screen needn't be what really happens, and the risk involved need not be very great to the participants.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com