The political opposition
rovacs, 24 Aug 2006 21:07:37
So far there seems to have been a deafening silence on this matter from the opposition parties. I have written to David Cameron,Sir Menzies Campbell and their respective shadow Home Secretaries. I have not had any responses. I am therefore writing again to David Davis,enclosing my recent correspondence with the Home Office on the matter. When I have completed the letter and sent it I will put a copy on here. I will be forcefully pointing out to Mr. Davis that these proposed laws represent the most serious attack on individual freedom that has ever been made by a governmenr in modern times-making a criminal out of someone merely for looking at something,without any connection between the material and real crime-like child porn has( being the sole current exeption).Thought crime.
rovacs, 26 Aug 2006 08:18:31
My letter to David Davis Shadow Home Secretary(minus additional material sent to the Home Office).
Dear Mr Davis,
It is a while since I sent you the material enclosed and I am most interested to know what the Opposition position may be regarding what to my mind are blatantly unjust and wickedly totalitarian legislative proposals.
I must stress that I believe this matter to be of the utmost importance for the existence of human liberty in this country. Stating this is decidedly not putting a case overly melodramatically.
Here are my reasons for this belief.
These proposals represent a government's aim to turn citizens into criminals on the basis solely of what they may choose to look at in private. The lone criminalization of this kind which currently exists in law,the "exception to the rule" which has always stood in this country over what people look at in private, is with regard to the accessing/possessing child pornography-this being done on the sound basis of the user of child porn being an accomplice to serious widespread real life crime,the sexual molestation of minors. This kind of justification simply does not exist with regard to adult fictional material-the Government itself admits it has no evidence that the fictional material it seeks to make "users" of into serious criminals over is produced non-consensually-which child material must be by definition-or is of any proven "harm" socially etc. The proposals would only have some logic and merit if restricted simply to the criminalizing of the "user" of real non-consensually produced adult material. Needless to say no other comparable country has or considers having such vicious legislation as is mooted within the Home Office Consultation Paper of 2005 on the subject. This is not a measure like the Obscene Publications Act(OPA) which is aimed at controlling availability of certain material by in some cases prosecuting publishers and distributors. Nor is it about blocking certain internet websites either,which many may mistakenly believe to be the case. It proposes something quite radically different-an utterly unwarrented full scale assault on the principle that individual private citizens should not to be treated as criminals merely on the basis of looking at something. It proposes extending child porn law precedent into the adult sphere-though the principle behind the criminalization of private "users" of child porn rests on firm justifications which are completely lacking wihen it comes to fictional adult material. Thus the attempt to argue for such legislation,using the child porn laws(which appears continually in the Home Office Consultation Paper)is utterly specious and bereft of all logic and rationality. Criminalizing the private citizen reading a "proscribed" publication is of course no part of a law like the OPA.. In truth the reasons for these proposals are actually grounded in mere subjective opinion-which is not a sound basis for flinging people into prison for years as serious criminals as these proposals advocate..
Thus we have here a move by the state,under this particular administration(or at least one member of it who was once in the Home Office-the regime there has changed since and there may be the chance that sanity may prevail because of this ) to imprison people on the basis merely of the moral objections of some to what others may look at privately. Such a vile principle can of course be extended infinitely to almost anything the "leviathan state" may not like people looking at or reading once such precedents as these proposals are established. Thus this Government proposal seeks to enshrine "thought crime" into criminal law. Frankly Mr. Davis there could be no worse thing to do in a supposedly free and democratic society than this. There could be no more critical principle of human freedom that is being threatened so fundementally as this. There could be no more important role for Her Majesty's Opposition than to fight relentlessly against the enacting of laws based on such totalitarian principles as this.
Objections to these proposals must not be seen in the light of attempts to "approve" of or even somehow "defend" what some regard as morally unpleasant material,but rather standing up for the most basic principle of human liberty-that the citizen should have their privacy and freedom respected by the state and harmless private activities should not be subject to illogical freedom assaulting and draconian criminal sanction by that state.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on this important issue.
Yours sincerely
Teddy, 30 Aug 2006 05:22:18
Nice work! Are you also keeping your MP "in the loop" of these letters?
T.
Author wrote:
> My letter to David Davis Shadow Home Secretary(minus additional material sent to the Home Office).
> Dear Mr Davis,
> It is a while since I sent you the material enclosed and I am most interested to know what the Opposition position may be regarding what to my mind are blatantly unjust and wickedly totalitarian legislative proposals.
> I must stress that I believe this matter to be of the utmost importance for the existence of human liberty in this country. Stating this is decidedly not putting a case overly melodramatically.
> Here are my reasons for this belief.
> These proposals represent a government's aim to turn citizens into criminals on the basis solely of what they may choose to look at in private. The lone criminalization of this kind which currently exists in law,the "exception to the rule" which has always stood in this country over what people look at in private, is with regard to the accessing/possessing child pornography-this being done on the sound basis of the user of child porn being an accomplice to serious widespread real life crime,the sexual molestation of minors. This kind of justification simply does not exist with regard to adult fictional material-the Government itself admits it has no evidence that the fictional material it seeks to make "users" of into serious criminals over is produced non-consensually-which child material must be by definition-or is of any proven "harm" socially etc. The proposals would only have some logic and merit if restricted simply to the criminalizing of the "user" of real non-consensually produced adult material. Needless to say no other comparable country has or considers having such vicious legislation as is mooted within the Home Office Consultation Paper of 2005 on the subject. This is not a measure like the Obscene Publications Act(OPA) which is aimed at controlling availability of certain material by in some cases prosecuting publishers and distributors. Nor is it about blocking certain internet websites either,which many may mistakenly believe to be the case. It proposes something quite radically different-an utterly unwarrented full scale assault on the principle that individual private citizens should not to be treated as criminals merely on the basis of looking at something. It proposes extending child porn law precedent into the adult sphere-though the principle behind the criminalization of private "users" of child porn rests on firm justifications which are completely lacking wihen it comes to fictional adult material. Thus the attempt to argue for such legislation,using the child porn laws(which appears continually in the Home Office Consultation Paper)is utterly specious and bereft of all logic and rationality. Criminalizing the private citizen reading a "proscribed" publication is of course no part of a law like the OPA.. In truth the reasons for these proposals are actually grounded in mere subjective opinion-which is not a sound basis for flinging people into prison for years as serious criminals as these proposals advocate..
> Thus we have here a move by the state,under this particular administration(or at least one member of it who was once in the Home Office-the regime there has changed since and there may be the chance that sanity may prevail because of this ) to imprison people on the basis merely of the moral objections of some to what others may look at privately. Such a vile principle can of course be extended infinitely to almost anything the "leviathan state" may not like people looking at or reading once such precedents as these proposals are established. Thus this Government proposal seeks to enshrine "thought crime" into criminal law. Frankly Mr. Davis there could be no worse thing to do in a supposedly free and democratic society than this. There could be no more critical principle of human freedom that is being threatened so fundementally as this. There could be no more important role for Her Majesty's Opposition than to fight relentlessly against the enacting of laws based on such totalitarian principles as this.
> Objections to these proposals must not be seen in the light of attempts to "approve" of or even somehow "defend" what some regard as morally unpleasant material,but rather standing up for the most basic principle of human liberty-that the citizen should have their privacy and freedom respected by the state and harmless private activities should not be subject to illogical freedom assaulting and draconian criminal sanction by that state.
> I look forward to hearing your opinions on this important issue.
> Yours sincerely
>
>