Martin Salter on Radio 5
Ben, 04 Sep 2006 14:54:00
Radio 5 Live - Anita Anand Programme - Wednesday 30th August 23.00
Anita Anand: Just why are we sure that banning people from looking at this kind of thing is going to make this a safer place to live?
Martin Salter: We’re not banning them from looking at it, we’re making it a criminal offence to possess images that are already illegal under the 1959 obscene publications act. These images are illegal to publish and to distribute – we have a situation that has now fundamentally changed as a result of the internet. In 1959 there was no internet and it was comparatively easy for the authorities to take action against book distributors or distributors of videos or whatever. With images now available in cyberspace, from sites often hosted in mexico, florida, Guatemala, featuring sometimes at the more extreme end of the market snuff movies where people from impoverished backgrounds are raped, tortured, murdered on camera and the images then put out there for private profit and for extreme sexual gratification. This has changed the whole nature of the marketplace, and what the government is doing is plugging a loophole that has been created by the internet. This isn’t any more censorship at all. This is material that is already illegal to publish and distribute. All the government is doing is making the possession of the images, the downloading, the deliberate downloading and hording and storing of the images a criminal offence in exactly the same way as they have done so for child pornography. Critics of this move are effectively saying that we should scrap the obscene publications act, and these sort of images often where people are actually murdered and killed on camera in the name of private profit and sexual gratification are Ok. I don’t think the vast bulk of people think they’re OK.
Anita Anand: At the other end [of the spectrum] you’ve got people play acting[…]living out fantasies…basically pretending.
Salter: You certainly have, and there is no doubt about it that there will be intensive debate in parliament but the fact remains that we have a loophole in the law that has been created by the internet, the government is plugging that, much in the same way as it did with child pornography. People will say ‘oh, it’s not workable’, well they probably said that about child pornography but the police operation operation ore led to 7,000 arrests of people who were deliberately downloading pornographic images of children. Some of those images of children may also have been play acting but they were considered to be illegal.
Anita Anand: But with children it’s very children because with children they cannot be consenting, they are not of an age where they can give their consent to any such activities […] but if we’ve got adults […] why is it’s the state’s business to step in?
Salter: Well at some point you’ve got to draw a line and quite clearly in some of this material and the definitions published by the home office are talking about offences that if they were not of a sexual nature may all may actually qualify for prosecution on grounds of assault or other acts of extreme violence we really are talking about the extreme end of the spectrum we’re not necessarily talking about some harmless bit of play acting we are talking about websites like ‘death by asphyxia’ ‘hanging bitches’ ‘necrobabes’ and the rest of it, we are talking about snuff movies, we are talking about things that are absolutely beyond the pale and that are already illegal.
*** This message has been edited by Ben on 04 Sep 2006 14:47:17 ***
Ben, 04 Sep 2006 15:17:35
The response from the Deborah Hyde, the representative of unfettered was very good but it was the same arguments that we're all aware of here, I think I can safely say.
The main thing that I wanted to quote this for was because of the very xenophobic slant that salter is putting on this. Since as I mentioned in my other post 'letter to local councillor', necrobabes is (a) not a genuine snuff site, and (b) hosted in america - registered in virgina and with an IP in Nevada.
Presuming Salter genuinely is ignorant, he is assuming that latin america (and Arnold Schwarzenegger's state, ironically enough) are lawless territories 'where life is cheap'. I wonder what Arnie, and the guatemalan and mexican embassies would make of this? Worth finding out?
(Also I thought his comment about videos in 1959 was quite amusing)
Ben, 04 Sep 2006 15:41:49
Sent to the Mexican Embassy.
----
Dear Sir/Madam,
I'm writing to inform you of some libellous coments which have been made on radio against your country by the Labour MP Martin Salter, with reference to the proposed laws against violent pornography. I have transcribed them below. They can still be downloaded from the BBC website.
He states that your country provides a safe haven from which snuff films are disseminated electronically (i.e. films of people being genuinely killed on camera for sexual gratification). This is a well known urban myth. Of the examples which he cites, 'deathbyasphyxia' does not exist as a website, while the other two sites are clearly fantasy role-play sites. Furthermore, they are both based in the USA (one of them is hosted in puerto rico), as can be seen using the domain name search device www.whois.net.
I would be very interested to hear what action, if any, you intend to take against Mr Salter in light of the grave insult he has levelled at your nation.
[Transcript follows:]
Teddy, 04 Sep 2006 20:13:09
Exactly as I recalled it; Salter makes a direct claim that those 3 sites feature "snuff movies", which is manifestly and verifiably not true. It seemed to me that Anita Anand didn't buy his lies, but what about the listening public?
T.
Author wrote:
> Radio 5 Live - Anita Anand Programme - Wednesday 30th August 23.00
> Anita Anand: Just why are we sure that banning people from looking at this kind of thing is going to make this a safer place to live?
> Martin Salter: We’re not banning them from looking at it, we’re making it a criminal offence to possess images that are already illegal under the 1959 obscene publications act. These images are illegal to publish and to distribute – we have a situation that has now fundamentally changed as a result of the internet. In 1959 there was no internet and it was comparatively easy for the authorities to take action against book distributors or distributors of videos or whatever. With images now available in cyberspace, from sites often hosted in mexico, florida, Guatemala, featuring sometimes at the more extreme end of the market snuff movies where people from impoverished backgrounds are raped, tortured, murdered on camera and the images then put out there for private profit and for extreme sexual gratification. This has changed the whole nature of the marketplace, and what the government is doing is plugging a loophole that has been created by the internet. This isn’t any more censorship at all. This is material that is already illegal to publish and distribute. All the government is doing is making the possession of the images, the downloading, the deliberate downloading and hording and storing of the images a criminal offence in exactly the same way as they have done so for child pornography. Critics of this move are effectively saying that we should scrap the obscene publications act, and these sort of images often where people are actually murdered and killed on camera in the name of private profit and sexual gratification are Ok. I don’t think the vast bulk of people think they’re OK.
> Anita Anand: At the other end [of the spectrum] you’ve got people play acting[…]living out fantasies…basically pretending.
> Salter: You certainly have, and there is no doubt about it that there will be intensive debate in parliament but the fact remains that we have a loophole in the law that has been created by the internet, the government is plugging that, much in the same way as it did with child pornography. People will say ‘oh, it’s not workable’, well they probably said that about child pornography but the police operation operation ore led to 7,000 arrests of people who were deliberately downloading pornographic images of children. Some of those images of children may also have been play acting but they were considered to be illegal.
> Anita Anand: But with children it’s very children because with children they cannot be consenting, they are not of an age where they can give their consent to any such activities […] but if we’ve got adults […] why is it’s the state’s business to step in?
> Salter: Well at some point you’ve got to draw a line and quite clearly in some of this material and the definitions published by the home office are talking about offences that if they were not of a sexual nature may all may actually qualify for prosecution on grounds of assault or other acts of extreme violence we really are talking about the extreme end of the spectrum we’re not necessarily talking about some harmless bit of play acting we are talking about websites like ‘death by asphyxia’ ‘hanging bitches’ ‘necrobabes’ and the rest of it, we are talking about snuff movies, we are talking about things that are absolutely beyond the pale and that are already illegal.
>
>
Amelie, 09 Sep 2006 11:36:59
well done - but you will get a better response if it is in hard copy - they
might dismiss it as a hoax!
----- Original Message -----
, 09 Sep 2006 11:36:59
To:
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:34 PM
> Sent to the Mexican Embassy.
>
> ----
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I'm writing to inform you of some libellous coments which have been made
> on radio against your country by the Labour MP Martin Salter, with
> reference to the proposed laws against violent pornography. I have
> transcribed them below. They can still be downloaded from the BBC
> website.
>
> He states that your country provides a safe haven from which snuff films
> are disseminated electronically (i.e. films of people being genuinely
> killed on camera for sexual gratification). This is a well known urban
> myth. Of the examples which he cites, 'deathbyasphyxia' does not exist as
> a website, while the other two sites are clearly fantasy role-play sites.
> Furthermore, they are both based in the USA (one of them is hosted in
> puerto rico), as can be seen using the domain name search device
> www.whois.net.
>
> I would be very interested to hear what action, if any, you intend to take
> against Mr Salter in light of the grave insult he has levelled at your
> nation.
>
> [Transcript follows:]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5570
>
rovacs, 09 Sep 2006 12:04:55
Have the US authorites been contacted too? Salter is saying he has knowledge of crimes which could merit the death penalty going on in Florida! Even if the Florida sites are just recipients of said material and sending it out they could face serious penalties as accessories. Murder and rape being committed to supply the net! This is a very serious charge to make indeed. If Salter has evidence of such crimes it should have been turned over to the US authorities via the British ones. Has he done this? One may entertain reservations that he has. The police in Florida need to know a British MP,Salter,claims knowledge of serious crime being committed in their patch. He needs to be interviewed by them. The UK police need to know Mr.Salter has this evidence-have they been given it? The US Embassy need to know Salter claims knowledge of massive crime they are obviously unaware of going on in the USA.
Author wrote:
> well done - but you will get a better response if it is in hard copy - they
> might dismiss it as a hoax!
> ----- Original Message -----
: , 09 Sep 2006 12:04:55
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:34 PM
> Subject: [backlash] RE: Martin Salter on Radio 5
> > Sent to the Mexican Embassy.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Dear Sir/Madam,
> >
> > I'm writing to inform you of some libellous coments which have been made
> > on radio against your country by the Labour MP Martin Salter, with
> > reference to the proposed laws against violent pornography. I have
> > transcribed them below. They can still be downloaded from the BBC
> > website.
> >
> > He states that your country provides a safe haven from which snuff films
> > are disseminated electronically (i.e. films of people being genuinely
> > killed on camera for sexual gratification). This is a well known urban
> > myth. Of the examples which he cites, 'deathbyasphyxia' does not exist as
> > a website, while the other two sites are clearly fantasy role-play sites.
> > Furthermore, they are both based in the USA (one of them is hosted in
> > puerto rico), as can be seen using the domain name search device
> > www.whois.net.
> >
> > I would be very interested to hear what action, if any, you intend to take
> > against Mr Salter in light of the grave insult he has levelled at your
> > nation.
> >
> > [Transcript follows:]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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%3D5570
> >
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 09 Sep 2006 12:04:54 ***
Ben, 09 Sep 2006 12:25:31
So far I have only emailed the mexican embassy. But on reflection, I think the best way to get this noticed is if somebody from the places being accused contacts their own political representative, by post or phone. e.g. I'm sure Arnie has enough fan mail already he's not going to have time to read my messages too!?!
If anybody here knows any mexicans or floridians or guatemalans, have a word with them and let me know how you get on. I'll have a think about this myself. Hopefully the full anand show will be up on the backlash website soon, if people are skeptical.
Cheers.
JnJ, 09 Sep 2006 14:46:18
The Goverments response to the consultation document states the subject did generate a lot of debate. But we do need debate not the alarmist misinformation being promoted by Salter. He really should know better and "cornered animal" springs to mind. I and I presume the rest of us have no problems with seeing material that involves actual criminality being committed in front of the camera and then posted on the Internet being prosecuted. In fact for me this is not a censorship issue its a conspiracy issue.
I believe references to mexico by Salter relate to ciudad juarez where 200 women have been murdered by what would now appear to be several psychopathic bus drivers. (Nature of the job) There was speculation at one time that the murders were in connection with snuff movies. To guatemala was the high incidence of teenage girls being murdered. There was a documentary not so long back that suggested that the murders were related to gang culture and a sexual liberalisation set against a catholic conservative society. Again there has been speculation that Snuff movies were involved. Not sure where the florida link comes from but if there was any substance guarantee that JED (not George doublyuh)Bush would have promoted it.
Anyway believe in judgements based on evidence. Please find link below to a clip from hangingbitches. As the site no longer exists then this is out of copyright. Copy and paste to your browser. Prepare to be amused
//rapidshare.de/files/32496549/grusome1.mpeg
Salter talks of the success of Operation Ore but fails to mention just how flawed it was. The Americans were aware of its limitations and the workings of the Internet and acted accordingly whereas our home office are still on the abacus. Nevertheless operation ore shows what can be achieved with International co-operation and that's whats needed here and quite frankly if you took details of a site that featured real rape or real torture to the International community they'd be acted upon.
I find it amazing claims re the number of visits and sites involved featuring CP. What is our definition of CP? I cannot imagine Russia (claimed to be one of the main culprits) tolerating a site that featured sexual abuse of a child. I know the UK fairly recently alligned itself with the US (AGAIN) in that the age for participation in an erotic work was raised to 18
so a dutch site like seventeen would be illegal? But is it classed as child pornography? Sorry but a 17 year old is a young woman not a child. It might be an underage crime but not child abuse.
Author wrote:
> So far I have only emailed the mexican embassy. But on reflection, I think the best way to get this noticed is if somebody from the places being accused contacts their own political representative, by post or phone. e.g. I'm sure Arnie has enough fan mail already he's not going to have time to read my messages too!?!
> If anybody here knows any mexicans or floridians or guatemalans, have a word with them and let me know how you get on. I'll have a think about this myself. Hopefully the full anand show will be up on the backlash website soon, if people are skeptical.
> Cheers.
rovacs, 09 Sep 2006 15:03:35
Did I miss something? Arnie is Governator of sunny California,Mr Bush's brother Jeb is honcho of equally sunny Florida still I think!
Author wrote:
> So far I have only emailed the mexican embassy. But on reflection, I think the best way to get this noticed is if somebody from the places being accused contacts their own political representative, by post or phone. e.g. I'm sure Arnie has enough fan mail already he's not going to have time to read my messages too!?!
> If anybody here knows any mexicans or floridians or guatemalans, have a word with them and let me know how you get on. I'll have a think about this myself. Hopefully the full anand show will be up on the backlash website soon, if people are skeptical.
> Cheers.
Ben, 09 Sep 2006 15:51:12
Good point.
I was thinking of California because this is where a lot of pornography really comes from (at least according to popular conceptions). My mistake.
Author wrote:
> Did I miss something? Arnie is Governator of sunny California,Mr Bush's brother Jeb is honcho of equally sunny Florida still I think!