: Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk [mailto:Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk], 08 Sep 2006 12:53:24
> Sent: 08 September 2006 10:11
wrote:
> > > Yes. The Lords hasn't been a focus of our attentions so far, but any
> bill will have to be passed there as well, of course.
> > A bill does not necessarily have to be passed by the Lords. Didn't
> > the ban on hunting with dogs only come into law through an invokation
> > of the Parliament Act? I don't recall the Lords actually passing that
> > legislation.
> > Zoë
> > --
> > www.t-vox.org | www.nobmouse.net
> > www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse | www.catnip-radio.com
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5696
rovacs, 08 Sep 2006 13:01:24
We also have a long and liberal tradition of not throwing people in jail for looking at a fictional photo as well! Which this offends against big time. But the morality issue is not to be ignored and I will say some more on it when I get a minute-must dash....r
Author wrote:
> Hi,
> Is the general get-out (and more than likely the one the UK is basing its
> thought on) that there are allowances for morality, moral traditions and
> customs of a country...
> This would be notoriously difficult to disprove... the UK government could
> point to a longstanding 'tradition' of censorship on the grounds of taste
> and decency, asserting a consensus of the nation's silent majority that
> these were common moral standards of the country... internet publication
> could then be made to be seen as in breach of this long-standing
> arrangement, offending the very moral standards Britain had grown used to...
> No?
> -----Original Message-----
: mrlucky@fastermail.com [mailto:mrlucky@fastermail.com], 08 Sep 2006 13:01:24
> Sent: 08 September 2006 00:54
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: the upper house
> I wrote extenively on the HR Convention in the Consultation response-and the
> Articles 8/10. I don't think they have gone into it at all-they have ignored
> it. I asked the Home Office to give me details of the legal advice they have
> been given related to HR and they never repilied. I know the get outs-and it
> seems they must be pretty firm solid ones. They don'have proofs. No ther
> western country has "need" for such stupid laws-how on earth can they argue
> we are uniquely different to them? If it goes to the Euro Court,you have
> foreign judges being told by the likes of Coaker they don't come from
> civilized countries as they lack his evil law. Frankly I don't understand
> how they think this can be declared compatible. Of course they could ignore
> it-but I can't see how they could stay in the Convention on such a big
> judgement if they did. I can't see how they have a case-but this is not to
> say a darned good one shouldn't be made by opponents of this law to demolish
> them. All they have-and it's a big all-is the power itself(which was so
> foolishly allowed to fall into their hands to do this),but they have no
> arguments of just cause,logic proportionality-the whole thing is so utterly
> shoddy.
> I
> Author wrote:
> > The only reason this isn't cut and dried under the human rights act is
> the principle of proportionality. 2 of the rights, the right to life and
> the right to be protected against torture are absolute. The UK is
> positively committed to protecting them, no matter what. The other rights
> are subject to the principle of proportionality. In practice, they can be
> balanced and outweighed by other concerns. The most relevant ones for us
> in this campaign are Article 8, the right to pursue a private life without
> state interference, and article 10, the right to free expression.
> > What we would have to demonstrate, in order to win a human rights claim,
> is either:
> > !. That the infringement of our article 8 or 10 rights causes us so
> much suffering that it is tantamount to torture and a breach of our article
> 3 rights (not a chance - the test for article 3 is set by the case of Diane
> Pretty, who lost her claim that the authorities were torturing her by
> keping her alive despite extreme suffering).
> > or 2. That the breach of our article 8 and 10 rights is
> disproportionate to whatever the government is trying to set against them.
> Currently, they are arguing that 'violent porn' is so damaging to society
> that it outweighs our article 8 and 10 human rights. I think that 's what
> we should be fighting on, which brings the fight back to discrediting the
> claims of damage by pornography and to showing that the proposed
> legislation will do nothing to protect anybody's right not to be harmed and
> is therefore not justifiable..
> > mrlucky@fastermail.com wrote: Alan-you know,I don't even use porn of any
> kind. It's not something I'm interested in. I've watched this control freak
> state get worse and worse for years-warned people continiually what they
> were planning-they still let them get back in-there are so many terrible
> things they've got lined up-fag bans,car tracking by the state,ID cards.
> What the hell is happening. Why are people letting themselves be treated
> like this by these sanctimonious power mad creeps. Now it's "jail them for
> having a picture for years"-if the human rights laws aren't to stop an
> abuse of this proportions all they're good for is something like "not
> providing a disabled toilet in the council offices" or something.
> > Maybe the Lords can help amend this to nothing-I dunno,I still reckon
> human rights will probably be all that can kill it.
> > Author wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > We may have friends in high places.
> > > One of my many posts around the web forums and groups re the proposed
> vicious repression has brought a comment that there are rumblings of
> disatisfaction in the house of lords. This may be just a rumour but who
> knows. The members of the upper house most likely do include people who
> enjoy at least spanking, enema games, all levels of bondage and "extreme
> porn" too most likely and why the hell not?
> > > Al
> > --
> > 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%3D5681
> > ---------------------------------
> > Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All
> New Yahoo! Mail.
> --
> 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%3D5687
Graham Marsden, 08 Sep 2006 13:04:07
Hi there,
Franco Cavazzi wrote:
> Is the general get-out (and more than likely the one the UK is basing its
> thought on) that there are allowances for morality, moral traditions and
> customs of a country...
I think that's the case.
ISTR hearing something about how it's not the job of the ECHR to tell
countries what is or isn't "obscene".
Cheers,
Graham.
rovacs, 08 Sep 2006 13:24:10
The point is surely that the HR legislation/courts are there to see that basic human rights-like no jail without darn good reason,are not removed from people(especially rights that have ALWAYS had respected and cherished HERE until "Landslide Lynton" infested Downing Street)-and prison is a big way of doing it. Now as this law does what has never been done before-criminalize the private citizen acting privately as it were, the onus should be on HMG to prove this has been done on grounds that are strong enough-to me they are not. In fact they are ridiculously shoddy. Appealing to a "tradition"(which may well be traditions which need to be abandoned completely as antiquated) etc of not allowing some things to be published is not enough-that is not about the private lives of individuals-which this law rams itself into-the current prohibitions do not work to criminalize private indiviuduals in this way. Thus it is radically different and fair game for it being bashed as a mega human rights abuse.-r
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> Franco Cavazzi wrote:
> > Is the general get-out (and more than likely the one the UK is basing its
> > thought on) that there are allowances for morality, moral traditions and
> > customs of a country...
> I think that's the case.
> ISTR hearing something about how it's not the job of the ECHR to tell
> countries what is or isn't "obscene".
> Cheers,
> Graham.
rovacs, 08 Sep 2006 20:53:46
"rumblings of disatisfaction in the house of lords."
As Blackadder said "But that may be the sausages..."
Author wrote:
> Hi
> We may have friends in high places.
> One of my many posts around the web forums and groups re the proposed vicious repression has brought a comment that there are rumblings of disatisfaction in the house of lords. This may be just a rumour but who knows. The members of the upper house most likely do include people who enjoy at least spanking, enema games, all levels of bondage and "extreme porn" too most likely and why the hell not?
> Al
zak, 08 Sep 2006 21:58:23
Original Message:
-----------------
Franco Cavazzi franco@globalnet.co.uk, 08 Sep 2006 21:58:23
Hi,
Is the general get-out (and more than likely the one the UK is basing its
thought on) that there are allowances for morality, moral traditions and
customs of a country...
This would be notoriously difficult to disprove... the UK government could
point to a longstanding 'tradition' of censorship on the grounds of taste
and decency, asserting a consensus of the nation's silent majority that
these were common moral standards of the country...
An argument which *could* be fought on the grounds of certain *other* moral
standards or at least moral advances of this country which were opposed
initially by 'moralists', such as the right to legal abortion and the
ending of slavery. We could also hearten and inspire the general public by
reminding them of the fine old principles of justic founded in the UK (and
under such dreadful threat from Fuckwit Blair and his fascist pals), such
as the right to a fair trial by one's peers (rather than a witch hunt in
the tabloid press) and the judicial system being about impartial justice
rather than emotional revenge. Etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
demolitionred, 08 Sep 2006 21:58:57
which board was that alan and is it at all substantiated?
Alan, 08 Sep 2006 22:37:49
It was on one of Xrated groups I cant remeber which one just now
Author wrote:
> which board was that alan and is it at all substantiated?
zak, 11 Sep 2006 12:17:48
Original Message:
-----------------
Marie Des Loups thomasina46@yahoo.co.uk, 11 Sep 2006 12:17:48
The only reason this isn't cut and dried under the human rights act is the
principle of proportionality. 2 of the rights, the right to life and the
right to be protected against torture are absolute. The UK is positively
committed to protecting them, no matter what. The other rights are
subject to the principle of proportionality. In practice, they can be
balanced and outweighed by other concerns. The most relevant ones for
us in this campaign are Article 8, the right to pursue a private life
without state interference, and article 10, the right to free expression.
What we would have to demonstrate, in order to win a human rights claim, is
either:
!. That the infringement of our article 8 or 10 rights causes us so
much suffering that it is tantamount to torture and a breach of our
article 3 rights (not a chance - the test for article 3 is set by the case
of Diane Pretty, who lost her claim that the authorities were torturing
her by keping her alive despite extreme suffering).
or 2. That the breach of our article 8 and 10 rights is
disproportionate to whatever the government is trying to set against them.
Currently, they are arguing that 'violent porn' is so damaging to society
that it outweighs our article 8 and 10 human rights. I think that 's what
we should be fighting on, which brings the fight back to discrediting the
claims of damage by pornography and to showing that the proposed
legislation will do nothing to protect anybody's right not to be harmed
and is therefore not justifiable..
I agree with you on this. It's where our case is strongest: there is *no*
evidence that a) looking at naughty pictures turns ordinary people into
slavering psychos, or b) that Evil Pornographers are raping, assaulting and
killing the unconsenting en mass purely to make naughty pictures. Given
these FACTS, kicking people's doors in on rumour-based evidence, siezing
their computers, destroying their reputations and slamming them into the
already overcrowded prisons is demonstrably unnecessary, unethical, and a
hideous abuse of state power.
Regards
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
rovacs, 11 Sep 2006 13:05:11
Zac,
I've copied this analysis below from another thread. It deals with the issues around human rights,Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention,proportionality etc. Being tortured or not isn't the issue.
The thing to remember about the human rights guarantees is that individuals must only be deprived of those rights if there is very good reason-and that can be strongly established-proven. This law offends against that. It utterly lacks strong evidence as to "necessity". They might try an argument for compatibility with the Articles based on traditions/legal precedents in this country of tight controls on porn. But that seems to me irrelevant and is not what the HR Convention is there for or is primarily concerned with. It is concerned with human rights-not problems over publishing material etc. The OPA etc dealt purely with distribution/publishing . It did not criminalize and withdraw rights from the private individual acting in a purely private capacity. Now this is precisely what this proposed law does-it seeks to imprison the private individual acting privately. This is a huge attack on human rights. And it proposes to do this with no evidence whatever that in acting in this way the private individual is causing any harm to society/others. That is surely the point.
Coaker and his jackbooted friends have sold this as an extension of the OPA. It isn't. The OPA has little to do with this,conceptually it is quite different. We have no tradition whatever of jailing private citizens in this counry for looking at fiction-thus this law,in typical Blairite fashion,deeply offends against the traditions and freedoms of this country. It goes where the law has not gone before. It imposes restrictions and threatens the individual with jail for exercizing a fundemental right,without any justification for doing so. It is incompatible. The child porn laws are based on the downloader being a criminal accessory,not moral chuntering about things having "no place in our society". That is mere subjective opinion,it is certainly not evidence of harm.
All this must be drawn to the attention of the Parliamentary Committee who scrutinize laws to check their compatibility with HR committments. If that does not stop it a human rights Appeal against the law is the logical step.
Here is the letter. Commencing with my introduction-
A long quote from an letter on the human rights angle. This looks at the issue of exemptions to the Convention Articles-specifically 8 and 10. There is material here from Mr.Rabinder Singh's paper dealing with the critical human rights issues of necessity and clarity and if the legislation is rationally connected in any way to the issues which it seeks to address;further there is discussion which seems pretty important in all this,of Law Lords judgements which have domestically defined what necessity means and how strong it has to be if you plan laws which interfere massively with personal privacy. Of course an incompatibility judgement can be ignored,but it would create big problems. If the Committee could see how irrational and HR offending this odious mess is before legislation is created it may be a way for sanity to be restored to all this. Looking at the good sense of the Law Lords makes me think they might be good allies in fighting this crud from New Labour.
Letter extract follows-
Article 8-The right to personal privacy of the citizen and freedom from state interference with it.
"1)Everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life,his home and correspondence...
2)There shall be no interference by a public authority with this right except such as in accordance with the law and is NECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY...FOR THE PREVENTION OF DISORDER AND CRIME,for the protection of health or MORALS or for THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF OTHERS."(my emphasis)
The Government admits there is no connection that can be proved at all between "extreme violent pornography" and any actual material harm to society/individuals in the Home Office Consultation Paper of 2005. The words used by the Goverment to describe this material are pejorative adjectives which amount to "we want to do this because some people find it distasteful". Well calling things distasteful is not evidence of harm-it is subjective opinion,and the Convention does not permit exemption from its Articles on the basis of subjective opinions and flurries of pejorative adjectives,but on proof of harm,of established "necessity"(more on that crucial word "necessity" later). The very fact that no similar democratic society has introduced,or plans to introduce such legislation as this,shows categorically that THEY(whether Convention members or not)feel no crying need for it. In order to not have such a law declared incompatible with the Convention,the Government would have to prove to the Court,that unlike these other nations,the UK has a burning necessity(that word again!)for such laws-proof positive we are different. Can it?
Article 10-The article dealing with freedom of _expression.
"1)Everyone has the right to freedom of _expression.This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION AND IDEAS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM A PUBLIC AUTHORITY regardless of frontiers.."(My emphasis).
The "get outs"about individual nations being allowed to exercise certain restrictions,granted exemptions in some matters,are on the same grounds,basically proven necessity,like Article 8. Thus we have the situation again,where to uphold such a law as that being proposed as permissable under the Convention,it would be up to the UK Government to prove necessity. The Court would query why such legislation is needed so badly in the UK. It would fall to the Government to establish why,to provide proof,solid evidence why the UK is different to all these other Convention signatories,establishing its case concretely before the Court if it has any chance of such laws being incompatible. Yet in its own Consultation Paper Paper on the matter,the Government admits that it cannot do this. "It is unable to-
a)Establish a connection between the material proposed being criminalized and "real life" crime-or anything else.
b)Recognises no other country has introduced or has plans to introduce such legislation-that is to say feels any "need" for it whatever. The document admits the UK Government stands isolated in this.
c)Show that the UK has any "tradition" at all of restricting and imprisoning private individuals for looking at fictional material banned from publication or distribution by laws like the Obscene publications Act-the OPA. In fact a law such as this deeply offends against and perverts the legal traditions and freedoms of this nation rather than conforming to them.
Back now to what this does for "John Citizen",that poor soul who may end up flung in jail and labelled a perverted sex fiend by these proposed laws. What can the Convention do to protect his liberties and liberty? Yes it does do something to help protect him against bad laws his Government may slam thoughtlessly onto the Statute book,which may not only stop him doing things,but have him imprisoned for years for doing what is guaranteed he can do as a citizen of a nation pledged and legally bound to uphold the Convention. That Human Rights Convention says that any legislation dealing with this area of law,must be clear and precise,so individuals may REGULATE THEIR BEHAVIOUR accordingly,meaning they can adjust their behaviour to save them from being charged as criminals under any domestic law impinging on the issue the Convention is there for-to help ensure basic human rights are adhered to in its member states. I hope I have made it obvious,that in respect of the bulk of this internet "extreme violent porn" this is virtually impossible. The whole thing is fraught with problems of definition,context,what is "real" what is "unreal",what is "fact" and what is "fantasy". One can reasonably contend that without a "blanket" criminalization of anything involving sex at all,trying to have clarity about what precisely is being "done" in the majority of this material, whether the material is really "extreme violent porn" or not,is impossible-to both "end user",who is threatened with prison for transgressing,as well as the prosecuting authorities who have to attempt to make something of this contrived babel of imprecision and illogic. Thus individuals and even the law's "upholders" would find themselves utterly unable in practice,to know if the material is actually illegal under the law or not. Clear and precise-that is what the Convention insists such legislation must be-the individual "user" must be left in no doubt about whether by utilizing such material they are breaking a law. If the Government ends up passing legislation using definitions given in the Consultation Paper like "Grievous bodily harm" and "Serious sexual violence" or even just "serious violence", I hope I have shown how impossible it is to "prove" what level of actual harm an "image" or piece of film actually illustrates(and remember,we are not talking about a "real" scenario,but a piece of fiction-as the document,absurdly does not acknowledge the crucial distinction between what is fact and what is fantasy!).
It might be "serious sexual violence",it might not be. Unless the legislation passed abandons unprovable generalizations such as "serious sexual violence" and specifies say-
"It is now illegal to view an image in a sexual context of a man having his penis cut off"( and of course such a phrase as "in a pornographic context" would have to be added in the legislation,because of the fact that in this-as in many such specific named criminalized images,it is quite possible for a person to be shown having such things done to them in a totally "non sexual" context-say during a medical operation!).
But under the examples given in the Consultation Paper,with most of such material,the viewer can read whatever they like into the results-the "'medical consequences"of the violence being shown(See my section concerning definitions).
Thus under the Convention,the legislation being proposed looks far too imprecise to the citizen(and to the authorities instructed to enforce it) to be acceptable for "exemption" as well. The nature of the material makes it virtually impossible for the user to know if by looking at certain images they may risk prosecution. Legislation and prosecution works on the basis that "ignorance of the law is no defense". But unless very precise actions,such as I gave in the example above,are specified,the proposed legislation fails to satisfy the requirements under the Convention to be so clear and precise,so an individual would be in no doubt about what they are and are not allowed to see,and when they are breaking the law. Imprecise phrases about the level of violence are not only subjective,but as,I have shown earlier,can't honestly and precisely be applied at all to the vast majority of this material. Even definitions used in law to apply to real life criminal injury,such as "grievous bodily harm",have no meaning when applied to fictional scenarios,where the consequences of violent acts can never be proven or known(of course they are not "real" anyway!)and are entirely subjective in the individual viewers mind-phantoms,airy nothings-yet seriously invoked by these proposals as justifying sending people to prison for years! Using words like "offensive" as justification for such legislation won't wash either. What may be "offensive" and "unacceptable" material to one person,might be entirely inoffensive, innocuous and perfectly acceptable to another. Phrases like "offensive" or "unacceptable" or "disgusting","abhorrent" etc are entirely subjective,thus a user of the material may find he is watching something totally "acceptable" to him but "unacceptable" to the man next door. Putting any of these sorts of adjectives into such severe restrictive criminal legislation-and attempting to use them as a justification for exemption from the articles of the Convention,would not meet the requirements of proof,necessity etc demanded if such exemptions are to be granted by the Court. It certainly fails the clarity test,such phrases being utterly subjective,in no way making it clear precisely what is actually "illegal" and thus leaving the citizen quite unable to judge whether viewing something may criminalizes them or not. So to sum up,lack of precision and clarity in a law-such as is being posited in the Consultation Paper-is manifestly unfair to citizens-therefore incompatable with the articles of the Human Rights Convention.
Precedents and cases-.
Mr.Rabinder Singh QC,in his submitted opinion on the Consultation Paper in relation to the Human Rights Convention, gives details of domestic and European Court of Human Rights cases pertinent to the issues of "necessity" and imprecision which detail why such legislation as is being proposed over "extreme violent pornography" will probably prove quite unacceptable to the Court responsible for upholding the articles of the Convention-the rules which member states are bound to abide by. Such a precedent of imprecision negating UK law,is that of Hashman and Harrup v the UK(2000). In this case the UK regulations stipulated "good behaviour" and used a definition "right in the judgement of contemporary fellow citizens". Such terminology was found acceptable by the ECHR as too imprecise and subjective. Yet the Government's proposals for "extreme violent pornography" legislation are couched in far more starkly subjective terms than this. In fact the entire thing is being judged in terms of moral abhorrence,with a lot of generalized commentary about the possibility that such material well maybe/might cause this or that,but ultimately admitting that it has no proof whatever to give factual backbone to all the subjective opinionating it goes in for. As "Hashman and Harrup" shows,this is insufficient grounds for having such wide ranging and severe legislation,impacting on fundemental human rights which the Government has agreed to uphold as a Convention signatory. Moral abhorrance is not proof,subjective unsupported opinions are not proof,saying "maybe it might cause this" is not proof. This is doubly the case where a single solitary Government attempts to "go it alone" and introduce legislation no other comparable one feels any need for whatsoever!. One is left wondering if the proposers of this legislation have actually studied the Articles of a Convention,which the Government itself piously made supreme over any domestic legislation by enshrining it in the Human Rights Act in 1998. Cases have already established what is actually acceptable when using a phrase like "necessity"(which the UK Government would have to prove before the European Court for such proposals to remain compatible with the rules). These precedents establish-within the UK itself-that "necessity" does not mean merely "useful" or "desirable",but meeting a pressing social need. It should also be proportionate to the aim being pursued-that is,that the state must show it has very strong,sound reasons indeed for interfering in areas of private life and personal liberty. Mr.Rabinder Singh QC quotes the judgement on "necessity" by the Noble and Learned former Law Lord,Lord Steyn. Lord Steyn states it means-
"(Whether) the legislative objective is SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO JUSTIFY LIMITING A FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT.
The measures designed to meet the legislative objective are RATIONALLY CONNECTED TO IT..."(My emphasis).
To quote Mr.Rabinder Singh QC-
"Where the interference involves an intimate area of private life WEIGHTY REASONS are required for its justification(Dudgeon v UK 1982)(My emphasis)
Now where are these "weighty reasons" in the case of "extreme violent pornography?" The Government has..er.. well none really!.
In its own document it accepts that fact,it cannot evidentially justify limiting a fundemental right on the grounds of necessity,as it is totally unable to provide any proof whatever that the right to view certain material without being criminalized is absolutely needed due to some important detremental affect the material is having-for example,creating a huge swathe of sex crimes-real life ones-which are jeopardizing the safety and security and health of UK citizens. It mentions as an "objective" regarding combatting actual criminality,another conjured up "real life" offense,venturing the opinion that maybe the production of this adult material is through some people being forced to take part in it against their will. Then admits it really has no proof whatever that this adult material is actually produced in this way. It talks of the "objective" of minimizing the extent of the availability of such violent porn material on the Net,and then admits no other country comparable to this one intends behaving in a similar way-making a mockery of any claim that independent action like this by the UK would make any real impact at all on the amount which is out there-if it would at all,and with what comes next I hope to prove it wouldn't(though other countries aren't going to do it anyway,reducing the whole of this to an empty exercise in error and wishful thinking-"Well they could join us-oh please do President Chirac,Chancellor Merkel.President Bush-we're going to be lonely on our own,looking so ridiculous-come and be fools with us in this prison of prudery we've shut ourselves into!"). We can see quite cleary when it comes to supply of pornography,that child porn flourishes and the amount of material around defeats the authorities attempts to destroy this mountain of muck-despite its being illegal and users who are caught being heavily punished over a large part of the world! The Government provides no evidence whatever that these "objectives"-mere tilting at "imaginary windmills"-could be furthered by the existence of "anti violent porn" legislation in the(isolated)UK.
But let's look a bit more closely at one of those objectives,one of those "imaginary windmills",for again,as with so much of this,it is anchored in the quicksands of fallacy. An "objective" has been created out of a non-existent problem-they know it,and admit it! The Government is forced to concede that it has no real evidence at all that this extreme violent pornography is produced using "involuntary" participants and therefore,like child porn is being created through criminality. People are not being harmed,forced to do things,being victimized in a criminal operation in making this material. So the Consultation Paper substitutes for evidence opinions and unprovable generalizations that this might be the case with some of the material being produced. Coulds and maybes,assertions unsupported,are not acceptable "evidence" that something has any reality and is actually going on. Yet here this insubstantial ghost grows like topsy and the phantom is transformed into an "objective"! Here we are being told,this Government is setting out to try to stop something happening,which it can't give reasons for anyone to credit is really happening at all-the Government being incapable of proving it's happening-and this is then erected into one of the pillars on which legislation is proposed to criminalize innumerable unhappy citizens,imprison them and label them "sex offenders"- to supposedly help curtail some illegal activity the Government has no evidence is actually occurring in the first place!. Good grief! Oh well,we might as well give another good (non-sexual) hammering to that other "imaginery windmill" which strides around calling itself an "objective" in the minds of the proposers of this legislation. Again,by admitting the fact that the UK is basically alone among advanced democracies in proposing criminalizing extreme violent porn,the Government nay says(well they have to! Can't substitute adjectives,wispy generalizations and "opinions" there!)one of its own stated objectives-though it doesn't seem clear to them that they're doing this. It talks about it's hopes of getting other Governments to go along and give a hand--providing no evidence that these wiser nations could or would be so absurd as to do so. Well-you could imagine the laughter from Paris and the glower of incredulity on the faces of the Justices of the US Supreme Court! Making it illegal in one country would have a negligible effect on its availability on the Internet. Let the example of child porn,which I brought up earlier illustrate the utter fallacy of the notion that "banning" and criminalizing the users of something will inevitably impact heavily on it,reducing the supply-it doesn't even happen when nearly all countries criminalize it-the idea that one doing it would make any difference whatever is totally absurd,the child porn situation shows this position is utterly. If child porn isn't enough to go on,think of the worldwide criminalization of drugs-boy has THAT cut down their supply and reduced the number of addicts and users!
No other country comparable to this one would wish to look so prudish,silly and authoritarian as to follow in the footsteps of such proposals as this-and if they are members of it,they know full well that such laws contravene the Human Rights Convention. Thus the proposed legislation fails to pass the tests given in Lord Steyn's judgement,that the legislative objective is "sufficiently important" to justify criminalizing aspects of an individuals private life,nor can it be shown that legislation is "rationally connected" to the stated "objectives" of reducing the amount of this material available and thus help to combat a crime-they being an epidemic of real life sex offenses directly attributable to extreme violent internet porn and the criminal production of some of the material-both matters the Government document shows it has no evidence really exist at all. So not just the measures but the "objectives" themselves defy all rationality!. A law to tackle problems that aren't there,using the legislative equivalent of an atom bomb to do it! But then to heap yet more illogic on illogic,the Government proposals don't just say-"well we'll make it illegal to view the stuff made by criminal methods as that's putting a viewer in line as an accessory to a nasty real life crime",no,it proposes to lump any(barely existent) "real" material with total fantasy involving actors!. Proposing up to 3 years in prison as a maximum penalty for viewing it!.
If all this doesn't drive a coach and horses through Lord Steyn's "Sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundemental right" and "measures must be "rationally connected to the stated objective",I don't know what does!
So it is proposed to possibly introduce legislation,substantially interfering in areas of private life,introducing criminal law where it has not been before,with no established "problem" to justify it,and no established connection whatever between the "extreme violent porn" which may be criminalized and actual real life crime epidemic whatever-the Government itself admitting it cannot deny any of this with proper evidence!.Pursuing sexual wraiths in this way,which high UK legal judgement asserts is quite unacceptably totalitarian in a society which can truly call itself a "free" one,would leave the UK Government lawyers twisting in the wind,if an attempt was made to justify it under the Articles of the Convention on Human Rights. The Government's utterly woeful and inadequate substitute for "weighty reasons" are subjective moral opinions,bald statements about certain things not being acceptable and substituting provable solid reasons to back up such words with feeble wide "well possibly" type generalizations about "harm" and the connection such material has to actual criminality here in the UK and elsewhere,with no evidential basis at all-as it has none to give.
The Court has pronounced on these matters,and its judgements will not be happy reading for anyone wishing to pass legislation such as is being proposed. The judgements aver that signatories to the Convention must "Convincingly establish" their grounds for having any legislation which interferes with a citizen's right to free _expression-which encompasses the right to view material too. This right applies to material which might "offend","shock" and "disturb" the "state" or any section of the domestic population(Mueller vs Switzerland 1991). Any interference from the state and its agents must be on "CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISHED GROUNDS"(my emphasis)(Barthold v Germany 1991). Can this be done here with the proposed UK laws? After all that has been said,one may confidently give the opinion(this time backed by real evidence!)"no". The Government itself proves this in the paucity of real evidence it provides as its "justification" for the proposed laws(to meet "objectives" that are themselves unreal airy supposition). No evidence of harm,no proven social need,no evidence this material has any bearing on real life crime,no proof that it would "save" individuals being forced to engage in a criminal activity through making such material(no evidence at all that criminality is actually involved in its production at all),no evidence that such legislation in the UK alone-and others have no plans for any-would lessen the availability of this material-which most of the rulers of advanced democracies don't regard as criminal and dangerous anyway.
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: Marie Des Loups thomasina46@yahoo.co.uk, 11 Sep 2006 13:05:11
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: the upper house
> The only reason this isn't cut and dried under the human rights act is the
> principle of proportionality. 2 of the rights, the right to life and the
> right to be protected against torture are absolute. The UK is positively
> committed to protecting them, no matter what. The other rights are
> subject to the principle of proportionality. In practice, they can be
> balanced and outweighed by other concerns. The most relevant ones for
> us in this campaign are Article 8, the right to pursue a private life
> without state interference, and article 10, the right to free expression.
> What we would have to demonstrate, in order to win a human rights claim, is
> either:
> !. That the infringement of our article 8 or 10 rights causes us so
> much suffering that it is tantamount to torture and a breach of our
> article 3 rights (not a chance - the test for article 3 is set by the case
> of Diane Pretty, who lost her claim that the authorities were torturing
> her by keping her alive despite extreme suffering).
> or 2. That the breach of our article 8 and 10 rights is
> disproportionate to whatever the government is trying to set against them.
> Currently, they are arguing that 'violent porn' is so damaging to society
> that it outweighs our article 8 and 10 human rights. I think that 's what
> we should be fighting on, which brings the fight back to discrediting the
> claims of damage by pornography and to showing that the proposed
> legislation will do nothing to protect anybody's right not to be harmed
> and is therefore not justifiable..
> I agree with you on this. It's where our case is strongest: there is *no*
> evidence that a) looking at naughty pictures turns ordinary people into
> slavering psychos, or b) that Evil Pornographers are raping, assaulting and
> killing the unconsenting en mass purely to make naughty pictures. Given
> these FACTS, kicking people's doors in on rumour-based evidence, siezing
> their computers, destroying their reputations and slamming them into the
> already overcrowded prisons is demonstrably unnecessary, unethical, and a
> hideous abuse of state power.
> Regards
> Z
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 12 Sep 2006 00:23:28 ***