Another article worth responding to

Paul Tavener, 14 Sep 2006 20:16:26

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/140906/post_helps_justice_for_jane_campaign_get_law_change

To pged@pressgazette.co.uk


The mere possession of images that appear, abhorrent is a very bad reason for criminalising someone. The subjective nature of the new law will mean that many people will not be able to tell if they are breaking the law or not and it will result in wide spread miscarriages of justice. It will give rise to a twenty first century witch-hunt cheered on by the right wing press and religious groups that will share much in common with the persecution of homosexuals in the last century for their so called abhorrent acts.

The law of this country should be based on reasoned arguments and sound evidence, not on moral outrage, anger and hearsay. Many of the claims that have been made by politicians in support of this legislation are very inaccurate and the way in which this Government is forcing through these proposals, without engaging the public in an honest and meaningful debate, is a disgrace.

The overwhelming majority of the so-called victims on these awful websites are paid consenting actors, as any basic research into sites regulated in the United States would show.

The prospect of preventing dangerous psychopaths from accessing this material by these largely unenforceable proposals is very limited and the effects of doing so even if it were possible are unclear. It will be the naïve, the vulnerable and the ignorant who have to pay the price of the Government being seen to be "doing something".

The proposed legislation will not remove abhorrent materials from foreign websites where they are legally sold, will not prevent people from accessing them, but will cost vast sums of public money and destroy the lives of hundreds of people.

A trail of ruined lives and injustice caused by over zealous prosecution will provide the most ghastly tribute imaginable to Jane Longhurst. The very last thing that this country needs now is a dangerous pictures Act.


Graham Marsden, 14 Sep 2006 21:26:28

admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:

> http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/140906/post_helps_justice_for_jane_campaign_get_law_change

I was astonished to see the claim that Amnesty International supported
this, however here is a link to the article from Amnesty UK's site which
is actually about protecting women (something we would all support)
rather than criminalising the innocent.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16621

I've just written the following to them:

* * * * *

Dear Sirs,

I am writing with regard to this article on your website:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16621

Whilst I am sure that there is nobody who would support violence against
women, as you may have heard on the news recently, the UK Government
plans to "protect" women by introducing a law which would, whilst most
likely not protecting women in the slightest, cause many innocent people
to be criminalised and given three years in jail for the simple offence
of looking at images of "violent pornography" (defined, seemingly, as
anything that members of the Home Office find "abhorrent").

This has been done on the back of the "Justice for Jane" campaign after
the death of Jane Longhurst, a case which, as you may be aware, is
currently going to appeal as Jury was not given the opportunity to find
the defendant, Graham Coutts, guilty of manslaughter instead of murder.

I am a member of a campaign called "Backlash"
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ comprised of supports of freedom of
speech, freedom of sexuality and BDSM practitioners amongst others,
whose aim is to ensure that such ridiculous and draconian laws are never
brought in, let alone enforced.

Never before has the UK passed a law making it illegal to look at
pictures which actually portray consenting *adults* engaged in
consensual sexual behaviour and to do so would, according to Rabinder
Singh QC, be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Nobody would support violence against women, but passing laws
criminalising people just for possessing pictures is way beyond any
reasonable or proportional response and I hope that Amnesty
International would speak out strongly against locking someone up for
looking at "dangerous pictures".

Yours Faithfully,
Graham Marsden.

Portsmouth.

* * * * *

I'll let you know what response I get.

Cheers,
Graham.


Graham Marsden, 14 Sep 2006 21:35:54

Hi there,

admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:

> http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/140906/post_helps_justice_for_jane_campaign_get_law_change

Here's my reply to that article:

* * * * *

Sir,

Whilst the death of Jane Longhurst was a tragedy, the plans by this
Government to introduce a draconian law criminalising someone for the
simple possession of pictures that it considers "abhorrent" (an entirely
subjective view) is neither a reasonable nor a proportinate response.

Nobody condones violence against women, however the claim that images
"promote" such violence is erroneous and many studies have demonstrated
this. (Those which have claimed a connection have been subject to strong
criticism of their methods and results by peer review.)

Graham Coutts had been engaging in "breath play" games and drawing
nooses on photos of girlfriends with a felt-tip pen long before the
internet was generally available, so to say that looking at certain
websites which feature consenting adults engaged in consensual
activities "caused" him to kill simply cannot be substantiated. The fact
that his case is now going to appeal since the Jury was not given the
option of a conviction for Manslaughter (ie he was simply careless)
backs up this conclusion.

This law will not protect women, it will merely criminalise people for
looking at "dangerous pictures".

Yours Faithfully,
Graham Marsden.

Portsmouth

* * * * *

Cheers,
Graham.


deno, 16 Sep 2006 12:53:04

In a message dated 14/09/2006 20:10:01 GMT Standard Time,
admin@ofwatch.org.uk writes:

>The proposed legislation will not remove abhorrent materials from foreign
websites where they are legally sold, will not prevent people from accessing
them, but will cost vast sums of public money and destroy the lives of
hundreds of people.

A trail of ruined lives and injustice caused by over zealous prosecution
will provide the most ghastly tribute imaginable to Jane Longhurst. The very
last thing that this country needs now is a dangerous pictures Act.<
Excellent. Dangerous pictures Act, will remind people of the futile
dangerous dogs Act as you intended

d

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Graham Marsden, 22 Sep 2006 14:51:53

graham wrote:

>> http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/140906/post_helps_justice_for_jane_campaign_get_law_change
>>
> I was astonished to see the claim that Amnesty International supported
> this, however here is a link to the article from Amnesty UK's site which
> is actually about protecting women (something we would all support)
> rather than criminalising the innocent.
>
> http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16621
>
> I've just written the following to them:

Here's the reply I have just received from them:

* * * * *

Dear Mr Marsden,

Thank you for your email and please accept my apologies for not replying
sooner.

Regards, the proposed new law, this is not something that we are
currently taking action on. Obviously freedom of expression generally
is a complex area and we look at specific issues on a case by case basis
and prioritise according to our capacity to respond, and the seriousness
of the issue. You can find out more about the kind of issues we are
tackling in the UK in our online library at:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-gbr/index

Our position on Freedom of expression in general comes from
International Human Rights Law. We uphold the right of everyone to
freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression as set
out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But there are limits to freedom of expression. Under international law,
governments may in strictly defined circumstances restrict particular
forms of expression or information on narrow grounds such as national
security, the protection of public morals or to protect the rights and
reputations of others. But they can only do this to the \x{201C}extent strictly
necessary\x{201D}. Amnesty International, for example, would always argue that
any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (often known as
\x{2018}hate speech\x{2019}) should be prohibited.

However, international human rights law does not permit freedom of
expression to be restricted or prohibited simply on the grounds that
others may find it offensive or that the authorities say that it poses a
risk to public order. International and regional human rights treaties
apply strict criteria that any such restriction must be set down in law,
have a legitimate aim and is a proportionate response to a real problem.
The onus of demonstrating the validity of the restriction rests with the
government.

Thank you once again for your email and feedback, it is much appreciated.

Kind regards

* * * * *

Here's what I've sent in reply...

Dear Janet Powell,

Thank you for your reply.

I appreciate the points you make about the right of governments to
restrict freedom of expression in very strictly defined circumstances,
however when you say "this is not something that we are currently taking
action on", if reports such as this one...



... can claim that "Justice for Jane won the support of Amnesty
International" it makes it appear that AI is in favour of laws
restricting Freedom of Speech based on nothing more than subjective
opinion and unsubstantiated claims that certain websites "promote
violence against women".

I am sure that AI would not actually do this and I think it would be a
good idea for a clarification to be issued to correct any erroeous
impressions that may have been gained from such a claim.

Yours Sincerely,
Graham Marsden.

* * * * *

Cheers,
Graham.


snowflake, 22 Sep 2006 22:02:38

On 22/09/06, graham wrote:
> Here's what I've sent in reply...
>
> Dear Janet Powell,
>
> Thank you for your reply.


Can you please tell us what reply you get or, if they don't reply,
that they haven't replied and thus can be seen as condoning this
legislation? The reason I ask is that I donate to AI and will cease
donating if they appear to support this legislation.

Zoë


Ms_Tytania, 23 Sep 2006 02:16:49

Dear all,

I'm taking notes with the intention of writing a script for a video in
support of Backlash. I'd be very greateful if you could help me decide what
basic concepts and ideas should go in it. The format would be like a
newsread about the "Dangerous Images Law". I'm thinking of psoting openly
on IC so people can cotribute with theri ideas and what they thinks is the
most important message(s).

Remember that it has to be sweet and short, so we have to stick to the most
fundamental ideas and message tob e understood by everybody.

Thank you all for your help.


Itzi

http://www.helloitzi.co.uk




"Zoë Robinson" , 23 Sep 2006 02:16:49
>Subject: Re: [backlash] Another article worth responding to
>
>On 22/09/06, graham wrote:
>>Here's what I've sent in reply...
>>
>>Dear Janet Powell,
>>
>>Thank you for your reply.
>
>
>Can you please tell us what reply you get or, if they don't reply,
>that they haven't replied and thus can be seen as condoning this
>legislation? The reason I ask is that I donate to AI and will cease
>donating if they appear to support this legislation.
>
>Zoë
>
>
>
>
>--
>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%3D5886


Graham Marsden, 23 Sep 2006 09:51:21

Hi there,

Zoë Robinson wrote:

>> Here's what I've sent in reply...
>>
>> Dear Janet Powell,
>> Thank you for your reply.
>
>
> Can you please tell us what reply you get or, if they don't reply,
> that they haven't replied and thus can be seen as condoning this
> legislation?

Sure.

> The reason I ask is that I donate to AI and will cease
> donating if they appear to support this legislation.

I think it's more a case of their "support" being inferred as they've
got roped in via the "we need to protect women" side of things, just as
I'm sure many people signed up to the Longhurst petition because they
craftily worded it to be about "websites that promote violence against
women" even though there is no proof of this (in fact, quite the opposite).

Cheers,
Graham.


snowflake, 23 Sep 2006 11:39:53

On 23/09/06, graham wrote:

> I think it's more a case of their "support" being inferred as they've
> got roped in via the "we need to protect women" side of things, just as
> I'm sure many people signed up to the Longhurst petition because they
> craftily worded it to be about "websites that promote violence against
> women" even though there is no proof of this (in fact, quite the opposite).

This is a tactic that needs to be fought at every step because it's a
total lie. I dont think I've seen anyone put this point to AI yet
though, so I'm not altogether surprised they're supporting something
they think will stop "violence against women". :(

Zoë


demolitionred, 25 Sep 2006 09:36:34

we've written and spoken to AI about this. We're trying to geta meeting but the more pepel that write to them and complain the better..it is a mebership based organisation after all.


Ms_Tytania, 26 Sep 2006 07:36:59

One more thing....

I'm meeting up with doulos tomorrow to write a draft of the text (news
flash, voice over, facts) to be used in the video.

in the video, I'd like to make people understand that it's their private
life, and their private choices and their autoinomy that is at a stake. That
the assumption that you are an ordinary, law abiding, suburban dwelling
citizen gives no guarantee of your innocence:

"soon, you could be committing a crime IN THE COMFORT OF YOUR OWN HOME".
These words have been in my mind for a few days, and I intend to work on
this idea with doulos tomorrow. I prefer to stress the point using
"home"rather than "bedroom", because our vanilla dvd collections are full of
potentially criminal images, not only our porn stash in the hard drive.


Itzi

http://www.helloitzi.co.uk




demolitionred@yahoo.com, 26 Sep 2006 07:36:59
>Subject: Re: [backlash] Another article worth responding to
>
>
>
>we've written and spoken to AI about this. We're trying to geta meeting
>but the more pepel that write to them and complain the better..it is a
>mebership based organisation after all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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%3D5903


Ms_Tytania, 26 Sep 2006 08:45:53

I thought of making a video for Backlash after I saw this one on YouTube.
It's a bit on the emotional side, but it's simple and I like it:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=homophobia+is+gay&search=Search

I'm taking good note of all your suggestions, specially the ones regarding
PR and what kind of image we want to project to the public. I agree that to
present ourselves, sobriety is best, like we do at munches, so newbies (or a
kink wary public in this case) feel included instead of watching a freak
show.

I still thyink, however, that a shady, blurred figure introducing the facts,
a s oipposed to a super sharp news reader, would convey a message of menace.

A barrister or solicitor telling the facts at some poiint is good, but do we
have any? Ok, or someone who would pose as one?



Itziar Bilbao Urrutia

http://www.helloitzi.co.uk


Graham Marsden, 26 Sep 2006 19:07:53

Hi there,

Itziar Bilbao Urrutia wrote:

> I thought of making a video for Backlash after I saw this one on YouTube.
> It's a bit on the emotional side, but it's simple and I like it:

That's a good, effective piece.

> A barrister or solicitor telling the facts at some poiint is good, but
> do we have any? Ok, or someone who would pose as one?

We could just use Rabinder Singh's text from the opinion we got from him.

What would be nice is if we could get to use something like Madonna's
"Human Nature" for a soundtrack: "Express yourself, don't repress
yourself" and "I'm not sorry, it's human nature. I'm not your bitch,
don't blame your shit on me." :-)

Cheers,
Graham.