Current events
From Seenoevil
Backlash Clinic, 22 November 2006
On 22 November 2006, Backlash and some of its participant organisations held an open clinic at Coffee Cake and Kink in Endell Street, London, to give people the opportunity to find out more about what is being done to oppose the government’s proposals to ban the possession of ‘extreme pornography’.
The event attracted a small but very interactive audience, all of whom appeared very supportive of Backlash’s aims. Questions tended towards requests for clarifications of the government’s position and the current political environment.
Coffee Cake and Kink kindly provided us with a free venue and donated over £60 to Backlash.
Attending were - Penny (event organiser and minute-taker)
- Demolition Red, Doulos and foxxx for Backlash
- Ginny for Feminists Against Censorship
- John Lovatt for the Spanner Trust (John is a practising solicitor)
- Nigel Meek for the Libertarian Alliance (also, the Campaign Against Censorship)
- SM gays were unofficially represented in the audience.
There follows a summary transcript of the event, based on Penny’s notes.
Audience question: Don’t you think the Backlash site is quite wordy?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that Backlash are currently rebuilding the site, including new FAQ. If you have comments please send them to info@backlash-uk.org.uk.
Audience question: Can some of the representatives give their backgrounds?
John Lovatt: Stated that the Spanner Trust is trying to reverse the Spanner court ruling, and have become involved in the Backlash campaign as a natural continuation of that.
foxxx: Stated that as an individual she is a libertarian by choice.
foxxx (for Backlash): Pointed out that the Obscene Publications Act has had almost no successful prosecutions in the last three years, indicating that juries’ attitudes have changed.
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that individuals present had many different career backgrounds. Where Backlash does not have expertise, it is consulting with external experts, e.g. probation officers, spin professionals.
Audience question: How does one get involved in Backlash?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Gave her the draft of the first newsletter, and stated that this will be circulated by email by the end of the month (though if anyone wants to see the draft version, Backlash will email it to them).
foxxx (for Backlash): Pointed out that the newsletter summarises a whole year’s work.
Audience member: What is driving people to support the proposals? Is it ignorance?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Explained that MPs Martin Salter and David Lepper devised the proposal. Politicians see it as a vote-winner, aimed at an easy target.
Nigel Meek (for the Libertarian Alliance): Described the proposal as posturing by MPs.
Audience question: What is the history behind the proposal?
foxxx (for Backlash): Stated that in 2003, Graham Coutts was found guilty of murder. In 2003, MP Martin Salter created an online petition on his personal website on behalf of Mrs Longhurst. It was originally intended that the petition would attract 100,000 signatures, but it took three years to get 50,000.
Audience question: What have the organisations represented here been doing during that time?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that the organisations represented here responded to the government’s consultation document published in August 2005 laying out proposals for legislation.
John Lovatt (for Spanner Trust): Stated that the Spanner trust had had a two-and-a-quarter hour meeting with the civil servants involved in the consultation, and argued that men do not commit rape because of pornography. The civil servants said they agreed with this as an intellectual argument, but they had been instructed by ministers to proceed with the proposals.
Audience question: Shouldn’t people who make porn be punished instead of those who possess it?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that penalties for creating pornography are going up.
Audience question: What about media coverage for the campaign?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that Backlash has been interviewed by a number of media agencies, but pointed out even more has to be done to keep the media interested. Backlash are working on creating some viral advertising eg blogging for backlash. She suggested colour pieces and feature pieces also need to be distributed to raise awareness.
Audience question: Does the lack of coverage come down to people not wanting to be outed? Is Backlash relying on anonymous momentum?
foxxx (for Backlash): Stated that her main focus within Backlash was on getting individuals to write to their MPs as individuals alongside broader approaches from backlash etc and even go to their surgeries to raise awareness. She stated people need to realise they don't have to even mention BDSM to ask about or oppose the legislation
Audience question: How about creating a pro forma reply?
foxxx (for Backlash): Stated that Backlash will not do that, because the political parties would just create a pro forma response and send it out without thinking. She quoted correspondence with Martin Salter, received by a supporter of Backlash, which has given cause for concern by making what appears to be a threat about BDSM.
There was some discussion about using this statement in the backlash campaign, but concerns about libel need to be investigated before backlash could used it as an official quote.
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Referred to the received wisdom that a signature on a petition is perceived by politicians as simply the opinion of one individual, but a letter written or attendance at a surgery is perceived as representing the possible votes of between 250 and 1000 people.
Audience question: Can one arrange a meeting with one’s MP?
John Lovatt (for Spanner Trust): Confirmed that all MPs have surgeries.
Audience Member: Advised that he has visited his MP, who was more used to people complaining about their neighbours and seemed to find it a shock to get a serious question. Advised that you need to turn up early, sign up for the queue, then go away for a couple of hours to avoid a long wait.
foxxx (for Backlash): Suggested that if you talk to someone who doesn’t understand the issues, advise them to ask their MP to explain – this will make MPs think.
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Suggested that people ask their MPs what pictures will be illegal – this will highlight how vague the proposed law is and peoples' concerns.
Audience question: If the proposals become law, how will they be enforced?
foxxx (for Backlash): Expressed the opinion that there will probably be a flurry of prosecutions when it first becomes law, possibly of people the authorities wanted to nail beforehand, now they have a ‘reason’.
John Lovatt (for Spanner): Suggested that jurors will probably acquit defendants, but there will be a severe chilling effect on the BDSM community. There were no actual prosecutions under Section 28 [a now repealed section of the 1988 Local Government Act stating that ‘A local authority shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or… promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’], but the fear factor severely interfered with education.
foxx (for Backlash): Pointed out that the Association of Chief Police Officers asked for more funding for Operation Ore [an operation to arrest paedophiles], saying they would get 6,000 prosecutions – in fact they achieved less than a quarter of that figure. 7,000 people were targeted, 4,000 arrested, 40 committed suicide, but many were innocent and a class action is now being brought against the police.
Audience question: What will Backlash do now that the Criminal Justice Bill [the bill encompassing the ‘extreme pornography’ proposals] has been announced in the Queen’s Speech?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that today Backlash emailed all MPs, and are sending hard copy follow-up packs tomorrow. Backlash is talking to Human Rights organisations, police, psychologists, unions etc – anyone who could potentially be influential. Backlash believe the proposals could be at least ameliorated if Human Rights organisations, MPs and lobbyists all said that the current wording is unacceptably vague and may cause unintended consequences.
Audience question: Are there any really ridiculous things that might get you prosecuted?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Quoted statistics that 50% of couples watch porn together. Stills of orgasm can resemble a rape or torture scene, so a couple with a collection of orgasm photos could be prosecuted for having a stash of rape pictures.
Audience question: Are there any recorded cases that can show that subjectivity determines guilt?
John Lovatt (for Spanner): Pointed out that juries are inevitably subjective.
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Observed that the language in the government proposal is all subjective.
Audience question: What about the film industry?
foxx (for Backlash): Pointed out that British Board of Film Classification certification will protect a film against prosecution. But while the film is being made – i.e. before it gets classification – the footage could potentially be illegal!
Audience question: Has Backlash been contacted by British BDSM website owners?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Explained that Backlash does have the support of a few website owners. There is a Backlash banner on Informed Consent, and Unfettered and London Fetish Scene are publicising Backlash. Backlash would like more support from this area. Also, the film industry appears to have missed the problem highlighted by foxxx above.
Nigel (for Libertarian Alliance): Suggested that filmmakers are unlikely to get behind the Backlash campaign.
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Pointed out that big porn companies have been contacted but don’t care, because they think that all the porn custom will go to them if people are afraid to shop anywhere that isn’t mainstream.
Demolition Red: (for Backlash) Stated that Backlash has spoken to a senior criminologist who said that most of the sex offenders he’s encountered have never seen ‘extreme porn’; they make their own porn out of things which the general public might not consider pornographic under normal circumstances.
Audience question: So we have good counter arguments to the proposals?
John Lovatt (Spanner Trust): Stated that Backlash have good intellectual arguments, but those opposing Backlash will use political and emotive arguments.
Doulos (for Backlash): Suggested that Backlash should remodel itself as a Human Rights organisation. Organisations like Amnesty get interviewed less aggressively than politicians, as they are seen as having respectable ‘expert’ status. Police officers receive the same softer treatment. Backlash needs to be seen as an expert media source.
Nigel (for Libertarian Alliance): Pointed out that the Libertarian Alliance have been on BBC radio and Sky News referred to as a ‘civil liberties think tank’.
Audience question: Could Backlash find a civil liberties organisation to connect with?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that Backlash is talking to some big names about coming out against the bill; but these people want to see the wording before committing to anything, and this issue is not a top priority for them. Backlash needs to win over middle ground Daily Mail readers – people who may think that human rights are all about letting terrorists and violent lunatics run riot. Backlash needs sexy slogans to catch the public imagination.
foxxx (for Backlash): Pointed out that Backlash are inundated with suggestions, but lacks time and volunteers.
Audience question: How many copies of David Cronenberg’s Crash [violent film involving the eroticisation of car accidents] are sold yearly?
foxxx (for Backlash): suggested the audience member to please find this out and put it on the Backlash wiki! In the public forum, politicians and police don’t have to prove what they’re saying, as they are seen as being invested with authority. Backlash however does have to back up what it says.
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Asked people to suggest soundbites for the campaign.
Audience question: How can Backlash motivate people?
foxxx (for Backlash): Suggested that Backlash needs to persuade people that this issue affects them, and get Mr Ordinary teed up enough to take some action – anything at all, but preferably to contact his MP.
Doulos (for Backlash): Stated that is a petition on the front page of the Prime Minister’s petition page [1] [at time of writing these notes up it doesn’t seem to be on the front page, but it can still be found at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/]. At least several thousand signatures are needed for the petition to be taken seriously.
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Stated that she believes in politics, and believes people can take part in the democratic process; She hopes Backlash will encourage other people to share this belief.
Audience question: How do the proposals define ‘extreme pornography’?
Demolition Red (for Backlash): Explained that we won’t know until the bill is discussed in January. Currently the proposals just say ‘pornographic images’.
The evening concluded with a brainstorming session about possible soundbites/slogans.
