Lords propose amendments to porn plans: Act now (44)

I'm not actually sure what the difference would be legally. Since the Human Rights Act the words 'prove' where referring to a defence are not even taken to mean prove on a balance of probabilities. To 'prove' a defence the defence have an 'evidential burden' - i.e. they have to produce some evidence to show that the defence could be made out. Once they have done that the prosecution then have to disprove their defence beyond reasonable doubt.

I can't recall ever coming across the word 'show' in this sort of legal context, and I really can't see that it will make any real difference to the legal interpretation of that section.

The other amendment, about people consenting, will make a big difference, though, especially on the interpretaion of the defence's burden that I have described above. It means you will only have to produce some sort of credible evidence that you believed the images were consensual - and that could just be your verbal evidence describing the circumstances in which you came across the image - and the prosecution will then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they weren't.

The trouble is that the governement are aware of this and are taking the line that it doesn't matter if the images were consensual, it is the viewing of them that is harmful. I can't see them allowing this amendment to succeeed as it would effectively neuter the section.

The lords have now made this amendment that makes it significantly more tolerable (although still a blow to freedom of speech and sexuality in my opinion). Is this done only by the specific lords tabling the amendments, or is there an actual majority for these amendments in the house of lords?

Then as I understand it its sent back to the commons, they can choose to accept the ammendment (unlikely unless they want a very speedy proces), they can throw the amendments out and re-present it to the lords again as is, or they can rewrite it to represent some kind of compromise. Is that correct ?

Then, the lords can once again attach ammendments - or approve it. Or?

http://www.thepainfiles.com - Hardcore Original BDSM

Edited 31 Jan 08, 8:50 PM by hincapie

As others have said this is a great improvement, still short of where we would like to see it but much better than it was.

I'm still reading it but this seems to answer the 'process' question: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/l01.pdf

These two lords have suggested these amendments -- which will be discussed at the Lords committee stage (in a couple of weeks).

It is vitally important people lobby MPs and Lords now so enough Lords go to the Committee to support these or any other amendmnets that get laid.

Otherwise, they'll just get voted down.

We also need to do the groundwork now so that when this goes back to the House of Commons they accept any changes the Lords approve.

There are no guarantees that just because there is now some growing awareness of what is wrong with these proposals any changes will be approved.

But the fact Lords are listening and some MPs are fighting is a good sign. Please encourage them to keep fighting and try to persuade others to join them.

Edited 31 Jan 08, 9:46 PM by backlash_uk

Totally agree, but the lords aren't what they used to be or should be, so I guess it's just a waiting. I normally love anticipation, but not really a fan of this.

I am sure that many people want to help. To get as many people as possible involved, I suggest that clearer instructions than "lobby MPs and Lords now" are required.

I can find a list of their lordships here - but I wouldn't know who to pick? Who might be sympathetic etc? Who regularly turns up to vote? Who's spoken on these matters already?

I agree that it's a vital stage - which is why I would have hoped for more information from backlash to help me help the cause.

With MPs it's easier. But again, it would be good to know from backlash which MPs voted in favour in the commons, which abstained etc and who said what in the chamber and committee. Does backlash have a list of supportive or turnable MPs?

I'm sure that so many people want to continue to help - but a little more guidance is needed.

Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

Also, the transcript of the Lords' Second Reading is at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-01-... , so if you search for "porn" you can see who spoke on the issue.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

(I can kind of see the logic - if someone is getting off on something that they believe is non-consensual behaviour, then that's a lot worse than if you know it's consensual, even if the images were really consensual.)

But in making this argument, they admit that it isn't a problem if the viewer believes or knows the participants are consenting. Since the Government has focused on the viewer's belief as important, the trick is that this amendment does as well. So if they refuse to accept this amendment, they would have to backtrack on their argument, or explain how it's also bad when viewers know the participants are consenting.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

Edited 31 Jan 08, 11:24 PM by emark

I wrote to Lord Henley (text below). Who who else is writing to their Lordships?

Dear Lord Henley

As a fellow conservative I thought it appropriate to write to you in relation to my concerns regarding the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which is currently passing through the House of Lords. My concern relates specifically to section 113 "Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images". I appreciate that members of both houses may consider this to be a relatively minor part of the bill - but it does impact on a significant minority in this country: those who engage in or have an interest in consensual BDSM activities.

My concern, shared by very many in the BDSM community is that our private lives, our sex lives, and our private images will become the subject of state intrusion and turn a lot of innocent people into sex criminals. If, like me, you are on the libertarian wing of our party, I am sure that you will agree that the state has no business in the bedroom (or the dungeon!) or in the private and lawful fantasies of consenting adults.

If unamended, the bill will criminalise many many people who have images of themselves, their partners, actors and actresses in posed and staged images. I refer to parts 6 (a) and (b) of this section in particular and the use of the words "appears to". Even if the possessor of the images knows or strongly suspects that the images were posed, this is irrelvant under the bill as it stands if those images "appear to" show the proscribed acts. Furthermore, the overall wording of the bill is such that it will be impossible for individuals to know whether images they may hold or view are within the law or not. The sexual offenders register is there for a reason and serves a very useful purpose. The effect of this misguided bill is that the register could be swamped and diluted by including law-abiding consenting adults who may lose their jobs and livelihoods merely because they had some kinky pictures.

I note that Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dormer have proposed amendments which seek to moderate the bill slightly. But I fear that these amendments do not go far enough.

I hope that the House of Lords will show the common sense that lower house seems to have lacked during its deliberations. Please let me know if you agree with my synopsis of the issues with this unfair and unworkable section of the bill. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

Edited 1 Feb 08, 12:15 AM by xjames