Last chance to act - Lords decide on Wednesday! (16)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

Sun 27 Apr 08, 12:56 PM
Degenerate
UK(M), 3 yrs
Quote from admin. "Since we don't know which of the 113095 pictures in the IC database would contravene the legislation, IC might again be covered in pictures of Gordon Brown's ugly mug once the act becomes law - but this time without the question mark "
For anyone who has been meaning to do it and haven't had the chance yet.. we've got hardly any time left and we need to be sending our letters now. Lords decide on Wednesday and this becomes law on 9th May.
It only takes a quarter of an hour to write a quick letter and I am going to put all the tools to do it all in one place again here. Can you donate the time you would have spent posting on BDSM issues here today or browsing profiles, before we lose all our photos?
these are some good thread to read: from backlash - last nights lords debate - what too do now http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism... from ic members - feel the fear and fight the porn bill anyway http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism... the fullest source of information is of course the backlash website where you can find all relating information: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/
come on people - last push! one more letter each - it might be the letter that tips the balance - and if we don't win, we are at least making it clear we won't take this lying down when they come to consider further eroding our priveleges..
THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:
Contact members of the House of Lords about Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill [Part 5 - Criminal law - Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images. Ask them to vote for scrapping this section Bill altogether or vote for the amendments proposed by Lord Wallace Of Tankerness, Baroness Miller Of Chilthorne Domer or (for one of them) Lord McIntosh Of Haringey.
HOW TO DO IT ONLINE.
Some email addresses are below.
You can send a fax to any member of the House of Lords by selecting their name from this page and following the links to contact them. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peers/
HOW TO DO IT BY PHONE:
yes they do call back, or one of their workers will! Call the main Parliament switchboard on 020 7219 3000. If the Lord has a listed telephone number, the operator will try to connect you. Or, you can leave a message with the Message Service on 020 7219 5353.
WHO TO SEND THEM TO:
you can send as many letters to as many lords as you like.
some email addresses, thanks for these emark.
emark wrote: "Here's a list of Not Contents that we have public email addresses for:
Anderson of Swansea, L. [Lab] Lord Anderson/"Lord Anderson" <trotmang@parliament.uk>
Armstrong of Ilminster, L. [Cross] Lord Armstrong/"Lord Armstrong" <armstrongr@parliament.uk>
Bach, L. [Lab] Lord Bach/"Lord Bach" <bachw@parliament.uk> Bassam of Brighton, L. [Lab] Lord Bassam/"Lord Bassam" <bassams@parliament.uk>
Clarke of Hampstead, L. [Lab] Lord Clarke/"Lord Clarke" <clarkeaj@parliament.uk>
Cohen of Pimlico, B. [Lab] Lady Cohen/"Baroness Cohen" <janet.cohen@btclick.com>
Corston, B. [Lab] Lady Corston/"Baroness Corston" <corstonj@parliament.uk>
Dixon, L. [Lab] Lord Dixon/"Lord Dixon" <dixond@parliament.uk>
Dubs, L. [Lab] Lord Dubs/"Lord Dubs" <dubsa@parliament.uk> Gale, B.[Lab] Lady Gale/"Baroness Gale" <galea@parliament.uk>
Grocott, L. [Lab] Lord Grocott/"Lord Grocott" <burfoot@parliament.uk>
Hastings of Scarisbrick, L. [Cross] Lord Hastings/"Lord Hastings" <hastingsm@parliament.uk>
Hollis of Heigham, B. [Lab] Lady Hollis/"Baroness Hollis" <hollisp@parliament.uk>
Hughes of Woodside, L. [Lab] Lord Hughes/"Lord Hughes" <hughesr@parliament.uk>
Jenkin of Roding, L. [Con] Lord Jenkin/"Lord Jenkin" <jenkinp@parliament.uk>
Jones of Whitchurch, B. [Lab] Lady Jones/"Baroness Jones" <jonesmag@parliament.uk>
Jordan, L. [Lab] Lord Jordan/"Lord Jordan" <jordanw@parliament.uk>
McIntosh of Hudnall, B. [Lab] Lady McIntosh/"Baroness McIntosh" <mcintoshg@parliament.uk>
Marlesford, L. [Con] Lord Marlesford/"Lord Marlesford" <marlesford@parliament.uk>
O'Cathain, B. [Con] Lady O'Cathain/"Baroness O'Cathain" <ocathaind@parliament.uk>
Pendry, L. [Lab] Lord Pendry/"Lord Pendry" <pendryt@parliament.uk>
Royall of Blaisdon, B. [Teller] [Lab] Lady Royall/"Baroness Royall" <royallj@parliament.uk>
Stone of Blackheath, L. [Lab] Lord Stone/"Lord Stone" <stonea@parliament.uk>
Thornton, B. [Lab] Lady Thornton/"Baroness Thornton" <thorntong@parliament.uk>
Tunnicliffe, L. [Lab] Lord Tunnicliffe/"Lord Tunnicliffe" <tunnicliffed@parliament.uk>
Whitty, L. [Lab] Lord Whitty/"Lord Whitty" <whittyl@parliament.uk>
I've added the parties - it's noticeable just how many of these are Labour.
(From http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php.... .)."
backlash compiled this list of people we need to urgently contact:
" 12:52 PM backlash_uk UK, 20 mths Grahamm wrote elsewhere: the majority are, unsurprisingly, Labour Lords, however the following are not:
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster - Crossbench Peer Lord Ballyedmond - Crossbench Peer Earl Ferrers - Conservative Peer Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick - Crossbench Peer Lord Jenkin of Roding - Conservative Peer Lord Marlesford - Conservative Peer Baroness Masham of Ilton - Crossbench Peer Lord Mawhinney - Conservative Peer Viscount Montgomery of Alamein - Crossbench Peer The Bishop of Newcastle - Bishop Baroness O'Cathain - Conservative Peer Lord Palumbo - Conservative Peer Lord Sanderson of Bowden - Conservative Peer Lord Waddington -
I'm going to target my first lot of letters to these Lords."
the below is a complete list of the people who attended last weeks debate and voted against scrapping this section of the bill, we need to help them change their minds:
Adams of Craigielea, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Andrews, B. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Ashton of Upholland, B. [Lord President.] Bach, L. Ballyedmond, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Bilston, L. Brookman, L. Burlison, L. Carter of Coles, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Corston, B. Crawley, B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Dixon, L. Donoughue, L. Dubs, L. Elder, L. Evans of Parkside, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Ferrers, E. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Gale, B. Gould of Potternewton, B. Grocott, L. Hastings of Scarisbrick, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. Hoyle, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Jenkin of Roding, L. Jones, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Jordan, L. Judd, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Marlesford, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Mawhinney, L. Mitchell, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V. Moonie, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Newcastle, Bp. O'Cathain, B. Palumbo, L. Pendry, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. [Teller] Sanderson of Bowden, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Snape, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Thornton, B. Tomlinson, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Turner of Camden, B. Waddington, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. West of Spithead, L. Whitty, L.
you can mail ANY lord you like about this using the website http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peers/ .
DON'T TAKE THIS LYING DOWN! edited to remover everything relating to postal responses as it's too late for those now
Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail and the sex offenders register BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... . . . Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .
Edited Tue 29 Apr 08, 2:48 AM by Degenerate

27 Apr 08, 12:58 PM
Degenerate
UK(M), 3 yrs
Dear
i hope my letter finds you well. I was pleased to notice you participated in voting on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - Part 5 - Section 63, concerning extreme pornographic images.
I am a 35 year old mother of three young children - old enough to view adult material and responsible enough to believe in some censorship, in particular where crimes are taking place, such as sex offenses, murder or abuse against animals. I am worried, however, that the wording of section 63 does not make it clear enough which images it will be illegal to possess.
I think it is common sense to recognise that which images are "extreme", or "disgusting", is a matter of personal opinion - whereas what is already deemed criminal in terms of obscenity is already clearly defined in the Extreme Publication Act.
For it to effectively serve its purpose, section 63 needs to be absolutely clear about which images it will be an offense to possess, either by its own wording, or by reference to an existing tried-and-tested measure (such as the Obscene Publications Act). We also need to bear in mind that much pornography is fictional and employs actors.
If Section 63 is neither explicit, nor accessible, then how can ordinary people, like myself, who wish to stay within the law know whether images we possess are illegal, or not? Will this wording lead to people being imprisoned who would have committed no crime, had they only understood the legislation? Is it going to lead to the criminalisation of images not agreed to be obscene in previous law? If yes it needs to be explicit so that UK citizens KNOW. Will misunderstanding of this poorly written legislation even lead to criminals walking free in the judicial system? I am certain it will waste time and resources in the police and legal systems which we need to spend on apprehending dangerous criminals.
I urge you to attend the next debate on 30th April and ask for clarification in these matters. Please consider voting for the sensible and clarifying amendments suggested by Baroness Miller, Lord Wallace and Lord Mcintosh.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these important issues.
Yours sincerely
me
Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail and the sex offenders register BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... . . . Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .

27 Apr 08, 12:59 PM
Marmite
UK(CB), 3 yrs
You really are doing a fantastic job.
If I had more spare time I'd join you.. But my thoughts and pushy spirit are with you. x
***SPONSOR ME***
A rose by any other name has thorns that will still make you bleed.
BOOKMARK THIS PROFILE
BITE

27 Apr 08, 1:54 PM
pod333
UK(DD), 4 yrs This clause has made it to the IT news site The Register now:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_...
They make some good points, and it is another avenue of opposition to present to the Lords (and maybe to the MPs should it return there).

27 Apr 08, 2:36 PM
grahamm
UK, 9 yrs
Y!
This is what I've been sending to the Not Contents and the Abstainers:

Re: Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007
Dear Lord ,
I note that, in the debate on the CJIB 2007 on the 21st of April, you did not vote in support of the Amendments proposed by Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace and supported by Lord McIntosh, requiring that the so-called "Extreme Pornography" proposals be removed.
Whilst I can understand that you might not want to be seen to be opposing such a law and these proposals may seem reasonable, they are, in fact, an attack on basic Freedoms because they will set a precedent saying "we don't trust you to act like a sensible adult if you see this material, so we're going to ban it for your own protection". This would establish a Thought Crime in English Law based on the dangerous premise of the Home Office's discredited Rapid Evidence Assessment that "if people don't see this stuff they won't do it, so banning it will stop crime from happening".
Lord Hunt said that, to him, the images were "disgusting" and "extremely nasty" but this is completely subjective and not a sensible basis for a law that could leave someone unable to determine whether they had committed an offence or not until they were actually charged. He also claimed that the criteria for "Extreme Pornography" are "high tests" and "objective", but they rely entirely on how an image looks to another person, eg who decides what is "grossly offensive"? A person is hardly likely to download an image which they find "grossly offensive", yet if someone else says it is "disgusting" then they could be deemed to have committed an offence.
Similarly, where the Bill says "an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals", what is "serious injury"? ABH? GBH? Also whose opinion would we rely on as to whether an act shown in a picture is or isn't "likely to result" in such an injury? Such vague and subjective terms are not a sound basis for English Law.
Lord Hunt did say that "I recognise that it would be anomalous for a person to be committing an offence by possessing an image of an act which he undertook perfectly lawfully. We intend to introduce at Third Reading a defence which addresses precisely that situation", but this suggests the defence will be very narrowly worded to cover only acts which the picture owner specifically participated in, such that any other images, even when featuring consenting adults engaged in legal acts, would still be illegal.
I understand that Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace will be introducing further amendments at the Third Reading and I hope that you will vote to ensure that they pass, thereby removing the vagueness and subjectivity from this Bill as well as allowing the more sensible defence that any reasonable person would consider *all* participants consented.
In closing, despite what some might suggest, by supporting these amendments you are not "voting for pornography", you are simply standing up for the fundamental freedom and right of adults to decide for themselves what they view instead of being told by the Nanny State that "this isn't good for you, so we're not going to let you see it".
Yours Sincerely

27 Apr 08, 5:27 PM
Degenerate
UK(M), 3 yrs
What a brilliant letter. thanks so much for sharing it.
Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail and the sex offenders register BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do: http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... . . . Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .

27 Apr 08, 6:24 PM
ToakReon
UK(RH), 10 yrs
Y!
Dear all,
I wrote another missive - this one intended to be a "short and hard hitting" one for Email sending.
I'm not sure if I've got the balance right. Anyone who feels like commenting, please do. It reads:-
Dear Lord ...,
I write to you because I have a concerns about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which I believe is due for it's third reading in the Lords shortly. More specifically I am concerned about section 63 of this bill, the section regarding making the possession of �extreme pornography� illegal.
This section of the Bill makes an image illegal if it is both �pornographic� and �an extreme image�.
QUOTE
An image is �pornographic� if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
END OF QUOTE
Let me see if I've got this right.
A man or woman's guilt in a British court of law depends on the intentions of a third party (the photographer) at the moment he took a photograph - possibly many years before. The defendant's guilt will not depend on their own actions or intentions, but on the intentions of someone they have probably never met, probably never will meet, and who might actually be dead.
Oh, hang on, it's even better than that!
The defendant's guilt depends not just on the intentions of a third party (the photographer), but on what a forth to fifteenth party (the jury) believe those intentions to be - having had no opportunity whatever to ask!
YOUR guilt depends on MY assessment of someone ELSE'S intentions - someone else whom neither of us have actually met or heard evidence from!
And THIS is JUSTICE?
Let's go on, because it gets even more fun.
QUOTE
An �extreme image� is an image of any of the following�
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.
END OF QUOTE
Appears to?
Oh great! Someone, somewhere, is going to assess what a photograph appears to show - and throw a defendant in jail for three years as a result! After all - we can't allow people to enjoy things that appear to be what they're not, can we?
Oh - hang on.
Appearing to be what they're not ...
That's �drama�, isn't it? Oh, and �theater�. And hang on, quite a lot of literature isn't exactly factual. Damn! Things appearing to be what they're not is distressingly common, isn't it?
We really MUST throw people in jail for three years for watching Shakespear's �King Lear� at the theater ... that scene when he �appears to� have his eyes poked out is truly monstrous and violent.
As for the people who enjoy �Midsomer Murders� on TV - totally beyond the pale. Not only do they (Shock! Horror!) derive pleasure from images that �appear to threaten a person's life� (to quote section 63), but they actually derive pleasure from images that appear to show people that are very definitely dead! Surely any person so warped and perverted as to enjoy graphical images of MURDER needs to be put instantly behind bars for the good and welfare of society!
.
.
.
OK - let's take a long pause and a deep breath. Let's leave aside the sarcasm and continue with serious comment.
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill will throw people in JAIL.
These people will be thrown in jail because a photographer, at some time in the past, is ASSUMED to have had a certain intention at the time he took a photograph.
These people will be thrown in jail because they own a photograph which APPEARS TO depict something that the State finds distasteful.
These people will have their families torn apart and their children taken into care, even though they have HURT NO_ONE AT ALL and, what is more, have NO INTENTION OF DOING SO.
This is DISGUSTING and UNJUST. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill is an abomination, unfit to be presented to either House of Parliament and unfit for whatever purpose it is claimed to be written for.
If you have any concept whatever of justice or decency - THROW IT OUT!
Yours sincerely,
FEMALE, BONDAGE-FRIENDLY MODEL SOUGHT. I am seeking to update my "How To" shibari bondage pictures (see my profile pics, the clothed blonde tied in red and black) with a model more "enthusiastic" about BDSM, and who is happy to be photographed nude. MEMO ME if this is you.
Edited 27 Apr 08, 6:51 PM by ToakReon

27 Apr 08, 8:59 PM
prettyname
UK(NW), 9 yrs

ToakReon wrote:
Dear all,
I wrote another missive - this one intended to be a "short and hard hitting" one for Email sending.
I'm not sure if I've got the balance right. Anyone who feels like commenting, please do. It reads:-

It's a very passionate letter, raises some fantastic points, and hard hitting it is! It's just that sarcasm (no matter how well intended) is likely to be met with sarcasm.
One tip: ~always imagine you'll be the one in receipt of it~. Write it, put it aside for a while and go back to it. Try to view it through the eyes of the person you're writing to. Imagine they're in a bad mood when they read it. Is it a letter that will make them want to read it until the end, and come back down to earth to see someone elses point of view? Or will it make them defensive?
Just something I do when I have to write letters of complaint sometimes, heck, should see some of things I've written that never get seen
tracie..x
~�Nothing is ever the same as they said it was. It's what I've never seen before that I recognise.� Diane Arbus~
~"it's what you see other times that's interesting"~ foxxx~
Extreme Porn Bill Petition : www.londonalternativemarket.com

27 Apr 08, 9:18 PM
ToakReon
UK(RH), 10 yrs
Y!

prettyname wrote:

ToakReon wrote:
Dear all,
I wrote another missive - this one intended to be a "short and hard hitting" one for Email sending.
I'm not sure if I've got the balance right. Anyone who feels like commenting, please do. It reads:-

It's a very passionate letter, raises some fantastic points, and hard hitting it is! It's just that sarcasm (no matter how well intended) is likely to be met with sarcasm.
One tip: ~always imagine you'll be the one in receipt of it~. Write it, put it aside for a while and go back to it. Try to view it through the eyes of the person you're writing to. Imagine they're in a bad mood when they read it. Is it a letter that will make them want to read it until the end, and come back down to earth to see someone elses point of view? Or will it make them defensive?
Just something I do when I have to write letters of complaint sometimes, heck, should see some of things I've written that never get seen
tracie..x

Will leave it to tomorrow morning and re-read with my "Lord of the Land" hat on.

Toak
FEMALE, BONDAGE-FRIENDLY MODEL SOUGHT. I am seeking to update my "How To" shibari bondage pictures (see my profile pics, the clothed blonde tied in red and black) with a model more "enthusiastic" about BDSM, and who is happy to be photographed nude. MEMO ME if this is you.

27 Apr 08, 10:55 PM
ToakReon
UK(RH), 10 yrs
Y!
Further to previous comments, by both Prettyname (here) and grahamm (by memo) I have done a little re-edit. The "Version 2" now reads:-
Dear Lord ....,
I write to you because I have a concerns about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which I believe is due for it's third reading in the Lords shortly. More specifically I am concerned about section 63 of this bill, the section regarding making the possession of �extreme pornography� illegal.
This section of the Bill makes an image illegal if it is both �pornographic� and �an extreme image�.
QUOTE
An image is �pornographic� if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
END OF QUOTE
Let me see if I've got this right.
A man or woman's guilt in a British court of law depends on the purpose of a third party (the photographer) at the moment he took a photograph - possibly many years before. The defendant's guilt will not depend on their own actions or intentions, but on the intentions of someone they have probably never met, probably never will meet, and who might actually be dead.
Oh, hang on - there's more.
The defendant's guilt depends not just on the intentions of a third party (the photographer), but on what a forth to fifteenth party (the jury) believe those intentions to be - having had no opportunity whatever to ask.
Your guilt depends on my assessment of someone else's intentions - someone else whom neither of us have actually met or heard evidence from.
And this is justice?
Let's go on.
QUOTE
An �extreme image� is an image of any of the following�
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.
END OF QUOTE
Appears to? Am I really reading this?
Someone, somewhere, is going to assess what a photograph appears to show - and throw a defendant in jail for three years as a result. You don't have to be proven guilty any more, you only have to appear so and you lose the next three years of your life.
And guilty of what? Of possessing an image.
An image for which the prosecution is not required to demonstrate that any harm was done, or any person was hurt, or anyone was unhappy in its making. The defendant can be thrown in jail for three years for possessing a photograph of an entirely legal act between consenting adults.
So let's sum up this piece of legislation, shall we?
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill will throw people in jail.
These people will be thrown in jail because a photographer, at some time in the past, is assumed to have had a certain intention at the time he took a photograph. There is no need to prove this intention. There is no need to provide evidence for it. It may simply be assumed.
These people will be thrown in jail because they own a photograph which appears to depict something that the State finds distasteful, even if what is depicted could be a consensual act between adults. There is no requirement to demonstrate that anyone was harmed in the making of the image, or that any harm will be done by it, or even that the act portrayed in the image is itself illegal.
These people will have their families torn apart and their children taken into care, even though they have hurt no-one and, what is more, have no intention of doing so.
This is disgusting and unjust.
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill is an abomination, unfit to be presented to either House of Parliament and unfit for whatever purpose it is claimed to be written for.
If you have any concept whatever of justice or decency - please ... THROW IT OUT!
Yours sincerely,
I would be interested to hear if people think Version 2 is more appropriate to send to Lords and Ladies of the land!
Toak
FEMALE, BONDAGE-FRIENDLY MODEL SOUGHT. I am seeking to update my "How To" shibari bondage pictures (see my profile pics, the clothed blonde tied in red and black) with a model more "enthusiastic" about BDSM, and who is happy to be photographed nude. MEMO ME if this is you.
Edited 27 Apr 08, 11:04 PM by ToakReon

27 Apr 08, 11:53 PM
prettyname
UK(NW), 9 yrs

ToakReon wrote:
I would be interested to hear if people think Version 2 is more appropriate to send to Lords and Ladies of the land!
Toak
Much, much, MUCH better! It says exactly the same thing as before only much more rationally and shows it to be the complete arse that it is! I'll be writing one similar specifically aimed at the (is it non-contents?) list of names that was given earlier and handing them in tomorrow.
Well done!
~�Nothing is ever the same as they said it was. It's what I've never seen before that I recognise.� Diane Arbus~
~"it's what you see other times that's interesting"~ foxxx~
Extreme Porn Bill Petition : www.londonalternativemarket.com

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent