Beware the kinky porn ban-CAAN action report 22/08 (27)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

Fri 29 Aug 08, 8:56 AM
C_A_A_N
UK, 7 mths

"Beware the kinky porn ban! We still can't get advice."
Campaigners claim confusing new law lets abusers off the hook.
CAAN REPORT - 22nd August 2008 - Advice seeking mission 2: ACPO visit.
If you own any hardcore kinky erotica which you think could be considered extreme, you'd better get prepared for January. On January 9th the new crime of possessing extreme pornography is due to be enforceable - an offence for which you can get up to three years in jail and listed on the sex offender register for the rest of your life.
"I live in a city where I can call the police to my neighbour being assaulted for the tenth time by their drunken partner and police allow that violent person to move freely and remain in a house which contains a toddler," says one campaigner, "but where the friendly caring neighbour on the other side could soon be put in jail for being in possession of a kinky photo or movie of people having consensual adult fun. It seems like misappropriated concern and resources to me, when you look at the real lives of people on this estate."
The Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) have been seeking practical advice about this new law and remain concerned about the government creating fictional sex offenders by criminalizing millions of law abiding citizens with a newly created offence hardly anyone seems to know about. Even more worryingly, nobody seems to be able to advise anyone about what images they need to dispose of or not - and it's not for want of people trying.
"Six weeks ago CAAN took to West Midlands Police a collection of extreme pornographic evidence which we have been collecting, submitted by members of the public who want to know whether they can be arrested in a few months time for owning them." Says campaigner Clair Lewis, "West Midlands CID officers said the police said it was not an offense to own the images now but had no information about the forthcoming ban and won't have this information until two weeks before it is enforceable, when they receive their guidance from above. So, CAAN went on Friday 22nd August -----to ACPO to ask them to scrutinise the evidence as well, because ACPO will recommend police procedure. We want to highlight how difficult to interpret this piece of law is when it is applied to real images of real people playing out consensual fantasies, we think it's obvious if you look at the evidence.."
CAAN went for an attention-grabbing flyer, with their new slogan "Beware the kinky porn ban!" and leafletted passers-by in Westminster en route to seek advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers. Activists were disappointed to find that staff at ACPO asked the delegation visiting to 'leave the premises' without even considering CAAN's questions, or collection of consensually made adult extreme pornographic evidence people need advice about. "They never even looked at us, let alone our questions!" said Joanie, from the CAAN delegation. "They just said there was no-one to talk to us and asked us to leave the premises in an officious manner. We have sent them a written message since to ask for an appointment but have had no response so far. At this stage we have no idea why they won't talk to us at all and if they ever will."
So for now campaigners are still left guessing whether people's images need to be disposed of or not and continuing to hypothesise about why this law has come about. "The police struggle already to protect women who they know are being abused and government seems to be trying to divert the attention onto harmless consenting adults, via creating ridiculous victimless sex offences they can actually catch people for." Says Lucy McAlister of CAAN, "This new offence is aimed at all adults who choose to create and view extreme fantasy erotic images, whatever 'extreme' really means. I think it's an outrage for government to blame the harm some of people suffer at the hands of abusers on consensually made extreme fantasy images."
Clair Lewis agrees, "Creating unwitting, harmless scapegoats won't protect people from actual abuse, it just provides an excuse for abusive people. There is no excuse for abusing anyone and most of the adult population manages to view pornography without becoming an abuser." Says Clair, "If there was genuine evidence to show that this new ban on extreme images would actually lower abuse figures, or if it was targeted at violent sex offenders or locating them, we would not be campaigning. We think the Government is making a mistake and would like to see tolerance of consensually made adult imagery and millions of people's privacy to enjoy extreme erotica without needing to take legal advice. We really need to raise awareness of this new offence as most adults still don't seem to know about it."
to contact CAAN email c-a-a-n@live.co.uk

!ACTION NOTICE! London 22nd Aug or join in from home.
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/C_A_A_N...
Consenting Adult Action Network
CAAN
For your freedom, and ours.
Individuals campaigning against extreme porn laws and criminalisation of consenting adults.
Please get involved.

29 Aug 08, 9:08 AM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
Y!
January 9th....
Can you please provide a source for this date, most of the variations I have tried searching for come right back here to IC, nothing at all from the home office, mainstream media or similar.
It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right.
I tend to be suspicious of all true believers. Present company included.
Elise Kraft, The Siege.

29 Aug 08, 9:13 AM
ladyjayne
UK(M), 5 yrs
Y!

kisses_for_me wrote:
January 9th....
Can you please provide a source for this date, most of the variations I have tried searching for come right back here to IC, nothing at all from the home office, mainstream media or similar.
Erm, we have it on a letter from our MP somewhere, it's something to do with the date that the CJA was granted royal assent

the mystical divinity of unashamed felinity....
"does God exist?" "I Hope so, I spend most of my morning singing to him!"

29 Aug 08, 9:19 AM
Degenerate
UK(M), 22 mths
yeah I think it's the date being given on MoJ letters too. If it's wrong - CAAN will need to update so a copy of the source would be good. can't source it either (thought I had this on my info blog but can't find it.)
CAAN - Beware the kinky porn ban! http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/p/C_A_A_N/ - CJIB Wiki and Seenoevil forum: - http://www.seenoevil.org.uk - The times they are a-changin' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_XwLSN45I - FREEDOM NOW!

29 Aug 08, 9:22 AM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
Y!
Only thing is, the act is very open as regards S63 and its associated parts. Simply a case of whenever is wanted.....

(7) The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. (8) An order under any of subsections (4) to (7) may� (a) appoint different days for different purposes and in relation to different areas; (b) make such provision as the person making the order considers necessary or expedient for transitory, transitional or saving purposes in connection with the coming into force of any provision falling within that subsection.
That means it could become law tomorrow, or just be held there as a sword over our heads for eternity. The date of royal assent applies to the act as a whole, with the act on the statute books s63 can be enacted at a whim, not only that, but they can selectively enact it, outlaw extreme porn, but NOT enact the permissable defences section.
edited for carp sellping
It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right.
I tend to be suspicious of all true believers. Present company included.
Elise Kraft, The Siege.
Edited 29 Aug 08, 9:47 AM by kisses_for_me

29 Aug 08, 10:19 AM
Degenerate
UK(M), 22 mths
Yes, a number of us wrote to MoJ after seeing that and 9th was the date they came up with, from what I remember (can't find the letter!).
As you say, it can be moved though and hopefully (if we keep the activism up so that it's increasingly apparent how hard it's going to be to either abide, by or enforce this quietly) it will be. Repeatedly. Until the public force McLaybore out.
I think trying to negotiate terms of an inherently bad law which restricts civil liberties unneccessarily is totally the wrong way to go, we need to push this ridiculous law back until it's forgotten.
I think the reason actions are being disapproved of by those in power is because the more awareness raising that happens the more likely we are to get a public outcry which causes it. The issue today with mr Westwood is going to help a lot. Make no mistake, the minute the authorities are wiling to give anything enough attention to say they don't like it, it's because they want people to stop because it's putting them in a spot. It means we're getting somewhere.
It's not over yet.
De

CAAN - Beware the kinky porn ban! http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/p/C_A_A_N/ - CJIB Wiki and Seenoevil forum: - http://www.seenoevil.org.uk - The times they are a-changin' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_XwLSN45I - FREEDOM NOW!
Edited 29 Aug 08, 10:23 AM by Degenerate

29 Aug 08, 10:32 AM
emark
UK, 5 yrs
kisses_for_me wrote:
January 9th....
Can you please provide a source for this date, most of the variations I have tried searching for come right back here to IC, nothing at all from the home office, mainstream media or similar.
That's a good question. Certainly there are sources for _January_, e.g., letter from the MoJ at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ruddell.html :

I can now inform you that the planning date for bringing provisions 64 to 67 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 into force is January 2009. This date is indicative only at this stage and is subject to confirmation nearer the time.
January 2009 has also been mentioned by the media:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsi...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/19/extreme_...
http://www.xbiz.com/news/all/95571
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/people,,ben-westwo...
But I'm not sure I've seen anything saying the _9th_ - can people confirm if their letters say the 9th, or just January?
Also, just to be different, the Independent say January 1:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/...
Section 63 criminalises "extreme" images of consenting adults - see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... .

29 Aug 08, 10:42 AM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
Y!

emark wrote:

Thanks for that. I was beginning to really wonder where Jan came from.
It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right.
I tend to be suspicious of all true believers. Present company included.
Elise Kraft, The Siege.

29 Aug 08, 10:47 AM
emark
UK, 5 yrs Just to add - Spanner claim "probably 1 January" ( http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/possession... ) but this may just be a guess. I also note that the law received Royal Assent on _9th_ May - so I don't know if either there's been a mixup in the dates somewhere, or if someone is making the calculation based on it being exactly 8 months later?
Section 63 criminalises "extreme" images of consenting adults - see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... .

29 Aug 08, 11:31 AM
birdburdy
UK(N), 13 mths I think you're missing the point of this new law. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting people, or the thin fabric of our society, and everything to do with control. They don't want you to know the boundaries.
This is just one more mechanism for the government to silence people they do not like. Even Longhurst herself could see that (unfortunately I cannot find the BBC article).

29 Aug 08, 11:39 AM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
Y!

birdburdy wrote:
I think you're missing the point of this new law. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting people,......
Of course it does - even backlash have published amongst the governments reasons for the legislation
People need to be protected
Society needs to be protected from exposure to the material
Children need to be protected

{set mode=sarcasmoff}
What scares me, really scares me, is that some people, within the legislature appear to actually believe that despite their own evidence to the contrary.
It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right.
I tend to be suspicious of all true believers. Present company included.
Elise Kraft, The Siege.

Next page


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent