Posted by skyfox
on Wed 11 Mar 09, 9:46 PM to skyfox's blog.
Tags: Edinburgh (EH)
One of the most vocal opponents of the extreme pornography section in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill is MSP Patrick Harvie. MSP Harvie is also working on protecting the rights of consenting adults in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill which is now in debate.
The Sexual Offences Bill is not without merit. The definitions of "penis" and "vagina" include both natural and artificial organs, meaning that transexuals both rape and be raped, a position of equality with hetero-norms. And the penis can also rape the mouth and anus as well as the vagina, suggesting that men can also be raped, rather than just women. There are seven cases given when consent is not established (e.g. the person is drunk), and extra protection is given to "mentally disordered persons".
However, as MSP Harvie pointed out, the problem is more with what is NOT being said.
| MSP Patrick Harvie wrote: I wonder whether the cabinet secretary will address one of the Law Commission's recommendations that the Government has chosen not to act on—the recommendation to decriminalise sadomasochism. I understand the Government's desire not to create a defence that could be misused in cases of assault or domestic violence, but what other approaches have been considered, bearing in mind the rights of those who freely consent to sadomasochistic sex? For example, would it be appropriate for the Government to issue guidance specifying that prosecution would not be appropriate when consent is uncontested? Source: They Work For You |
(If you look at Kenny MacAskill's response, somehow he seems to equate "sadomasochism" with "13 to 15 year olds". How he made THAT jump, I'll never know.)
Consent is defined as "free agreement". However, among the seven cases given where consent is not valid, the only one allowing for consent to be given before the act is in regards to sleeping: "except in circumstances where the victim has freely agreed, prior to falling asleep or becoming unconscious, to sexual activity taking place while he or she is in that state". (As stated in the Explanatory Notes.) MSP Robert Brown seems to think that this notion of "prior consent" complicates the issue. Looking at the comments on consent, this does not seem to be the simple "safeword" view that we hold.
No-where does it mention sadomasochism at all.
To get involved or not get involved? Rape, sexual assault, and other non-consensual activities are wrong. However, is the concept of consent being "free agreement" enough? Is it enough to say "consent cannot be given while under the influence"? Can one consent prior to the act, or is it unfair to hold someone to an earlier decision when they could change their mind?
Perhaps we are lucky that we have definitions not only of consent, but also the withdrawl of consent. We require people to take responsibility for their choices and action, require that submissives use safewords to explicitly state the withdrawl of consent, and expect our dominants to pay attention to the safety of their submissive. Yet to be persecuted for this responsibility is wildly inappropriate.
| 12 Mar 09, 2:35 PM skyfox UK(EH), 5 yrs  |
More research has turned up the SPICe briefing 17 Sept 2008 #08/48 was has the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations for decriminalising sadomasochism. While I feel that the Scottish government's response is valid, though unfounded, I am less happy that the Catholic Paliramentary Office was allowed to be quoted:
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. | |
| 13 Mar 09, 1:48 AM emark UK, 9 yrs |
It's mad isn't it. Does legalising tattoos and other body modifications mean that violence is accepted by society? Causing lasting marks doesn't imply violence (although even where an act might reasonably be described as "violent", it's no different to say, legal "violent sports"). I'd like to recommend criminalising those Catholics on the grounds that they might become accepted as a legitimite part of society... Really though, if these kinds of things were said about any other group of adults, it'd be branded hate speech, or written off as being a fringe or extremist viewpoint. Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details. Edited 13 Mar 09, 1:50 AM by emark |
