Spanner Trust -SM campaign- can you join in? (93)

I'm not knowledgeable about this, but isn't declaring that you are at risk of prosecution similar to admitting that you are doing things that are illegal?

judy

I must be only one in a million (© David Bowie)

Well this is basically the old argument about banning custard pies because some people may use them as offensive weapons.

What we have here is the argument that people must be deprived of their right to self fullfillment as BDSM sexual human beings because that is necessary to protect people from violent prtners.

It is the responsibility of the victims of violent partners to make it clera to a court that consent was not given. Tail wagging dog?

My object all sublime...

I *do* do things that are illegal. Most S&M is illegal and I'm an S&Mer. Thus I could be thrown into the clink at any time BUT they have to prove it.

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308

There are also other ways to help - spreading the word (even just reposting the info on your blog etc), or donating money if you are able.

Heh, I wonder if Mosley would be willing - he's already got a Judge ruling his acts to be legal, after all, despite the fact that it did cause actual harm.

The point is that it's already the case that injuries alone don't prove it was abusive. However, juries are quite capable of inferring from the circumstances - there's the difference between the victim not coming forward, and the "victim" standing up in court and saying it was consensual, whether it was body modification or S&M.

Furthermore, according to the Spanner ruling, if the abuser really convinced a jury that it was S&M (or if the victim was coerced into saying it was consensual), then even though the abuser would still be guilty, the victim would be criminalised for aiding and abetting!

The current law has nothing to do with protecting abuse. It would be like criminalising gay sex, on the grounds of protecting rape victims (in that firstly, it criminalises a consensual act just in case it might be non-consensual - secondly it only unfairly targets some people, but not mainstream acts of a similar nature).

Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.

Edited 10 Jun 09, 11:49 AM by emark

Yes I understand that, but by volunteering for this Spanner thing you are admitting that you are at risk of prosecution (as that is one of the requirements for volunteers), so isn't that proof?

judy

I must be only one in a million (© David Bowie)

The whole point of the law change was because victims of violent partners are also emotionally abused and isolated by their partners from their family and friends thus making the victim emotionally and financially dependant on the abuser. The abuser also brainwashes the victim into believing it is their fault the violence occurred and not the abuser's. Thus *if* the victim makes a complaint they would 9 times out of 10 withdraw the complain and refuse to help the police prosecute.

So no, it isn't the victim's responsibility. The victim is the victim. They are the vulnerable one who needs protection and assistance.

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.

From what I understand about the law and what the Spanner Trust told me, admitting you do it is one thing but the court still has to prove it.

I'm thinking now about past miscarriages of justice where the police would coerce a confession out of the supposed 'criminal' to bang them up and close the case. Confessions that stand up in court are only valid now if there is supporting evidence to avoid future miscarriages of justice.

I may be wrong. Perhaps someone with legal experience can tell us?

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308

I understand what you are saying, honestly I do. And of course it is true that victimhood can and does run very deep psychologically and that victims often need a tremendous amount of support to escape the 'critical mass' of victimhood.

But in the end all human beings are responsible for themselves. That is a fundamental law of the human condition. Ultimately you lead your life; no one else can. It is very dangerous to lose sight of this principle. It is the same if you are helping, say, a heroin addict. You can help but yu can't do it for them.

Here the danger is clear: you start requiring others, those whose sexual practices are deemed illegal, to pay the price for victims of violence not finding the strength to use the law to protect themselves. In the end it is a matter of judgement but I think that price is way to high.

To remove my right to be and live sexually as I am is a fundamental denial of my right to be.

My object all sublime...

Thanks Lady Anna, that's the sort of thing I meant re: confessions

I think if I were considering volunteering, I'd take legal advice from elsewhere first (which means I probably wouldn't bother volunteering LOL)

Still strikes me as odd that Spanner don't mention that they are volunteering themselves on the PDF, or what (if this campaign really is a year old) has happened so far with their own volunteers.

judy

I must be only one in a million (© David Bowie)