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

Yes fine. So how are we going to change it?

It is perhaps not so different to the position with rape without witnesses. If you legislate for the 'victim' to be believed despite the defendant's denial you simply hand the power to women (or male 'victims') to be judge and jury. If you require evidence to the standard of other criminal offences then in the nature of rape, ie no witnesses, you are making it very hard indeed to get prosecutions.

It would be the same with consent with BDSM. Are we going to legislate to give 'victims' the power of judge and jury, to legislate that if they tell the court there was no consent this must be accepted?

This issue is of course subsidiary to the principle that where the 'victim' says he or she consented no offence has been committed.

ETA The last paragraph should have read: This issue is of course subsidiary to the principle that where the 'victim' is found by the court to have consented no offence has been committed.

My object all sublime...

Edited 10 Jun 09, 2:07 PM by stormywaters

But isn't the responsibility still on rape victims? Aren't rape victims still judged on their previous sexual history?

As part of my degree we did a module on victimology. Basically the victim was always held entirely responsible for what happened to them and thankfully this prejudice has changed and is still changing now. But I digress. This thread is about the current law regarding S&M.

How would I change the law? As I have previously said on this thread, I haven't a clue. The challenge with any law is to use wording that covers every permutation of what may occur in the present and the near future.

If I hammered a nail through a client's nipple and the next day a husband hammered a nail through his wife's nipple the outcry or reaction to both incidences would be poles apart. How the hell do you word something that recognises this is the same act but ignores the assumption that the husband is an abusive thug whereas I would probably be judged as well...what? Exploited perhaps?

"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 don't understand why we are taking about rape. Rape is non-consensual. A rape victim and a rapist will have differing statements. How is this going to happen in a consensual S&M session? Aren't the statements going to back each other up?

S&M is consensual. Domestic violence isn't consensual. Isn't the debate supposed to be about S&M?

"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 was using rape to illustrate the problem you raised over the conflict between the interests of those wishing to be free to practice BDSM and those who might need the assistance of a law that could convict on assault chrges without evidence from the victim.

ETA I've volunteered too. If we are locked up together we will have plenty of time to discuss this, but otherwise as you say it is maybe getting a little off the point.

My object all sublime...

Edited 10 Jun 09, 12:47 PM by stormywaters

But the victim of domestic violence does supply evidence. She (because it is usually a she) will have provided photos of her injuries, not only that there will be hospital records if it is particularly violent and recurring. This law means it doesn't matter if she withdraws her complaint, the police can still take over, rather than having to close the case and let the abuser continue.

There is no comparison to rape. You can't use rape to support your argument that victims shouldn't be protected by law (to assist them in freeing themselves and their children from abusive situations) so that everyone else can consensually and legally beat each other up.

"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

Ok I will have one last go at this then I am going to leave it.

You said that it was a good thing evidence of injury (photos, hospital records etc) could be used to found guilt in assault cases even when the victim declined to give testimony to the court, for example because she was too frightened. Fine I understand that.

But there is a problem with this for BDSMers. The problem is that this law can be used to convict people of sexual assault irrespective of the 'victim's' evidence that it was consensual; because the court will think, ho hum, the victim is just saying that because she is scared of her assailant, well we the court know better.

This was actually a point you raised, not me.

My object all sublime...

There clearly is a comparison: SM is the equivalent of consensual sex and domestic violence is the equivalent of rape.

You're saying the law should be one way (consent isn't a defence) to protect victims of domestic violence, but not offer the same protection (consent isn't a defence) to victims of rape.

You're able to come out with that because the presumption of society is that only "weird SM freaks" want to hurt people consensually, and therefore the law can safely pretend that actual bodily harm is always non-consensual and only the "weird SM freaks" will be put out by that.

Whereas if the law had some kind of Dworkinist presumption that sex was always non-consensual and therefore proving sexual intercourse would always lead to a rape conviction, a lot of "normal" people with vanilla sex lives would be put out, so that doesn't happen.

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
www.twitter.com/ukTanos

I have just been talking to a senior criminal barrister on the phone about this and he thinks it would work just as well with less risk if the volunteers were not engaging in SM because of the assault law and claiming they should have the right to under the HRA.

De

Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk
Get up, stand up - Bob Marley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zTxUxFjLB0
All you need is love - The Beatles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLxTpsIVzzo
Glad To Be Gay - Tom Robinson Band http://www.cockerel.net/music/pitd/gtbg.mp3

I don't know yet whether I will get involved, for various reasons including strategic ones. Whatever happens I will pull my finger out to assist when it's moving, so you can both count on my support. (And CAAN's support of Spanner Trust)

De

Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk
Get up, stand up - Bob Marley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zTxUxFjLB0
All you need is love - The Beatles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLxTpsIVzzo
Glad To Be Gay - Tom Robinson Band http://www.cockerel.net/music/pitd/gtbg.mp3

Oh that is really nice. Thank you De. Thre thing is that I know you mean it which is what makes it so nice.

In all seriousness I would jump at the chance to do this and have only not contacted Spanner before because they seem to have had it on their site for ages and I didn't think they were very serious.

I imagine one huge issue is funding but maybe they have a 'pro bono' team available. Bring it on.

My object all sublime...