This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 10 Jun 09, 5:32 PM Lady_Anna_Bradford UK(BD), 5 yrs    |
Yup.
"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 | ||||||||
| 10 Jun 09, 6:52 PM TheSpannerTrust UK, 3 yrs |
Hi, Sorry for arriving late to the debate but better late than never. Just to clarify with everyone the activities of the Spanner Trust fall into two categories: 1 They act to assist people who have found themselves with legal issues as a result of their consensual SM activities. This has included assisting individuals and groups under investigation and threat of legal action. Unfortunately this happens all too frequently across the SM spectrum and although prosecutions do not appear to be very forthcoming the damage to people's private lives is often done at the allegation stage before any guilt is proven or a charge is made. 2 The second aspect of the trusts work is to challenge the legal position of consensual SM activities and the law. To this end a number of strategies have been researched and attempted with the most likely being a appeal of the law under the HRA. With regards the HRA yes the trust does need volunteers to take that case forward, ideally it would be a variety of relationship structures illustrating that SM activities pass through gender and relationship boundaries. In an idea world the claimants would be given anonymity from disclosure in the media as the issue is fundamentally the freedom for consenting adults to engage in activities free for persecution and prosecution. In reality although this can be applied for we will not immediately and before the process know if it will be granted. At this point in time we are very much preparing information for the case and investigating legal avenues and angles and collecting information and analysis in support of the case. As such anyone with skills in this area may be able to assist. Others can best be able to help by being aware of the issue and the current legal status. Hopefully in the not too distant future there will be more activity on the legal challenge and we will endeavour to let people know how they can assist either publically or with appropriate levels of anonymity. Other aspects of the Trusts work also include responding to government consultation documents for proposed new laws. Because of the Trusts long standing activities they are often given a higher level of consultation with the government and have been called upon to give evidence at hearing where other groups are only permitted to present in writing. They also tend to be called upon as spokespeople for the SM community and have given many media interviews on the subject of SM and the law. In answer to the question as to why the Trustees themselves do not take legal action, well fundamentally we are by taking the case forward. In the event that any appeal was lost then the Trustee's could be responsible for the court costs which are unlikely to be a small matter. In an ideal world there would be no need for the Trust and one of the things that keep the Trust going forward is that very hope that one day there will be no need for it. I hope that clarifies a little. Regards, David on behalf of the Spanner Trust | ||||||||
| 12 Jun 09, 3:38 PM Empress_Martine UK(HA), 2 yrs £       |
Since the spanner trust uses a "Splat Gun" approach to such matters.I shall not be offering to give them help.THe government is on the way out and anything they try to do to meddle in our world is doomed to failing its self.We swiss tonyed they last attemped at uunderminding us! | ||||||||
| 12 Jun 09, 9:43 PM Silent_Storm UK(M), 6 yrs   |
I simply don't understand this thread at all! Most of the stuff that spanner are doing tends to be about legal things, I would like to see a change in the law obviously. I don't buy the idea of people claiming S&M as a defence against domestic violence...thats crazy. The spanner case is so old, it was originally a witch hunt by Mr. Anderton (Gods copper) because he hates anyone that is gay, and when a vhs tape turns up of S&M activity with gay men, he was in a position to prosecute, and send the consenters to prison The main thing here is, can you consent and if so you could be dragged off to prison, especially if you admit to S&M in court. Which is what spanner are asking. **Choose Freedom** Sign up to http://www.caan.org.uk Edited 12 Jun 09, 10:00 PM by Silent_Storm | ||||||||
| 13 Jun 09, 12:02 AM Fourfiveone UK, 6 yrs |
Isn't the point that people go to court and say "Doing activity X is an intrinsic part of my sexuality. I am unable to do activity X because it is illegal. Therefore the UK law is breaching my human rights" rather than "I am doing activity X illegally, but I don't think it should be illegal"?
| ||||||||
| 13 Jun 09, 12:20 AM Ethics_Gradient UK(N), 5 yrs |
I would suggest that the law be changed to allow for a mitigating defense for assault. A valid mitigation would be a waiver signed by the 'victim' before the injury took place acknowledging their consent and awareness of the risks. I would be surprised if a DV victim would go to such lengths to allow an abusive partner have their way. There are plenty of activities where people place their physical and mental selves in the path of injury with no legal kick back - paintballing and appearing on Jeremy Kyle spring to mind....
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | ||||||||
| 13 Jun 09, 12:34 AM Ethics_Gradient UK(N), 5 yrs |
That would be a no then? I'm sorry - risking financial penalty is a long way removed from risking a criminal record or prison, which is what you are asking of others And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! Edited 13 Jun 09, 12:35 AM by Ethics_Gradient | ||||||||
| 13 Jun 09, 2:48 PM emark UK, 8 yrs |
I don't think we should demonise the Spanner Trust if they're not putting themselves at risk. At worst, that makes them no different to anyone else here, myself included, who aren't willing to take the risk either. People should do what they do best - some people are able to do legal work, but that doesn't mean their good legal work and help should be unwelcomed just because they aren't taking the risk of imprisonment themselves. The risks are being clearly stated, no one is obliged to put themselves forward. Perhaps someone somewhere is willing to take the risk - there's no reason why they should have to be members of the Spanner Trust. We won't know unless we ask. Also the Spanner Trust won't be able to do their work so well if they're in prison...
And given that only one group of people has been sent to prison under the law - and we know they weren't abusers - it's not clear to me that this is very effective at stopping domestic abusers anyway... Would you be happy that tattoos, brandings and scarifications be made illegal, on the grounds that an abuser could cite that as a defence? How many possible domestic abuse cases have there been where the defendant successfully argues that it was a body modification?
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18. Edited 13 Jun 09, 2:54 PM by emark | ||||||||
| 13 Jun 09, 3:28 PM Empress_Martine UK(HA), 2 yrs £ |
I tend to stay clear of this lot as to offer them help means that you might be doing something illegal but not all the law is against BDSM,its ironic that bondage has been legal since the 16th century,yes the law is full of contridictions and sometimes they work in our favour.But as for vounteering for this group,I would stear clear as they have poor veting security and the members amongst them have no history of practising BDSM.Considering that I have been practising for over ten years now,some of them have little or no experience.Also the organisation has been going through political infighting so I would avoid them like hell. Edited 13 Jun 09, 3:29 PM by Empress_Martine | ||||||||
| 13 Jun 09, 4:06 PM Postboy UK, 6 yrs |
Hmmm, so peeps who practice BDsm can't be trusted to exercise their power of consent, so the law has to be framed to remove the question of consent. Seems to me the only difference between straight sex and rape is the question of consent. Seems to me that the law should be consistent. Seems to me a man consenting to accept the risks of a soldier is open to all sorts of abuse, for instance did he consent to fight in somebody elses war? Seems to me that the difference between an adult and a child is the power of consent. Seems to me that adults should be responcible for the actions they consent to! Seems to me that it is for the courts to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a victim didn't consent to harm or wasn't in a fit mind to consent! |
