 |
IC : Weblogs : Degenerate : "Last chance to act - Lords decide on Wednesday!"
 Last chance to act - Lords decide on Wednesday! (8)
Degenerate's profile
Posted by Degenerate on Sun 27 Apr 08, 1:22 PM
IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO RALLY SUPPORT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS - USE THE EMAIL ADDRESSES BELOW OR SEND VIA ONLINE WEBSITE TO SEND A FAX. LIST OF RELEVANT PEERS INCLUDED IN THIS BLOG.
Quote from admin. "Since we don't know which of the 113095 pictures in the IC database would contravene the legislation, IC might again be covered in pictures of Gordon Brown's ugly mug once the act becomes law - but this time without the question mark  "
For anyone who has been meaning to do it and haven't had the chance yet.. we've got hardly any time left and we need to be sending our letters now. Lords decide on Wednesday and this becomes law on 9th May. I have just sent my last batch of paper letters.
It is best to do your own letter if you are able to and have time. It only takes a quarter of an hour to write a quick letter and I am going to put all the tools to do it all in one place again here. Can you donate the time you would have spent posting on BDSM issues here today or browsing profiles, before we lose all our photos?
these are some good thread to read:
from backlash - last nights lords debate - what to do now http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism....
from ic members - feel the fear and fight the porn bill anyway http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism....
the fullest source of information is of course the backlash website where you can find all relating information: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/
Come on people - last push! One more letter each - it might be the letter that tips the balance - and if we don't win, we are at least making it clear we won't take this lying down when they come to consider further eroding our priveleges..
THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:
Contact members of the House of Lords about Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill [Part 5 - Criminal law - Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images. Ask them to vote for scrapping section 63 of the Bill altogether, or vote for the amendments proposed by Lord Wallace Of Tankerness, Baroness Miller Of Chilthorne Domer or (for one of them) Lord McIntosh Of Haringey.
HOW TO DO IT ONLINE.
Some email addresses are below.
You can send a fax to any member of the House of Lords by selecting their name from this page and following the links to contact them. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peers/
HOW TO DO IT BY POST.
Letters should be addressed to individual Members at The House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW. Mail is delivered to the Lord in the House or forwarded to another address - be aware of this. in the main there/'s no point sending letters after tonioght and even these we can't guarantee will be received in time - we're hoping they'll pick them up on the day of the debate.
HOW TO DO IT BY PHONE:
yes they do call back, or one of their workers will! Call the main Parliament switchboard on 020 7219 3000. If the Lord has a listed telephone number, the operator will try to connect you. Or, you can leave a message with the Message Service on 020 7219 5353.
WHO TO SEND THEM TO:
you can send as many letters to as many lords as you like.
some email addresses, thanks for these emark.
emark wrote: "Here's a list of Not Contents that we have public email addresses for:
Anderson of Swansea, L. [Lab] Lord Anderson/"Lord Anderson" <trotmang@parliament.uk>
Armstrong of Ilminster, L. [Cross] Lord Armstrong/"Lord Armstrong" <armstrongr@parliament.uk>
Bach, L. [Lab] Lord Bach/"Lord Bach" <bachw@parliament.uk> Bassam of Brighton, L. [Lab] Lord Bassam/"Lord Bassam" <bassams@parliament.uk>
Clarke of Hampstead, L. [Lab] Lord Clarke/"Lord Clarke" <clarkeaj@parliament.uk>
Cohen of Pimlico, B. [Lab] Lady Cohen/"Baroness Cohen" <janet.cohen@btclick.com>
Corston, B. [Lab] Lady Corston/"Baroness Corston" <corstonj@parliament.uk>
Dixon, L. [Lab] Lord Dixon/"Lord Dixon" <dixond@parliament.uk>
Dubs, L. [Lab] Lord Dubs/"Lord Dubs" <dubsa@parliament.uk> Gale, B.[Lab] Lady Gale/"Baroness Gale" <galea@parliament.uk>
Grocott, L. [Lab] Lord Grocott/"Lord Grocott" <burfoot@parliament.uk>
Hastings of Scarisbrick, L. [Cross] Lord Hastings/"Lord Hastings" <hastingsm@parliament.uk>
Hollis of Heigham, B. [Lab] Lady Hollis/"Baroness Hollis" <hollisp@parliament.uk>
Hughes of Woodside, L. [Lab] Lord Hughes/"Lord Hughes" <hughesr@parliament.uk>
Jenkin of Roding, L. [Con] Lord Jenkin/"Lord Jenkin" <jenkinp@parliament.uk>
Jones of Whitchurch, B. [Lab] Lady Jones/"Baroness Jones" <jonesmag@parliament.uk>
Jordan, L. [Lab] Lord Jordan/"Lord Jordan" <jordanw@parliament.uk>
McIntosh of Hudnall, B. [Lab] Lady McIntosh/"Baroness McIntosh" <mcintoshg@parliament.uk>
Marlesford, L. [Con] Lord Marlesford/"Lord Marlesford" <marlesford@parliament.uk>
O'Cathain, B. [Con] Lady O'Cathain/"Baroness O'Cathain" <ocathaind@parliament.uk>
Pendry, L. [Lab] Lord Pendry/"Lord Pendry" <pendryt@parliament.uk>
Royall of Blaisdon, B. [Teller] [Lab] Lady Royall/"Baroness Royall" <royallj@parliament.uk>
Stone of Blackheath, L. [Lab] Lord Stone/"Lord Stone" <stonea@parliament.uk>
Thornton, B. [Lab] Lady Thornton/"Baroness Thornton" <thorntong@parliament.uk>
Tunnicliffe, L. [Lab] Lord Tunnicliffe/"Lord Tunnicliffe" <tunnicliffed@parliament.uk>
Whitty, L. [Lab] Lord Whitty/"Lord Whitty" <whittyl@parliament.uk>
I've added the parties - it's noticeable just how many of these are Labour.
(From http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php.... .)."
backlash compiled this list of people we need to urgently contact:
" 12:52 PM backlash_uk UK, 20 mths Grahamm wrote elsewhere: the majority are, unsurprisingly, Labour Lords, however the following are not:
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster - Crossbench Peer Lord Ballyedmond - Crossbench Peer Earl Ferrers - Conservative Peer Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick - Crossbench Peer Lord Jenkin of Roding - Conservative Peer Lord Marlesford - Conservative Peer Baroness Masham of Ilton - Crossbench Peer Lord Mawhinney - Conservative Peer Viscount Montgomery of Alamein - Crossbench Peer The Bishop of Newcastle - Bishop Baroness O'Cathain - Conservative Peer Lord Palumbo - Conservative Peer Lord Sanderson of Bowden - Conservative Peer Lord Waddington -
I'm going to target my first lot of letters to these Lords."
the below is a complete list of the people who attended last weeks debate and voted against scrapping this section of the bill, we need to help them change their minds:
Adams of Craigielea, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Andrews, B. Armstrong of Ilminster, L. Ashton of Upholland, B. [Lord President.] Bach, L. Ballyedmond, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. Bilston, L. Brookman, L. Burlison, L. Carter of Coles, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Corston, B. Crawley, B. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Dixon, L. Donoughue, L. Dubs, L. Elder, L. Evans of Parkside, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Ferrers, E. Foster of Bishop Auckland, L. Gale, B. Gould of Potternewton, B. Grocott, L. Hastings of Scarisbrick, L. Hollis of Heigham, B. Hoyle, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Jenkin of Roding, L. Jones, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Jordan, L. Judd, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Marlesford, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Mawhinney, L. Mitchell, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V. Moonie, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Newcastle, Bp. O'Cathain, B. Palumbo, L. Pendry, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. [Teller] Sanderson of Bowden, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Snape, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Thornton, B. Tomlinson, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Turner of Camden, B. Waddington, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. West of Spithead, L. Whitty, L.
you can mail ANY lord you like about this using the website http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peers/ .
DON'T TAKE THIS LYING DOWN! Edited Tue 29 Apr 08, 4:36 PM by Degenerate
Replies
27 Apr 08, 1:23 PM
Degenerate
UK, 19 mths
|
sample letter for you to use as you wish to help you write your own - lots more available elsewhere on my blog 'letters to lords'
this letter does not address BDSM issues directly.
Dear
i hope my letter finds you well. I was pleased to notice you participated in voting on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - Part 5 - Section 63, concerning extreme pornographic images.
I am a 35 year old mother of three young children - old enough to view adult material and responsible enough to believe in some censorship, in particular where crimes are taking place, such as sex offenses, murder or abuse against animals. I am worried, however, that the wording of section 63 does not make it clear enough which images it will be illegal to possess.
I think it is common sense to recognise that which images are "extreme", or "disgusting", is a matter of personal opinion - whereas what is already deemed criminal in terms of obscenity is already clearly defined in the Extreme Publication Act.
For it to effectively serve its purpose, section 63 needs to be absolutely clear about which images it will be an offense to possess, either by its own wording, or by reference to an existing tried-and-tested measure (such as the Obscene Publications Act). We also need to bear in mind that much pornography is fictional and employs actors.
If Section 63 is neither explicit, nor accessible, then how can ordinary people, like myself, who wish to stay within the law know whether images we possess are illegal, or not? Will this wording lead to people being imprisoned who would have committed no crime, had they only understood the legislation? Is it going to lead to the criminalisation of images not agreed to be obscene in previous law? If yes it needs to be explicit so that UK citizens KNOW. Will misunderstanding of this poorly written legislation even lead to criminals walking free in the judicial system? I am certain it will waste time and resources in the police and legal systems which we need to spend on apprehending dangerous criminals.
I urge you to attend the next debate on 30th April and ask for clarification in these matters. Please consider voting for the sensible and clarifying amendments suggested by Baroness Miller, Lord Wallace and Lord Mcintosh.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these important issues.
Yours sincerely
me Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail and the sex offenders register BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do:
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... .
.
.
Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .
Edited 28 Apr 08, 6:40 PM by Degenerate
|
28 Apr 08, 6:42 PM
Degenerate
UK, 19 mths
|
another letter which might be of interest to use or inspire - is this one - individual members of Club Lash, IC, Spankd, and Manchester Fetish have sent by snail mail 160 of these to different Lords this month, some amended some not. both letters are intended to be easy to add your own comments to. this letter does raise BDSM issues directly.
Dear
Re: Section 63 of the proposed Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
[space left to add comments and name address, etc]
I am writing to express urgent and grave concerns about the current wording of Section 63 of the proposed Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill relating to 'extreme' pornography. Please consider voting for the scrapping of the sections relating to extreme pornography, or for the amendments as laid by Baroness Miller.
I believe that the current vague wording, will make a great deal of consensually made imagery illegal and criminalize people who have never committed any kind of violent or sexual offence, wasting time in the police and court systems which needs to be spent on genuine offenders.
Enjoying loving sensation play and power exchange (often referred to as BDSM) is common amongst a broad range of society. An estimated 50% of the adult population engage in such horseplay at some point. We rely on information accompanied by imagery to learn how to practice these activities safely. Our community has spent many years making more information accessible to those that need it. I believe criminalizing this information will lead to preventable injuries and even deaths. This already occurs amongst people who have not accessed safety information (e.g. reported deaths of people who engage in solo bondage or asphyxiation play).
As well as the removal of images on the internet, people in our community may have to throw away manuals and books might be removed from shops as shop owners feel they may be caught by the ill-defined law. This bill will also make it illegal for us to possess images of loving activities, carried out with consenting partners, even though nobody was harmed. Ordinary people -- who practise loving sex and are no risk to the wider public - will be put at direct risk due to lack of access to information.
People who have never committed any kind of sex offence in their lives will be at risk of three years imprisonment alongside rapists, necrophiliacs, paedophiles and people who commit bestiality. I do not believe such risky outcomes and time wasting are the intended goal of the Bill. Should it really be considered illegal to engage in creating a work of fiction for mutual enjoyment?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Yours sincerely Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail and the sex offenders register BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do:
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... .
.
.
Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .
Edited 28 Apr 08, 6:43 PM by Degenerate
|
29 Apr 08, 6:44 PM
MistressAmanda
UK, 14 mths
|
Plagurising the propsed wording of others who have posted on this thread I attach the letter that I have sent to their Lorships' in the hope that common sense prevails:
Dear
Re: Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
I am writing to you in connection with the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - Part 5 - Section 63, in particular concerning extreme pornographic images.
I am a parent of adult children and well aware in my own mind what I consider to be corrupting. I consider that I am liberal enough and old enough to view adult material and responsible enough to believe in some censorship, in particular where crimes are motivated by looking at such images, however, it has been demonstrated in the Courts that this event is very rare. I am concerned however that the wording of section 63 does not make it clear enough which images precisely it will be illegal to possess.
It is a matter of common sense to recognize images which any right thinking person would consider "extreme" or "disgusting" but this will always be a matter of personal opinion - whereas what is already deemed criminal in terms of obscenity is already defined in the Extreme Publication Act which this proposed Bill fails to clarify sufficiently.
For it to effectively serve its purpose, section 63 needs to be absolutely clear about the precise nature of the images it will be an offence to possess, either by its own wording, or by reference to an existing tried-and-tested measure such as the Obscene Publications Act. However it should also be borne in mind that much pornography is in fact fictional and employs actors who are merely posing for photographs.
If Section 63 is neither explicit, nor accessible, then how can ordinary people, like myself, who wish to stay within the law know whether images we possess are illegal, or not? If for example one were to take a digital image of a partner tied to a bed, a consensual role play scenario that citizens may from time to time indulge in, would this be considered a breach of the law? Will the proposed wording of the Act lead to the criminalization of individuals who record what they do on digital images which of themselves are consensual and lead to no harm to either individual? I should be surprised if this is what Parliament or the people of the United Kingdom would wish.
I urge you to consider the common sense approach taken by Baroness Miller, Lord Wallace and Lord McIntosh in respect of this poorly drafted Section of the Bill and to follow their sensible and clarifying amendments when the Bill comes before your Lordships on 30 April 2008.
Yours sincerely,
|
30 Apr 08, 8:52 AM
Degenerate
UK, 19 mths
|
some other useful info.
29 Apr 08, 8:53 PM
the_object
UK, 2 yrs OK here are a few pertinent facts that you can put to impertient use:
1. Over the past 5 years, while the number of UK Internet users has more than doubled, and the number of Internet domains has roughly tripled, reported UK sexual offences have dropped slightly from 58,890 in 02/03 to 57,542 in 06/07(Home Office stats).
2. The argument that sexual imagery 'de-sensitises' people is based on limited laboratory-based experiments with very short-term follow up periods. It is no more proven than the alternative view that sexual fantasy provides a valuable safety valve to dispel urges.
3. The government commissioned Rapid Evidence Assessment, which was rounded criticised by leading academics (see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/acad_statement.html ) found "some evidence of some effects on some people..." - hardly a weighty justification for infringing civil liberties. By the same argument, we could say that since peanut allergy is known to cause life-threatening anaphylactic reactions in some people that we should criminalise possession of peanuts!
4. In his statements of 21st April Lord Hunt clearified the reason for introducing the clause were because certain images were "deplorable" and that he personally found them “frightening" and "horrific”. He stated that the government was responding to "large genuine public concern...that something must be done". Interestingly, the 'large genuine public concern' about the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed did not prompt a similar call for criminalisation, but rather lead to a defence of rights of the freedom of expression of the publishers.
5. The recent Court of Appeal ruling in the case of 5 Muslim students jailed for downloading "extremist material" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7242724.stm ) Lord Phillips found that without criminal intent, mere possession of was insufficient cause for prosecution, and that the Terrorism Act 2000 section 57 was over-inclusive. It appears that the government now seeks to re-establish the principle of criminalisation of mere possession of the distasteful, without regard to any 'real world' consequences.
6. The oft-quoted poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller is apt:
"They came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
It may be adapted: "First they came for the Muslim fundamentalists, and I didn't speak up because I'm not a Muslim; The they came for the sexually adventurous, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a sexually adventurer; And now they're coming for me..."
7. From http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/sadi.... "The prevalence of sexual sadism is difficult to gauge accurately, given that most individuals who practice in these activities do not self report although several studies have been conducted over the several decades:
Kinsey et al (1953): determined that 3-12% of women and 10- 20% of men admitted to responding sexually to sadomasochistic narratives Crepault and Couture (1980): found a 14.9% incidence of fantasies of humiliating a woman and 10.7% of beating up a woman when they surveyed a group of men in the general population Arndt, Foehl and Good (1985) found that 33% of women and 50% of men had sexual fantasies of tying up their partner. Note: It is not clear whether these represent sustained, preferred activities or part of a repertoire of activities that may be carried out from time to time. Hunt (1974) found that 5% of men and 2% of women reported they obtained sexual gratification from inflicting pain
If commercially available pornography can be used as an indicator of levels of sexual sadism in the general public, research has shown that 10 - 20% of pornographic magazines feature bondage and discipline themes (Dietz & Evans, 1982; Gayford, 1978)."
There may be figures for usage of BDSM websites in the UK, which will inform the likely numbers affected, but I don't know them. However the quoted figures suggest that at least 10% of the adult UK population (~5 million people) may be affected by this ban - even if they do not enjoy 'extreme' images (whatever they are!), they will fear inadvertantly breaking the law.
Hope that's useful ammo. Good luck! Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do:
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... .
.
.
Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .
|
30 Apr 08, 9:05 AM
Degenerate
UK, 19 mths
|
Good luck with your letter Mistress Amanda!
Fingers crossed for today.
De Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do:
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... .
.
.
Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .
|
30 Apr 08, 12:41 PM
Degenerate
UK, 19 mths
|
thanks to prettyname for this: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/the-hum...
article 7 of the human rights act
Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do:
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... .
.
.
Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .
|
30 Apr 08, 1:16 PM
Degenerate
UK, 19 mths
|
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Government Bill introduced by David Hanson, Ministry of Justice and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Ministry of Justice
From http://www.parliament.uk/ :
"Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Setting out new powers to deal with anti-social and violent behaviour. Lords third reading at 3.30pm"
You should be able to view this debate here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_5120000/...
or via a link from here (click House of Lords Live):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parlia...
Progress of Bill including links to debates: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/crim...
Preserve your right to own BDSM images without risking 3 years jail BEFORE 30th April - simple blog about what you need to do:
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degener... .
.
.
Video from BACKLASH about what we need to do:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8_9vmEIKs .
|
30 Apr 08, 10:07 PM
Degenerate
UK, 19 mths
|
Lord voted 91:134 against Baroness Millers amendments but Lord Hunt conceded some writing to do with photos we are ourselves in which are consensual - see activist forum for discussions. ~ this domme is currently unavailable, please leave a message after the squeal.. ~
|
|
|
