Police Discretion

BBC News is reporting today on a possible move to give the police greater discretion in applying the law following a series of trials. The move is an attempt to replace targets and strikes me as potentially significant move. One BDSM discussion board is already covering the story today from an Operation Spanner angle with a variety of views. For me this has broader application - to possible HIV transmission/barebacking cases, public sex instances and thanks to the recent Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, violent pornography. Such a move palces greater responsibility on 'experts' and activists such as myself to ensure that the Police approach these issues in an informed and measured way. A story to watch.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act

With the recent passing of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act , the campaign group Backlash has announced it will be changing (understandably) and it will be interesting to see how they evolve. For me as an outsider looking in, it has the potential to be group that may have a long evolving life just as Stonewall was born out Section 28.

On their website they have published some correspondence with Stephen Ruddell at the Ministry of Justice. He sort of confirms the violent pornography provisions will come into effect in January 2009. I am struck by one section of the letter which states:

'Taking first the new defence for participants in consensual activity, as you have noted, the amendment was introduced to address a possibly anomaly where, as the legislation was previously constructed, a person might have been at risk of committing an offence by possessing an image of certain acts which he or she had undertaken lawfully. The new defence will apply where a defendant proves that he or she was a participant in the act depicted in the image; and that no harm was caused to any participant, or if harm were caused, it was harm which was and could be lawfully consented to. '

Well that sounds reasonable you might think but thanks to the Brown case many BDSM acts can not be consented to and to my mind this so called defence amounts to none at all. It creates massive burdens upon the defendant to prove that "no harm was caused". I believe this will also criminalize the barebacking pornography that includes HIV positive guys having sex with a negative guy. Given this hasn't really been commented upon in this debate I suspect it is an implication yet to be realised and there are a lot of gay men who should be carefully reviewing their porn stashes on their PCs and on DVDs. You can read more on this and view a Newsnight item on this in one my earlier posts.

Another significant passage of the letter is:

'...it is the case that offenders will be subject to notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 if they are 18 or over but only if they are sentenced to two years’ imprisonment or more. This is towards the top of the scale for an offence where the maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment, i.e. in respect of violent images, and at the very top in the case of an extreme image in the less severe categories i.e. bestiality and necrophilia.'

This sentence clearly underlines the severe penalties that accompany these new offences.

You can view the full letter here: http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ruddell.html

The full text of the Act can be viewed at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_1

Politics and Legal Reform

Apologies for more politics on the blog but there is just so much going on at the mo. Obviously over in the States we have Clinton determined to derail the Democrats hopes of winning (and with it any hope for a more progressive policy and law agenda) as she drifts into megalomania. Over here we have the new London mayor who can be described as many things, though not I think a megalomaniac (feel free to comment below if you disagree!). He has now announced (or rather a rep has) that he will indeed be attending London pride this year and of greater importance for me, continues to make use of high profile out gay men. Pink News, reporting on this provide a link to the brilliant blog of Ian Dale (in my view a name everyone will be familiar with in the future as I'm sure he will eventually be a Cabinet Minister in a Tory government) who provided pics of Tory candidate for Brighton Dr David Bull (also bit of a media celeb) and his float at Brighton Pride last August along with some topless male dancers. Yes sexy gay men can now be Tories. Pink News speculates that the Tories might have a float at London Pride. I hope they will, but I hope even more they will adopt a genuinely progressive freedom based agenda.

Clearly, the Conservative party has changed, and is changing but the real test will be whether there is a shift in attitudes to an emerging rights agenda on transgender and other marginalised communities. For example, the Gender Recognition Act continues to rely on a binary interpretation of gender - you are male and become female or female and become male. Yet biology and psychology refuses to conform to this binary divide so why does the law (supposedly now reformed) insist on this. I've had a brilliant undergraduate dissertation student this year who has been exploring this very issue but there needs to be more debate at a national and international academic level.

Similarly, the Brown case remains in-force with regard to S&M behaviour, limiting consensual practices and the Tory party has given no clear sign that it would seek to repeal, if elected, the proposed new legislation on violent pornography. Both constitute an attack on a silent section of society, often unable to form large high profile political bodies for fear of encountering the prejudices of society. The work of groups like Outsiders, Backlash and the Sexual Freedom Coalition deserve credit for the campaigning they do.

Speaking of which the campaign group Backlash and their supporters planned to gather last night in Parliament Square with some planning to chain themselves to a headboard, to symbolise the state's unwarranted intrusion into people's private consensual activities. I've not seen any updates on the web about how the event went but I did flick through the news channels at 5pm (when it was scheduled) to see if anything was reported. Shock horror, not a sausage. I've also done a search through Lexis for all UK newspapers and media outlets and again nothing. It's a real shame that such an important community can not be heard when the miss-judged violent-pornography legislation will affect them the most. Madness.

Extreme Porn

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Freedom to Offend

The second Pink Paper story that caught my attention is an article by Jonathan Best, Director of Queer Up North. He argues that the current proposals for criminalising inciting homophobic hatred is wrong and argues for freedom of speech. It makes a refreshing change from the bulk of material produced by activists in this field that has sang the praises of the legislation. I was against the religious hatred proposals a few years ago and similarly against the current proposals on this. Best concludes by writing: 'It’s uncomfortable for me, an HIV-positive gay man, to be defending the rights of bigots,but freedom of speech belongs to everyone, and it must include the freedom to offend – that’s part of the price we pay for a free society. If we fall back on the easy shortcut of restricting expression in a misguided (and doomed) attempt to engineer a nicer world, we will add to society’s divisions, rather than heal them.'

Disability and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

BDSM Pornography in Poland

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

Pink News is reporting that Stonewall is gearing up for a Commons battle on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Specifically the provisions that would enable same sex partners to register as the 'parents' of the child. It seems to me that both sides could be accomodated in a much more radical proposal - one which I am sure the present day Stonewall would reject. Why not completely re-constitute the registration document? Why not seek to move away from traditional legal conceptions of parent whislt maintaining the recognition of biological orgins? Both with this and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (which criminalises inciting homophobic hate) Stonewall seems to be on the wrong side of the debate. Once upon a time, a gay rights organisation such as Stonewall would have spoken up for freedom of expression and would have offered a radical vision for families and how we lead our lives. It saddens me that there is such an apparent lack of imagination and lack of thought in Stonewall today.

Read the story at: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6800.html