Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
“The Muslim community have taken it upon themselves to rid the streets of evil. This is just how the Taliban started in Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes, you are witnessing the emergence of the Taliban in Walthamstow.” — Website, Islam4UK
With East London hosting the world during the Olympics, a group of Islamists associated with Anjem Choudary and his group, Islam4UK, have taken the law into their own hands.
Over recent weeks the group has launched a vigilante campaign in Waltham Forest, close to the main Olympics venues, to target “Pimps and Prostitutes,” part of a wider campaign by Choudary’s associates to launch their own vigilante campaigns, based on a narrow interpretation of Shariah law. Last year, the group put up stickers around parts of East London declaring it a ‘Shariah Zone.’ It warned women to observe strict dress codes, and local residents against drinking alcohol. Homosexuals were also threatened.
“Pimps and Prostitutes” is a new campaign. Of course, few would argue with a genuine civic movement to clear the streets of prostitutes, but Choudary’s men are not motivated by public spirit. They want instead to assert Islamist principles and practice over parts of public life in London, in the hope of carving out enclaves for themselves. “As Muslims in your local area it is our duty to invite you to embrace Islam” the group states, “but we also want to share with you some of the great projects we’re involved in that can make a real change to the area.”
“When I want a sex-slave,” [I] should be able to go “to the market and pick out whichever female I desire and marry her.” — Sheikh Huwaini
Egypt’s “first sex-slave marriage” took place mere days after the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi was made president.
Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa (“the Truth”), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi showed a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, “marrying” his slave. Before making the woman, who has a non-Egyptian accent, repeat after him the Koran’s Surat al-Ikhlas, instead of saying the usual “I marry myself to you,” the woman said “I enslave myself to you,” kissing him in front of an applauding audience.
Then, even though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared that she is forbidden from such trappings and commanded her to be stripped of them, so as “not to break Allah’s laws.” She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, by Muslim standards, a seductive red dress (all the other women present were veiled). The man claps for her and the video-clip (which can be seen here) ends.
The man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, who identified himself as an Islamic scholar who studied at Al Azhar and an expert at Islamic jurisprudence, then appeared on the show, giving several Islamic explanations to justify his marriage, from Islam’s prophet Muhammad’s “sunna,” or practice, of “marrying” enslaved captive women, to Koran 4:3, which declares: “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four… or what your right hands possess.”
Though the term malk al-yamin literally means “that which is owned by your right hand,” for all practical purposes, and to avoid euphemisms, according to Islamic doctrine and history, she is simply a sex-slave. Linguistic evidence even suggests that she is seen not as a human but as a possession.
Even stripping the sex-slave of her hijab, the way Awn did, has precedent. According to Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to wear a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees—with everything else exposed. Awn even explained how Caliph Omar, one of the first “righteous caliphs,” would strip sex-slaves of their garments, whenever he saw them overly dressed in the marketplace.
Awn further went on to declare that he believes the idea of sex slave marriage is ideal for today’s Egyptian society. He bases this on ijtihad, a recognized form of jurisprudence, whereby a Muslim scholar comes up with a new idea—one that is still rooted in the Koran and example of Muhammad—that fits the circumstances of contemporary society. He argued that, when it comes to marriage, “we Muslims have overly complicated things,” so that men are often forced to be single throughout their prime, finally getting married between the ages of 30-40, when they will have a stable career and enough money to open a household. Similarly, many Egyptian women do not want to wear the hijab in public. The solution, according to Awn, is to reinstitute sex-slavery—allowing men to marry and copulate much earlier in life, and women who want to dress freely to do so, as technically they are sex-slaves and mandated to go about loosely attired.
The other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor in Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar, fiercely attacked Awn for reviving this practice, calling on him and his slave-wife to “repent,” to stop dishonoring Islam, and arguing that “there is no longer sex-slavery”—to which Awn responded by sarcastically asking, “Who said sex-slavery is over? What—because the UN said so?”
In many ways, this exchange between Awn, who advocates sex-slave marriage, and the Al Azhar professor symbolizes the clash between today’s “Islamists” and “moderate Muslims.” For a long time, Al Azhar has been engaged in the delicate balancing act of affirming Islam while still advocating modernity according to Western standards, whereas the Islamists—from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Salafis—bred with contempt and disrespect for the West, are only too eager to revive Islamic practices that defy Western standards.
While this may be the first sex slave marriage to take place in Egypt’s recent history, it is certainly not the first call to revive the practice. Earlier, Egyptian Sheikh Huwaini, lamenting that the “good old days” of Islam were over, declared that, in an ideal Muslim society, “when I want a sex-slave,” he should be able to go “to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.” Likewise, a Kuwaiti female politician earlier advocated for reviving the institute of sex-slavery, suggesting that Muslims should bring female captives of war—specifically Russian women from the Chechnya war—and sell them to Muslim men in the markets of Kuwait.
And so the “Arab Spring” continues to blossom.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Nick Clegg is calling on the public to help repeal bad laws. His website is not working very well yet, but if you go to http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ and register, you can begin to express your views. Perhaps you might like to start by “search” and type in Sexual Freedom. If you are lucky, you may find Tuppy’s suggestion to Ban all the Laws against Consenting Adults’ Sexual Freedom. Let’s hear it for accessible brothels (by repealing all the silly laws criminalising keeping a brothel) and tick to agree with all the ideas you like, and against the others. Sex positive people are often too busy shagging to express their views so, this time, get to it!
Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary responsible for banning extreme pornography and now trying to ban the buying of sex, plus more clamp-downs on brothels and kerb crawling, using dodgy stats and lies fed to her by the fundamentalist feminists, has now been exposed as someone who actually enjoys porn herself.
We are running a competition for the best guess at the titles of the two films her husband ordered with tax payer’s money. You have our permission to be as brutal as you like. The winner will receive three free tickets to the next Night of the Senses, Easter 2010.
The ten best will be displayed on this site, where you can be anonymous or not.
Send your two titles to
From: Jane Scoular
Reader in Law
University of Strathclyde
I would firstly wish to raise concerns as to the short deadline for these proposals which have, as yet, not be widely publicised or debated. Details of the 6 month review are not available to ascertain the rationale of the reforms or indeed the research evidence supporting the government’s proposed approach. This is particularly worrying given the grave inadequacies of recently commissioned work see for eg academic concerns regarding the commissioning of and failure to comply with basic ethical standards in reports such as ‘Sex for Sale’, ‘Big Brothel’ ‘Challenging Men’s Demand for Prostitution in Scotland’ and A Critical Examination of Responses to Prostitution in Four Countries: Victoria, Australia; Ireland; the Netherlands; and Sweden1. Also the Home Office’s earlier review ‘Paying the Price’ and ‘A Co-ordinated Strategy’ was met with a substantial body of criticism in the academic press. Concerns were expressed specifically about the use of criminal law to tackle a complex issue of social inequality, the introduction of compulsory orders designed to exit women from prostitution and the lack of consultation with sexworkers as stake-holders. These important issues do not appear to have been taken into account in formulating these most recent proposals, which have not been widely debated. I would hope that this call for responses is only the beginning of a more extensive consultation with all key stakeholders which would presumably help to broaden out the current narrow focus of reform, which follows a narrow criminalising and prohibitionist line, into a more inclusive, research informed reform strategy which is germane to the realities of commercial sex in the 21st century.
I would make the following observations:
(a) a new criminal offence of paying for sex with a person controlled for gain;
While acknowledging the motivations behind this new offence I would question its efficacy. The use of the extremely wide term ‘person controlled for gain’ and the failure to state whether knowledge is required for the crime may mean that this proposed new law is inoperable and would in effect offers little by way of protection to those it seeks to help. This stems from the narrow use of the criminal law to tackle a much wider and complex social issue, namely the conditions and legal status of economic migrancy, the realities of poverty and survival and the unequal and unregulated nature of the sex industry. These structural factors require much greater political action than that offered by criminalising a small section of purchasers. This in any event is unlikely to if there is a requirement of criminal intent. Knowledge of a person’s controlled status would be difficult to establish, meaning that few, if any, prosecutions would result. As Archard notes
Criminal liability presupposes fault, and normally this obtains in the presence of clear intention, recklessness or negligence. [If the suggested proposal applies] where someone does not know, and further is not unreasonable in not knowing, that he is deriving benefits from a practice that has evil consequences …[it] would be a case of a strict liability offence, and such offences are thought to be unfair2’
This would this make the law of merely of symbolic rather than practical use and given there are many practical ways in which the government could improve the position of vulnerable sexworkers it may be something of a distraction. It would also potentially criminalise a wide group of purchasers and is likely to stymie an important source of information as to the presence of ‘trafficked’ and coerced sex workers.
(b) a new civil order to enable police to close brothels;
This proposal is extremely vague. On what basis would such civil orders be granted? What evidence is required? As the International Union of Sexworkers notes the
‘[p]resent law fails to make any distinction between clean, well run, tax paying brothels with fair and safe working practices, and those in which workers are coerced, exploited or treated as slaves. This wastes valuable criminal justice resources and creates a major barrier to decent owners and managers providing the facilities’
In the absence of measures to offer greater protection to indoor workers (who at present are poorly protected by virtue of quasi-illegal status of brothels and the ban on 2 women or more working collectively) this will do little to improve the condition of those who work indoors and as is clear from centuries of criminal control, banning venues will not lead to a reduction in demand but will merely displace it. Once again the interests of residents (and even then only those who object to the presence of commercial sex) are prioritised over sexworkers needs, rather than an accommodation being sought between different groups .While I would recognise the need to amend licensing laws to offer greater powers, there is more at stake than simply giving ‘local authorities and communities more powers to prevent the anti-social behaviour and nuisance that can accrue from such activities’.
(c) Amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 1985, to remove the requirements of persistence, annoyance and nuisance from the offence of kerb-crawling.
Removing the necessity for the persistence, annoyance and nuisance from the offence of kerb-crawling is a major change, one which involves a shift from a nuisance based crime to a status based crime and as such it requires careful consideration. If kerb-crawling is no longer a public order offence but the harm is infact the buying of sex by car then why not criminalise all purchasing if that is what the government really wants to do and have an open debate which will bring to the fore the serious limitations of such a policy (see for eg Scoular, J (2004b) ‘Criminalising ‘Punters’: evaluating the Swedish position on prostitution’ Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 26:195-210) which outlines the flaws of the Swedish position which the government are moving towards. Criminalising buying sex in such the indirect way suggested has serious human rights implications and practical consequences in terms of enforceability. The use of law and order rather than regulation and empowerment to deal with a complex social issue is my primary concern. (see Scoular and O’Neill Legal incursions into supply/demand: criminalising and responsibilising the buyers and sellers of sex in the UK, Scoular, J and O’Neill, M (2008) ‘Legal Incursions into Supply/ Demand: Criminalising & Responsibilising the Buyers and Sellers of Sex’ in Munro, V & Della Giusta, M (eds) Demanding Sex: Critical Reflections on the Regulation of Prostitution (Ashgate, Aldershot); Scoular, J and O’Neill, M ‘Regulating Prostitution: Social Inclusion, Responsibilisation and the Politics of Prostitution Reform’ 2007 British Journal of Criminology 47(5) 764-778). Not only does the use of criminal law fail to address with the conditions which structure the contemporary sex industry but it maintain, a significant section of the economy, behind closed doors, exacerbating its marginality and dangerousness.
7 October 2008
1 These academic commentaries critiques are available, see for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/03/research.women/print).
2 ‘Criminalising the Use of Trafficked Prostitutes: Some Philosophical Issues’ Munro, V & Della Giusta, M (eds) Demanding Sex: Critical Reflections on the Regulation of Prostitution (Ashgate, Aldershot), p157.
Scotland should be celebrating a vibrant, free society, rather than mimicking the prohibitionist, draconian nanny state that England has become. Sadly, all paths to Scottish freedom end in Glasgow, a city ruled by the Roman Catholic Church and the Wee Free Presbyterians.
It’s not as if Scotland isn’t heaving with consensual sexual activity. There are 190 couples on one swing site in Inverness alone, and more than a dozen fetish and BDSM clubs around the country. One Glasgwegian lass enjoyed sex with 52 men in a greedy-girl session at the Night of the Senses.
Exotic Edinburgh, Amorous Aberdeen, Daring Dundee, Invigorated Inverness and all Highland Flings are hopelessly apathetic in the knowledge that our lustful yearnings, already thwarted by the Wee Frees. will be beheaded in Glasgow, the city otherwise renowned for being the most violent in Europe, with the worst teenage pregnancy and STI /HIV rates too.
Scotland is deserted by its famous sexpots: Irvine Walsh fled to Dublin and Miami Beach, Billy Connolly to LA and Sean Connery to Switzerland, leaving ordinary sexpots to fend for ourselves to Keep Scotland Sexy.
We need to challenge Scottish plans to close down brothels. criminalise the buying of sex and the possession of extreme pornography.
Glasgow’s evangelical group CARE asked the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee to add a clause to the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, to outlaw the purchase of sex. Glasgow City Council is also pressing for a ban on the purchase of sex. Ann Hamilton, of Glasgow City Council’s Community and Safety Services and lead officer on prostitution, said the new law on kerb-crawling was helping to combat street prostitution, but some women were continuing their trade elsewhere. The 2009 Stage 1 Report on the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill did not include legislation against the buying of sex.
However, the law already passed by the Scottish Parliament in October 2008 makes men who buy sex – or try to – liable to face prosecution. Under the Prostitution (Public Places) Scotland Act, anyone caught soliciting a prostitute for sex, as well as those “loitering for the same purpose”, can be fined up to £1000. See http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Call-for-outright-ban-on.4653578.jp
The Edinburgh Evening News reported on 03 November 2008:
“The campaign to amend the Sexual Offences Scotland Bill to include a clause making it illegal to pay for sex is well intended, but on closer examination misguided.
While it may reek of double standards that a blind eye is effectively turned to those who seek sex in saunas, while kerb crawlers are prosecuted, such a move threatens to drive underground what is a relatively well-controlled sector of the sex trade
There is no evidence that the introduction of the kerb-crawling laws has done anything to curb the trade in Edinburgh. While 30 men have been arrested in the past year, it has merely driven girls from their traditional haunts into less safe areas and into flats.
It would be naive to think these figures give a true reflection of the level of activity which still goes on and those caught surely only represent the tip of what is still a sizeable iceberg.
Since the kerb-crawling law was introduced last year, the mobile phone rather than the car has become the point of contact and the absence of a safety-in-numbers strategy has led to an increase in violence against the girls.
Since the trade was driven into the shadows, attacks reported to Scotpep have almost doubled from 66 in June 2006 to 126 last year. There have been 55 assaults and 17 rapes and sexual assaults.”
Any ban on the purchase of sex would contravene the European Declaration of Human Rights.
It is already illegal to traffic human beings and to sexually exploit, rape or assault children, so any new Scottish legislation is unnecessary. If any proposed legislation becomes law, it will be used as an excuse to close down saunas and parlours that provide a public service.
What consenting adults do, look at, and perform, is not the business of the state. Therefore any pornography that is made with consenting adults is not to be banned and its possession not to be criminalised.
CJLB, the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill
see the latest, dated 05 Mar 2009 on www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/crimes/pornography/ExtremePornograhicMateria
POSSESSION OF EXTREME PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL
The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill was introduced into the Scottish Parliament in March 2009 and contains provisions to:
- introduce a new offence which will criminalise the possession of obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict those which are of an extreme violent and sexual nature
- increase the maximum penalty from 3 to 5 years, for the existing offence under section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, for the publishing, selling or distributing or possessing with a view to selling or distributing obscene material
Summary of the new offence
The new offence criminalises the possession of obscene, pornographic images which explicitly and realistically depict:
- an act which takes or threatens a person’s life
- an act which results or is likely to result in a person’s severe injury
- rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity
- Sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse
- An act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or the carcase of an animal)
The maximum penalty for the new offence will be three years imprisonment.
The new offence is similar to that at section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish offence goes further than that offence, however, in that it covers all images of rape and non-consensual penetrative sexual activity, whereas the English offence only covers violent rape.
The offence will not catch those who accidentally come into contact with this type of material and the provisions will contain a defence to this effect. There will also be a defence for those who can prove that they participated in the act depicted, that the extreme nature of the act was apparent and not real and there is no intention to distribute the material.
Under section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, it is already illegal to publish, sell or distribute or to possess with a view to selling or distributing the obscene material, including the obscene pornographic material which is covered by this new offence. The Bill therefore contains provisions to increase the maximum penalty under section 51 of the 1982 Act in respect of extreme pornographic material from 3 to 5 years.
The Scottish Government proposes to increase the maximum penalty under section 51 of the 1982 Act in respect of the publishing etc. of extreme pornographic material from 3 to 5 years.
What you need to know and do
If this Bill becomes law, it will produce a situation whereby acts of the most extreme animal cruelty are likely to get you six months imprisonment, having sex with an animal can get you up to 2 years imprisonment and possessing a picture of someone having sex with an animal can get you three years imprisonment, selling it 5 years.
Possession of Extreme Pornography has been banned in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act since 26th January 2009, and nothing has changed except people who like looking at extreme images are losing sleep at night instead of sleeping soundly, and Ben Westwood’s photographic book, F**k Fashion: The Erotic Photography of Ben Westwood has been removed from the shelves.
Mark Cowling of University of Teesside makes this comment, “It seems to me that aspects of this legislation are ridiculous (over and above libertarian objections to the whole principle)”.
Scottish MSPs Patrick Harvie and Robin Harper from the Scottish Green Party and Margo Macdonald, Independent, are known to be challenging this new legislation. Write to ask how you can help here:
Webpage : http://www.robinharpermsp.org
CAAN (Consenting Adult Action Network Scotland) is protesting and planning a meeting with Sexual Offences team about the CJLB. You can reach them on
. Please contact them before sending any attachments.
To object to Ann Hamilton’s crusade to ban the purchase of sex, contact her here:
Glasgow Community & Safety Services
11 Hope Street
Glasgow G2 6AB
Phone 0141 276 7400
Fax 0141 276 7699
To object to the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill
email (the preferred method of getting in touch) -
By post to: Jim Wilson, Scottish Government, Criminal Law and Licensing Division, Room GW.15, St Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG
By phone – 0131 244 7050
To express your views on the Sexual Offences Scotland Bill, contact Andrew Proudfoot, Assistant Clerk to the Committee, on 0131 348 5047 or email
Send your opinions to your MSP
Find your local MSP on
on the Scottish Parliament webpage http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/apps2/MSP/MSPHome/Default.aspx
Tell your MSP that you cannot see any reason why any pictures of consenting adults, even if deemed “extreme pornography”, however threatening-looking, or convincing the acting, should be outlawed (and tell them why), and that this section should be removed from the CJLB.
You don’t need to use posh language, just say it as it is. For example, websites showing porn stars getting hung are obviously just acted, as you see the same starlets being hung over and over again. Show those MSPs how stupid they are being if they fall for the fundamentalist, puritanical prohibitionist arguments rather than your common sense.
The media and NGOs have raised awareness of sex trafficking in recent years, but does it serve the interests of migrant sex workers to suggest they have been trafficked, or does it collude in their criminalisation and deportation? Should our priority be to give migrant women in the sex industry more control over their own lives, or to stop the traffic?
Laura María Agustín, author of Sex at the Margins and a former educator working with expatriate sex workers;
Georgina Perry, service manager for Open Doors, an NHS initiative which deliver outreach and clinical support to sex workers in east London;
Catherine Stephens, sex worker;
Jon Birch, inspector, Metropolitan Police Clubs and Vice Unit.
Chair: Libby Brooks, deputy Comment editor, The Guardian.
The debate takes place at 7pm on Wednesday 11th March, at the Institute of Contemporary Arts. More details are available here: http://www.ica.org.uk/Sex%20Traffic+19176.twl
There are still relatively very few submissions objecting to this awful Bill, which aims to ban the buying of sexual services, close down brothels, and bust sex workers.
We have been asked to give you some guidelines on making your response. You don’t need to use any special language – just tell them what you think, plain and clear — keeping to the point — and within 4 pages.
Here are the sections to object to:-
Clause 13 Paying for the sexual services of controlled prostitutes
How on earth can a punter know whether a sex worker is controlled? How can one know if they are being forced to work by a pimp, manipulated by a husband, controlled by gangs, trafficked or (like most) working to support themselves, of his/her own free will? This clause puts all punters at unnecessary risk, and frightens innocent people off paying for sexual services that they may really need
Clause 15 Amendments to the offence of loitering by adding the word “persistently”
Adding the word “persistently” will make street workers more panicky about picking up clients, so they will rush into cars without making considered judgements, and wait for clients in more hidden, derelict areas where psychos can prey on them, putting themselves at real danger
Clause 16 Requiring sex workers who are drug addicts to enter rehab
It is not acceptable to force sex workers who have drug habits into rehabilitation and, in any case, this has been proven not to work
Clause 18 Soliciting
This clause will make it much easier for kerb crawlers to get busted and even ordinary motorists and pedestrians will get busted for stopping to ask for directions, etc.
Clause 20 Closure Orders
This will mean the police can shut down what they think is a brothel whenever they “discover” one, without requiring any evidence. This threatens sex workers who work together (much safer for them, when they do), well-run brothels, massage parlours and saunas. When establishments get closed down, sex workers will naturally resort to working on the street, where they will be more vulnerable, and risk getting murdered like the five girls in Ipswich.
Do send your submission as soon as possible, as the Bill is already being discussed by the Scrutiny Committee who definitely need your views to stop them letting this Bill become law.
Send your rant to the following address:
Don’t forget to send a copy of your objections to your MP who you can find on the following link:
To see what other people and organisations have sent in so far, see
Once we know when the Bill is going to the House of Lords, we will give you new instructions.
The Policing and Crime Bill aims to criminalise paying for sexual services of a sex worker who is trafficked and/or controlled. It includes paying for such services abroad as well as in Britain. It also aims to further criminalise kerb crawling and street prostitution, restrict lap dancing and other sex encounter venues, and make it easier for the police to close down brothels.
According to Lord Richard Faulkner, the Bill is based on lies, and needs to be fought at all costs. Thankfully, resistance is forthcoming, but your help is needed, both by sending in your views to the Scrutiny committee and to your own MP.
The Bill can be viewed here:
The Policing and Crime Bill has gone before the Scrutiny Committee and they are hearing evidence between Tuesday 26th January and 26th February. Membership for the “Policing and Crime Bill” is as follows
Chairmen: Sir Nicholas Winterton and Hugh Bayley
Members: Mr Ian Austin, Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods, James Brokenshire, Mr Simon Burns, Mr Alan Campbell, Mr Ian Cawsey, Mr Vernon Coaker, Mrs Nadine Dorries, Jim Fitzpatrick, Dr Evan Harris, Paul Holmes, Ms Sally Keeble, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr David Ruffley, Lynda Waltho and Phil Wilson.
This Bill has had its second reading in the House of Commons. There is enormous resistance from academia, sex workers, disabled people, and the general public. In fact, a petition is being sent to Number 10, to delay any legislation on prostitution until after the election. See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/defersexworkbill/
In order to make your own (short) objections to this Bill
See guidance (but be warned they don’t want more than 1,000 words even though they state 3,000)
email address to send your views:
For further info on lobbying
It is always important to email your own MP to state your views.
For inspiration on stating your case, see the following link
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (CJIA) came into law in May 2008.
This law makes it illegal to possess pornographic images which show an act which threatens a person’s life, an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive).
The law applies to England and Wales (so not Scotland or Northern Ireland).
“Pornographic images” includes both still photographs and videos and the acts referred to can be both consensual BDSM and non-consensual violence.
The section of the Act relating to extreme pornography takes effect from 26 January 2009.
You can download a leaflet explaining what the law says and how to protect yourself here.
One of the defences available is that the images depict the consensual activities of the owner of the image. However as many SM activities are currently illegal it is now vitally important that we get as much support as possible to change the law on consent and injuries sustained during sex.
A PDF of the relevant sections of the Act can be found here.
A PDF of the Ministry of Justice Information Sheet on this section of the CJIA can be downloaded here.
This sheet contains reference to a recent ruling (R v Porter) concerning what “possession” means in terms of Internet images. For the legally minded a copy of this judgment can be found here.
You should review your porn collection before 26 January 2009 and delete any images which you think might break this law.
Please pass this email on to anyone who may be interested or potentially affected by this law.
Here’s the links to these important PDFs again
- Spanner Trust leaflet explaining what the new law says
- Relevant sections of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
- Ministry of Justice Information Sheet
- Recent judgment confirming that just viewing images on a web site does not constitute “possession”
chair, the Spanner Trust