Posts Tagged 'antisexualism'

Childhood Sexuality – more scary than killer flu

So the BBC belatedly get on the “sexting” panic bandwagon with this story.

Really glad to see someone in the mainstream media give the issue a balanced view ….although as is the case with any story involving sex, ‘balanced view’ still means giving unquestioning airtime to the bigots and/or paranoid >_>

Although it’s depressing to hear that even the ‘sensible’ views that the media are listening to are simply advocating dropping it to a lesser criminal charge, rather than just decriminalising it completely.

‘It’, in case you hadn’t heard is under 18s voluntarily sharing low-resolution erotic and/or naked photos of themselves via the internet or media texting with other people! *OHNOES!*

FOR FUCKS SAKE WORLD *grumbles* *fetches blackboard and chalk*

  1. If under-18s are sharing pics of their bodies, wouldn’t that suggest they must have even the icklest bit of comfortability with their bodies? Maybe even some body pride, body phoria? ….Now could that be a good thing or bad thing?
    1. CLUE: That’s a fucking good thing!
  2. Didn’t you ever think u-18s might actually like *use* those cameras that got stuck in every mobile phone on the planet? What, you didn’t? Then fool you.
  3. Didn’t you ever think when drafting your precious “child porn” laws that a u-18 might take a pic of themselves? Aww, really, you completely forgot because you were blinded by your child-adult binary…. Then more fool you!
    1. To be blunt – if such a blantant hole in a law comes to act in the world, then shouldn’t we be punishing and shaming those who drafted and passed the reality-illiterate piece of law, rather than those people unfortunate to trapped by it?
  4. If you are still worried about people who are then entrusted with the photos going and circulating them further without the originator’s permission – then criminalise THAT, the non-consensual distribution of obviously-identifiable photos of a person by other people, not the creation of the photos by the subject!
  5. A teenager has KILLED HERSELF because of ‘Slut Shaming’ and other antisexualist hate acts by other “CHILDREN” at her school! And those other u-18s did this because she, a female, dared to consider by her own agency her body as sexual, and thus and sent pics to 1 other person, who then spammed it everywhere (or was lax with their data security). FFS! Who are the real criminals here? The girl who rejected patriarchical and antisexualist demands of her body? or the bunch of kids who hounded her to death for her assertion of self and independance?
    1. It’s not sexting that’s dangerous – It’s your anti-sex prejudices that are LETHAL

And at the root of this all one fact stares out more glaringly than any others – that all of this came about due to people not thinking. (and by that I mean the antisexualist politicians and moralisers, not the poor damned kids!)

Advertisements

Ohnoes! Fake problem may be hard to get prosecutions out of!

My thanks to my Serenegoose for the tip.

After having nagged for the laws, written them, pushed them through Parliament, and got them commenced* the paramilitary wing of the anti-sex movement, The Police, have admitted it might be hard to find those bajillions of “trafficed women” they claimed all along.

Awww, my heart truely goes out to you, and how your life is going to be so much harder now you’re facing the realisation your lies were, like, lies.

Sorry, I mean – HAHAHAHAHAHA!

.

Having read the damned law I somehow suspect the claim of complexity is just a convenient cover for them expecting the number to not add up with their past claims, since the only complexity in it is for customers and providers of the sex trade in tyring to avoid being painted as abuser and abused. For Fucks Sake they intentionally engineered it to make it piss easy to prosecute, and particularly to paint a situation as “trafficing” when it simply isn’t, if there is any complexity that is an obstruction to prosecutions, then they are even more foolish and incompetant than they had already proved themselves!

(Let me just reiterate that I’m totally against the ‘illegal immigration business’ and any sort of unfair work conditions, substandard pay, all forms of forced work, kidnapping, and all forms of abuse – but I am just as strongly against the non-consensual appropriation of victims of abuse to make religious/redfem political attacks on ethically-sound consensual pleasures. Oh, and then there is also how shittily they treat the real and fake victims they apparently care about so much.)

.

* Parliament speak for ‘made actually active’, since by default laws that get passed by Parliament are dormant.

“Trafficking”

I felt this story of what really happens when the Government and their Police “crack down” on “trafficking” of sexworkers was too important to not post in full (From this ECP press release.)

We really need to kill the Policing & Crime Bill, as well as the Coroners & Justice Bill. (wish I had the spoons right now. 😦 )

Michaela – convicted as a “trafficker”

I’ve been a victim of sexual abuse and domestic violence and believe every woman should be protected. I come from a poor rural area of Brazil. At age 12, I was forced to work as a domestic servant to help support my family. I was repeatedly sexually assaulted by two sons in the family.

I came to Britain to marry, after many years the relationship broke down, and I became a sex worker to get an independent life for me and my children. The wellbeing of people around me has been the focus of my life. That is why I opened a place to work indoors where it’s safer. I saved to open a health club in Manchester. I had all the health and safety checks by the council, and a receptionist to make sure women who worked there would be safe. I had a few women who came from Brazil and other countries. All were over 25 years, had been working in prostitution and were in no way forced. But because I am a woman of colour, and from another country, I was targeted.

I was arrested in October 2005, and convicted of trafficking. I pleaded guilty because the police threatened to charge my 18 year old daughter if I didn’t, and because my solicitor and barrister strongly recommended it. They told me that because the trafficking law does not require proof of force or coercion, only evidence that you helped someone from another country come into the UK who then works in the sex industry, then I was guilty.

The judge agreed I had treated the women “kindly”. He accepted “none of the women was coerced by you into acting as a prostitute . . . none was actually deceived as to the nature of the work they would be required to undertake . . .each had previously worked as a prostitute . . . You treated them in a kindly and hospitable way, inviting them to your home and social occasions. The police often frequented the premises and went out socially with women working there. The judge used this against me saying that it “undermined the public’s confidence in the police” as if I should be punished for the police’s behaviour. I was convicted because the police and CPS wanted to look like they had cracked a big criminal case — to get promotions and build careers.

For this, I was put in prison for nearly three years and separated from my children, the youngest was only six at the time. Children at that age need their mother’s protection. I was terribly distressed, and my children were deeply affected. Their behaviour changed, and they are still recovering from that separation. My ex-partner tried to deny me the right to see my youngest, and has tried to get custody. I was also prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act. We lost everything – our home, savings, even personal gifts and belongings – which I’d worked so hard for. I’m 45, a single mother with two children to support, having to start again with nothing. Me, my family and friends were vilified by sensational and false reporting in the local press before trial. Any friends who tried to help me were either charged or threatened with charges by the police. My address was put in the local paper, and my daughter had to move home and could not attend college. Now the Home Office wanted to deport me. Legal Action for Women found me a good lawyer to try and stop the deportation. My British citizenship was revoked, yet I’d never committed a crime.

All I did was run a flat where women were able to work safely – why is that a criminal offence, did I deserve to spend three years in prison for that and to have my life and my family’s life ruined

BMA attempts whitewash, fails badly

Thanks to Pink News I saw that the British Medical Association (BMA), the professional association and trade union for UK doctors, had released a “report which describes the experiences of LGBT doctors and medical students working in the NHS” to mark LGBT History Month.

I’m really not sure whether to just post the particular paragraphs from their press release or to mercilessly dissect it –

“Societal attitudes towards homosexuality have changed over the years. There was a time when homosexuals were imprisoned as criminals and treated with electroshock therapy to ‘cure them of their disease’. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act was a major step forward and at last offers legal protection to homosexuals.

“Like the UK, the NHS has come a long way in recognising sexual and gender equality since it was founded in 1948. Many of the stories in the report show that LGBT doctors are out and proud at work and this is brilliant news, however, there are still accounts of discrimination which shows we still have a long way to go.

“The doctors who have spoken out in this report have been incredibly honest and brave and I hope their accounts will inspire other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender doctors to be proud of their contributions to the NHS and to patients.”

- Dr Justin Varney, Co-chair of the BMA’s Equal Opportunities Committee (EOC) 

….

Fuck it, this one is just too failworthy to let go. 😛

  1. LGBT =/= homosexuality
  2. The whole thing seems rather …confused about itself. “Homosexual” one minute, then LGBT, then “sexual and gender equality” (i.e. Queer (+ Intersex) + Gender Variant + Kinksters + Ethical Non-Monogamy + Sexworking + ethical Sluts) and back again. Kinda different in scope, aren’t they.
  3. Sure, there was a time when we imprisoned and enforced state-organised abuse on “homosexuals” to ‘cure them of their disease’, but now we just reserve that for perverts, trannies, and whores.
  4. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act was a major step forward and at last offers legal protection to homosexuals.”
    1. ….
    2. lol!
    3. would this qualify for ‘epic’ fail?
    4. I’d also challenge that it was “a major step forward“. It might have been in 1997 or whenever, when it was first submitted to Parliament, but by the time it did get passed it was pretty much relegated to tokenism to shut up the normative fluffy tea-and-crumpets trannies.
    5. Legal protection. Only just. The tiniest ‘wafff-eh thin’ sliver of legal protection …and only for those trannies that are certified as ‘Twue Transexuals’, oh, and guess who has that job – Doctors.
  5. Completely fails to acknowledge the role of the BMA itself, and many of it’s members in either actively supporting, or at least refusing to challenge the widespread Antisexualist, Anti-trans, Anti-Intersex, and Anti-Kink prejudices and *acts* of clinical (mal)practice endemic within the UK Medical industry/community, included of course;
    1. performing major surgery without consent,
    2. refusal of life-critical treatment,
    3. false pathologisation,
    4. pressurising patients to conform to stereotypes and have surgery, and
    5. misleading patients with regard to treatments.
  6. Using a suspect term of reference favoured by attackers (“homosexual”) to reference tothe audience you are trying to schmoose.

So all in all I have just one message to the BMA and all doctors and other medics out there:

with regard to what we need and how to treat us – for fucks sake just listen to us, your patients  …ALL OF US (not just the normative types).

~jessikat

Censoring others isn’t a right …even for private companies

Stumbled onto a comments thread at New York Times about facebook censoring breastfeeding pictures. Just posting this up for reference.

Don’t like that they are banning these pictures? Don’t use Facebook! They would be completely within their rights to ban the color blue in pictures if they wanted to. Stupid, but with their rights.

— Austin

@ Austin

While in the formal wording of the law, Facebook as a service, is a private property which would infer they have the right you say they do to censor anything within their service, the fact is they are far bigger than ‘just a website’. The size, stretch, and *social impact* of Facebook today make it far more comparable to a national postal service, or telephony infrastructure. They have become a ‘public service’, whether they or anyone else likes it or not. Thusly they, ethically (although not yet in law), have responsibilities to diversity and equality, and to not excessively non-consensually impinge on individual service users’ right to live their lives as they wish. And part of those lives is their social interactions, of which Facebook and it’s sister social networks are now a key part.

Would a privately owned electricity distributor be within it’s rights to not provide energy to black people? Would a privatised national postal service be ok to destroy letters that advocated democracy? etc.

By Facebook censoring an wholly positive and unharmful aspect of human life, they aren’t using their private property, they’re unilaterally manipulating global society into their own moral image. Regardless of whether that is a set of morals akin or against your own, the level of influence that Facebook have makes such manuvers grossly unethical.

~jessikat

His comment.

My comment.

Eternal Draft: Evidence of ‘hidden’ Queerphobic bias in Antisexualist and Kinkphobic measures

…Or why all Queers (L, G, B, P, A, T +) should worry about and be allies in the fight against anti-sex and anti-kink laws.

[updated 07/03/09, first written 07/01/09]

The following is a collection of indicators or references to where Antisexualist and/or Kinkphobic legislation, case law, and other authority measures have had a bias against queer sex, while not specifically being declared by their enactors to have anti-queer intent. The purpose of this is to provide a succinct pool of backing evidence for the hypothesis, based on observation, that where antisexualist or anti-kink prejudices are enshrined in rules they will invariably also enshrine an amount of anti-queer bias, due to the shared root in a fear of people seeking to enjoy their own bodies’ and/or use them for pleasure.

I started putting this together ages ago following a conversation with a fellow activist where I explained I felt the constituency of a Queer conference she was heading to (and all Queer people) should care about the criminalisation of kinky porn since in the past antisexualist and anti-kink laws in the UK have always impacted harder on gay/bi/pan people and same-gender erotic materials than on comparable hetero ones, due to the common undercurrent in thinking amongst the heteronormative world that there is something inherently ‘immoral’ or ‘perverse’ in queer sex, simply due to it’s queerness.

This is an evolving document, and any other evidence (ideally as legislation/regulation/etc or comment with citation as opposed to non-citing comment or opinion pieces) would be gratefully accepted. Please send any text or pointers to corruptinginfluences@mac.com.

~ jessikat

Within UK –

  • “…Legislation in this area is likely to throw up more problems than solutions. In Canada, one of the first prosecutions under that country’s tighter anti-porn laws was a consensual lesbian SM publication. Here, in the UK, our anti-porn laws were used successfully in the 1980s to prevent explicit safer sex advice to combat HIV. …”
  • Public sex in SOA2003 – brings in aggressive laws against any sexual activity in public toilets, a.k.a “cottaging” i.e. male-on-male sex, while not doing the same for outdoors sex or “dogging” i.e. predominately heterosexual sex, thus disproportionately criminalising G&B men.
  • “Same-sex age of consent offences are treated much more seriously than equivalent heterosexual offences: “for consensual heterosexual intercourse with girls between 13 and 16 the tariff [a band, established by Appeal Court decisions, within which a sentence is supposed to fall] is [set at] a fine or a conditional discharge or imprisonment [of] up to 1 year for older offenders. In practice, the male partner is usually given a caution or, if prosecuted at all, no more than a fine. For consensual sexual activity by a man with a boy of corresponding age, however, the tariff, which in this instance the courts tend to follow, is 3 – 5 years imprisonment.”
  • “… The [anti-SM] law also appears to discriminate unfairly against gay men, compare the decisions in R v. Wilson and R v. Brown. In Brown the gay “passive” partners were prosecuted and convicted whereas in Wilson and Emmett the heterosexual “passive” partners were not prosecuted.”

Abroad, Similar ‘Western’ nations –

“Bringing the profession into disrepute”

Somewhat late on in the consultation (over 3 weeks into 12), news has come out about the General Teaching Council for England‘s (GTCE) consultation into a new revised mandatory Code of Conduct for school teachers in England

The purpose of the Code seems to be to set a basic standard and *ethos* for the teaching profession. This revision is fairly heavy, with a big change being the intent to mold teachers into being ‘model role models for children & young people’. The mainstream media caught onto the news over concerns that that last bit could impact excessively on the private lives and affairs of teachers. While the papers and BBC focus on teachers conduct in public social situation (such as at the pub), my concern is the potential for a widely drawn ‘moral code’ with emphasise on ‘the respectability of the profession’ to become a tool for antisexualist and related normatising oppression, as past and recent history have shown.

Looking at the draft guidelines, they are sadly decidedly vague and open to widely varying interpretations at best. But then that seems to be the trend with any restrictions from government these days.

The key problem area seems to clause 8;

8. Demonstrate high standards of honesty and integrity and uphold public trust and confidence in the teaching profession

Registered teachers [ should ]

• Uphold the law and maintain standards of behaviour both inside and outside school that are appropriate given their membership of an important and responsible profession.

8. Demonstrate high standards of honesty and integrity and uphold public trust and confidence in the teaching profession

The GTCE may take action against teachers who fail to maintain appropriate standards of honesty and integrity or undermine public trust and confidence in the profession. …

Clause 8 doesn’t try to discern between reasonable negative responses by the public (and media) and unreasonable ones (such as the support for Section 28). Also, by citing ‘respect the law’ in such an extremely unquestioning manner they are not only playing along with a national government which is criminalising ethical harmless fun and self-expression (amongst other stuff like democratic protest), but also could end up projecting (even more so) a terribly corrosive unthinking authoritarian ‘just do as you are told, don’t question it’ mindset to pupils.

Further, this is on top of the fact the GTCE already get automatically notified of ALL criminal convictions (including cautions), which combined with the creeping criminalisation of consensual bodily pleasures and the pernicious gossip-heeding Criminal Records Bureaux checks is essentially acting to ‘cleanse’ child and caring related professions of people with “deviant” sexualities, sensualities or genders. I note this ironically violates the GTCE’s commitment within the draft Code to equality and diversity. …Although of course, i cynically expect the old line of “oh, we didn’t mean equality for
you, just normal people”
to be used here. >_<

Putting aside ethical behaviour which is already criminalised, I would guess off the top of my head the Code if implemented as it currently stands could be used to attack teachers who are; kinksters, swingers, polyamorous, sluts, cross-dressers, public sex-positive etc activists, or visit sex workers (not illegal yet!). Normative monogamous vanilla non-activist LGBs and transsexed people would probably be sufficiently protected from prejudiced use of the Code by current equality legislation.

Certainly there is nothing specifically aggressive in the Code’s current form, but there is worrying potential for misuse against Sexual & Gender Diverse teachers (and populus in general).

• • • • • •

You can get copies of the code (PDF) and answer an anonymous ‘leading questions’ survey on it here. Although I would suggest, if you can, sending them a personal response focusing on the particular concerns about sex, gender variance, and kink either instead of or in addition to their survey.

The consultation closes on Friday 27 February 09.

Contact details:

  • General Teaching Council for England, Whittington House, 19-30 Alfred Place, London, WC1E 7EA
  • code@gtce.org.uk

Anyone else’s interpretations of the draft and possible prejudicial use of it would of course be welcome. 🙂

• • • • • •

tl;dr

A proposed Code of Conduct for teachers in England which desires to make them role models for pupils and force them to follow society’s morals, even in their private lives, runs the risk of becoming a tool for ‘SexoGenderal Cleansing’.

[Addition edits on 20/12, for clarity and due to clear up sleepytyping vagueness]


RSS Current Actions & Consultations

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Sticky Posts

  • • Fuck Lifestyle!
  • • Do we need Hate Crime law?
  • • What are the Tasks facing Sexual & Gender Diversity movements?
  • • A proposal for pragmatically judging the priorities for SGDMs

Categories

Advertisements