Let’s send a message…
That was what Cameron said a little after this time last year: let’s send a message that rioting and looting were both behaviours that would not be tolerated.
And thus it was. The courts sat late and long: ne’erdowells were handed down ultra-tough sentences; and amessage was well and trulty sent.
Just as Cameron now is sending the opposite message in a way almost guaranteed to have London ablaze this August. Read the rest of this entry »
Somewhere at the heart of United States assumptions about “justice” and “fairness” lives a bloody big elephant. Read the rest of this entry »
Andrea has been promoted. Apparently.
At least, that’s what it says on the package, arriving for her this morning. For it is addressed to Rear Admiral Andrea etc.
Huh? I knew she liked sailors, but when did this happen?
A few days ago, apparently, as she decided Ms was no longer good enough and she upgraded her Amazon title to one with nautical rank.
Interesting. As far as i am aware, so long as no fraudulent intent is there, she is perfectly entitled to.
However, it does raise a sub-question to issues around name change. Which is the precise status of title.
If there is little law i can find on “legal name”, there is next to nothing i have managed to find about title. At the back of my mind lurks a suspicion that impersonating some titles MIGHT constitute an offence per se…so please let us know if you DO know about such law.
Otherwise, though, the main thing i have encountered is large corporates (again!) that get at least slightly stroppy about some people using some titles. Mostly, its “Ms” that causes probs: some banks seem to demand that you can only use it if you were previously or are married…
Huh? I thought “Ms” was a title created by women for women – so don’t see what right banks have over it.
I’d also be interested to see what systems make of the growing trend amongst intersex and gender queer folk to title themselves “Mx” – pronounced “Mix”. Some systems won’t recognise that: but if its what you DO call yourself, what right have they to refuse?
OK. That’s all. Any KNOWLEDGE about the law on titles would be nice…and any rationale for why the banks have this issue with “Ms”.
Jane
xx
Australian Customs Agents have confiscated two volumes of “dwarf porn”.
They are believed to be cracking down on this type of content on the grounds that it represents an “offensive fetish”.
The two US titles – Midget Mania, Volumes 7 and 8 – are believed to feature vertically challenged people.
They were seized last month in Brisbane: however, despite protests from the importers, the titles have not yet been returned.
Eros Association Statement
Accusing the Customs Authorities of themselves practicing discrimination towards short-statured people and quite possibly breaching the Federal Discrimination Act, Eros Association CEO, Fiona Patten, said: “One of the main hallmarks of adult films has been the fact that everyone and anyone can get a go. Black or white, fat or thin, short or tall – unlike Hollywood, everyone is celebrated for their own unique talents and styles.
“It appears that Customs are trying to insinuate that when a large male adult actor has sex with a female dwarf or midget, that there is an element of coercion involved because of the size difference. If they have other reasons, they should let industry know instead of shrouding these decisions in secrecy”.
According to Ms Patten, Customs were now routinely ‘red-lining’ all shipments of adult material, spending many hours watching porn on the docks and looking at adult magazines under magnifying glasses.
This represented a complete waste of taxpayer’s money since Customs officers were there to stop drugs, weapons and exotic organisms and not to try and set the moral tone of the nation.
She added: “We call on the Minister to put in place a moratorium on seizures of adult material (unless child pornography is suspected) while the Australian Law Reform Commission review of the Classification Act is being completed.
“The convergence of media has meant that Customs are now prosecuting people for importing material via a boat or a plane, that is perfectly legal to import on a telephone line”.
Although there will be some individuals quietly sniggering at any linkage of “dwarves” and porn, this seizure raises serious issues that, in one way or another, also afflict the policing of imported material elsewhere in the world.
Legal models
Within the UK, for instance, there are three standards according to which material may be banned or withheld from public viewing. Domestically, there is a range of laws that determine whether something may be published, distributed or possessed (Obscene Publications Act, the law on “extreme porn”, and various statutes governing indecent material featuring children).
A second line of defence lies in the various mostly voluntary bodies (such as the British Board of Film Censors) who will decide whether material meets their standards and is certifiable for UK publication. Mostly, these standards align reasonably closely with domestic law – although in some cases, such as films featuring the urolagnia fetish, it is arguable that the BBFC goes a step beyond existing law.
However, layered on top of this is something called the Customs Consolidation Act, which allows a Customs and Excise Officer to seize material that they consider offensive or obscene: bear in mind that the test in this case is not whether it IS obscene, but whether an individual officer deems it to be such.
This has, in the past, led to some odd istuations where Customs have seized films on import which nonetheless are perfectly legal to possess and exhibit within the UK
However, HM Customs’ influence was seriously diminished following a ruling in the 1980’s that their attempt to block a shipment of sex dolls from Germany was in breach of the EU fair trade obligations. Since then, therefore, Customs have not involved themselves in passing judgment on material arriving from the EU.
Australia has no such pressure – and it does look as though their Customs Service is now increasingly involving itself in passing judgments on issues that, as Ms Patten says, should be left to domestic bodies to pronounce on.
Policing fetish
Their approach also raises questions about fetish material in general. The “dwarf” fetish is just one fetish that the general population may find hard to understand or condone. However, it is there, and it is not unlawful. Equally, there are fetishes for people of a certain size and colour. There is also a large literature devoted to “t-chasers” – individuals who have an erotic interest in transgender subjects.
Then, too, there is the largest “fetish” group of all: women!
Each of these interests could be argued to be offensive: in some instances, they may be. But they are not unlawful – and if various Customs Services around the globe are now to start determining what fetishes are OK, which ones are “demeaning”, they are going to be making a lot of work for themselves.
Jane Fae
Note: The attention of news organisations wishing to make use of this content is drawn to the conditions of use. Failure to comply is likely to result in a large bill!
So Dominique Strauss-Kahn, one time head honcho at the IMF and no longer favourite candidate for the French Presidency, walks free. An American court decides there is little prospect of a guilty verdict in respect of allegations that he raped Nafissatou Diallo, a maid at New York’s Sofitel hotel. And that’s pretty much that.
In the end, and i write this with little enthusiasm, it was possibly the right legal result: though what that says for the state of the US legal system is something else entirely.
Its the right result because, with a premier league defence team in tow and advance publicity around the case already working overtime to trash Ms Diallo’s reputation, continuing the legal process is unlikely to have achieved much more than her further very public humiliation.
She’s fibbed about her tax returns and she may have fibbed about an earlier assault. That means whatever went down on the charge sheet, she was always going to be the one in the dock. Maybe she would have coped with that: my suspicion is that however ready she thought she was for such an assault, she wasn’t.
The defence team made it very clear this was going to be about HER credibility, her reputation: and whilst some may condemn the judge for denying her her day in court, an alternative view is that he actually saved her from far worse.
All the same, its a result that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Personally, i have no doubt that past history, both of victim and accused, should be admissible where it is directly relevant to a case.
That, though, is an important proviso. In UK law, such admissions are covered by the status of “similar fact” – and before they can be laid out in open court, prosecution or defence are supposed to ask the judge for permission to do so.
That’s no guarantee that a lot of rubbish won’t be brought up “inadvertently” – but at least it provides some sort of safeguard. At base, it means that neither the victim, nor individual on trial, can be hauled over the coals just because their lifestyle may go down badly with the jury.
It means – or should mean – that the defence don’t get to bring in stuff that amounts to little more than “she’s a slut” because “she dresses provocatively” or she drinks or even, shock! horror! is occasionally known to take drugs.
Character, where it is directly relevant, is relevant: but trawling through someone’s character on the basis of proving that they’re a bit of a bad person and therefore not to be believed is outrageous.
There is a move afoot in the UK courts to direct prosecution and defence to argue rape cases “on the case”, rather than on the personalities. We shall wait to see whether that happens – or whether the really clever lawyers find ways round that too.
In the meantime, Ms Diallo may yet be thankful that she has been spared a monstering, at the hands of Strauss-Kahn’s defence team. US women, in general, may, however, be left wondering just how “pure” they need to be in order not to be raped.
Because if nothing else, the message that has gone out loud and clear from this distressing episode is that the victim WILL be on trial for their life and lifestyle – and if they don’t measure up to saintliness of Mother Theresa like proportions, they had better watch out.
That’s not a good result – for anyone.
jane
xx
After-thought
Meanwhile, a head of steam is building up behind a US political campaign to have the alleged Lockerbie bomber extradited from Libya to stand trial in the US.
Ironic, really: when it comes to dealing with the rights of an alleged victim, the US courts regard reputation as king; yet US politicians are seemingly impervious to the thought, very well-rehearsed this side of the atlantic, that US hysteria over Lockerbie makes it very unlikely that anyone tried for that offence could possibly obtain a fair trial.
