Protests Planned Against Implementation of UK Pornography Laws

Hundreds are planning to gather on Friday outside Parliament to protest the new set of pornographic laws effectively blocking “explicit content” from R18 films.

The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations of 2014 will have pornographic distributors for online and video-on-demand pornography be regulated by the British Board of Film Censors’ guidelines for R-18 material. It involves “explicit works of consenting sex or strong fetish material involving adults.”

The #PornProtest is a response against these regulations. Hundreds of demonstrators plan to stimulate sex acts with each other and perform a “face-sitting” demonstration.

As of December 1, 2014, strangulation, whipping and face-sitting, popular fetish sexual acts in adult pornography, had been banned on films produced in the United Kingdom. However, it does not restrict overseas films coming into the country from showing these explicit acts. 

The law banned them on the grounds that they were “life-threatening.”

Britain’s 2013 Sex Worker of the Year Charlotte Rose organised the mass protest. She told a popular blog that the restrictions were uncalled for. 

“How is it perfectly okay for a man to choke a woman with his penis in her mouth, yet we can’t enjoy cunnilingus through face-sitting?”

The protest will include serious speeches from various organisations. According to rose, the protesters are fighting for their personal liberty.

Source

Californian Civil Courts Rule That Minors Could Make Sexual Decisions

Young people in California become increasingly at risk of danger from sexual predators because some civil courts rule that minors could make decisions about who they could have sexual intercourse with.

In 2010, a 28-year old middle-school math teacher began a six-month sexual relationship with a 14-year old female at his school. The teacher was convicted with charges of committing lewd acts with a child. 

During the hearing, it was found she lied to her mother so she could have sexual intercourse with her teacher. They went into a hotel and admitted she engaged in voluntary consensual sex. According to LA Unified Attorney Keith Wyatt, the girl is seen to be conscious of what she is about to do.

In California, 18 years old is the age of consent. Despite the threshold, a number of civil cases have said minors could consent to sexual activities.

Despite Attorney Wyatt ensuring that LA Unified had no negligence in the case, the jury found the school’s administration not at fault. The decision is still under appeal. 

However, other states in United States, according to Indiana University Professor of Law Jennifer Drobac, have diverted from the criminal law treatment of adolescent and juvenile consent.

Why the UK-ECHR Issue is Just There to Spite UKIP

It is obvious that the Conservatives have a particular disliking for UKIP because of its very radical ideas. The government is clearly planning to dull the UKIP’s edges by doing many of the things it intends to do for the public once it gains seating.

One of them is the issue of scrapping the human rights provisions for criminals and terrorists in the United Kingdom.

The UK had longed to deport terrorists and war criminals from the country, but previous cases of the European Centre for Human Rights (ECHR) is limiting the autonomous decisions of the UK High Court. The UKIP had promised the UK that these human rights provisions will not be enforced by the ECHR by completely disconnecting the ECHR’s previous rulings with the UK’s legal decisions.

Conservative party member and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling had put forward a proposal, seen by ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve as “basically erroneous,” will ensure the ECHR’s previous rulings and human rights provisions for criminals will be treated as advice rather than a staple for the rulings.

However, I think that if the Conservatives really wanted what the people wanted from the UKIP, they would just severe the ties completely and do away with being in Europe. It was as if Grayling just wanted to spite the UKIP for some reason.

Well, the Conservatives are lagging behind Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, if they want to smear images, they better do better than that.

The Legal Tragedy That Was The King Family

Our country has an international perception of having the best and most expensive legal services the world over. It’s true; anybody could afford litigation or virtually-free legal representation through a contingency/no-win-no-fee fee condition. Many people get compensated even for the silliest, highly-avoidable mistake that in the absence of common sense and a great use of facts a person could win £300 in payouts.

So why did the King family have no proper legal protection despite meaning well for everything?

The story of the Kings began when Ashya King’s parents have taken him away from the hospital to have proton beam treatment instead of what his father considered was a “trial and error” approach to treating his brain tumour. The global hunt for the family ended in Spain where the couple and their children were found.

The authorities are then legally bound to intrude and become parent figures to Ashya as his parents are investigated for any criminal background.

It is quite obvious that any parent who sees their child continually suffering while medical professionals deal with him as a mere case would feel unable to do anything. Mr. King thought that proton beam therapy will help solve his child’s problems. Today Ashya is cleared for the proton beam therapy, the goal of his parents.

This is where the border of legalities become big trouble; it fails to address the mental state of suspects and regards it instantly as a criminal or psychologically-damaged event. A parent’s love can turn into insanity for caring for their children, but that cannot be constitutionalised.

Why Would Uganda Want an Anti-Gay Law?

The issues of LGBTs have always made the front pages of newspapers and the headlines of television news networks. It is not because they are sellable, but they are the “major” type of minority in the world, a symbol of its oppression. Most people will view them and compare the treatment to them as of blacks during the slavery years of the western world. But then again, they are also human, and they deserve all the right to live in harmony and protected by law.

It may leave some to question why Uganda and other countries, including those with insurgents and rebellion, want to have a law that would restrict gays and lesbians from becoming a part of society in an official manner. Today, Uganda’s LGBT’s community is rejoicing because a law proposed by the Ugandan government itself the Ugandan laws have overturned.

LGBTs in Uganda had hidden away from the view of authorities and even their own “straight” colleagues because of the possible punishment that they can be jailed for life. The law was implemented for six months until the Ugandan courts have rejected the law on August 1.

The law imprisoned one for being gay.

There are many possible explanations as to why Uganda, and extremist groups want to abolish the appearance of LGBTs.

One is that it destroys tradition. Most extremists and fundamentalists are against western ideals and teachings because it destroys their respective identities.

The second part is that it is not part of a religious teaching. Islamist fighters and jihadists have stressed out this fact against the gays and lesbians in their community, whom they treat less than human in many instances.

For Love or Money, LGBT-Style

In most developed nations, a civil partnership is common between same-sex relationships. The US and the UK have pioneered in recognising same-sex marriages, which the LGBT community applauded. However, before this happened, many LGBT couples have applied for civil partnerships, and in the UK, they face the dilemma of choosing between a glorious entitled position of happily-wed, or the recognition of only a partnership having immense benefits for each other.

In Australia, civil partnerships provide them rights to cohabitate, parenting and adoption, and even entitlements in terms of medical emergencies or other forms of emergency troubles. In the UK, same-sex married couples also enjoy the same benefits, and even more, but the benefits are only available in the United Kingdom. Australians need to return to their home, and if they married in the UK, they do not enjoy the benefits of civil partnership in Australia anymore.\

Well, I think it is really absurd to have an Australian civil partnership and a marriage title at the same time. The situation is similar to “for love or money”, except the “money” part is actually the benefits same-sex couples receive in terms of societal security. Marriage is the best expression of love, and if legally-recognised, it earns respect.

Given the perspective, it is an unfair choice. Every couple wants to be recognised as they marry, and the split of rights in many countries is just one of the many possible problems LGBT communities face in the future.

Corporations, Capitalism and Probable Human Experiments

Ever heard of Thalidomide? It is a drug that allows pregnant women to cope with their morning sicknesses every morning. A drug distributor called Distillers had introduced the product to the public. It was manufactured by Grunenthal and they claimed no side effects to the user and their haul. 

However, in a few years, over 10,000 children were born with defects and deformities. Studies showed that it was the effects of Thalidomide on the children. Eight British individuals are currently pushing their cases against Grunenthal, and Distillers, which Diageo Scotland owns.

With a few manipulations here and there, this collective case may go nowhere except the provision of compensation. But as far as public shaming will go, companies will remain companies. Grunenthal still manufactures Thalidomide because it helps treat other diseases such as leprosy and myeloma, and the public will still need it.

Most probably, the eight British individuals will only receive monetary compensation.

But then again, when you look at it, this is how corporations and capitalism work. With money having a high qualitative value for people, a few deformed children from a discreet human experiment will be alright. Allow a legal challenge to shame the organisation, but then, the public, and the government, still need them. Money will always win, and the public can look past the company’s reputation, and the cycle begins again.

The FTT and Your Pensions

Why is the UK government, namely Chancellor George Osborne, greatly furious about the EU’s FinancialTransaction Tax proposal? It will impose taxes on shares and derivatives, which Osborne said was unspecified in the proposal. Osborne was furious that they had been given only five minutes to review the proposal. He said it had the potential to drive away investors from the United Kingdom.

All this is happening at a highly-inconvenient time; the UK’s economy is recovering as property values continue to boom and the economy, not just the services, but manufacturing and infrastructure, is slowly improving. This means the foundations of the UK economy rests on new investors. But the FTT, with its added ‘surprise’ expenses due to tax, may put off investors planning to start or do business with the United Kingdom.

You do know that when the FTT hits shares, companies will need to cost-cut. The first thing that gets hit is everyone’s pensions. Rather than pay you less, employers will instead cut off their contributions to your pensions because of the reduction of investors, or reduced share-buying by investors, which contributes greatly to operations of any business.

Your pensions are also “riding” on some stocks, funds and other financial instruments from the companies that grow them. Financial instruments the Financial Transaction Tax will directly affect, and this will definitely affect your pensions.

An Irony of Anti-Slavery Laws and Immigration Control Laws in the United Kingdom

Today, I read in BBC that UK MPs are wanting to back the Modern Slavery Bill published in November and have it more protection for children, enhance legal support and compensation for its victims. The BBC report said that MPs wanted Traffickers and Slavemasters to face possible life sentences under the new law, and to simplify criminal offences to help convict suspects faster.

Those convicted of serious offences can get a maximum of 14 years life sentence.

The irony of this is that it targets enforced prostitution, forced labour, domestic servitude at home and forced criminal activity, yet immigration laws couldn’t even provide justice for foreign domestic helpers, who are being physically and psychologically abused by their UK employers, according to a Human Rights Watch report.

They should make it clear that all the offences, such as the slavery of children and adults, child exploitation, exploitation, trafficking and facilitation of modern slavery only applies to victims UK nationals. In any case, domestic helpers have no access to justice, simply because their employers could confiscate their personal information and have them imprisoned inside their homes.

The committee should call for the rights of immigrants as well. But that won’t be politically pretty today, especially with the UK’s net migration targets.

Lloyds Using Loopholes to Cut Consumer PPI Refund Amounts

The PFCA, a trade body that represents claims management companies, accused Lloyds of “short-changing” consumers by exploiting a legal loophole that saved millions of pounds in redresses. 

Lloyds cites a regulatory provision called “alternative redress”, which allows them to assume the customers who were mis sold PPI had purchased a cheaper, regular premium PPI policy. Single premium PPIs cost more than regular premiums, which makes all the difference in the compensation consumers receive.

The PFCA said that despite Lloyds using the loophole, most consumers were satisfied with the PPI refund they receive.

PPI Expert Cliff D’Arcy said that Lloyds had saved more than £60 million in redresses the previous year. He said “Frankly, I’m amazed that this problem has existed throughout the last year and hasn’t emerged into the light.”

Some consumers who had received their PPI refund had revealed that the banks have treated the mis sold financial product into a regular-premium PPI policy. When referred to the Financial Ombudsman, consumers found that Lloyds owed them an additional £500-1,000.

The survey undertaken by the PFCA revealed that Lloyds had been exploiting the legal loophole since February 2013, with 25% of PPI refund offers from the bank using the regulatory provision.

D’Arcy described it as a “scandal coming out of a scandal.”

Should Laws Prioritize Lesser or Necessary Evils?

Ethical legal problems arise when two conflicting arguments appear in a certain case. One argument may be against the morals where the law is built and the other argument pertains to the right of the individual in terms of emotions, physical and means of survival. Abortion is one of these cases. In Spain, a proposed law for abortion had stirred public protests. It defies tradition, religion and the right to life, but it also violates the right to a safe decision of an individual already existing in the legal system.

If you think of it, public concern depends on what they define as lesser or necessary evils. A necessary evil is something that lessens the suffering of parties involved in a certain scenario. Euthanasia is also an ethical issue because medical professionals and hospitals swore themselves to save the lives of people, but if the victim asks to end their life, the lesser evil is to end the patient’s life, but is contrast to the medical responsibility a doctor has.

However, if country laws prioritize lesser or necessary evils, loopholes will exist everywhere. Every person could just state that a person declared a right to die even without the person actually saying it. It could be tools of murder hidden in laws for people in power. With a few interjections of laws, they can protect themselves by invoking these lesser evil or necessary evil situations.

 It is difficult to ascertain the level of objectivity and subjectivity laws should have to make a perfect legal system. But in some cases, the answer is very much obvious when to go for the lesser evil choice.

The Difficulty of Implementing the Copyright Infringement Law

The internet is the biggest avenue for media today because its networks extend all over the world, and easy-to-upload file formats that compress audio, videos and photos make it easier to share original content online. However, it also makes it easy to share someone’s original content online. Copyrights protect the artist, or at least it should. But no one could blame its lack of implementation in the modern world.

Copyright infringement is when a person, establishment or company makes use of any form of media produced by an artist or a recording company to promote any venture they have, even something as menial as uploading a song to set a mood to my personal blog. You will have to pay royalty fees to their record labels, which ensure the artist gets paid their share for being involved in your promotion.

While all this is good business, it does not bode well with modern ideology. Many competitors in the independent department, including games, are giving away their media for free. They do not talk business, but they talk about support. They ask for donations and consider their media as something that the world should only know, but they do not focus on profit.

This is a direct challenge to the recording industry, which focuses on ensuring they get all their profits by approaching listeners on a business-scale model. This challenges copyright laws as well because listeners will only respect these laws if they find the media compelling.

Only a new model of retailing media will be the best way to implement the copyright infringement law. I think maybe if record companies started adopting the models used by independent musicians, meaning they go against them on their own level, they can have a fighting chance.