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

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.

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 Law Regarding “Cold Calls”

Telemarketing and “cold calling” could be irritating, but sometimes, they open up new opportunities for you and the company that’s calling you. Cold calls are definitely nuisances if the callers reach you during the most inconvenient times of the day, including while you are sleeping or at the after-hours of your work. Here are the rights you have against cold calling companies.

1.    8 to 9

Cold callers could only call you at home from 8am to 9pm. If they go out of bounds, you could file a legal challenge for nuisance. However, if you are already working with the company calling you as a customer or benefactor, calls out of these hours are not considered nuisances, not unless they have a nature that gives them such.

2.    Identification

Cold callers must tell you who they are and why they are calling you. They must identify themselves properly  and give you information about their company’s address, telephone number and the purpose of their call.

3.    Restricted List

All companies who use telemarketing or cold calls are required to have a “do not call” list. If you opt to be put in this list, the company must oblige to do so, or you could complain to the company’s regulators or legally challenge them.

4.    Truth

Cold callers must tell you the truth and if they lie about their services or certain aspects of the product or investment products they are giving you, you could legally challenge them.