RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery

RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

sirguym -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/11/2007 11:47:22 AM)
There is a moral crusade going on, but there is also a huge rise in the awareness of the extent of girl-trafficking into the UK here. I say it that way, because I suspect it has always gone on, but the crusaders are hitching their wagon to the issue. I suspect the same is going on in the US. There are moves here to decriminalise the laws governing the 'individual' sex trade - so it means a girl can choose that trade and work openly, if discreetly, in safety, without hassle on her own - which I wholeheartedly support, as would most in this lifestyle. But at the same time there plans to make forced prostitution and running a brothel much more difficult; it is already ilegal, which again some may support in principle, though I have grave doubts about the means they plan to use. In general it seems to me that making it legal and regulating the trade effectively is always much more effective at protecting the girls than making it illegal. Just like the trade in guns, drugs, pornography, booze during prohibition, etc. If you can see it going on, you can tax it, make regulations to minimise the harm it does and general manage the market. You make it illegal, you just hand the market over to the criminals. But the crusaders just want to try to stamp any kind of sex trade out regardless, not realising that it is the social attitudes of thousands of years ago, preserved through their religions, which actually fuels the street-level sex trade. I mean, few here would go to a prostitute or a brothel; they know they can get sex with a consenting adult for the negotiation - it is the religion-bound hicks who queue up for the whore-houses ... The worst state of affairs seems to me to make brothels legal, but unreguulated, which I have seen it alleged to be the situation in Nevada. Anyway on the offence of an assaultee being 'an accessory to an assault' we had a group of gay men imprisoned on just that offence for many years in the UK, 'The Spanner Case'. One died in jail and it went all the way up to the European Court who judged that the UK was entitled to make such laws, but no other European countries were obliged to. So we have to live with the situation in the UK, where effectively in many cases, if you save you gave consent to BDSM you are likely to be arrested too. Any assault beyond the 'trivial and transient' (i.e. that leaves marks observable 20 minutes afterwards, or needs medical attention) is an imprisonable offence.

slaveLodger -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/26/2007 7:44:45 AM)
I think you'll find that the laws relating to violence, which includes simple assault, spanking and even face slapping, apply to everyone regardless of any permission being given. In particular man on woman violence (seen as domestic violence) provides no leeway to police. They are often legally obliged to arrest the man no matter what the woman says. Makes sense outside of bdsm play by the way.

briska -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/26/2007 1:57:57 PM)
Hmmmm me thinks that if one is into wiitwd and had a sub, but also trash in the front yard... something doth not compute. ;)

laurell3 -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/26/2007 11:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveLodger I think you'll find that the laws relating to violence, which includes simple assault, spanking and even face slapping, apply to everyone regardless of any permission being given. In particular man on woman violence (seen as domestic violence) provides no leeway to police. They are often legally obliged to arrest the man no matter what the woman says. Makes sense outside of bdsm play by the way. Bingo! and I believe the original response was to assault not rape. It is in fact in many places a "fight by mutual consent" or "accessory", although that implies some injury or threat of bodily harm to both parties, which would not be all that common in many (not all) d/s bdsm situations. There are many areas where "cops" and "corrections officers" are the same thing. Certified law enforcement officers rotate in and out of corrections and in and out of the street to keep from being burned out in the correctional facility. A corrections officer is not necessarily any less a law enforcment officer, in fact, many places require the same certification and more for corrections officers because of the special circumstances they face. Honestly overall, neither is likely to have all that much knowledge of the US Supreme Court rulings other than what they learned in a limited degree in ongoing training. I am in fact familiar with several cases where women were men and women both were prosecuted for bdsm activities. I am aware of cases where women were prosecuted for accessory to their own domestic violence (I don't recall any specifically involving bdsm and I'm not supporting the idea by saying I know of it). But this disgresses with the original post doesn't it? I believe the article is referring to people having many illegal immigrants that were brought into the country by force and sold into slavery who are living usually in deplorable circumstances, bound and uncared for. There's no way to know if a paticular law enforcement officer will see this trend and run away with it or is in the lifestyle him/herself and will know the difference. There's no "twue" cop just as there's no "twue" Dom or "twue" sub. l

Alumbrado -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 3:02:48 AM)
And yet, in all the times this 'consent is no defense to battery' myth has been spread here, not a single one of the many legal experts on this board has ever come up with a case where a boxer, or an actor, or a martial artist, or a rugby player was convicted for striking their play partners, in spite of consent. A few people have tried to foist off cases where negligence, malice, or excessive injuries rose to the level where consent was considered to be withdrawn, but it shouldn't be too hard to grasp that 'consent given', and 'consent withdrawn' are not the same thing. Wonder what agenda motivates people to derail a useful discussion of why BDSM is an exception to the 'consent is a defense to battery' principle that applies to so many other activities?

meesekite -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 5:53:01 PM)
Yes, law enforcement IS cracking down on slavery. And, now, thanks to the recent court case involving my friend, Glenn Marcus, the Court has ruled that Sex Trafficking and Forced Labor can apply to DOMESTIC relations. That is a death knell for BDSM. Now, any submissive can say it was non consensual forced labor that made him or her do dishes, etc. And, if the court doesnt like ANY BDSM act, they will say that act is NOT "real" BDSM. They Court did try to draw a difference between the acts Glenn did and what "real" BDSM is, ignoring that what Glenn did is NO different than what many do in their own BDSM style relations. So, cracking down on slavery? You bet....and as they cant seem to prosecute real slaves, BDSM style slavery will suffice. Sincerely. meesekite

Alumbrado -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 6:22:13 PM)
The Court ruling that marriage is no shield to criminal charges of rape, etc, is not recent, and has nothing to do with your friend. The Glenn Marcus case hasn't even made it though the federal appeals process, much less before the USSC, and it involves the submissive being the complainant, alleging that consent was withdrawn, as I already pointed out. Any partner can say it was rape or kidnapping, so your point is relevant to honesty, not the government saying that 'no one can ever consent to a battery'. People can, and do, consent to being battered in all sorts of instances, and it is simply trollage to argue otherwise.

laurell3 -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado The Court ruling that marriage is no shield to criminal charges of rape, etc, is not recent, and has nothing to do with your friend. The Glenn Marcus case hasn't even made it though the federal appeals process, much less before the USSC, and it involves the submissive being the complainant, alleging that consent was withdrawn, as I already pointed out. Any partner can say it was rape or kidnapping, so your point is relevant to honesty, not the government saying that 'no one can ever consent to a battery'. People can, and do, consent to being battered in all sorts of instances, and it is simply trollage to argue otherwise. What he didn't point out, is that there is such a thing as "precedent" in the law, a case isn't really controlling aurthority on other cases until it does go through the appeals process, it's not binding on other locations or states until it makes it up to the Supremes. It doesn't mean your friend's case isn't important, it's just not yet important as applied to other cases. I don't think anyone is arguing that people don't consent to battery or in my state, assault, in fact, I consent willingly often [8D]. The simple fact is that in most states that alone is not a defense to inflicting bodily harm on another, this is not an opinion, it is a very clear fact. I don't follow sports law, I have no idea why sports figures aren't prosecuted, that argument in no way changes the law, the law is clear. By the way, YOU derailed the thread yourself by tossing insults. l

Alumbrado -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:23:14 PM)
Nice try...join the list of people who claim to have the facts on the law, and can't come up with the answer to the simple question that I've asked over and over. Could it be that you're simply flat out wrong, and consent is in fact a defense to battery except in some BDSM cases? Naaaah![8\|]

laurell3 -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:27:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Nice try...join the list of people who claim to have the facts on the law, and can't come up with the answer to the simple question that I've asked over and over. Could it be that you're simply flat out wrong, and consent is in fact a defense to battery except in some BDSM cases? Naaaah![8\|] Well no, in my professional experience, which is rather extensive, in fact you are absolutely deadass wrong. Can I say it a few more times and maybe you will listen? Cite your authority, mine is pretty damn clear, it's what I do all day every day. l

Alumbrado -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:33:50 PM)
I've cited my authority, which is the reality that people don't get prosecuted for punching, kicking, and bruising each other, in the boxing ring, etc., because they have actually consented to it. You can deny that obvious reality all you want, it makes your follow up claim of what you deal in every day , pretty clearly...fantasy.[:D] ETA: Or maybe this guy is also deadass wrong... "...The legal term for touching a person without permission is battery. Battery is a criminal offense, and it can also be the basis of a civil lawsuit. The key element of battery is that the touching be unauthorized, not that it be intended to harm the person. Battery requires a complete failure of consent." http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x266.htm

laurell3 -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado I've cited my authority, which is the reality that people don't get prosecuted for punching, kicking, and bruising each other, in the boxing ring, etc., because they have actually consented to it. You can deny that obvious reality all you want, it makes your follow up claim of what you deal in every day , pretty clearly...fantasy.[:D] lol, not at all fantasy, but you can't goad me into outting myself. Clearly you don't want to listen and your arguments to analogy about other unrelated areas are not at all relevant or persuasive. Good luck to you. l

Alumbrado -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:48:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 lol, not at all fantasy, but you can't goad me into outting myself.... I'd settle for a cite from a Supreme Court justice saying that consent 'is not a defense to inflicting bodily harm on another'. I suspect what I'll get is you running away while claiming victory, or a complete flip-flop where you pretend we were only talking about BDSM, not all battery.

laurell3 -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:55:35 PM)
I'm referring to assault and yes, while consent can be a mitigation, (ie: lessening the degree of crime) it is not a complete defense. It is also not a justification (justification is the area of the law that excuses certain actions, IE: self-defense). In the area of domestic violence this "defense" is tendered often in assault cases, it doesn't work. As a nation, post OJ we have implemented "victimless" prosecutions, without the need for testimony of the victim and convicting even despite the victim's testimony of consent. This is all very very abundently clear and available to you in many many media sources. I'm not doing legal research for you, sorry. If you don't believe me, you don't. l

laurell3 -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 7:58:19 PM)
You're missing even the basic understanding of the law here friend. Your edit quotes STATE law which is different in each and every state and does not control other states. I'm not saying battery doesn't exist, it doesn't exist here as I've already explained. Your citation is to a case about medical consent, that's also not at all relevant to this discussion and is totally out of context and inapplicable to general assault. l

Alumbrado -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 8:06:53 PM)
I would prefer to deal with someone who has a clue as to the difference between the elements of assault and the elements of battery,and who understands what Justice Cardozo was saying in the cite you are in denial about... This isn't about mitigation (hint, you cannot 'mitigate' something that isn't a crime to begin with), or domestic violence (hint, look up 'inability to consent'), or rape (yet another hint, I should be billing you by the letter, look up 'force, actual or constructive') or offering to touch someone, or OJ. This is about whether or not the law allows people to consent to let another person strike them... and the point that you continue to blow smoke to obscure, is that such actions are often perfectly legal outside of the BDSM context. What needs to be examined, is why BDSM is an exception to that. I'll repeat, what is your agenda in keeping that from being discussed?

laurell3 -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 8:13:41 PM)
Actually the post is about slavery. I'm done trying. You don't get it and refuse to listen or even understand how state vs. federal law applies, your lack of knowlege is apparent. But hey, this is a sex forum, and I'm not at work, so good luck to you. l

Alumbrado -> RE: Law enforcement crack down on slavery (9/27/2007 8:15:16 PM)
quote: I suspect what I'll get is you running away while claiming victory I must be psychic.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125