BDSM and the law

From wipipedia.org
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search


m (categoriesed)
m (fixed non BDSM links)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
On the other hand, in private disputes over residence and contact between mother and father, frankly most of the time the Court doesn’t much care. Family judges are case-hardened people who have seen it all. They become impatient with parents trying to sling mud at each other, since all it does is prolong the agony. So long as the children were unaware of Mum or Dad’s taste for bondage and rubber or fetish porn, the judge won’t care – it’ll just provide your lawyers with extra amusement. If that’s what’s hidden in your closet, don’t lose too much sleep over it. And try not to rise to the bait when your ex-partner tries to make a big deal out of it. Remember: mud-slinging bores judges to death. It’s probably only if mother makes her living as a [[Pro-Domme|pro-domme]] that she may run into trouble – in a judge’s eye, that unfortunately won’t be seen as much different from prostitution.  
 
On the other hand, in private disputes over residence and contact between mother and father, frankly most of the time the Court doesn’t much care. Family judges are case-hardened people who have seen it all. They become impatient with parents trying to sling mud at each other, since all it does is prolong the agony. So long as the children were unaware of Mum or Dad’s taste for bondage and rubber or fetish porn, the judge won’t care – it’ll just provide your lawyers with extra amusement. If that’s what’s hidden in your closet, don’t lose too much sleep over it. And try not to rise to the bait when your ex-partner tries to make a big deal out of it. Remember: mud-slinging bores judges to death. It’s probably only if mother makes her living as a [[Pro-Domme|pro-domme]] that she may run into trouble – in a judge’s eye, that unfortunately won’t be seen as much different from prostitution.  
  
It’s in the employment arena that most of us probably face the greatest risk. The risks are much higher for those who are involved with children or offenders, and who tend to be public sector employees, such as teachers, police and probation officers and social workers. It makes no difference that your activities take place in your own time. Nor will your right to privacy help you: both the English and European courts have held that it is no breach of your right to privacy for an employer to sack you on the basis of your sadomasochistic activities if they are in clubs or appear on web-sites. That counts as being in public. In Lawrence’s case, his involvement with Roissy was considered to be “incompatible” with his duties as a probation officer working with [[sex offenders]] and vulnerable people. In particular, it was reasonable for his employer to take the view that this brought them into disrepute and might undermine public trust. In addition, if you have in fact been convicted of a criminal offence (or even cautioned) in relation to your BDSM or sexual activities, this in itself may be fair grounds for dismissal.  
+
It’s in the employment arena that most of us probably face the greatest risk. The risks are much higher for those who are involved with children or offenders, and who tend to be public sector employees, such as teachers, police and probation officers and social workers. It makes no difference that your activities take place in your own time. Nor will your right to privacy help you: both the English and European courts have held that it is no breach of your right to privacy for an employer to sack you on the basis of your sadomasochistic activities if they are in clubs or appear on web-sites. That counts as being in public. In Lawrence’s case, his involvement with Roissy was considered to be “incompatible” with his duties as a probation officer working with [[wikipedia:sex offender|sex offenders]] and vulnerable people. In particular, it was reasonable for his employer to take the view that this brought them into disrepute and might undermine public trust. In addition, if you have in fact been convicted of a criminal offence (or even cautioned) in relation to your BDSM or sexual activities, this in itself may be fair grounds for dismissal.  
  
 
Sadly this means that those of us who are sensitive about our photographs being taken in clubs and publicised on websites are probably right to feel that way. Again, it’s all a matter of evidence. There is always a danger, however remote, that someone else in the community may decide to send photos to your employer as a way of making trouble.  
 
Sadly this means that those of us who are sensitive about our photographs being taken in clubs and publicised on websites are probably right to feel that way. Again, it’s all a matter of evidence. There is always a danger, however remote, that someone else in the community may decide to send photos to your employer as a way of making trouble.  

Revision as of 02:15, 18 June 2006

Unfortunately the best advice is probably still – just don’t get caught. Most of the emphasis on BDSM discussion pages tends to be on the criminal law, but for most of us, it is actually through employment or family law that our sexuality poses more risk. Lawrence Pay from Roissy was initially reported to the Police – but they weren’t interested in pursuing any criminal charges. What caused him damage was that all the details about his involvement with Roissy were then passed on to his employers, the Probation Service, where he worked with sex offenders. He lost his job and then lost his claim for compensation in the employment tribunal (although we understand that his case is going on to Europe). Part of the reason is that there is more scope for personal prejudices (or malice) to come into play in employment and family law disputes. Having said that, one of the difficulties with the English criminal law in this field is that there is generally a wide disparity between the strict letter of the law and the extent to which the authorities are interested in enforcing it. This leaves a lot of scope for capricious behaviour by authorities. However, it makes sense to consider the criminal law first, because it provides the jumping-off point for much of the rest.

Spanner is notorious throughout the BDSM community and this is not the place for a detailed analysis of the case. There are many good websites which go into the issues in detail and many more campaigning web-sites for example Spanner Trust and SFC . The best thing to have come out of Spanner was the much more powerful sense of an SM identity – it launched the SM Pride March and in many ways the victory for the sexual conservatives was wonderfully counter-productive.

However Spanner established the basic rule that consent is no defence to an assault charge arising from sadomasochistic play, so long as the injury is more than trivial. There has been much disagreement, both in the courts and by commentators, about what counts as “more than trivial”. Bleeding, breaking the skin and bruising will strictly speaking break the law. However, the reality is that the Police and the CPS have better things to do than trawl SM clubs looking for whipsters. In this respect, the UK (at any rate in the big cities) has a different ethos from the US. The problem for us is that the law is still there in the background, ready to be used should the climate change, or if a reactionary police officer decide to take action, or a radical priest prods one to do so. Frankly though, even if you are into caning, needle-play or heavy flogging, you’ll very probably be ok. The risks increase if what you’re doing causes permanent damage.

The best advice is: don’t create any permanent record of what you’re doing. If there’s no evidence, you can’t be prosecuted (nor is it easy for someone to use it against you in a family court or employment tribunal). Making videos or taking photos of what you are doing may be sexy, but keeping them is probably unwise. Because SM is consensual, by definition it is unlikely that there will be a “victim” to make a complaint. Most serious play takes place in the privacy of our own homes, with no witnesses and usually no record. The Spanner men became trapped by the law in great part because they made videos. It’s not what you do that counts, it’s what you can be proved to have done.

Various myths and rumours have swirled around about the new Sexual Offences Act 2003 (in force in May 2004) and the bizarre inconsistencies it may have introduced. Again however, it doesn’t really create additional risks for clubs. There’s a new offence of “voyeurism” but this means watching or filming others who don’t consent to you watching, and you know they don’t. It’s more aimed at men who like to video themselves having sex with women without them knowing. There’s an offence of “exposure” of the genitals, by either men or women, but to constitute an offence, this must be done “intending others to see and to be caused alarm or distress”. Not merely caused offence you note, which would depend on the subjectivity of the viewer. Undercover vicars in SM clubs are going to have some difficulty proving that the guy with his tackle out or the girl in the stirrups was intending to cause anyone alarm or distress. There is a new offence consisting of any sort of sexual activity in a public toilet – and clubs open to anyone who pays to get in are public for this purpose. So expect more signs in the loos banning shagging. Oh – and they’ve made necrophilia an offence for the first time…


Oh and there are signs that BDSM imagery is under threat with proposals to change the law in the UK, US and a number of European countries to amke it illegal to view images of extreme sexual violence.


Anyway, back to the question of family and employment law. There are basically two sorts of family law disputes: those involving local authorities, care orders and the like, and private disputes between individuals. Plus adoption and fostering. First of all, the simple fact you are into SM is not by itself going to cause a visit from a social worker. They won’t be interested unless a child watches or is any way involved in what’s going on. However, it’s different if there are already child protection concerns, e.g. because of neglect or abuse: if there are, then every tiny aspect of your life will come under scrutiny, including your diet, your poor taste in men and inevitably your sex life.

Prospective adopters and most particularly foster parents do have to be very careful, though. This is because the State has to carry out a prior investigation into whether you are a “suitable” person to have responsibility for someone else’s child. Inevitably this involves making moral judgments, which takes everyone into murky waters. The best advice is to keep that side of your life absolutely separate and hidden.

On the other hand, in private disputes over residence and contact between mother and father, frankly most of the time the Court doesn’t much care. Family judges are case-hardened people who have seen it all. They become impatient with parents trying to sling mud at each other, since all it does is prolong the agony. So long as the children were unaware of Mum or Dad’s taste for bondage and rubber or fetish porn, the judge won’t care – it’ll just provide your lawyers with extra amusement. If that’s what’s hidden in your closet, don’t lose too much sleep over it. And try not to rise to the bait when your ex-partner tries to make a big deal out of it. Remember: mud-slinging bores judges to death. It’s probably only if mother makes her living as a pro-domme that she may run into trouble – in a judge’s eye, that unfortunately won’t be seen as much different from prostitution.

It’s in the employment arena that most of us probably face the greatest risk. The risks are much higher for those who are involved with children or offenders, and who tend to be public sector employees, such as teachers, police and probation officers and social workers. It makes no difference that your activities take place in your own time. Nor will your right to privacy help you: both the English and European courts have held that it is no breach of your right to privacy for an employer to sack you on the basis of your sadomasochistic activities if they are in clubs or appear on web-sites. That counts as being in public. In Lawrence’s case, his involvement with Roissy was considered to be “incompatible” with his duties as a probation officer working with sex offenders and vulnerable people. In particular, it was reasonable for his employer to take the view that this brought them into disrepute and might undermine public trust. In addition, if you have in fact been convicted of a criminal offence (or even cautioned) in relation to your BDSM or sexual activities, this in itself may be fair grounds for dismissal.

Sadly this means that those of us who are sensitive about our photographs being taken in clubs and publicised on websites are probably right to feel that way. Again, it’s all a matter of evidence. There is always a danger, however remote, that someone else in the community may decide to send photos to your employer as a way of making trouble.

There hasn’t yet been a recent test case involving someone dismissed from employment which did not involve contact with children, offenders or other vulnerable people. Given the emphasis in Lawrence’s case on these factors, as making his dismissal justifiable, it may be that being sacked from a job as say an accountant, would not be so defensible. But of course, few of us want to be a test case.

Finally, we all know stories about actions that technically constitute offences and urban myths about people who unexpectedly and bizarrely found themselves on the wrong end of the law. Before you all email in - this piece isn’t intended to be a definitive account of what’s legal and what’s not. It’s more in the nature of a risk assessment, assuming that we all want to carry right on doing what we do!


See Also

External Links

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools