Archive for the ‘Men’s Rights’ Category
Male prisoners in England and Wales must work harder for privileges such as TVs in cells, the government has said.
From November, under changes to the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, inmates must “actively earn privileges” – “a simple absence of bad behaviour will not be enough”.
Satellite and cable TV channels, currently available in some private prisons, will be banned altogether.
Other changes to the scheme will include:
A longer working day for prisoners
A ban on films with an 18 certificate
Extra gym time being dependent “on active engagement with rehabilitation”
Restricted privileges, including access to private cash, for prisoners in the first two weeks of their sentence. They must also wear uniform at entry level
Prisoners then put on either basic or standard “IEP level” depending on how they “co-operate with the regime or engage in rehabilitation”
Those on basic level no longer allowed TVs in cells
A man has been jailed for watching cartoon videos of elves, pixies and other fantasy creatures having sex.
Ronald Clark downloaded the Japanese anime cartoons three years ago, setting in train events that would see him in court in Auckland and jailed for three months for possessing objectionable material, and sparking debate as to what harm is caused by digitally created pornography.
Clark has previous convictions for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and has been through rehabilitation programmes, but the video nasties he was watching in this case were all cartoons and drawings.
He says the videos came from an established tradition of Japanese manga and hentai (cartoon pornography), a massive, mainstream industry in that country.
They weren’t even depictions of people – Clark’s lawyer Roger Bowden described them as “pixies and trolls” that “you knew at a glance weren’t human”.
Bowden said the conviction for possessing objectionable material was “the law gone mad”.
However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.
Anti-child pornography group ECPAT Child Alert director Alan Bell said the images were illegal because they encouraged people “to migrate from there to the real thing”.
“The distribution of it is damaging. You have to ask what impact does it have even if it’s not harming [an individual child].”
Bell said it had to be conceded that no child was harmed in the images’ production but “it’s all part of that spectrum”. Cartoon images of child abuse were a “huge” problem in Japan and the practice had started finding its way into computer games, he said
Lincoln University philosophy lecturer Grant Tavinor, who writes on the aesthetics of video games, said the case raised two key questions: Did producing the pictures harm anyone, and could their viewing and distribution be injurious to the public good?
“The worry is that viewing or distributing such images could support the sexual exploitation of children even if the production of the images did not actually involve the exploitation of any children,” Tavinor said. It’s not enough that no one was harmed in the making of the videos, the law takes a protective role and says there are some things we just don’t want circulating in society, he said.
Auckland University associate philosophy professor Tim Dare said “the justifications for punishment are likely to be worries about the tendency of the images to promote harm to real people in the future, or a concern for what the interest in the images tells you about their ‘character’ “.
Ad Feedback .
Clark himself argued that the law led to the absurdity that he could, in theory, be convicted of possessing objectionable images of stick figures.
Clark admitted he was interested in the images but he said it was for their artistic merit and as “a bit of a laugh”. He did not find them sexually arousing, he said.
Tavinor said there were ethical issues that complicated the case.
“The ways a person entertains themself is not morally negligible. This is probably an additional factor in the current case because as well as worrying about the effects these activities might have on children, we also naturally make moral judgments about the character of the person in question.
“But for the purposes of law it is probably important to distinguish between these because convicting someone for their moral views is very dangerous.”
What disturbed me the most in this story is the defence of jailing a man (likely to be raped and beaten in prison) for thought crime by the two philosophy lecturers quoted. In particular, Grant Tavinor, a published philosophy lecturer at the University of Lincoln, who believes that a way a person ‘entertains himself’ is not morally negligible. Maybe we should criminalize wanking if it’s accompanied by impure thoughts? Or maybe just the thoughts themselves? After all, scientists are developing mind readers at this very moment. Tavinor is credited with being an expert on the ethics of video games, yet he doesn’t appear to apply the same logic to violence in video games. Teenage boys spending hours killing, maiming, and beheading countless other men in violent video games appears to be fine, but watch a pair of cartoon elves fucking each other, and you deserve to get your nonce anus raped on a daily basis.
Good to see that Western philosphy, after 2,500 years since its ancient Greek beginnings, has clearly reached its apex with this joker.
If you would like to politely contact Grant Tavinor, and explain to him why there are ethical implications in allowing the feminist state to lock men away to be raped and beaten as subhumans for watching cartoons in their own homes, then this is his university e-mail address :
Brief note to reddit r/mensrights : This is a men’s rights issue because this is men being jailed under feminist laws, lobbied for by feminists, made by feminists, and implemented by the feminist state, laws based only on feminist junk science, or in this case, only by feminist speculation. These are men being sent to prison where they will likely be raped and beaten, or at least face the constant and realistic fear of being raped and beaten, for simply watching cartoons in their own home – under laws made by middle-aged female feminists. This is a men’s rights issue.
An unannounced inspection of a South Yorkshire prison has led to “serious concerns” over its handling of sex offenders.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons found evidence of bullying at HMP Moorland, and “limited provision for the third of prisoners who were sex offenders”.
Expect conditions for sex offenders in prison to get progressively worse. At the same time, as middle-aged femihags continue to unleash wave after wave of never ending new sexual offences and increased sentencing for existing offences, the prison population will gradually become overcrowded with ‘nonces’. This situation is already occurring in the UK. Before long, ‘specialist’ prisons will have to be built to house only male sex offenders, in which conditions will become so awful that each year they resemble more and more the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. This ‘final solution’ will no doubt be carried out by feminists with the full endorsement of the Men’s Human Rights Movement.
A couple of weeks ago I was one of many to send an email to all members of the EU parliament voicing my outrage at the proposal at the proposal by femihag Kartika Liotard to have porn banned throughout the continent.
There was speculation that all emails on the subject to the MEPs had been blocked, but my message to Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat MEP for North West England, evidently did get through, because I was surprised to receive a (presumably generic) reply from him in my inbox the other day :
Thank you for your email regarding the Own Initiative Report by Dutch MEP Kartika Liotard (European United Left – Nordic Green Left) entitled “Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU”.
As you are probably aware, any reference in the Report to a ban of pornography in the media was removed. Liberal Democrat MEPs made it clear that while gender stereotypes are often deeply unhelpful, calling for any ban on pornography was illiberal, impractical and very much out of the question. My colleagues and I supported a number of amendments, in particular one that removed any suggestion of a ban.
Some of the information you might have been given about the report is not true. It was what is called an “Own Initiative Report”, which means it is not legislative, and was proposed by one MEP and discussed in one committee. Even if this Report had not been amended by Liberal Democrat and other MEPs it would not have changed the law, but served merely as a recommendation to the European Commission in advance of any relevant future legislation.
I sympathise entirely with any concern that there was an effort to block emails to MEPs from their constituents. My understanding is that for around 15 minutes the European Parliament was not able to receive any emails as a result of the volume of incoming communication from campaigners on this subject. If nothing else, this shows the strength of feeling that this misguided proposal caused.
I hope you will let us know if you would like more information on the Report or on European Parliament procedure, but please note that I must prioritise communicating with my own constituents from the North West of England that have provided a full postal address in their e-mail. You can find your own MEPs here.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you are interested in civil liberties, and want to know more about what I am doing on this and other subjects, please drop by my website and fill in my survey here.
Chris Davies MEP
Liberal Democrat MEP for the
North West of England
Although porn may be safe for now, femihag Kartika Liotard did succeed with the proposal to criminalize ‘the sexualisation of girls’ (or rather, to anyone who understands the basic concept and reality of puberty, the artificial forced Stalinist de-sexualisation of post pubescent teenage girls, motivated purely through sexual jealousy).
The most popular anti-feminists in the world give their take on Donglegate :
Between them, these two atheists have half a million subscribers – about 100 times the subscribers of the most popular male men’s rights activists on YouTube.
Whilst British prisons are reaching overcrowding levels through laws lobbied for and passed by middle-aged women that criminalize male sexuality, the British ‘Justice’ minister (Helen Grant) has announced plans to ‘keep women out of prison’.
Community sentences in England and Wales are to be made more “female friendly” in an effort to keep women out of prison.
Justice Minister Helen Grant wants to cut reoffending rates and offer judges credible alternatives to custody.
She says “vulnerable” women offenders need help to break the cycle of crime and abuse many of them face.
But the new approach will include an element of punishment such as unpaid work or curfew, she stressed.
What is Yewtree for? This is a good question – for other than leading a media witch hunt against several former celebrities for crimes not involving “children” it appears to have very little purpose, certainly no element of real benefit. It is, to all intents and purposes, a media-led police trawl in which individuals are picked out by fitting a criteria – they either have to be apparently dislikable individuals of a probably right wing persuasion and with BBC connections (DLT, Jim Davidson), already ‘disgraced’ and ergo fit for the media bonfire (Gary Glitter, Wilfred De’ath) or – in a new Nazi-esque twist – pesky individuals who spoke out against this witch hunt and needed silencing (Davidson, Max Clifford). The only arrests connected to Jimmy Savile is any way shape or form were Gary Glitter and Freddie Starr (for an alleged and highly improbably orgy in an imaginary dressing room in the wrong building for a show in which neither appeared on the same edition of) and the easy target that is JS’ former Radio One presenter, the elderly Ted Beston. After 5 tedious months of maximum media exposure of this calculated trawl nobody arrested by “The Savile Police” has been charged. I must also point out – in targeting unpopular and/or risible individuals (‘easy targets’) precedents can be easily established. Once they are established, it will not just the right wing comedians of yesteryear or self-styled Hairy Monsters getting nick-nicked for whatever…
Just saw this via a tweet by Eivind Berge, made a couple of days ago. The link is in Norwegian, but according to Google Translate, it appears that a mangina political reform group is demanding that anti-feminist ‘threats’ and ‘gender based harassment’ be made illegal in all of the Nordic countries. Hopefully Eivind will drop by and shed some more light on this disturbing development :
The Panel recommends that the Nordic countries ensures that threats and harassment on grounds of sex is illegal.
This information comes from a report that Reform – resource for men, delivered the government at 10 Wednesday morning.
Group wants anti-feminist statements shall be subject to racist speech can.
- We believe that the legislation is too weak to counter the wave of anti-feminist threats, says CEO Reforms Are Saastad to NRK.no.
- Are not all threats serious? Why the angle of the anti feminist threats?
- You can ask for. We are not concerned with legislation against anti-feminist attitudes, but that the legislation should include this. Men are affected as well, but we see that harassment in the emphasis goes beyond those fronts equality, answer Saastad.
Expert Committee says the following in the report:
“We recommend that the governments of each of the Nordic countries ensures that threats and harassment on the basis of sex is illegal. In the national legislation must utterances appear punished in line with statements in other media and the public at large. Such protection is not in place in all the Nordic countries. “
We all know how feminists can twist just about anything, from criticism of feminism to video games, into ‘gender based harassment’ :