To think that Amazon should not be selling this book!!! <warning - upsetting content>

[LEMisafucker]

www.amazon.co.uk/To-Train-Up-Child-children/dp/1892112000?tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21

I don't have the words - this is actually a thread about a thread, but i thnk this needs more attention so posting here. There have been convictions for murder in the states by folk following this book. Yet it is still published

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1915841-Has-the-world-gone-completely-mad

Link to original thread

[friday16]

The whsmith question that you won't address is asking whether they wee right to choose to remove child porn books from sale.

Actually, I'll go there even if the estimable hamster won't. Yes, they were within their rights to do so, just as they were within their rights to (for decades) refuse to sell Private Eye. They're hardly consistent, though: for years they stocked and sold assorted BDSM "anonymous" novels from publishers like Silver Moon (absolutely not safe for work link). They can, however, sell or not sell whatever they and their shareholders want to sell or not sell, so long as what they sell is legal.

British law is in a real mess over textual depiction of illegal sexual acts, with the failure of the "Girls (Scream) Aloud" case to reach a conclusion meaning that it's not quite clear what the law actually is. It's unlikely that the CPS would touch such a prosecution now, and since 2009 endless websites containing material far more disturbing that in the GSA case (for example, those containing fictional textual depictions of sexual activities involving young children) are not on the IWF block list, nor is anyone proposing that they should be (and these are mainstream websites in the .com and .org domains, indexed by Google, not hooky DarkNet places).

But it's not entirely clear that an Obscene Publications Act prosecution would fail were it to be brought, WH Smith are rather higher profile than a random website, and are based in the UK. As they're making essentially no money from such sales, it's a reasonable commercial decision to decide that they don't want to take the risk.

So I think WHS were acting reasonably when they stopped selling those titles, as it's not obvious that an Obscene Publications Act prosecution would have failed, and the defences open to (say) Penguin over the Chatterley trial wouldn't have been available.

But there's absolutely no way that the book that is exercising people in this case would be the subject of an OSA prosecution, or any other credible legal threat. This is a taste issue, not a legality issue. So I'm not sure what the parallels that people are attempting to draw are. This is not borderline illegal material, no matter how much some people want to make it so.

[friday16]

OPA (Obscene Publications), not OSA (Official Secrets), obviously. That'll teach me to type about smut while talking about the Snowden case.

[missfliss]

Friday - this is a genuine question not a barb as i'm unclear on somethings you are saying above:

WH Smith are rather higher profile than a random website, and are based in the UK. As they're making essentially no money from such sales, it's a reasonable commercial decision to decide that they don't want to take the risk

are you saying that whsmith are less high profiule than amazon? because i strongly disagree. also Amazon may be american in origin but they are operationally based in the UK with seperate buyers and warehousing, and registered as a european srl status company.

have i misuderstood?

also

They can, however, sell or not sell whatever they and their shareholders want to sell or not sell, so long as what they sell is legal

precisely - so can amazon. I get that. All i am saying is that if enough of their customers didnt want them to sell an item, they might consider withdrawing it. I accept that not everyone will feel as strongly as i do - fine, but it is not unreasonable to ask them - its also not unreasonable for me not to spend money with companies that violate my personal ethical code.

Of course i know amazon might not listen, of course i know that other people may feel differently - but i (and others - see the number of signatories on the petition) see the precedents other retailers have used to not sell items that they dont want to sell.

[friday16]

are you saying that whsmith are less high profiule than amazon?

When I said "random website" I meant random websites, not Amazon. I was comparing WHS selling borderline obscene stories and those same stories being available on some-random-porn-site.com, and why WHS decided to take them down while some-random-porn-site.com was still not being prosecuted. The GSA case was about some-random-porn-site. It's all moot, as there's simply no legal theory which makes the sale of To Train A Child actionable.

All i am saying is that if enough of their customers didnt want them to sell an item, they might consider withdrawing it.

And that's fine, so we can all part as friends.

If I were their management I would, on the "give an inch, take a mile" basis, tell you to get stuffed: once I start operating on a "two hundred lippy customers threaten me and I cave in" basis, I will need a complete office to deal with the complaints, and will find huge swathes of my business under pressure. WHS took action because they were worried that what they were selling was at least arguably illegal; Amazon sell plenty of stuff that you could get a petition up against, and simply holding the "is it legal? then we'll sell what we want line" is probably the easiest.

[harticus]

The Scots are far more progressive on the whole issue of physical abuse of children and a smacking ban is again on the cards.

In Scotland it is already illegal to hit a child with anything other than a open hand - has been since 2003.

This book advocates the use of various implements with which to hit children.

Does that have no implications?

[missfliss]

thanks for clarifying which websites you meant - that makes more sense.

On the amazon response - they just dont give one in this case - no reply to anyone.

But there are precedents with amazon withdrawing items for sale under consumer pressure: travel guides to burma (human rights issues) and a book aimed at paedophiles (not porn, a title that tried to educate them on how to act safely and within the law) - as well as those halloween costumes depicting mental patients...

[missfliss]

The Scots are far more progressive on the whole issue of physical abuse of children and a smacking ban is again on the cards.

In Scotland it is already illegal to hit a child with anything other than a open hand - has been since 2003.

This book advocates the use of various implements with which to hit children.

Does that have no implications?

i wonder?

[missfliss]

doh - sorry i didnt bold that properly harticus

[friday16]

Does that have no implications?

It does not. If you think it does, report it to the Procurator Fiscal and see what they say.

Then, if you think selling books and analogues of books encouraging illegal acts is an offence, see if you can get anyone to take action against Apple encouraging illegal drug use. I suspect you'll get the same response.

[friday16]

On the amazon response - they just dont give one in this case - no reply to anyone.

As they are perfectly entitled to (not) do.

amazon withdrawing items for sale under consumer pressure: travel guides to burma

Got a reference for that? A Google search throws your posting up on the second page (Christ, their indexing is fast) but nothing substantive. They do sell a lot of guidebooks to Burma.

a book aimed at paedophiles

Probably illegal in the US. It would be interesting to know more details.

as well as those halloween costumes depicting mental patients

That wasn't Amazon, was it?

[cestlavielife]

corporal punishment is not illegal in USA. yes make views know n to amazon, give negative reviews, maybe that will make potential buyers think...

far more real effect would come from the broader church taking up the campaign and really telling people that this branch of "christinanity" goes against the grain. educaiton of parents etc,etc.

the book sales on amazon or not wont change what the pearls do and what they teach. it wont stop them giving thir books for free and it wont stop susceptible people being reached out to via their ministry and some of them taking these teachings one step further.... so you wont stop this abuse by trying to stop a book store sellling the book online. stop its sales and you only increase the fervour of the extremists... who will argue til the cows come home it's all legitimate ..and quote the bible .

rachelheldevans.com/blog/the-abusive-teachings-of-michael-and-debi-pearl makes some good points. "the Pearls are inexplicably popular in certain Christian circles"

[friday16]

far more real effect would come from the broader church taking up the campaign

Quite. It's all of a piece with the "male headship" nutters, and worrying about the books they use is rather missing the point.

[Cheesy123]

I feel sick and have only read the reviews.

[Mim78]

I still can't see what's wrong with petitioning amazon to stop stocking this book, which is what i think the OP was advocating. Persuading a retailer not to sell a potentially (and in several cases actually) harmful book is quite reasonable, and using means such as boycotting the site is also reasonable.

OP wasn't advocating banning any books, as far as I can see.

[missfliss]

I'll have to come back to you on the links later friday but i will (i'm travelling now) - but here is another example of them withdrawing a product on grounds of taste
www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4611161/Rapelay-virtual-rape-game-banned-by-Amazon.html

[Mim78]

On a separate note - I agree - I felt sick just reading some of the reviews. Can't imagine being in the head of someone who thought this was OK.

What I think shocks me is that someone feels so strongly about this being a good idea that they've put it in a book. I must confess I thought it was just individuals with mental health problems (and you'd have to have some kind of problem to behave like this) who treated their children in this way.

The tone of the book from the preface section that I read on amazon reminded me strikingly of the advice given by people who are cruel to or neglect their animals and think that their way is right. It had very much the same "feel". I've dealt with a lot of animal cruelty in my work, and the absolute determination that these clearly cruel practices are OK/preferable to the norm is strikingly similar.

[friday16]

but here is another example of them withdrawing a product on grounds of taste

Japan is the wild, er, east for porn legislation. So long as you pixilate the genitalia, almost anything is legal, and you can see people reading alarming manga on commuter trains which would almost certainly be illegal if brought into the UK. It's not just the laughable tentacle porn, there is readily available hentai which would certainly trigger prosecutions under child pornography legislation in most western countries.

The game in question would, unless the description is wildly inaccurate, trigger an Obscene Publications Act prosecution in the UK if offered for retail sale. Because it did not have a PEGI (or whatever the equivalent was in 2006) rating, the vendor would not have a defence against being liable. At the time it wasn't illegal to offer for sale a video game which has not been rated, but Amazon were behaving both reasonably and sensibly in preventing the backdoor sale of a Japanese-only release of something that is almost certainly illegal in this country and which would have dragged them into a messy court case which they would almost certainly have lost.

Again, it's hardly comparable.

By the way, it's only the Burma thing I'm interested in a link for. I was aware of the change.org petition on the paedophile thing.

[friday16]

What I think shocks me is that someone feels so strongly about this being a good idea that they've put it in a book

Those crazy Christians.

[harticus]

This book does not appear to be for sale with Amazon Germany, France or Italy.

[harticus]

Amazon Germany (which also serves Austria and Scandinavia - all countries that have made corporal punishment illegal) stocks 7 books by Michael Pearl and his stupid ministry and yet no sign of To Train Up A Child.

Now why could that be do you think?

[friday16]

Perhaps you need an Austrian lawyer who can give you an opinion on the legality of selling in Austria a book which contains information about an act which is illegal in Austria. I don't know if it's illegal to do that under Austrian law. But it wouldn't totally surprise me given (for example) their very stringent legislation on holocaust denial, which means that David Irving spent rather longer in Austria on his last trip than he perhaps intended.

And then you might be able to find a someone who can figure out what relevance that might have under UK law, where it isn't in general illegal to sell books that describe illegal acts, and the act in question isn't illegal anyway. The statement that Amazon in country X tends to adhere to the laws of country X is hardly news: they don't sell straightforward reprints of Mein Kampf in Germany, either, as that too is illegal.

But if you think you've found a knock-out legal theory as to why the sale of this book in the UK is, in fact, at least arguably illegal, why not phone up the police in Slough and lay a complaint? "Hello Mr Policeman. I believe that Amazon.co.uk Ltd of Patriot Court, 1-9 The Grove, Slough, Berkshire, England SL1 1QP are selling a book that I believe to be illegal, and I think you should investigate it."

Or, on your rather more creative theory that it ought to be illegal in Scotland on the basis of, well, something or other, phone the police in Edinburgh and say that as Amazon sell into Scotland, there's a case for them being held to some law you haven't quite figured out yet. Might be worth waiting until 19th September 2014 for that one.

[harticus]

The statement that Amazon in country X tends to adhere to the laws of country X is hardly news

Oh really?
Tell that to the people on here that seem to think Amazon is some unassailable global bastion of free speech.

Decisions have been made within Amazon regional centres either to stock or not stock this book.

Germany, France, Spain and Italy are the only regional Amazon centres in the world who don't sell this book.

It is worth asking why that is - especially in Germany where all of Pearl's other books are freely available for sale.

Was there a campaign against it in Germany?
Or has this decision come from the Amazon.de HQ buyers?
Or is it down to German legislation?

And it throws up broader questions ....
If domestic laws on corporal punishment are influential, then what kind of impact would a change in smacking laws in Scotland and England have on the legality of literature like this?

Anyway - the main point is that it makes Amazon UKs position on stocking this book much harder to defend when its European colleagues have decided not to.

[friday16]

If domestic laws on corporal punishment are influential, then what kind of impact would a change in smacking laws in Scotland and England have on the legality of literature like this?

None at all, without a concomitant piece of legislation which makes the discussion of illegal acts itself illegal. Perhaps that's the case in Germany, I don't know. It certainly isn't the case in this country.

There are plenty of books for sale talking about how to cultivate cannabis, even though cultivating cannabis is unambiguously illegal with no significant defences available.

[MarylinK1978]

@Ialwaysthought - Completely agree.

Mumsnet

Please can you start a campaign for books like "Delta of Venus" by Anais Nin to be banned. These child porn novels are sold under the guise of erotica and "Delta of Venus" has even been elevated to the status of Penguin Modern Classic and is sold everywhere from Waterstones to Foyles. They are not erotic nor classic to decent people.

I have nothing against sensual even sexually graphic novels - anything between two consenting adults is acceptable - what I object to is book which for example describes an older man getting aroused as he fondles two little girls - may be 9 or 10 years old - whilst he is "playing with them".

You cannot have double standards and ban child abuse images but not do anything about fiction that incites people to sexualise and molest children.

[flatpackhamster]

Don't you think it's quite a leap from 'fiction' to 'incitement to molest'? I've just finished reading the Complete Chronicles Of Conan but that hasn't incited me to crush the Jewelled Thrones of the World beneath my Sandalled Heel.