John Ozimek (now Jane Fae) on women, feminists and victims of pornographers

[TurfClub]

From the Skin Two Fetish yearbook, 2009 (Skin Two Issue 60), by John Ozimek, edited in 2012 by 'Jane Fae' (sorry I don't have the original John version) www.somethingdark.eu/downloads/Jane-Fae_Tyrannys-genesis-and-its-opposition_SDk-Latest-News_USL.pdf

'One of Labour’s first actions on coming to power was to put in place a group (of women) at the Home Office whose task it would be to steer a review of the law in respect of sexual activity.'

'Government would recoil in horror at a proposal to place men in charge of a review of the law on rape; yet, over and over, those at the heart of developing change in the field of sexual law have been female, feminist or exceedingly Christian. '

'It was David Blunkett, Home Secretary 2001–04 and a very committed Christian, who observed how wonderful it was to be surrounded by so many of like persuasion amongst his coven of Home Office special advisers.'

' SORT was widely considered to be an offshoot of radical feminism, with very little interest in views that clashed with their beliefs. The emphasis shifted very quickly from the rights of the individual to a focus on the perceived (female) “victim”. '

SORT focused 'the “consent” debate on the issue of when an individual might be said to have withdrawn consent.'

'they brought on board an academic team (three feminists, naturally) who carried out a wholly skewed rapid evidence assessment (REA) and concluded that yes, maybe extreme porn did cause harm.'

Sooooo:

• scare quotes around 'victim' (of sexual abuse)
• compares putting men (those who rape) in charge of rape law with putting women (those who get raped to make porn) in charge of porn law
• alludes to Blunkett's female advisers as witches
• sneering contempt for feminists

Note that since this was published in 2009, John Ozimek became Jane Fae, adviser of Girl Guides on safeguarding, and now identifies and is identified as a feminist (www.theguardian.com/profile/jane-fae). Which is strange considering previous contempt for feminism. Anyone would think it was all a strategy to undermine feminism. But no THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

The OP on this thread may be breaking the law. It should be deleted either by the poster or the Mods.

Oh, I don’t think so.

I think that exploring whether someone who allegedly advised the guides has a history of allegedly campaigning for extreme porn and younger actors in extreme porn is in the public interest.

Just like exploring whether someone who allegedly gets their penis out in public and allegedly has a blog with images / material encouraging underage boys to masturbate is a fit person to advise the government.

And just as a person actually convicted of rape and torture of a minor was involved, at whatever remove, in steering Green Party policy. Again, matter of public interest I’d say.

Wouldn’t you, rantycath?

Or do none of the alleged connections above meet your criteria for public interest?

And while we are here - if the material showing a person has an alleged ‘action of interest’ in their previous name, how are the press to cover that and explore it in the public interest? if they cannot name the person?

For the lurkers, it is entirely legal to state the truth as an ordinary citizen.
If you come by the information in a professional capacity and breach your obligation to confidentiality then that is different.

Mind you, if you relentlessly publicise your actual names and your transition in the national press I think even professionals can happily argue you outed yourself.

All of this only applies to GRC holders, of which Ozimek/Fae is not.

In fact, I’d like a discussion on how the concept of deadnaming could be abused in order to cover up past associations, offenses and deter legitimate investigation.

In fact, I’d like a discussion on how the concept of deadnaming could be abused in order to cover up past associations, offenses and deter legitimate investigation.

Claude Knights (safeguarding expert recently retired after 15 years as head of Kidscape)
on sex offenders who transition and are afforded the opportunity to change their name and hide their history as a consequence & recent case of "Christopher Noble, 32, transitioned to Christyl Knight while behind bars for keeping a stash of over 4,000 vile pictures and videos of kids as young as six months old"

“Allowing these individuals to hide a secret past is a dangerous practice.”
“Anyone who’s fuelled the vile trade in indecent images of children and therefore contributed to their sexual abuse should not be allowed to change their name.”

[[www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3006679/paedophile-jailed-transgender-christyl-knight-christopher-nobile/]]

'Claude Knights is now chair of the Anti Bullying Alliance, a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying and of the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group. In addition, Claude is a member of the British Psychological Society and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and she retains an active relationship with the media.'
www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/aba-our-work/our-advisory-group-0/claude-knights-chair-aba

Jane Fae makes every hair on the back of my neck stand up.

And Donna I will tell you what is “grossly immoral” - a middle aged male who has campaigned for many years for the legalisation of extreme pornography, giving advice to the Girl Guides.

YY Sir Vix. Grossly immoral and creepy as fuck.

Wouldn't it be handy if someone male could have a past advocating extreme porn including paedophiliac cartoons. Then say they were a woman, change their name, and censor all mention of that history when advising youth groups, government etc on safeguarding policy relating to women and girls.

I can't imagine that John Ozimek would have been a good cultural fit for advising the girl guides, had GG been looking for safeguarding input back in 2009.

It is very interesting, how reinvention as trans now allows for a clean slate and assumed virtue.

Every time I read this thread, I see something I've missed and my jaw drops a little further.

If anyone else is skim reading, like I was, I've only just registered this bit:
Jane Fae organised the recent 'Still Here' trans-rights conference in London. Dawn Butler (Labour Women & Equalities) was the high-profile speaker.

And then that article on how to wipe extreme porn off your hard drive. With Jane Fae's name on it for all to see.

And that's just the first page.

I'm not surprised some people want this thread to disappear.

I don’t know what constitutes “extreme” in porn? I’ve never watched porn, what I hear of bog standard porn sounds extreme to me. What qualifies as extreme ?

Maybe if the US senator Donna is supposedly so concerned about got a GRC we could threaten to have Donna arrested for posting about him?

""Christopher Noble, 32, transitioned to Christyl Knight while behind bars for keeping a stash of over 4,000 vile pictures and videos of kids as young as six months old"

And he chose a bit of an extreme right porn-type name too..........

What qualifies as extreme ?

Basically, acts that result in real and permanent damage to the body.

"Organisations such as CAAN and Backlash are equally adamant in advising individuals to refuse cautions. In part this is for the reasons above: in part it is the beginning of a fight back against the law. They believe the police made widespread use of cautions when it came to child porn because it made life easier and the majority of people just couldn't face a full court case. As one spokesperson put it: "the police wanted this law. We should not make it easy for them"."

This is so fucking creepy.

No thought for the victims in the child abuse images there. Just advice to people found with them to not accept police cautions.

I'm really surprised that a legal person would use the phrase child porn. I thought the offence is images of child sex abuse.

"RantyCath Mon 24-Sep-18 11:43:40
The GRA makes it illegal in some circumstances to reveal previous names of GRC holders.
Be careful. If Jane has a GRC Mumsnet might be open to being sued."

Hold on a minute.

So the idea is that women are NOT ALLOWED to dicuss teh FACT that a person who is a prominent activist for trans rights and (basically confirmed) advising GIRL GUIDES on safeguarding (ie don't bother) is /was one of the countries leading experts calling for the legalisation of extreme porn?

Fuck that for a game of soliders.

SO this would be a GREAT reason for a person with a dodgy as fuck history to get a GRC, under the new self ID rules, right? Women wouldn't be able to point and say HOLD ON A MINUTE THIS PERSON IS DODGY AS ALL FUCK???????

Sorry I broke the link to the article from August 2018 which quotes Claude Knights:
(extract)
"A BEARDED paedophile has started a secret new life as a woman after transitioning while serving time in a Scottish jail.

Christopher Noble, 32, transitioned to Christyl Knight while behind bars for keeping a stash of over 4,000 vile pictures and videos of kids as young as six months old.
The con is desperate for a fresh start but child protection expert Claude Knights said: “Allowing these individuals to hide a secret past is a dangerous practice.”

And an outraged mum whose son was murdered by a paedo has demanded a legal change over perv Christyl Knight’s new life as a female.

Campaigner Margaret-Ann Cummings, 43, insisted sex offenders should be forced to keep the identities they are jailed for.

Her son Mark, eight, was was killed by convicted sex offender Stuart Leggate, 42, in 2004.

She said: “Authorities shouldn’t let paedophiles rewrite history. They should have to keep their identities intact while they’re still on the register.

“Where does this end? Will sex offenders soon be getting treatment on the NHS to change the way they look?”

She added: “It’s not unusual for sex offenders to want a new identity but this is the most disturbing case I’ve heard of.

“When someone, so soon after getting out of jail, is trying to change not just their name but their sex and appearance too, it sounds like they’re trying to hide rather than reform.”

Echoing her calls, child protection expert Claude Knights said: “Anyone who’s fuelled the vile trade in indecent images of children and therefore contributed to their sexual abuse should not be allowed to change their name.” (continues)

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3006679/paedophile-jailed-transgender-christyl-knight-christopher-nobile/

I remember Fae's 'domestic violence gone wrong' comment and the 'eggshell skull' about men who murder their female partners.

Its that detached, sing-song breezy tone that marks Fae out as callous and pretty disturbing. No appropriate gravity for the seriousness of the subjects - murder and filmed child rape. Creepy. as. fuck.

Jane Fae came out to great fanfare publically in articles that mentioned the name John Ozimek, both in the Guardian and Daily Mail. When known as both Jane and John, they were a vocal supporter of "extreme pornography."
That's like saying we can't talk about Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner winning the Olympic Decathlon anymore.
It's hardly a secret!
Or is it only when we talk about controversial elements of the histories of prominent trans activists, which are all in the public domain, that there is a problem?

For the avoidance of doubt,

it seems to be a certain group of people who say that things like being a massive advocate for the legalisation of extreme porn has no bearing on a persons suitability to advise around safeguarding etc.

The "Vaz effect" where male politicans rallied around to say the fact that Keith Vaz was revealed as someone who liked to pay for sex including some really dodgy stuff (something about "breaking in" a young man who had not done it before IIRC) was a "private matter" and IRRELEVANT to his position as the Chair of the House of commons select committee on prostitution.

Women OTOH tend to go for the approach that when a man tells you what his sexual interests are and they are creepy / weird / pervy / yikes then you keep yourself your mates and your kids as far away as possible.

Nothing - don't panic. Ranty is lying. The GRA says no such thing. (In fact I would recommend people stop repeating the lie, because doing so gets it entrenched in the popular consciousness even though the GRA in fact says no such thing).

But were the GRA to be changed (as is the case in Canada and I think New York State) to make all misgendering illegal, then, yes, that very stupid law would be abused in precisely this sort of way.

Re. extreme porn, it's interesting that (cf OP) Fae/Ozimek puts "consent" in scare quotes when one of the cases he was involved in was to do with someone writing down their rape fantasies about a real-life person (member of the pop group Pussy Cat Dolls, IIRC) and then publishing them. So no surprise that Fae/Ozimek thinks consent is some sort of grey area, or ever-so-complicated-bordering-on-rocket-science - they are happy to defend people whose whole sexual fantasy life is built round absence of consent.

And before anyone pitches in with the "women have rape fantasies too" line, there's a huge difference between the motivations for fantasies about being raped (which often serve as metaphors for being overcome by lust, losing control, or even as a form of processing traumatic events by re-living them in fiction where you're in control of the narrative and its effects on you) and the motivations for fantasising about being the one doing the raping (which basically establishes beyond doubt that you are a creepy fucker whom any woman would be well advised to avoid at all costs).

September 3rd The Home Secretary statement reported in THe Telegraph

'80,000 sex offenders pose threat to children, Sajid Javid to warn as he attacks tech giants'
(extract)
"At least 80,000 sex offenders in the UK pose a threat to children, the Home Secretary has warned, adding that technology giants are helping fuel more extreme abuse.

Sajid Javid used a flagship speech to describe his shock at the "scale of the threat and determination of the offenders" as he unveiled plans to give police more funding to tackle the issue.

He called on tech giants and social media companies to take more responsibility for removing images and videos of child abuse from the internet. He also unveiled more funding for police to help tackle the issue.

It comes amid concern that growing numbers of paedophiles are using the "dark web" and military-grade encryption to carry out and share appalling images of abuse.

Mr Javid said: "It was when I visited the National Crime Agency's Child Exploitation Online Protection Command that the full horror of the scale and evolving nature of child sexual abuse was really brought home to me.

"One officer I met, who had previously worked in counter-terrorism for over 20 years, told me how in all his years of working he's never been so shocked by the scale of the threat or the determination of the offenders as he is in his current job."

Mr Javid also described his horror at discovering the National Crime Agency estimates there are up to 80,000 people in the UK who "present some kind of sexual threat" to children online.

The figure includes 66,000 registered sex offenders and a further 14,000 people who are currently going through the justice system.

The National Crime Agency disclosed that recently 130 suspected sex offenders were arrested in a single week, including a former police officer and five teachers.

Last year it received 82,109 referrals about child abuse images, a 700 per cent increase since 2012. " (continues)

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/02/80000-sex-offenders-posethreat-children-sajid-javid-warn-attacks/?icid=registration_eng_nba158433_personalised

Sorry - just to make sure - Fae/Ozimek was involved in the case in the sense of being an "expert witness" or similar - they hadn't written the stuff themselves.

I'm not panicking -

I am just gobsmacked that someone is trying to tell us it is illegal to discuss the fact of Jane's views and how they are a terrible "fit" for an advising role with Girl Guides.

This is the end point for this activism. Women not allowed to talk / warn each other about these people, not allowed to question whetehr someone as patently iffy as Jane should be giving GG advice that will affect 1000s of girls.

It was Girls Aloud , Fermats.