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SORT focused 'the “consent” debate on the issue of when an individual might be said to have withdrawn consent.'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

[KatVonGulag]

*ever

[Bowlofbabelfish]

I think the point is that writing rape dismemberment murder porn is not of itself illegal,. I wonder what the legal position is when it’s about named individuals?

[TurfClub]

Well if you sent it to them I'm sure it would be illegal. It's an interesting point in that they are talking about banning 'deepfake' porn. www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/call-for-upskirting-bill-to-include-deepfake-pornography-ban So hard to see how rape murder dismemberment porn is better than that.

[OlennasWimple]

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 You probably don't really want to know, but in the UK the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 makes it a criminal offence to possess or publish pornographic material that is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene, and that explicitly and realistically depicts life threatening injury; bestiality; and necrophilia.

[OlennasWimple]

Was it the inclusion of named (famous) individuals which tipped the writing over into incitement, Bowl?

[R0wantrees]

Have other people had their 'return function' disabled on MN posts today? Mine stopped working this afternoon.

[NothingOnTellyAgain]

Yes mine too it has restricted my rant length

[OlennasWimple]

Yes! I thought it was my computer having (another) meltdown.....

[R0wantrees]

Yes mine too it has restricted my rant length You can always chnnel James Joyce's stream of consciousness Nothing!

[NothingOnTellyAgain]

Thanks for the link Turf. "Section 45 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 extended the definition of “child”, for porn purposes, to anyone aged 16 or 17. For the first time, it became illegal to possess images of perfectly legal sexual activity." Ozmiak clearly has views about this not being legal for 16/17 yo when it is IRL. Interestingly as I mentioned the Lib Dems earlier, they also had a suggestion from a member to reduce age for prostitution and porn to 16 on the basis that is age of consent in UK. Great minds and all that...

[Bowlofbabelfish]

I’m not sure oleanna. there just seems to me to be a very big difference between writing a piece which isn’t about anyone real (as for example could happen in a fictional novel) and writing something which appears to glorify the harm/death of a named person. Never thought I’d feel sorry for girls aloud tbh but that must have been very disturbing for them. When it gets into the realms of the personal Is it treated differently by law? I mean it could be seen as a direct threat to life or incitement to harm, right?

[R0wantrees]

Return key issues reported on site stuff www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3375054-Return-key-not-working

[NothingOnTellyAgain]

Any man (and it is pretty much always men) who say that it's NOT FAIR that 16 / 17yo are not allowed to work in porn / prostitution when it's legal to have sex and mean to deny them that source of income... You can be 1000000% sure that it's not anythign to do with sadfeelz about the kidz justing wanting a few quid. I mean it's just fucking obvious. And none of them should be discussing safeguarding issues with orgs that look after children like, off the top of my head, the girl guides.

[OlennasWimple]

I agree. There must be something in that (the distinction between fiction and RL people).

[NothingOnTellyAgain]

Fanfic is predominantly written by women I believe and has all sorts of illegal / disturbing stuff in it. I think there's differences between writing stuff about real people and characters ie not real people. Also between real life people being filmed and stories. It's about harm isn't it. So there is a disctinction between porn where people are harmed to the point that it's falling into the banned category, even if they "consent". And cartoons / images / stories of that which are grim but not actually hurting people directly in real life. Although if you are a famous activist for certain orgs it's probably not a good idea to have images of a child's cartoon character being raped on your personal blog. Just another random example there. I think that many would have a slightly different line. However John / Jane's line which puports to be "free speech" condemns the banning of "extreme porn" as defined in current UK law, clearly thinks it's not fair that 16 / 17 yo shouldn't be filmed fucking for men to wank to (possibly including the acts that are listed in the extreme porn legislation?) and also, in a separate topic, sees women being killed by men they know as "DV gone wrong" (or whatveer it was) due to women having "essghell skulls". Given that the extreme porn they want legalised includes injury, how long would it be before the "Porn gone wrong she had an eggshell skull" "expert" evidence was heard in defence?

[deepwatersolo]

Lisa Muggeridge eviscerates Jane Fae & Co in her latest youtube clip. (I will crosspost to the GG Twitter thread).

[dolorsit]

Any man (and it is pretty much always men) who say that it's NOT FAIR that 16 / 17yo are not allowed to work in porn / prostitution when it's legal to have sex and mean to deny them that source of income... You can be 1000000% sure that it's not anythign to do with sadfeelz about the kidz justing wanting a few quid

I had this discussion with a guy some years ago and tbh is the main reason why I have never quite bought his transition to a woman.

It just struck me as such a male point of view.

[NothingOnTellyAgain]

It is a male POV. OK so people trawling the net will be able to find some women that might agree. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a male POV and people fighting so hard for "free speech" (when it comes to porn mainly or only) or it's "not fair" that 16/17 yo can't work as prostitutes or in porn then it's always (that I#ve seen) men. The one in the libdems who said abotu changign the age >> bloke. The other libdem (was it?) who said "sex work" should be in the job centre >> bloke. Bloke bloke bloke.

[Ereshkigal]

Vaz Deference ?

Haha Bowl, opportunities like that don't present themselves every day

[Melamin]

I know - it was a coffee up the nose moment - didn't want to derail but I will laugh with you while I have the chance

[placemats]

Such a disturbing thread to read. I used to get theGuardian delivered to my door and I remember reading the articles by John Ozimek. Jane Fae now. I'm astonished that Jane Fae is giving consultation on safeguarding. I still can't do paragraphs.

[Bowlofbabelfish]

I would actually say that my idea of free speech would allow disturbing fanfic etc - nobody real is harmed. There are two lines though. 1. When it becomes personal and about a real person. 2. Your right to free speech doesn’t protect you from the consequences. So Jane may have a right to write whAtever they wish but others have a right to question whether the opinions they express make them a suitable adult to weigh in on child protection. I personally don’t think anyone advocating for younger actors in extreme porn is someone I’d choose to advise the girl guiding movement.

[ZuttZeVootEeVro]

John Ozimek/Jane Fae has always been quite open about who they are and what their agenda is. It shameful that organisations like girl guiding and people like dawn butler must know this too, yet still want to associate with them.

[placemats]

But of course no one should mention paedophilia because it might just be now seen as phobic and bigotry.

[Furx]

Slightly off topic, but someone pointed out the fascinating choice of names in many of these neowomen.

Cristal Knight is such a pretty name.
What a terrible misfortune to have inadvertently chosen a name that sounds so like the translation of an infamous night in the dark history of WW2.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht