The Ownership Flag and Icons    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "Slavery and the Law ???" 1 2 3 4 5 Slavery and the Law ??? (47) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board. 21 Jun 11, 4:20 PM Dagobert US(WA), 21 mths mamabear wrote: I remember a silly rule that came into play at work once. Our servers carried notebooks for orders. etc. They could do what they wished with them, put pics of their kids, decorate.... till one day out of 700 restaurants with at least 23 servers each, one nimrod decided to put a swastika on his. After that, the books were no longer considered ours and had to be checked in and out every shift. Guests complained about the swastika and guests even threatened the server. His freedom of expression was taken away, but it was done for both the safety of the company and the employee. It ends up being a very difficult balancing act...we want to be protected, but still have the same freedoms. I was all prepared to respond to this thread until I read this and instantly thought of "Office Space" and flair! Now I must find the movie and watch it again (for the approximately 100th time). Proud owner, master and husband of @princess_adela. 8 Jul 11, 9:57 PM Prolixitys_Saphira US, 16 mths DianaElaine wrote: Slavery and the Law ??? Have any of you thought of how things would go, if for instance, you branded your slave, and someone found out? What about marks from your hand, the crop, paddle, or flogger? And if any of you keep your slave in a cage, tied or chained? Just curious if any of you are concerned about being reported, or getting in trouble with the law in any way? I'm a bit concerned about this myself, not sure there's much you can do, except tell the truth about your lifestyle, but would that hold up in court? Your thoughts? Miss Diana Yeah, old subject, but it interests me. Heh. Well, I cannot speak outside my jurisdiction, but there is a hard push in this state to stamp out domestic abuse. We've seen too many deaths attributed to scary people stalking their ex-girlfriends. It has made ripples in the judicial branch, right or wrong. In fact, it is surprisingly easy to get a protective order around here. I've heard of divorce cases where a cheating spouse got a protective order against a soon-to-be ex-spouse. It is mostly because they don't understand what a no fault divorce state is and assume if they fabricate abuse their cheating won't look so bad, they'll be viewed as a victim and therefore get a bigger piece of the pie in the divorce. Sorry, that isn't going to happen unless you can prove real physical and emotional abuse resulting in damage. Anyway, I digress .... All you have to do to get a protective order is stand up in front of a judge and say he's called a few more times than you've liked, even if the phone calls aren't threatening or he's driven by your house every day, even if it's his route to work. Get a female judge and you're all but guaranteed one. As for getting into trouble for it, really does come down to the cop and the prosecutor. My Owner's a reserve officer and he has had cases where the woman swears up and down that it was a "disagreement," but she's so panicked she's shaking, her story keeps changing and she has marks upon her body, he knows that it is true domestic abuse. Other times both parties are calm, someone else called the complaint in and their stories are believable and match pretty well without seeming like they worked them out beforehand, so he walks away. The same goes for a prosecutor -- if s/he finds something that looks like a crime, s/he is going to prosecute. Sometimes it comes down to the prosecutor's "pet project" -- the crime s/he's decided to be hard on. Usually it is things like domestic abuse or drugs because getting drugs and wife beaters off the street means better chances at re-election. (And it's a bitch because they'll escalate a baggie with traces of pot in it into Possession with Intent to Sell because some prosecutors are bastards who aren't interested in the punishment fitting the crime.) The time of year can figure in, too. October is Domestic Abuse Prevention Month and more domestic abuse arrests happen in that month than any other in my county. Would your story of "this is my lifestyle" stand up in court? Wow, it would be fodder for the prosecution in a lot of cases. S/he would be twisting your words around to make the dom/me into some kind sick sadist who enjoys a dark, secretive lifestyle that involves imprisoning, beating and sexually assualting people s/he claims to own. We may think of defense attorneys as scumbags, but a lot of prosecutors are, too. They'll think nothing of making a felony case out of bruises left as a result of a lifestyle choice. I reiterate that we all need to be careful, let health care workers know about the lifestyle on an "as needed" basis (reporting is a pain in the ass, most are not going to want to go through the paperwork if it is truly consensual), and keep it as private as possible. Owned, protected and loved by Prolixity 8 Jul 11, 10:28 PM Dagobert US(WA), 21 mths 159-702-012 wrote: Would your story of "this is my lifestyle" stand up in court? Wow, it would be fodder for the prosecution in a lot of cases. S/he would be twisting your words around to make the dom/me into some kind sick sadist who enjoys a dark, secretive lifestyle that involves imprisoning, beating and sexually assualting people s/he claims to own. We may think of defense attorneys as scumbags, but a lot of prosecutors are, too. They'll think nothing of making a felony case out of bruises left as a result of a lifestyle choice. I reiterate that we all need to be careful, let health care workers know about the lifestyle on an "as needed" basis (reporting is a pain in the ass, most are not going to want to go through the paperwork if it is truly consensual), and keep it as private as possible. Very sage advice! One of the reasons I have never (or had only very rarely) engaged in any sort of BDSM "play" outside of a relationship has to do with the fear of a false accusation. You might think those ankle to shoulder whipping marks you consensually gave that girl last Friday look pretty cool but her boyfriend may not think so when he finds them... next thing you know she is pushed into a corner and making up some story to get herself out of hot water. Something like that has never happened to me (thankfully!) but I have heard of it happening to others. Scared me enough to never ever engage in any form of serious play, especially sadism, with someone I did not trust my life with. My state, like many others, has a "someone is going to jail" clause when called out for alleged domestic assault. So, for example, if our neighbors heard Adela and I verbally fighting (which never happens in reality, thankfully!) and called the cops on us and the cops come and happen to see whip marks on her back guess who is going to jail with no questions asked? Yep, me! Like I said, that is never going to happen but it is something that everyone involved in any form of mark-leaving situation should be very aware of. Proud owner, master and husband of @princess_adela. 8 Jul 11, 10:30 PM Prolixitys_Saphira US, 16 mths Charm_City_Cpl wrote: 902-660-194 wrote: Master and i own our home.. therefore no one has any right to enter without our permission.. therefore no one can possibly know what goes on in our home it does suck tho that we live in a "free" country and the so called government dictates how we can/can not live our lives. The State Supreme Court in Indiana just ruled that you have no right to bar the police from your home. So much for the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution! Had to go read the case again. Fourth Amendment protections are not as broad as people tend to think. The U.S. Supreme Court has been chipping away at them for years. Look up Fourth Amendment jurisprudence sometime, some of the decisions will scare you. Lately SCOTUS decided that it is legal for a police officer who smells marijuana and hears sounds that might indicate the drug is being destroyed to break down the door and make seizures without a warrant. Luckily right now it's construed narrowly and applies to marijuana only. Therefore, I'm not sure the Indiana Court ruling would stand up to the privacy protections still granted the home and its curtilege (area immediately outside of the home, including any structures in that area, for example your home's yard and garage) if challenged in a federal level. And it will be challenged, I don't doubt that. Owned, protected and loved by Prolixity 9 Jul 11, 2:42 AM Prolixitys_Saphira US, 16 mths 000-772-096 wrote: (has no one ever seen a marriage go south? It can get ugly quickly - no matter what you want when it starts out) (Anything I might say is a one person perspective representing no one other than myself - not a determination of right or wrong of any other person or persons and what they may or may not do unless of course someone chooses to view it that way - in which case - it becomes their personal problem, not mine.) Nothing a warring couple can do would surprise me. I could tell you some stories if it weren't for privilege rules. I like your disclaimer there, too 000-772-096. Owned, protected and loved by Prolixity 17 Jul 11, 1:13 PM Hawklord UK, 6 yrs Just a note of interest. I mention no details. A girl came to me here from another country and she turned out to be mentally ill. There was a very choppy period during which she was "sectioned" under the mental health act. Eventually she was released and I returned her to her country. Another Master has brought her back and it's all gone pear shaped. I had a visit from the police this morning. So my warning to everyone is be careful. Alot of what we do is outside of the law. We talk alot about the risk but do we take enough care to be fireproof? Sic volo. sic jubeo. stat pro ratione voluntas 17 Jul 11, 2:48 PM SirStrict43 UK, 6 yrs Just to clear up the 'An Englishmans home is his castle' sentiment, this no longer applies. It was crushed by the Terrorist act and Drug laws. Under both these no warrant is needed for the police to use the Enforcer to smash your front door in and tramp their dirty size 11 boots all over your carpet and arrest you. SOS 17 Jul 11, 9:07 PM Ulfs_kitten UK, 8 yrs hello I think we all must be careful because I dont know about where you all are but here in england in the midlands there is a real slavery issue by this I mean girls stolen and promised work then sold to men in carparks and then forced into prostitution So police are very suspicous now and slavery is against the law even if consenual apparently. I have been marked on my breast with Masters name and its woven into a flower and my doctor has seen marks and brusies he asked me once does your partner beat you I said no of course not ! he meant DV not what we do but I think if we keep it as we do almost hidden we should be ok Ulfs_kitten 18 Jul 11, 3:25 AM SnowdropExplodes UK, 7 yrs Y! As I understand it, here is the situation with the law in England and Wales: Since the Human Rights Act 1997 enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, it has been illegal to own slaves (prior to that, the law simply did not accept that there was such a thing as a slave - all people were just assumed automatically to be free). English case law, as established by R v. Brown (the Spanner case) is that consent is not a defence to Actual Bodily Harm, which as an assault leaving marks that are "more than trifling and transient". However, a later case (IIRC, R v. Wilson) results in the interpretation that branding specifically is a "cosmetic procedure" and not an assault, and the appeals court ruled that "what a man and his wife get up to in the privacy of their own home is no concern of the court" (this led to accusations of homophobia, since Spanner was about gay men, while R v. Wilson was a heterosexual married couple; but since homophobia is not allowed in law, the official interpretation is that the branding is a cosmetic procedure). It was also argued that Spanner was not "in private" because there were more than two of them, and they filmed it. In general, unless there is very clear evidence, my understanding is that it is unlikely that the CPS would pursue conviction, because in general it would not be considered in the public interest to do so, and the judiciary have tended towards the line of "what couples do in the privacy of their own homes is no concern of the courts". However, that is no guarantee that British kinksters will not be charged with crimes. 18 Jul 11, 1:54 PM SirStrict43 UK, 6 yrs SnowdropExplodes wrote: As I understand it, here is the situation with the law in England and Wales: Since the Human Rights Act 1997 enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, it has been illegal to own slaves (prior to that, the law simply did not accept that there was such a thing as a slave - all people were just assumed automatically to be free). English case law, as established by R v. Brown (the Spanner case) is that consent is not a defence to Actual Bodily Harm, which as an assault leaving marks that are "more than trifling and transient". However, a later case (IIRC, R v. Wilson) results in the interpretation that branding specifically is a "cosmetic procedure" and not an assault, and the appeals court ruled that "what a man and his wife get up to in the privacy of their own home is no concern of the court" (this led to accusations of homophobia, since Spanner was about gay men, while R v. Wilson was a heterosexual married couple; but since homophobia is not allowed in law, the official interpretation is that the branding is a cosmetic procedure). It was also argued that Spanner was not "in private" because there were more than two of them, and they filmed it. In general, unless there is very clear evidence, my understanding is that it is unlikely that the CPS would pursue conviction, because in general it would not be considered in the public interest to do so, and the judiciary have tended towards the line of "what couples do in the privacy of their own homes is no concern of the courts". However, that is no guarantee that British kinksters will not be charged with crimes. Slavery became unlawful well before 1997 in fact. In 1833 the abolition of slavery act was passed and applied to most of the colonies of the British Empire. Abolition started before this date but was not fully enshrined in law until the above act. In 1998 the act was, however repealed and has been now been overtaken by human rights law. I believe sections of the slave trade act are still in force however. SOS Next page