♦ Okay, so I already updated my last post mentioning Max Mosely’s victory against the abhorrent ‘journalism’ of the News of the World, but I feel it bears further discussion.

Firstly, I would once again like to thank and congratulate Mr Mosely for not taking this bullshit lying down, for standing up and defending not only his own right to engage freely in BDSM and other consensual sex acts without being hounded, but the rights of all those who do similar, or even not so similar, things as he. He seems to have remained resolute, clear-headed and unashamed throughout and has proven that there is no reason to be otherwise.

I’d like to similarly thank and congratulate Mr. Justice Easy for making such a sane and reasonable decision and applying the law fairly, without paying any heed to the demented rambling of the tabloids. The judge has done a wonderful job in defending rights to privacy and to consensual, harmless sex and has been perfectly correct in saying that although BDSM is not for everyone that is no reason to condemn it. He reminds us that ‘where the law is not breached… the private conduct of adults is essentially no one else’s business’.

Further, my gratefulness towards Europe has also increased, after finding out that the only law which currently protects us from breaches of privacy is the European Convention on Human Rights.

Unfortunately (though I don’t really mean this, because such a law would be wrong), there is no law protecting us from poor journalism and idiocy, as still maintained by both the News of the World, several other tabloids and even, in parts, in more respectable news sources.

The BBC attract a small grr for today referring to Mosley’s interest in BDSM as the ‘dark side’ of his private life. What exactly is so ‘dark’ about BDSM, Auntie? You tell me. You can’t go flinging around words like this without some kind of back-up, I expect better from you. BDSM is no more dark than any sexual pleasure.

Next is this piece of filth from Kelvin MacKenzie, a former Editor of The Sun (in a profoundly vile piece of otherwise hilarious hypocrisy), which I found here: “what I’d really like to see is judges declare their own sexual interests so we know they are not biased”. What a load of absolute fucking nonsense. As if the tabloids aren’t happy with outing victims in a case they’d like to poke into the lives of those trying them as well, just in case they too fall outside the narrow box of ‘what we say is okay’ made by a bunch of sensationalist little twats.

Finally on the side of media idiocy stands the the perpetrators of this entire sorry affair. As if they hadn’t caused enough harm with their nosey-parker act they come up a little gem I found here. Colin Myler says “This newspaper has always maintained that because of his status and position [Mosley] had an obligation to honour the standards which his vast membership had every right to expect of him. Taking part in depraved and brutal S&M orgies on a regular basis does not in our opinion constitute the fit and proper behaviour to be expected of someone in his hugely influential position.”

I’m sorry, the man is in charge of a motorsport association, do motorsports fans really have the right to expect that he be faithful to his wife, or that he does not spend money on sex, or that he doesn’t enjoy himself in consensual sex? I don’t think so. He has no obligations in terms of his private, personal life. Would the News of the World rather have him take on their idea of ‘fit and proper’ behaviour? Lying, spying, dirt-mongering and hate-mongering? An apology would be too much to ask from these hateful people, but I don’t really think that calling BDSM ‘depraved and brutal’ is really going to help them seem the reasonable party. Try understanding it before you pull out the moral outrage next time, huh guys?

For the only truly wonderful piece of journalism I have so far seen in this whole circus I would very gladly direct you to this short but snappy opinion piece. And I quote, ‘to the barricades. Praise Max and pass the aloe vera’, absolutely brilliant. ♦

♦ P.S., Martyn McLaughlin: “After all, how else would we have learned the plural of dominatrix is dominatrices?”

By us not all being the prudes we are made out to be, Martyn, or alternatively, by having any frickin’ grasp of the English language whatsoever, you dolt. ♦