In medieval and early modern English law, the “King’s peace” was the fundamental idea behind criminal justice. The Peace was not an abstract civic order; it was the personal peace of the Sovereign, extended to the realm.
The Crown was the earthly reflection of divine order. To offend that order — whether by sedition or obscenity — was symbolically akin to rebellion against the sovereign.
Pretty cool to think about how different that was, compared to today when people want the law to be based on maximizing the greatest good. What if this was banned simply because it offends the King?
No one voted for this, and the last government was actively voted out for all this sort of bullshit. However, to give a prime example of two faced ideology, we now have a government that had the position that trans-women are women, but as soon as they were elected switched to a trans-phobic position.
Nothing the current government does is based upon their election campaign, nothing we voted for is being pursued, and nothing happening is what we want. Labour are actively corrupt.
The Liberal Party (what's in a name, anyway?) are campaigning to make it illegal in Sweden, go figure.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/liberalerna-kriminalisera...
eqvinox•3h ago
But does it cause more damage than smoking? Alcohol? Cannabis in young people?
We give people the right to exercise their own judgement in getting hurt for pleasure on those, so if the argument is that this one is not OK it better be an order of magnitude worse than the recreational drugs.
(I guess there's a distinction between the act and a recording of it, but last I checked smoking and alcohol are still legal in media for adults.)
Ed.: the act is apparently illegal too, "Due to these dangers, non-fatal strangulation and non-fatal suffocation were made a criminal offence as part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021".
And it's really... odd... how the entire article is written as if the practice is solely performed by men on women. (Even though that might be the prevailing pattern, this kind of 'condensing down' is ultimately sexist erasure.)
GaryBluto•3h ago
It's unsurprising. GB has an unholy trinity of excuses for authoritarian laws:
1. "Think of the women and girls!"
2. "Think of the children!"
3. "This is a sacrifice we have to make to stop terrorism!" (which has taken a backseat to the first two)
kelnos•2h ago
Wow, this sounds like a great way to get screwed over by a former, disgruntled ex-partner. Partner wants you to choke them a bit during sex, you know (or don't know) it's illegal, but think "eh, it's fine, what we do in the privacy of our own bedroom is our business, and $PARTNER really likes it". Fast-forward to an acrimonious breakup, and your former partner is now accusing you of an illegal act.
I 100% get that domestic violence is a real thing, and even aside from that, there are some things that we do try protect people from, even if they consent to it, but I feel like this crosses the line.
somedude895•1h ago