And I've got the feeling someone's going to be cutting the thread

[venta]

Earlier today, someone sent me a link to one of the government's petitions. In this case:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Include dance within the historical re-enactment or Sporting Activity exemption for the purchase of swords in reference to the Violent Crimes Reduction Bill."

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/dancers/

Which all sounds fine, and something I'm happy to sign. However, perusing the Violent Crimes Reduction Bill, there doesn't seem to be any mention of swords in it at all. I wish people would be more specific and citative[*] when writing these gov.uk petitions.

I've signed the petition, because I think the issue does arise, though in the Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008. That's about banning Samurai swords - which they define as curved swords more than 50cm in length. This definition would catch a few non-Samurai dancing swords (mostly from belly dancing, or European sword dancing traditions)[**]. It's clear that the intention of the Amendment would not be to ban swords used for dance purposes, but it'd be nice if it were specifically stated (as it is for martial arts, re-enactment, etc).

I've yet to establish whether the Violent Crimes Reduction Bill and the Criminal Justice Act Amendement interact with each other or are in any way related. Can anyone offer me any tips on how to comprehend the parliament publications ? I'm finding them a bit vast and intractable.

Right, I promise to stop banging on about sword dancing for a bit now.

[*] Yes, thank you, that is a word. Because I say so.
[**] Out of interest it also catches things like 18th century British cavalry sabres, something which is discussed in the report linked above.

Comments

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Signed it. Rapper doesn't kill people, rappers do. Or something like that.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

I recommend that you don't read Hansard for this kind of thing. It means reading actual legal text - which is pretty trying at the best of times - but you get the precise wording, which is better.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20080973_en_1 has the text of the order. No references to the violent crimes reduction bill, which suggests the two are unrelated (that doesn't necessarily imply the VCB doesn't have any relevant provisions, but from what you say above, it doesn't - as it happens).

The Order says:
"It shall be a defence for a person charged [...] to show that his conduct was for the purpose only of making the weapon available for the purposes of the organisation and holding of a permitted activity"

and then goes on to say:
"“permitted activity” means an historical re-enactment or a sporting activity;
“sporting activity” means the practising of a sport which requires the use of a weapon described in paragraph 1(r);"

Now, it may be that "sport" is defined somewhere else in law (though in all probability if it is, it is defined in half a dozen different places, and differently each time). But on a simple reading, there's nothing to suggest rapper isn't a sport. And martial arts etc are not specifically mentioned, so there's no reason to think it should be. Re-enactment is specifically mention, presumably because they don't think it's a sport.

Caveat: I didn't read through the rather tedious Hansard excerpt. It is possible that if a minister said "of course dance is not a sport" (or similar) that a court would take account of that.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Because the thing I read (linked above) is a discussion, it contains lots of waffling and not many conclusions. They debated what and where the definition of sport or sporting activity was, and didn't seem to come to much of an answer. Dancing was never mentioned at any point.

I imagine that a test-case would show that dancing was fine, but I'd really rather know in advance than have to fight my corner after having been arrested for carrying a sword.

(I'm sure rapper swords are safe as they're not even really swords, never mind curved-bladed things over 50cm.)

[(Anonymous)]

"I'm sure rapper swords are safe"

"?"

Despite the injuries you've received from "swords" wielded by "friends". And the whole point of rapper swords is that they can be curved. And 50cm is about the length, just under two feet. This catches the shorter sword of the traditional Japanese pair, the other being significantly longer.

W

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

I doubt they'll get anywhere with this idea - it's not generally considered a good idea to provide great long lists of what counts as a sport or similar. The reason being, even if you specifically say it isn't, courts will tend to assume any such list is exclusive, and you nearly always miss something out, creating an embarrassing loophole.

Even if it was on the list, you might get arrested and taken to court anyway. After all, how can the police tell by looking at you that you had a bona fide reason for carrying the sword?

[venta.livejournal.com]

After all, how can the police tell by looking at you that you had a bona fide reason for carrying the sword?

I dunno, would you mistake these guys for murderers:



:)

[grumblesmurf.livejournal.com]

Only of the eardrums?

[lathany.livejournal.com]

Have signed it. I will be interested to see whether anything happens.

How about theathical performances?

[octalbunny.livejournal.com]

Putting dance in the exemptions would leave theaterical actors out. Maybe a more general exception for performance is needed (or hopefully just throwing the law out).

Monty Python's Spamalot (2009 version):
Arthur: Arise Sir Galahad, and take your sword. And ... why are you prancing about?
Galahad: To avoid being arrested for carrying this sword Sir.
Arthur: What about me?
Galahad: The play may end like the film Sir.