BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The right to privacy counterbalances the state's obligation to ban sadomasochistic sex

y the proposition, those who want to engage in violent sexual activities will do so, irrespective of laws to the contrary. Without undermining core liberal concepts of privacy and freedom of association, the state will be unable to regulate private sexual interaction. This being the case, when is violent activity most likely to be detected and prosecuted under the status quo? When such acts become too visible, too public or too risky. When the bonds of trust and consent that (as the proposition has agreed) are so vital to a sadomasochistic relationship break down. Liberal principles of privacy and autonomy allow individuals to engage in consensual activities that may fall outside established boundaries of social acceptance. In this way individual liberty is satisfied, while the risk of others being exposed to harmful externalities is limited. In the words of the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore, “the law can only ever be a piecemeal intervention in the life of society”[i]. The prosecution of a large and organized community of sadomasochistic homosexual men in the English criminal case of R v Brown was in part motivated by the distribution of video footage of their activities[ii]. Doubts were also raised at trial as to whether or not some of the relationships within the group were entirely free of coercion. Their activities had become too public, and the bond of consent between the sadistic and masochistic partners too attenuated for the group to remain concealed. Individuals break the law, in minor and significant ways, all the time. Due to the legal protection of private life, due to an absence of coercion, due to a consensual relationship between a “perpetrator” and a “victim”, such breaches go entirely undetected. The general right to privacy balances out the obligation placed on the state to ensure that individuals who encounter abuse and exploitation within sadomasochistic relationships can be protected. The protection afforded by privacy incentivizes individuals engaged in S&M activities to ensure that they follow the highest standards of safety and caution. Arguably, where “victims” have consented to being injured, but have then been forced to seek medical treatment due to their partner’s incompetence or lack of restraint, complaints to the police by doctors and nurses have helped to identify and halt reckless, negligent or dangerous sadomasochistic behavior. Correctly and safely conducted, a sadomasochistic relationship need never enter the public domain, and need never be at risk of prosecution. However, without the existence of legal sanctions the state will have no power to intervene in high-risk or coercive S&M partnerships. [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006 [ii] Annette Houlihan, ‘When “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means Harm: Gender, Sexuality and Sadomasochism Criminality’ (2011) 20 Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues 31
The criminalisation of sadomasochism infringes on individual liberty

Every government has a duty to protect the moral and physical health of all its citizens. Firstly, the defining characteristic of sadomasochism is that it does harm to others. The activity has a victim. It is not a simple question of one individual being permitted to harm himself. Secondly, the fact of the victim’s consent is immaterial. The use of seatbelts is mandatory because citizens should not be allowed to risk their bodies for such a nugatory freedom. Citizens are allowed to lose or jeopardize their material assets through foolishness, since the assets are replaceable, or at least not critical to survival. Paternalism exists to protect people from themselves. As noted below, governments are able to exercise varying degrees of regulation over potentially harmful activities according to the contexts that they occur in. Under these circumstances, the beneficial aspects of contact sports, risky performance arts and non-essential medical procedures can be balanced against the harms they might cause. Dangerous sporting activities invariably occur in public, are supervised by coaches and referees, and are subject to rule-sets agreed on by players and overseen by professional bodies. Under such circumstances, it is possible for the state to be satisfied that risk to the individual has been minimized as far as possible, and that there can be no confusion over which risks an individual consents to. Where altercations on the sports field result in criminal prosecutions, much discussion is focused on the risks that the victim foresaw he would be exposed to. Hockey players have previously been held to have implicitly accepted the possibility that they might be deliberately struck with a hockey stick in the course of a match[i]. A recent English case ruled that a rugby player does not impliedly consent to run the risk that another player might bite and tear at his ear during a match[ii]. [i] R v Green (1971) 16 DLR 93d) 164 [ii] R v Johnson (1986) 8 Cr App R (Sentencing) 343
History of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state

It is not just the hierarchy of the Church that have objected to the bands actions. There have also been popular protests from regular churchgoers who have been offended by Pussy Riot’s actions. Strangely this fact rarely gets more than a line – and often not even that – in the Western press.[i] This is not therefore a case of the Church ‘propping up’ the state rather it is speaking out for the outrage that many of its members feel. [i] BBC Website. Pussy Riot members jailed for two years for hooliganism. 17 August 2012
The blasphemy charge looks suspiciously convenient for Putin

There seems to be little doubt in any one’s mind that Putin and his regime were the focus of the protest. It is, equally, no secret that Putin has a fairly brutal attitude towards political dissent; he has expelled even allies in parliament for criticism[i], uses force to crush unsanctioned protests,[ii] and locks up potential opponents.[iii] Locking up Pussy Riot in order to stop their opposition therefore fits in with Putin’s previous actions against his opposition and seems likely to be the desired result. In the light of that, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that what he would have wanted is exactly what happened. Putin himself said after they were sentenced "We have red lines beyond which starts the destruction of the moral foundations of our society… If people cross this line they should be made responsible in line with the law."[iv] Putin’s record is not one that suggests that he is happy to step back and allow events to take their course in the hope that what he wants to happen just chances to come along – quite the reverse. Suggesting that this is a happy coincidence for Putin would be a little like suggesting that the decision to have term limits for the presidency, just not for Putin, was just the happy outcome of an impartial process.[v] If this was just the Church and the courts happening to favour the interests of an over-mighty president, then Putin must be the luckiest man alive. [i] Vasilyeva, Nataliya, ‘Anti-Putin lawmaker ousted in Russia; who's next?’, guardian.co.uk, 14 September 2012 [ii] Heritage, Timothy, ‘Vladimir Putin using force to crush protests, Russian opposition fears’, National Post, 6 March 2012 [iii] Parfitt, Tom, ‘Mikhail Khodorkovsky sentenced to 14 years in prison’, The Guardian, 30 December 2010 [iv] Stott, Michael, ‘Pussy Riot got what they deserved: Putin’, Reuters, 25 October 2012 [v] Boudreaux, Richard, ‘Putin Accepts Term Limits in Principle, but Not for Him’, The Wall Street Journal, 11 April 2012
The focus of their song was one of political dissent rather than religion

Pussy Riot’s protest was politically focussed, the response seems politically driven and now they are prisoners. The name and chorus of the song performed was Virgin Mary, Chase Putin Out.[i] It is very hard to see what would be a better definition of the phrase ‘political prisoner’. Where any punishment required for this act – and Proposition contends that there was not – then it was at most a mild public order offence. Amnesty International and the overwhelming majority of the International media have reached that conclusion. The very fact that this has become a cause celebre shows the extent to which those who able to step back from the situation recognise this for what it is; a clear abuse of presidential power given the thinnest sheen of respectability by a compliant church. Such religious content as was contained in the protest fairly obviously relates to the setting and is not the main content of the song. It’s a fairly straightforward artistic device. It does, however, raise the question that if the intent of this song was to be blasphemous – a necessary component of proving it to be so – then why did they do such a bad job of it and spend so much their time going on about politics; it would suggest somewhat incompetent activists. [i] Elder, Miriam, ‘Pussy Riot trial: prosecutors call for three-year jail term’, guardian.co.uk, 7 August 2012
History of the Orthodox Church and the Russian state

The Russian Orthodox Church has long been happy to prop up whichever strongman happens to be running the Kremlin, this was particularly the case in the time of the Tsars but was even the case under the Communists for all their supposed Atheism.[i] It certainly would not come as any surprise to Kremlin-watchers that, as Putin’s government shreds the last vestiges of democratic credibility in favour of the strong-arm tactics of earlier Russian leaders – Tsarist and Communist – that the Church would be only too happy to help out with such difficulties as this as the Church and Putin are particularly close.   The fact is that the long arm of the presidential office now reaches into all parts of Russian public life, including religious life, for example the FSB has harassed other Christian sects and proselytizing has been banned.[ii]  The intrusion of the state has been demonstrated far more effectively by the response to the protest than could ever have been achieved through such an event on its own. Although that reality may be powerfully ironic, it does little to help these political prisoners held at presidential whim and nothing more than hollow and self-serving justification from the courts. [i] Miner, Steven Merritt, Stalin’s Holy War, The University of North Carolina Press, April 2003 [ii] Levy, Clifford J., ‘At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church’, The New York Times, 24 April 2008
Intention

Perhaps more damning than the fact that the protest did cause offence or the fact that it was always likely to was the fact that it was clearly intended to do. At no point can the members of  Pussy Riot been under the illusion that no offence would be caused; quite the reverse, they were counting on it. Counting not only on the outcry in the domestic media but also on the impact that would have on the international  media in an effort to give themselves some cover. While the charge of ‘hooliganism’ might seem laughable this does meet the Russian definition “The flagrant violation of public order expressed by a clear disrespect for society.”[i] It is clear they did this in terms of their intrusion to areas reserved for priests, by manifestly contradicting common church rules, expressing their disrespect and using swear words,[ii] it is clear that profanity is a much greater offence within a church than outside even if it is a word used in ‘everyday speech’.[iii] It is important to be clear that this is not Solzhenitsyn, because of the way this was staged it was intended from the outset to do nothing more than grab headlines. There is no denying that there are real political divisions in Moscow and that there are many people with very real issues with Putin’s style of leadership, it is difficult to see how this publicity grabbing stunt does anything to help that cause. [i] Taylor, Adam, ‘Why Russian Punks Pussy Riot Aren't Heroes’, Business Insider, 16 August 2012 [ii] Whitmore, Brian, ‘Pussy Riot: The Punk Band That Isn't And The Concert That Wasn't’, Radio Free Europe, 30 July 2012 [iii] Fraser, Giles, ‘Pussy Riot's crime was violating the sacred. That's what got Jesus in court’, The Guardian, 10 August 2010
China has changed a lot since Tiananmen

China has changed over the past two decades, becoming more open to the world and more open domestically. For example it is experimenting with democratic elections at village level and since 1998 begun extending these to townships.[1] It has also effectively scrapped the repressive one-child policy. Internationally China is a responsible member of the international community, as befits a permanent member of the UN Security Council. At the United Nations, although it occasionally abstains from votes, it very rarely threatens to use its veto power in the Security Council, it has only used the veto six times since 1971 when the PRC joined the UN[2] - unlike the USA, for example. Its "peaceful rise" can also be seen in its hosting of the six-nation talks over North Korea's nuclear programme. And China is increasingly willing to operate within regional diplomatic frameworks covering East Asia, SE Asia and Central Asia. [1] Horsley, Jamie P., ‘Village Elections: Training Ground for Democratization’, 2001  https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0103/horsley.html [2] Sun, Yun, ‘China’s Acquiescence on UN SCR 1973: No Big Deal’, 2011. http://csis.org/files/publication/pac1120.pdf
Cooperation is the best way to gain influence

Cooperating with China is the best way to gain influence with the regime in order to promote democracy and human rights, engage it internationally, etc. The Chinese respond very badly to being publicly lectured or threatened,[1] but they will listen to those friendly nations who have earned their trust in ways like these. China for example often follows Russia, since the beginning of the 1990s its biggest arms supplier, when it comes to voting in the United Nations Security Council. Thus both vetoed sanctions against Syria in 2011 and shortly after Russia shifted its position to urging Assad to carry out reforms China followed.[2] The influence of the United States over other East Asian states in encouraging their democratization also shows that friends can apply influence on issues such as human rights as well as where interests coincide; The United States played a key role in sheparding Philippine dictator Marcos out of office and then encouraged Korean President Chun Doo Hwan to stick to a single term of office and not to use force against the opposition in 1988.[3] Lifting the ban is an investment in the future of the Europe-China relationship, and could be of benefit to the whole world, not just the EU. [1] Byrnes, Sholto, ‘David Cameron’s China visit’, 2010. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/china-liberal-wen-peh-rights [2] Chulov, Martin, ‘China urges Syria regime to deliver on promised reforms’, 2011.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/11/china-urges-syria-regime-reforms [3] Oberdorfer, Don, The Two Koreas, 2001, pp.163-4, 170.
The arms ban is still necessary

The European Union should stick to its principles. The arms ban was imposed for a reason - the massacre of students demonstrating for democracy and openness in 1989. Nothing China has done since shows it regrets its savage actions in Tiananmen Square - indeed many of the demonstrators are still in prison today.[1] If the ban is lifted, the EU will be implying that it should never have placed the ban on arms sales in the first place, and signalling that China can do what it likes to its own people without fear of EU objections. Indeed if there is an end to the arms ban, the next time that peaceful demonstrators are attacked by the armed forces in China, they may be able to do it with European weapons. Overall, China's human rights record is still very bad. It still hasn't ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is regularly criticised by Amnesty International[2] and Human Rights Watch[3] for imprisoning political and religious activists without trial. This is not a state that should be rewarded with EU favours. [1] Jiang, Shao, ‘List of “June Fourth Tiananmen Prisoners” still held in custody and their backgrounds’, 2010. http://blogs.amnesty.org.uk/blogs_entry.asp?eid=6619 [2] Amnesty International, ‘Annual Report 2011 China’, 2011. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/china/report-2011 [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘China’ http://www.hrw.org/asia/china
China is a threat to regional stability

China poses a threat to regional and international peace and should not be encouraged and helped by European arms sales. It has territorial disputes with most of its neighbours, particularly over oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea. The regime has also encouraged an assertive nationalism, damaging relations with Japan, for example with protests over the Japanese detention of a Chinese fisherman who rammed a Japanese coast guard boat.[1] Most seriously, China claims ownership over Taiwan,[2] a pro-Western Chinese democracy, and is rapidly building up the kinds of military forces it would need for an assault on that island, which it is now believed could be taken in as little as three days,[3] as well as staging exercises designed to intimidate its people. In 2005 the Chinese parliament passed a law that force should be used against Taiwan if it declared formal independence.[4] Quite apart from the principle of backing a repressive state against a democratic one, it is not in the EU's interests to make a war between two of its major trading partners more likely, especially as other powers such as the USA, as has happened in the past in 1995-6,[5] and perhaps Japan are then very likely to be drawn into the conflict. [1] Banyan, ‘Doth we protest too much’, 2010. http://www.economist.com/blogs/asiaview/2010/09/nationalist_protest_china?page=1 [2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, ‘What is meant by the Taiwan question?’, 2000. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ljzg/3568/t17795.htm [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Taiwan War Games’, 2010. http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/06/12/vietnam-eyes-foreign-help/ [4] People Daily, ‘China’s parliament adopts Anti-Secession Law’, 2005. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/14/eng20050314_176741.html [5] Ross, Robert S., ‘The 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation’, 2000. http://ppe.wiki.hci.edu.sg/file/view/ross3.pdf
China can’t be ignored

The idea of a "strategic partnership" with China is both vague and cause for concern. It is unclear what such a partnership would involve and questionable whether it is desirable. On one hand, by lifting the arms ban the EU will be showing that it favours stability over democracy and profit over principle. Other repressive regimes and would-be tyrants will surely take note. On the other hand it is unclear what actual harm there is to Europe from keeping the ban in place. Despite Chinese rhetoric about it damaging their trading relationship with the EU, it is not clear how European states are disadvantaged compared to other countries, as mentioned China is the EU’s largest trade partner already. As a WTO member China is committed to further market opening anyway,[1] and as a member of the UN Security Council it is in its own interests to cooperate with others for mutual benefit. [1] Kim, Ki Hee, ‘China’s Entry Into WTO And Its Impact ON EU’, 2004 http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/IBER/article/viewFile/3723/3766
Lifting the ban will damage relations with the U.S.

Even if it was in Europe's interest to sell arms to China, the damage from upsetting the United States by lifting the arms ban would be much greater. This is partly because America takes the human rights situation in China more seriously, but mostly because the USA has a major commitment to the freedom of Taiwan. If China did attack the island, America would almost certainly intervene. As the US State Department has said in relation to lifting the ban, "We don't want to see a situation where American forces face European technologies."[1] Congress has already threatened to restrict technology transfers to Europe if the ban is removed.[2] For fear of this, BAE Systems, one of Europe's largest defence firms, has said that it would not sell to China even if the ban was lifted.[3] [1] Brinkley, Joel, ‘Rice Sounds a Theme in Visit to Beijing Protestant Church’, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/international/asia/21rice.html [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p34-5. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32870.pdf [3] Evans, Michael et al., ‘British arms firms will spurn China if embargo ends’, 2005. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/article.aspx?newsid=597
China will simply get similar products elsewhere

Just because others will sell if the EU does not is not a reason to lift the arms ban. The EU’s weaponry is often more advanced than those produced by Russia and may be originally built to fight alongside the US so potentially be more damaging US security.  It is also not always true that China can simply go and get high tech arms elsewhere. Under US pressure Israel said that it would allow U.S. officials to review weapons transactions so making it much less likely to transfer the most high tech weapons.[1] Russia is also unwilling to sell high tech weapons to China both because it fears their impact on the balance of power in North East Asia where China could potentially be a future threat to the Russian Far East and because China has often copied Russian technology and improved upon it resulting in lost business in the long term. [2] [1] Wilson, Scott, ‘Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure’, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062600544.html [2] Weitz, Richard, ‘Why China Snubs Russia Arms’, 2010. http://the-diplomat.com/2010/04/05/why-china-snubs-russian-arms/
A code of conduct is needed not a ban

A Ban that is not very effective is better than no ban at all. That the Chinese are so determined to get the ban lifted shows that it does make a difference and is therefore worth keeping. Either way the European Union should not give it up for nothing. Rather as the Danish lead opposition to lifting the ban argues "Any decision to lift the arms embargo must be linked to specific Chinese steps on human rights."[1] [1] EUobserver, ‘Leaked cable shows fragility of EU arms ban on China’, 2011. http://euobserver.com/884/32658
Prevents a competitor from building a high tech military

China is increasingly able to develop its own high tech weapons so by continuing to have a ban in place will make very little difference to China’s capacity to build high tech weapons. This is shown by China’s unveiling of a prototype stealth fighter the J-20.[1] Even if the code of conduct is not watertight neither is the current arms ban as some weapons are still sold in spite of the ban.    [1] Foster, Peter, ‘China stealth fighter a ‘masterpiece’ of homegrown technology’, 2011.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8280707/China-stealth-fighter-a-masterpiece-of-homegrown-technology.html
There is no reason to strengthen China militarily

Lifting the arms ban will not strengthen China militarily. Not only would sales be restricted by the new code of conduct, but China’s Ambassador to the European Union has also clearly reiterated "We have stated several times that we do not intend to buy European military equipment" as "We cannot afford to buy such expensive weapons".[1] Even if China was sold high-tech European equipment, this could even be beneficial for the EU as it would make China dependent on the EU for such items and make it less likely to pursue its own research and development programmes. [1] Rufino, Filipe and Vucheva, Elitsa, ‘EU Arms Embargo is ‘political discrimination, says Chinese Ambassador’, 2005. http://euobserver.com/9/18891