PORNFIRE
ave...@thirdworld.uk
(Take a good look at some of those signatories.) I'm told it was in
yesterday's /Herald/.
Avedon
Feminists Against Censorship
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Against Censorship
(Text of a letter sent to various newspapers today...
Please feel free to re-post anywhere relevant.)
This month, Edinburgh City Council (in conjunction with Scottish
Women's Action Network) are using public funds to promote a torchlit
political demonstration followed by a public book-burning. They may be
calling it a "PORNFIRE ", but let us be clear about it: Scottish
Campaign Against Pornography are burning books and magazines they
disagree with on Calton Hill this Thursday.
The occasion of this event, with its echoes of bookburnings at
Berlin, is "Sixteen Days of Action against violence against women".
Nobody wants to oppose such a worthy cause, and indeed we unreservedly
condemn violence against anyone. However, there is a second programme
being promoted by this campaign; an attack upon our freedom of speech
and thought, justified by an assertion that pornography causes
violence against women. Violence against women pre-dates pornography.
Violence against women is endemic in countries and cultures that have
the strictest of censorship laws (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Afghanistan). Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate a link
between pornography and violence against women.
We do not agree with the politics of censorship; regardless of whether
it is presented as gagging pornographers or defending public morals,
it subverts the basic right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the
European Convention on Human Rights. Burning books of any kind,
whether they are pornography or prayer books, is wrong.
We believe that Edinburgh City Council has no business providing
support for politically-motivated book-burnings and witch hunts that
attempt to blame society's ills on an unpopular group. We call on the
Council to respect the civil rights of all citizens equally, and to
distance itself from the politics of intolerance. Expressing
indignation about violence against women is not an acceptable
justification for abolishing freedom of expression.
For further information, see http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/freespeech/
Mr. Yaman Akdeniz, Director - Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK)
Sister Athletica de la Bain, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
Iain Banks, Author
Paul F Burton, Senior Lecturer, University of Strathclyde
Kay Carmichael, Writer
Avedon Carol, Feminists Against Censorship
David Donnison, Emeritus Professor - University of Glasgow
Owen Dudley Edwards, Historian
Dr Ian D Goodyer PhD
Alex Hamilton, Lawyer
Sharon Hart, Editor-in-Chief - MacNow Magazine
Mary Hayward, Campaign Against Censorship
John Hein, Editor - ScotsGay Magazine
Karen Hetherington, The Liberal Party in Scotland
Mike Holmes
Colin Johnson MA, Consultant Philosopher
Ken MacLeod, Author
Stiubh Macmhicean, Edinburgh Freethinkers
Michael Meadowcroft, President of The Liberal Party
Dr Arabella Melville, Author - 'Difficult Men'
Chris Morris, Editor - Outcast
Helena Ravenscroft, Author - Erotic Fiction For Women
Charles Stross, Author and Journalist
Peter Tatchell, Queer Rights Activist
Ruth Morgan Thomas, Prostitutes' Rights Activist
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Any sufficiently advanced political correctness is indis-
tinguishable from irony." - Stolen from Jane Hawkins
fo...@public.antipope.org
ave...@thirdworld.uk wrote:
: Here is the letter as it was released to the press, in its final form.
: (Take a good look at some of those signatories.) I'm told it was in
: yesterday's /Herald/.
Councillor Lesley Hinds of the Edinburgh City Council Women's Committee
has a letter in The Glasgow Herald of December 4th in which she claims
"innacuracies" in our letter.
Titled "Not books but magazines" she lists the various groups
campaigning against violence against women stating that they donated
1500 Pounds to the group coordinating events [on behalf of us Council
taxpayers].
She then mentions SWAP and the "pornfire" stating that "not books but
pornographic magazines" would be burned [an interesting distinction. I
wonder where she'd fit tracts, pamphlets, manifestos and electoral
posters?] She follows with "Although your readers may have been misled
into thinking otherwise, the Council has not funded this event." [A tad
disingenuous when we claimed only that the Council had promoted the
event - as easily seen on their posters.]
She continues:
"SWAP is currently campaigning against the increasing amount of
pornography on display and for sale in our local shops and garages, many
of which are pressured by wholesalers into stocking objectionable
material. Women and their children are daily confronted in shops with
degrading and humiliating images of women and children. We can no longer
ignore the damaging effect of pornography which is part of the spectrum
of violence against women and children. [Though Councillor Hinds appears
well able to continue ignoring the inconvenient fact that studies
repeatedly show no link, far less causation, between mere pictures and
actual violence.]
So all along I'd thought that what's being sold in newsagents in
Edinburgh are magazines containing nude pictures of consenting adults
which are permitted to be sold only to consenting adults should they
freely choose to buy them. SWAP members, at the "pornfire" however were
referring me to pictures of women and children being raped. This would
certainly explain the Councillor's claim of "degrading" pictures of
children being openly displayed in shops and garages.
Surely if this conspiracy of "wholesalers", to force simple retailers to
display child porn, existed anywhere but in the minds of SWAP and
Councillor Hinds, it would be a matter of urgency to call the Police
rather than merely circulate posters advertising a "pornfire".
Indeed if I believed it was anything other than their own peculiar brand
of fantasy, I'd do so myself.
: Avedon
FoFP
--
"Where they first burn books, they will burn people in the end."
-- Heinrich Heine
Andy Mabbett
fo...@public.antipope.org writes
>Women and their children are daily confronted in shops with
>degrading and humiliating images of women and children.
<boggle>
--
Andy Mabbett
"If they censure you, they tell you to cut it out.
If they censor you, they just cut it out."
M Holmes
: In article <slrn84nik...@public.antipope.org>,
: fo...@public.antipope.org writes
:>Women and their children are daily confronted in shops with
:>degrading and humiliating images of women and children.
: ^^^^^^^^
: <boggle>
Well, if my letter to the Glasgow Herald gets printed, she'll have an
interesting challenge on her hands.
Let's just say I don't expect to be 100 quid out and appearing as a
witness for the prosecution...
: Andy Mabbett
Harry Grove
<an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> -
I would be interested in the Council's response if this proposition is
put to them -
>We call on the
>>Council to respect the civil rights of all citizens equally, and to
>>distance itself from the politics of intolerance.
Please post (if you get a return)
--
Harry Grove
"The sonatas of Mozart are far too simple for young children to play -
and far too difficult for concert pianists to interpret !"
Schnabel, Artur
(b. April 17, 1882, Lipnik, Austria--
d. Aug. 15, 1951, Axenstein, Switz.),
Austrian pianist and teacher whose performances and recordings made
him a legend in his own time and a model of scholarly musicianship
to all later pianists
M Holmes
: In article <N$RbueAPJ...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>, Andy Mabbett
: <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> -
: I would be interested in the Council's response if this proposition is
: put to them -
:>We call on the
:>>Council to respect the civil rights of all citizens equally, and to
:>>distance itself from the politics of intolerance.
: Please post (if you get a return)
Unfortunately the response of Councillor Lesley Hinds, of the Edinburgh
City Council Women's Committee has been to defend the burning on the
basis that "only pornographic magazines" were to be burnt and to repeat
the allegation that porn causes violence against women, and more
bizarrely in the Glasgow Herald, that there exists a conspiracy amongst
"wholesalers" to force "degrading images of... children" into "shops and
garages" in Edinburgh.
I've sent letters to both the Evening News and Glasgow Herald regarding
her responses and in the Glasgow Herald have offered to pay 100 Pounds
to a children's charity of her choice and to act as witness for the
prosecuation. All she has to do is lead me to a shop displaying child
porn in Edinburgh, and have the Police confirm it as such.
Today both papers apparently carry letters from Scottish Women against
Pornography. I haven't seen them yet. I'll comment later...
: Harry Grove
James Hammerton
[snip]
> Today both papers apparently carry letters from Scottish Women against
> Pornography. I haven't seen them yet. I'll comment later...
I reproduce the letter from the website for today's edition of the
Herald below.
Headlines burned in small brazier
We were surprised and disappointed when we read the
ill-informed protest against alleged "book burning" in
Edinburgh by Iain Banks and his co-signatories (December
2). The "facts" presented in the letter were incorrect in
almost every respect. None of the signatories bothered to
contact the organisers of the actual event.
First, there was never any plan to burn books. Scottish
Women Against Pornography (SWAP) acknowledges the wholly
negative connotations of book burning and feel, at best,
it was deliberately misleading of Mr Banks and his
co-signatories to represent us in this way. The effect
was to divert the attention away from the very real
issues we wished to raise.
SWAP celebrates sexuality, including sexually explicit
books and other material, which is based on equality,
respect, and dignity. We are, however, against
pornography which is based on humiliation, debasement,
and violence against men, women, and children.
In our demonstration in Edinburgh we read out three of
the many statements of evidence given by women at the
famous Minneapolis public hearings on pornography. They
clearly showed the personal harm caused by this type of
pornographic material. As a symbolic gesture selected
headlines from pornography sold in local shops were
consigned to a small brazier. In this way we wished to
acknowledge the pain and abuse women suffer as a result
of violence-based pornography. The City of Edinburgh
Council did not fund this event. The modest costs
involved were met entirely out of the pockets of SWAP
members.
The one sentiment in the letter we do agree with is that
"violence against women is endemic in all countries and
cultures". This is precisely the issue the organisers of
the "Sixteen Days of Protest Against Violence Against
Women" wished to address and which did receive a small
grant from City of Edinburgh Council. The money was used
for training workshops on personal safety for women,
survivors of sexual abuse, and multi-agency work.
Finally, we feel that if Iain Banks and the other
signatories want to defend harmful pornography then they
need to know what it is they are defending. It is hard to
believe that a writer of Mr Banks's ability and stature
has chosen to come out in defence of a multi-billion
dollar industry, the aim of which is to distort and
manipulate notions of women's sexuality for profit.
Evidence of the links between pornography and violence
against women and children has been established by the
research of Catherine Itzin (Research Fellow, Violence,
Abuse and Gender Relations Research Unit, Bradford
University). We believe that this industry not only
damages the women directly involved, but also
desensitises the consuming population, both purchasers
and non-purchasers, to the effects of violence and abuse.
From our discussions with many women in Edinburgh we know
that this is a broadly shared concern and that people are
at a loss to know how to make their objections felt. We
do not wish to be confronted by this kind of material on
a daily basis in corner shops, newsagents, and garages.
It undermines our feelings of safety in our own
communities.
It is our hope that the Scottish Parliament will carry
out a review of pornography and consider introducing
legislation which limits the public display of explicit
pornography which portrays images of violence against
women and children.
Catherine Harper and Joan Skinner (for SWAP); Evelyn
Gillan - Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust; Lesley Irvine -
Scottish Women's Aid; Malcolm Chisholm, MSP; Margaret
Bremner, Sheila MacKay, John McCurdy, Eurig Scandrett,
Kath Kane, Natalie Robertson, Sarah Morton, Geoff Earl,
Tracy Gilbert, Rob Warren, Alison Watson, Brenda King,
Caroline Watson, Dr E P Sanderson, Maggie Sinclair.
c/o 22 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh. December 5.
My main comments are:
1. What is the definition of "book" they're using? Surely
burning magazines you disagree with is just as insidious as
book burning?
2. The link between pornography and violence has failed to be
established in repeated studies of the issue -- I'll have a
look at Catherine Itzen's stuff if I can get hold of it.
3. The council did fund the promotion of the pornfire AIUI.
4. Nowhere did the letter condemning the pornfire condone
violence against women (or anyone else).
5. The main area of disagreement would appear to be on the
issue of pornography that *portrays* violence.
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
M Holmes
: There does seem to be an element in pornography which seeks to combine
: the apparent innocence of youth with the knowledge of (alleged)
: depravity which safeguards the customer from the feeling of being
: responsible for the corruption of innocence. It makes me a little
: uncomfortable when I see it, just as do other blurrings of the boundary
: between child and adult.
: But all I have seen reported of these people suggests that _they_
: haven't really been thinking. They could have cut out that reference to
: pictures of children, and _strengthened_ their argument. But they just
: go for the cheap soundbite.
It's pretty stupid since most of the libertarian axis pretty much agree
that child porn is criminal because children cannot legally give
consent or because of harm done in its production. Arguing with us about
something we agree on is pretty pointless. The real argument is about
the freedom of consenting adults to do what they like in front of or
behind a camera without interference unless an unconsenting third party
has been provably harmed. At that point the proper place to prove harm
done and seek recompense is in a Court.
The Scottish Women Against Pornography advocacy that our already draconian
censorship laws should be tightened would actually be likely to make
violence more likely in the porn industry. In a legal industry, where
employees suffer harm, they can sue. In a Prohibition, a black market
industry affords no such options to its employees since they must then
go to Court and admit to being part of what is effectively a criminal
conspiracy. Alcohol distributors settle arguments in Court. Heroin
distributors settle arguments with violence. This effect ensures that
violence becomes routine in illegal businesses and that violent
criminals often accrue the large profits available.
I'm pretty close to purist libertarian (I'd probably still be OK about
the state running national defence) and definitely subscibe absolutely
to "where consenting adult activities do no harm to unconsenting others,
it's nobody's business but their own". Yet all that SWAP need to do to
bring me onside is actually prove that the act of making pornographic
pictures, or of viewing them, demonstrably harms someone else who
doesn't consent to the activity, and also that the harm isn't already
covered by other laws. Never mind anecdotes ("it was the porn wot made
me do it M'Lud") from criminals who'd like to avoid responsibility for
their crimes (how often are Judges faced by those proclaiming individual
responsibility?). Forget "correlations" which are likely to be
rescinded by the next study or written off because there was no attempt
to test a control group of porn reading non-criminals. If they provide
proof of harm to unconsenting others that would stand the test of
"beyond reasonable doubt" in a Court then I'll join them on the protest
even if demurring from burning the books.
What SWAP have offered instead are claims that magazines are on open
display in Edinburgh which feature sexual violence against women and
children. These wouldn't just be slightly illegal. Retailers would go
to jail for this, and I'd be cheering with the crowd. Councillor Lesley
Hinds in her letter to The Glasgow Herald has gone further and claimed
some sort of conspiracy of "wholesalers" to force innocent retailers to
display such material. I'm somewhat skeptical of this and have sent a
letter in response offering to pay 100 Pounds to a children's charity of
her choice, and appear as a prosecution witness, if she can lead me to
any "shop or garage" in Edinburgh which is displaying child porn which
is confirmed as such by the Police rather than in their own imagination.
What really has me baffled is that she hasn't already called the Police.
"Let's make another poster and have a Pornfire!" is more than a little
laidback as a response to the discovery that child porn is openly on
sale here.
Sex crime isn't obviously higher in countries which have less strict
censorship than we do and it isn't clearly less prevalent in countries
where censorship of pornography is close to total. What is clear is
that those countries which have close to total censorship of pornography
are precisely those countries in which women have fewest civil and
political rights and in which they are least free to choose their own
sexual destinies. If the Council Women's Committee imagine that most
Edinburgh women would live where their career choices were mother, nurse
or teacher; where they couldn't go outside without a male relative to
chaperone them; where they weren't permitted to drive or vote; and where
their word in Court counted for half that of a man (just imagine how a
rape accusation might go) just to be free from the knowledge that
someone can see pictures of naked people, then I have a nice local
castle to sell them.
: David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
M Holmes
: M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
: [snip]
:> Today both papers apparently carry letters from Scottish Women against
:> Pornography. I haven't seen them yet. I'll comment later...
: I reproduce the letter from the website for today's edition of the
: Herald below.
Thanks James. You've saved me the effort. They have a smaller version
oif this in the news. I'll send in the other comment from the Scottish
papers as I get time.
: Headlines burned in small brazier
: My main comments are:
The distinction between books and "pornographic magazines" is one that
Lesley Hinds, Convener of Edinburgh City Council Women's Committee has
been making in her letters. SWAP appear to be simply glossing over this.
Note that they told me at the "pornfire" and have claimed in the letter
that they burnt not books or magazines but headlines. In fact they
showed me a sheet with concrete poetry of 4 letter words such as "shit
piss cunt fuck...." on it.
Lesley Hinds has stated in her letters that SWAP bought, and intended to
burn, top shelf magazines so it looks like they've hung her out to dry.
My suspicion is that the Council wouldn't let them onto Calton Hill
(Council property) due to the fuss, and perhaps the other women's groups
suggested that bringing magazines was likely to look too bad in the Press.
: 2. The link between pornography and violence has failed to be
: established in repeated studies of the issue -- I'll have a
: look at Catherine Itzen's stuff if I can get hold of it.
I'd be grateful if you (or Avedon?) could let me know what you can about it.
: 3. The council did fund the promotion of the pornfire AIUI.
The Council's logo is *on* the "Pornfire" posters. Even if a printer did
them for free, that's still pretty clear;y a Council endorsement
regardless of the funding.
: 4. Nowhere did the letter condemning the pornfire condone
: violence against women (or anyone else).
Indeed so.
: 5. The main area of disagreement would appear to be on the
: issue of pornography that *portrays* violence.
: James
FoFP
James Hammerton
[snip]
> : My main comments are:
>
> : 1. What is the definition of "book" they're using? Surely
> : burning magazines you disagree with is just as insidious as
> : book burning?
>
> The distinction between books and "pornographic magazines" is one that
> Lesley Hinds, Convener of Edinburgh City Council Women's Committee has
> been making in her letters. SWAP appear to be simply glossing over this.
> Note that they told me at the "pornfire" and have claimed in the letter
> that they burnt not books or magazines but headlines. In fact they
> showed me a sheet with concrete poetry of 4 letter words such as "shit
> piss cunt fuck...." on it.
At any rate the name "pornfire" implies the burning of pornography
which comes in both book and magazine form, and thus I think people
can be forgiven for thinking that they are going to burn magazines if
not books. Further the promotional material did not make it clear what
exactly was being burned either.
> Lesley Hinds has stated in her letters that SWAP bought, and intended to
> burn, top shelf magazines so it looks like they've hung her out to dry.
A point to reiterate in any responses made to those letters.
> My suspicion is that the Council wouldn't let them onto Calton Hill
> (Council property) due to the fuss, and perhaps the other women's groups
> suggested that bringing magazines was likely to look too bad in the Press.
>
> : 2. The link between pornography and violence has failed to be
> : established in repeated studies of the issue -- I'll have a
> : look at Catherine Itzen's stuff if I can get hold of it.
>
> I'd be grateful if you (or Avedon?) could let me know what you can about it.
The Libertarian Alliance web site has an article by Avedon on "Fake
Science and Pornography" where she discusses
Itzin. I'll try and track down what Itzin has written directly
myself. I've already got a few titles, but it looks as if it'll take
an inter-library loan to get hold of them. The main book she has
published on the issue appears to be "Pornography: Women, Violence,
and Civil Liberties: A Radical New View", Catherine Itzin (editor).
See URL below for full details.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198257554/o/qid=944592936/sr=2-1/104-6122466-0013259
This doesn't come up when searching on amazon.co.uk, so I suspect it
is an American book.
M Holmes
Edinburgh Evening News, Tuesday December 7th 1999
Violence is really the burning issue
<picture of writer Iain Banks labelled "Ill-Informed">
We were surprised and disappointed when we read the ill-informed protest
against alleged book burning in Edinburgh by Iain Banks and his
Co-signatories (News, December 2nd).
The "facts" presented were incorect in almost every respect. Firstly
there was never any plan to burn books. Scottish Women Against
Pornography (SWAP) acknowledges the wholly negative connotations of book
burning.
SWAP celebrates sexuality which is based on equality, respect and
dignity. We are against pornography based on humiliation and violence
against men, women and children.
As a symbolic gesture, selected headlines from pornography sold in local
shops were consigned to a small brazier. We wished to acknowledge the
pain and abuse women suffer as a result of violence based pornography.
Edinburgh City Council did not fund the event. Costs were met out of the
pockets of SWAP members.
The one sentiment we do agree with is that violence against women is
endemic in all countries and cultures.
This is precisely the issue that organisers of the Sixteen Days of
Protest Against Violence Against Women wished to address and which did
receive a small grant from Edinburgh City Council.
It is our hope that the Scottish Parliament will introduce legislation
that limits the public display of explicit pornography which portrays
images of violence against women and children.
- SWAP members and supporters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments:
* The posters for the "Pornfire" had the Edinburgh City Council logo on
them. This clearly implies endorsement and still raises the question as
to whether the Council paid for them.
* It's heartening to hear SWAP condemn book burnings. Hopefully this
leaves Lesley Hinds, Convener of the Council Women's Committee as
the only person currently defending such on the excuse that they're only
"pornographic magazines". It seems the pro-censorship lobby have somne
internal debate to sort out.
The skeptic in me suspects that someone, the Council, the other women's
groups or SWAP themselves, decided that the heat in the Press was
sufficient to prompt a fuel change. It's alos interesting that it was
advertised for Calton Hill (Council property) but took place by the
roadside (public way) instead.
If hey didn't plan to burn pornography, then why call it a "Pornfire".
The word "Bonfire" would have been unlikely to have stirred our group
from the Holyrood Inn. It also looks odd that they condemn book
burnings while adopting the symbolism and trappings of them.
* If they really have seen magazines displaying sexual violence against
women and children on sale in Edinburgh, then surely calling the Police
would have been a little more to the point than a "Pornfire". They
don't need to campaign to make this illegal. It already is illegal and
Gary Glitter went to jail last week just for having some on his
computer, never mind actually selling it. This oddity of response makes
me a little skeptical that they've seen any such thing.
-- An Inflammatory Friend of Fernando Poo
M Holmes
Edinburgh Evening News, Tuesday December 7th 1999
Free speech attack obscene
After reading the article on the anti-porn literature burning (News
December 2nd), I was left with a few nagging doubts.
Councillor Hinds deftly deflects any criticism of the group's actions by
bringing up the subject of child pornography. If it is possible to buy
child pornography in Edinburgh then Councillor Hinds has a duty to
inform the Police. I object to the money I pay for "essential services"
being spent on a campaign leading to book burning. Violence against
women is an obscenity and so are attacks on free speech.
As a writer, I hope to see my own work put to the torch - as long as the
Council pay cash up front for multiple copies.
Raoul
Edinburgh
M Holmes
More to march than `pornfire'
As convener of Edinburgh City Council's Women's Committee I wish to
clarify a number of points raised by your article on book burning
(December 2nd).
The Women's Committee has for the past three years supported the Sixteen
Days Against Violence Against Women Campaign in an attempt to raise
awareness and make links between the different forms of violence against
women.
As part of this ongoing support, all parties on the committee agreed to
a grant of 1500 Pounds to the campaign's working group to co-ordinate a
programme of events running from November 25th to December 10th. These
events include:
* launch of women's personal safety training pack, accompanied by three
worshops in local communities.
* multi-agency training for those working against violence against
women.
* a workshop on Abuse in Therapy; and
* Silent Women Speak out - conference for black and minority ethnic
women to discuss violence and personal safety.
The Justice for Women March has been very successful in previous years.
This year Scottish Women Against Pornography (SWAP) decided to conclude
the march with a "pornfire" at which pornographic magazines, not books,
would be set alight. The Council did not fund this event.
SWAP is campaigning against the increasing amount of pornography on
display and for sale in our local shops. We can no longer ignore the
damaging effects of pornography which is part of the spectrum of
violence against women and children.
- Councillor Lesley Hinds
Convener of the Women's Committee
News Editor's note: By Ms Hind's own admission the council helped fund a
series of events which led up to a burning of literature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own letter sent in response:
In her criticism of our letter of the 2nd, Councillor Lesley Hinds
claims that the Council did not fund the "Pornfire" held by Scottish
Women Against Pornography. However the Council did promote the event,
as evidenced by its logo on the advertising posters. Did the Council
not pay for these posters?
She states that "pornographic magazines, not books" were to be burned.
It's not what's burned that's at issue, it's the idea that it's OK to
conduct witch hunts against unpopular groups. Currently these may be
pornographers but in the past they've been religious pamphleteers and
political activists. Indeed Margaret Sanger, an early campaigner for
women's rights, was jailed in the early part of this century for
"pornography", which amounted to leaflets explaining birth control.
Where books, of whatever quality or width, have been burned, their
authors have often been jailed, or worse, have followed their works onto
the fire. The message sent by any book burning can't be divorced from
this historical lesson. It's no coincidence that the burnings of Salman
Rushdie's book were accompanied by death threats against the author.
The burning of these magazines was undoubtedly not intended to convey
Christmas greetings to their publishers.
Finally Councillor Hinds says "We can no longer ignore the damaging
effects of pornography" while ignoring the fact that many studies
have been done, and none have ever shown a causative link between
pornography and violence.
If the Council Women's Committee is concerned about violence, against
anyone, then I suggest that a night patrol on The Meadows might do more
to prevent it than any number of posters or book burnings.
Mike Holmes
M Holmes
Edinburgh Evening News, Monday 6th December 1999
Book burn scorches democracy
As a German (with all our history) living in Edinburgh I cannot believe
that Scottish Women Against Pornography have chosen the way "to burn
books" again. Till today I thought there is a new parliament, a new
nation, a new thinking and now it is worst German history again?
I can only support writers like Iain Banks to stand up against anything
like this. If the action group finds pornography not suitable to many
Scots, especially if it comes to child pornography, it should be the
task of the Police or the legal system to ban these books and magazines.
I strongly believe it is intensely democratic to allow something on the
shelves if we like it or not. Every democrat can decide what to read and
so decide it is a success or not.
And may I remind everyone that just this week the Scottish Parliament
puublished a new Freedom of Information Act. Maybe Edinburgh City
Council should closely control where its money goes and control what
action groups are doing with that.
It really starts with porno books and magazines. And next time? If
someone does not like something, is it really up to him to decide if it
should be burnt or not? And then what will follow? Wehrt den Anfangen,
we say in Germany - prevent the beginnings!
Udo
Edinburgh
Roger Kirkham
Its as if "The Satanic Verses" episode never happened isn't it?
If you're in a grimly humourous mood, you can smile at how radicals of
whatever persuasion always want to ban/burn/destroy reading material and
other media that doesn't conform to their world view.
Applause and support to Iain Banks and everyone else who challenges these
extremists.
- roGER
M Holmes
Edinburgh Evening News, Monday 6th December
Dirty stuff.. it's all in the mind
- Helen Martin column
<picture clip from Cronenberg's film "Crash">
It all depends on your definition of pornography. To some people, page
three of a certain newspaper is abhorrent, exploitative porn.
To others, anything by or between consenting adults and viewed only by
consenting adults is perfectly healthy.
To some people, any visual sexual representation exists at the expense
of women.
Then again, there are many women who find the sight of a naked handsome
well-proportioned man pleasurable.
In fact there are probably as many definitions of pornography as there
are people. And the only things most of us would agree on is that any
pose or act which involves children or animals or which abuses an adult
- of either sex - is perverted and dangerous.
I really cannot figure out where Edinburgh City Council's Women's
Committee is coming from... all I do know is I never want to go there.
They seem to be stuck in some old-fashioned, feminist, lesbian-inspired
timewarp where men are the enemy and sex is bad.
The entire post-feminist-to-Girl-Power era in which women learned to
state what they want and go for it, rather than moan and whinge about
what they didn't have or how they were oppressed victims, seems to have
passed them by.
We know there is still too much domestic violence (although I always
found it deeply disturbing that Zero Tolerance wasn't interested in
doing much if the victims were men). And domestic violence has to be
stopped.
But what that has to do with soft porn is way beyond me. Where does a
certificate 18 movie end and a porn flick begin these days? Or is it
just a question of whether the leading actors are bona fide Hollywood
names?
There are certain films - Crash springs to mind - which to me are
pornographic, but obviously the Board of Film Classification didn't feel
the same way.
English seaside postcards are insulting demeaning and smutty but so
what? Someone buys them.
That does not give me the right to ceremonially burn videos and
stationary any more than those daft wifies should have been encouraged
with the women's committee's blessing to burn bits of Playboy or
whatever on Calton Hill.
Demonising sex and men is simple...doomed to failure, but simple. It
also says more about the paranoia and repression of the demonstrators
than anything else.
Sex and pornography are not one and the same. Many people who are
interested in sex are bored by saucy pictures or movies. But it's not
only sad lonely little men in raincoats who go to see skin flicks or
subscribe to top shelf magazines.
Life, sex and women's parnership with men on this planet is a lot more
complicated than the women's committee would lead us to believe.
And the way to solve any problems is not to form into rigid little
splinter groups of philosophy or gender in order to force a minority
point, but to grow up, live and let live, and find a consensus on what
the majority of people agree is unacceptable.
Perhaps Susan Deacon is their role model.
The inexperienced Health Minister has an interesting take on sex and
morals, and her simplistic view and conviction that she knows best may
yet be her downfall.
Paul Johnson
>SWAP members, at the "pornfire" however were
>referring me to pictures of women and children being raped. This would
>certainly explain the Councillor's claim of "degrading" pictures of
>children being openly displayed in shops and garages.
I gather that this claim depends on a rather shaky chain of logic, thus:
1: Pornography causes violence against women, including rape (certainly
wrong apart from a small class of violent porn, and unproven
even for that).
2: Therefore porn is part of the problem of violence against women,
3: This makes porn providers morally culpable for the violence they
cause. (A not unreasonable view, although I know some here will
disagree with it)
4: Hence pornographers are morally equivalent to rapists, and porn is
morally equivalent to rape. (Even granting points 1-3, being a small
part of the problem is not morally equivalent to being the whole
problem)
As far as "children" are concerned, some of the models in some (non
pornographic) magazines are under 18 and shown in poses which could be
considered to be mildly sexually suggestive. Since anything which might
incite male sexual desire is, by their definition, porn, it follows that
buying a picture of a fully clothed 17 year old girl is morally
equivalent to raping a child. Drop the weak-sounding "moral equivalent"
for the benefit of a soundbite, and you have their "porn = rape"
position.
Paul.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------
Paul Johnson | Protect Privacy: PGP Fingerprint
Email: Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk | 878F 2B72 C89D 4864 69E4 23EF
paul.j...@gecm.com | CB1D A36F 8DFE 8B69
Andy Mabbett
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>The Council's logo is *on* the "Pornfire" posters. Even if a printer did
>them for free, that's still pretty clear;y a Council endorsement
>regardless of the funding.
Not if it was used without the council's consent; which does happen
elsewhere. Mind you that's another matter which would need to be dealt
with...
Andy Mabbett
<ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes
>I reproduce the letter from the website for today's edition of the
>Herald below.
[...]
> It is our hope that the Scottish Parliament will carry
> out a review of pornography and consider introducing
> legislation which limits the public display of explicit
> pornography which portrays images of violence against
> women and children.
>
> Catherine Harper and Joan Skinner (for SWAP); Evelyn
> Gillan - Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust; Lesley Irvine -
> Scottish Women's Aid; Malcolm Chisholm, MSP; Margaret
> Bremner, Sheila MacKay, John McCurdy, Eurig Scandrett,
> Kath Kane, Natalie Robertson, Sarah Morton, Geoff Earl,
> Tracy Gilbert, Rob Warren, Alison Watson, Brenda King,
> Caroline Watson, Dr E P Sanderson, Maggie Sinclair.
Doesn't Scotland /already/ have a law against such material? How odd.
(uk.legal added)
ave...@thirdworld.uk
>: 2. The link between pornography and violence has failed to be
>: established in repeated studies of the issue -- I'll have a
>: look at Catherine Itzen's stuff if I can get hold of it.
>
>I'd be grateful if you (or Avedon?) could let me know what you can about it.
We have an article at our site, "The Harm of Porn"
<http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm>, that was written pretty
much in response to Cathy Itzin's standard speech/article against
porn. She tends to cite a handful of academics and certain government
studies as her "evidence".
Much of Itzin's essential argument is based on Diana Russell - anyone
wanting to see the article by Jen Durbin that dissects Russell's
research methodology is free to e-mail me and ask.
ave...@thirdworld.uk
wrote:
>The Libertarian Alliance web site has an article by Avedon on "Fake
>Science and Pornography" where she discusses
>Itzin. I'll try and track down what Itzin has written directly
>myself. I've already got a few titles, but it looks as if it'll take
>an inter-library loan to get hold of them. The main book she has
>published on the issue appears to be "Pornography: Women, Violence,
>and Civil Liberties: A Radical New View", Catherine Itzin (editor).
>See URL below for full details.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198257554/o/qid=944592936/sr=2-1/104-6122466-0013259
>
>This doesn't come up when searching on amazon.co.uk, so I suspect it
>is an American book.
No, Itzin's book is, reprehensibly, published by Oxford University
Press.
Clive D.W. Feather
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>What really has me baffled is that she hasn't already called the Police.
>"Let's make another poster and have a Pornfire!" is more than a little
>laidback as a response to the discovery that child porn is openly on
>sale here.
How about laying information in front of a magistrate, or whatever the
Scottish equivalent is, stating that she is acting as an accessory after
the fact by failing to report this to the police ?
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Harry Grove
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In uk.politics.censorship Harry Grove <musi...@cottagemusic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: Please post (if you get a return)
>Pornography. I haven't seen them yet. I'll comment later...
Thanks; I await with interest.
--
Harry Grove
"Men have an enormous capacity for meaningless sex.
If fact, they are quite attracted by the fact that it is meaningless!"
[Tony Parsons]
Harry Grove
"In our demonstration in Edinburgh we read out three of the many
statements of evidence given by women at the famous Minneapolis public
hearings on pornography."
Do you know of these 'famous hearings' which have, unaccountably, passed
me by ?
Plus (if anyone has time) what is known about the signatories ?
Catherine Harper and Joan Skinner (for SWAP);
Evelyn Gillan - Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust;
Lesley Irvine - Scottish Women's Aid;
Malcolm Chisholm, - MSP;
Margaret Bremner,
Sheila MacKay,
John McCurdy,
Eurig Scandrett,
Kath Kane,
Natalie Robertson,
Sarah Morton,
Geoff Earl,
Tracy Gilbert,
Rob Warren,
Alison Watson,
Brenda King,
Caroline Watson,
Dr E P Sanderson,
Maggie Sinclair.
>c/o 22 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh.
Harry Grove
"All newspaper and journalistic activity is an intellectual brothel -
from which there is no escape."
Leo Tolstoy
From a letter dated 1871
To Prince Vladimir Meshchersky
Reactionary editor & publisher
M Holmes
: In article <82jjd1$aqj$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, M Holmes
: <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
:>What really has me baffled is that she hasn't already called the Police.
:>"Let's make another poster and have a Pornfire!" is more than a little
:>laidback as a response to the discovery that child porn is openly on
:>sale here.
: How about laying information in front of a magistrate, or whatever the
: Scottish equivalent is, stating that she is acting as an accessory after
: the fact by failing to report this to the police ?
I've written to the Evening News offering 100 Pounds to a children's
charity of their choice upon conviction, if they'll lead the police to
the shop displaying the child porn they claim to have discovered.
Hopefully that will encourage them to do the right thing.
Perhaps unkindly, given their laidback approach to such an awful
discovery, I quite simply believe that they're making it up as they go
along.
A similar challenge to Councillor Lesley Hinds of the Edinburgh Council
Women's Committee, who has made the same claim and added that
"wholesalers are pressuring shops and garages" in Edinburgh to display
this material, has been published in the Glasgow Herald today.
My own humble opinion is that this is less Loony Leftism than Barking
Mad Authoritarianism. I'm really beginning to wonder whether the
simplest thing is to use New Nanny control-freakery against itself and
simply forward cuttings of the press coverage to Millbank and let
nature take its course...
Does anyone have their email address?
: Clive D.W. Feather
FoFP
P.S: I spent last night typing or collating all the press coverage so
far. I'll sort it into order if I get time at lunch and post it up.
M Holmes
: Catherine Harper and Joan Skinner (for SWAP);
: Evelyn Gillan - Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust;
I have my suspicions on the latter. The "Zero Tolerance" campaign was
another of the Edinburgh Council Women's Committee's little campaigns
and in fact some of the reason for the smidgin of irritation I feel
towards them.
This was a series of posters with a "Z" logo. They were aimed at
domestic violence against women and children. All quite familiar and
laudable so far eh?
However one of the posters read quite simply "No Man Has the Right". No
explanation, nothing. Imagine the apoplexy if I tried to distribute a
poster "No Woman Has the Right" (OK, it's under consideration as a way
to embarass them during an election - though it looks like I might have
to register "Friends of Fernando Poo" as a political party)
It appeared quite widely around Edinburgh as the campaign was funded to
the low tens of thousands of Pounds. Another was "99% of Child Abusers
Are Men". Some folks queried the stats since this was around the time
papers were being published pointing out that women perpetrated domestic
violence and child abuse (though not I understand, sexual abuse) around
as often as men. I seem to remember an admission that the stats were
wrong followed by a statement that they'd continue anyway. Other cities
in the UK, and even abroad. bought the campaign and IIRC it actually
turned a profit. As a libertarian I guess I can raise half a cheer,
since I'm not against profit, and any relief from the largest Council tax
outside London has to be welcomed. However citizens elsewhere might
well find it equally objectionable that their tax money is being wasted
on posters spouting bollocks rather than the money being spent on
actually preventing violence.
The "Charitable Trust" may simply be the organisation flogging 'em to
loony Councils elsewhere and reaping in the tax Pounds. I'll see what I
can find out.
FoFP
M Holmes
OK, I finally got all the letters and comment so far from the Scottish press
typed in or grabbed, and compiled. My report of the event itself is included
to complete the history...
Two letters, by myself, in the Glasgow Herald and Evening News today (8th)
are not yet included.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glasgow Herald, Thursday December 2nd 1999
Letters page
Against Censorship
(Text of a letter sent to various newspapers...)
This month, Edinburgh City Council (in conjunction with Scottish
Women's Action Network) are using public funds to promote a torchlit
political demonstration followed by a public book-burning. They may be
calling it a "PORNFIRE ", but let us be clear about it: Scottish
Campaign Against Pornography are burning books and magazines they
disagree with on Calton Hill this Thursday.
The occasion of this event, with its echoes of bookburnings at
Berlin, is "Sixteen Days of Action against violence against women".
Nobody wants to oppose such a worthy cause, and indeed we unreservedly
condemn violence against anyone. However, there is a second programme
being promoted by this campaign; an attack upon our freedom of speech
and thought, justified by an assertion that pornography causes
violence against women. Violence against women pre-dates pornography.
Violence against women is endemic in countries and cultures that have
the strictest of censorship laws (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Afghanistan). Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate a link
between pornography and violence against women.
We do not agree with the politics of censorship; regardless of whether
it is presented as gagging pornographers or defending public morals,
it subverts the basic right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the
European Convention on Human Rights. Burning books of any kind,
whether they are pornography or prayer books, is wrong.
We believe that Edinburgh City Council has no business providing
support for politically-motivated book-burnings and witch hunts that
attempt to blame society's ills on an unpopular group. We call on the
Council to respect the civil rights of all citizens equally, and to
distance itself from the politics of intolerance. Expressing
indignation about violence against women is not an acceptable
justification for abolishing freedom of expression.
For further information, see http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/freespeech/
Mr. Yaman Akdeniz, Director - Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK)
Sister Athletica de la Bain, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
Iain Banks, Author
Paul F Burton, Senior Lecturer, University of Strathclyde
Kay Carmichael, Writer
Avedon Carol, Feminists Against Censorship
David Donnison, Emeritus Professor - University of Glasgow
Owen Dudley Edwards, Historian
Dr Ian D Goodyer PhD
Alex Hamilton, Lawyer
Sharon Hart, Editor-in-Chief - MacNow Magazine
Mary Hayward, Campaign Against Censorship
John Hein, Editor - ScotsGay Magazine
Karen Hetherington, The Liberal Party in Scotland
Mike Holmes
Colin Johnson MA, Consultant Philosopher
Ken MacLeod, Author
Stiubh Macmhicean, Edinburgh Freethinkers
Michael Meadowcroft, President of The Liberal Party
Dr Arabella Melville, Author - 'Difficult Men'
Chris Morris, Editor - Outcast
Helena Ravenscroft, Author - Erotic Fiction For Women
Charles Stross, Author and Journalist
Peter Tatchell, Queer Rights Activist
Ruth Morgan Thomas, Prostitutes' Rights Activist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, December 2nd 1999
Author attacks pornography fire
- by Ian Johnston
LEADING Scots author Iain Banks today condemned Edinburgh City Council
for helping to fund a public book-burning on Calton Hill.
Pornographic magazines are to be set on fire on the hill tonight as part
of the Sixteen Days of Action against Violence against Women campaign,
which was given a 1500 Pounds grant by the Council.
Campaign group Scottish Women against Pornography, which is staging the
Pornfire, said the top-shelf magazines, bought from shops in the city, –
showed sexually explicit pictures of women being subordinated by men,
which they claimed encouraged violence.
But free speech campaigners were outraged and compared the protest to
book-burnings in Nazi Germany.
Fife-based author Mr Banks joined a group of 25 writers, academics and
campaigners– including gay rights activist Peter Tatchell and Edinburgh
University historian Owen Dudley Edwards,– to condemn the use of public
money to fund what they described as censorship.
In a letter to the Evening News, they said "“We do not agree with the
politics of censorship. Regardless of whether it is presented as
gagging pornographers or defending public morals, it subverts the basic
human right to freedom of expression."
The letter also said "“Burning books of any kind, whether they are
pornography or prayer books, is wrong. We believe that Edinburgh City
Council has no business providing support for politically motivated
book-burnings and witch-hunts that attempt to blame society'’s ills on an
unpopular group.
We call on the Council to respect the civil rights of all citizens
equally and to distance itself from the politics of intolerance.
Expressing indignation about violence against women is not an acceptable
justification for abolishing freedom of expression."
The letter went on: "“Violence against women pre-dates pornography.
Violence against women is endemic in countries and cultures that have
the strictest of censorship laws, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Afghanistan."
Mr Banks today said he was standing up for “rationality.
He added: "I'm a bit confused about what they think is so wrong. Is it
the fact that people have sex? That consenting adults consent to be
photographed or filmed having it? Do they object to the fact that people
might want to look at this?
“If it is about exploitation then they should be protesting against
capitalism.
Mr Banks said numerous studies had failed to prove a link between
pornography and violence.
And he claimed the pornography demonstration had been “sneaked in along
with the laudable demonstration against violence towards women.
Edinburgh author Charles Stross condemned the burning as having echoes
of the Nazis.
"“Violence against women is one of those hot-button issues that everybody
agrees is a bad thing, but then I read the small print:– a torchlight
procession, drums and the “pornfire.
“There are some very nasty resonances there indeed. The last time there
were any serious book-burnings in Europe was the burning of anything
Jewish. I have relatives who didn't come out of Auschwitz and I find
this deeply disturbing."
Councillor Lesley Hinds, Convener of the City Council'’s Women'’s
Committee– which gave a 1500 Pounds grant to the anti-violence campaign
said “Scottish Women Against Pornography bought magazines to see what
they were like.
"“They were quite shocked about what they could buy. They discussed what
to do with the magazines and thought `we don'’t want to keep them'
There will be a small brazier and they are going to burn these magazines,
so there is no book-burning at all."
She added: "“Does Iain Banks think it is perfectly acceptable to have
child pornography?"
"I don't understand why Iain Banks or whoever doesn't see there's a link
between pornography and violence against women. Not to accept that is
pretty naive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Thursday 2nd December 1999-12-08
Editorial
Dangerous Ritual
The burning of books, any books, smacks of repression, medieval
witch-hunts and censorship. Nazis ceremonially burned Jewish literature
and went on to attempt to eradicate an entire race.
That Edinburgh city councillors assume they have any right to use public
money to indulge in a fanatical book burning, even against pornography,
is beyond belief. The police have powers to arrange the destruction of
genuinely indecent and obscene literature, so what is on tonight'’s
bonfire? Playboy? Lady Chatterley'’s Lover?
This is a disgraceful and shameful misuse of public money from a council
that has enough of a challenge financing schools, street cleaning, and
council housing.
One man's pornography is another man's mild titillation and yet another
man'’s art. Councillors have no mandate to act as thought police.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of "Pornfire" protest (Edinburgh Calton Hill,
Thursday December 2nd 1999) sent to censorship groups.
- Mike Holmes
A Bonfire of Inanities.
Thursday 2nd December 5.30pm. Three of us met in the Guildford Arms
near Calton Hill where at 7pm the Scottish Women Against Pornography
planned to burn pornography. This "Pornfire" was to follow another
protest by various groups against violence against women which would be
accompanied by Edinburgh Women's Drumming Group along Princes Street as
part of Sixteen Days of Action. This had all been promoted by Edinburgh
City Council Women's Committee using taxpayer funds.
On a very cold, wet and windy night, we were cheered by the excellent
ales available and by the publication of our letter, signed by various
worthies, in the Glasgow Herald. The Evening News had also interviewed
author Iain Banks, a signatory to our letter, as well as Councillor
Lesley Hinds of the City Council Women's Committee who had conceded that
they'd given 1500 Pounds, on behalf of Edinburgh taxpayers, to the
campaign. Councillor Hinds also informed the News that SWaP had bought
some magazines "to see what they were like" and were "quite shocked"
into deciding to hold a public burning. The Evening News had also
published an editorial condemning book burning as well as a "disgraceful
and shameful misuse of public money".
In accordance with plans from a prior meeting, I'd constructed a "guy"
for the bonfire dressed as a witch and carrying a broomstick with a
placard quoting Heine's "Where they first burn books, they will burn
people in the end". Our plan was to add this to the "Pornfire" by way
of dramatic illustration of the sentiment behind the quote. Witches
have been burned in Scotland as recently as 1722, in what was essentially
a publicly funded campaign of violence against women. Politicians are
fickle at best and encouraging them to fund any form of witch hunt must
be regarded as a hostage to fortune.
Timing however was tricky. We wanted to avoid spiking in any way the
laudable Campaign Against Violence Against Women. Our letter had
condemned violence against anyone. We took issue only with the principle
of burning books and promoting censorship at public expense. We
therefore avoided the main procession and made our way up Calton Hill to
prepare for the "Pornfire", acquiring three more of our group en route.
On completing assembly of our witch, we discovered that the procession
was headed around Calton Hill. Worried that they might have changed
plans, we traded mobile phone numbers and sent one of our number to
report. Reception problems scuppered this plan but it became obvious
that speeches had begun by the road at the bottom of Calton Hill. This
spot had become somewhat accustomed to fires in recent years, as the
place of protest of those demanding a Scottish Parliament, with
accompanying braziers to ward off the cold.
As a result we missed the speeches. When we got there, Karen
Hetherington carrying our witch, there were around 40 people present,
including those from the Edinburgh Drummers, as well as a policeman and
policewoman. It is unfortunately difficult to establish how many were
there to drum, how many to protest against violence, and how many to
promote censorship. I noted that one chap appeared to be throwing
pieces of cardboard, with printed sheets attached, onto a fire contained
in an oildrum brazier.
I enquired of the Police whether any pornography had in fact been
burned. They thought not. They asked if we might be "the opposition"
and I confirmed this. A quick conference confirmed that we all saw this
as very low key and wedecided to spare the witch, not least because it
wouldn't fit entirely well into the brazier. Instead we decided to
simply photograph it, with the placard, in front of the fire. I asked
the Police if this might be in order and they chuckled, commenting on
the British and polite demonstrations.
We took a few photos and this interested someone with much better
equipment who declared himself from the Evening News. He took a few
photographs and then called over his colleague, who interviewed Karen and
myself. We'd decided that the censorship issue would best be tackled by
Karen, lest I be accused of being part of The Patriarchal Conspiracy.
Karen answered queries on the censorship and feminist issues and I
confined myself to protesting waste of taxpayer monies and suggesting
that these might have been better spent on a night patrol on The Meadows,
which would directly prevent violence.
Following this an important issue was getting warm and so I moved over
to the fire. I chatted to the chap there who'd been putting stuff onto
the fire and asked for a copy. He kidly obliged from a folder in his bag.
This was an A4 sheet covered apparently with concrete poetry containing
the words "fuck shit piss cunt.....". He at this point asked who I was
and my interest and, once I'd told him that I'd been a signatory to the
letter, he grabbed back the A4 sheet declaring that I wasn't having it.
I said that I was sorry he felt that way. He was joined by three women
and they proceeded to berate me for calling them nazis and making up
stories about them. I pointed out that our letter had mentioned
"bookburnings in Berlin" and that in Europe at least, anyone burning
books was going to invite a link with such a historical precedent. I
said that we were similarly annoyed at Councillor Hinds slyly asking in
the Evening News article, whether Iain Banks thought it "perfectly
acceptable to have child pornography" but that we sadly accepted that
such accusations seemed inevitably to occur in anti-censorship
campaigns.
They stated that they'd taken no Council cash but appeared to concede
that the Council had funded promotion of their "Pornfire". They also
stated that they had never had any intention of burning pornography,
something that's certainly at odds with Councillor Hinds' statement.
They claimed that if we'd only contacted them directly they could have
told us this. I suggested we swap numbers and that perhaps we might
jointly organise a public debate. They forcefully declined and stated
that they wouldn't debate with those unable "to do proper research".
I again stated that I was sorry they felt that way and that they could
air such grievances were they to agree to a public debate, but they
again demurred. I asked why, since they claimed to have had no intention
to burn pornography, they'd called the even a "Pornfire" instead of the
more usual word, but this produced only apparent exasperation.
Since they seemed to be saying that we had in fact got their plans and
position entirely wrong I decided to enquire whether they did in fact
support consenting adults right to appear in and to view pornography
portraying consenting adults. They confirmed that they did not and
proceeded to accuse me of supporting child pornography. I stated firmly
that since no consent could be obtained for such we supported a ban as
much as they did. They then accused me of supporting women being raped.
I pointed out that rape in fact also meant no consent and that we
therefore would also be in the same camp as they were on the issue.
They made it clear they were very concerned about Linda Lovelace. She
was the star of a film "Deep Throat" which I hadn't seen, and indeed
couldn't have since I would have been too young to be admitted even if
it had shown at our local cinema during its brief spell of fame. I
gather that Lovelace later claimed that she'd been forced into making the
film, presumably turning the celluloid into documentary evidence of a
rape. Before I could suggest that it be submitted to the Police as
such, they asked me "what about asian babes, did they consent?". I was,
I admit, flummoxed, and attempting to work out what special difficulties
with consent asian adults might have, when I was yanked away by the
others accompanying declarations of cold feet and necessity for further
refreshment. I left with the strong impression that Scottish Women
(and man) against Pornography were quite angry towards us.
Discussion over further ale at The Southsider provided the intelligence
that one of us had obtained a contact number for SWaP and that despite
my belief that the Heine quote on the placard would make our use of the
witch entirely clear, some of them had thought we were accusing them of
being witches - something which the pagan in our group found most
amusing.
I wondered later if the protest had been held by the roadside, instead
of Calton Hill, because the Council had withdrawn permission as a result
of Press interest. Such might also have provoked a change of mind
concerning flammable materials.
Today (3rd) I spoke to author Ken MacLeod concerning an article he's
been asked to produce on the issue for The Sunday Herald. The Evening
News also ran a page 3 piece declaring the "Dirty protest" a "farce"
stating that we'd "hijacked: their protest - a somewhat dramatic
description of a "confrontation" that produced merely a few heated
words. They quoted Karen hoping that "they had second thoughts about
burning books and realised that stooping to the techniques used by
oppressors on those they oppress is wrong" and my expression of concern
at the City Council wasting taxpayers money.
The News article also pointed out that Conservative Highlands and
Islands Member of the Scottish Parliament, Jamie McGrigor, was the only
male present at the women's demonstration, and therefore presumably the
chap throwing rude words onto the fire and arguing with me. The
editorial hoped that "the Council have learned a lesson. Wacky
minority, misguided demonstrations do not deserve public money."
In the end I'm not sure that burning mere words is any better than
burning books when the former is accompanied by all the trappings of the
latter. If this was Scottish Women against Pornography's debut event
then hopefully we made it trial by fire.
-- An Inflammatory Friend of Fernando Poo
--
"Where they first burn books, they will burn people in the end."
-- Heinrich Heine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Friday 3rd December 1999-12-08
<Pictures of marchers on Princes Street, of Conservative MSP Jamie
McGrigor throwing a leaflet onto the fire, and of Karen Hetherington
with the anti-censorship group'’s witch effigy>
Dirty protest ends in a farce
by Helen Puttick
A controversial demonstration against pornography turned to farce after
it was hijacked by anti-censorship campaigners.
Members of the Scottish Women Against Pornography pressure group had
planned to march to Calton Hill in Edinburgh to set fire to a pile of
top-shelf magazines.
But they dropped their plans after free-speech demonstrators gatecrashed
the demonstration with their own protest against book burning – one
carrying a witch's head and placard which read "“Where first they burn
books, they end up burning people."
A group of around 50 people gathered in Princes Street to take part in
an anti-porn protest.
Clutching burning torches and banging drums, the women marched through
the city centre demanding the Scottish Parliament takes action to stamp
out violence against women.
The procession, which included members of Rape Crisis and Edinburgh
Women'’s Drumming Group, headed to Calton Hill where the fire was due to
take place.
But instead of burning armfuls of pornographic magazines the women
resorted to setting fire to leaflets printed with explicit headlines
taken from the pages of top-shelf publications.
As the women stoked the flames in a brazier they were confronted by a
trio of anti-censorship campaigners intent on stopping the protest –
which they compared to burning books in Nazi Germany.
The bonfire had earlier been discredited by Scottish author Iain Banks,
one of a group of 25 writers, academics and campaigners to criticise the
burnings.
Karen Hetherington, who turned out to challenge the anti-porn
protestors, said "“We hope they had second thoughts about burning books
and realised that stooping to the techniques used by oppressors on those
they oppress is wrong."
"“We decided that it is not a good idea to start burning books with our
Council tax money", added Mike Holmes, referring to the fact that the
City Council contributed financially to at least part of the women's
rights activities which took place last night.
But Catherine Harper, of Scottish Women Against Pornography, refused to
admit the free-speech campaigners had wrecked their plans and was
furious at the suggestion that the planned blaze smacked of oppression.
"The people who complained did not even contact us about the matter"
she said "“We could have told them exactly what we were going to do and
why."
"But it says more about them that they gave out misinformation about
us."
The female protestors were joined by lone male, Conservative Highlands
and Islands MSP, Jamie McGrigor.
"It makes me feel rather good to be the only man in this parade", he
said.
"“Of course men should be able to take a stance on this issue. I am
against violence against men as well."
The planned bonfire marked the end of a march and mini rally held in
Edinburgh as part of the Sixteen days of Action Against Violence
Against Women campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Friday 3rd December 1999-12-08
Editoral
Porn free
The promised “pornfire on Calton Hill by anti-pornography demonstrators
turned out to be somethng of a damp squib.
Putting a match to a few photo-copied leaflets bearing headlines from
top-shelf magazines in an old bin was never going to set the heather, or
anyone'’s enthusiasm, on fire.
It was a waste of time and public money, said absolutely nothing and,
far from convincing others of their point, back-fired on everyone
involved including Edinburgh City Council who partly funded the
exercise.
The best that can be hoped for is that the Council have learned a
lesson. Wacky, minority, misguided demonstrations do not deserve public
money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glasgow Herald, Saturday 4th December 1999
Letters page
The letter which you published today, protest against a book-burning,
conains innacuracies which could have been avoided had you checked with
us first. As Convener of the City of Edinburgh Council Women's Committee
I wish to clarify a number of points raised within that letter.
The Women's Committee has for the past three years supported the Sixteen
Days Against Violence Against Women Campaign in an attempt to raise
awareness of the issues and make the links between the different forms
of violence against women.
As part of this ongoing support, all parties on the committee agreed to
a grant of 1500 Pounds to the campaign's working group to co-ordinate a
programme of events running from November 25th to December 10th. These
events include: launch of women's personal safety training pack,
accompanied by three worshops in local communities; multi-agency
training for those working against violence against women; a workshop on
Abuse in Therapy; Silent Women Speak out - conference for black and
minority ethnic women to discuss violence and personal safety.
The "Justice for Women" march is an event which has been very successful
in previous years in raising awareness of violence against women. This
year Scottish Women Against Pornography (SWAP) decided to conclude the
march with a "pornfire" at which not books, but pornographic magazines
would be set alight. Although your readers may have been misled into
thinking otherwise, the Council has not funded this event.
"SWAP is campaigning against the increasing amount of pornography on
display and for sale in our local shops and garages, many of which are
pressured by wholesalers into stocking objectionable material. Women and
their children are daily confronted in shops with degrading and
humiliating images of women and children. We can no longer ignore the
damaging effects of pornography which is part of the spectrum of
violence against women and children."
- Councillor Lesley Hinds
Convener of the Edinburgh City Council Women's Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday Herald, 5th December 1999
Pornfire was trying to douse flames of free expression
- author Ken Macleod
"Femimnist campaigners have the right to burn books if they wish",
argues Ken MacLeod, "but that doesn't mean the taxpayer should foot the bill."
When writer and journalist Charlie Stross rang me up last Wednesday with
the news Edinburgh City Council was backing a public burning of
pornographic magazines, I thought he was winding me up. Unfortunately
not.
An otherwise laudable 16 Days of Protest Against Violence Against Women
included the Scottish Women Against Pornography'’s book burning –
"PORNFIRE" atop Calton Hill last Thursday, an event publicised with
funding from Edinburgh City Council, whose logo adorns the bottom of the
publicity leaflet. On Friday, Off The Shelf, which campaigns against
the sale of legal soft porn in newsagents, was set to launch Scottish
Women Against Pornography, again with the Council’s blessing.
Edinburgh City Council has a peculiar view of its responsibilities and
competence. Apparently it believes they extend to lending material and
moral support to a minority faction within feminism: the groups who
believe the way to end women'’s oppression is to police the sexual
fantasies of men (and women). Few feminists, and fewer psychologists,
believe pornography has anything to do with violence against real women.
This is propaganda on the rates with a vengeance.
We pay the Council to clean up our streets, not our minds. We certainly
did not ask them to throw their weight behind one of the most dubious
propositions in social science, the argument that pornography is
“linked to violence against women. As Avedon Carol, from Feminists
Against Censorship, points out, studies have repeatedly failed to
demonstrate any such link. “Links are beside the point, anyway. Last
I heard people have the power of choice. "I looked at a sexy picture"
doesn’t count in mitigation of a rape charge.
On the day of the book burning. Councillor Lesley Hinds told the
Edinburgh Evening News: “Scottish Women Against Pornography had
basically bought about half-a-dozen magazines to see what they were
like. They were quite shocked at what they could buy. They didn't want
to keep it, so they decided, quite innocently, to burn it in public! She
went on to ask the obligatory question of one of her critics: "“Does Iain
Banks think it is perfectly acceptable to have child pornography?"
Whatever SWAP'’s campaigners were able to buy legally, it couldn’t have
included child pornography, which is so illegal you practically have to
be an undercover police officer to buy it. What “shocked them must
have been material published under the most repressive censorship laws
in the free world.
Before this reaction gets turned into legislation, it'’s worth taking
stock of what'’s at stake. It’s easy to be shocked, disgusted or baffled
by other people'’s sexual fantasies. But we do not choose our sexual
natures, they are fixed at an early age. We only choose what to do
about them. Provided the public peace is not broken and no unconsented
harm is done, what adults do with themselves or each other is no-one
else'’s business.
Burning books and magazines is not a crime. Anti-porn campaigners have
the perfect right to buy an armful of whatever turns them off and burn
it in private or, within the relevant bye-laws, in public. But they
have no right to do it with the implied endorsement of our taxes and the
backing of public authority. More importantly, they can'’t expect those
of us who value free expression to ignore the sinister symbolism of
their little stunt.
People who burn words or pictures are sending out a clear message that
they want them banned – and an equally clear message that their
intolerance is a religious exercise. These people behind the protest
aren't just saying that they don't like the stuff, they're calling for
a fatwah by the authorities, to get this stuff off the shelves and on to
the bonfires. Burning books has a long historical pedigree and, as the
German poet Heine said: "“Where they have burned books, they will end in
burning human beings."
In a country that burned its last witch in 1722, symbolically adding an
effigy of a witch to the fire was an apt protest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Monday 6th December 1999
Letters page
More to march than "pornfire"
As convener of Edinburgh City Council's Women's Committee I wish to
clarify a number of points raised by your article on book burning
(December 2nd).
The Women's Committee has for the past three years supported the Sixteen
Days Against Violence Against Women Campaign in an attempt to raise
awareness and make links between the different forms of violence against
women.
As part of this ongoing support, all parties on the committee agreed to
a grant of 1500 Pounds to the campaign's working group to co-ordinate a
programme of events running from November 25th to December 10th. These
events include:
* launch of women's personal safety training pack, accompanied by three
workshops in local communities.
* multi-agency training for those working against violence against
women.
* a workshop on Abuse in Therapy; and
* Silent Women Speak out - conference for black and minority ethnic
women to discuss violence and personal safety.
The Justice for Women March has been very successful in previous years.
This year Scottish Women Against Pornography (SWAP) decided to conclude
the march with a "pornfire" at which pornographic magazines, not books,
would be set alight. The Council did not fund this event.
SWAP is campaigning against the increasing amount of pornography on
display and for sale in our local shops. We can no longer ignore the
damaging effects of pornography which is part of the spectrum of
violence against women and children.
- Councillor Lesley Hinds
Convener of the Women's Committee
News Editor's note: By Ms Hind's own admission the council helped fund a
series of events which led up to a burning of literature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Monday 6th December 1999
Letters page
Book burn scorches democracy
Udo
Edinburgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Helen Martin column
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glasgow Herald, Tuesday 7th december 1999
Letters page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Tuesday December 7th 1999
Letters page
Violence is really the burning issue
<picture of writer Iain Banks labelled "Ill-Informed">
We were surprised and disappointed when we read the ill-informed protest
against alleged book burning in Edinburgh by Iain Banks and his
Co-signatories (News, December 2nd).
The "facts" presented were incorect in almost every respect. Firstly
there was never any plan to burn books. Scottish Women Against
Pornography (SWAP) acknowledges the wholly negative connotations of book
burning.
SWAP celebrates sexuality which is based on equality, respect and
dignity. We are against pornography based on humiliation and violence
against men, women and children.
As a symbolic gesture, selected headlines from pornography sold in local
shops were consigned to a small brazier. We wished to acknowledge the
pain and abuse women suffer as a result of violence based pornography.
Edinburgh City Council did not fund the event. Costs were met out of the
pockets of SWAP members.
The one sentiment we do agree with is that violence against women is
endemic in all countries and cultures.
This is precisely the issue that organisers of the Sixteen Days of
Protest Against Violence Against Women wished to address and which did
receive a small grant from Edinburgh City Council.
It is our hope that the Scottish Parliament will introduce legislation
that limits the public display of explicit pornography which portrays
images of violence against women and children.
- SWAP members and supporters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Tuesday December 7th 1999
Letters page
Free speech attack obscene
Raoul
Edinburgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hammerton
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> OK, I finally got all the letters and comment so far from the Scottish press
> typed in or grabbed, and compiled. My report of the event itself is included
> to complete the history...
>
> Two letters, by myself, in the Glasgow Herald and Evening News today (8th)
> are not yet included.
[snip]
Thanks for posting the collection of articles/letters about this. The
more I see the responses from SWAP on this issue the more I get the
impression that they are either just not getting the point or are
deliberately trying to evade it and accuse their critics of supporting
child porn...
Clive D.W. Feather
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>: How about laying information in front of a magistrate, or whatever the
>: Scottish equivalent is, stating that she is acting as an accessory after
>: the fact by failing to report this to the police ?
>
>charity of their choice upon conviction,
Yes, I saw that, but I thought that having her hauled up in front of the
beak might be an interesting exercise. Make her either put up or admit
lying. Otherwise I suspect she'll just ignore your offer.
M Holmes
: <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
:>: How about laying information in front of a magistrate, or whatever the
:>: Scottish equivalent is, stating that she is acting as an accessory after
:>: the fact by failing to report this to the police ?
:>
:>I've written to the Evening News offering 100 Pounds to a children's
:>charity of their choice upon conviction,
: Yes, I saw that, but I thought that having her hauled up in front of the
: beak might be an interesting exercise. Make her either put up or admit
: lying. Otherwise I suspect she'll just ignore your offer.
OK, I can't exactly go to the Police and say "SWAP and Councillor Hinds
know where child porn is on sale in Edinburgh but have neglected to tell
you." Given that they're almost certainly making it all up, I'd probably
be in the pokey before you could say "Fernado Poo" and you can bet that
SWAP wouldn't be baking me a cake.
However my motto is "Always Escalate!" so if there's a way to up the
ante without the legal risks falling on me then I'm open to suggestings.
Could you explain how this "laying information in front of a magistrate"
works down there and I'll see if I can find an equivalent.
: Clive D.W. Feather
M Holmes
in Edinburgh on 31st March 1999. It looks like Edinburgh Council,
through the Women's Committee, may have funded "staffing and publicity".
Given recent experience, I'd just like to check that these were really
effective cartoons.
FoFP
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > OK, I finally got all the letters and comment so far from the Scottish press
> > typed in or grabbed, and compiled. My report of the event itself is included
> > to complete the history...
> >
> > Two letters, by myself, in the Glasgow Herald and Evening News today (8th)
> > are not yet included.
> [snip]
>
> Thanks for posting the collection of articles/letters about this. The
> more I see the responses from SWAP on this issue the more I get the
> impression that they are either just not getting the point or are
> deliberately trying to evade it and accuse their critics of supporting
> child porn...
Of course they are; just not getting the point, that is.
It's what's known in uk.transport as "What about the childruuuunnnnn" (in a
whining voice). Whenever you oppose a self-appointed policically-correct
arbiter of what's right, they reply "so, you would like to have X happen to
our children" for any X in
run over by selfish drivers who oppose a 20mph limit everywhere
poisoned by selfish drivers who dare to drive past a school
kidnapped by perverts because their parents could not park within
the school gates (contradicts previous?)
fucked/exploited by pornographers
tortured by pornographers
poisoned by nescafe' and other sweet manufacturers
...
The logic goes
(publicly) "you oppose X"
(silently) "X can help prevent Y"
(silently) "therefore you want Y"
(publicly) "How can you favour Y? Y is such a bad thing, you must
be Pol-Pot/Hitler/Satan/Saddam/Kinnock/GGlitter..."
and it's impossible to get them to see, they're consumed in the flame of
their indignation ;-(
- Huge
David G. Bell
ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk "James Hammerton" writes:
>
> M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > OK, I finally got all the letters and comment so far from the Scottish press
> > typed in or grabbed, and compiled. My report of the event itself is included
> > to complete the history...
> >
> > Two letters, by myself, in the Glasgow Herald and Evening News today (8th)
> > are not yet included.
> [snip]
>
>
> Thanks for posting the collection of articles/letters about this. The
> more I see the responses from SWAP on this issue the more I get the
> impression that they are either just not getting the point or are
> deliberately trying to evade it and accuse their critics of supporting
> child porn...
The impression I get is that their soundbite-style publicity has bitten
back.
That's one reason why I urged people to document the details. They're
now throwing back accusations that their intention was misunderstood,
but I find it hard to reconcile the reported publicity with what they
now claim they meant.
If the publicity was incorrect, whoever created it is responsible for
the misunderstanding. And, if it was so wrong, why didn't SWAP correct
it?
I'm willing to give them a little leeway, because the publicity I've
seen reported does appear to have been ambiguous about just what they
were doing. It fits what happened about as well as it fits what people
thought might happen.
Of course, the symbolic burning of a few sheets of paper, to protest the
degradation and humiliation of women which is inherent, allegedly, in
the production of pornography, is hardly going to grab attention.
No wonder we misunderstood.
--
Mike Dickson
> Since anything which might incite male sexual desire is, by their
> definition, porn, it follows that buying a picture of a fully clothed
> 17 year old girl is morally equivalent to raping a child.
That depends on the law governing the place where you live, doesn't it?
A seventeen-year-old person is not a child by Scottish law.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Edinburgh, Scotland
fax 0131-530-1862 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
Mike Dickson
> However one of the posters read quite simply "No Man Has the Right".
> No explanation, nothing. Imagine the apoplexy if I tried to distribute
> a poster "No Woman Has the Right"
I quite agree. I absolutely loathed that form of simple-minded reasoning.
You could also extend the argument to other similar areas, such as The
Federation Of Black Police Officers. What would be said if there was
suddenly a Federation Of White Police Officers? All of a sudden,
discrimination becomes less of a one-way street to some people.
Harry Grove
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
[snip]
what appears to be a complete and full account of the 'Edinburgh
Dispute' regarding <Pornfire>.
My wife and I read through this account with interest.
Regardless of the conviction with which both sides of this 'debate'
speak: we draw a conclusion that
the party which presents quotations from both sides
quotes from impartial 'third party' sources
presents its material in a logical and consequential form
makes inconsequential quotes which highlight it's commonsense
background (rather than its radicle philosophy)
speaks to us more plainly and honestly than does the side which, without
denigating their proper concern for the topic in question, seems to have
lost sight of any rational prespective on the values of human life and
human inter-action.
So, Watson; everything is clear to us.
"I can see clearly now ......"
Holmes (Sweet Holmes) we're on your side !
--
Harry Grove
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth -
makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers."
Péguy, Charles
(b. Jan. 7, 1873, Orléans, Fr.--d. Sept. 5, 1914, near Villeroy),
French poet and philosopher who combined Christianity, socialism,
& patriotism into a deeply personal faith that he carried into action.
M Holmes
: Regardless of the conviction with which both sides of this 'debate'
: speak: we draw a conclusion that
: the party which presents quotations from both sides
: quotes from impartial 'third party' sources
: presents its material in a logical and consequential form
: makes inconsequential quotes which highlight it's commonsense
: background (rather than its radicle philosophy)
: speaks to us more plainly and honestly than does the side which, without
: denigating their proper concern for the topic in question, seems to have
: lost sight of any rational prespective on the values of human life and
: human inter-action.
I was shown a very interesting piece on the connections and beliefs of
Women Against Porn last night. It seems that they, in alliance with
others (including religious groups opposed to abortion), managed to get
Dworkinite laws against pornography passed in Minnesota, though these
were later struck down as unconstitutional. They also succeeded in
Canada where the laws have been used mainly to vigorously suppress
lesbian and gay pornogaphy. I hope to obtain the text of the material
to post here this evening.
It might reasonably be said that the Edinburgh City Council Women's
Committee are endorsing and supporting groups who are actually attacking
women's rights. It worries me SWAP have declared intent to campaign to
have the Scottish Parliament pass legislation on pornography (based on
the race relations model apparently by defining pornography as
"something that harms women") though their Evening News letter
disingenously pretends that they're attacking only child porn.
Apparently the speeches at Calton Hill were taken from the Minnesota
hearings.
In that they have a tame MSP in Highlands and Islands Conservative list
refugee Jamie McGrigor, it may be more important to discover what
they're up to on the Mound than on Calton Hill.
: Harry Grove
FoFP
Patrick
> In that they have a tame MSP in Highlands and Islands Conservative list
> refugee Jamie McGrigor, it may be more important to discover what
> they're up to on the Mound than on Calton Hill.
I'd been trying to stay out of this one, but anyway, its not only Jamie
McGrigor who is openly supporting this group. Malcolm Chisholm, my local
MSP, from the left of the Labour party is also a signatory to their
statement in the Edinburgh Evening News.
I don't think I have anything new to add to this, though I would like to
congratulate Edinburgh freethinkers on taking up the issue....as they did
when Pat Robertson and the Bank of Scotland looked like linking up.
Back on all things Banksian (sorry for crossposting this bit) anyone know
when Complicity is going to be released ?
Pat
> "Where they first burn books, they will burn people in the end."
>
> -- Heinrich Heine
>
>
patr...@dai.ed.ac.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~PatrickD/index.html
Tel-0131-661-3189
"You canna beat the sound o' bagpipes, ye Sassenach!"
"No, for sound is immaterial. That is why we beat the piper instead."
M Holmes
responding to SWAP's letter a couple of days ago criticising the
original letter.
The editing by the newspaper changed the sense of it quite a bit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Thursday 9th December
Letters page
Bring on the police, not the matches
I am heartened to discover that the Scottish Women Against Pornography
(SWAP) are in agreement with the signatories of the anti-"pornfire"
letter of December 2nd concerning the unacceptability of book burnings.
This would appear to isolate councillor Lesley Hinds of the council
women's committee as a proponent of burnings when these are of magazines
of which she disapproves.
SWAP say that their concerns are "the public display of explicit
pornography which portrays images of violence against...children." I
find it almost impossible to believe that SWAP'S response, if they were
to discover child porn in shops, would be to ceremonially burn headlines
from it.
Child pornography is illegal in Scotland and anyone selling such
material should be arrested. If SWAP really can lead the police to a
shop in edinburgh with child pornography then i encourage them to do so.
Upon conviction I will personally donate 100 pounds to a children's
charity of their choice.
MIKE HOLMES
15/12 Duncan Street
Newington
Edinburgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original had a slightly different tone:
I am heartened to discover that the Scottish women Against Pornography
are in agreement with the signatories of the anti-"Pornfire" letter of
December 2nd concerning the unacceptability of book, or magazine
burnings. This would appear to isolate Councillor Lesley Hinds of the
Council Women's Committee as a proponent, and the Council as advertiser,
of book burnings when these are of magazines of which she disapproves.
SWAP say that their concerns are "the public display of explicit
pornography which portrays images of violence against...children." I
find it almost impossible to believe that SWAP's response to discovering
child porn on sale in "local shops" was to ceremonially burn headlines
from it. That action hardly lends credence to such serious claims.
Child pornography is illegal in Scotland and anyone selling such
material should be immediately arrested. If the members of SWAP really
can lead the police to a shop in Edinburgh displaying child pornography
then, to encourage them to do so, upon conviction I will personally
donate 100 Pounds to a children's charity of their choice.
Mike Holmes
15/12 Duncan Street
Newington
Edinburgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M Holmes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edinburgh Evening News, Thursday 9th December
Letters page
Porn not normal in a civilised society
So the "enlightened" academics are trying to convince the majority of us
that we should all accept pornography as a harmless pastime and allow
ourselves to go with the flow. Whose flow? What flow?
Pornography is described in the standard dictionary as "obscene writing,
painting, photography and the like." Is this what we want future
generations to accept as "normal" human behaviour?
Iain Banks refers to human rights. What about human decency or human
dignity - do they not matter? I do not normally side with Councillor
Hinds, but she is right and her supporters of the protection of women
and children too.
Burning pornographic magazines displayed on our corner shops'
bookshelves where children can easily see them. though a token gesture,
was appreciated by all us "old fashioned yins" who well remember when
any shop who displayed such junk were criminally prosecuted, and rightly
so.
Ranald
Edinburgh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:
It's nice to see someone standing up for human dignity and decency,
though I've heard that some people spice up their sex lives with a
little occasional indecency.
It's a shame that they're advocating book-burning and censorship, but
hey, I'm in favour of free speech and this person is at least being
straightforward about what it is she dislikes.
This contrasts rather harshly with Scottish Women Against Pornography,
who Lesley Hinds tells us bought top shelf magazines, but who when asked
why adults shouldn't have tfree choice about whether to view it or
appear in it, started ranting about pornography "which is based on
humiliation, debasement, and violence against men, women, and children"
(from their letter to the Evening News - what they said to me at the
event was even more bizarre). Now I'm not exactly an expert but I'm
pretty sure that child porn isn't being sold in Edinburgh shops. Judging
from the "Massive Police Child Porn Blitz" headlines this morning, I
rather suspect they'd include such an easy target.
I'm also somewhat skeptical that there's porn based on "humiliation,
debasement or violence" against men and women being sold in Edinburgh
shops and garages either. That's also illegal and it'd therefore be
strange for SWAP to waste their time campaigning for laws against it.
Of course SWAP may have a strange definition of "humiliating and
debasing" such as "someone with no clothes on". What the "violence"
might be I just can't imagine.
So unlike the woman above, SWAP refuse to admit that their argument with
us concerns top-shelf magazines and the issue of whether or not free
adults should be legally permitted to consent to appear in, buy, and
view such material. People, like the woman quoted above, who dislike it
would be perfectly free to avoid appearing or viewing it. The free
speech side of the argument is not advocating that it be made
compulsory. We'd be against that too.
SWAP's habit of hiding behind condemning material which is already
illegal doesn't advance the debate at all. If their argument is that
they want to totally restrict the choice of women to appear nude in a
magazine, or to view such a magazine (we couldn't find the Patriarchy so
we had to become it?) then they should just come out and say so. I mean
it's not like we bite or anything.
Finally, I concur with the above person's sentiment that she doesn't
like children or herself to be faced with a row of bottoms when visiting
a shop.
Rather than advocate that our censorship laws be made even more strict
(people working in the industry are hardly going to be better protected by
law if even more of it is forced into the black market), SWAP could more
usefull produce a booklet outlining which shops do, and which shops do
not, display such material. After that it'd be down to good old
capitalism and people voting with their money. Shops would need to
decide whether they had more to gain from people buying top-shelf
magazines or those who boycotted the shops due to their display there.
The market would segment, and everyone would be happier except those who
spend their time worrying that someone, somewhere, is looking at
pictures of naked people.
FoFP
Mike Stickley
Patrick <patr...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.95.99120...@tigger.dai.ed.ac.uk...
> On 9 Dec 1999, M Holmes wrote:
> I'd been trying to stay out of this one, but anyway, its not only Jamie...
[snip]
Hmm, me too! - storm in a teacup I can't help but think. Once people have
better things to do with their time...
Surely the Mary Whitehouse agenda is dead and buried in this day and age - I
can't think of anyone I know under the age of sixty who really finds
consenting (and that's surely the important word) material to be a problem -
it only seems to be a problem when people blur the issue into wider,dare I
say it, political, implications...I've heard it all before(knowing wisely
nods) and it does seem to me to be a case of the libertarians sticking to
their guns and the 'prudes' not accepting the facts of their own biology, or
more especially other peolple's.
(my 2p that is)
> I don't think I have anything new to add to this, though I would like
to...
[snip]
Me neither, but then again if its my 1st post I might as well jump in at the
deep end. (not familiar with Edingburgh scene polictics wise)
> Back on all things Banksian (sorry for crossposting this bit) anyone know
> when Complicity is going to be released ?
Well done, so nice to see someone on-topic! :~)
Once upon a time, I read in book somewhere that argument was useless, you
can either agree to disagree, or fight - so nice to see Banksie got that bit
right! (oops! UOW spoiler)
In reply to Alison Page's post - I've got to say it would be dull if all we
talked about down the pub was how great it was when we talked about what we
were talking about down the pub last week when we all talked about what
whatisname said about thingy with reference to....U get the picture... :-)(
Luv to all, and please, medium rare roasting only, I'm new to NG's
Mike Stickley
Ken Johnson
and Joan Skinner (for SWAP); Evelyn Gillan - Zero Tolerance
Charitable Trust; Lesley Irvine - Scottish Women's Aid; Malcolm
Chisholm, MSP; Margaret Bremner, Sheila MacKay, John McCurdy,
Eurig Scandrett, Kath Kane, Natalie Robertson, Sarah Morton,
Geoff Earl, Tracy Gilbert, Rob Warren, Alison Watson, Brenda
> It is our hope that the Scottish Parliament will carry
> out a review of pornography and consider introducing
> legislation which limits the public display of explicit
> pornography which portrays images of violence against
> women and children.
Quite likely it will. At the moment the Scottish Parliament
seems to have nothing better to do than bugger about raising
their own salaries, building a range of corporate headquarters
and talking rubbish about fox-hunting. And all at our expense!
Didn't we all imagine that this expensive, wretched and useless
institution was going at least to glance at things like
unemployment, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and the
disgusting nature of much supermarket food?
And why the caution - "consider", "limits"? Surely these self-
appointed Witchfinders General and Milly Tants know their own
minds by now. They can't be hedging their convictions in case
the spin-doctors come out against them, surely.
Ken Johnson
--
http://simsey.cjb.net
Ken Johnson Ltd. You deserve better.
Colin
<Michael....@theseed.net> wrote, in message <82pgor$mtj$2...@epos.tesco.net>:
>
>Patrick <patr...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.3.95.99120...@tigger.dai.ed.ac.uk...
[...]
>Surely the Mary Whitehouse agenda is dead and buried in this day and age - I
>can't think of anyone I know under the age of sixty who really finds
>consenting (and that's surely the important word) material to be a problem -
It's not so much a case of age as a problem of ideology (most of the
older people I know personally have seen it all before, and 'aint that
much bothered by it). There are those of us who belive that if it's
legal to do, then it should be just as legal to film/photograph/write
about. Then there are those who believe that, even within the privacy of
our own homes, such material should be surpressed to the extent that
people are prosecuted for the mere posession of it.
The law, as it stands, falls somewhere between the two and is acceptable
to neither. I fall into the camp which believes that if the material
depicts lawful acts or did not involve the comission of a crime in its
production then the private viewing of such material should not be
subject to censorship nor should its posession, production or
distribution to consenting adults be subject to prosecution.
If you don't like the construction of the preceeding sentence, then bear
in mind that there are those who would equate advocacy of the freedom to
view consensual porn (or whatever), with a tendancy to abuse children (or
whatever); see this thread passim. One has to be politically correct even
when arguing for a cause which does not necessarily espouse political
correctness (such as the expression of people's private sexual fantasies).
The Mary Whitehouse agenda is not only alive and kicking, it's mutating
faster than the H.I.V., and heaven help you if others can twist your
stance into 'that person supports the abuse of children'.
>it only seems to be a problem when people blur the issue into wider,dare I
>say it, political, implications...I've heard it all before(knowing wisely
>nods) and it does seem to me to be a case of the libertarians sticking to
>their guns and the 'prudes' not accepting the facts of their own biology, or
>more especially other peolple's.
>(my 2p that is)
That's a nice summary of the problem of censorship in the U.K. at present.
Trouble is, the whole damn thing *is* predicated around politics, and
bears scant regard to real life.
[...]
>Luv to all, and please, medium rare roasting only, I'm new to NG's
However strongly spoken, they're still just words. The only thing a
flame burns is your ego. 8)
Regards, Colin.
--
"How can you take anyone with a name like 'Gates' seriously?"
My mother, referring to an actor in Star Trek
Richard Caley
mh> They also succeeded in Canada where the laws have been used mainly
mh> to vigorously suppress lesbian and gay pornogaphy.
ObPlug:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573440191/qid%3D944800609/026-1637436-1168608
Forbidden Passages: Writings Banned in Canada
(gotta love those amazon URLs)
Collection of bits from things siezed under the Canadian law published
as a fund raiser for a bookshop which built up huge legal bills
fighting cases trying get the law overturned.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
M Holmes
: it does seem to me to be a case of the libertarians sticking to
: their guns
Nice turn of phrase. I like that.
FoFP
M Holmes
: Surely the Mary Whitehouse agenda is dead and buried in this day and age
Well, since Jack Straw thought James Ferman was too liberal and
tightened up censorship, it seems that the corpse is in rather rude
health.
FoFP
Alex
Mike Stickley heeft geschreven in bericht <82pgoo$mtj$1...@epos.tesco.net>...
>[snip]
>
>Hmm, me too! - storm in a teacup I can't help but think. Once people have
>better things to do with their time...
>
>can't think of anyone I know under the age of sixty who really finds
>consenting (and that's surely the important word) material to be a problem -
>say it, political, implications...
I think this issue is alive and well in the BBFC. It is surprising how much
of the rhetoric of radical feminists and the religious right they have actually
internalized and taken for granted.
The idea of young men sitting at home and replaying "bad" scenes in movies
over and over until they're conditioned enough to go out into the street and
commit them for real is one.
Considering the influence of the BBFC (they have held back the release
of Straw Dogs for over a quarter of a century and also have an indirect
influence on how things are seen in the cinema and on tv, I would say
that these are very relevant issues.
My opinion,
Alex
Clive D.W. Feather
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>OK, I can't exactly go to the Police and say "SWAP and Councillor Hinds
>know where child porn is on sale in Edinburgh but have neglected to tell
>you."
Why not ? More precisely, you say "They keep saying public that they
don't know".
>Could you explain how this "laying information in front of a magistrate"
>works down there and I'll see if I can find an equivalent.
I'm afraid I don't know the details. You might want to ask on uk.legal.
Or you could phone the Procurator Fiscal (I think that's what you call
them, isn't it ?) and ask.
Mike Dickson
> Surely the Mary Whitehouse agenda is dead and buried in this day and
> age - I can't think of anyone I know under the age of sixty who really
> finds consenting (and that's surely the important word) material to be
> a problem
One need only look at the ravings of 'the church' to find what you claim
does not exist.
Andy Mabbett
<Michael....@theseed.net> writes
>Surely the Mary Whitehouse agenda is dead and buried in this day and age
So how come we still can't see films and videos without bits being
chopped out of them by the BBFCensors? Only "eternal vigilance" will
prevent those who seek to impose their morality on others from doing so.
>- I
>can't think of anyone I know under the age of sixty who really finds
>consenting (and that's surely the important word) material to be a problem -
You've been reading a thread describing several; some in positions of
supposed responsibility.
[...]
>In reply to Alison Page's post
Not seen outside a.b.i-banks
--
Andy Mabbett
"If they censure you, they tell you to cut it out.
If they censor you, they just cut it out."
Iain Lambert
<eyhogbz...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>:
>In article <82o6sf$dm$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, M Holmes (mh) writes:
>
>mh> They also succeeded in Canada where the laws have been used mainly
>mh> to vigorously suppress lesbian and gay pornogaphy.
>
Well, I've tried staying out of this one, but I feel I'm going to have to
show my naive ignorance here. Anyone care to give a quick explanation of
how pictures of naked blokes degrade women?
iain (not banks)
David G. Bell
hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk "Huge" writes:
> In article <82pnva$ed0$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>, "Ken Johnson"
> <kenneth...@cableinet.co.uk> writes:
> >[from a newspaper article signed by Catherine Harper
> > and Joan Skinner (for SWAP); Evelyn Gillan - Zero Tolerance
> > Charitable Trust; Lesley Irvine - Scottish Women's Aid; Malcolm
> > Chisholm, MSP; Margaret Bremner, Sheila MacKay, John McCurdy,
> > Eurig Scandrett, Kath Kane, Natalie Robertson, Sarah Morton,
> > Geoff Earl, Tracy Gilbert, Rob Warren, Alison Watson, Brenda
> > King, Caroline Watson, Dr E P Sanderson, Maggie Sinclair.]
> >
> >
> >> It is our hope that the Scottish Parliament will carry
> >> out a review of pornography and consider introducing
> >> legislation which limits the public display of explicit
> >> pornography which portrays images of violence against
> >> women and children.
> >
> >Quite likely it will. At the moment the Scottish Parliament
> >seems to have nothing better to do than bugger about raising
> >their own salaries, building a range of corporate headquarters
> >and talking rubbish about fox-hunting. And all at our expense!
> >Didn't we all imagine that this expensive, wretched and useless
> >institution was going at least to glance at things like
> >unemployment, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and the
> >disgusting nature of much supermarket food?
>
> Why do I continue to be suprised that people *believe* politicians?
I'm just wondering what the official line is on a certain movie,
available on video and recently shown on TV, in which the male and
female leads are shot at, and otherwise exposed to extreme violence,
only to end up, still handcuffed together, sharing a shower.
I'll let you think about that for a moment, before naming the film. Oh,
and, just to add to the mixture of heinous pornography, the man is
white, and the woman can be classed as an "asian babe".
[spoiler space]
Pierce Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh, in "Tomorrow Never Dies", Cert. 12
Were you thinking it was "The Thirty-Nine Steps"?
Colin
<db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I'm just wondering what the official line is on a certain movie,
>available on video and recently shown on TV, in which the male and
>female leads are shot at, and otherwise exposed to extreme violence,
>only to end up, still handcuffed together, sharing a shower.
>
>I'll let you think about that for a moment, before naming the film. Oh,
>and, just to add to the mixture of heinous pornography, the man is
>white, and the woman can be classed as an "asian babe".
[Snip spoiler space]
>Pierce Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh, in "Tomorrow Never Dies", Cert. 12
>
>Were you thinking it was "The Thirty-Nine Steps"?
Er... Yes. But then I haven't seen Tomorrow Never Dies yet. Had me
a bit puzzled as to how wossername in 39 Steps could be classified
as an "Asian Babe" though!
ave...@thirdworld.uk
I think it's also a mistake to assume it's only "the Mary Whitehouse
agenda" we're faced with, despite the fact that at the bottom line the
sum seems to be much the same.
The Whitehouse approach to pornography is pretty much that it's bad
because it's erotic. The kind of rhetoric SWAP is using, complete
with citations from the Dworkin-MacKinnon hearings, is based on an
alleged "feminist" analysis of porn, which comes from people who claim
that they have nothing against eroticism - celebrate it, in fact -
it's just that "pornography" is something else entirely. The fact
that their arguments can only lead one to conclude that it's really
the sex they object to possibly obscures the principal distinction
between themselves and Whitehouse: The latter believe that porn is
created by harming people (rape and other violence) and that if people
see it they are harmed (deranged, traumatized, etc.) by it; Whitehouse
et al. consider eroticism itself to be harm.
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Any sufficiently advanced political correctness is indis-
tinguishable from irony." - Stolen from Jane Hawkins
ave...@thirdworld.uk
Dickson) wrote:
>In article <Nyb7NCAo...@treetop.demon.co.uk> Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk wrote...
>
>> Since anything which might incite male sexual desire is, by their
>> definition, porn, it follows that buying a picture of a fully clothed
>> 17 year old girl is morally equivalent to raping a child.
>
>That depends on the law governing the place where you live, doesn't it?
>A seventeen-year-old person is not a child by Scottish law.
They do appear to think that all "child porn" is equal in that
respect, making no distinction between pictures that would be illegal
in Holland (where the age of consent is lower than it is here) and
those that would be legal in California (where the age of consent is
18).
But child porn laws don't necessarily refer to the legal age of
consent for sex, as you can see by looking at north American law. In
the US, the AOC varies from state to state, but it's "child porn" if
the subjects are under 18, regardless of where the images were made.
In Canada, it's also "child porn" if the subjects are under 18,
despite the fact that the age of consent in Canada is 14 throughout.
Mike Dickson
> In Canada, it's also "child porn" if the subjects are under 18,
> despite the fact that the age of consent in Canada is 14 throughout.
Interesting. Isn't that more than just a bit inconsistent?
Harry Grove
ave...@thirdworld.uk writes
>The kind of rhetoric SWAP is using, complete with citations from the
>Dworkin-MacKinnon hearings, is based on an alleged "feminist" analysis
>of porn, which comes from people who claim that they have nothing
>against eroticism - celebrate it, in fact - it's just that
>"pornography" is something else entirely.
>The fact that their arguments can only lead one to conclude that it's
>really the sex they object to possibly obscures the principal
>distinction between themselves and Whitehouse:
>The latter believe that porn is created by harming people
>(rape and other violence) and that if people
>see it they are harmed (deranged, traumatized, etc.) by it;
>Whitehouse et al. consider eroticism itself to be harm.
>
>
An interesting arguemnt:
Is that which is erotic - pornographic ?
Is that which is pornographic - erotic ?
Discuss: using both sides of the paper .............................
(Drawings may be helpful to illustrate your answer .)
Harry Grove
"A right without an attendant responsibility is as unreal as
a sheet of paper which has only one side."
Felix Morley
ave...@thirdworld.uk
<musi...@cottagemusic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"In our demonstration in Edinburgh we read out three of the many
>statements of evidence given by women at the famous Minneapolis public
>hearings on pornography."
>
>Do you know of these 'famous hearings' which have, unaccountably, passed
>me by ?
Back in the 1980s, lawyer Catharine MacKinnon and writer Andrea
Dworkin wrote what they called a "model civil rights ordinance", a law
that would redefine pornography as harmful to women, which they
attempted to introduce in Minneapolis. The transcripts of the
hearings were later published by Everywoman in book form and might be
available at your library.
At the hearings, many witnesses were brought forward to testify
against pornography. Their "evidence" was of remarkably dubious
quality, including several claims by "pornography victims" that they
had learned to accept violence against women because they had learned
from soft-core magazines such as /Playboy/ and /Oui/ that "the
relationship between men and women is one of violence."
Edward Donnerstein was also a witness at the hearings. This is
significant, because Donnerstein is actually a reasonably respectable
academic researcher. But Donnerstein _at that time_ did not really
have enough experience of his subject that we can treat him as an
expert; his testimony was, at best, misleading, and he has since
pretty much repudiated it. You can find more details about that at
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm.
Richard Caley
il> Well, I've tried staying out of this one, but I feel I'm going to have to
il> show my naive ignorance here. Anyone care to give a quick explanation of
il> how pictures of naked blokes degrade women?
I _have_ seen the assertion that open male homosexuality is an attack
on women by the fact that it exclused women from it's world.
Before anyone gets upset, this is indeed the extreme lunatic fringe
and I'm not saying anything about feminism in general, just pointing
out that nothing is beyond the bounds of possibility when it comes to
what has been read into something by someone somewhere.
Harry Grove
ave...@thirdworld.uk replied with just the information I needed.
Thanks.
--
Harry Grove
Normally I would be loath to speak ill of any person
who I do not know deserves it .....
..... but I am afraid he is an attorney.
Samuel Johnson (1709 - 84) English Author, lexicographer.
Alan Thomas Harrison
>
> But child porn laws don't necessarily refer to the legal age of
> consent for sex, as you can see by looking at north American law. In
> the US, the AOC varies from state to state, but it's "child porn" if
> the subjects are under 18, regardless of where the images were made.
This can also have an effect elsewhere, as I discovered by accident when
a Deja News search on a totally unrelated subject a couple of months ago
threw up this information:
"Mayfair" runs a "X years ago" feature, which includes a small
reproduction of the front page of the issue for ten (or whatever) years
ago. Some of these old front pages, only a couple of inches high, were
appearing with "censored for legal reasons" printed across them.
According to the post, it transpired that these covers were being
censored for AMERICAN legal reasons, in that they either showed
photographs of, or referred to, models aged 16-18. Raymond is now
exporting the mag to America, and consequently ensuring that it conforms
to US law.
Since I came across this info by chance, I haven't seen any follow-up
posts confirming or denying the claim about self-censorship.
Alan Harrison
ave...@thirdworld.uk
<musi...@cottagemusic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Is that which is erotic - pornographic ?
>
> Is that which is pornographic - erotic ?
Now we're back to the game of pretending that these words have to mean
different things.
There are only two real distinctions - material that arouses you, and
material that doesn't. But the material that arouses you may not
arouse me, and vice versa. It's not terribly useful to declare that
what arouses me is ok but what arouses you is evil; it certainly isn't
a good basis for law.
Alternatively, we have the people who are frightened by what arouses
them and that's the stuff they want to ban. Material that is merely
attractive to them becomes "erotica", but at the point at which the
material causes them to notice their own bodily reactions, they sense
evil, and that's "pornography".
For others, it is the degree of sexual explicitness (in terms of
portrayal of the genitals), rather than the degree of heat, that is at
issue - and many people find that they can be highly aroused by
material that is not terribly explicit, and turned off by highly
explicit images of genitals or of sexual activity. For them, the
material that is normally sold as "pornography" is not, in fact,
pornographic - that is, it doesn't arouse. But since it _is_ what's
sold as pornography, it becomes clear to them that "pornography" is
the pointless, crappy stuff, while erotica is the other stuff, which
they get turned on by.
So, ultimately, the distinctions between the "erotic" and the
"pornographic" are false ones, and not useful for a debate on what
should be legal or acceptable.
--
Avedon Carol Feminists Against Censorship
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do
was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be
crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would
be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't,
but if he was sane he had to fly them." - Heller
ave...@thirdworld.uk
Dickson) wrote:
>> In Canada, it's also "child porn" if the subjects are under 18,
>> despite the fact that the age of consent in Canada is 14 throughout.
>
>Interesting. Isn't that more than just a bit inconsistent?
Y'think?
Oh, but there are a number of arguments about at which point a minor
can consent to varying degrees of activity. Some people would say
that since only an 18-year-old can independently take responsibility
for a contract, and modelling/acting is contract work, the cut-off at
18 makes sense. Others say that a person under the age of majority
can't reasonably understand the consequences of appearing in
pornography. But then again, some people make the same arguments with
regard to the responsibility and knowledge of consequences necessary
to consent to sex itself.
Of course, none of this explains why _written material_ is also
covered under the law, since no minors have to be exploited to create
a pornographic story involving a minor.
Mike Dickson
wrote...
> Of course, none of this explains why _written material_ is also
> covered under the law, since no minors have to be exploited to create
> a pornographic story involving a minor.
What law covers written material, specifically? (Bear in mind, I am
talking about Scottish law here)
For that matter, no 'minors have to be exploited' in order to have a
child's head pasted onto the body of a suitably airbrushed JPEG of a
nude model, yet possession of that sort of material is also illegal. Why
do you think that is the case?
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Edinburgh, Scotland
fax 0131-665-1298 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
M Holmes
Sunday Herald, Sunday December 12th 1999
Letters page
Violence on top shelf
Ken MacLeod (December 5th) is opposed to violence against women but
defends the right to display graphic images of pain and humiliation
being inflicted on them because to do otherwise would be to "police the
sexual fantasies" of those whose "sexual natures are fixed at an early
age".
Isn't this like being against racism but in favour of every newsagent in
the land stocking a rack full of race hate publications, on the grounds
that the sick minds that fed on it couldn't help themselves?
Pornography involves the abuse of real women and children and is
therefore not a fantasy.
The evidence of the links between pornography and sexual violence are
well documented. The links between the depiction of violence against
women and actual violence against women is the same as that between
racist literature and racist violence. Does MacLeod choose to disregard
the evidence of the links between poverty and ill-health, smoking and
lung cancer?
MacLeod seems to be locked in some terrible 70s timewarp where you
"practically have to be an undercover police officer to buy child
pornography". Someone should explain to him about explicit material on
the internet and how difficult it is to police.
And if there is genuine concern over the issue of freedom of speech,
shouldn't this concern be extended to the fact that men and women who
express objections to pornography are systematically having their
freedom of speech and civil liberties restricted?
Catherine Harper
Scottish Women Against Pornography (SWAP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:
Ken is well able to respond on his own behalf so I'll comment only on
general issues.
> Ken MacLeod (December 5th) is opposed to violence against women but
> defends the right to display graphic images of pain and humiliation
> being inflicted on them because to do otherwise would be to "police
> the sexual fantasies" of those whose "sexual natures are fixed at an
> early age".
> Isn't this like being against racism but in favour of every newsagent
> in the land stocking a rack full of race hate publications
In a word: no. SWAP here confuse advocacy of a right with support for
any particular exercise of it. Just because we don't advocate that
something be made against the law of the land doesn't mean that we
actually endorse it. For example I dislike boxing but I wouldn't claim
that the sport ought to be illegal.
> on the
> grounds that the sick minds that fed on it couldn't help themselves?
> Pornography involves the abuse of real women and children and is
> therefore not a fantasy.
Again SWAP attempt to conflate the issue of child pornography with that
of consensual "top shelf" pornography, despite their being aware that
we're in agreement with them that any material which is produced without
the legal consent of all those involved (children being unable to
legally consent) is evidence of a crime and should be used to prosecute
that crime. Since such material is *already* illegal, it's hard to see
what a campaign to make it illegal would achieve. SWAP are againt simply
refusing to admit that they're attacking the freedom of male and female
models to agree to appear nude before a camera in order that other
adults might willingly view such photographs. That they refude to admit
this suggests that they consider their case a weak one.
However they do usefully point out a contradiction in their aims. Where
commercial activities are legal, employees can take any cases of abuse
to a Court or industrial tribunal. Where they are illegal, such as say
the street drugs trade, this is fraught with sufficient difficulties
that legal recourse is rare - and both employees and employers are aware
of this. SWAP advocate that top shelf pornography be made illegal and
would thus deny legal recourse against abuse to the women and men
involved in that business.
> The evidence of the links between pornography and sexual violence are
> well documented. The links between the depiction of violence against
> women and actual violence against women is the same as that between
> racist literature and racist violence. Does MacLeod choose to
> disregard the evidence of the links between poverty and ill-health,
> smoking and lung cancer?
There's no evidence of a causative link between pornography and violence
which is anything like on a par with the evidence of the connection
between smoking and lung cancer or poverty and ill-health. If it were
proven that viewing a nude picture caused any harm to any third person
then we'd be on SWAPs side of the debate.
> MacLeod seems to be locked in some terrible 70s timewarp where you
> "practically have to be an undercover police officer to buy child
> pornography". Someone should explain to him about explicit material
> on the internet and how difficult it is to police.
I rather suspect that the members of our group are somewhat more
internet-aware than are the members of SWAP, not least because most of
us "met" via the internet. Were SWAP confining their activity to
attacking child porn on the internet then we'd offer them our support
and best wishes. However a quick web search indicates that where SWAP
are cited on the internet, it's us who quoted them. Despite heir
concerns, it's not obvious that their activities are concentrated here.
This looks like simply another attempt to hide their real agenda.
> And if there is genuine concern over the issue of freedom of speech,
> shouldn't this concern be extended to the fact that men and women who
> express objections to pornography are systematically having their
> freedom of speech and civil liberties restricted?
I'm baffled by this one. I'm certain that all of us would defend SWAPs
right to say their piece or burn their braziers as much as anyone
else's. What annoyed us was Edinburgh Council's endorsement of the
"pornfire" and the simple fact that it was a book-burning. However, we
took absolutely no action to prevent that event and limited our
behaviour to photographing our effigy of a witch beside their brazier.
Admittedly I did invite a little debate, but as I was under obligation
of a promise, conducted that less vigorously and more politely than I
might have under other circumstances. Would that SWAP had been half as
considerate of my eardrums. I'm perplexed as to who they imagine is
"systematically" eroding their civil liberties, unless they believe they
have a special "civil liberty" to make assertions free from fear of
contradiction.
M Holmes
Pornography more than a burning issue
- Owen Dudley Edwards
Violence against women is a terrible thing, and all too often (and once
would be too often) marriages in history have been cash and property
deals by men.
The daughter of one becomes the wife of another, regardless of what she
wants.
A wife trapped in such a marriage is all too easily bullied, beaten and
generally brutalised when the husband wants to work off frustrations one
way or another.
We must do what we can to prevent these and any other forms of violence.
Against this backdrop, Edinburgh City Council is to be applauded for its
concern about violence against women.
Its anxiety to make a stand is meritorious and praiseworthy and
councillors show genuine heartfelt concern over the never-ending human
tragedies of female suffering.
Yet I still signed a letter opposing the council's funding of a Scottish
Women Against Pornography event which saw pornographic magazines burned
on Calton Hill as part of "sixteen days of action against violence
against women".
Why? Put simply, you don't burn down a barn to get rid of its rats. The
barn will be gone and the rats may well escape in the tumult.
The idea that women suffer violence because idiots spend large sums of
money on smutty magazines is childish and , worse, runs away from the
real problems.
If book-burning is to be sanctioned by public funds, what difference is
there between ourselves and the worst tyrannies in history?
The Nazis burnt books. So did any other regimne which wanted to get
support by whipping up hatred and targetting profitable victims, very
often to divert attention from its own disasters. Once you begin on
censorship, the thing escalates.
I grew up in Ireland, where we wanted to protect ourselves against
pornography. As a result, books such as George Orwell's 1984 were
banned. It describes a man and woman having sexual relations,and even
doing so in the open air.
I wonder if one reason why the book was banned was the fear that it
might interfere with Irish agriculture and hold up the harvest.
Strangely enough, Ireland's most famous banned book was not banned in
Ireland. James Joyce's Ulysses was banned so thoroughly in Britain as to
make its importation a criminal offence, and hence copies were not
available for the Irish to ban them.
And, as the judicial authorities in New York decided a decade after its
first publication in Paris, it is a test case. The book is
unquestionably pornographic in parts, and does include violent fantasies
- women's violence againt men.
So are we going to burn it? Or are we afraid that pompous persons of
pedagogic paraphernalia will laugh at us? It's easier to bully the
miserable little sinner drooling over his girly magazines.
But be careful crusaders: you may end up looking like something out of
Ulysses yourselves, such as the Hon Mrs Mervyn Talboys and, as with
her, this could unleash the dormant tigress in your natures. And that
wouldn't be very nice, would it?
From my own Roman Catholic standpoint, Ulysses handles religious
subjects in ways often described as blasphemous and one could see Irish
equivalents of the Ayatollah Khomeni's subjects thinking that a fatwa
would be the answer to Joyce.
But in fact Ulysses can claim to be an extremely religious book. As
Joyce's greatest biographer Richard Ellmann pointed out, it is the story
of the reconciliation of two rival faiths, Catholicism and Judaism. Will
you burn that?
Are people corrupted by literature? Almost certainly anyone who spends
money on pornographic magazines is already converted to their use.
If they are violent after reading them, they would have been violent
before reading them. Little Lord Fauntleroy doesn't wander into the
friendly neighbourhood pornographer all guileless and trusting, and
emerge a homicidal rapist.
The book-burners are scapegoating to avoid much more serious targets.
What about the tabloids read day after day which reduce women to the
role of male status posessions by being flaunted in provocative nudity?
If you are encouraged to think of women as a flashy accessory like your
car, no doubt you might treat them as mechanically, and take drastic
measures if they don't perform according to your specifications.
This is a despicable attitude, and yet the tabloid nudies foster it
every day.
Yet while they wallow in this corruption, they moralise about everything
in sight. At least official pornographers don't pretend to be holier
than the rest of us.
When The Sun headlined the sinking of the Belgrano (now known to have
been probably a crime in international law) it did so with the headline
"GOTCHA!".
Could anything be more corrupting than to tell readers how funny the
deaths of sailors are, when they are patriotically obeying their
government and doing what they believe to have been their duty?
What is that but the worst sort of cynical celebration of violence?
But we do not have the right to burn The Sun, apart from the
impossibility of it. Burn The Sun and you burn the freedom of the press
with it.
I teach American History, and my students study the writer Nathaniel
Hawthorne, whose ancestor had sentenced some fellow citizens of Salem to
be hanged as witches. Hawthorne knew the folly as well as the wickedness
of witch-hunting.
His story, Earth's Holocaust, tells how the people of Earth burned up
all their books, writings, inventions, philosophies, religions,
everything, to start completely afresh, and eradicate forever every
single source of human corruption.
And the Devil grins happily at the thought that from the human heart
"will reissue all the shapes of wrong and misery - the same old shapes
or worse ones - which they have taken such a vast deal of trouble to
consume to ashes.
"I have stood by this live-long night and laughed in my sleeve at the
whole business. Oh, take my word for it, it will be the old world yet!"
But we won't leave the Devil with the last word. It is not Fire we need
to drive out Violence and Cruelty and Hate, it is love. Real Love.
If we can get the inescapable need for that across to the world, we
don't need to worry about the rest of it.
- Owen Dudley Edwards is a historian, writer and lecturer at the
University of Edinburgh.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
> > Pornography involves the abuse of real women and children and is
> > therefore not a fantasy.
>
> Again SWAP attempt to conflate the issue of child pornography with that
> of consensual "top shelf" pornography
Exactly.
> > MacLeod seems to be locked in some terrible 70s timewarp where you
> > "practically have to be an undercover police officer to buy child
> > pornography". Someone should explain to him about explicit material
> > on the internet and how difficult it is to police.
Not that the internet was at all part of the original issue; they conflate
illegal (if printed) internet porn with legal topshelf mags too.
> > And if there is genuine concern over the issue of freedom of speech,
> > shouldn't this concern be extended to the fact that men and women who
> > express objections to pornography are systematically having their
> > freedom of speech and civil liberties restricted?
> ...unless they believe they have a special "civil liberty" to make
> assertions free from fear of contradiction.
I think that's it on the head, sadly.
As someone else said, they view disagreement as a restriction rather than
everybody's right. Someone else said that because it's a "what about the
children" cause, and a "right-on" cause, they seriously do expect not to be
publicly contradicted, and they're shocked and *upset* when it happens, and
I think that's spot on.
As I said earlier, it's like the uk.transport gambit:
"I disagree that all speed limits should be lowered"
"So you want to see more dead children then do you?"
In other words, SWAP do seem to be complete idiots.
- Huge
Andy Mabbett
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> quoted
>
>
>Sunday Herald, Sunday December 12th 1999
>
>Letters page
[...]
>The evidence of the links between pornography and sexual violence are
>well documented.
Ooh look; assertion presented as fact. How unusual.
> The links between the depiction of violence against
>women and actual violence against women is the same as that between
>racist literature and racist violence.
Er, no. It would be the same as the link between the depiction of
/racist violence/ and racist violence; should 'Mississippi Burning be
banned?
>And if there is genuine concern over the issue of freedom of speech,
>shouldn't this concern be extended to the fact that men and women who
>express objections to pornography are systematically having their
>freedom of speech and civil liberties restricted?
Where is her evidence?
Alex
SWAP wrote:
>Sunday Herald, Sunday December 12th 1999
>
>Letters page
>
>
>Violence on top shelf
>
>
>Ken MacLeod (December 5th) is opposed to violence against women but
>defends the right to display graphic images of pain and humiliation
>being inflicted on them because to do otherwise would be to "police the
>sexual fantasies" of those whose "sexual natures are fixed at an early
>age".
>
>Isn't this like being against racism but in favour of every newsagent in
>the land stocking a rack full of race hate publications, on the grounds
>that the sick minds that fed on it couldn't help themselves?
Nope, and trying to latch onto the race bandwagon is neither
accurate nor elegant.
It is inaccurate, because it can be shown that in areas where for
instance the National Front takes a foothold, racist attacks increase.
This is because violence becomes more organized.
On the other hand, there is no political party which advocates violence
against women.
And, I would like to see the research which shows that in areas where
new sexshops are placed, sexual attacks and crimes increase.
>Pornography involves the abuse of real women and children and is
>therefore not a fantasy.
Simply inaccurate. It is like saying that driving a car involves crashing.
Why is she so bent on pretending that all porn is male dominance
or child pornography.
Do the above exist? Yes. Are they the mainstay of ordinary straight
or gay porn movies, which make op 95% or more of the porn out there?
Absolutely not.
So let's talk about the 5% or less which shows S&M, which is what we're
really talking about. At least half of that is Female Domination, which is
mainly women being dominant over men, and other women to a lesser extent.
The 2.5% we're left with,
>The evidence of the links between pornography and sexual violence are
>well documented.
>The links between the depiction of violence against
>women and actual violence against women is the same as that between
>racist literature and racist violence. Does MacLeod choose to disregard
>the evidence of the links between poverty and ill-health, smoking and
>lung cancer?
>
>MacLeod seems to be locked in some terrible 70s timewarp where you
>"practically have to be an undercover police officer to buy child
>pornography". Someone should explain to him about explicit material on
>the internet and how difficult it is to police.
Yes, but, you often don't have to pay for it.
On the other hand, her local supermarket would be something else, I guess.
>And if there is genuine concern over the issue of freedom of speech,
>shouldn't this concern be extended to the fact that men and women who
>express objections to pornography are systematically having their
>freedom of speech and civil liberties restricted?
Hardly. Engaging someone in debate is in no way the same as limiting
someone's freedom of speech.
However, if I would make any consession to her side of the debate,
it's that it would be more than ok to limit sexually explicit materials
to a particular part of the store, possibly even a relatively secluded
part (say, a recess, back of the store or a bead curtain, rather than
the top shelf), so that people who aren't interested in it, don't have
to go past it or have to look at it unless they choose to.
However, with this provision in mind, sexually explicit material should
be easily available (convenient) to anyone wanting to buy it, and shouldn't
be restricted by the sale of it requiring a license.
Which is restricting freedom of choice of porn buyers.
On a personal note, having just visited a porn shop (Christine LeDuc)
this afternoon, I would have to say that there was actually a _woman_
shopping there. The women coming in there usually don't shop for
magazines or videos, but for items of clothing and "accessories". :-)
Perhaps she'd want to explain to them how they're "exploited" by
the sex industry too?
>Catherine Harper
<Really? :-) >
>
>Scottish Women Against Pornography (SWAP)
Alex
ave...@thirdworld.uk
Dickson) wrote:
>In article <385a6468...@usenet.free-online.net> ave...@thirdworld.uk
>wrote...
>
>> Of course, none of this explains why _written material_ is also
>> covered under the law, since no minors have to be exploited to create
>> a pornographic story involving a minor.
>
>What law covers written material, specifically? (Bear in mind, I am
>talking about Scottish law here)
The Obscene Publicans Acts cover material generally, but I'm speaking
above of "child porn" laws specifically, which are something
different.
>For that matter, no 'minors have to be exploited' in order to have a
>child's head pasted onto the body of a suitably airbrushed JPEG of a
>nude model, yet possession of that sort of material is also illegal. Why
>do you think that is the case?
Oh, that's because police can't tell the difference between a
cut-and-paste image and an unedited photo-image.
ave...@thirdworld.uk
>Evening News, Friday December 10th 1999
>
>Pornography more than a burning issue
>
>- Owen Dudley Edwards
Quite honestly, I'd hoped for something better than this. I think
we've had enough of people looking down on the poor sad fools who look
at smut, thank you. It's ordinary people who look at pornography, and
they deserve no one's pity or derision.
>The book-burners are scapegoating to avoid much more serious targets.
>What about the tabloids read day after day which reduce women to the
>role of male status posessions by being flaunted in provocative nudity?
It was precisely this line of argument that Claire Short started with
and found herself suddenly the leader of the anti-page 3 campaign that
led to the formation of Campaign Against Pornography.
>If you are encouraged to think of women as a flashy accessory like your
>car, no doubt you might treat them as mechanically, and take drastic
>measures if they don't perform according to your specifications.
I actually don't know of many men who do this, whether they read
pornography or not.
>This is a despicable attitude, and yet the tabloid nudies foster it
>every day.
No they don't. They show pictures of semi-clad women who look like
they want to show their bodies off. I see no reason to presume this
to be an invitation to treat them like toasters.
>Yet while they wallow in this corruption, they moralise about everything
>in sight. At least official pornographers don't pretend to be holier
>than the rest of us.
This much is true. But the worst of them is /The Mail/, which doesn't
show us page three girls - just lots of Viewing With Alarm about sex.
Alex
ave...@thirdworld.uk heeft geschreven in bericht <385be09f....@usenet.free-online.net>...
>>Evening News, Friday December 10th 1999
>>
>>- Owen Dudley Edwards
>>Yet while they wallow in this corruption, they moralise about everything
>>in sight. At least official pornographers don't pretend to be holier
>>than the rest of us.
>
>This much is true. But the worst of them is /The Mail/, which doesn't
>show us page three girls - just lots of Viewing With Alarm about sex.
What I don't understand that they (this newspaper in this instance)
reach the conclusion that it is exactly this holier than thou attitude
that lets the Daily Mail produce semi naked (as opposed to wholly
naked) photographs. And contributes to the hypocrisy and
mysogeny (there, I've used the word) of soft-core porn.
Softcore pornography, if anything, is what can be accused of having
a double message, being hostile, etc.
On the other hand, hard-core porn for the very great part doesn't have
a "social" message at all, other than that sex is pretty good.
Alex
Mike Dickson
> >What law covers written material, specifically? (Bear in mind, I am
> >talking about Scottish law here)
>
> The Obscene Publicans Acts cover material generally
'Obscene Publicans'?
> Oh, that's because police can't tell the difference between a
> cut-and-paste image and an unedited photo-image.
What a simple-minded little world you live in.
Harry Grove
ave...@thirdworld.uk writes
>
>Alternatively, we have the people who are frightened by what arouses
>them
control' when, instead, they should be 'loving' every minute of it.
And is that one (but only one) of the distinctions between pornography
and eroticism - that 'loving' can be involved in the one but not in the
other ?
>and that's the stuff they want to ban.
--
Harry Grove
EDMUND BURKE
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Speech, House of Commons 7 Feb 1771
ave...@thirdworld.uk
wrote:
>And, I would like to see the research which shows that in areas where
>new sexshops are placed, sexual attacks and crimes increase.
It kinda depends on how you define "area". In places where the sex
trade is in a zoned area (e.g. "Red Light districts"), there are other
local phenomena at work. In the US, the shabbiest parts of town get
zoned for sex industry stuff, so they are already high crime areas.
They are open all night, so there is more likely to be crime there
anyway. And the cops don't bother to come around to deal with
ordinary crime, so....
On the other hand, if you look at the FBI's state-by-state figures,
you'll see that the states with the highest sex crime rates tend to be
the ones with the most anti-porn legislation in that state.
>>Pornography involves the abuse of real women and children and is
>>therefore not a fantasy.
>
>Simply inaccurate. It is like saying that driving a car involves crashing.
>
>Why is she so bent on pretending that all porn is male dominance
>or child pornography.
Probably because she doesn't know what _is_ in pornography.
>Do the above exist? Yes. Are they the mainstay of ordinary straight
>or gay porn movies, which make op 95% or more of the porn out there?
>Absolutely not.
>So let's talk about the 5% or less which shows S&M, which is what we're
>really talking about. At least half of that is Female Domination, which is
>mainly women being dominant over men, and other women to a lesser extent.
Actually, I'd say that well over half of dominance in heterosexual
BDSM porn is female dominance.
>>The evidence of the links between pornography and sexual violence are
>>well documented.
(The hell.)
>>And if there is genuine concern over the issue of freedom of speech,
>>shouldn't this concern be extended to the fact that men and women who
>>express objections to pornography are systematically having their
>>freedom of speech and civil liberties restricted?
>
>Hardly. Engaging someone in debate is in no way the same as limiting
>someone's freedom of speech.
Refusing to debate, as they did, on the other hand....
M Holmes
:>And if there is genuine concern over the issue of freedom of speech,
:>shouldn't this concern be extended to the fact that men and women who
:>express objections to pornography are systematically having their
:>freedom of speech and civil liberties restricted?
: Where is her evidence?
To quote a denizen from this group many years ago: "Evidence ha! You
can prove anything with evidence."
: Andy Mabbett
FoFP
Richard Caley
>> Is that which is erotic - pornographic ?
>> Is that which is pornographic - erotic ?
a> Now we're back to the game of pretending that these words have to mean
a> different things.
They do, de-facto, mean different things.
Erotic is a purely subjective evaluation. There is clearly no way you
could, for instance, make a law against erotic material. Erotic to
who?
Pornographic is, whether you think it makes sense or not, an assumed
objective feature. Something is or is not pornographic.
So, they do in fact have different menings. This si separate from the
issue of whether the proposed meanings for `pornographic' make any
kind of sense, and I agree with you there that it's just smoke and
mirrors.'
Alex
Harry Grove heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>In article <385960ee...@usenet.free-online.net>,
>ave...@thirdworld.uk writes
>>
>>Alternatively, we have the people who are frightened by what arouses
>>them
>and equally, some people are scared by being aroused; they feel 'out-of-
>control' when, instead, they should be 'loving' every minute of it.
>
>And is that one (but only one) of the distinctions between pornography
>and eroticism - that 'loving' can be involved in the one but not in the
>other ?
What's this distinction between "artistic" "eroticism" and "bad", "mechanical"
pornography all about anyway? What's so wrong with that?
Alex
M Holmes
Evening News, Tuseday 14th December 1999
Bid to stop city shops selling porn
The group which planned a "pornfire" on Calton Hill today encouraged
people to complain to shop keepers stocking top shelf magazines.
The latest campaign by Scottish Women Against Pornography aims to rid
corner shops of pornography.
The group ditched plans for a public burning of pornographic magazines
recently following criticism from anti-censorship campaigners.
Instead they marched to Calton Hill where they burnt pamphlets carrying
extracts from adult magazines.
A spokeswoman for SWAP said the campaign had been launched in response
to the increase in number of pornographic magazines sold in local shops
and garages.
The group also wants to raise awareness over the graphic sexual
portrayal of women on the covers of these magazines.
"These pictures, visible to purchaser and non-purchaser alike, show
women in submissive and humiliating poses and eroticise violence," said
a spokeswoman.
"For many women this material undermines their feeling of safety," she
added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:
Great! Using the Pound in their pocket is a more reasonable protest than
demanding that politicians outlaw for everyone something that they
dislike. This way retailers are faced with a commercial decision as to
whether the profit gain from selling top shelf magazines is greater than
the loss from any boycott by those who dislike the retailing of such
material (though if they're correctly reporting an increase in numbers
of the product, I'd bet on Paul Raymond coming out on top, if you'll
pardon the phrase).
If the protest is successful, and economic history is any guide, the
result will be a segmentation of the market with objectors going to
shops where porn isn't sold, and fans going to shops where it is. Most
of the rest of us will probably continue going wherever is most
convenient. Everyone will be happy and no increase in censorship necessary.
More puzzling is SWAPs intent to "raise awareness" of "graphic sexual
portrayal" (by which a glance at the row of bums on the top shelf of my
local newsagent indicates they mean "clad only in underwear") on the
front of magazines. If this is in fact what they object to, then quite
why they want to "raise awareness" (a phrase which has come to be almost
a trademark of Political Correctness) of something that "undermines the
feeling of safety" of the women they know is a little puzzling.
Will their campaign be counted a success if there's an increase in the
number of women in Edinburgh reporting a fear of magazine covers? How
about the semi-clad women on the front of Cosmo and other magazines of a
lower shelf? Mightn't these be adding to the daily psychological hazards
of popping out for a bag of sugar? Perhaps it's time to repeal The
Snowdrop Campaign and arm these poor dears so that they can pick up the
Evening News in the certain knowledge that they can defend themselves
should some magazine drop unsuspected from its height advantage.
Such a touching faith in the power of the image must reassure
advertisers across the country that their incomes are guaranteed in
perpetuity. It also explains something else that's long puzzled me: The
"Z" Campaign. This was another brainwave of the Edinburgh Council
Women's Committee and featured those posters we all know and came to
love such as "No Man Has The Right" (yep, amazingly that's all that
appeared on the poster), "99% of child abusers are men" (admitted at one
point to be utter bollocks but they continued regardless), and for all I
know "99.99% of Men Eat Babies Whole When Women Aren't Looking". Quite
what the point of expenditure on such a poster campaign might have been
has always had me stumped. They could have financed a night patrol on
the Meadows with the money and actually prevented some violence.
However, such a belief in the power of the image supplies a ready
answer: if women can be frightened by an image, then why couldn't men?
Suppose a rapist attacks someone on the Meadows: he glances up and
sees a "Z Campaign" poster. He is so frightened out of his wits he runs
off with his trousers around his ankles while his would-be victim thinks
"Thank god for the Z Campaign!" It's so simple I just wonder I didn't
see it before.
As for these magazine covers "eroticising violence". Their local
newsagent may be more enthusiastic than mine (though some covers
advertising ladies of a certain age indicate that mine has at least some
niche markets covered) but I just can't see where the violence is in a
line of models apparently wearing a job lot from an Ann Summers party.,
The lowest shelf did have some computer magazines advertising
multicoloured explosions accompanied by cartoon women carrying very
large guns and dressed for a planet which is clearly warmer than this
one. These were perhaps more an ideological relative of Tank Girl than
the Women From SWAP. Violence aplenty is clearly promised in whatever
games are being advertised but I've an inkling that Tank Girl's sisters
will be the ones "saying NO with a bullet". That message just has to
be more empowering than whining like Claire Short on a bad day.
FoFP
M Holmes
Evening News, Tuesday 14th December 1999
My comment:
FoFP
Ken Johnson
news:385960ee...@usenet.free-online.net...
> There are only two real distinctions - material that arouses
> you, and material that doesn't.
Well, no. Some of the material that arrives in my mail box is
pornographic and revolting. Really, I want to heave sometimes.
Ken Johnson
--
http://simsey.cjb.net
Ken Johnson Ltd. You deserve better.
This company thinks the same as I do.
Charlie Stross
as <mike@blackcat..demon..co..uk> declared:
>> Oh, that's because police can't tell the difference between a
>> cut-and-paste image and an unedited photo-image.
>
>What a simple-minded little world you live in.
What makes you say that?
In general, two arguments are advanced by proponents of banning child
pornography:
1. Real children were sexually abused in the production of this material,
2. Paedophiles may get all excited by reading it and go out and rape children.
I have a problem with argument (1) which is: any such material is clearly
prima facie evidence that a crime has occured. It follows that everyone
involved in making it should be prosecuted for rape or complicity in
rape. (This same argument goes against snuff films; if any such movie
exists, it's evidence of premeditated murder.) It does not follow that
banning distribution of the stuff will do any good; the crime has already
been committed.
Moreover, argument (1) doesn't hold water as an argument against depictions
of paedophilia, or written descriptions thereof, or just about any
item that isn't explicit evidence of the commission of an offense. (Such
as photoshopping images of adults so that they look like children.)
For these secondary cases, the proponents of censorship use argument (2);
"if we permit this filth it'll get the perverts all excited."
Frankly, argument (2) doesn't hold water, either. The law concerns itself
with what people do, not what they think. It doesn't hold you responsible
for violent sexual fantasies unless you act on them. By the same token,
it takes a dim view of excuses; you don't say "I was getting all excited
over this review of a new Mondeo in Car magazine, so I went speeding in
my Fiesta" in front of the Sherriff and expect to get a lighter sentence
as a result. In other words: deeds count, thoughts don't.
Before argument (2) is remotely admissable, we need to see evidence that
viewing or reading kiddie porn is a causal factor in actual assaults on
children -- and not just anecdotal evidence; a statistically significant
causal relationship is necessary. Merely getting the perverts all excited
doesn't count; we need to demonstrate that they're more likely to act out
their fantasies after using kiddie porn. (Personally, I suspect they're
more likely to wank over it in private -- which, if you ask me, is far less
worrying than having them hanging around schools.)
Finally, this whole argument is a red herring. Something like 90%
of child abusers are first degree relatives of the victims, or close
friends of the families. The image of the dirty old man hanging around
the playground with a pocket full of lollipops and an attic full of
child pornography is dangerously misleading, but far easier for society
to cope with than the idea that children are abused by fathers, uncles,
cousins, siblings, and mothers.
-- Charlie
ave...@thirdworld.uk
<musi...@cottagemusic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And is that one (but only one) of the distinctions between pornography
>and eroticism - that 'loving' can be involved in the one but not in the
>other ?
No.
M Holmes
provenance of all these pro-censorship acronyms we've been reading
about. Acknowledgements to the producers of Pagan Prattle and to those
who helped by typing up the article.
The Pagan Prattle, December 1999
An Unholy Alliance
On the evening of Thursday December 2nd, Edinburgh witnessed a dramatic
farce. The Scottish Campaign Against Pornography had organised a
"Pornfire" as part of an otherwise worthy campaign against violence
against women. This was promoted on a poster, complete with City of
Edinburgh Council logo, which also announced the 'launch' of the Off the
Shelf campaign by Scottish Women Against Pornography. This prompted an
open letter from a number of groups and individuals suggesting that this
was nothing other than a book-burning.
In an attempt to deny this, Councillor Lesley Hinds,convener of the
Women's Committee, told the Edinburgh Evening News: "Scottish Women
Against Pornography bought magazines to see what they were like.
"They were quite shocked about what they could buy. They discussed what
to do with the magazines and thought 'we don't want to keep them'.
There will be a small brazier and they are going to burn these
magazines, so there is no book-burning at all."
She then went on to accuse author Iain Banks, one of the signatories of
the letter, of supporting child pornography! (Johnston 1999, p5, col. 5)
On the day, the plan to burn the magazines was abandoned and pieces of
paper with headlines from girlie magazines and swear words printed on
them were burned instead. The anti-porn campaigners tried to pretend
that this was their intention all along. Mike Holmes, one of the
counter-demonstrators, reported:
"They stated that they'd taken no Council cash but appeared to concede
that the Council had funded promotion of their "Pornfire". They also stated
that they had never had any intention of burning pornography, something
that's certainly at odds with Councillor Hinds' statement. They claimed
that if we'd only contacted them directly they could have told us this.
I asked why, since they claimed to have had no intention to burn
pornography, they'd called the event a "Pornfire" rather than the more
usual word, but this produced only apparent exasperation." (Holmes 1999,
lines 97-109)
In a prime example of missing the point completely, they thought that the
counter-demonstrators were calling them witches because they had brought
along a witch-guy carrying a placard quoting Heinrich Heine: "Where first
they burn books they will burn people in the end." Attempts to reassure
them that they were not being compared to followers of a contemporary
sex-positive nature religion fell on deaf ears - they were too busy
interrupting.
They persisted with this line insisting to the Evening News that no
attempt had been made to contact them directly (The only number on the
poster was that of the Equality Unit, who had been contacted for more
information), and that the anti-censorship campaigners had given out
misinformation about them (Puttick 1999, p3, col. 3). They did not
complain about Cllr. Hinds for some reason.
Scottish Women Against Pornography [1] has some very interesting views on
women. The women at the demo tried to argue that the women in the
publications were in no position to have consented to what they were
doing. Having so denied that women are able to make up their own minds
about what they wanted to do, they then asserted that this was even truer
for women from ethnic minorities. One of them asked Mike Holmes "What
about Asian Babes? Did they consent?" [2] (Holmes 1999. This particular
comment was also overheard by this writer.)
The latest Scottish Women's Action Network newsletter [3] (Winter 1999) is
a special "Pornography as Violence Against Women" issue and is given over
entirely to SWAP. They make their agenda perfectly clear - they want
pornography to be definied as something which harms women, using race
relations legislation as a model, and allow people "who could prove they
were victims of pornography-related harm to take action against
pornography manufacturers and distributors. This would ensure tighter
controls of the distribution, public display[4], and availability of
pornography throughout Scotland" (SWAN, p2).
This sounds rather like the "model civil rights ordinance" against
pornography put to the legislature in Minneapolis by feminist lawyer
Catherine MacKinnon and theorist Andrea Dworkin. Although passed, after
a loaded hearing, this law was soon struck down as unconstitutional.
The acceptance of such a definition of pornography has badly damaged the
civil rights and status of Canadian women, especially lesbians (see box
out). So why do Scottish Women Against Pornography think Scotland needs
this? Their reasoning is vague at best. We are told: "The images
themselves are very disturbing. The display of pornography is a
pervasive form of sexual harassment. Many women find the display of
pornography threatening. Young girls and women grow up surrounded by
pornographic images which have a dramatic effect on how they see
themselves. We learn to see ourselves as sexual objects, never in
control or possession of our own bodies" (SWAN p2-3).
Throughout, the distinction between top-shelf publications and illegal
child pornography is muddied, and one statement at least harks back to the
ritual abuse myth: "Women and children are actively abused during the
production of pornographic material" (loc. cit). Much of it is downright
dubious "39% of women report being distressed by their partner *asking*
them to act out scenes from pornography" (loc. cit., emphasis mine).
This last statement is accompanied with the only reference in the entire
magazine - a vague one to New Scientist magazine which mentions only the
publication year and the month. As it's a weekly publication this isn't
much help, especially as they don't mention the article, or the author!
Throughout the newsletter, you get the impression that sex is something
women don't like, and wouldn't do out of choice. No woman is an
exhibitionist, nor are they ever interested in money. The phrase "women
and children" is indivisible. Most importantly, women need to be told
these things, because we are not capable of working them out for
ourselves.
A particularly ludicrous claim is that "every serial murderer has used
porn to fuel his fantasies, as have countless rapists and child abusers"
(loc. cit.). In one sentence, these so-called feminists have given rapists
an excuse to blames their actions on something other than themselves. They
later claim that the porn industry is worth billions, so presumably it's
read by a lot of people who are not murderers, rapists or child abusers.
Nor do they point out the huge numbers of such offenders who try to blame
God for their deficiencies! Maybe this has something to do with their
allies.
To further their cause, the "feminist" anti-porn campaigners have forged
alliances with religious groups who wish to reduce women's rights. The
original Off The Shelf campaign, launched in November 1989, involved not
only Clare Short, and the women's groups, but the Townswomen's Guild, the
Church Army and fundamentalist groups such as the Community Standards
Associations and CARE.
Community Standards Associations aimed to "promote and explain the
positive values of traditional Christian Standards and warn of the
consequences of permissive values and practices threatening to take over
our culture". To this end, they orchestrated letter-writing campaigns
against girlie magazines, sex shops and sex education material, especially
anything gay-oriented. They're best known for their actions against films
such as the Life of Brian and Caligula, getting them banned in some areas
of the UK.
CARE stands for "Christian Action Research and Education". This
organisation has its origins in a 1971 "Rally Against Permissiveness" in
Trafalgar Square. Initially called the "National Festival of Light", it
pioneered the use of tactics later used to promote the Satanic Abuse Myth.
The group provided resources to oppose pornography and abortion. Local
groups of fundamentalists would then distribute the resulting newsletters
and pamphlets among the local medical professionals, teachers and social
workers. They originally had their own anti-porn campaign, "Picking Up the
Pieces", but enthusiastically swapped this for "Off The Shelf".
This association is, not surprisingly, somewhat embarrassing to the
'feminist' groups and has often been denied. Catherine Itzen claimed the
allegations were simply to discredit her campaign and in her 1992 book
"Pornography: Women, Violence and Civil Liberties" insisted "no such
alliances exist, or have ever been made, either in the USA or the UK".
Presumably the joint CAP/CARE 1990 campaign was a figment of the
participants' imagination, and the photographs of Clare Short at a CARE
meeting must have been forged by her detractors.
The Christians themselves are less ashamed of the association. CARE's
Nigel Williams wrote, in 1991, "CARE works very sucessfully at a national
level with groups and members of Parliament who hold very different views
on other issues which are important to us". He then explains that these
groups would rather keep the relationship secret. Just to make it clear, a
list of campaigning groups in the same book includes CAP, and he refers
throughout to the anti-pornography campaign, as if it was a united effort.
Further confirmation comes from a feminist magazine: "To me, if something
is so obvious that people coming from opposite political perspectives can
agree on it that would make it particularly strong" (Barbara Rogers quoted
by Barbara Norden "Pornography: the Debate Goes ON" Everywoman December
1990-January 1991. Cited in Thomson 1994, 231)
This is not the first time campaigners for women's rights have linked up
with religious extremists to the detriment of women. The early women's
rights activists were particularly active in "social purity" movements
which sought to deny access to sex education and birth control lest it
lead to extra-marital sex. Thompson (1004, 17-21) goes into considerable
detail of this sordid episode which reinforced the Victorian stereotypes
of womanhood today's anti-porn women seem so keen to uphold.
Canadian experience suggests that, even with a so-called feminist law in
place, the sexists and homophobes in government, the police and the
judiciary will make sure that women and gay men's access to sexual
information and their own writing on sex are the only things censored.
** To Follow: Insert concerning the Canadian experience of legislating
the Campaign Against Pornography agenda.
[1] The poster referred to "Scottish Campaign Against Pornography" but the
Evening News, Councillor Hinds, the Scottish Women's Action Network
Newsletter all refer exclusively to "Scottish Women Against Pornography".
Perhaps SCAP is SWAP plus Jamie McGrigor, a Tory list MSP for the
Highlands and Islands who supported them at the demo.
[2] "Asian Babes" is a British publication featuring British women.
[3] I would like to assure SWAP that my copy is not the copy handed out to
one of the male counter-demonstrators on condition he didn't show it ot
anyone else. He has kept that promise and my copy comes from elsewhere.
[4]Except presumably when they want to publically display it to burn it.
References and further reading
CAROL, AVEDON 1994. Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes. Pornography and
Censorship. Cheltenham, New Clarion Press (Issues on Social Policy Series)
CAROL, AVEDON n.d. The Harm of Porn: Just Another Excuse to Censor. Essay
on the Feminists Against Censorship website
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm
HOLMES, MIKE 1999. A Bonfire of Inanities. Pornfire Report- Edinburgh 2nd
December 1999. Posted to ed.general, uk.politics.censorship and
uk.current-affairs.censorship 3 Dec 1999 18:06:53 GMT
JOHNSTON IAN 1999 "Book-burning sparks city rage", Edinburgh Evening News
Thursday December 2nd 1999 p5
PUTTICK HELEN 1999 "Dirty protest ends in a farce", Edinburgh Evening News
Friday December 3rd 1999, p3
STROSSEN NADINE 1995. Defending Pornography. Free Speech, Sex and the
Fight for Women's Rights. London, Abacus.
THOMPSON BILL 1994. Soft Core. Moral Crusades Against Pornography in
Britain and America London. Cassell.
The ad-hoc groupd which protested about the book-burning has its own web
site:
http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/freespeech/
Iain Lambert
<eyhg0x7...@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>:
>I _have_ seen the assertion that open male homosexuality is an attack
>on women by the fact that it exclused women from it's world.
aaah.
so according to these people me thinking that Tom Cruise looks rather nice
is encouraging violence against women?
good to know where I stand...
iain
Dave Bird
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>Here's the promised article from Pagan Prattle concerning the
>provenance of all these pro-censorship acronyms we've been reading
>about. Acknowledgements to the producers of Pagan Prattle and to those
>who helped by typing up the article.
Is it webbed anywhere?
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Angus Creech
between erotica and pornography? Is erotica merely pornography with some
artistic merit?
Yours challengingly,
Angus
jen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Angus Creech) wibbled:
> Just out of interest, would anyone care to clarify the distinction
> between erotica and pornography? Is erotica merely pornography with some
> artistic merit?
It's simply one of those irregular verbs:
I enjoy reading erotica
You look at pornography
He/She is a sick pervert
--
Jennifer Liddle, Cambridge, England http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP key available on the web site
Harry Grove
Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes
>In general, two arguments are advanced by proponents of banning child
>pornography:
>
>1. Real children were sexually abused in the production of this material,
>2. Paedophiles may get all excited by reading it and go out and rape children.
>
>I have a problem with argument (1) which is: any such material is clearly
>prima facie evidence that a crime has occured. It follows that everyone
>involved in making it should be prosecuted for rape or complicity in
>rape. (This same argument goes against snuff films; if any such movie
>exists, it's evidence of premeditated murder.) It does not follow that
>banning distribution of the stuff will do any good; the crime has already
>been committed.
>
fraternity who, for example, in their efforts to extinguish the trade in
elephant ivory, say that we ban the trade in and sale of said ivory and,
by removing the retail market, abolish the poaching of ivory [aka
slaughter of elephants] since there is no motivation for men to go out
and shoot the beasts in the first place ..... (if you see what I mean ?)
>(Personally, I suspect they're
>more likely to wank over it in private -- which, if you ask me, is far less
>worrying than having them hanging around schools.)
>
Worryingly, we had a 'care-in-the-community' "client" outside the local
Junior School yesterday; standing for 20 mins. just staring at the
children through the school fence: doing nothing (and nothing illegal)
but reducing some to tears because of the 'menace' they perceived from
his (immobile) presence.
>Finally, this whole argument is a red herring. Something like 90%
>of child abusers are first degree relatives of the victims, or close
>friends of the families. The image of the dirty old man hanging around
>the playground with a pocket full of lollipops and an attic full of
>child pornography is dangerously misleading, but far easier for society
>to cope with than the idea that children are abused by fathers, uncles,
>cousins, siblings, and mothers.
>
Harry Grove.
"Art is Vice ... you don't marry it ... you violate it !"
Edgar Hilaire-Germaine DEGAS
Impressionist painter & sculptor
b. July 19 1834
d. Sept 27 1917
Charlie Stross
>>I have a problem with argument (1) which is: any such material is clearly
>>prima facie evidence that a crime has occured.
>> .... It does not follow that
>>banning distribution of the stuff will do any good; the crime has already
>>been committed.
>>
>However, this same form of arguement is not propounded by the Wildlife
>fraternity who, for example, in their efforts to extinguish the trade in
>elephant ivory, say that we ban the trade in and sale of said ivory
But the two arguments are not equivalent. Ivory is a physical substance;
you have to kill elephants to get it. Porn, however, is information, and
information can be duplicated with marginal costs that tend towards zero.
You cannot generalise from trade in commodities to trade in information.
>Worryingly, we had a 'care-in-the-community' "client" outside the local
>Junior School yesterday; standing for 20 mins. just staring at the
>children through the school fence: doing nothing (and nothing illegal)
>but reducing some to tears because of the 'menace' they perceived from
>his (immobile) presence.
Which falls under the rubric of "threatening behaviour" -- were the
police not interested, or something?
-- Charlie
artem...@my-deja.com
ave...@cix.co.uk wrote:
> The Obscene Publicans Acts
That'll be the laws to control all those swearing bar staff.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist it.)
T
--
Heaven Sent and Hell Bent.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
M Holmes
: In article<83b84h$ng9$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, M Holmes
: <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:>Here's the promised article from Pagan Prattle concerning the
:>provenance of all these pro-censorship acronyms we've been reading
:>about. Acknowledgements to the producers of Pagan Prattle and to those
:>who helped by typing up the article.
: Is it webbed anywhere?
Not yet.
FoFP
M Holmes
: Just out of interest, would anyone care to clarify the distinction
: between erotica and pornography?
Erotica is pornography which can attract a public subsidy to hang in a
gallery?
: Angus
FoFP
--
"Where they first burn books, they will burn people in the end."
-- Heinrich Heine
Clive D.W. Feather
Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes
>In general, two arguments are advanced by proponents of banning child
>pornography:
>
>1. Real children were sexually abused in the production of this material,
>2. Paedophiles may get all excited by reading it and go out and rape children.
No. The second argument that is used is that the material is used by
child molestors to convince children that paedophilic sexual activity is
both normal and acceptable.
At least, this is the argument that the Home Office and the police have
used when I've discussed it with them.
>Before argument (2) is remotely admissable, we need to see evidence that
>viewing or reading kiddie porn is a causal factor in actual assaults on
>children -- and not just anecdotal evidence; a statistically significant
>causal relationship is necessary.
I can't provide figures, but they cited specific cases (not by name, but
in the sense of "we got information about this boy in London being taken
to Leicester, and we burst into the room and found ...".
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
James Hammerton
> In article <slrn85hqei....@charlie.ed.datacash.com>, Charlie
> Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes
> >In general, two arguments are advanced by proponents of banning child
> >pornography:
> >
> >1. Real children were sexually abused in the production of this material,
> >2. Paedophiles may get all excited by reading it and go out and rape children.
>
> No. The second argument that is used is that the material is used by
> child molestors to convince children that paedophilic sexual activity is
> both normal and acceptable.
Actually ISTM that both arguments are used, certainly I've seen both
arguments used in relation to child porn. For that matter, I've seen
it said that adult porn is also used by paedophiles for this purpose.
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
John Hein
da...@xemu.demon.co.uk "Dave Bird" writes:
>In article<83b84h$ng9$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, M Holmes
><fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>>Here's the promised article from Pagan Prattle concerning the
>>provenance of all these pro-censorship acronyms we've been reading
>>about. Acknowledgements to the producers of Pagan Prattle and to those
>>who helped by typing up the article.
>
> Is it webbed anywhere?
It has been reprinted in the current ScotsGay and can be found at
http://www.scotsgay.co.uk/text/sg31.txt
--
[ John Hein GM1YME | Phaggots do it on the phone! ]
[ johnd...@drink.demon.co.uk | Sine Pretio Loquimini Omnibus ]
[ johnd...@cix.compulink.co.uk| ]
[ Telephone: +44 131 558 1279 |http://www.scotsgay.co.uk/people/john.html]
[ TeleFax: +44 131 539 2999 | 42 B5/6 f+ t- w+ d g++ k- s++! r-- p ]
[ Lambda BBS: +44 131 556 6316 | S8/9 b g- l y- z/ n o++ x-- a+ u- v- j++ ]
Mike Dickson
cha...@antipope.org wrote...
> In general, two arguments are advanced by proponents of banning child
> pornography:
>
> 1. Real children were sexually abused in the production of this material,
> 2. Paedophiles may get all excited by reading it and go out and rape
> children.
The more paedophiles there are at liberty, the more demand there is for
material, the more paedophilia there is likely to be produced. There is
also the issue that the very presence of this material convinces
paedophiles that their particular proclivities are somehow acceptable,
even commonplace.
> I have a problem with argument (1) which is: any such material is
> clearly prima facie evidence that a crime has occured. It follows that
> everyone involved in making it should be prosecuted for rape or
> complicity in rape. It does not follow that banning distribution of the
> stuff will do any good; the crime has already been committed.
Extend the same argument to currently controlled drugs and you'll see
that you are making an absurd argument. Furthermore, like drugs, this
material doesn't flow straight from production to consumption. (I admit
that the parallels do not hold exactly since computer files are, by
their very nature, able to be replicated at will)
> For these secondary cases, the proponents of censorship use argument (2);
> "if we permit this filth it'll get the perverts all excited."
That has never been an argument which anyone has ever made. The laws
against the distribution of *obscene* images (not paedophile images -
they are considered quite separately) states that an obscene image is
one which turns you into some sort of boiling cauldron of spurting
hormones. The trouble here is that the current concept of 'obscenity' is
phrased by whatever present society will stand. Fifty years ago, what
you might see on peak time TV *now* may have got you into bother. Now,
no one worries about it. Only a few months back an English trial on
obscenity was abandoned once the judge saw the pictures abnd claimed
that he'd 'seen worse than this on Channel Five'.
Getting paedophiles 'all excited' isn't the problem. It's allowing them
to have access to material that might reinforce their tendencies that is
the problem. Unfortunately, that holes the remainder of your argument
well below the waterline.
ave...@thirdworld.uk
wrote:
>Just out of interest, would anyone care to clarify the distinction
>between erotica and pornography? Is erotica merely pornography with some
>artistic merit?
"Erotica - that's pornography where people drink wine afterwards."
Harry Grove
Stross <cha...@antipope.org> writes
>Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>as <musi...@cottagemusic.demon.co.uk> declared:
>
>But the two arguments are not equivalent. Ivory is a physical substance;
>you have to kill elephants to get it. Porn, however, is information, and
>information can be duplicated with marginal costs that tend towards zero.
>You cannot generalise from trade in commodities to trade in information.
>
can equate the relatively small physical bulk of high-value ivory with
the vast bulk of porn material (whether paper-pulp of video casettes -
viz. the warehouses which are filled with confiscated goods.
(but I accept that Internet porn does raise quite different parameters)
PS - see signature
>>Worryingly, we had a 'care-in-the-community' "client" outside the local
>>Junior School yesterday; standing for 20 mins. just staring at the
>>children through the school fence: doing nothing (and nothing illegal)
>>but reducing some to tears because of the 'menace' they perceived from
>>his (immobile) presence.
>
>Which falls under the rubric of "threatening behaviour" -- were the
>police not interested, or something?
>
I'm glad to say their reponse was appropriate and still considerate.
More than enough Police to quietly 'soak' the area arriving discreetly
from all directions, but with only two beat officers - already known to
the man concerned - to approach him directly and lead him quietly away.
And then, a continuing presence the following day - which resulted in
the children taking trays of hot mince pies to them, and also sharing
them with memnbers of the public who were passing-by in the local park.
A very Happy Christmas ensued.
PPS. I must remember to make sure that the man in question also receives
his mince pies.
PPPS. A Happy Christmas to you too; you drooling, half-stoned koala.
--
Harry Grove
"Data is not information.
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not understanding.
Understanding is not wisdom."
- Howard Garner
"And wisdon is knowing the difference !"
- Me