Friday, September 01, 2006

Stupid, ineffectual cunts

No, not those in the porn industry, but our so-called leaders. Although, as Frank Fisher—who some of you may remember as MrPikeBishop—points out in an excellent article on CiF, we may as well dub them "followers" rather than leaders. Fisher is discussing the latest useless and illiberal piece of legislation, that against "violent porn", from this inept, fascist government
A stammering and reticent Vernon Coaker, undersecretary of state at the Home Office and head honcho while the grown-ups are away, gave the game away on Radio 4's World at One. What did the government hope to achieve with this measure? What motivated it? The hapless Coaker explained that the government apparently wanted nothing at all - it was doing what a dozen special interest groups asked it to do.

Seriously. When asked "Why?" his repeated response was: "What we're saying is that women's groups and police forces who responded to us found it unacceptable ... they said there was a need for the law to be updated and for possession to be made an offence." In other words, "Don't blame us guv, we're just doing as we're told."

We pay these people a great deal of money to weigh up arguments and legislate when necessary - who guessed that all reason goes out the window when a couple of mouthy NGOs and a grieving mother come knocking?

I don't know who this Vernon Cockface is, but I might well go and find out; still, one has to feel sorry for him as he has obviously been left as the fucking patsy for his masters.
Croaker claimed in his BBC interview that most people who responded to the government consultation on this issue were in favour of a ban - in fact, that's quite untrue. The vast majority of responding individuals opposed it - support for a ban came from churches, women's groups, charities and police. But let's leave aside for a moment the ugly image of UK legislation being imposed by proven fantasists, unelected do-gooders and the cops, and look at what this would actually mean.

The new offence claims to fill a "loophole", in that production and distribution of violent porn is already illegal - not so. The Obscene Publications Act contains nothing outlawing such material in those terms, merely outlawing all materials that "corrupt" - and as any lawyer knows, juries have disagreed on what that constitutes for decades. No, this isn't a loophole, this creates a whole new category of carefully defined criminality - and what's criminal?

Well, precisely: go and read the whole thing. And what is violent porn? Are the BDSM community all going to be arrested? And why is one embittered, prudish old bitch allowed to influence the government to legislate to curb yet more of our freedoms. Believe me, Liz Longhurst's picture—the one of her looking about as smug and sanctimonious as one person can— might well drive me over the edge because I would love to beat the illiberal, interfering old biddy to death with a massive, black rubber cock; I would film it and distribute it for free, frankly.

Further, as Chris points out, the easy availability of porn has actually led to the decrease of sexual crimes.
Some people will argue that the availability of porn will lead to more people committing sexual violence. It won't. The available data is quite explicit. The availability of porn does not lead to sexual violence, it actually decreases the incidence of it.
The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults.
Not good enough? How about in the land of tentacle sex?
Within Japan itself, the dramatic increase in available pornography and sexually explicit materials is apparent to even a casual observer. This is concomitant with a general liberalization of restrictions on other sexual outlets as well. Also readily apparent from the information presented is that, over this period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to public indecency, sexual offenses from both ends of the criminal spectrum, significantly decreased in incidence.

Most significantly, despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly.
There will also be the argument that porn stars are all somehow forced into it, rather than doing porn because they get a kick out of it and like the money. This is not about non-consensual sex, which you might have realised is already a crime with stiff penalties, it is about people viewing porn that was probably made in a completely consensual way and could well have been made by the viewers themselves.

Unfortunately, there will always be people in this world who are as stupid and ignorant as altrui, a CiF commenter, who makes the following comment. [Emphasis mine.]
What kind of libertarianism is it that permits and supports the use of sexual violence, (against women with often no say in the matter and who are likely to be trafficked or addicted) condones its recording and distribution for money on the net, and no doubt supports the contribution it makes to the free market; yet at the same time wants drug users used as landfill. Its a half cocked sort of libertarianism, really, isn't it?

Well, altrui, libertarianism doesn't do that at all, does it now? I think that you will find that most libertarians support laws against rape, abduction and murder, you fucking moron.

And then...
I agree this is a badly worded bill, and can appreciate the sentiment about liberty. But... some of the images and violence, the nature of the gangs that make it, and the exploitation of the men and women involved makes any action to limit such activity necessary - that it isn't worded better, frankly, isn't my fault.

So, have you got this, yes? From altrui's point of view, this law is to defend the people involved in making the movies, OK?

Now, dear readers, are you ready for some mental gymnastics?
This isn't aimed at actors and actresses as you well know, and my remarks on the police were prefaced by the point that the law itself doesn't really matter, what does matter is its interpretation and application.

What I originally posted about was the odd kind of libertarianism you espouse.

Wow! Did you see that? That's a backflip worthy of Polly herself! But fear not, Frank has the answer.
What's odd about it? As I've said before, a core principle of libertarianism, pretty much all varieties, is that you should be free to do whatever you like SO LONG AS doing this does not harm others. You seem to think heroin addiction does no harm beyond the individual - we disagree there, profoundly.

As for this, it's up to proponents of a ban to demonstrate the harm that violent porn does - and this they have failed to do.

A perfectly reasonable answer but not good enough for altrui, apparently. For, hist! there's more...
But mate, the whole point of 'sexual violence' is that someone else is indeed harmed.

No, you stupid bastard; they are banning pictures and films: these mediums are merely representations of acts. Do you really believe that Middle earth exists because you saw it in a film? Do you believe that Arnie is, in fact, a mass-murdering cyborg because you have seen him shoot people in films? God, you are a thick twat, you really are.
How can you tell if these poeople are coerced, manipulated by addiction, or forced into these acts? How can you tell if the women were trafficked? I would have thought 'harm', in almost all its forms, is exactly what this legislation is aimed at reducing.

But altrui, old chap, how do you know that they were coerced? How do you know that they were manipulated by addiction? And how do you know that they were trafficked? How do you know that that little Polish waitress in your local restaurant wasn't trafficked, eh? I know, I know; this having to have proof before acting is really very tedious isn't it?

I could go on, but altrui has proved himself, on a number of occasions, to be thicker than a pot of clotted cream that has been in the freezer for 8 months (about on a par with Charles Clarke, in fact) so I won't waste my time. As I wrote in my comment on CiF, altrui, where did you learn your debating skills: the Polly Toynbee School Of Contradictory Argument?

And as for the fucking government... words fail me. Let me just repeat that pertinent paragraph from Frank's article:
We pay these people a great deal of money to weigh up arguments and legislate when necessary - who guessed that all reason goes out the window when a couple of mouthy NGOs and a grieving mother come knocking?

Furthermore, who would have thought that the money that you give to these charities does not go to looking after abused kids and animals: no, a vast amount of the funds go into lobbying government to pass yet more restrictive legislation.

I shall finish this ramble with a quote from PigDogFucker, who put it most succinctly, I think.
If you support the government's allegedly planned ban on the possession violent pornography, you should be raped, strangled and have your body dumped in a garage for a week. It's a fucking appalling, indefensible piece of legislation.

I couldn't have put it better or more offensively myself. We are ruled by fucking tools...

1 comment:

GiveMeMyFreedomBack said...

Please show your support for the removal of this fucking appalling, indefensible piece of legislation by signing this petition and informing people about this petition in places you think it would do most good.

You must be a British citizen or resident to sign the petition.

Trump tax

So, Trump and the Republicans enacted the "most drastic changes to US tax code in 30 years" . Inevitably, some Leftard protesters ...