INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Evil Thoughts

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
GreyHairedWorrier
Posts: 6
Joined: April 23rd, 2008, 4:55 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#21 Post by GreyHairedWorrier » April 25th, 2008, 4:58 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Thank you for that. :smile:

While I agree that non-consensual violence in sex is unacceptable and immoral, I can't agree that fantasies are. Fantasies are often about highly inappropriate people or scenarios but as long as they stay fantasy I don't see the harm. Would you "ban" women having rape fantasies? (Very common, according to Nancy Friday)

Diane
Posts: 441
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 9:07 am

Re: Evil Thoughts

#22 Post by Diane » April 25th, 2008, 5:45 pm

I hoped I made it clear in my first post that I wouldn't "ban" people from having any kinds of thoughts. It's not about making things illegal, it's about recognising the power of ideas and the effect these can ultimately have on people's actions. As for "rape" fantasies, having spent many hours discussing these with women who claim to have them, I have concluded that they simply don't. A rape fantasy is an oxymoron because the victim gets to choose their "rapist" and even gets to direct the action, which means it's nothing like rape at all, as any rape victim will confirm.

There is evidence that some serious sexual offenders start off by committing lesser offences such as indecent exposure before progressing to minor indecent assaults and finally rape. I've no doubt that such people fantasised extensively before committing their first illegal act. (The alternative possibility is the "uncontrollable urge at the sight of nubile female" scenario, which I emphatically reject). If only they had tried to nip their fantasies in the bud and sought help instead of going on to cause so much human suffering!

Occam
Posts: 152
Joined: April 6th, 2008, 6:37 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#23 Post by Occam » April 26th, 2008, 2:16 am

Sorry, I don't agree that fantasies lead to actions. A great many people in committed relationships apparently fantasize a different partner during their sexual relations. That doesn't mean they are going out to have an affair with Leanardo DiCaprio or Angelina Joley.

As a seventy-seven year old, occasionally when I have trouble falling asleep, I fantacize going back to my birth, but with my present knowledge. I imagine all the catastrophes I could have stopped, the vast amounts of money that I could make and turn over to Humanist causes. That puts me to sleep pretty rapidly. However, no matter how strongly and often I have that fantasy, I seriously doubt that it will result in that action occurring. :hilarity:


Occam

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#24 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2008, 11:33 am

Occam wrote:As a seventy-seven year old, occasionally when I have trouble falling asleep, I fantacize going back to my birth, but with my present knowledge. I imagine all the catastrophes I could have stopped, the vast amounts of money that I could make and turn over to Humanist causes. That puts me to sleep pretty rapidly. However, no matter how strongly and often I have that fantasy, I seriously doubt that it will result in that action occurring.
Unfortunately!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#25 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » April 26th, 2008, 1:10 pm

Diane wrote:There is evidence that some serious sexual offenders start off by committing lesser offences such as indecent exposure before progressing to minor indecent assaults and finally rape. I've no doubt that such people fantasised extensively before committing their first illegal act. (The alternative possibility is the "uncontrollable urge at the sight of nubile female" scenario, which I emphatically reject). If only they had tried to nip their fantasies in the bud and sought help instead of going on to cause so much human suffering!
I can believe that many people who commit terrible acts fantasise about doing them before they actually do, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean that the fantasies actually increase the likelihood of the act being committed. It could simply be that both the fantasies and the acts spring from the same causes [---][/---] various emotions and beliefs, which are themselves the consequence of numerous environmental and genetic factors. I do acknowledge that fantasies can possibly function as a kind of mental rehearsal for a terrible act, and as a way of reinforcing the beliefs and attitudes and emotions that are the ultimate causes. But nipping the fantasies in the bud won't help unless those underlying beliefs and attitudes are also nipped in the bud.

Sarah Campbell discusses some of these beliefs and attitudes (including the one you mention, about "uncontrollable urges") in '"She was probably glad of the attention": tackling rape in the UK', openDemocracy, 28/11/07). She mentions an American study of college students that I've read about elsewhere [---][/---] unfortunately I can't find details of the original study [---][/---] that allegedly found that one in three young men reported that they would rape a woman if they were guaranteed that they would not be caught, and that one in four admitted to actually having made a forceful attempt at sexual intercourse that caused observable distress to a woman. I don't know how accurate this is, or how widespread such views and behaviour are, but I do get the impression that it's something that's getting worse not better. I do agree, Diane, that we do need to recognise the power of ideas. But by ideas I'm thinking of the beliefs and attitudes that give rise to the fantasies (and to the behaviour), not the fantasies themselves.

Emma

User avatar
Parapraxis
Posts: 117
Joined: April 21st, 2008, 11:17 am

Re: Evil Thoughts

#26 Post by Parapraxis » April 26th, 2008, 1:16 pm

There is very little way in the way of any objective "evil" or morality - some aspects of my being are perfectly natural and essentially harmless, but yet there are certain people out there who would describe it as evil.

Philip Zimbardo showed (in the "Stanford Prison Experiment") and expanded upon in his brilliant book The Lucifer Effect - How Good People Turn Evil that we are all potentially capable of evil, arguably it is what makes us human.

With regards to having evil thoughts, there is a big difference between having thoughts or expressing them and actually performing them. I have sometimes imagined beating people to a pulp, but of course I never would because I'm a good person (at least I like to think)...okay, okay it is because I have no upper-body strength...happy?!
The poster formerly known as "Electric Angel"

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#27 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » April 26th, 2008, 1:26 pm

Occam wrote:Sorry, I don't agree that fantasies lead to actions. A great many people in committed relationships apparently fantasize a different partner during their sexual relations. That doesn't mean they are going out to have an affair with Leanardo DiCaprio or Angelina Joley.
I think it was pretty clear that Diane was not suggesting that all, or even most, fantasies lead on to enactments of those fantasies. But given the statistics about affairs (conservative estimates suggest that 60% of men and 40% of women will have an extramarital affair at some point), I think it's likely that a great many people in "committed relationships" who fantasise about having different sexual partners do go on to have affairs with other people [---][/---] albeit not with Leonardo DiCaprio or Angelina Jolie. I wonder whether research has been done to see whether there's a positive correlation between such fantasies and actual infidelity. I wouldn't rule out the possibility. Of course, that wouldn't mean there was a direct causal link. But there might be some underlying factors that increase the likelihood of both.

Emma

kbell
Posts: 1146
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 11:27 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#28 Post by kbell » April 26th, 2008, 1:36 pm

Indeed, Diane has not argued that fantasising inevitably leads to fantasies being acted out in real life. In fact, I think this is more or less the opposite to what she is saying. As she said in her first post:
Arguing that one 'can't help' what one thinks about is the thin end of the wedge to arguing that one can't help but act on ones impulses.
I understand her point to be a more nuanced and intelligent one about the desensitising effect of exposure to and indulgence of harmful ideas and how this can lead to a culture of acceptability.

We all know that, even though we are all the same species, what is acceptable in one human culture can be radically different from what is acceptable in another. As an example, take a culture where it is normal practice to cut off someone's right hand as a punishment for theft. This won't seem strange or inappropriately cruel to those who've grown up with the idea - in fact, it might seem a very good idea indeed. Whereas to those of us that live in cultures where such practices were abandoned centuries ago, it seems extremely barbaric.

There are barbaric practices that are alive and well in certain environments in the West because of the culture of acceptability that surrounds them e.g. On TV a few years ago, I heard a senior Catholic clergyman defend priests who'd been abusing children on the grounds that some people couldn't help themselves and that once they'd started, it became addictive. By removing personal responsibility and turning us into creatures at the mercy of whatever came into our heads, he was making it less of a crime. I think Diane's point is that we have to take personal responsibility for how we think and constantly re-examine our thoughts because if we don't we are in danger of absorbing this same culture of acceptability - not that each of us is necessarily going to act out our own individual fantasy.

On reflection, I am inclined to agree.
Kathryn

Occam
Posts: 152
Joined: April 6th, 2008, 6:37 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#29 Post by Occam » April 26th, 2008, 8:55 pm

As I read the posts I seemed to see the suggestion or underlying assumption that there was a causal relation between fantasies and actions, even if tenuous, and not always leading to action. I question that assumption. Emma's jump from people having sexual fantasies of others beside their partners to the high frequency of extramarital affairs implying a causal connection is completely unjustified.

Humans are prone to a wide variety of fantasies. Humans are also capable of a wide variety of behaviors. It would seem likely that there would be overlap, however, that's not proof of the former leading to the latter.

I could just as easily postulate that some adult males have pedophiliac fantasies as a means of satisfying their desires toward children rather than actually carrying out those desires. I don't know if this is the case, but it's just as likely that people use fantasies as a substitute, to avoid performing the actions. However, unlike some of the other posters, I'm not implying causal connections.

Occam

Noggin
Posts: 497
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:48 am

Re: Evil Thoughts

#30 Post by Noggin » April 27th, 2008, 12:49 pm

What an interesting discussion! It's understandable that there's been a lot of focus on sexual fantasy but I think the example that illustrates my own view (which I think accord's with Diane's) best is the one about racism. Is it OK to think that someone of another race/nationality/religion is inferior or should have fewer fundamental human rights even if you personally don't even give voice to much less act on this idea? I say it isn't OK. It's morally wrong because it can be harmful. Such ideas do lead other people to act in a certain way that causes human suffering and if, because of your own mindset, you do nothing to challenge these harmful actions, then you are complicit in them. This doesn't mean that immoral ideas should be "banned" or punished, even if this were possible. But, as has already been argued, we should be trying to develop a culture where such ideas are viewed as uncivilised and unacceptable.
It is the still and silent sea that drowns a man. -- Old Norse Proverb

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#31 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » April 27th, 2008, 5:13 pm

Occam wrote:As I read the posts I seemed to see the suggestion or underlying assumption that there was a causal relation between fantasies and actions, even if tenuous, and not always leading to action. I question that assumption. Emma's jump from people having sexual fantasies of others beside their partners to the high frequency of extramarital affairs implying a causal connection is completely unjustified.
It would have been completely unjustified if I had actually said that. But I didn't. :sad2:

What I said was that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there's some kind of positive correlation between fantasies about infidelity [---][/---] the frequency, duration and intensity of them, maybe [---][/---] and unfaithful behaviour. If it could be demonstrated that there were such a correlation, I would still not assume that there was a direct causal link. Both fantasies and behaviour might be caused by other common factors, although it's also possible that under some circumstances fantasies have some kind of reinforcing effect. After all, there does seem to be plenty of evidence that sexual fantasies increase sexual desire. So I think it would all depend on how satisfactory the committed sexual relationship was, how compatible the sexual desires of the people concerned, and also on whether the fantasies involved a particular individual, who happened to be sexually available, rather than some distant, idealised Leonardo/Angelina figure. Of course, it is also possible that there is no correlation at all between fantasies about infidelity and unfaithful behaviour, or even that there's a negative correlation. I would be surprised, though, if the latter were the case.
Occam wrote:I could just as easily postulate that some adult males have pedophiliac fantasies as a means of satisfying their desires toward children rather than actually carrying out those desires. I don't know if this is the case, but it's just as likely that people use fantasies as a substitute, to avoid performing the actions.
Maybe that's true of some people, and some fantasies. I would be surprised, though, if it were generally true of "deviant" sexual fantasies. There have been a number of articles on the topic, including, "Sexual fantasies of child molesters", by Jan Looman, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, July 1995. The treatment of sex offenders certainly seems to assume that deviant fantasies increase the risk of acting out those fantasies, and I would imagine that such an assumption would be based on evidence. But I may be wrong.
Occam wrote:However, unlike some of the other posters, I'm not implying causal connections.
Ah, but clearly that's no guarantee that other people won't infer them. :wink:

Emma

Ted Harvey
Posts: 172
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:41 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#32 Post by Ted Harvey » April 29th, 2008, 12:40 pm

Another try from me to make a contribution that complements the high quality exchanges here. I have dithered at times about possible links between fantasy or thoughts and some sort of causal link to actual actions or enactment. My conclusions are that whilst there is no 'Iron Law' that there is automatically, or even routinely, a link, is it not the case that one of the first steps to enactment is thinking and/or fantasy about something? I'm coming round to the belief that there is a link of sorts through the breaking down of taboos.

Even supposedly 'harmless' thoughts or fantasies may have the effect of breaking down a taboo such as 'just never go down that route'. Once you start thinking about the previously taboo matter, you are that bit less distanced from it; that then leaves the possibility of action more likely. The seeming rise in sexual abuse of children seems to me one of the prime examples of the breaking down of a taboo leading onto a "it's less utterly unacceptable to even think about that" climate, Another take on it is "if you have never even thought or fantasized about it, you wouldn't ever do it".

The other consideration that makes me a bit more inclined towards asserting there may be links between thought and action is the business of motivational and positive thinking. I long wanted to deny the worth of all that stuff - believing it to all be some sort of synthetic and anodyne posturing imported from the USA (as so often). However, after much experience of witnessing people taking up such practices in business life, I have to say that I do accept that undertaking regular habitual mental exercises of a particular sort on targeted subjects, does seem to have productive outcomes i.e. you do grow in confidence or self-esteem etc. If that is true, it leads me to speculate that habitual fantasying about something may well have the same sort of leading towards 'mental preparedness' on some forms of action.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24062
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Evil Thoughts

#33 Post by Alan H » May 4th, 2008, 4:38 pm

A contribution to this debate from today's Sunday Herald
********************************************************************************
Its Like The State Entering Our Bedrooms And Minds (from Sunday Herald)
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/herald ... _minds.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

‘It’s like the State entering our bedrooms and minds’
The passing of a new law criminalising the possession of extreme pornography is about to take the ‘thought police’ out of the realm of fiction. By Brian McNair
Comment | Read Comments (10)

THE SHAME once associated with looking at dirty pictures has fallen away since porn moved into the mainstream, around the time of Madonna's Sex book. With the rise of the internet there can be few adults in the UK who have not seen some porn, somewhere.

But all of these people could soon, without knowing it, be breaking the law. This week, with little fanfare or media debate, the Labour government finally puts on to the statute book its Criminal Justice and Immigration bill, which creates a new offence of possessing "extreme pornography". The bill is based on a joint Home Office/Scottish Executive consultation on the possession of extreme pornographic material undertaken in 2005/06, and though this bill is for England and Wales, the law in Scotland is likely to follow suit.

So what could possibly be wrong with banning something as forbidding as "extreme pornography"? First, it's unworkable. Second, it will be ineffective in targeting the genuine problem of sexual violence in society. And third, it's undesirable in itself because it reverses an important liberal trend of recent times - society's acknowledgement of the right of consenting adults to indulge their private desires and fantasies without the interference of the state, as long as they do so without harming others.
advertisement

Why is it unworkable? "Extreme pornography" is defined in the new legislation as images which portray "in an explicit and realistic way" acts that "threaten a person's life", or that could likely result in "serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals". Possession of such images will now be a criminal act. The Obscene Publications Act already imposes criminal liability on the publishers of material likely to deprave and corrupt. What is being outlawed here, for the first time, is the possession of images. Illegal images will include portrayals of acts which are not in themselves illegal, such as bondage sessions between consenting couples.

"Explicit", "realistic", "threatening" and "serious" are hugely subjective terms, with different meanings to different people. Much of the pornography which circulates these days is of the S&M-themed variety - images of people being tied up, spanked, tickled with feathers. For some, such images herald the end of civilisation as we know it. For others, it's the spice of life.

Fetishistic images are commonplace, not just in porn but in the worlds of advertising and art, where a bit of stylishly-photographed bondage, leavened with some postmodern irony, is virtually guaranteed to shift product. In Madonna's Sex book there's a fair sprinkling of "extreme" imagery, including lesbian sadomasochism, images of rape, even a hint of (albeit playful) bestiality. Consider too, Ang Lee's Lust, Caution, just released on DVD after a successful box office run, which might fall foul of a literal interpretation of the new legislation.

The photography of Nobuyoshi Araki frequently features his female subjects bound and trussed (although his models are wealthy volunteers who have paid for the privilege). Robert Mapplethorpe's bloody images of homosexual S&M have been shown in prestigious galleries all over the world.

These are precisely the kinds of images, depicting consenting adults engaged in deviant but legal acts which, if found in your possession by an overzealous bobby, could henceforth bring down a three-year prison term and a place on the sex offenders' register.

And what if you would never dream of having such images in your possession, but accidentally downloaded a few by Googling "water sports" or opening a spam email from a "lusty lady"? Supporters of the legislation scoff at such hypotheticals, and insist that it will not be applied unreasonably. It may be paranoia to think that the police will want to waste much time chasing down the nation's adult bondage fetishists in 2008. The point is, if they want to they can.

At the third reading of the bill in the Lords last week, Baroness Miller eloquently put the case against: "The legislation allows the police to pick up someone watching this material before they commit any crime, before they actually cause any harm to another person. Often they may be arresting somebody who has strange tastes, ones we might find repugnant, but who is never going to harm anyone else and is no threat to society That is truly the domain of the thought police. These clauses are the State entering the bedrooms and minds of citizens before they commit any crime that involves harm to another human being."

Assuming that a workable definition of "extreme pornography" can be reached, banning it will in any case be ineffective in dealing with the very real problem of sexual violence in society. Like so many bad laws and ill-considered bans, this one comes out of knee-jerk reaction to tragedy. In 2003, a teacher from Brighton was murdered. The killer, it emerged in the trial, had been a user of websites specialising in sexually violent imagery. The victim's mother embarked on a campaign to outlaw such usage, which was taken up by then-Home Secretary David Blunkett.

There is no conclusive evidence to support the suggestion of a causal link between consumption of pornography and the committing of sexual violence. The Scottish Executive concedes this in its 2005 consultation document. When this proposal was first mooted by the government, criminologist David Wilson observed that it was "based on the idea that viewing violent images produces violent acts. However, there is now 60 years' worth of research that suggests this simply isn't the case."

Peter Sutcliffe cited the Bible to justify his murders of prostitutes in Leeds. Fred and Rosemary West used pornography. Was the Bible to blame for the Yorkshire Ripper, or pornography for the horrors of Cromwell Street? If only the cruelties of some human beings were so easily explained, then they might be prevented.

I also said the new law was undesirable. Those societies where porn is most freely available, and least stigmatised, such as Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Germany, are also those where women's and gay rights are most advanced. Those where it is most savagely censored, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are where women still live in feudal conditions, and homosexuality is punishable by death.

I claim no simple cause and effect link here, but merely note the parallels. A relaxed attitude to porn, progressive sexual politics, and tolerance of others - even those who like a bit of rough now and again - frequently go together. Tony Blair, notwithstanding his private religious convictions, understood that when he said: "It is not for the state to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality". It's a pity his successors in government seem to have forgotten that principle.

Brian McNair is professor of journalism and communication at the university of Strathclyde, and the author of Striptease Culture (Routledge, 2002) and Mediated Sex (Arnold, 1996)

Add Comment
Posted by: Im no really here on 12:11am today
I agree with Tony Blair on this (I'll go and wash my hands later for typing that). I disagree with the lifestyles of many, and I will not change MY lifestyle choices to accommodate them. It's their choice, but unfortunately, that has consequences on other people.
When this proposal was first mooted by the government, criminologist David Wilson observed that it was "based on the idea that viewing violent images produces violent acts. However, there is now 60 years' worth of research that suggests this simply isn't the case."
Where do you get the 60 years from? Try the last 15 or 20 years since the Internet has been widely available. Try looking at the uncontrolled violence that children (and adults) are now committing. The biggest selling entertainment unit is going to be newest release of that video game (forgotten the name) with explicit, language, violence, sex, drug abuse. Ah, but don't worry it has a little red 18 on the box, so that will protect the kids. Of course there is a link between explicit violent images and explicit violent behaviour. Soft **** leads to harder and harder ****. It doesn't do anybody any harm? Just ask the models if they would like to continue doing it, or not. More liberal? - or is it just less moral?
I agree with Tony Blair on this (I'll go and wash my hands later for typing that). I disagree with the lifestyles of many, and I will not change MY lifestyle choices to accommodate them. It's their choice, but unfortunately, that has consequences on other people.

When this proposal was first mooted by the government, criminologist David Wilson observed that it was "based on the idea that viewing violent images produces violent acts. However, there is now 60 years' worth of research that suggests this simply isn't the case."

Where do you get the 60 years from? Try the last 15 or 20 years since the Internet has been widely available. Try looking at the uncontrolled violence that children (and adults) are now committing. The biggest selling entertainment unit is going to be newest release of that video game (forgotten the name) with explicit, language, violence, sex, drug abuse. Ah, but don't worry it has a little red 18 on the box, so that will protect the kids.

Of course there is a link between explicit violent images and explicit violent behaviour. Soft **** leads to harder and harder ****. It doesn't do anybody any harm? Just ask the models if they would like to continue doing it, or not.

More liberal? - or is it just less moral?
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: CJ, Scotland on 1:30am today
Brian McNair should be comended on his excellent article - he is quite right in what he says. This legislation isn't about stopping potentially violent people becoming sexually depraived violent criminals. It is in fact about the right to choose, and the right to have some kind of freedom to express oneself. Whether that be in the bedroom or otherwise. In terms of what powers the police have, and whether they use them he raises a very important point - its yet another opportunity for someone who is doing no harm to anyone else to be arrested and charged whenever it takes the notion of certain officers. We only have to look to the story - which I am sure many people smiled at recently with Sgt Eros in Aberdeen, the male strippergram who was arrested and treated appaulingly by Grampian Police for doing his job - whilst it may not be everyone's cup of tea, there was such intent by Grampian Police to have this poor young man 'stripped' of his income through legitimate means that they tried every resort to have him prosecuted - 17 court appearances, 40 hours in police custody and an appeal by the Fiscal to the High Court in Edinburgh later, they have attempted to stop him performing legitimately. What was his alleged crime? As one of his acts, he dressed in a police uniform carried an empty aerosole can and a prop truncheon. Oh, and casting one's mind back to the original event which sparked this pursuance, the two female officers were quite happy to follow him into the bar, and watch his entire act for over an hour before deciding to arrest him on the above alleged charges...... imagine what they can do to anyone of us if they are intent on taking the moral high ground once this new legislation becomes law? Will for example, as Brian points out, people be locked up for accidently downloading what some may consider unsaviour material? I recall that a few years ago i was attempting to log onto an MSPs website - the site, unbeknown to the MSP or their staff had been hijacked (not sure what the technical term is) and the address led visitors to a **** site! Would that therefore mean that I would be charged under the new legislation? Even put on the Sex Offenders register?? I have become so concerned about the introduction of such laws in this country under the do-gooder labour govt that I am considering moving oversees. The nanny state, has gone beyond that, it has become a 1984 image which not only encroaches on civil liberties, but provides an avenue for huge miscarriages of justice.
Brian McNair should be comended on his excellent article - he is quite right in what he says. This legislation isn't about stopping potentially violent people becoming sexually depraived violent criminals. It is in fact about the right to choose, and the right to have some kind of freedom to express oneself. Whether that be in the bedroom or otherwise.

In terms of what powers the police have, and whether they use them he raises a very important point - its yet another opportunity for someone who is doing no harm to anyone else to be arrested and charged whenever it takes the notion of certain officers. We only have to look to the story - which I am sure many people smiled at recently with Sgt Eros in Aberdeen, the male strippergram who was arrested and treated appaulingly by Grampian Police for doing his job - whilst it may not be everyone's cup of tea, there was such intent by Grampian Police to have this poor young man 'stripped' of his income through legitimate means that they tried every resort to have him prosecuted - 17 court appearances, 40 hours in police custody and an appeal by the Fiscal to the High Court in Edinburgh later, they have attempted to stop him performing legitimately. What was his alleged crime? As one of his acts, he dressed in a police uniform carried an empty aerosole can and a prop truncheon. Oh, and casting one's mind back to the original event which sparked this pursuance, the two female officers were quite happy to follow him into the bar, and watch his entire act for over an hour before deciding to arrest him on the above alleged charges...... imagine what they can do to anyone of us if they are intent on taking the moral high ground once this new legislation becomes law?

Will for example, as Brian points out, people be locked up for accidently downloading what some may consider unsaviour material? I recall that a few years ago i was attempting to log onto an MSPs website - the site, unbeknown to the MSP or their staff had been hijacked (not sure what the technical term is) and the address led visitors to a **** site! Would that therefore mean that I would be charged under the new legislation? Even put on the Sex Offenders register??

I have become so concerned about the introduction of such laws in this country under the do-gooder labour govt that I am considering moving oversees. The nanny state, has gone beyond that, it has become a 1984 image which not only encroaches on civil liberties, but provides an avenue for huge miscarriages of justice.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: dellio, New York on 5:10am today
I think we should protect the rights of GLBT, at least we should give them a friendly and confortable environment to them, just like biloves.com.
I think we should protect the rights of GLBT, at least we should give them a friendly and confortable environment to them, just like biloves.com.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 5:30am today
Ach!
Ach!
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Guga, Rockall on 9:01am today
This looks very much like yet more state interference in the lives of the public, and is typical of the Stalinist, totalitarian control freaks in the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party. If consenting adults wish to indulge in some peculiar sex games, e.g. bondage and discipline, and take photgraphs of it, that should be their business, not the state's. But Maggie Broon just can't help himself. He wants to control the people totally. Like Bliar before him, he is a total control freak. If Broon wanted to do something useful, he should bring in a law making the production, sale or possession of child pornography punishable by death. But leave consenting adults alone.
This looks very much like yet more state interference in the lives of the public, and is typical of the Stalinist, totalitarian control freaks in the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party.

If consenting adults wish to indulge in some peculiar sex games, e.g. bondage and discipline, and take photgraphs of it, that should be their business, not the state's. But Maggie Broon just can't help himself. He wants to control the people totally. Like Bliar before him, he is a total control freak.

If Broon wanted to do something useful, he should bring in a law making the production, sale or possession of child pornography punishable by death. But leave consenting adults alone.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: heady on 9:49am today
"it's undesirable in itself because it reverses an important liberal trend of recent times" - where has the good professor been for the last 11 years - how many new crimes has New Labour created?
"it's undesirable in itself because it reverses an important liberal trend of recent times" - where has the good professor been for the last 11 years - how many new crimes has New Labour created?
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: lobeydosser, Woodlands Road on 10:21am today
CJ & Guga I go along with your views; it really is each to their own and the male stripper episode was a waste of police time & money; someone should get their a**e kicked for that. However, does this mean that there will be legislation brought in about body piercings because as Brians excellent article states [bold]"that could likely result in "serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals". Possession of such images will now be a criminal act."[/bold] Not that I'm going to run out and get things pierced - the bolt in my neck is enough. Child p**n & acts with animals should be severely punished. However for the rest of us mere mortals, where does this end? The 1984 issue is not that far away.
CJ & Guga I go along with your views; it really is each to their own and the male stripper episode was a waste of police time & money; someone should get their a**e kicked for that.

However, does this mean that there will be legislation brought in about body piercings because as Brians excellent article states

"that could likely result in "serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals". Possession of such images will now be a criminal act." Not that I'm going to run out and get things pierced - the bolt in my neck is enough.

Child p**n & acts with animals should be severely punished.

However for the rest of us mere mortals, where does this end? The 1984 issue is not that far away.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: megz, glasgow on 11:15am today
i really don't understand the whole hoohaa over GTA, i play it and my son has been playing it for years. It hasn't caused him or me to have violent tendencies. I really don't agree with the many being punished because of the few. It is the same with the alchol issue, if you raise the price of it out of kids reach and make it more costly for your average joe to buy then the kids will just turn to drugs as they will be a)cheaper to buy and b)easier to get your hands on. I think you could be right about 1984 not being far away.
i really don't understand the whole hoohaa over GTA, i play it and my son has been playing it for years. It hasn't caused him or me to have violent tendencies. I really don't agree with the many being punished because of the few. It is the same with the alchol issue, if you raise the price of it out of kids reach and make it more costly for your average joe to buy then the kids will just turn to drugs as they will be a)cheaper to buy and b)easier to get your hands on.

I think you could be right about 1984 not being far away.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Politically-incorrec t Man, Glasgow on 11:35am today
We are already living in the 1984 society. We already have a small group forcing their own personal morality on society, freedom of speech has already been removed from us and now freedom of thought is being taken away. I remember Hazel Blears MP on Questiontime saying about Ron Atkinson when he was intemperate in his language about a black football player saying something to the effect that "not only should he not be saying that, he should not be [bold]thinking[/bold] that" beware -- the Though Police are on their way.
We are already living in the 1984 society.

We already have a small group forcing their own personal morality on society, freedom of speech has already been removed from us and now freedom of thought is being taken away.

I remember Hazel Blears MP on Questiontime saying about Ron Atkinson when he was intemperate in his language about a black football player saying something to the effect that "not only should he not be saying that, he should not be thinking that"

beware -- the Though Police are on their way.
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Observer on 2:39pm today
I agree completely with the writer, as long as no harm is being caused to others what turns you on is entirely your own business, and the state should butt out and stop interfering in things that don't concern them. We have already imprisoned people for thought crime. What is next ? If we value our liberty we have to guard it.
I agree completely with the writer, as long as no harm is being caused to others what turns you on is entirely your own business, and the state should butt out and stop interfering in things that don't concern them.

We have already imprisoned people for thought crime. What is next ?

If we value our liberty we have to guard it.

[Captured: 04 May 2008 16:36:20]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply