Porn is just the beginning, frankly. The toe in the door as a precursor to ever greater state control, because no one is expected to side with the pornographers. And, once the lid is lifted and the satanic hoards of gremlins are finally loosed upon the world, it can never be closed again. When politicians, “experts”, police and educationalists agree that it is so, it is so, despite there being no actual evidence to support their assertions; we see the darkness rising – porn, be damned, that is just the excuse. Control of the Internet is what this is about and once they have it, they will never let go.
“Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried,” said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography and speaker at a recent conference at Reykjavik University. “It is looking a pornography from a new position – from the perspective of the harm it does to the women who appear in it and as a violation of their civil rights.”
Note the abuse of language – twisting it so that it is contorted with pain into something it was never meant to be. It’s not about porn, it never was. It’s about something much darker, more sinister, more evil – and no, I’m not talking about pornographers or the men and women who are paid to perform (although these people are only concerned about the women). They are Botticelli cherubs compared to the control freaks, the puritans and the so-called “experts” who would set themselves up to dictate the minutia of our lives; control what we eat, drink, smoke, say, do and watch. When western democracies look to a dictatorship such as China for their inspiration, we can see the true darkness in their hearts.
They call this progressive. Here, then, is the progressive laid bare and it is not a pretty sight to see.
“…Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography…”
Oh, yeah? There are at least a dozen 17 y.o. lads under a mile from here who’d score* higher.
Ah. Sorry – have just realised she means “I’m an expert ‘cos I’m paid to articulate my prejudices under cover of Academia”.
*OK, maybe not, in some interpretations.
An approach that no other democratic country has tried? But in trying that approach, does it not then cease to be democratic?
I remember watching a documentary on porn stars. The women all said they loved it, for various reasons. I can’t remember what is was called or when, but I’m sure there were many before the righteous took over.
The abuse of language that allows this to be termed ‘democratic’ is their most heinous crime…
As H. L. Mencken said, “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
An ‘expert ‘ on pornography sounds sort of self incriminating.
Sweden has gone along this road especially with ‘women can sell sex but men can’t buy it’.
Never before or since, has a city’s virtue been so thoroughly enforced. Geneva was cleansed of drunkenness, dancing, immoral songs, excess entertainment, extravagance, and immodest dress. The law specified the color of clothing and the number of dishes at a meal. Theater was first limited to religious plays; then these too were banned. Calvinists often focused on the old Testament of the Bible, therefore many of their children were named for Bible characters. One father was commanded to name his son Abraham, he preferred the boy be named Claude, for this sin he spent four days in jail.
The Geneva press was completely censored by Calvin, who had his own index of forbidden books. And it was a crime to speak disrespectfully of Calvin. Failure to comply was treated with a specified sequence of punishments. First came reprimand, then fines, imprisonment, or banishment. Fornicators might be exiled or drowned. Adulterers, blasphemers and idolaters were killed. One child was beheaded for striking his parents. As was the general custom, confessions were obtained by torture.
Geneva was reportedly free of prostitution, of lewdness and even of rouge. There were no lawsuits. There were also no church bells and no organs. Actually, control may not have been that complete. There are records of illegitimate children, of abandoned infants, and forced marriages. Calvin’s own stepdaughter and son-in-law were condemned for adultery.
Calvin’s virtues did not include a sense of humor.
AND
In Calvin’s Orwellian theocracy, established in 1542, acts of God—earthquakes, lightning, flooding—were acts of Satan. (Luther, of course, agreed.) Copernicus was branded a fraud, attendance at church and sermons was compulsory, and Calvin himself preached at great length three or four times a week. Refusal to take the Eucharist was a crime. The Consistory, which made no distinction between religion and morality, could summon anyone for questioning, investigate any charge of backsliding, and entered homes periodically to be sure no one was cheating Calvin’s God. Legislation specified the number of dishes to be served at each meal and the color of garments worn. What one was permitted to wear depended upon who one was, for never was a society more class–ridden. Believing that every child of God had been foreordained, Calvin was determined that each know his place; statutes specified the quality of dress and the activities allowed in each class.
‘But even the elite—the clergy, of course—were allowed few diversions. Calvinists worked hard because there wasn’t much else they were permitted to do. “Feasting” was proscribed; so were dancing, singing, pictures, statues, relics, church bells, organs, altar candles; “indecent or irreligious” songs, staging or attending theatrical plays; wearing rouge, jewelry, lace, or “immodest” dress; speaking disrespectfully of your betters; extravagant entertainment; swearing, gambling, playing cards, hunting, drunkenness; naming children after anyone but figures in the Old Testament; reading “immoral or irreligious” books; and sexual intercourse, except between partners of different genders who were married to one another.”
Then there is Calvin’s denouncing of reason and independent judgment:
“Human reason, therefore, neither approaches, not strives towards, nor takes proper aim at this truth: to understand who is the true God or what He wills to be towards us.” And: “From whence come so many labyrinths of errors in the world but because men are led by their own understanding only into vanity and untruth?” And in language that foreshadows Kant: “there is reason naturally implanted within us which cannot be condemned without injustice to God. But this reason has its limits. If reason exceeds these limits, reason vanishes.”
I didn’t see too much by way of protection or care towards Stacie Halas by the authorities recently. Thrown to the MSM wolves, so she was. I don’t remember any feminists raising objection, either.
I didn’t see too much by way of protection or care towards Stacie Halas by the authorities recently. Thrown to the MSM wolves, so she was. I don’t remember any feminists raising objection, either
Yes, but that was done in the United States of Free Markets so isn’t as bad as anything done by crypto-socialist Iceland
Unless Iceland plans to make encrypted VPNs and proxies illegal then it has no way of enforcing this ban on pornography. And if it does make them illegal to use then every business will quite Iceland within 24 hours. Frankly, after the debacle of its banking crisis a few years ago, I would have thought that the Icelandic government might have something more important to worry about than stopping consenting adults getting their rocks off by watching other consenting adults.