Not FITna for Broadcast

Right-wing dutch politician, Geert Wilders anti-Islam Film was scheduled to be show to the House of Lords on the 29th January, 2009 but has now been cancelled after a group of Muslims led by Lord Ahmed put a case to the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords.

This is, quite frankly, fucking dumb.

One wonders what Lord Ahmed has to worry about! I've seen Fitna and it's pretty unpleasant but the really nasty stuff seems to come directly from the mouths of Muslims themselves. We have to temper that and remember that not all Muslims are that crazy, but ignoring it is like ignoring that some (very small number of people) abuse children.

Christian Democrat and Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, supported Wilders and led those supporting his right of free speech and the fact that the film provokes honest debate about radical Islam.

Times newspaper, leader writer Oliver Kamm, writes:

"Insisting on the right to offend religious believers may seem an unfeeling and uncaring doctrine. (The non sequitur that many Muslims in western societies are poor is often brought into the discussion at this point.) But the case for liberty has never been that it protects sensibilities. It is rather that by allowing people’s beliefs to be scrutinised, criticised and — yes — insulted, bad ideas are more likely to be superseded by better ones. Allowing ideas to die in place of their adherents is a mark of a civilised society. It is not hyperbole to say that in the defence of the unlikely figure of Geert Wilders lies also the defence of western civilisation."

So I'll ask again - perhaps rhetorically - what is Lord Ahemd so frightened of?

Hat tip to mediawatchwatch.org which also has obtained footage that you can watch and decide for yourself.

Too Late Nanny State

In a move regarded by some as trying to close the stable door after the horse has run off and died of old age, Culture secretary Andy Burnham, MP has demonstrated shocking ignorance of the Internet. The father of three told the Telegraph that standards were needed to protect children from unacceptable imagery and videos.

"You can still view content on the internet which I would say is unacceptable. You can view a beheading," he said, presumably alluding to the Ken Bigley execution video although there have been others posted by Islamic terrorist groups.

No shit, Sherlock! When asked about film-style ratings for websites, Mr Burnham shockingly revealed a complete ignorance of the subject:

"That would be an option." He said, "this is an area that is really now coming into full focus."

Perhaps no one told him that we've being doing precisely that for many years. Safesurf, for example, has been managing voluntary website content since 1995 and most other providers (particularly the smut pedlars) already clearly mark all offensive content. Game sites that carry violent imagery (such as advertising for the PEGI-18 rated Gears of War) already check the user's age.

Trying to enforce such a system is unworkable: the Internet is simply too damn big and just because one remote website operating out of Mydadisstan, is promoting Islamic terrorism, we can't just block every single site coming from the region because apart from the technical difficulties, it goes against the principals of free speech and freedom of expression.

The best and most effective censor in the world is informed choice.

In "A Clockwork Orange", Alex (played by Malcom McDowell in the Stanley Kubrick film adapatation) is exposed to masses of imagery while his head is firmly clamped in place and his eyes pinned open.

Alex has no choice - but we do.

The BBC reports on a poll carried out by the children's charity, the NSPCC which found that 75% of children had been exposed to images that had disturbed them. It doesn't elaborate.

I'm frequently disturbed by the verbal abuse and endless conflict in the popular TV dramas Eastenders (BBC) and Coronation Street (ITV) yet they are broadcast before the 9pm watershed without so much as a "by your leave" even though they occasionally garnish a knuckle-wrapping from viewers when they cross a perceived line.

I have informed choice and I choose not to watch them but remain convinced that some of the problems I face within my own family are as a direct result of my nearest and dearest spending hours glued to them.

The question remains of whether children can make an informed decision of what they are exposed to on the Internet. Observation of my children is that they can and do - although that did not prevent me installing a modest parental control filter as a belt-and-braces approach.

Nevertheless the best parental control remains a decent parent.

No amount of software is going to stop your 12-year old son looking at gaping arse, mature lesbian strap-on hardcore if he tries hard enough. He's just not going to do it if you happen to be stood right behind him. Girls, on the other hand, are more interested in inane teenage chatter - so a simple keystroke monitor is a great bonus, but sotftware and common sense is no replacement for having the computer in a well occupied family area.

Parents who abdicate their responsibility are the ones we should blame - the rest of us can manage perfectly well without MPs getting hot under the collar and trying to make a name for themselves.

Now I have go change my socks because I just stood in cat sick. Take that Andy Burnham.