Because Nothing Cures Economic Failure Quite Like....Banning Porn?!?!? The European Parliament's Grand Folly

It is usually typical that governments who have failed to serve their people with adequate polices will turn to scapegoat campaigns designed to target some group of people or some speech that the majority of citizens might find objectionable. That particular group of mode of speech might be harmful in some contexts, but totally neutral in most...but, nevertheless, the few and limited harmful effects are greatly exaggerated by the new commisars to push for censorship of the entirity of that speech or expression. All of this, of course, done for the protection of the defenseless "victims" of such speech, who need such "protection" because apparently they are incapable of speaking for themselves and need the full force of the State to enforce their stated will.

Except, of course, that it turns out that the "stated will" doesn't represent the actual beliefs of the public, but rather the expressed drive of an interest group who is more motivated with imposing their vendettas and personal myopias on everyone else...and getting themselves paid and power in the process.

It is not too surprising that adult explicit sexual media (aka "pornography") has been a standard scapegoat for governments and special interest groups alike who want to exploit confusion, shame, and self-loathing about sex to invoke socially reactionary policies. Usually, it's been the traditional forces of the Right -- religious conservatives -- who have been the most vocal and strident in calling for wiping out sexual speech and expression that they see as a threat to God/Allah/Yawheh, Country, Tradition, Family, Property, Capitalism, and all other shibboleths of "family values". They haven't gone away by any means, but now it seems that there is a similar breed of antisex censorship and sexual fascism building...but this time it comes from the putative "Left": from certain elements of the more radical fringes of the feminist movement, which have now apparently infused their ideology onto the dominant Left parties in Europe.

Most people by now know about the proposals now being enacted in Iceland, where a left-of-center majority party is attempting to impose extreme limits, if not outright bans, on the availability of adult explicit sexual media in that country. Most of you have also heard of the collorary group of laws known as the "Nordic Model" or "Swedish Model", which attempts to regulate sex work out of existence by targeting the (mostly male) clients and managers (aka, the "johns" and the "pimps") for punishment. All this comes from the same school of radical feminism that was founded by the likes of Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Kathleen Barry, Shelia Jefferys, and Catherine MacKinnon during the 1980's; and is now being further enhaced by the activism of folk like Chyng Sun, Robert Jensen, and (especially) Gail Dines today.

And this week, they got a fundamental boost, through a proposal put forth to the European Parliament that would basically expand what is now being proposed in Iceland to the entire breadth of Europe.

It would do so under the guise of not only "protecting" women from what they see as the deliberate harms of porn, but also raising the notion that the very existence of porn (especially the "violent" and "degrading" kind) in and of itself is a "violation of the human rights" of women.

The proclamations are part of a much larger proposal which seeks to undermine and eliminate "gender stereotypes" in the workplace and generally increase the number and strength of women in European society. Most of the proposals are simple common sense goals that no progressive person would object to, such as comparable pay, paid sick leave, and increasing the number of women in more powerful economic and political entities. The problem is, though, that through their radicalfeminist ideology, the creators of this proposal decided to stick in some of the most corrosive attacks on free expression via these initatives:

17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism(10);

18. Calls on the EU to conduct research into the links between child pornography and adult pornography and the impacts on girls, women, boys and men, as well as the relationship between pornography and sexual violence;

19. Calls on the Member States to establish independent regulation bodies with the aim of controlling the media and advertising industry and a mandate to impose effective sanctions on companies and individuals promoting the sexualisation of girls;

20. Calls on the Commission to assist Member States in combating the sexualisation of girls not only by compiling the necessary data, promoting good practices and organising information campaigns, but also by providing financial support for measures taken in the Member States, in particular for women’s organisations fighting against sexualisation and violence against women and girls;

In other words, straight out of the Gail Dines/Melissa Farley hymnal. And...straight out of the Old Testament of St. Andrea and Mother Catherine.

You may also notice that this proposal was also propsed back in 1997, but strong opposition from civil liberties groups did manage to dampen support enough to kill it back then.

And, it appears, opposition is mounting to this latest proposal now as well. One such MEP, Christian Engstrom of PiratPartiet (the Pirate Party), today posted at his own blog his reasons for opposing this initiative. He emphasizes that while he supports the concern of gender stereotyping and favors strengthing the power of women, this latest proposal sets a dangerous precedent for civil liberties and for privacy protections, especially regarding the Internet:

Magazines and cable television would presumably be considered to be ”media” by most people, but what about the internet? Without any definition of ”media” in either of the two resolutions, the answer is not obvious from reading just those two articles, at least not to me.

But the resolution we will be voting on next week has other things to say about the internet. Article 14 reads (again with my highlighting):

14. Points out that a policy to eliminate stereotypes in the media will of necessity involve action in the digital field; considers that this requires the launching of initiatives coordinated at EU level with a view to developing a genuine culture of equality on the internet; calls on the Commission to draw up in partnership with the parties concerned a charter to which all internet operators will be invited to adhere;

This is quite clearly yet another attempt to get the internet service providers to start policing what citizens do on the internet, not by legislation, but by ”self-regulation”. This is something we have seen before in a number of different proposals, and which is one of the big threats against information freedom in our society.

The digital rights organisation EDRI has produced a booklet called The slide from ”self-regulation” to corporate censorship, where they point out that:

…now, increasing coercion of internet intermediaries to police and punish their own consumers is being implemented under the flag of “self-regulation” even though it is not regulation – it is policing – and it is not “self-” because it is their consumers and not themselves that are being policed.

In the battle against the ACTA treaty, the fact that ACTA contained similar ”self-regulation” proposals to get internet service providers to start policing their customers was one of the reasons why the European Parliament rejected the treaty in the end.

Many members of the parliament (including me) felt and feel that this kind of ”self-regulation” is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the article on information freedom in the European Convention on Human rights, which says that everyone has the right to receive and impart information without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers, and that any restrictions to this right have to be prescribed by law and be necessary in a democratic society.

Next week’s resolution is a so-called ”own initiative report” by the parliament. This means that it does not automatically become law even if it is adopted, but is just a way for the European parliament to express its opinion.

But the purpose of these own initiative reports is to serve as the basis for the Commission when it decides to present legislative proposals to the parliament. If this own initiative report is adopted by the parliament, it will strengthen the Commission’s position if and when it wants to propose various ”self-regulation” schemes in the future.

Although I completely agree that eliminating outdated gender stereotypes in the EU is a worthwhile goal, I will be voting against this resolution next week.

 Of course, the proposed censorship regulations now under consideration in Iceland, which the proponents of this initiative would love to impose on all of Europe, hardly reflect the desire of "self regulation"; they exist to use the power of the state to force ISP's to filter out sexual content that would violate extreme radfem principles of 'proper" portrayals of sex involving women. And, those standards could be used just as easily against any kind of sexual speech or expression that some radfem deems to be "degrading" or "promoting violence" or otherwise "enhancing gender stereotypes".

 And when I say "any kind", I mean ANY KIND....even the type of "feminist porn" produced by the likes of Candida Royalle, Ms. Naughty, Tristian Taormino, or Cindy Gallop which actually challenges the traditional genres of male-oriented porn; or even gay male porn (which, in case you don't know, contain NO women to abuse or degrade).

One of the most interesting ironies is that the week that this initiative came to light, there was also news that the principal trade organization for supporting the British adult sexual media industry, AITA (Adult Industry Trade Association), announced that they were shutting their doors for good come March 31 due to lack of financial support. It is possible that a group like the Free Speech Coalition here in the US could ultimately fill in the gap and provide needed support for European porn performers and producers...but until that happens, the situation will remain in total flux.

The best reaction to this madness I could find at this time comes from sex worker activist Amanda Hess, who also blogs for the sex worker collective Bound, Not Gagged, who wrote this editorial for Slate today. Her comments bear special witness, especially given the tedencies of radfems to silence and make invisible the voices of women who actually do porn for a living and don't feel like they need such "protection" from their own desires and actions.

The belief that pornography, as a genre, discriminates specifically against women is one still favored by leading anti-pornography activists like Gail Dines, Shelley Lubben, and Catharine MacKinnon. In an interview for the MAKERS series, MacKinnon reiterated her view that “exposure to [porn] makes life more dangerous to women” and “promotes a range of atrocities and violence” against them. When we find gender disparities in other sectors—from literary journalism to tech—we urge industry leaders to assess the problem and encourage women to lean in. But when it comes to porn, the impulse is to just shut the whole thing down.

That’s unfortunate, because it reinforces the expectation that women can only ever be innocent bystanders to sexual material, never producers or consumers in their own right (banning all porn would mean negating the contributions of proudly feminist pornographers like Tristan Taormino, Nina Hartley, and Cindy Gallop). It glides over the experiences of female porn viewers (who have leveraged the Internet to find and distribute porn that appeals to them, even when it’s not marketed that way). It totally ignores the men who are "sexualized" in porn (if pornography discriminates against women, can we all keep watching gay porn?). And it curtails discussion about the challenges faced by some men in the industry (like Derrick Burts, who contracted HIV in 2010, and Erik Rhodes, who died from a heart attack at 30 after heavy steroid use).

Enforcing a government ban on pornography won’t actually rid the world of smut (and the proposal, which has been raised before, is unlikely to lead to a legitimately enforceable ban). But the effort does make it a lot harder to talk about porn honestly, and to advocate for better representation of women in the industry. In a misguided effort to advocate for women, these activists are negating the sexuality of women, gay men, and all the straight guys who’d like to see more diversity in the porn they’re watching, too.

And you thought that the condom mandate was the worst that could happen.

"Our Porn, Our Selves": The Beginning Of The Pro-Porn Pushback To "Stop Porn Culture"...Or Is It??

Much has been written here about the group Stop Porn Culture, and its efforts to use radical feminism as a base for its long-standing critique of porn as the ultimate danger to women.

Much has also been written here that there has been not much resistance from many progressives and sex-positive people to SPC's rhetoric.

It seems that those times are a'changing real quick.

After SPC announced that they were having their second Feminist Anti-Pornography Conference in middle July at Wheelock College (home of Gail Dines, chief propagandist for the antiporn feminist "Left"), some feminists and pro-porn women decided that enough was too much, and that there needed to be a swift response in defense of women's right to sexual media.

And one of them, sex blogger Violet Blue of Tiny Nibbles/Open Source Sex fame, decided to put talk to action. First, she decided to form a Facebook page dedicated to debunking the depth of antiporn rhetoric that SPC was shilling; and now she has created a blog to the same goals and objectives.

Both are titled "Our Porn, Our Selves", and dedicated to the legendary feminist anthem "Our Bodies, Our Selves", which served as the manifesto for women's reproductive and sexual autonomy during the 70's.

The "Our Porn, Ourselves" manifesto makes their case pretty explicit:

WE who declare that organizations such as Feminists Against Pornography do not speak for us.

WE who want the world to know that organizations such as Feminists Against Pornography do not represent feminists as a group.

WE who believe that every woman has the right and power to enjoy her sexuality as she decides.

WE who believe that to tell a woman how she may or may not enjoy her sexuality in any way is to deny that woman of her rights over her sexuality.

WE who state that any woman who attempts to control the way another woman enjoys, explores or expresses her sexuality is in fact creating a world that is harmful for all women.

WE who state that we are women, and we like pornography.

WE who state that as women, we are not harmed or threatened by the creation or viewing of pornography, and we wholly support the rights of any gender to view, create and enjoy pornography without judgment.

WE who want a world in which pornography is simply a sex toy enjoyed by all genders and sexual orientations, where women and men view porn within their own self-defined healthy sexuality, without being considered sick, twisted, wrong or mentally ill, and that men who enjoy pornography are no more likely to beat their wives, rape women or become peadophiles than anyone else in society.

WE hereby declare ourselves as adult women capable of making our own choices about our bodies and enjoyment of explicit visual stimulation for our sexual health and well-being.

WE hereby demand that our voices be heard.

The Facebook page has already in two days of existence gained over 500 followers, mostly women who are either unabashed consumers and producers of "feminist-" and "women-centered" porn or supporters of "alt[dot]porn" as well as their male allies and counterparts.

It would seem to be the breakthrough that everyone who is a sexual progressive would be cheering wildly.

So..why should there be any questions??  Why doesn't this blog, dedicated as it is to pro-porn activism (hey, it's in our freakin' TITLE!!!) not fall in head first toward Violet the Sex Blogger's crusade of resistance to the likes of Gail Dines??

Why??  Well, we can support them and cheer them on....but only from a slight distance. Here are our reasons why.

1) Violet Blue has, shall we say, a checkered history with what we call "the porn industry"...she supports wildly performers (Madison Young, Sasha Grey, Dana deArmond) who promote her own personal "sex positive" philosophy...but her attitudes towards more mainstream porn and towards those not quite behoven to her "San Francisco" values tend to range from lukewarm to outright hostile....as her continuing battles with AVN have shown.

2) Most of the supporters and biggest boosters of Our Porn, Ourselves happen to be either promoters of the kind of rebel porn (of the "porn for women" or "feminist porn" or "alt[dot]porn" variety) that was created as a counter to the supposed misogyny of "mainstream porn". That is certainly their right, and creating an alternative is certainly far better than censoring the porn they dislike....but still, it does pose a question of whether they would be willing to actively defend porn that didn't meet their exact standards.

In other words, would Violet and Ms. Naughty (another proud sponsor of this experiment) be as willing to defend as loudly the rights of more mainstream performers like Vicky Vette or Lisa Ann or Bree Olsen to make exactly the kind of porn that might squick them out???  And let us not get into Bang Bus or Anabolic or even -- gasp -- the kind of porn that folks like Ernest Greene and Renegade Evolution would call their personal pleasure??

3) And then there is the bitter taste that many performers still have against Violet the Sex Blogger for her infamous actions against the former Violet Blue the Porn Starlet (now No Name Jane) , her public breakup with Nina Hartley over philosophical differences, the feeling among some that Violet the Sex Blogger is just a bit egotisical and aims to hog the spotlight for herself. Well, that, and the popular feeling among mainstream porn performers and fans that "sex-positive" porn advocates are still just a bit too elitist and not accepting of the majority desires of most men towards the more intense and explicit content.

Also....Violet the Sex Blogger has been known to be an advocate of pilfering porn via Torrents and file-sharing, which is a major no-no for both industry producers and webmistresses/webmasters trying to make a buck and survive.

Nevertheless, in spite of all that against the messenger, the main core of the message she gives is right on point, and despite our own slight misgivings, I wholeheartedly support any effort to debunk and counter the sexual fascism of Dines and Company. Therefore, for the moment at least, count this blog in as a strong ally of their efforts....with some gritting of teeth, maybe, but an ally nevertheless.

(Of course, I speak mostly for myself here...Ernest and Ren and others may differ a bit...they can speak out here if they wish.)

Forget The Swedish Model...Iceland Goes APRF Crazy, Bans Strip Clubs

[Important update below -- scroll to bottom]

And to think that liberals and Leftists love to mock the Teabaggers for their outright looniness..we may not be able to laugh so long if this group of radfems get as much a hold of the Obama Presidency as they have apparently overtaken the ruling government of Iceland.

The story from the UK Guardian:

Iceland: the world's most feminist country

Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.

While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs – the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade – Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."

The news is a real boost to feminists around the world, showing us that when an entire country unites behind an idea anything can happen. And it is bound to give a shot in the arm to the feminist campaign in the UK against an industry that is both a cause and a consequence of gaping inequality between men and women.


[excerpted from full article here]

It should be noted that the author of the Guardian article that practically gushes with praise for this most wonderful "feminist" action is Julie Bindel, a long time antiporn/antiprostitution activist and a favorite within APRF circles.

Of course, my guess is that Ms. Bindel probably would get a slightly different opinion of her favored government from the women who are now unemployed or threatened with not only the loss of income, but perhaps even jail time, thanks to the enlightened leadership of such "feminism".

Or, the women who now will face the prospect of even greater risk of sexual assault or harrassment in the streets due to the closing down of safe and formerly legal venues of adult entertainment.

Or....even those who will now hang their heads in shame that the term "feminism" has been now officially hijacked and smeared through the actions of women whose only incentive is to indict, convict, and even execute men for the evil thought crime of thinking about women as free and equal sexual beings....or simply having erections. (Would Ms. Bindel be so exercised about the supposedly boorish behavior of gay men towards each other??  Or, do they need to have gay bars and other potential places of hooking up closed down, too, just to satisfy her (and the Icelander government's) newly created fear of male erect penii???)

Also...I'd wonder how many of the votes for this strip club ban came from right-wing fundamentalist conservatives who share Ms. Bindel's concerns, yet from a more "religious" perspective of "immorality":rather than the cover of "protecting women" from the evil male gaze?? Of course, no feminist worth her title would EVER ally themselves with such right-wing people to pass legislation....no, ma'am, only those evil pro-porn rapist MEN would portray them as conservatives out to use the State to regulate sexual choices!!!

Unfortunately, in the bizarro world of "left" antipornradicalfeminism, which seems to be taking over whatever's left of "the Left" in Europe, everything old is new again. Rumors of MacDworkinism's death appear to be badly mistaken and unfounded.

And if we're not too careful and don't start fighting hard, we'll have to face this shit here within our own borders. Remember, Cass Sustein could very well be our next Supreme Court Justice....Glenn Beck's ravings notwithstanding.

Update by Anthony (4-1-10):  As noted in my latest comment, I have gone ahead and closed comments for this entry, for the purpose of not extending the drama any further.  I have gone ahead and crossposted this entry over to my SmackDog Chronicles blog. All who had participated in the debate here are more than welcome to move over there and continue the discussion; I will be in a better position to respond to critics there.

Here's the link:

Forget The Swedish Model...Iceland Goes APRF Crazy And Bans Strip Clubs (The Remixed Version) -- The SmackDog Chronicles

Feel free to go there and fire away.