Hardcore Pornography

Good ol' Senator Fielding is at is again, fighting the good fight to protect the morals of our country.

His latest idea is that Federal Police should have the power to raid milk bars and newsagents in the search for pornagraphic material. Interesting concept, but I would have thought that the A.F.P. have more important things to do, like hunting down the terrorists that threaten our safety by enforcing religious intolerance and keep women covered up head to toe....

hmmm......

Well, let's shelve that for another day. First, let's take a look at porn. The issue, I mean, not the substance. If we have time, we'll have some porn at the end, OK?

Porn, like any other publication, receives a rating from the Classifications board and we're generally talking about R (18+) or X rated material.

With certain restictions, R rated material can be published, purchased and owned by anyone over the age of 18 anywhere in Australia.

X rated material, though, is a little different. First thing you need to know, is that there is no federal law restricting this sale or ownership. Each Australian state, though, has laws regarding the sale of X rated material.

Which leads to a very interesting circumstance. Because the ACT (and Jervis Bay) is directly managed by the Federal government, it is legal to buy, sell and posses X rated material if you're over 18.

In each state, though, it is illegal to sell such material. But.... it's not illegal to own it. Nor is it illegal to buy it. Let me just say that again, so that you can get your heads around this:

There is material which is perfectly legal for you to own, perfectly legal for you to purchase. Provided nobody sells it to you, because that's bad.

What's with that? Can you think of any other material that's legal to buy or own, but illegal to sell?

Prior to the internet, one of the ACT's biggest exports to the rest of Australia was mail-order porn. They still do a brisk trade, of course, but not quite as much. Because it's legal for them to sell it in the ACT, and it's legal for people in other states to buy it.

Of course, officially, Sen. Fielding's issue is with "unclassified" or "refused classification" material, which is illegal to sell anywhere in Australia. But, in order to give the AFP jurisdiction to deal raid the milk bars and protect people from seeing naughty things, it would require laws to take power away from State governments and hand it over to the Federal Government.

Normally, this is something I'd be 100% behind. I'm all for consistent laws across the country. But, this is the Senator from the Family First party, and this is the government that thinks censoring the internet is a practical and workable thing. Personally, I'm not convinced handing them more control over what can and can't be seen is a good idea.

After all, these are people who deliberately wanted to work in Canberra. And we know what goes in THERE, don't we? :)

--------------

P.S. OK, since you were good, here's a picture of Paris Hilton. Without any clothes. Happy?

On Mathew Johns, and on prejudice

It seems you can't look at a single Aussie news or blog site these days without the Matthew Johns / "Clare" topic being mentioned. No doubt, it's a flash-in-the-pan thing, until another topic comes up to absorb the nation's interest and distract them from the more serious issues that they strenuously avoid thinking about.

I will admit to finding a morbid interest in watching not only the topic itself, but the discussions surrounding it. For myself, I had no idea who Mr Johns was until a week ago, having no interest in Rugby in the least. I make it a general policy not to judge other people based on their sexual interests, provided they're not doing anything illegal.

(Since I've never watched The Footy Show, I don't have any great opinion on whether he should or shouldn't have been fired either. But, I've heard that Sam Newman has called for his return, which to me is reason enough to be against the idea. I will admit to a pre-existing bias against d*ckheads.)

But that's not what this blog is about. Really, I only mention it in the hopes that it will increase my Google hit rate.

-------------------

My friend Kate de Brito blogged about the Johns topic, and the general issues surrounding it. Within 8 hours and 340 comments, she closed the topic; unable to keep up the moderation workload. The observation that she made was: "You know when you write a post you hope you will maybe get people to think about things, but I don't think I changed anyone's mind. I think people were set."

340 comments, and most people did seem quite polarised on the issues. They disagreed, often quite violently, with each other but no-one that I (or Bossy, apparently) could see changed their mind. They knew what they knew, and they knew that they were right.

Which is odd, because only a handful of people know what actually happened in that room 7 years ago. Everything else is hearsay and conjecture.

From what I can see, most of the comments people are making are based on some (deeply held) prejudices which could use some scrutiny:

1. Sexism is a culture in NRL and male sports, therefore that is a cause of what happened here: Certainly, it is undeniable that there have been a number of sexual assaults committed by male sports players over the years. And, as a general stereotype, young male football players are not the most emotionally intelligent bunch of people. That said, there are also a large number of sportsmen whom are married and maintain a loving, monogamous relationship. In this case, where there is evidence that all parties including Clare consented to the acts, that hardly lends credence to the idea that it can be blamed on NRL culture.
   
   Indeed, this point eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: The act is blamed on the people's perception of the culture, and then used as evidence to prove that the culture exists.
   
   
2. Because I would never want to participate in group sex, no woman would want to therefore she must have been coerced: Whilst not put so bluntly, this old chestnut is amazingly common. Everyone likes to think that they're broad-minded. Nobody thinks of themselves as prudish. We're all "average" right? (After all, that's what "average" means!)
   
   So, if your own sexual repertoire is the baseline for what's normal, then anything outside that is abnormal, so anyone who's in to that must be a perverted freak, or have been coerced into it. Because if it were normal behaviour, then I'd be interested in it, because I'm normal, right?
   
   This concept is used to justify stances against a lot of things, but predominantly matters sexual. I've written a couple more paragraphs on this, but perhaps I'll save it for a different blog topic. For now, I'll just say that it strikes me as rather arrogant for anyone to say no person would consent to a sexual activity simply because it's not something they personally would do.
   
3. Clare had been drinking, so because of alcohol could not have genuinely consented: I won't say much on this one. They'd ALL been drinking. So, if you're using that argument, then surely she raped them too, yes?
   
4. Clare was traumatised later, so that means she didn't consent: It has been suggested (once again, hearsay evidence only) that she bragged about the experience for a few days after the event, but then later reported it to the police.
   
   I'm not going to say one way or the other whether she was traumatised or not - I'm not a psychologist not have I read the case files myself. If she was, that if very unfortunate. But, irrelevant to the question of whether she consented or not at the time.
   
5. Because the police didn't charge anyone, then nothing illegal happened: This is a common misconception, based on the legal principle of "Presumption of Innocence".
   
   The reality is that prosecuting a criminal is an expensive thing, both for the government and for the defendant. And there are a multitude of rules about what evidence can and cannot be produced at court, and that guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
   
   Because of that, the police are not allowed to lay or pursue charges unless they think they have a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.
   
   In this situation, at the time Clare went to the police, she was the only one who was in the room that said she didn't consent - all the other people said she did, and there were not other independent witnesses.
   
   If something illegal did happen in that room, there is not enough independent evidence to prove a crime. So, whilst the presumption of innocence does, and should, prevail the reality of the justice system is that there are many examples where the police know or suspect a crime was committed, but do not lay charges.
   
   
6. Clare went back to the room willing, so she knew what was going to happen: It is a constant source of regret to me that humans have not yet developed telepathy. If men and women could read each other's minds and intents, much of life would be easier. I'd probably get slapped a lot more often, but it's a small price to pay for the greater good, I think.
   
   With 20/20 hindsight, if a guy has the prospect of sex on his mind, and a girl agrees to leave a public location and go to a more private setting where there's a bed, then that might suggest to him that the prospect is mutual - whether or not that's the impression the girl intended.
   
   However, giving an impression does not in and of itself indicate consent of any action other than going back to the room together. And to presume that an intoxicated 19 year old is capable of knowing what the men's intentions, or how her actions would affect her weeks or years later beggars belief, or at least a lack of knowledge about 19 year olds.
   
   And, before anyone says that this lack of foreknowledge affects whether consent was "knowing or not", recall that Johns and his team mates had a similar lack of foresight as to how it would affect them years later. So the argument cuts both ways in that regard.
   
   Additionally, of course, saying that she "knew" what she would be getting into presupposes that Clare subscribes to Prejudice 1 detailed above.
   
7. Women throw themselves at celebrities in order to cash in at a later date: Like all stereotypes, this has a grain of truth in it. It is not unknown for this to happen.
   
   At a basic biological level, the female of a species would seek a mate with strong genetic and physical characteristics to pass on to offspring. So, an athlete who is strong/fast/agile exhibits the same characteristics that a prehistoric hunter would. It is no great stretch of the imagination to expect some physical attraction. (Any females out there who wish to comment or correct me on this point, please do so.)
   
   But, it is still a stereotype, much like 1 and 2 above. It is not universally true, and to claim that it is or that Clare conforms to this and thusly condemn her without any evidence ultimately demeans women far more, because it denies the intellectual components of attraction, and makes out that people are slaves to biological urges without any ability for self control.

So, where does that leave us? I've blogged previously about the need for perspective. But as long as people cling to these, and other prejudices, they will never see past them and understand there might be another point of view.

One of my favourite poems, which will also no doubt appear in a later blog, is John Saxe's parable of The Blind Men and the Elephant. In part, it reads:

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Each of the comments on Kate's blog, including her own, contain an element of truth somewhere, if only because each person is presenting their own belief and their own personal reality. But each of them is in the wrong, for we will never truly know what happened in the bar, and in the room.

To claim we do, and to know the reasons behind it, does not bring truth. It detracts from it.