Last 40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
Melon Farmers (Dave) [30394. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 17:52]
I have not seen it but there are two film clips within the film. The short films from which those clips are taken are included in their entirety as part of the set, one of these is cut. More than an extra but not quite the main film.
Glenn Quagmire [30393. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 16:51]
I`m slightly confused about the censorship applied to "Found". I`ve seen the uncut version but there was no scene of an erect penis in it. However, I noticed that the board classified the DVD extras at the same time. I`m wondering if the four seconds that were cut is from this instead rather than the main film.
phantom [30392. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 15:47]
I recall quite vividly how this particular subject was a political hot potato for a while in Switzerland, where I grew up...
The Swiss do that very un-British thing of often comparing their national codes and political ideas to those of various other countries.
They can be very insular at times, but at other times very keen to know that the rest of the world is doing.
As we know Switzerland is the country of the plebiscite and strong sentiments exist there against the power of the state.
The overwhelming argument which was trotted out again was what of an impractical law, whereby the allegation of sex without consent in an area where sex is effectively common place would be nigh on impossible to prove and lead to no end of mischief.
Furthermore there was the view that the intrusion of law itself into this area was simply not welcome.
It was generally regarded at the time that the state was to be curtailed in its manifold attempts of getting across the private threshold.
Absolutely no one argued that marital rape was somehow acceptable due to conjugal rights, etc. Nor did any single voice evoke religion, tradition or the likes.
The impression one got of public feeling was that it would cause more trouble than it would solve and that the police, the state - and the effing lawyers - should be kept at arms length.
Harvey [30391. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 14:10]
At the risk of taking this discussion too far away from freedom of speech/censorship, I don`t see why marital rape should be seen as more difficult to prosecute than rape outside of marriage.
I can see the point about not making a law to counter something which is impossible to prosecute. But in the case of rape within marriage, the law based on cultural and religious ideas about the position of a wife in a marriage existed as recently as 1991 in England and Wales*. If you believe rape in marriage is wrong, even if it was difficult to prosecute (and I don`t actually accept that is/was the case) that is no excuse for retaining legislation to specifically excuse it.
*It was held in common law that marriage gave the husband conjugal rights over his wife. Though judge made, common law conjugal rights meant that consent was implied. It was judges who made the law based on marital rights, not the difficulty of prosecuting marital rape. It was the Law Lords which redefined the extent of marital rights.
phantom [30390. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 12:17]
"Actually there were long standing cukltural and religious ideas about the satus of a wife within a marriage and the lack of a law against rape reflected that probably more than a percieved difficulty in enforcing it."
I think the reasons behind not prosecuting rape in marriage did shift over time.
At first, I`d agree with you, they related more to the fact that the wife was effectively the husband`s possession. This was the position of ancient law, backed to a considerable degree by religion.
However, it hardly moved from this position to outlawing rape in marriage.
I believe the position arose quite early on in 20th century whereby the biblical/cultural position was abandoned for that of it being an un-provable offence.
One might argue that is a purely semantic difference, but it actually represents a considerable shift in moral position.
The former effectively condones marital rape. The latter condemns it, but simply forwards the notion that banning it would effectively be pointless.
I actually agree with that latter position.
I believe it was the position of most western democracies in the latter half of the twentieth century.
I do not believe in utopian law. Nor do I believe in law which `sends a message to society`.
To my mind law is supposed to support universally accepted, incontrovertible truths and is to follow the medical motto of `do no harm`.
Today it is however subject to much more superficial concepts and ideas.
These days Moses would not descent Mount Sinai with Ten Commandments, but 4347 offences, 5212 regulations and 7653 guidelines;
including rules on where to place lads mags on shelves of super markets, pre-watershed expletives and permissible song lyrics.
Harvey [30389. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 09:18]
the only thing I would disagree about, is your choice of rape within marriage as an example of a law too far, based on the difficulty of prosecution.
Actually there were long standing cukltural and religious ideas about the satus of a wife within a marriage and the lack of a law against rape reflected that probably more than a percieved difficulty in enforcing it.
Otherwise what you say is right.
I don`t actually expect the prosecutors to act completely honourably or even more honourably than a defendant. What I do expect is that when they are seen to be acting in breach their own rules, they are held to account. Laying charges and then offering no evidence should be dealt with as a contempt of court.
phantom [30388. Posted 16-Oct-2014 Thu 08:34]
Actually, there once was an age when one was considerably more careful about the creation of new law. To the point where one actually accepted that certain acts of which one disapproved were taking place, but that the prosecution of such in law would be troublesome, if not impossible.
The prime example I can think of there is rape in marriage.
It was simply deemed a virtually un-provable offence, thus it was not banned under law in a great many countries.
Whatever one may think of that approach toward that offence in law, it shows that there was a considerable reluctance to introduce law into areas which were nigh on impossible to prove and where the intrusion of law may cause damage itself.
Nowadays however politicians are seized of the idea to introduce law in order to promote a utopia. We must strive toward an ideal, no matter how abrasive toward individuals or how impossible in practice.
Aristotle`s famous maxim, `there can be no morality without practicality`, has been abandoned wholesale.
What matters now it solely what ought to be.
Meanwhile, the damage law causes is excused with pretty much the approach you forwarded in your post, Harvey.
If you wish for there not to be any damage caused by unsuccessful prosecutions you`d have to abandon prosecutions per se.
The fact that the prosecution service is not acting honourably is completely discounted. (presenting no evidence at trials)
Also the fact that bad law causes real harm is never accepted.
The mantra is simply that good citizens stay within the law, no matter what. Thus the innocent have nothing to fear.
The truth however is that we have long since passed the point at which only the guilty need fear law. In plenty of law the attribution of guilt by now is a mere matter opinion anyway.
Law in itself has in many cases become an agent of harm.
Trying to argue this harm to be harm suffered for a good cause or excusable harm does not stop it from being harm.
The ultimate irony is that some of this harmful law purports to be intended to prevent harm.
What underlies it all is a huge deficit in wisdom of those introducing ever more law.
The law designed to catch tomorrow`s positive tabloid headlines will need to be endured by future generations.
Bad laws are in fact as toxic to the nation`s future as the national deficit.
Yet the politicians responsible are as cavalier about them. They misguidedly believe that any mistakes cane be easily ameliorated or reversed at a later date.
The very fact that they themselves excuse their actions with the possibility of future amendment or reversal indicates that they do not wholeheartedly believe in the permanence of their law.
Law it no longer a truth set in stone. It is an attempt.
Lacking the wisdom and insight to recognise truth, one is simply fishing for it.