… and Scunthorpe disappears from the interwebs.

Urg, not more moral panic bullshit framed around “won’t someone please think about the children”. Tenner down the next step to “protect children” will be to begin limiting information about lgbt’s, assuming websites discussing sexuality don’t get caught in a crossfire from this proposal anyway.
Oh look, and it’s a Christian group pushing it, colour me unshocked.

This is a religious lobbying group directly influencing political policy. This does not end well.

So let me get this right, allowing a Christian group to make porn marginally more difficult to get is unacceptable because Christians must not be allowed to win on any issues at all. But marching with mass murdering Islamists to stop the War in Iraq is fine. Is that really the position of the Left here? How about letting Islamists determine anti-Terrorism policy? Even what school girls can wear to class?

I am sorry to sound like a single-issue zealot on this, but the double standard here is utterly bizarre.

My observations about this article are less to do with the issue of how access to porn is dealt with in the modern world of a twenty year old easy access internet (not an easy one and I trust the writer is not so libertarian that he doesn’t care if children have access to what we can all agree is porn).

More it has a ‘raving’ rather than a considered quality which does seem over the top. Why refer to it as a ‘barking mad policy’ and not just say an ill thought out and poor policy?

Is it maybe because a Christian group is involved in supporting it and therefore this causes massive alarm bells? Are you suggesting it is abhorrent for a Christian lobby group to argue against porn. Would you prefer it if they lobbied for greater access to porn?

Or would you in fact prefer that Christian and other religious groups be banned from having any lobbying powers or indeed be prevented from having any influence in our society full stop? This I think is something that needs to be addressed as anti anything religious types (and by the way I am not a Christian) do come across as mighty intolerant and exude an almost religious zeal in their hatred for anything to do with religion communities failing to see (or not wanting to see) the massive benefits for society in good, decent communities coming together doing good in the world.

Just a thought.

@4 That’ll be why Christian groups in the USA regularly object to the national day of silence then. Preferring their kids to walk out of school rather than participate in a campaign against homophobic bullying.
Plus I’m not sure a Mary Whitehouse style lobby group can be accurately described as ‘decent communities coming together doing good in the world’.

Religious lobbying only has a place in protecting their right to worship their imaginary delusions in peace and in private. When it comes to affecting what any of the rest of us do, I think there is plenty of reason for us normals to get mighty upset.

I see that the opt-in policy is to apply only to new subscribers to any of the four major ISPs so existing subscribers will not be affected – which may discourage some current subscribers from switching ISPs. Flexible markets, anyone?

It’s foreseeable that there will be many challenging issues in deciding what exactly constitutes “porn”. Just who will decide the critical list(s) of banned porn? Will it be up to each ISP or will there be a central listing of proscribed websites – a new Index Librorum Prohibitorum for the new age? Try this in the Wikipedia entry:

“In the 16th century, in most European countries both the church and governments attempted to regulate and control printing, which allowed for rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information. While governments and church encouraged printing in many ways, which allowed the dissemination of Bibles and government information, works of dissent and criticism could also circulate rapidly. As a consequence, governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.”

Will DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover count as porn even though Penguin Books was acquitted in that famous trial for publishing obscenity in 1960? Just in case, I downloaded the text in PDF format. What of James Joyce’s Ulysses, which was also banned in its time? I’ve just downloaded that too in case.

How about this in The Indy? Women who travel for sex: Sun, sea and gigolos
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-who-travel-for-sex-sun-sea-and-gigolos-407202.html

Surely there are many who would want the Indy to be put beyond the pale.

I liked hearing the account by Edna O’Brien of how she chose to live in London instead of Ireland after the authorities there banned her best-selling novel: Country Girls (1960).

I just don’t see how this can work – if it’s based round any kind of filtering system rather than a list of porn websites, anyway. The filters are so crap everyone will have to opt in just to make using Google anything less than utterly infuriating. (My personal favourite experience: shopping around for wood flooring and realising the image filter on the family PC was mistaking the subtle hues of oak laminate for the glistening, naked skin of copulating caucasians.)

There are Christians and there are Christians. The core belief of the Abrahamic religions is simple, be nice to other people. Everything else is an argument over who owns the franchise rights. There are large amounts of people who call themselves Christians whose behaviour and beliefs stretch the term to the limits of elasticity.

Dear Cyclux and Joe,

You have both illustrated my point.

Cyclux – you refer to what I imagine are groups at the extreme end of the spectrum. I was not talking about them. I have no brief for fundamentalists.
As I am sure you must know there are many many groups and charities within religious communities who educate their children about the golden rule, taking social action, being a decent person and realising the connection we all have with everyone else. Would you prefer these kids to be hanging around street corners instead?

Joe. Well what can I say but do you not think your post was just a tiny bit nasty as well as a bit stupid? So you are effectively saying that anyone of a religious persuasion or belonging to a community should be excluded and shamed from society? So you are better than the lot of them? Gosh what an Enlightenment man you are! I think it is you with the delusion if you think everyone in religious communities necessarily believes in a ‘Bronze Age Sky God’. It is not for you to define their terms of belief.

@9: “The core belief of the Abrahamic religions is simple, be nice to other people.”

C’mon.The Old Testament is full of supposedly inspirational bloody battle narratives.

Who was it who slew a thousand men with the jaw bone of an ass (Judges 15:15)? Joshua and the Battle of Jericho? David and Goliath? Come to that, what of Solomon’s hundreds of wives and concubines or the tale of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11?

@10 Built yourself a bit of a straw man there I’m afraid. Raising your own kids in your own religion is one thing, or indeed doing good deeds because you’re inspired by your religion to do so, but making attending religious observances mandatory for everyone is quite another. Lobbying to have the government implement measures that force everyone to conform to your own religious morality unless they specifically take steps to opt out is closer to the latter situation than the former.
Why do you think the religious have a right to force others to conform to their faith?

“You can argue this is worth fighting for as an issue of free speech, or privacy, but really this is about giving ground to religious lobbyists who might start trying their luck with something bigger.”

So basically your “argument” is just an appeal to the slippery slope fallacy.

Also, would you be equally opposed to passing a policy favoured by, say, environmental lobbyists, or women’s rights lobbyists? Or is there some special reason why religious people should be excluded from certain parts of the democratic process?

Well I will be opting in, thats about 55% of my web viewing, maybe 60%.

As Dominique Aury said: “Women are as immoral as men.”
http://www.bookforum.com/archive/sum_06/bentley.html

Pauline Reage, the author of L’Histoire d’O, was the nom de plume of Dominique Aury. The English translation of L’Histoire d’O can be found on the internet and there are paperback copies in many good bookshops.

@XXX #13:

Also, would you be equally opposed to passing a policy favoured by, say, environmental lobbyists, or women’s rights lobbyists? Or is there some special reason why religious people should be excluded from certain parts of the democratic process?

I’m not Adam, but I would imagine a couppe of points could be made. Firstly, policy based upon sectarian religious precepts of morality is inherently restrictive of religious freedom – I am entitled not to be restricted in my activities by religious precepts that I do not share.

Again, policy favoured by environmental lobbyists or woemn’s groups is far more likely to be objectively justifiable than policy based upon the “It’s icky, keep it away from me” reaction that appears to be in play here.

‘Also, would you be equally opposed to passing a policy favoured by, say, environmental lobbyists, or women’s rights lobbyists? Or is there some special reason why religious people should be excluded from certain parts of the democratic process?’

An environmental policy would presumably be based on objective scientific evidence (if not, no I don’t think it should be passed). And is usually trying to stop something that affects everyone adversely. Equally, if women’s rights lobbyists were trying to affect what we see or read (as long as it doesn’t involve harming others) then I would be equally opposed. In a way I wouldn’t be, by contrast, if the policy was designed to protect women from direct harm or discrimination in some way. I don’t want any discrimination against religious believers – but that includes positive discrimination pandering to their exclusive beliefs.

I’m getting the strange sense that not many commenters contributing here have young children.

@18 I get the distinct impression that the members of the mothers union can’t be arsed supervising their kids when they surf the net.

@TimJ #18:

I’m getting the strange sense that not many commenters contributing here have young children.

Why?

“I’m getting the strange sense that not many commenters contributing here have young children.”

If the public concern is really to protect young children and we prefer evidence-based policy, the obvious course is to ban the Catholic Church – which has been paying out millions to victims of abuse.

My initial reaction was that this is a silly initiative devised for silly reasons (the editorial in today’s Guardian is particularly weak), but considering this is a choice free-thinking adults can make at the point of registration, is there really a problem? Slippery slope thinking excepted, there is no religious minority forcing its morals on everyone else and the inconvenience of having non-porn sites blocked alongside porn sites is something only those who choose to have this filter will suffer.

I bet teenagers living with their parents will be pretty worried, but surely even liberals draw the line at arguing for unlimited access to porn for the under-18s?

Is it maybe because a Christian group is involved in supporting it and therefore this causes massive alarm bells? Are you suggesting it is abhorrent for a Christian lobby group to argue against porn. Would you prefer it if they lobbied for greater access to porn?

Oh, won’t somebody think of the Christians?!?

This is a perfect example of the religious assumption of entitlement. Anybody who objects to their imposition of taboo-based morality on others is attacked as some kind of bigot.

Your morals are between you and Santa Claus: you don’t get to impose them on those who don’t share your superstitions.

Oh, and mobile phone companies have been operating this form of censorship for years now.

@22 the inconvenience of having non-porn sites blocked alongside porn sites is something only those who choose to have this filter will suffer

Except that the filter is an opt-out feature – you would automatically have them blocked unless you’ve ticked the box. An opt-in feature would mean ‘concerned parents’ would actually have to do something, and if they were capabale of that they would be doing it already. So you tick the box because think of the children and then find they can’t watch Postman Pat because – and I’m not making this up – it has a little pussy in it.

@24 My mobile phone won’t let me read reviews of pubs in case I’m too young to drink – but at 9 every night, an ad pops up for ‘erotic television’. I suspect a similar filter for PCs would be equally hit-and-miss.

I’m getting the strange sense that not many commenters contributing here have young children.

Possibly because watching internet porn means my seed doesn’t necessarily land in fertile ground.

I’ll get me coat.

“God’s love is shown through loving, respectful and flourishing relationships”

If Mothers Union thinks that, they either haven’t read the bible, or have very strange ideas as to what constitutes “loving, respectful and flourishing relationships”

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her — Deuteronomy 22:28-29

This book is full of similar stuff, for example if children are disobedient to their parents they should be publicly stoned to death. Personally I think this sick filth should be banned.

@9 Schmidt: The core belief of the Abrahamic religions is simple, be nice to other people.

Serious question: have you actually read the Old Testament? It’s a document that endorses genocide, rape, misogyny, homophobia, child abuse and a good deal of other nasty stuff. Its overall message is that bigotry against out-groups is virtuous. In fact it’s exactly what you’d expect to find if a primitive iron age community living 3000 years ago wrote down its prejudices.

@3: So let me get this right, allowing a Christian group to make porn marginally more difficult to get is unacceptable because Christians must not be allowed to win on any issues at all. But marching with mass murdering Islamists to stop the War in Iraq is fine.

Actually I think you’ll find that most people here are just as hard on Muslim religious extremists as Christian ones.

Is that really the position of the Left here?

It’s the position of some people who self-identify as on the left.

How about letting Islamists determine anti-Terrorism policy?

I doubt if any artlcle on LC has ever advocated that. You’re welcome to prove me wrong.

@22: surely even liberals draw the line at arguing for unlimited access to porn for the under-18s?

If under-18s are mature enough to have sex, get married, get a job, drive a car, and vote, which they are deemed to be where I live, then why shouldn’t they look at porn?

Two points – (1) at both Tory and Labour party conferences TalkTalk were lobbying reasonably actively on this issue, this does seem very much to be a TalkTalk initiative they have sold to Cameron (2) TalkTalk (an offshoot of Carphone Warehouse) are resonably close to Cameron, through their boss Charles Dunstone.

As to why they are doing it , I can’t really tell, so interested in any guesses. To ward of the possibility of statutory regulation, which the Govt. did raise ?

@ 23:

“their imposition of taboo-based morality on others”

Given that people will be able to opt out of this filter, nobody’s “imposing” anything on anybody.

I may well be dismissed as a paranoiac here, but an ‘opt in to be able to see pr0n’ system has another worrying aspect to it.

If you opt into it, then your preference will have to be logged and stored somewhere. Who has access to that information? How may it be retrieved and under what rules? Would the ‘security services’, police or bureaucracy be able to get it, possibly on the nod from a complaisant member of our fine, liberal and freedom-respecting judiciary?

My point is this: that information will – one way or another – become available to those who might wish to use it far beyond the stated basic intention. What a wonderful way to establish a – well, shall we call it a ‘register’? – of people who view pr0n! And what wonderous uses such a register might be put to!

The sad fact is, of course, that governments (and the corporations who own most of them in fee simple) are obsessed with what they do not control. This is particularly so nowadays, when the dissemination of information can completely bypass the ‘official’ channels and allow people – at least, those with the savvy to be able to filter out noise from signal – to find out that things may not be as the official media claim them to be.

So a means of control must be found. But to do so with that overt intent in what many still kid themselves are liberal democracies would meet massive resistance and justifiably so. So instead, you cloak the intent in a cloth of bogus concern, whether that be for ‘vulnerable groups’ or under the rubric of “Won’t somebody fink of der kiddies?”. And if you have the official media (today’s Guardian editorial was a betrayal of liberal principles, however you may define that term) and a ‘respectable’ group of God-botherers on your side, then you can win any argument in the minds of the mass of ‘hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, cliché-ridden folk’, because you will be able to use the wide reach and penetration (“Ooh, Miss, he said ‘penetration’!”) of said official media to portray – with varying degrees of subtlety depending on the target demographic – those who stand against your proposals as being allied with sex traffickers, child molesters and generally ‘not nice’ people. And, voila! Your job is done!

@34 Sounds about right. Notice how in this very thread the opt in is portrayed as “surely even liberals draw the line at arguing for unlimited access to porn for the under-18s?”, when the proposal will affect considerably more than just under-18′s. I believe this is what we like to call “framing”. Plus it’s not like parents who wish to restrict their child’s viewing habits don’t already have all the tools needed practically shoved into their hands in order to do so.

Given that the issue is being framed around “letting children be children”, would it really be far-fetched to believe that in the future those whom opt out will be considered, or at the least heavily suspected of, being part of those who apparently “sexualise children”? Handy that they’ll all be on a list with their address too.

From what I’ve read, it appears that the ISPs propose offering host-based filtering software to customers who “opt in”. Host-based filtering runs on a PC (it is almost always Windows software) and requires installation by the customer. The ISP cannot legally push the filtering software onto customer PCs and probably could not do it illegally (unless they act like internet hijackers). Even if an ISP can offer host-based filtering for Windows PCs, Macs, Linux, iPhones, iPads and Android, there are still popular devices that cannot be protected at the host level.

Child protection offerings for mobile phones, traditionally, seem to be about internet proxy filtering which imposes a large infrastructure cost on the ISP or phone service provider. This functionality does not appear to be part of the current proposal.

Far from being “barking mad”, the proposal has delivered some headlines about the seriousness of child protection (a benefit to Cameron) without changing anything or impacting adults who want to look at porn. It does, however, make the proposers look stupid in the eyes of anyone who has the vaguest clue about how the internet works.

I’m genuinely puzzled about why the impressionable young need to be protected from seeing or reading porn but not from participating in the large array of violent video games which consist mainly or entirely of thoroughly realistic scenarios about shooting people. YouTube has blocked off this video game because of the graphic violence but that won’t prevent young teens from getting it:

Video Game Consists Solely Of Shooting People In Face
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DPYQhvW-tjNM

@37 Because shrill moralisers have always been comfortable with images of violence and death, but begin clutching their pearls at the first sight of nekkid bodies. Why else would free-loving hippies be regarded with dripping scorn, and soldiers lauded to the point where asking them to NOT be sent into various theatres of death is met with squeals of outrage along the lines of “support our boys!”.

Hell, the chance for a soap-opera level sex-scene between a woman and blue-skinned alien (all of whom are female) caused quite a few bellends to lose their shit, while the gunning people down part of the game raised nary an eyebrow.

@18 – Oh yes, another call for Censorship For The Sake Of The Children (TM)

Or, you could monitor their internet usage yourself and install the appropriate software as YOU wish, as a parent. Rather than restricting what other people can look at, especially given the false positives these filters have.

The IWF’s blocklist is defensible, and they told the Government where to get off with this proposal. This? Not defensible on reasonable grounds, unless you think general, widespread and not very accurate censorship is fine and dandy.

@36 – The problem is it’ll be used as an opening wedge. ISP’s already inform parents where to get these tools.

Oh and I’m religious, HI HI some of the bigots in this thread!

Shatterface@23 I am afraid your intolerance does appear bigoted and your reference to Santa Claus somewhat ignorant. You probably think you are a liberal but like a lot of others on here your missives are illiberal wishing to ban great swathes of society from having a say.

Phil Hunt@28andpost: We can all find sections of the Bible/Old Testament that are absolutely horrific. The Book of Joshua is a particularly nasty read. But to take the Jewish religion as an example – Judaism as largely practised today was developed by the great Rabbis of the late BC/BCE early AD/CE period and has nothing to do with the nasty episodes in the Bible.

And Bob B wants to ban the Catholic Church !!

Wey hey this is such a liberal blog isn’t it?

Anyway it strikes me that a lot of folk on here do not have open mind, practice intolerance and

@40: “And Bob B wants to ban the Catholic Church !!”

Coming from the speak truth unto power tradition, I go for evidence-based policy.

If the intention is to protect the young from early “sexualisation”, which Cameron declared is his objective, there is a clear case for banning the Catholic Church.

Why else by many accounts in news reports has the Catholic Church being paying out millions in so many countries to compensate victims of sexual abuse by its priesthood?

Wikipedia has an illuminating recap on the extent of abuse cases in Europe – and there are similar Wikipedia entries for abuse in other continents since the extent of abuse was international in scale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Europe#Belgium

By this report from Fox News last year: “Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that ‘the Devil is at work inside the Vatican’, according to the Holy See’s chief exorcist.

“Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican’s chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as ‘cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon’.” [10 March 2010]

Fox News wouldn’t lie, would it, not on an issue like this?

41. Bob B

Coming from the speak truth unto power tradition, I go for evidence-based policy.

No you do not. Or you would support giving children in need to the Catholic Church rather than the secular authorities. Given they are vastly safer in the hands of the Church than they are in those of the State. Our prisons are full of products of State Care. Where children are routinely abused, raped, and even sold into prostitution. They are not full of products of Christian Brother schools. The Benches, on the other hand, are. The evidence points to the Catholic Church being one of the safest guardians of children in the world.

Which you would admit if you had the slightest regard for evidence.

Why else by many accounts in news reports has the Catholic Church being paying out millions in so many countries to compensate victims of sexual abuse by its priesthood?

Because they can’t fight these cases or they would look bad and they have a lot of resources. There was clearly more abuse in, say, Hare Krishna communities but there is no point suing them as they have no assets. The Catholics do.

Quote: “The Catholic Church in the U.S. borrowed more than $400 million from Allied Irish Banks to compensate American victims of clerical sex abuse.

“The huge compensation sum was paid from loans to the Church from the now state-owned Irish bank in 2007.”
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/US-Church-borrowed-at-least-400-million-from-Irish-bank-to-pay-American-abuse-victims-128145603.html

If the Catholic Church had seriously believed – or been advised – that it had no legal or moral obligation to compensate the victims of abuse by its priesthood in America, it would surely have been cheaper to contest the claims in the courts rather than pay out as much as $400 million in victim compensation.

Besides, we have the key insight of the Vatican’s chief exorcist that Satanic influence is at work in the Vatican.

@ 40. Paul D

Allowing the religious to impose restrictions on the non-religious is certainly not liberal. The religious certainly have just as much right to a say as everyone else. However, speaking from a religious perspective should not confer any special right that the content has any special significance. No liberal society should ban religion as that would be intolerant. Ignoring them is sufficient.

42. So Much For Subtlety

” They are not full of products of Christian Brother schools. The Benches, on the other hand, are. The evidence points to the Catholic Church being one of the safest guardians of children in the world. ”

Hmm. Amnesty International named the Catholic Church in Ireland as one of the tools of torture of children. Kind of inevitable when the religious get into bed with the agencies of the state.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0927/1224304801025.html

@44 – So, anyone with any kind of faith should therefore be banned from ever working for or with the state, I see.

That was real early last time, ’33

Try this news report from the BBC:

Harrowing details of some 300 cases of alleged sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy in Belgium have been released by a Church investigator. Peter Adriaenssens said cases of abuse, mostly involving minors, had been found in nearly every diocese, and 13 alleged victims had committed suicide. [10 September 2010]

And this later report:

Dozens of Belgians who say they were abused as children by Roman Catholic priests have announced the launch of a legal case against the Vatican.
They accuse the Vatican and the Belgian Church of negligence by turning a blind eye to sexual abuse.

On Monday, the Belgian Catholic Church said it was willing to pay compensation to victims of abuse by clergy. About 500 cases of alleged abuse by Catholic clergy in Belgium have been registered since last year. [1 June 2011]

@ 45. Leon Wolfson

Making shit up again, Leon? It is becoming quite an affliction that you suffer from.

@47 – No, not making anything up. Just pointing out that you’re once again reverting to your National Socialist roots.

@46 – Yes, and certainly the Catholic Church have a lot to answer for. Of course, as soon as some people start trying to claim that anyone associated with religion is inherently inferior…

43. Bob B

If the Catholic Church had seriously believed – or been advised – that it had no legal or moral obligation to compensate the victims of abuse by its priesthood in America, it would surely have been cheaper to contest the claims in the courts rather than pay out as much as $400 million in victim compensation.

Except it would be a PR disaster. The Church used to do so. It now faces a relentlessly hostile media world where they would be crucified, if you will forgive the expression, if they tried. So they settle. No one looks good attacking the credibility of people who claim abuse – even if their claims are not credible.

44. Richard W

Hmm. Amnesty International named the Catholic Church in Ireland as one of the tools of torture of children. Kind of inevitable when the religious get into bed with the agencies of the state.

Amnesty has become a political lobby group. They now cite a lack of abortion as a violation of human rights up there with torture. Their opinion on the Catholic Church is kind of beside the point isn’t it?

In the meantime I note that everything I said was true and no one is even bothering to try to refute it.

46. Bob B

Try this news report from the BBC:

Why? We know there are some allegations. Notice the BBC says these cases are alleged. You do not. But let’s go with this story. Belgium’s population is some 11 million people. These are allegations going back to the 60s. Ireland has a population of some 6 million people. Their Commission came up with about 400 people alleging sexual abuse going back to the 1950s.

By way of comparison, the Australian State of Victoria produced a report into the care of children by the State in 2009. They found some 270 such children had been sexually abused in the previous year alone – including at least one child in care who had been forced into prostitution. The population of Victoria is about 5.5 million. So I would guess some 3,000 such children are abused every year in Britain in the State system. Every year.

Which would explain why some 30 to 50% of all prostitutes are said to be former inmates of the State Care system.

As I said, the evidence points to the Catholic Church being an incredibly safe guardian of children.

Leon Wolfson

” No, not making anything up. ”

Good.

” you’re once again reverting to your National Socialist roots. ”

Hmm. That didn’t last long, Leon. Are you familiar with self-parody?

@50 – I’m completely familiar with their little document on debating strategies, which you’re using a play which strangely enough could you could be drawn EXACTLY from it. The typical put-down of the other as sub-Human to justify belittling their views.

And coincidence doesn’t exist, of course.

51. Leon Wolfson

Oh please tell me where I have belittled views as sub-human here? Saying that religious views should hold no special sway in society is not treating anyone as sub-human in the land of rational thought. If we start from a position that those who hold religious views are somehow ‘ special ‘, then those who are non-religious must be of secondary importance. That would be discriminatory towards the majority. Therefore, the proper thing to do is not to attach any more importance to religious views than non-religious views and everyone is then happy. The only people unhappy will be the minority who wish to impose their views on the majority and who cares what they think.

@52 – Yes, the militant atheists. Quite aware of that well of unhappiness.

@49: “As I said, the evidence points to the Catholic Church being an incredibly safe guardian of children.”

Not so in Ireland according to this report on the BBC website about a Commission of Inquiry there:

An inquiry into child abuse at Catholic institutions in Ireland has found church leaders knew that sexual abuse was “endemic” in boys’ institutions.

It also found physical and emotional abuse and neglect were features of institutions.

Schools were run “in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children and even on staff”.

The nine-year inquiry investigated a 60-year period.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8059826.stm

And evidently not so in Belgium either according to the BBC reports @46

In America, the Catholic Church reportedly borrowed $400 million from Allied Irish Banks to compensate abuse victims.

By news reports on well-reputed websites, the compounding evidence is absolutely damning. Children will be better protected if the Catholic Church is banned. At least vulnerable children won’t be subject to those Satanic influences pervading Vatican as reported by the Church’s chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth.

@54 – Expecting people to suppress normal Human mating urges always ends SO well, yes. Catholicism!

@38 Yeah but you could get male on female (both human) action if you wanted too. Who would go for female on female-alien action? Daft game, I much prefer games where you just shot people in the head, no matter how dire or poor they actually are.

Leon is a Jewish obsessed nut!

He sees Nazis everywhere. But then he thinks supernatural sky fairies are real and believes in real magic and miracles and invisible super beings…And wants that mental delusional incapacity to hold actual real world power.

Oh, he only sees evil white, western fascists though…He won’t here a word about Muslims, STILL using their Quran version of the ‘Old Testament’ hate and insanity.
And who would like to see you burn as a Jew (care to Google the Pro-Nazi/Jew hatred slogans and signs in recent Islamic gatherings) more than any other entity on the planet…But they are not the EDL so you forgive them.

But you think invisible magic people are real…so why look for sane thought.

54. Bob B

Not so in Ireland according to this report on the BBC website about a Commission of Inquiry there:

Actually no. They did not. That Commission found about 400 cases of sexual abuse. Given that the Catholics were looking after some 35,000 children at any one time if I remember correctly. That is a massively successful programme. I doubt that any British institution comes close to having so little abuse.

It also found physical and emotional abuse and neglect were features of institutions.

Sure. To make the point they wanted they had to re-define what they meant by abuse. Great.

Schools were run “in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children and even on staff”.

Which shows how little they know. The risk in these sort of institutions is not regimentation. It is lax administration that allows violence among the inmates.

The nine-year inquiry investigated a 60-year period.

And found 400 or so cases.

And evidently not so in Belgium either according to the BBC reports @46

Exactly the same in Belgium as in Ireland. A small number of cases over many decades is proof of how good the Catholics were.

Children will be better protected if the Catholic Church is banned.

And yet you totally ignore abuse in secular institutions. This is not blindness, this is delusion. Let’s suppose that every single person in Care in Britain is sexually abused. It seems reasonable to me. How does that compare well?

Bob B,

I’m genuinely puzzled about why the impressionable young need to be protected from seeing or reading porn but not from participating in the large array of violent video games which consist mainly or entirely of thoroughly realistic scenarios about shooting people.

Yes, it does seem quite odd. Despite the videogames industry abiding (in Europe) by PEGI ratings (age ratings and content descriptors), some parents seem to purchase 18-rated games for their children regardless (and some of these later complain about the content).

YouTube has blocked off this video game because of the graphic violence but that won’t prevent young teens from getting it:

Video Game Consists Solely Of Shooting People In Face
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DPYQhvW-tjNM

You do know that the Onion is a satirical media organisation?

You do know that the Onion is a satirical media organisation?

“This game, and I’m not making this up…”

It is foolish to point at the RC church as being unusual. The unpleasant reality is that where individuals are put in positions where their authority is unassailable, you will find that child abuse takes place. The RC church has in certain societies occupied a position of unassaible authority. Mr Subtlety’s point about state-run homes is quite consistent with this analysis. I have commented before that I am sure there is a very unpleasant story to be told about child abuse in Eastern Europe where the communist party in many ways occupied a position similar to the RC church in RC countries.

The particular issue with the RC church is the self-righteous judgementalism which has existed side by side with the crimes. This pisses everyone off. I am reminded of the words of scripture “Judge not, lest ye be judged” and the RC church has done a hell of a lot of judging! They also seem to have been in denial about the problem for longer than everyone else.

But of course, none of this has anything to do with the OP!

@59: “You do know that the Onion is a satirical media organisation?”

I’ve long been aware of that and used to follow Onion more often than I seem to do lately – possibly because of the beguiling alternative attractions of Liberal Conspiracy.

Sadly, there can be little doubt about the wide choice of video games on the market which comprise realistic scenarios of competitive shooting matches of anonymous people to notch up scores.

I don’t understand the rationale for regarding videos of killing people as all in good fun while videos of people having sex are regarded as deplorable and liable to corrupt the young – and, presumably, the elderly too as the strictures on internet use apply to them as well.

Try this encouraging report from Time Magazine a few years ago about a celebrated 70+ year-old porn star in Japan:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1818203,00.html

I can only assume that morale boosting news reports like that will be at risk of being filtered out.

I’m getting the strange sense that not many commenters contributing here have young children.

Either that or they don’t think it’s the state’s business to interfere in the affairs of private individuals.

Remember when there used to be actual Conservatives in the tory party Tim?

Me either.

For ancients, an observable consequence of the trial of Penguin Books in 1960 for publishing the allegedly “obscene” novel: Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928) by DH Lawrence, has been that the acquittal opened the metaphorical flood gates. Within a few years, John Cleland’s Fanny Hill (1748) was on sale – and that too can be downloaded from the internet.

A choice quote from the Lady Chatterley trial in 1960: the prosecuting lawyer asked whether you would want your wife or servant to read the book? (!) The interesting insight is that Lady Chatterley and Fanny Hill have become part of the literary canon, the latter because it is a surviving example of popular literature from the 18th century which can still be bought in many good bookshops. Btw in 1960, a Conservative government was in power and the government of the time did nothing to reverse the effect of the Lady Chatterley trial.

The two books provide an instructive insight into the difference between the English and French literary canons. The two books in the English canon are about enthusiastic straight sex. The approximate equivalents in the French literary canon are De Sade’s works from the 18th century and Pauline Reage: L’Histoire d’O (1954), both of which portray sado-masochistic sex. Does that reflect a distinctive difference in national characteristics?

Richard W @44 “Allowing the religious to impose…… liberal society should ban religion as……. that would be intolerant.

Look, I do not disagree with what you say here. However we are living in a society where the established Church – Cof E has become weak, irrelevant and so I don’t know why so many people at LC become so worked up that faith societies are dominating all the agendas. They are not. The fact this was a Christian dominated society until quite recently and that a lot of our shared values about society derive from a Judeo/Christian heritage cannot simply be airbrushed out of history.

I certainly stand by my view that an awful lot of posters here are quite illiberal in their outpourings; and sadly they probably would not recognise that as they are so certain about their world view. There can be a lot to learn from all over the place.

WhenISeeThePaleSunshineFade@57 – nice name – unpleasant rest of you.
Calling a poster a ‘Jewish obsessed nut’ is incredibly unpleasant and possibly on the soft everyday anti semitic spectrum. What is wrong with being really into Jewish life and culture (especially if you happen to be Jewish)?

Also the illiberal and condescening attack on a person’s views (e.g. stupid reference to sky fairies etc) is not worthy of proper and reasoned debate. You people are so one dimensional. Maybe you support a football team and invest a lot of time and emotion and energy into that. It can be easily argued that supporting a football team today is akin to being part of a religion and religious experience. Should you be belittled for investing so much of your life in getting worked up over something you have no control over whatsoever?

This is why we need to seriously worry about plans to “filter” books off the internet:

Why the time might be up for local libraries: After the announcement that residents have lost their legal challenge to Brent council’s library closures, Sameer Rahim argues that we can no longer rely on politicians to preserve serious culture.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8824619/Why-the-time-might-be-up-for-local-libraries.html

The new mantra: violent videos about killing people are just good fun but anything pornographic is likely to corrupt impressionable youth. OK? All together now.

SMFS: “So let me get this right, allowing a Christian group to make porn marginally more difficult to get is unacceptable because Christians must not be allowed to win on any issues at all. … Is that really the position of the Left here? How about letting Islamists determine anti-Terrorism policy? Even what school girls can wear to class?”

Is it really so difficult to understand that some people don’t have a problem with other people having a religion, or obeying religious rules, so long as they don’t enforce it on anyone else? That’s the key difference here.

This is (apparently) a case of people trying to enforce their religious rules on the UK as a whole. The only stories of Muslims trying to enforce their religious rules on the UK as a whole are paranoid exaggerations, for example the unsupportable claim that “Islamists are determining terrorism policy” and a mysterious fear that UK Muslims want to force non-Muslim schoolgirls to wear burqas.

I predict immediately you will come back pointing out that Muslims most definately do enforce their religion on others – in Pakistan. But this is not Pakistan. British Muslims cannot be held responsible for the beliefs and actions of Pakistani militant factions (or the Saudi royal family).

“Firstly, policy based upon sectarian religious precepts of morality is inherently restrictive of religious freedom – I am entitled not to be restricted in my activities by religious precepts that I do not share.”

I agree with this. But it’s not obvious to me that the Mothers Union is advocating that. Restricting the access of children to pr0n is hardly a controversial view held only by evangelical Christians is it? There’s a reason that certain magazines are on the top shelves of newsagents and retailers won’t sell 18 certificate films to curious adolescents. There are all sorts of reasons why this might be a bad proposal but stopping children accessing hardcore pornography is hardly sectarian.

Furthermore Christians campaign about all sorts of things. Now some of them are matters that are interesting only to Christians and in plenty of cases they can be wrong or batshit crazy. But proposals ought to be considered on their merits. The Pope called for Troy Davis not to be judicially murdered recently. He was judicially murdered nonetheless. Are we to regard this as some kind of triumph for secularism? I think not.

Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect that one should stand with a man when he stands right and to stand against him when he stands wrong and that to do anything else is to be less than a man oneself. I think that there may well be good reasons to oppose these proposals but sticking it to the Mothers Union is not one of them.

@ 67:

“This is (apparently) a case of people trying to enforce their religious rules on the UK as a whole.”

Well firstly, it’s going to be quite easy to opt-out of the filter (apparently they’re just planning on giving you instructions in how to opt out yourself, it’s not like you’ll need to speak to anybody and specifically tell them “I want to look at porn, please”), so it shouldn’t prove too much of a burden. Secondly, as Mordaunt points out above, it’s not like opposition to minors seeing explicit sex scenes is limited to a minority of religious people, hence the existence of things such as 18 certificates.

Isn’t it curious that some Christians have clear policies about restricting access to pornography but not about restricting access to violent videos about killing people which some impressionable adolescents might emulate?

Seriously, there is already fuckloads of apps, security features and parental locks to keep even the most pearl-clutching parent happy that their children ain’t seeing explicit material while surfing the web. Most of it provided for free too. So why the need to get ISP’s to lock down?

@70 BobB

I don’t generally buy the copycat theory, but I’ve often thought the same about the amount of violence in our “acceptable” entertainment. What’s so bad about sex, yet OK about violence? It does suggest some rather skewed morality.

@Cylux: ” . . .So why the need to get ISP’s to lock down?”

That’s a good and very relevant question.

I suspect the motivating idea is to establish the principle that access to the internet can be controlled by ISPs for an objective which the government believes will attract wide popular support.

In other words, it’s the thin end of the wedge because – let’s face it – the hot news and debates on the internet can be very embarrassing to governments at times when attempts to clamp down on public interest news by super injunctions and the like are widely evaded as the news circulates over umpteen forums on the internet regardless. I mean, look what happened over the news of Ryan Giggs’ affair.

However, by reports, there are mounting security concerns about the possibility of cyberwarfare plots conducted by foreign powers but see this:
http://www.fiercehomelandsecurity.com/story/cyber-war-not-says-uk-professor/2011-10-11

Considering Christians go around with symbols of torture and execution hung around their neck what’s a bit of violence compared to that. Kind of like like Texans hanging a syringe round their neck.

Saying sky fairies is silly…yet believing in sky fairies is to be respected!

Oh you fucking hypocrite morons, no wonder since 9/11 the farcical delusion (if not…give me any proof of your various religious fairies) of religion has become so powerful and that the 21st century has become the new century of superstitious power play, atrocity and attacks on evolved society.
Fucking bullshit respect for religions such as the likes of Islam (the most backwards of them all) that the fake liberal left have insisted upon have turned the 21st century into the 15th century!

It has often been observed, including on LC, that the left seems unable to seize the initiative despite possibly the worst financial crisis for 100 years. Noting the left seems bothered by trivial issues like this, perhaps it’s less of mystery why we’re not getting anywhere on the big issues.

@ 75:

“Saying sky fairies is silly…yet believing in sky fairies is to be respected!”

I was going to explain to you that “sky faries” is just a term used by people who want to straw-man religion and that nobody actually believes in such things, but after reading the rest of your post, I don’t think I’ll bother.

Blooming they don’t believe in sky fairies, true.
Just all powerful invisible magic men in the heavens…how so much more valid and sane!!
Oh and of course they can’t agree on which big invisible dude to believe in and if they do they can’t agree how to worship his big invisible floating ass…and kill each other because of it!
Yes…so much more rational than sky fairies.

Oh and of course before many of these various invisible guys people were just as certain that there was in fact many clips floating, tree dwelling, rock dwelling, sea dwelling invisible gus and gals…which were just as supposedly real (and to be respected) as the invisible guy (the right one this time it seems) the main religions believe in now!

Yeeeeeeees….much to be respected and much more sanity and common sense there than my oh so flippant sky fairies remark! LOL.

Idiot.

@76: “Noting the left seems bothered by trivial issues like this, perhaps it’s less of mystery why we’re not getting anywhere on the big issues.”

No issues for the Left – whatever that is – apart from this “trivial” issue about controlling access to what’s claimed to be pornographic literature at a time when local library services are being decimated? And no body need worry about access to violent video games about killing people as that is a matter for “individual responsibility” while protecting children in the family from reading or looking at porn isn’t?

C’mon. Try this from Reuters yesterday on issues for the Left to campaign about:

“LONDON, Oct 12 (Reuters) – Unemployment in Britain has jumped to its highest level since 1994, with young people hit hardest as private companies fail to make up for job losses in the public sector, piling pressure on the government to boost a stagnant economy.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/britain-jobless-idUSL3E7LC1RH20111012

@57 – No, I do not. You’re delusional.

I don’t and won’t accuse people of being Nazis. Period.

You’re no different from any preacher of hatred, you’re an enemy of civilisation and *completely* akin to the Muslim extremists and American bible bashers.

Anyway, back on topic, and ignoring the rude intolerant shits, Bob – Yes, absolutely. It’s purely and simply about censorship, and once again the IWF need a hat tip for telling the government where to stuff it.

It’s the right, though, who are trying to push through these policies while nobody’s paying attention, and they can’t be allowed to get away with it!

@ 80:

“It’s purely and simply about censorship,”

Not really, given that pornography will still be available. The proposals are no more censorship than ratings on films are.

@81: Er….censorship can mean restricted access as well as completely blocking access to something! And of course ratings on film are censorship.

The LEVEL of censorship in British society has traditionally been very low. Governments are trying to ramp it up. And they keep falling foul of European legislation, “sadly”.

This is just another attempt.

Moreover, it’s not about pornography. Wide-ranging filters have large amounts of false positives, and would make for example my games work impossible because of some entirely coincidentally similar terms used, without turning the filter off.

If you think that the “list of pervs” wouldn’t be used against people…

@81

Not really, given that pornography will still be available

From Mo McRoberts link in the OP:

The first issue is that of simple effectiveness. Anybody who uses a mobile phone to access the Internet will have run into a similar opt-in system employed by the mobile telecoms operators, a system most notable for having that winning combination of properties — trivial to evade if you’re adept (like most teenagers), woefully bad at actually blocking pornography, littered with false positives (I’ve even seen reports of the BBC News website being blocked as “adult content”), and an utter pain to get switched off. Rather than being any kind of effective “adult content filter”, the system has rapidly become just another hoop people jump through. The mobile Internet system is being touted as evidence that such a system can work and is being used as the model to follow.

The biggest danger is that people — particularly parents, noting that this is a scheme intended to “protect” children — will actually think it’s an effective porn-blocking system, when it’s actually nothing of the sort. Uninformed parent (and most will be, given this scheme will no doubt be turned into a selling point by the ISPs implementing it) leaves Little Johnny to play on the Internet to his heart’s content, safe and secure in the knowledge that the magical filters will protect him from anything inappropriate. The inner workings of the Internet are sufficiently indistinguishable from magic to most people that it will just work is a perfectly reasonable belief to hold.

So I suppose you’re right there, though probably not for the reason you intended.

To answer my own question @71 the answer is obvious. David Cameron and the Mother’s Union think everyone else are shit parents who can’t be trusted to ensure their own children are not looking at porn, and thus this responsibility must be taken out of their hands and passed onto internet service providers instead.

@81: “The proposals are no more censorship than ratings on films are.”

It’s much more than that. As Cylux pointed out @71, there are already a variety of filtering tools in web browsers for parents to limit sibling access to websites.

What the proposals do is to establish the technical principle that ISPs can filter websites when requested to do so. We don’t know how that will be extended in future, perhaps without the request of web users, to save government from embarrassments or to block the spread of unwelcome news.

What is so illuminating about this is that access to violent videos about killing people is being left to “individual responsibility” but not for access to what someone (who?) deems is “porn”. And if the concern is really to protect children from early sexualisation, then banning the Catholic Church ought to be high on the list of policy priorities in the light of the documented widespread abuse of the young in many countries by Catholic clergy to the extent where the Catholic church is paying out hundreds of millions to compensate the victims. We also have reports of the professional insight of the Vatican’s chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth, that Satanic influences pervade the Vatican.

@85 – More like they want to have in their hands filters which can control what content is *acceptable* to view. Censorship is such a wonderful tool for skewing views…ask China!

Leon @ 83:

“you think that the “list of pervs” wouldn’t be used against people…”

Actually, according to a spokesman for one of the ISP providers:

“Customers will be asked if they want parental controls, and told how to use them. They can then choose, at home, in private, what sort of sites they want to block (gambling for example) but they do not need to tell us anything nor will we ask about explicit sites.”

So how exactly will this lead to a “list of pervs”?

Cylux @ 85:

“David Cameron and the Mother’s Union think everyone else are shit parents who can’t be trusted to ensure their own children are not looking at porn, and thus this responsibility must be taken out of their hands and passed onto internet service providers instead.”

Except that parents will be given the choice of whether or not to use the parental controls and, if so, which sorts of sites to block. It’s not “taking responsibility away” from them, it’s making it easier to exercise the responsibility they have.

Bob @ 86:

“What is so illuminating about this is that access to violent videos about killing people is being left to “individual responsibility” but not for access to what someone (who?) deems is “porn”.”

FWIW I think a lot of people who oppose children watching porn would also oppose them playing on violent video games. But anyway, see above comment for the individual responsibility angle.

“And if the concern is really to protect children from early sexualisation, then banning the Catholic Church ought to be high on the list of policy priorities in the light of the documented widespread abuse of the young in many countries by Catholic clergy to the extent where the Catholic church is paying out hundreds of millions to compensate the victims.”

Do you have any evidence that such cases are significantly more likely to be carried out by Catholic clergy than by secular employees in similar positions of authority?

@88 – You’re not familiar with what the government have threatened, TalkTalks system or mobile blocking then? Well…yes, yes, it does.

ISP’s already link new subscribers to these tools, they can only thus mean intrusive and annoying measures – such as force-installing them.

67. jungle

Is it really so difficult to understand that some people don’t have a problem with other people having a religion, or obeying religious rules, so long as they don’t enforce it on anyone else? That’s the key difference here.

Yes it is. Because it is not true. It is hypocritical nonsense. What you are insisting is that people with religious beliefs are not entitled to disagree with you. What you call religious rules, I would call a political opinion. But only your side is allowed to have those. The religious are not.

This is (apparently) a case of people trying to enforce their religious rules on the UK as a whole.

This is a case of people who think porn is bad, for whatever reason although it has kept them in or made them join a religious organisation, working to make a difference in public policy. If they were lesbians they would be welcome to join Julie Whatshername on the pages of the Guardian. Because hating porn is fine if you are on the Left. Hating it if you’re religious is not. See the hypocrisy?

But sure, if you want to stop anyone enforcing their quasi-religious views on any one else, fine by me. You can stop imposing your religious beliefs in high tax, welfare spending and racial vilification laws on the rest of us for a start.

The only stories of Muslims trying to enforce their religious rules on the UK as a whole are paranoid exaggerations, for example the unsupportable claim that “Islamists are determining terrorism policy” and a mysterious fear that UK Muslims want to force non-Muslim schoolgirls to wear burqas.

Islamists are “partners” in anti-terrorism policy in Britain. They provide input, advice and so on. They simply are making policy. As can be seen by the Foreign Office’s strange belief we need to suck up to foreign Islamists. I have not heard of any Muslims wanting non-Muslims to wear burqas although I do not doubt some do. On the other hand I do know that they tried to add Religious Vilification to our existing corpus of stupid laws and were only defeated by the House of Lords. They are still trying at the UN.

I predict immediately you will come back pointing out that Muslims most definately do enforce their religion on others – in Pakistan. But this is not Pakistan.

Yet.

British Muslims cannot be held responsible for the beliefs and actions of Pakistani militant factions (or the Saudi royal family).

Sure. No one says they should. Strawman. Nor did I mention Muslims once. On the other hand a large number of British Islamists belong to similar or the same religious extremist groups as those Pakistani Islamists. The Stop the War Coalition, for instance, was an alliance between the Socialist Workers Party and the British branch of the Jama’at-i-Islamiya which was involved in genocide in Bangladesh. They certainly tried to make British policy. With the support of the Left. I know of noticed you ignored that.

@ BobB: “What the proposals do is to establish the technical principle that ISPs can filter websites when requested to do so.”

Nope – that’s already been established by the Control of Internet Access (Child Pornography) Bill.

@92 – “No one says they should.”

You mean except the EDL and rest of the far right. The rest of your post is just as accurate.

86. Bob B

And if the concern is really to protect children from early sexualisation, then banning the Catholic Church ought to be high on the list of policy priorities in the light of the documented widespread abuse of the young in many countries by Catholic clergy to the extent where the Catholic church is paying out hundreds of millions to compensate the victims.

Bob B continues to ignore reality. We had a story on the sexual abuse of a boy by a teacher in the Telegraph yesterday. Another story of the sexual abuse of a girl by another teacher in the Daily Mail today.

The fact is secular abuse of children is rife. But Social Workers and their enablers do not feel particular outrage about it and so it goes largely unremarked.

Still, if Bob B was serious about protecting children he would call for the ban of secular education.

@95: “Bob B continues to ignore reality”

Just check out the many news reports on the internet of abuse by Catholic clergy in America, Ireland, Belgium and other countries. The BBC website published a useful survey in September last year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10407559

That’s the reality.

I’m not in denial.

@SMFS #95:

We had a story on the sexual abuse of a boy by a teacher in the Telegraph yesterday. Another story of the sexual abuse of a girl by another teacher in the Daily Mail today.

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”; it’s “anecdotes”. Are you trying to collect the set of scientific fallacies (with your endorsement of the “vaccines cause autism”)?

This is the first of a five part documentary on abuse by Catholic clergy in Ireland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLcmQiFOL10

Try also the entry in Wikipedia for: Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, which is but one of many other entries in Wikipedia on the abuse scandal in Ireland.

Shatterface@23 I am afraid your intolerance does appear bigoted and your reference to Santa Claus somewhat ignorant.

You are confusing ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigotry’ with simple ‘impoliteness’ – not surprisingly when the religious deliver oppression with a smile on their face.

You probably think you are a liberal but like a lot of others on here your missives are illiberal wishing to ban great swathes of society from having a say.

I am being liberal.

Liberalism isn’t about being nice, its about defending rights against those who wish to impose their will on others.

I don’t see a conflict between defending the rights of people who indulge in symbolic acts of canibalism or who read their children fairystories about rape and murder on a Sunday afternoon and telling them to get in line to suck my balls if they try to restrict my own liberty.

Liberty is about rights, not feelings.

97. Robin Levett

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”; it’s “anecdotes”. Are you trying to collect the set of scientific fallacies (with your endorsement of the “vaccines cause autism”)?

How many anecdotes does it take to make data? Today we have the story of the schoolgirl kidnapped and held for ten years as a sex slave …. by a High School employee. Not a priest as it turns out. Go figure. Nor did I endorse the idea that vaccines cause autism. Fallacies are better than lies. Why do you feel the need to lie?

The bottom line remains, the Irish trawled through 60 years of memories and could only find 400 people willing to complain – not proven, just allegations. With a big fat promise of cash. Britain probably convicts that many teachers a year. Secular teachers.

98. Bob B

Try also the entry in Wikipedia for: Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, which is but one of many other entries in Wikipedia on the abuse scandal in Ireland.

And they only managed to find 400 people willing to even make an allegation. I bet there are individual schools in Britain that have had more complaints than that. Secular schools.

The double standard hypocrisy continues.

@100 – Right, becuase you don’t believe in autism. Er…

Also, you “probably” don’t have a clue about crime statistics. Oh wait, that’s a certainty.

@100: “The double standard hypocrisy continues.”

That’s true enough judging by this news report about decades of abuse at Ampleforth College in The Guardian a few years ago:

Silence and secrecy at school where child sex abuse went on for decades
Yesterday’s revelations cast a cloud over the late Cardinal Hume’s former role at a top Catholic college [November 2005]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/18/publicschools.topstories3

“For three decades between 1966 and 1995, a number of boys at the school endured sexual abuse at the hands of some of the monks who taught there, assaults that ranged from relatively minor incidents to, allegedly, rape. These were the decades during which Cardinal Hume was first the Abbot of Ampleforth, and then Archbishop of Westminster.”

News update from Friday’s press reports:

“Negotiations on delivering a package of care for English and Welsh victims of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests are on the verge of collapse after survivor organisations accused the church of using the discussions as a smokescreen for inaction.” [14 October 2011]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/14/abuse-victims-catholic-church-talks?newsfeed=true

102. Bob B

Silence and secrecy at school where child sex abuse went on for decades

What a perfect demonstration of the Guardian’s bigotry.

So what? We know there are isolated sex offenders in Catholic institutions. Just not that many. I note another story today as well – the morbidly obese PE teacher Rebecca Delagarza has been charged with the sexual abuse of a 14 year old girl. In Texas admittedly, but not at a religious school. At a secular one.

Of course this won’t stir anyone much to outrage because it is only bad when Catholics do it or something.

More news from The Guardian about abuse by Catholic clergy but from Belgium this time, not Ireland or Britain:

Belgian child abuse report exposes Catholic clergy
Paedophilia expert unveils harrowing testimony and documents cases in almost every diocese
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/belgium-child-abuse-catholic-church

105. Bob B

More news from The Guardian about abuse by Catholic clergy but from Belgium this time, not Ireland or Britain:

More news about child abuse by teachers in the UK today in the Daily Mail. They report 12,086 reports of sexual abuse in British schools in the twelve months to April 2010. Now Ireland has a tenth of Britain’s population so the comparable figure would be something like 1,200 for Ireland. But they found just 400. A third that level. And not over one year but going back to the 1960s, so over 50 years.

From which we can conclude a child in a secular British school is some 150 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than a child in an Irish religion one.

From which we can conclude Bob B’s point is specious. And presumably based on nothing more than bigotry.

Yes, some Catholic teachers broke the law. But the fact remains that the Catholic Church is the safest guardian of children available in the West.