Cameron Filters on Freedom of Expression
“We have a ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and pedophilia. I want to emphasize this. Among children. These are completely different things — a ban on something, or a ban on such relationships or a ban on propaganda of such relationships”, said Vladimir Putin, to the gay visitors in Sochi, warning them to just ‘leave children alone’.
This comes rather as a surprise, from a leader of the communist world, usually taken as a no-God community of the world as opposed to the Christian more-God people of the West. But it does also raise a question as to how Putin could connect homosexuality to pedophilia, because as far as the norm is going, pedophilia is a listed crime in the US and European law, at least to date, whereas homosexuality is being deemed as a perfectly natural trait, worthy not of punishment but of encouraging approval and perhaps an awareness in the common people that ‘everybody is a little homo by nature’ after all; which seems to be the only plausible conclusion for the international campaigning of something as miserable as that.
The campaign run wildly by advocates such as the liberal atheist Richard Dawkins, an English national himself, has peculiar reasoning for their belief. He sums up his idea on homosexuality in his Gay Uncle Theory, which is like ‘The strong bushmen go out hunting and the wives, but also the uncles stay behind and watch over the children. If a gay uncle watches over the children, the children will see this and the genes will pass on through that child…’ Though it is still unclear how Dawkins proves that the child will gain a trait in its genes by looking at his uncle, but another thing is evident from Dawkins, which is his understanding that pedophilia is not a bad thing either, when he said that “mild pedophilia” or “touching up” shouldn’t be judged as harshly as rape or other crimes, …as it causes ‘no lasting harm’.
But another English national, David Cameron, seems to be paralyzed between the concept of right and wrong, when he shocked the most splendidly progressing evolution of western thought by jolting them with his 22 July 2013 speech about cracking down on online pornography.
He expressed his deep concerns for ‘innocence’, a term that has lost meaning in the wide world of free media today. He said, ‘…the actions we’re taking today come back to that basic idea: protecting the most vulnerable in our society, protecting innocence, protecting childhood itself’. He said:
‘Over a third of children have received a sexually explicit text or email. In a recent survey, a quarter of children said they had seen pornography which had upset them’. ‘There are certain types of pornography that can only be described as extreme; I am talking particularly about pornography that is violent and that depicts simulated rape. These images normalize sexual violence against women and they’re quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them’.
‘I want Britain to be the best place to raise a family; a place where your children are safe, where there’s a sense of right and wrong and proper boundaries between them, where children are allowed to be children’.
Better late than never, Mr. Cameron, but how ethical do you consider it to be, as yourself being upholders of the freedom of speech and expression for the whole wider world; speedily giving access to all sorts of material to the less educated, more vulnerable world; criticizing China and Russia for decades for having state censorship on objectionable material and free internet? Not to mention a totally free internet for a Muslim country like Pakistan, where you can watch ten minutes of porn easier and cheaper than having one glass of clean, bottled water. A freedom that is apt upon tearing to tatters all traces of civility inside the yet morally conserving societies.
Yet, it does still amaze us, why such a liberal society as the UK, living the ideal life, seeking bliss in all possibilities, inside out, would suddenly find itself uncomfortable with pure ‘liberty’ and the innocent ‘pursuit of happiness’, as to have ‘online pornography to be blocked by default’! Or does this have any connection to the more recent news from Britain…
The Crime Survey for England and Wales has reported an estimate of ‘72,000 males per year in UK, to become victims of sexual offences, whether reported or not’, out of which 9000 have been raped. Although this number is still much smaller than the 404,000 females who face sexual offenses in the UK every year, but it does gives us a sickening idea of how the manhood of the white men is quickly being desecrated, soon after decades of their freedom on their women.
According to this report, which has now comes out of the English people, who have largely chosen not to report the offense committed on them, roughly every 3 out of 100 people, including minors, have been victims of sexual assault, and many times repeatedly. But if you extend this to include offenses such as ‘sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16’. The police have also recorded crimes like ‘exposure or voyeurism’ (7,000) and ‘sexual activity with minors’ (5,800), and all this from a people who would cite that reporting might be ‘embarrassing’, and that they ‘didn’t think the police could do much to help’, that the incident was ‘too trivial or not worth reporting’, or that they saw it as a ‘private/family matter and not police business’.
It seems clear that sexual abuse has become an everyday matter in households, schools, colleges and offices in the UK, and the rest of Europe is not exempt from this gross situation; a situation that must certainly alarm the seemingly most advanced societies of the world, where human rights, freedom and control upon one’s own matters are given the most priority. An interesting report compiled by interviewing therapists from around the UK was published by the Guardian, and it revealed ‘sex, not enough sex, money, not enough money, internet pornography, body dysmorphia, racism, childhood obesity and fears about personal safety’ to be the emerging sicknesses of the UK.
This is followed by another news from Australia, which says that the ‘number of children and teenagers charged with child pornography offences has tripled over the past five years, and the police say that the vast majority are related to the “sexting” of images on phones and other digital devices’. Sexting may include ‘sending or receiving sexually explicit images’ via mobile phones.
So do ‘watching’ and ‘doing’ connect in any scientific way, or is this an absurd question? And does openly advocating homosexuality in a society not increase the occurrence rate of such a characteristic in that society? Because social behavior is not so much ingrained in the child’s mind as much as it will mimic it from its surroundings. So Dawkins’s Gay Uncle Theory may kind of flatten down once Cameron’s filters can be successfully put up, provided he can filter both porn and homosexuality out together, and help the male child be male and the female be proudly female, and let innocence not be labeled as conservative oppression in his country.
In fact, another theory can be put up in comparison with the Gay Uncle Theory, and maybe we can call it the Lesbian Aunt Theory. It goes like this, with the advent of the Feminist Movement in the entire western culture, women started realizing more freedom and power which was focused not on empowering women in their womanhood, but in letting women be more and more like men. This resulted in most women seeking jobs outside their homes and an eventual breakdown of the institution of marriage. With most women equal or even more powerful in status than their spouses, many male children saw their mothers unnaturally authoritative upon their husbands, which led them to be confused about their sexuality. Homosexuality, which was perceived as a moral wrong, slowly became their escape from the guilt of being part of a weak-male/strong-female set-up. This is only a theory, not scientifically proven yet, but it does seem more plausible than the absurd one Dawkins has presented.