The Filter^

To Nancy Cunard, with love.

The murder of Brighton schoolteacher, Jane Longhurst in March 2003 was without doubt a particularly shocking and brutal event, and unquestionably sad for her family who have campaigned on her behalf ever since. Graham Coutts, a man who regularly used violently pornographic websites, strangled Jane to death with a pair of tights and it is without doubt that her death was a result of Coutts fulfilling his own dark sexual desire.

I do not think it serves to go much more into the details of this particular case, for the very reason that it is particular, but it is necessary to mention that the victim’s mother subsequently launched a campaign to ban violent internet porn.

On Tuesday this week it was announced that the Home Office was looking into whether new laws were needed to make it an offence to possess violent and abusive pornography. What this law would effectively mean would be that it would become illegal for people in the UK to view such material on the Internet. It is already an offence under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act to produce images of an abusive sexual nature, and this law is I feel without reproach in its service to protect the victims of such crimes.

The OPA does not however, make distinction between images of say, consensual violent sex and non-consensual. It is of course not illegal to engage in such activities if both (or all) parties are in agreement with what is taking place. However to depict such an act, is. The OPA defines obscene articles, thusly:

an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect […] tend[s] to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

Now, this is an interesting point. The article must be deemed to be capable of corrupting the individual who views it. I am still unclear quite how ‘corruption’ is defined in such cases, or how it would be proven that such an article was capable of bringing said change in it’s viewer. It’s a wording, which obviously supports Liz Longhurst’s campaign; viewing violent sexual images on the Internet leads to the viewer’s corruption, and thereby action upon these impulses. But where is this assumption made? I am not convinced that there is scientific proof to show that exposure to obscene materials leads to ‘corruption’.

Which brings me to James Hanley’s novel Boy.

I was reminded of this book, which I read a good few years ago, by a letter responding to a recent issue of The Reader. ‘Why had we not,’ the correspondent asked, ‘mentioned Hanley in our edition on the sea?’ The simple answer was that none of us had thought of him, because I suppose, few people do think about Hanley these days. When he died in 1985, The Times declared him the ‘Neglected Genius of the Novel’, which is maybe a little strong, but shouldn’t be laughed at. Unfortunately when Hanley is remembered, if he is at all, it is for his publisher’s prosecution for obscenity in 1934.

Boy was first published in 1931. It relates the story of Arthur Fearson who leaves school at the age of thirteen to work in Liverpool’s docks. He is initiated into this life by other boys urinating on him, and so continues a life of abuse: from his father beating him at home, to the unwelcome sexual advances at sea from fellow sailors. The novel ends with the Captain smothering Fearson to death to free him from the syphilis he has contracted during the course of the story.

The book was met favourably by reviewers, but only received real attention three years later when a paperback edition was produced featuring a racy, near naked woman on the cover. The prosecution claimed that Boy’s purpose was to ‘pollute young people’s minds’ and that ‘the matter came to the notice of the police when they heard that the book was being discussed in clubs in the town.’ Shocking.

Is the book obscene? Well, it describes acts that would, if presented in photographic form in this country, be considered illegal. The OPA does not make any distinction between written and photographic articles, it is the subject itself that is banned. Violent sex cannot be represented if it is liable to corrupt. However, the 1959 act does suggest a special dispensation for works judged to have literary merit. By a curious twist of logic, a book (so long as it’s a good one) can represent violent sexual matter and not be deemed corrupting, and thereby you are able to buy James Hanley’s Boy in all good bookshops today, although I cannot guarantee that you will not be corrupted by it.

We are left with a bundle of vague, subjective terms to contend with; and dealing with these terms is of course the point of the law. But so many of these terms are also based on rather illogical assumptions; that good writing is a filter for degradation, that the exposure to ideas can automatically corrupt, that the fictional image or text is of the same effect as the documentary.

Boy was dedicated to Nancy Cunard, daughter of the shipping magnate, and one can only suppose that she read it. Was she corrupted? One imagines not, but I suspect that's not because of its 'literary merit'.

Katrina: Black & White

A beautiful observation from ex-Student Blue, about Yahoo! News Photos:

"Two residents wade through
chest-deep water after finding
bread and soda from a local
grocery store after Hurricane
Katrina came through the area
in New Orleans, Louisiana.
(AFP/Getty Images/Chris Graythen)"
link

 

 

"A young man walks through chest
deep flood water after looting
a grocery store in New Orleans
on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005.
(AP Photo/Dave Martin)" link

My emphasis.

Feedback

As you might have gathered, The Filter^ is expanding. Over the next few days we'll be playing around with the design/layout, so please feel free to email Anthony with any feedback.
More soon.

A flicker of life from The Filter^ REVIEW

As the circadian rhythms of the academic year begin to stir in my bosom, I have summoned The Filter^ REVIEW from its summer slumber with some thoughts on Virgin Trains.  Take a look here and refamiliarise yourself with our fine sister site.

The Problem with Manchester

What is it about Manchester? I know that some of this website's readers and writers have, shall we say, 'associations' with Manchester as do I, but writing for a publication with its alleigance firmly in Liverpool, and living now in London, I feel that the time has come when I can justly (or rather, safely) launch my attack on the city which spawned my grandmother, my mother, and my career.

Yesterday I found myself in Manchester for a couple of hours 'en route' from Toulouse to London (don't ask). It was the first time I've been back in the city (during daylight hours) since I left after a relatively unhappy 18 months living and working in the city (there we go, got that admission out of the way - I can hear cries of 'biased'). I've been looking forward to going back - probably believing that now I don't live there anymore I'm much more likely to be able to rejoice in the city's staggering cultural wealth (the country's best concert hall, three professional orchestras, one of the most respected theatre companies in the UK, a new arts centre with two auditoria, four universities, a conservatoire and the largest programme-making arm of the BBC outside London).

Now for the really offensive stuff. My parents always used to tell me that 'you can take a whore to culture, but you can't make her think', a mutated version of a similarly structured mantra I think. To be blunt about it, I didn't enjoy my time in Manchester yesterday one bit (though for the record, I really enjoyed having a few pints on Thursday night with my old colleagues from Manchester Camerata - great fun guys, thanks for coming out!). Don't worry, they won't be reading this.

Walking past Piccadilly Gardens I was struck by just what a disaster this plot of land has been over the years - town planning faux-pas continued right up to 2002 when the council installed a large concrete wall that resembles that which divided Berlin, having in common with its German counterpart the feature of turning a dark hue when the rain comes, which is quite often here. But this is an irrelevance - there are beautiful parts of the city, many of which have been thoughtfully re-ordered by the authorities (St Anne's Square, Hanging Ditch, Cathedral Gardens and the G-Mex Piazza). In Piccadilly, it's easy to be sucked in by the ugliness of the surrounding buildings. What dawned upon me quite quickly, was that all the town planners need to to transform the place for the good is extend the elipse formed by the wall into a complete squashed circle, and not allow members of the public in. That would make Piccadilly a very pleasant place indeed - no Mancunians. If things got a little boring, they could ship in some Liverpudlians, Londoners or even Scots to mill around the place - as long as they didn't allow any townspeople in. Perhaps a little drastic - and I must warn any Mancunians out there that as a half-manc myself, I talk (somewhat) in jest and have no problem with Mancunians 'en-masse' - after all, the city has produced some of the finest humans, artists and intellects that our country can boast, in addition to the 'Jones' wing of my family. It just seems to be those who hang around Piccadilly Gardens - what's with them?

Having said this - walking around the city you realise that many of its central areas are cursed by their immediate inhabitants: people walking the streets looking smug, haughty and self-satisfied with no good reason - and acting the same. Maybe you get this in other cities too - I can't say I've noticed it though. Please, if there are any fellow Mancs out there who want to put me right, then please do so!

You Boy!

Michael Sheard, the actor that played Mr Bronson in 'Grange Hill', has died (BBC story). One can't help but think of Danny Kendall, at this sad time. It was just Monday that I was watching the Rams Vs Lions, and trying to remember which NFL team Mauler McCaul supported (it was the Redskins, right?). There's always a tendency to look back on one's own childhood as if it were sounder than todays, but when I compare Grange Hill to the children's television now, we were lucky. I still find that Newsround is one of the better sources of news - it assumes you know nothing of the issue, and hence presents them in a clear, straightforward way. Although the editors are all watermelons (green on the outside, red in the middle), it's a great institution.

Religious Sensibility

Mariana left a comment in my post on Christopher Hitchens saying:

Are you sure your criticisms aren't sometimes unwarranted?  Or offensive?

This, for instance, is rather offensive:

"In the same way that being religious severely limits your claims of sensibility, so too does being nationalistic."

The comment on religion comes whilst I'm thinking about these issues alot, and on consideration I would like to alter my position.

By definition, religion implies some form of irrationality: belief in supernature, and devotion to the  existence of constructs external to human reason/understanding. If you think that something is true because it is, then you're unlikely to be able to form a useful theory as to why it exists.
The lesson of the Enlightenment, is that every time we have replaced notions of God with an understanding of causal mechanisms, physical bodies and chemical elements we have advanced. To know that famine is usually the result of Communist planning, and not the decision of God is important. Copernicus was useful.
I get frustrated when I talk to people willing to extend their power of intellect to broad fields, but refuse to questions issues of religion. Often, a belief that is unflinching restricts the power of reason, and rational thought.

Religion limits sensibility

That said, religious people are not being irrational. I like to describe myself as a "lapsed atheist", on the grounds that I've always wanted to consider myself to be open minded with all my beliefs up for grabs.... but whenever things like this happen I realise that by any definition of religion, I'm a practising, believing adherent. My friends will often question my sensibilities when discussing issues relating to Everton, and I don't resent that. I have beliefs that others might not share, but I believe them, and they give my hope, inspiration and joy.

Being Religious does not necessarily limit an individuals sensibility

On Wednesday I have my first class on "Economics of Religion and Culture", with Prof. Laurence Iannaccone. He has pioneered the field of Economics of Religion, a subfield of economics that applies rational choice reasoning to religious issues. I thank Mariana for prompting me to write this article, (which amends my position), and acts as full disclosure of my opinions prior to taking the course. I will be more than happy to report any change of opinion, or further clarification from having completed it!

"Featherweight mediocrity"

My Dad is currently back in Australia, following a family bereavement, and is therefore watching the Ashes amongst his own. Or so he thought. Incredibly, he's yet to find a single Australian that isn't rooting for England! The evidence from his encounters is that Shane Warne is universally despised, and the arrogant Aussies are due a belittling.
He's in Perth, and I don't know if that has a bearing. But it seems that they might get what they want. Just as the 2003 Rugby World Cup exposed a weakness of transition, so too today. Although McGrath and Warne have been phenomenal this tour, the old guard of Hayden, Martyn and Gillespie just aren't performing. With Tait coming in and showing his worth, Michael Clarke the pick of the batsmen, and countless Australians making big scores throughout county cricket, there's a case that a more radical selection policy should have been made.

I think Australia will win at the Oval, and escape from this series with an important lesson: the reason Australia have been consistently the best cricketing team of the last 10 years is that they are swift and ruthless at ditching older players.

On the subject of Australia, feel for John Brogden. Since when was it a crime to grope a women, chat up another, and refer to a Chinese/Indian woman as a "mail order bride"? Would it have been ok if he was drunk

Marginal Tax Rates

Take a married couple with two children under 11 and pre-tax earnings of £200 a week. If they get a better job, raising their earnings to £300 a week, by how much does their net income rise?

£8.52. That’s a marginal deduction rate of 91.5 per cent.

Fair play to Chris Dillow for pointing out this absurd example of how a complex tax system (made so by mostly well intentioned people like you and me) inevitably creates perverse incentives.
Absurdity is a true cost of economic manipulation. If you want to advocate tax breaks/deductions/progressive rates that you must also defend and permit such gross ridiculousness.

Christopher Hitchens

I've never really known what to make of Christopher Hitchens. A smart, interesting man, who in many ways is the political opposite of myself: he started off as a Totskyist, and 9-11 turned him into a pseudo-Neo Con; whereas I started  as anti-Labour and have turned toward old school Liberalism, with a hint of Radicalism.

Then again, there's much we have in common (anti-theist intellectual with a penchant for drinking -->>), and  I don't think that his complex works fit into the fairly rigid categories utilised by the media. In other words, he shouldn't be labelled, and dismissed.

Alex Tabarrok does precisely that at Marginal Revolution, selectively quoting an interview with Jon Stewart (and linking to the actual video available here). Although Hitchens does indeed end up wanting to talk about his book, it's wrong to characterise the exchange as a pounding. For one thing, they were talking about slightly different things, but the context of a chat show - a time constraint, complete agenda control by the host, hostile audience - makes any fair contest impossible. Would Tabarrok be quick to claim that Bill O'Reilly has thrashed an interviewee? Of course not, if a guest has an alternate opinion, the host would rather abuse their power and "win" an argument than conduct a genuine interview to explore the issue.

Perhaps Hitchens has misunderstood the format, and believed he'd be able to make his points. Comparing Stewart to Jeremy Paxman, they both interrupt and demand control, but at least Paxman focuses on the arguments of his interviewee, rather than his own agenda.

I'm not sure why Tabarrok is so harsh on Hitchens - certainly not on the grounds of this interview - but was surprised by the relevance of Hitchens being British. During the interview Stewart seems to switch sides and defend Bush on the grounds that Churchill was the first man to "redraw" the Middle East. As if when it comes to the crunch, Bush is, at least, an American.

Many Americans seem to miss the whole point on the War on Terror, in that they're too patriotic to think rationally. In the same way that being religious severely limits your claims of sensibility, so too does being nationalistic. (For the difference between patriotism and nationalism, see Orwell). All too often I have initiated a conversation with someone that starts off as deeply critical of George Bush (and in agreement), but who gradually adopts a more defensive position. No matter how wrong their country is, they don't want a foreigner saying so. My friends are all reasonable, sensible people, so this sort of exchange tends only to occur on a night out. But it does happen.

When I first arrived in the States, and was searching for a quality news program (comparable to Channel 4 News, or Newsnight), I encountered The Daily Show on the grounds that it was "fake news show". At least there's The Day Today, I thought. But no - it's "real" news, in that it talks about real news stories. It's "fake" in that the host likes to take the piss. It's not satirical, it's not that intelligent, and it's not very funny.

p.s. Christopher Hitchens will debate George Galloway in New York, on 14th Sepetember 2005.