FLC210, Should the State Decide What Clothes Children Are Allowed to Wear? 6th June 2011, by Sean Gabb


In the past few days, I have made six appearances in the British media. Each one has been to argue against a proposal by the British Government to make an Act of Parliament to control the alleged sexualisationof children. This will involve trying to regulate the type of clothes worn by children, and trying to stop them from watching possibly indecent music videos.

via FLC210, Should the State Decide What Clothes Children Are Allowed to Wear? 6th June 2011, by Sean Gabb.

About these ads

8 responses to “FLC210, Should the State Decide What Clothes Children Are Allowed to Wear? 6th June 2011, by Sean Gabb

  1. It’s always the bad parents who blame TV isn’t it?

    http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

  2. I must admit it’s hard to tell any child what to do. Probably, the most you can do is trust to good genetics.

  3. Children – which is to say, in the mass – the children of the masses that watch britishstate-Enemy-Class-Tele-Vision, will want to wear the clothes which the State-Enemy-Class says are being worn by “idols” and “role models”, such as “foot ballists” and their “wives”. The solution to this circular problem is clear.

  4. Thanks for the kind mention Sean :)

    Regarding Medawatch, they didn’t give up on censorship after the 80s. On the “consultation” on “extreme pornography” in 2005, they demanded that possession of R18 videos as currently passed by the BBFC should be included; in other words that all hardcore pornography (anything depicting the actual act beyond nudity) should deserve a prison sentence. Whenever these people are talking about “extreme” or “violent” porn (as the lady on the wireless did) they mean all porn. “Violent” is now being used to describe any porn, in the same way as any sale of porn is becoming denoted as “trafficking”; just as anyone who grows a bit of weed and sells a baggie to a neighbour is a “drug trafficker”.

    Regarding your good point about the mutaween inspecting childrens’ clothing, it seems very likely to me that we are now entering such an era. Further, it seems certain that they will take it upon themselves to inspect adults too, defining what it is appropriate to wear in the presence of children. The implications for beachwear are obvious. As a preliminary example, I know CenterParcs have declared “speedo” type swimming trunks verboten as indecent; you must wear long shorts. It will soon become routine for ordinary folks to think, “there are children about, I must cover myself up”.

    The implications of all this for nudists are also obvious.

  5. I would also reiterate my now profoundly held opinion that all this is the direct cause of the Anglosphere falling to a particular brand of Calvinist-inspired Protestant fundamentalism from the latter part of the 18th century onwards, displacing more “liberal” and individualist interpretations of the Christian faith.

    As such, our mutaween are effectively a religious police force, even if that religion dispensed among many of its devotees with the need to worship God.

    That is not, I must emphasise, a declaration that Christianity is the problem; rather, it is a particular novel (and one could argue even heretical) form of it. There is a good reason that William Wilberforce’s parents were horrified that he had fallen under the Methodist influence…

  6. Sure, the enemy always tries to infiltrate his opposition.
    But look at the enemy, not at his infiltration, Ian, if you want to see the cause rather than the effect.

  7. I am looking at the cause John; a man called John Calvin who rewrote Christianity to mean something it had never meaned before.

  8. I don’t know too much about the inner workings of John Calvin.
    But say you are correct in that he rewrote Christianity, my view is that he would be the result of an infiltration by the enemy.
    The attempts to destroy the essential heart of Christianity have, indeed, been going on since Jesus died and rose from the dead.