Category Archives: Freedom of expression

May 26 2012

Only Circumcised Penises On Porno sites in Israel!

A logical outcome of the Knesset’s attempt to censor the Internet.

Pornography

Well – what else could I use to illustrate the headline – and still get published! …..(Photo credit: Davide BBB)

According to a recent report in “The Times of Israel”, filed by Stuart Winer, a female member of the Israel Beitenu faction – a Ms Lia Shemtov- wants the Knesset to pass a law that would block access to all pornographic and violent websites to Israeli’s. (1)

Of course , she can count on full support from all the religious parties, and from some others, who believe that they know, better than we do, what’s good for us.

Frankly, I am outraged than anyone would dare to try to determine what I, as an adult, can or cannot watch. Naturally, the fig leaf for the proposed legislation is “the protection of  the young and innocent”.  Apart from the fact that the young are no longer as innocent as their parents would wish to believe, the question arises as to whether adults are obliged to stop developing at age 12.

English: This is the american Disney Channel l...

This is a sexual as it gets – if the Knesset has its way!…….. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I assume that the lawmakers, that support this proposal, would prefer that the default setting for internet entertainment be the Disney Channel, or its equivalent.

The fact is that parental censorship is already available.  Programmes exist which can filter out, so called, “adult content”and parents can choose to activate them.

That’s the whole point.

It’s the parents that make the decision, not some government created quango comprising of people with a different world view from mine – or, indeed,  that of the parents

What the new law is supposed to do is to reverse the default setting of your Internet access. In other words, ALL sites – deemed by this group of censors to be “adult” would be available on special request only. The question of the extra costs involved in such an arrangement does not concern our MK’s.

English: Official portrait of Justice Potter S...

Justice Potter Stewart. _ “I know it when I see It!”………  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And then there is the age old question: ”what is pornography?” Is it still the standard defined by Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 in America: “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it”? (2)

I think the world has moved on over the past 50 years.

There are countless scenes of sex and violence in “mainstream movies” which would have been unthinkable just a generation ago. Famous film stars engage in the most extreme simulated erotica, which many argue is even more arousing than standard “pumping in and out” porn. And if we’re talking about children’s awareness of these scenes, they don’t have to go to the cinema; they just need to scan the TV movie channels!

So, will the censorship also be extended to TV ? Illogical if it isn’t!

When I made my views known on some web forums, I was accused of “encouraging paedophillia”.

There is absolutely no concrete evidence that viewing acts on TV or the Internet has a direct connection to the implementation of similar acts against third parties.(3)

Indeed, there are some that claim that the tiny fraction of viewers – or should that be “voyeurs” – who are psychologically unbalanced in relation to their sexual proclivities, can actually live out their fantasies through these media, and thus have no absolute need to manifest those desires physically. I think that is especially true for paedophiles.

A May 8 ruling by the New York Court of Appeals held that viewing child pornography on the Internet without taking further action such as printing or saving files does not necessarily constitute possession (of pornographic paedophillic imagery) (4)

So, what does all this have to do with Israel?  Well, for a country that prides itself on its openness and liberalism, to talk about censorship restrictions on anything,  is to place it squarely in the same category as its neighbours in the region, whose relative lack of freedoms it never ceases to criticise.

This proposed censorship is but the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. How Israel Beitenu managed to get into bed with Shas (so to speak) is incomprehensible. What will be next? After the banning of porn and violence, will the Haredi dress code for women be mandatory for all productions – no visible skin, apart from the face – under a wig, or headscarf, of course.

Censorship is a slippery slope. Everyone knows where it starts. No one knows where it ends!

And if there will be porno sites available on request – will the male performers need to be circumcised?

Why not?

Andyboy – Telling it as it is!

(Full disclosure)

I, myself was accused (together with 1199 other Israelis) of engaging in a sexual orgy of sin and debauchery -reminiscent of the worst excesses of Sodom and Gomorrah – when I participated, last September,  in the famous (or is that infamous) event known as “Naked Dead Sea”.

This, you may recall, was the brainchild of the well known American artist, Spencer Tunick, in which 1200 Israelis volunteered to pose completely naked for a serious of photographs, in order to promote the Dead Sea in its bid to be classified as one of the seven wonders of the modern world.

I can honestly state that it was a truly amazing experience, but if anyone believes that 1200 naked, perspiring Israelis in a wide variety of shapes and sizes, with an an equally wide variety of dangling bits, had any connection to sex, then they are in need of serious help! (5)

References

(1)http://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-to-consider-pornography-censorship-law

(2) http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

(4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47437950/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/bill-criminalizing-viewing-child-porn-online-okd-ny-senate/#.T75tWtWP-s8possession.

(5)http://andyboy1.com/2011/09/20/naked-in-the-holy-land-part-three/

Related articles
May 5 2012

The Amir Brothers – Heroes or Villains?

The answer to that question is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Isolation - D Block

Isolation cell – for over sixteen years! (Photo credit: Smath.)

With the release from prison of Haggai Amir, after sixteen and a half years of solitary confinement, the controversy over his actions, and those of his brother, Yigal, who was convicted of firing the shots that fatally wounded Yitzhak Rabin, has erupted again.

Most of the demonstrators protesting his release were children when the shooting occurred and have no direct knowledge of the circumstances. And, as far as the older protesters are concerned, everyone has an agenda.

It is certainly not politically correct to even try to understand what caused the brothers to act as they did, far less to attempt to justify their actions.

But, in order to start on the path of understanding, we need to examine the very structure of a democracy, and how it is supposed to function. In fact, there are multiple forms of democracy – and some are more democratic than others.

For example, The UK with its ” first past the post” electoral system, and only two major political parties, can lead to a situation is which the Prime Minister can find himself (or, indeed, herself) with such an overwhelming parliamentary majority that the government can pass any legislation it chooses without limitation.

Not so different from a dictatorship, in practical terms.

In America the situation is similar, but not identical. There are still only two major parties, but the differences between them are less than those in the UK. A combination of mid-term elections and a complicated machinery of checks and balances, tends to inhibit even the strongest President.

So one would imagine that Israel, with its proportional representation system, would guarantee that a dictatorial type Prime Minister simply could not exist. The permanent requirement for a coalition government would inhibit the total freedom of action of any Prime Minister.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. pre...

A truly fateful handshake….. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And so it was for Yitzhak Rabin when he was trying to persuade the Knesset to approve the agreement, known as the “Oslo Accords”.  The tortuous manner in which the agreement was secretly negotiated needs an article in itself. Suffice to say that Rabin, although initially opposed to the agreement, was eventually persuaded to accept it. The Americans, who were disturbed that they had not been party to the negotiations, eventually stopped sulking and put their support behind the accords.

Rabin’s problem was that he had to “sell” the whole concept not only to the Knesset, but also to the Israeli public and, of course, the media.  The media, with its inherent left wing slant was, more or less, a pushover. The public was very divided, and the media had to work overtime to present the situation as if the the majority were in favour.

Those Israeli citizens already living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza were, obviously, very vociferous in their objections. Their protests really got to Rabin, who was known to have a short temper when his authority was questioned. His widely reported remark that these protesters could ” spin like propellers” as far as he was concerned, and would not cause him to deviate from the course he was on, did nothing to improve his image with the general public.

And when it came to the fateful vote in the Knesset, which was actually a motion of no confidence in the government, he only succeeded in obtaining 61 votes out of a possible 120 – a majority of 1! There were 50 votes in favour of the motion, and 9 abstentions.

The manipulative manner in which he was able to secure 2 crucial votes from a tiny party that had splintered away from the Tsomet faction, gave rise to perceptions and accusations of bribery, which he ignored.   Many people were also incensed that the accords required Israel to relinquish almost all of the territory it had acquired in the 1967 war, with the Jerusalem question still unresolved, and that the 61 votes had included 5 votes from the Arab parties.

It may be understood that, as far as the general population was concerned, the combination of bought votes and Arab votes needed to achieve the single vote majority, removed any vestiges of legitimacy from the final decision.

Which brings me back to my previous point of defining a democracy. When the electorate feel betrayed, the next time that they can participate in an election can seem to them to be too far into the future. The possibility that the sense of frustration can become too strong to contain then arises.

It is true that we have all become cynical of politicians and their promises. Most broken pledges are simply greeted with a sense of resignation and a mental note of who to vote for next time.

Ariel Sharon 2001-03-19

Ariel Sharon – got away with Gaza…. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But some situations are simply too egregious to accept meekly. Rabin’s way of dealing with the Oslo Accords was one such act. Ariel Sharon got away with the evacuation of Gaza by the skin of his teeth. Had other circumstance not intervened, it is highly possible that any attempt by him to remove Jews from Judea and Samaria would have resulted in him meeting a similar fate.

Before anyone accuses me of trying to defend the indefensible, I must point out that throwing up the word ” democracy” is really usurping the concept to cover for, essentially, undemocratic acts; Rabin’s machinations to secure votes were widely criticised at the time.

I know the arguments about the imperfections of democracy, and that it’s still better than any other political system. But, when it comes to situations that could be interpreted as existential threats to the state, maybe the cloak of democracy is simply not a sufficient protection.

And, it is in such circumstances, that some people feel driven to take action.

Political assassination is a risk that all leaders take. Their ability to steer a course that does not lead to a sense of impotent rage by some part of the electorate is a measure of their success.

Failure in this essential element of leadership can have dire consequences.

It did for Yitzhak Rabin.

Andyboy – Telling it as it is!

Related articles
Apr 29 2012

Oh My God – Blasphemy is Still a Capital Offence in the 21st Century!

Unbelievably, in this second decade of the 21st century, there are still countries that have a death penalty for blasphemy.

afghanistan

Dying to defend the faith in Afghanistan (Photo credit: The U.S. Army)

And in one of those countries, at least, American and British soldiers are fighting, and dying, to defend the option of a government to enforce that law.

I am referring to Afghanistan – specifically the clause in its Penal code, which states as follows:

Sharia permits the authorities to treat blasphemy as a capital crime. The authorities can punish blasphemy with death if the blasphemy is committed by a male of sound mind over age 18 or by a female of sound mind over age 16. Anyone accused of blasphemy has three days to recant. If an accused does not recant, death by hanging may follow.“(1)

Afghanistan is not unique: Saudi Arabia has a similar law.

But, most countries satisfy themselves with less drastic forms of punishment such as imprisonment and/or fines. Surprisingly, even some European countries still have anti-blasphemy laws, but these are rarely enforced.

Only as recently as March 2008, was the blasphemy law repealed in the UK; the last successful prosecution for blasphemy was in 1977 – only 35 years ago! Interestingly, the law only applied to Christianity.(2) The last execution for blasphemy actually took place in Scotland in 1697 with the hanging of the unfortunately named Mr Thomas Aikenhead. He must have had a real aching head after that experience. (sorry!)

In America, it’s a whole different ball game, (to use the local vernacular). Under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the constitution – pertaining to free expression – it is impossible to bring a Federal prosecution on the charge of blasphemy, as part of the legally defined separation of  ”church” and state.  However, the situation regarding individual states is not so clear. (3)

And, I discovered much to my surprise and consternation, that there are laws protecting religion here in Israel:

In Israel, blasphemy is covered by Articles 170 and 173 of the penal code:

Insult to religion
170. If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred by a group of persons, with the intention of reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then the one is liable to three years imprisonment.
Injury to religious sentiment
173. If a person does any of the following, then the one is liable to one year imprisonment:
(1) One publishes a publication that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others;
(2) One voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is liable to crudely offend the religious faith or sentiment of others.

The law is traced back to the British High Commission ”The Abuse and Vilification (religious invective) Order No. 43 of 1929″, enacted in efforts to suppress the 1929 Palestine riots. The order contained the language: “Any person who utters a word or sound in public or within earshot of any other person that may be or is intended to offend his religious sensitivities or faith can expect to be found guilty and eligible for a one-year jail sentence.” (4)

CDC raspberry

Blowing one of these can get you into big trouble in Israel! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Article 170 says that the reviling or insulting of the religion is a separate crime from the specific act of destruction or vandalism, since it refers to intent.

Article 173 presumably includes, for example, “blowing a Raspberry” as a sign of comment or disagreement.

So – does any of this really matter?

Since few countries actually punish people for this “crime”, and even fewer execute convicted blasphemers, why should anyone be concerned?

To me, the concern should be obvious. All of the examples listed above, and, indeed, all laws relating to blasphemy, place religion in a different category from any, and every, other element of the fabric of society.

Discussion, debate and disagreement can be heated and/or offensive about any subject, other than religion and religious belief.

Why?

Expressing oneself passionately about anything else does not lead to imprisonment, or the threat of it. Demonstrations, and other political acts, are covered by different laws related to public order. So, again, why religion?

There can be only one logical reason.

Since religion, and the various form of God, were invented by man, those charged with the responsibility to nurture, protect and maintain it, understood from the beginning that fear was the greatest form of power enforcement.

History has proved them right.

Nothing will concentrate a man’s (or woman’s) mind more than the threat of being burned alive at the stake, or stoned to death.

Persecution of witches

Burning of witches - not good on YouTube!(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But, one must acknowledge that religion has moved with the times and adjusted to the 21st century. Realising that burning and stoning doesn’t play well on YouTube, and even hanging is seen by some as a bit gruesome, more and more regimes and governments have settled for imprisonment.

At least there, the transgressors can rot away out of the public eye!

As for me – I’m going to have a quick flip through some of my previous articles to check that I am not in contravention of the local laws. I hope that implied “Raspberries” don’t count.

And at least I can be thankful that I’m in Israel – not Afghanistan!

Andyboy – Telling it as it is!

Blasphemy set to music!

References

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Afghanistan

(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom

(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States_of_America

(4)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Related articles
Apr 18 2012

Trial by YouTube!

Español: Logo Vectorial de YouTube

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Israel now has Three Courts of Law:

  • The District Court

  • The Supreme Court

  • The YouTube Court

And, as the recent case of Lt.-Col Shalom Eisner sadly proves, it is the YouTube Court that reigns supreme over all other avenues of justice.

Israel supreme court, Jerusalem. עברית: בית המ...

Israel's used to be Supreme court - not any more! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not for it, the strictures of “rules of evidence”: nor the supposed basis of all justice - ” innocent until proven guilty”. The  problem with the social media is the immediacy; the rush to judgment, based on perception only.

How many of those who saw the infamous video clip know enough about technology to understand that, in today’s world, the camera does, indeed, lie. The “photoshopping“of static images has become an international scandal – even leading to legislation forbidding, or seriously inhibiting the practice – including new laws here in Israel.

In the case of Lt.-Col Eisner, all that was necessary was to simply ignore the 2 hours of protest prior to the incident – as if it never happened. Then it was simple to give the impression that Eisner was only some mindless thug, determined to beat the shit out of anyone who stood in his way and struck this hapless Dane for no reason, and without provocation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

But all of the evidence that has now come to light about what led up to this incident has been studiously ignored by most of the media. And, course, it is the media, with their insatiable appetite for violence and scandal, that are to blame for the travesty of justice that has been visited upon this poor officer.

They virtually ignored the fact that he, and his men, were attacked by this crowd of “peaceful” agitators with sticks, and other objects, (that resulted in his hand being broken), and concentrated all their venom on an incident that lasted all of 7 seconds.

Almost all newspapers and other media used the term “beating” with its connotations of a virtual bloodbath. Careful study of the video, doctored as it is, shows that Eisner simply pushed his weapon in front of him as a combination of shield and club, in much the same way that riot police do, all over the world.

Had the blow been 20cms lower, the agitator would have simply been pushed back with, maybe, a slightly bruised chest. Even the cut lip proved not to be serious, and I’m certain that this man, and the organisation he represents, view this as a small price to pay for the resulting publicity.

January 7, 2011. This picture captures only a ...

January 7, 2011. This picture captures only a few of the 300 rioters at Bil'in today. Rioters are seen here hurling rocks at security forces, who responded using riot dispersal means. Weekly demonstrations held at regular sites in the West Bank such as Bil'in and Ni'lin often escalate into violent riots, where rioters hurl rocks and firebombs at IDF and Border Police forces who respond using tear gas and similar means to disperse the rioters. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is why agitators deliberately place themselves in harm’s way. They beg for something to happen to them, preferably with as much blood as possible. in order to make prime time news.

The aphorism, attributed to the CBS newsroom, “if it bleeds, it leads” is as true today as the day it was coined. And with no need for any sort of editorial control or fact checking before it’s live in hundreds of millions of homes.

By the way, you note that I choose to use the term “agitator”, and not  “activist”, so favoured by the media. This sanitised description seems to have replaced the more appropriate “agitator”, “troublemaker”, “rioter”, ‘militant”, “useful idiot”, “fellow traveller”, etc. in an effort to describe the indescribable “great unwashed”. 

Left wing loonies, the lot of them!

We also need to address the issue of what was this particular agitator doing there at all. Whilst a democracy may permit its own citizens to demonstrate, under certain conditions and controls, where is that written that foreigners should have the right – the RIGHT, mind you, to enter Israel for the sole purpose of protesting the policies of the democratically elected government?

Citizens can always vote to change the political leadership and policies at an election. Any society that allows foreign troublemakers some form of extra territorial freedom to try to overthrow the government is on the road to Anarchy.  Israel is not yet there, but every incident like this one, every “Flotilla”or “Flytilla” that isn’t stopped at source, either by diplomacy or force – it doesn’t matter which – is just one step further along this road.

With all of the anger directed at this one officer, the REAL question of who are these agitators, who do they represent, and what is their true agenda, takes a back seat.

And what has been the reaction of our Military and Political leadership, on this occasion? Support for the IDF, and a career office caught in a thankless trap?

Of course not!

What we are witnessing, with the decision of the Chief of Staff and the Political echelon to make Eisner the scapegoat for their inability to formulate better methods of crowd control, is a shameful display of weakness in the face of the media madness. The enemies of Israel have been baying for blood, like wolves screaming at the full moon. Now they have their reward.

Eisner, effectively demoted, his career probably in ruins, and for what? A momentary loss of self control in a difficult situation, a push just 20 cms too high. And not even a Court Martial at which even the pretence of a modicum of justice might have taken place.

Deutsch: Polizei im unfriedlichen Ordnungsdien...

"Gentle riot Police"- from SWITZERLAND!! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Just look at what police and riot police do to crowds in other countries. The IDF deserve medals, not condemnation. In an army, officers have an obligation to support those under them, no matter what. That’s how it used to work, before political correctness and mobile phone cameras took over.

This whole incident is a disaster for army morale. Why should these soldiers be asked to do what they do, if they cannot depend on support from their officers and commanders. Just because the Americans instilled political correctness into their army is no reason for us to follow suit.

They are never fighting for survival.

We always are!

Andyboy – Telling it as it is

Related articles
Apr 13 2012

“To Fly, or Not To Fly – That is the Question!”

Cobbe portrait, claimed to be a portrait of Wi...

William Shakespeare

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune

Or, to take a chance with the vagaries of the Israel Immigration Service!

(With apologies to the Bard)

It seems that the “silly season” is starting earlier this year, as the misguided and ill informed loons of the world once again set off on their journey to nowhere.

Mavi Marmara

Mavi Marmara - Quicker by Air! (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Or, maybe, this time, most of them will not, actually, be allowed to set off.  Israel was successful in preventing a second “Flotilla” fiasco last year, and also succeeded in greatly diminishing the effect of the first “Flytilla.” Now, according to media reports,  Israel has submitted lists of names to those airlines selected by the new generation of “useful idiots” to be their airborne equivalent of the infamous “Mavi Marmara”, with the instruction that they not be allowed to board the aircraft.

Of course, the organisers are screaming  ”breach of International Law”, as if such a law actually exists, that permits people whose intention is, at the very least, to embarrass the Israeli government, to have free access to allow them to take any action they choose, after entering the country.

It is laughable that they have tried to cloak their actions as being those of simple “supporters” of Palestine, and have declared this “Palestine” to be their destination. It frequently appears to escape the attention of the world that there is no longer any such country as “Palestine”. It ceased to exist in 1948 following the creation of Israel.

A considerable number of people hold the view that neither is there such an historical entity as “Palestinians.” The organisers also seem unclear about which “Palestine” they mean. Are they referring to the state that the Arabs constantly reject in the geographical area of Judea and Samaria, or is it the “other Palestine” in what is now Gaza.

Given that the Arabs have yet to agree among themselves as to which body actually represents them, Fatah, Hamas, the PLO or the Palestinian Authority, it is hardly surprising that outsiders are confused.

It is an unfortunate fact that, in our media driven world,  perception is everything. And, of course, this same media is very selective in the subjects it chooses to cover, and  - insofar as matters Israeli are concerned – also very selective with the truth.

In the case of these potential demonstrators, the Israeli government is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t take action. 

I have always argued for the right of free speech and free expression, and have suggested that these rights should have no limits. But it’s a matter of interpretation. This issue, for me, is not the right to have an opinion and to express that opinion, no matter how misguided it may be, but WHERE that opinion can  be expressed.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., circa 1930. Edited...

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
In this case - the theatre of the absurd!
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If people wish to say bad things about Jews, Israel, or, actually, about anyone else then, as far as I’m concerned, they can. But there is a vast difference between “saying” and “doing”. When it come to physical actions, this is a totally different ball game. In this instance, considering the potential for violence that could result in death or injury to both protesters and security forces, the famous definition of American Supreme Court judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.  that the right to free speech does not include the right  ”to shout fire in a crowded theatre” seems to apply.

The control of the effects of any actions, in terms of public order, is the responsibility of the appropriate authorities in the countries of which these agitators are citizens. For example, Israel does not have any jurisdiction over how the British Police, control (or didn’t control) a demonstration outside the Israeli Embassy in London.

By this token, the “world” has no right to tell Israel (which some of us still believe to be a sovereign nation) how it should deal with threats to public order here. I don’t know why Israel is constantly having to defend itself against actions that are accepted as normal for all other states.

Controlling who may enter your country, and for what purpose, is a basic standard of every country in the world. It is so obvious that, even having to mention it is absurd. But, when Israel is involved, it seems that nothing is too absurd.

At the time of writing, it is not yet clear what will be the outcome. It has already caused the country unnecessary expense, and will cost more. I hope that a way can be found to recoup some of this taxpayer’s money from the participants and organisers.

At the very least, they need to learn the lesson that actions have consequences.

Andyboy – Telling it as it Is!

Related articles