Porn that is degrading toward women
This is one of those stories that dosent make sense even when youve heard it twice.
I recently found out about a case in canada againt the Little Sisters bookstore. They sell porn, and theirfore have had some cencership issues. The supreme court of canada recently ruled that what happened to them *IS* cencorship. However, the cencorship in this instance is justified because the state has a compleing intrest to block material that would be ‘harmful to society’
Harmful to society? Why everyone knows what that meens. Thats those evil right wing christians just trying to stop every having to do with sex. ….. Right? …. Well, no. The citation regarding porn being harmful to society comes from a case R. v. Butler
In R. v. Butler, canada law holds that blocking porn on purely moral grounds is unconstitutional. Instead, blocking porn on its ‘harm to society’ is perfectly ok. Ya see, porn degrades women and promotes violence. In porn, women are dehuminized and objectified and theirfore is a civil rights violation since the canada constution guerentees equal rights towardss women.
This shouldent be suprising. Radical feminism is a driving force in the anti-porn movement. The Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance wasent just suported and promoted by left- wing feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, it was WRITEN by them. An interview I once heard with author Laura Antoniou claims that her ‘Marketplace’ books are baned in canada, not because of the christian right, but because of the feminist left. The ruling in R. v. Butler even cited the case R. v. Keegstra to make the case that porn is ‘hate speech’
Ok, so porn is harmful to women and should theirfore be stoped. Lets just for a moment accept that premis so we can move on to the kicker. The case againt the Little Sisters bookstore, and the items that caused all this mess, were male on mail ‘leathersex’ edrotica.
Theirfore: porn is a representation of male opresion of women even if there are no woemn in it. That make sense to you? No, me either.
But wait, theres more! In my efforts to read up on the case I stumbled across another canadian court decision on porn. In R. v. Glad Day Bookshops Inc the argument is once again that cencoring porn on moral grounds is wrong but cencoring porn to prevent the harm to society that comes from promoting violence againt women is a justifibal action by the state. The bookstore owner was found guilty. The kicker this time was that the item in question was female on female ‘dardyke’ erotica.
Theirfore: porn is a representation of male opresion of women even if there are no men in it. That make sense to you? No, me either.
Of corse, all this is just my understanding of the situation. Its hard to dig through things to find out the truth. Little sisters bookstore is just yelling ‘cencorship’ and ‘big brother’. Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon are distancing themselves from the case. And all bdsm and kink forums I have read on this case are making the mistake of assuming this bans the ACTION of male on male leathersex instead of the PORN of male on male leathersex.
There is one last kicker. The case againt Little Sisters bookstore is only about the importing of porn. Theirfore, porn filmed and produced in america and imported to canada is a representation of male opresion of women, but porn filmed and produced in canada for sale in canada is not a representation of male opresion of women.
That make sense to you? No, me either.