Menswear - The Founder

10 The Founder | Wednesday 23 February 2011
Comment
& Debate
The Damaging
Effect of
Pornography
Let them eat cake, it
didn’t work before,
it won’t work now
» continued from page 9
one another how to navigate life’s
difficulties. These relationships
are ‘ruler and subject’, ‘father and
son’, ‘husband and wife’, ‘elder and
younger sibling’ and ‘friend and
friend’. ‘Social harmony’ is supposed
to result from every individual
knowing his or her place in
the social order, and playing his or
her part well. David Cameron has
highlighted new research which
showed that what matters most to a
child’s life chances is not the wealth
of their upbringing, but the warmth
and input of their parenting.
Pornography on the other hand
is mostly an anti-social, selfish
activity, which is hurting our
generation’s ability to promote
healthy and mutually rewarding
relationships. Politicians have been
trying to look into ways of regulating
pornographic content on the
web, such as the MP Claire Perry,
who has called for the nine main
Internet service providers [ISPs]
to limit access to porn unless their
customers specifically request it.
There are problems with regulating
the porn industry, such as where do
you set the boundary of what can
and cannot be regulated? What
effect will this have on our ability
to surf on what we want on
the internet. Cyber-libertarians’,
suggest that the Internet should
be the ultimate domain to shape
our lives free from the control of
the government and suppressive
forces.
I think we need more debate
and information in our society,
especially about the negative
effect that new technologies and
websites can have on our wellbeing.
The problem is that we
are only just learning about the
effects on ‘our generation’ and
more needs to be done to combat
the proliferation of porn on the
Internet. My belief is that we
need more self regulation, as we
are ultimate in charge of our own
actions. For those of you who
have read A Picture of Dorian
Gray, all of Dorian’s bad actions
in his life show up on a portrait
of himself. What I worry about is
what effects of what we see and
view on the Internet are having
on our development and for
lack of a better word our “soul”.
I don’t know the answers, but I
hope to see this debate develop.
tf Comment and Debate
Comment and Debate is always interested in
the opinions of RHUL students
Simply write an aritlce of 400 - 700 words and
sent it to:
comment@thefounder.co.uk
Best before midday Monday 28th February
Nicholas Coleridge-Watts responds to Sam
Hancock’s Response...
Before I begin let me nail my colours
to the mast: I am not a member
of Royal Holloway Anti-Cuts
Alliance, and I’m not familiar with
their programme aside from the
obvious objection
to the Coalition’s
education policies.
I am however
of the opinion
that university,
being a service,
should be free at
the point of access
like the NHS. It is
with this in mind
that I will critique
Sam Hancock’s
response.
Firstly, Mr
Hancock mentions
that there
are fundamental
flaws in the procedures
and actions
of RHACA. I
feel bound to
point out that
this organisation
is not subject
to a hierarchy,
and represents
an independent
initiative of likeminded
students.
Consequently it
doesn’t need to
toe any kind of
party line, and is
free to set its own
agenda.
I wasn’t present during the
specific incident, but it seems to
me that if anything the antics of
RHACA were restrained within
the normal parameters of student
protest. A sit-in, like all peaceful
protests, is supposed to be disruptive.
That the Choral Scholars were
allowed through at all seems to
me to be an indicator that student
demos have gone soft. If nonviolent
protesters had never made
a nuisance of themselves we’d still
have Apartheid, people would’ve
just ignored Ghandi, and the Civil
Rights Movement would have been
left in the hands of white American
liberals (and we all know how few
of them there are).
Later Mr Hancock says that
RHACA’s (alleged) chanting of
‘fascist’ and ‘bourgeois’ justifies
the (not necessarily pejorative)
assertion that they are ‘left-wing
radicals’. Well, that’s just mudslinging.
You can’t condemn partisan
activity one minute and then go on
to participate in it the next.
I’m sure RHACA, like all political
organisations, sometimes resorts to
emotion in the prosecution of their
struggle, but the real question is:
why is that so bad
Sam? The SU are
elected to serve,
and it can’t have
escaped your notice
that when it
comes to the cuts
your electorate is
divided into two
distinct groups:
those who don’t
want them and
those who don’t
care. If you throw
a rock out of any
window on campus,
chances are
you’re not going
to hit someone
who thinks what’s
going on is a good
thing.
So why is the
SU so passive
about the issue?
Questions have
been raised in
General Meetings
you say.
Well, I’ve been to
GMs; the turnout’s
poor which
reflects what the
students think of
their usefulness,
and one gets the
impression of admin for its own
sake. The whirligig of town hall
politics makes the occasions more
about procedure than achievement.
Maybe if you they had something
to fear then they’d take a greater
degree of interest.
As for Mr Hancock’s comment
about RHACA being a minority
which claims to represent the majority:
take a look in the mirror.