The Other Press

   

page 3

 

 

er’s union),

its non-transferable

 

 

 

 

 

Ralph Rebukes Knowledge Network

by Tom Boer

Ralph Stanton, president
of the Douglas and Kwantlen
Faculty Association (teach-
is displeased
with the recent progress of
Knowledge Network.

The network, a_provin-
cially created educational

channel for home television, _ ranment’ rather than the
has receivéd™ increased ‘sterile one of television
funds in the last provincial learning.

budget, and enrollment for
‘tele-
courses’ is expected to dou-
ble. Also, its first university
transferable course (Psycho-
logy 100/200) is being of-
fered this year.

“We are opposed to in-
creasing the budget for an
experimental network while
proven successful programs

by Warren Laine

Pornography. Will its distribu-
tion and use bring down society;
through corrupt morals and violent
crime, or does it constitute any
threat whatsoever?

In essence, pornography is a
mirror of societies sexual desires;
its fantasies. It is an outlet for our
sexual needs. Pornography is
comprised of the usual male/fe-
male nudes and sexual acts, as well
as the unusual items of SM,
homosexuality, rape, and ‘kiddie
porn’.

In the past few years pornography
has become more and more intense
in its outlook towards sex. (Sex
mind you, not love. The two are
unequivicably different.) This in-

tensity mirrors societies changing
attitudes and standards. For
example, with the rise of feminism
in society, pornography is focusing
on more brutal treatment of women
in order to act as a buffer between
men and some of the amazons they
are being forced to interact with.

We can look at pornography from
four different angles.

Firstly, the view of the classical
liberal. They state that society is
not affected by pornography in
such a way that merits its oblitera-
tion; pornography is strictly fanta-
sy, and the supposed harms are
generally exaggerated, and often
simply fabricated by the courts and
social groups. Besides, the consti-
tutional freedoms of the press and
of speech allow pornographic mate-

 

are cut,’’ he said, and called
the network a ‘frill’.

Stanton also considers the
concept of teaching academic
courses via television a
‘second best option’, prefer-
ring the traditional method
by which teachers and stu-
dents can form a relation-
ship in a ‘stimulating envi-

“If this type of education
were to become widespread,
it would have a deadening
effect on education, and the
students,’’ he said. .

Stanton also criticized the
network’s administration,
saying it ‘needs a thorough
investigation
wast in the organization’,
and pointed out that it ‘does-

\

 

into possible

ee ennaeenae Faas ara

rials to be available. If pornogra-
phy was held back, then, in
essence, so would these freedoms.

Are societies best interests
served with these two freedoms?
The classical liberal would say yes.
(And at an annual $5 billion North
American pornographic revenue,
so would the industry.)

The conservative views porno- .
graphy in a dark, negative way.
They consider it to contribute to
societes woes through corrupt
morals, and supposed violent
crimes. Their stance is then society
falls. This, as society swings
farther to the right, is becoming a
popular view.

The feminist angle considers

 

 

    
 

“ns 1s Disqusting, |!

How Wr ouR CHILDREN Gow
a

UP MORALLY Diserrunien 7...

   

 

 

   
  

 

 

 

     
  
   
   
   
  
 
   

pornography to singularily target
women for abuse and violence.
They consider pornography to be

a social tool to keep women in their
normal submissive roles. Feminists
over-generalize in the assumption
that most men fatasize about
sadistic actions towards women and
that, during sexual acts, have these
images in the backs of their minds.

Can we then assume that the
average middleaged man is
thinking of torturing his wife
during sexual intercourse? Of
course not. This is absurd.

The law has the tough problem of
discerning between normal and
obscene pornography. The terms
alone are undefineable so how do
we go about seperating the two?
Generally, what is normal is what is
socially acceptable; what society
does not accept is obscene. Even
here the concept of obscenity is
dangerously vague.

The Supreme Court in the U.S.
has stated that if material has
no’‘redeeming social importance’’,

‘then it qualifies as legally obscene

and affords no constitutional
protection. Unfortunately these
guidelines are inadequate; but the
courts are allowed an alarmingly
large amount of discretion in its
handling of pornography.

The question that we must ask
ourselves is, how far does porn-
ography have to go before it is
obscene? Yesterday’s obscene has

| clearly become todays accepted

norm; just as today’s norm may
well become tommorrow’s obscene.
In this, pornography creates a
moral atmosphere in itself.

n’t seem to have the usual
form of accountability, such
as an elected board.’

Asked whether he sensed
teacher’s worries over job
security, he said, ‘‘There is a
general concern in relation to
Knowledge Network,’’ a re-
sult of ‘‘clear lack of trust
between college teachers
and the government.’’ He
feels the government’s atti-
tude towards education is
‘epitomized by the appoint-
ment of Vander Zalm as
minister’, whose opinions he
finds ‘impossible.’

Pornography: A Philosophical Look

He Bo a eal. |

The law looks at pornography in
relation to the conservative view in
that, if pornography attacks some
form of society and the form in
itself does not survive, then it is not
worth it to society for it to survive .

When it comes to violent crimes
we must look and see if porno-
graphic availability contributes to
them. A look at countries such as:
Denmark and Japan where laws
pertaining to pornography are non-
existant, serves to show that, as
they are less violent than America,
that pornography does not {dir-
ectly) contribute to crimes. It is not
logical to use pornography as a
scapegoat for crimes. As already
stated; pornography creates a
moral atmosphere; it does not
cause criminal actions.

On the part of the courts, it is not
worth the risks of enacting laws.
eradicating the commercial distr-
ibution of pornography; what would
be accomplished? What are the
advantages of such laws? To quote
Marshall Cohen: ‘‘What we need is
less killing, not less masturbation
and fornication.’’

In society, there are no polarized
sexual desires; there are many grey
areas of experimentation which
people want to explore. We have to
ask ourselves: should the rest of
society enter our homes and crawl
into bed with us? No one is forcing
pornography onto us and in the
same light they cannot deprive us
of it. Take it or leave it.

Surely an educated person can
decide what to read and what not to

read,
a