The Ministyr of Injustice
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:39 am
As you may or may not be aware the Ministry of InJustice gets to have the Dangerous Pictures Act (part of the new Criminal Justice Bill) passed through Parliament this week. It's the one where you go to prison for three years for looking at (not owning) porn.
Anyway the Ministry of Injustice decided to have some independent research done on the harmful effects of "extreme pornography". The result of this research can be found here:
A wonderful case of think of a thought crime and than make up evidence to support what you have decided is a crime.
It is an analysis of five previous studies which encompass 156 previous studies.
Now 3 of the 5 were written by one author, 102 of the 156 were written by thge same author.
Is there any bias here? Only two thirds of the report was written by one person.
Now of the 156 studies only 5 concluded that pornography was harmful, the other 151 studies were discarded.
So discarding 97% of the results because they don't fit your model is OK?
Now the authors.
Prof Kelly is a known feminist anti-porn campaigner.
Prof Itzin is an anti porn campaigner.
Prof Ann Taket is not anti-porn, but argues that all women should be routinely asked when visiting their doctors if they`re being abused.
So the evidence to support the Bill is biased from its onset. That's our Government. Isn't it time we told them where to shove their 'Big Brother' society?
*Many thanks to phantom
Anyway the Ministry of Injustice decided to have some independent research done on the harmful effects of "extreme pornography". The result of this research can be found here:
A wonderful case of think of a thought crime and than make up evidence to support what you have decided is a crime.
It is an analysis of five previous studies which encompass 156 previous studies.
Now 3 of the 5 were written by one author, 102 of the 156 were written by thge same author.
Is there any bias here? Only two thirds of the report was written by one person.
Now of the 156 studies only 5 concluded that pornography was harmful, the other 151 studies were discarded.
So discarding 97% of the results because they don't fit your model is OK?
Now the authors.
Prof Kelly is a known feminist anti-porn campaigner.
Prof Itzin is an anti porn campaigner.
Prof Ann Taket is not anti-porn, but argues that all women should be routinely asked when visiting their doctors if they`re being abused.
So the evidence to support the Bill is biased from its onset. That's our Government. Isn't it time we told them where to shove their 'Big Brother' society?
*Many thanks to phantom