11 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
Throughout history and across the world, talking about sex has been banned in various forms. Films with racy sex scenes in have been censored, books that talk a little too openly about the birds and the bees have been taken out of print, and even Betty Boop has been the subject of a censor.
But the latest ban on sex comes from an unusual place, as the Malaysian Government plan to ban an Islamic sex manual, amid fears it may cause religious confusion.
The book, which was written by the leader of controversial Islamic society the Obedient Wives Club, is entitled “Islamic Sex, fighting Jews to return Islamic sex to the world”, outlines the “physical and spiritual way” in which women should approach sex.
The Obedient Wives Club says it intends to “curb social ills like prostitution, domestic violence, human trafficking and abandoned babies”, all of which they attribute to unfulfilled sexual needs, hence the reason for the book.
Though it was intended only to be read by its 800 club members, Malaysian Authorities have cracked down, and people found in possession of the book could be fined up to 5,000 ringgit (£995), whilst anyone who makes copies for sale could be imprisoned for three years and fined 20,000 ringgit.
The government’s Islamic Affairs Department is said to have studied the manual and recommended a ban on the grounds that it may confuse Malaysian Muslims about what constitutes acceptable religious teaching.
Last week, Malaysia also placed a blanket ban on sexuality rights festival Seksualiti Merdeka (sexuality independence). The annual festival aims to promote human rights and acceptance of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community through workshops, talks and film screenings. It aims to enable Malaysians “to be free from discrimination, harassment and violence for their sexual orientations and their gender identities”, but a police ban was imposed amid fears the festival could create “disharmony, enmity and disturb public order”.
Police allegedly received 154 reports which opposed the festival, prompting Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar to say that the public clearly wanted the police to act firmly against the organisers. Bakar added “whatever we want to do, we must take into account cultural and religious sensitivities and the multi-ethnic communities in the country.”
Not talking about sex isn’t just restricted to Malaysia — it’s a global taboo. In 1992, Madonna’s book “Sex” , which was designed to look like a condom packet, and filled with pop star’s self professed fantasies, was subject to massive controversy.
The book was banned in Japan, due to its risqué photographs, whilst in France a Catholic group called The Future Of Culture tried to get all copies of the book destroyed for corrupting the French youth with pornography. Other organisations across the globe tried to boycott the book, and many book stores refused to sell it.
But despite the controversy, Sex sold 1.5 million copies whilst it was still in print. In August 2011,” was declared the most sought after out-of-print book in the US.
Even before the controversy of Madonna, or the Obedient Wives Club, literature that was deemed as erotic was subject to widespread bans. “The Life and adventures of Miss Fanny Hill,” by John Cleland (reprinted as “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”) was one of the very first pieces of “prose pornography”, published in 1748 and is deemed one of the most prosecuted and banned books in history. Written in the form of letters from the 15 year-old Fanny Hill to an unknown woman, defending her lifestyle as a prostitute, the book caused outrage and was banned for obscenity.
And sex censorship hit the headlines again this week, as a provocative perfume advert campaign from Marc Jacobs featuring Dakota Fanning was banned by the British Advertising Standards Authority for “sexualising children.” Fanning, who is 17, looks much younger in the Lolita style ad campaign which featured in London Evening Standard’s ES Magazine and Sunday Times Style magazine. Wearing a short skirt, Fanning holds the perfume bottle between her thighs in a way that was perceived to be “sexually provocative” by the ASA, with the strapline “Oh, Lola!”, the name of the perfume.
But it’s interesting to consider where the line is drawn — did the sexual exploits of Fanny Hill cross the line into obscenity? Was Madonna’s sex book too blue to be read by the public? Does the Obedient Wives Club give a confusing message to young Muslims? Does a young-looking Dakota Fanning need to be censored? And when will the age old taboo of talking openly about sex become old fashioned?
11 Nov 2011 | Iran, Middle East and North Africa
Natalie Abbassi is an Iranian-American artist based in North Carolina. In a series of self-portraits entitled “In conflict and consent”, Abbassi explores the relationship between her two different identities:
This project is a series of self portraits exploring who I am, both as an American and as an Iranian, through photographs. It has always been a struggle for me to explain myself, who I truly am, and how I should or shouldn’t act in given situations. I feel that maybe these photographs will answer some questions. Questions people might have, or even questions I have for myself as a person who has lived with two cultures her whole life. Sometimes I feel confused, proud, and sometimes even awkward about how to simply deal with the differences of the two parts that make me.
10 Nov 2011 | Asia and Pacific, China, Uncategorized
This has been cross-posted from the New York Times with permission.
Word Crimes from Jonah Kessel on Vimeo.
“The worst effect of the censorship is the psychological impact on writers,” Murong said. “When I was working on my first book, I didn’t care whether it would be published, so I wrote whatever I wanted. Now, after I have published a few books, I can clearly feel the impact of censorship when I write. For example, I’ll think of a sentence, and then realize that it will for sure get deleted. Then I won’t even write it down. This self-censoring is the worst.”
10 Nov 2011 | Uncategorized
James Murdoch was accused of being a “mafia boss” as he gave further evidence today to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee about the phone hacking scandal.
During the two-and-a-half hours of questioning, Murdoch trod a fine line between appearing blissfully unaware of the extent of phone-hacking at the News of the World, and attempting to convince the committee that he supervised his company appropriately.
He also explicitly blamed the paper’s legal adviser Tom Crone and former editor Colin Myler for misleading the select committee, noting that their previous testimony was “economical”, “inconsistent” and full of “supposition”.
Murdoch repeated his previous claim that he had not received “evidence of widespread criminality” at the News of the World in meetings in May and June 2008 with Crone and Myler.
However, this contradicts evidence given by the pair, who told the committee in September that they had discussed with Murdoch the infamous “for Neville” email during said meetings. The email contained transcripts of hacked voicemails on the phone of Gordon Taylor, who was then suing the paper for breach of privacy. It is seen as a key indicator that hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman, the paper’s Royal correspondent who had been jailed in 2007 for hacking the phones of members of the Royal family.
He also maintained the pair had never discussed with him the significance of Michael Silverleaf QC’s legal opinion from 3 June 2008, which warned of “a culture of illegal information access” at News International that involved “at least three” of its reporters.
The News Corp boss was scrutinised in light of Silverleaf’s opinion, which also advised the newspaper to settle its case against Taylor. Murdoch insisted that he had no knowledge of the memo prior to his authorising a £750,000 payout made to Taylor in August of the same year. Again, he blamed Crone and Myler, arguing they “should have told me the whole story”.
Yet why Murdoch did not scrutinise the details of the Taylor payout, as well as his apparent ignorance of the scale of criminal activity at News International, raised issues of his competence as an executive. The committee asked, “which is worse? Willful blindness or incompetence by not knowing what was going on?”
Murdoch responded that News International was a “small piece of the News Corporation cake” and that it was “impossible” to manage every detail.
“I can’t believe your organisation has been so successful by being so cavalier with money,” Philip Davies MP added later.
Paul Farrelly said,
The one thing that shows us and any 10-year-old that the News of the World did not stack up is that Gordon Taylor was not a royal or a member of the royal household.”
Did [Murdoch] not ask “how come this man [Mulcaire] had hacked this phone when he [Taylor] is not royal?”
Did you not ask “Who the hell else had Mulcaire been hacking?”
Murdoch promised that lessons had been learnt, claiming his intention was for News Corp to be “as transparent as possible” in the future.
The riveting moment came when Labour MP Tom Watson revealed he had met former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck immediately prior to the committee hearing. Watson said Thurlbeck told him that Crone had intended to show Murdoch the “for Neville” email in May 2008.
Watson quoted Thurlbeck as saying:
This is not some vague memory, I was absolutely on a knife edge. Tom [Crone] took it to him. The following week I said “did you show him the email?” He said “yes I did”. Now he can’t remember whether he showed it to Mr Murdoch or not. He said “it’s alright, it’s fine, it’s settled.”
Murdoch again denied all knowledge of the email, after which Watson accused the News Corp executive of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise.”
Murdoch told Watson his comment was “inappropriate”.
Reasserting his executive position, Murdoch also refused to rule out closing The Sun if evidence of phone hacking at the paper were to emerge. He said the recent arrest of Sun reporter Jamie Pyatt in connection with payments made to police officers was a “matter of great concern”, while Steve Rotheram MP told the committee that the words “the Sun” appeared in notes seized from the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
Murdoch also condemned the revelations this week of surveillance of hacking victims’ lawyers, calling it “appalling” and “unacceptable.”
Wrapping up the hearing, John Whittingdale MP said it was “unlikely” there would be future sessions.
The challenge now is for the committee to weigh up the contradictions between Murdoch’s account and those of Crone, Myler and Thurlbeck.
