Spontaneous Monotony

The Video Appeals Committee has ruled - for the second time - that the BBFC’s decision to ban Manhunt 2 had no justification and should be reversed. It seems that the censor - which is now largely discredited - will respect the decision this time. The ‘casual, sadistic’ (their words) violence the BBFC objected to would earn a film a 15 certificate at most. Their claim was that the ‘interactivity’ of Manhunt 2 created a greater potential for harm (you see the BBFC thinks it has the right to ban ‘harmful’ things even for adults).

Let’s be clear what these sorts of games do - you sneak up on whoever you’re going to ‘kill’ and press a button combination. Then a ‘kill’ sequence of varying grisliness is played. So in essence Manhunt 2 features footage of deaths being played following the selection of the footage via control buttons. No different from a DVD with scene selection - in which the violence can be far more graphic.

It’s about time we stopped giving these Daily Mail-ingesting autocrats control over what entertainment products adults are ‘allowed’ to buy. This is a democratic country, with a legally protected right to free speech. The only legitimate limitation on whether an adult buys a DVD, or a game, or a piece of music, is whether that person has made an informed choice to do so. The PEGI rating system can provide the necessary protection for children - especially if the government makes those ratings binding on game sellers, which they aren’t at the moment - without violating our rights by preventing content being made available to adults. Let’s hope this decision is the final blow to an organisation that is long past its sell by date.

Well it seems that in my essay-writing exploits last night I failed to notice that the graduate endowment is gone (after the SNP drafted its death warrant in June). Ah well, gives me  an excuse to get the utterly fabulous February 29th in my blog. What’s more puzzling is that Neo Labour and the Tories (no surprises there) voted against, on the basis that it wouldn’t reduce student  poverty. I know that bending the truth (not to mention the expenses rules :p) is in vogue in Neo Labour, but I fail to see how they can claim that reducing the financial burden on every single student by over £2200 (about a fifth of the average total debt per student of £11,000) will not reduce student poverty. We should all be happy - once again we live in a country committed to the principle of free education, and (even better) we no longer live in a country run by Neo Labour con artists.

It seems that self-styled ‘anti-fascist’ protestors have delayed the exercise of the right to freedom of speech by forcing their way into a building, and threatening members of the audience.  Nick Griffin and David Irving hold contemptible, even illogical, views. Stopping them from speaking, however, is much closer to the definition of fascism than anything the BNP have done. The right to freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental principles of democracy - it is easy to support freedom of speech for those you agree with, but EVERYONE has the right to freedom of speech, including those who hold hugely unpopular views. I would greatly appreciate if those who are intent on trampling democratic rights would sod off to a country that is more in step with their view of freedom of speech - perhaps Pakistan, China, or Iran?

I’ve just read that John Reid is to be appointed as the next Chairman of Celtic - despite the controversy surrounding his political career. Celtic was founded to help immigrants and the working class. John Reid based his political career on patronising the working class, brutalising immigrants, and attacking human rights safeguards - in other words, his actions in government go against everything the club is supposed to stand for.

It is difficult to imagine someone less suitable for such an important post. Let’s just hope that he doesn’t stay as long as the excellent Brian Quinn - having Reid as Chairman for seven years would be a travesty.

Different people may have different opinions as to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program - whether it is a peaceful, civilian power system as asserted by the Iranian regime, or a weapons programme as asserted by the American regime. Both sides present a compelling case, and the question of whom to trust often comes down to which side you dislike the least.

What I can’t understand though is the storm over Iran threatening to bomb Israel if the latter attacks Iran. What is so startling about that? Isn’t it a given that, if one country attacks another, the attacked country will fight back? Had Iran threatened to bomb Israel pre-emptively, that would be a cause for alarm. But for Iran to promise to do what every country in the world would do in the same situation? Sorry but I fail to see the threat.

External Links

• BBC News - Iran issues Israel attack warning