Preventing children accessing porn - it's a parents responsibility too!

Bloggers, Mihaela and Jon of Blogger Power have come up with an interesting meme. This one doesn’t ask you to list your favourite varieties of cheese, or name fifteen books you have never read. Instead, it consists of an open letter to the producers of internet porn, requesting that they make it more difficult for children to access their products by introducing password only access for the free sections of their sites. You can read the letter below:

Please require a password-protected login before allowing even free access to explicit adult content. We understand that selling porn is your business and we respect your right to make a legal living. But understand our legitimate concerns and work with us. You already have the “warning adult content” on your websites. Yet kids, who are not legal customers of your product, ignore the warning. So to prevent them from having direct access to explicit images, texts and sounds, the simplest way is to have a password-protected login. No more “free tours” before a visitor supplies basic information.

I admire their sentiments, and I do think that if this measure were to be introduced it would have some impact on the number of children who see internet porn, either intentionally or accidentally. However, I feel this alone is unlikely to affect the viewing habits of teenagers. Since time immemorial, teenagers, especially boys, have had an interest in sex. Asking them for a password is not going to lessen the chances of them accessing free porn.

Adult material is legal in varying degrees in most countries. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this. However, there are laws about the kinds of material that young people can access, just as there are laws about the age at which one can drink alcohol, or drive a car. This is correct, people are given rights at an age when they can be reasonably expected to be act responsibly. The difference between porn and cars or alcohol is that responsible parents actively prevent their teenagers from drinking or driving before they are old enough to do so, yet many of the same people allow their sons and daughters to use the internet in their bedrooms, far away from the supervision of their parents. What is more, many (very responsible parents) boast of their internet illiteracy.

Yes, the producers of internet porn should make it more difficult for anyone who is under-age to access their material, but, parents should not expect someone else to safe-guard the moral welfare of their children. It isn’t hard to monitor internet usage, or to discover which sites have been accessed.

Computers should be in the main, family areas of the home, not tucked away, out of sight in bedrooms. This is a policy we have always had, and it is one which makes it very easy to monitor the internet usage of the junior members of the family.

Parents should make an effort to learn more about the technology their children are using. It isn’t clever or funny to remain in the dark. Knowing how to access the logs of the family computer means you can find out who, went where, and how often. My sons know that we check that information, and that deleting it won’t help, it will just arouse suspicion.

Young children may be less inclined to access unsuitable sites, but may stumble across them accidentally, therefore their parents should at least use the ‘safe search’ option which most search engines provide. This can be turned off later if adults wish to use the internet. Purchasing and installing one of the products which restrict access to certain sites is even better, this too can be turned of when it is not needed. Naturally, neither of these options should be considered an alternative to supervision.

So, yes, I do support the aims of this meme, but it should not give any parent a reason to think that the ultimate responsibility does not lie with them.

Britain bottom of childhood well-being table

I’m sure no one can have failed to notice the report from Unicef which puts Britain at the bottom of a league of childhood well-being in 21 developed countries. If the authors of the report are to be believed, being a kid in Britain is a pretty unpleasant experience, and really, that isn’t surprising.

This generation of children start school at the age of four, a year earlier than their parents, and this will usually have been preceded by at least a year in a pre-school nursery environment - any parent who doesn’t enrol their offspring in such an establishment is considered to be a bit of an odd ball. Thirty years ago they would have been the norm. Of course, nursery care is a necessity. Not because it is best for the child, but because the majority of mothers are now in full time employment - two incomes are vital for most families - and these women are being encouraged to return to work earlier and earlier in a country which has the longest working hours in Europe. Gone are the days when a woman would give up work for a few years to have a family. Now, she will return within weeks of the birth, usually reluctantly. A study in 1999 showed that only 4% of new mothers actually wanted to work full time, 43% would, in an ideal world, have preferred to become full time mothers.

The life of a working mother is not an easy one when you consider it involves doing two full time jobs, only one of which you are paid for. It means constant early morning dashes to your child care provider, a race across town to your desk, a full days work, a dash back to the child care provider, then home. It doesn’t stop there. There is a meal to cook, laundry to do, housework, babies to bath, homework help, oh, and if you are very lucky you might even get to talk to the father of your offspring. The latter is not always possible because usually by the time you have both finished with the evening routine, you are so exhausted that you fall asleep in front of the tv. Then in the morning you crawl out of bed and do it all again.

Now, you may be wondering what all this has to do with the happiness and well-being of children. Quite a lot actually. I have a friend who works as a health visitor, her over-riding ethos is that happy mothers tend to have happy children and she makes a huge effort to provide support to the mothers she works with. It makes sense. Children look to their parents for reassurance, if they see them constantly stressed, tired and worried it causes them to feel the same. We have a generation who are growing up with parents who feel just this way, all the time, and this isn’t just a problem in the short term, it creates a horribly negative impression of adult life. What child would look forward to becoming an adult if they believe it is all about spending your life on an endless treadmill.

Since this report was published, I have seen a number of people using the old ‘blame the parents’ chestnut. No, let’s not. Let’s blame a society which makes life bloody hard for parents. This has never been a child friendly country, but at least in the past children were only expected to be seen and not heard. Nowadays, it seems they are expected to be non-existent. Children are viewed as an inconvenience, a problem to be dealt with, the product of a ‘lifestyle’ choice, instead of human beings who are adults in the making. When it snowed last week, I actually heard some employers saying that if people didn’t go into work they would be sacked. The fact that many schools were closed, which meant a large number of children were staying at home and needed to be cared for, did not seem to register with these people. It would be a rare parent indeed who would put someone else’s profits before the safety and well-being of their children, yet, some considered it acceptable to demand that they did just that.

The sad thing is, we do not need to live like this. The Scandinavian countries which top the league also have a high percentage of two income families, yet they don’t experience these problems. For them flexi-time is a normal working pattern, not just a luxury enjoyed by those lucky enough to have forward thinking employers. Many Scandinavian parents are able to plan their working hours so that their children are always cared for by one parent or the other, and even if external care is needed it is high quality and easily available, not over-subscribed and over-priced.

I could continue and discuss the lack of affordable housing - in many families one parent’s income is completely swallowed by housing costs. I could talk about the absence of playgrounds - sold off to the developers of luxury homes. Maybe, I could mention an education system that constantly changes and which places pressure on pupils from the time they are in infant school. However, I will just sum up by saying this: we need to have a long, hard look at the way we live. The children of today will be the adults of tomorrow, and the kind of adults they become will be largely dependent on their experiences now. For the last twenty or thirty years we have lived in a ‘me, me, me’ society, and it just hasn’t worked. The good old fashioned childhood may not have been as idyllic as many of us remember it to be, but it did have it’s advantages. Children were allowed to be children, they weren't regarded as inconvenient little packages which get in the way of profit, and becoming a parent wasn’t considered to be a lifestyle choice.

Acces to medicines under attack

India's important role as the pharmacy of the developing world is under attack from multinational drug company Novartis challenging India's patent law in court.

15 February could be the final court hearing. If Novartis wins, millions of people living in poverty world wide could be deprived of affordable medicines. Your help is urgently needed.

If you haven't already e-mailed Novartis, please take action today. If you have, please help us increase the pressure on Novartis by telling your friends.

Best wishes,

Richard English, Trade Campaign Manager

Send questions and feedback to campaigning@oxfam.org.uk
	The email address you gave us is juliaa@racsa.co.cr.
	Change the email address where you receive emails from Make Trade Fair
	Add maketradefair@updates.oxfam.org.uk to your address book or contacts list
	Read about Make Trade Fair's email privacy policy
	Unsubscribe
	Oxfam works with others to overcome poverty and suffering. Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International. A company limited by guarantee and registered in London No. 612172. Registered office: Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 2JY. Registered Charity No. 202918. Tel: 0870 333 2700 www.oxfam.org.uk

Gay Marriage under fire again

I have always known that I come from a very conservative state.

Indiana

What we are known for:

• Corn fields
• The Jacksons (eeek)
• Axel Rose (eeek again)
• Dan Quayle (who can't spell)
• A Republican controlled senate.

The last one is the kicker and is why nothing ever changes in Indiana. It shouldn't be called "The Hoosier State" or, as ads and our license plates in the 80's proclaimed "Wander Indiana", it should be called "Nothing ever progresses because we are scared of outsiders and change" State...but I guess that is too long to put on a license plate.

In light of my recent post I have found another article, this one of a different tune. It is from my home state and says in full:

INDIANAPOLIS The Indiana Senate has passed a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Today's vote in the Republican-controlled Senate was 39-to-10. It now heads to the House, which Democrats control 51-to-49.For the amendment to become official, it would have to pass the General Assembly this year or next without any changes, and then be approved in a statewide vote in the 2008 general election.

The amendment has two sections. The first says marriage in Indiana is solely the union of one man and one woman. The second says that the state constitution or state law cannot be construed to provide the benefits of marriage on unmarried couples or groups. (click here for the same article)

I held my head in shame. My own state. Trying to pass a law that, in every sense, is complete and total, 100% discrimination.

That is all it is.

How, in this day and age, can people be so single sighted? Do people really walk around with blinders on? Not seeing the world outside of their little bubble? How can this law make anything better? How can allowing people who love one another to marry make the moral values of the world fall to pieces? As Kate said in her recent post:

Same sex marriages were made legal in the UK in December 2005. In the time period between December 2005 and September 2006 over 15,000 same sex ceremonies took place. Has the world stopped turning? No. In reality, there are now thousands of couples who have publicly and officially declared their love for each other, who in the past would have been denied the opportunity to do so. None of these unions will be 'productive', although some couples may adopt, but as far as the specific individuals are concerned all are valid, and all took place for the same reasons heterosexual marriages take place - an overwhelming love for another human being.

How can people even think that gay marriage is wrong but bombing the hell out of innocent people is right? For a country based on freedom I am not seeing much of it.

The second part of the admendment says "state law cannot be construed to provide the benefits of marriage on unmarried couples or groups". Opponents of the law state that "For two unmarried senior citizens sharing a household, the amendment might negate their hospital visitation rights or health care decision rights." Kerry Blomquist of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence stated that "Unmarried women who are victims of domestic battery also could be harmed. If the amendment is ratified, a live-in boyfriend who abuses a woman could not be charged with domestic battery, only with simple assault."

How is any of this helpful to the people? I seriously don't see the problem with allowing 2 people who love each other to marry.

Even Rev. Tom Kryder-Reid who has been married for 17 years and has three children opposes the amendment! He said, "I caution us against idolizing traditional marriage."

My favorite argument against gay marriage are from the people who state that this will open the doors for people to marry the family pet, farm animals, daughters, sons, mothers, fathers...the list goes on. Seriously...if you want to ban something, ban people who think like that from the gene pool.

I hope the amendment doesn't pass but I know my home state. They rule with fear and not logic so sadly, I think it will.

Marriage: Is it just about having a family?

Does marriage simply exist for reproduction? If you are married, did you choose your spouse based on their ability to have children? I'm guessing the answers to both those questions will be no.

A proposed new piece of legislation is causing a great deal of controversy in the US at the moment. The Washington Defence of Marriage Alliance are advocating a new law which would mean only marriages which produce children within three years will be legitimate. Yes, that sounds crazy, but the group do not seriously believe that this initiative should be made law. Quite the opposite. What they are attempting to do is challenge the idea that marriage only exists for the purposes of procreation and in the process advance the cause of same sex marriage.

In the past, it is true that people married for the purpose of producing children. Preferably as many as possible. The rich wished to produce heirs to unite families and their assets, the poor wanted to ensure there was someone to take care of them in old age. Nowadays, we marry for love. People tie the knot because, quite simply, they can not imagine not being with that someone special for the rest of their life. Yes, many marriages end in divorce, but even those who have been divorced go out and marry again, sometimes more than once. Proof, if it were needed, of an over-riding human desire to devote ones life to someone special.

Same sex marriages were made legal in the UK in December 2005. In the time period between December 2005 and September 2006 over 15,000 same sex ceremonies took place. Has the world stopped turning? No. In reality, there are now thousands of couples who have publicly and officially declared their love for each other, who in the past would have been denied the opportunity to do so. None of these unions will be 'productive', although some couples may adopt, but as far as the specific individuals are concerned all are valid, and all took place for the same reasons heterosexual marriages take place - an overwhelming love for another human being.

Many 'different' sex couples do not have children, for some this will be a choice, for many others it will be a tragic blow. Most will stay together, even the unintentionally childless, because having a family was not the over-riding reason for them being together in the first place. However, using the logic that marriage only exists for the purpose of producing children, one could argue that these marriages are somehow less valid than the fruitful ones. Naturally, no one in such a marriage would agree with this, and I would suggest that very few people outside would either. What about two retired people who having been widowed, meet up, fall in love, marry and spend their old age together? Is their relationship not as legitimate as a couple of ultra-fertile twenty-somethings? I think it is.

It would be easy to label the actions of the Washington Defence of Marriage Alliance as a gimmick, or publicity stunt, or even a cynical attack on the institution of marriage. I think these reactions are wrong. This initiative will never become law (I'd bet next years shoe budget on that) but what it will do is encourage people to question the traditional view of marriage. Of course, a minority will have such strong religious or moral views that they will never agree to a change in the status quo, but I suspect the majority will agree that marriage is about the joining together of two individuals, and children are a (very welcome) bonus.

I know many of my readers will have a sneaking suspicion that I am a bit of a cynic, but (don't tell anyone) the truth is I am quite the romantic. When I pass a church or registrars office and see a wedding party coming out, I smile and think 'good luck to you' because seeing two people making a public commitment to one another is truly wonderful. Regardless of their gender.


Thanks to Misfit Duck and BlogHer for alerting me to this item.


Technorati Tags: same+sex+marriage, gay+marriage, usa+law, the+washington+defence+of+marriage+alliance

Prostitution: Is legalisation the answer?

The media coverage of the terrible murders of young women who worked as prostitutes in Ipswich has brought the issue of how to deal with prostitution back into the public arena. Not surprisingly, calls for it’s legalisation* have been made, or alternatively, tolerance zones, in which women (or men) could work with some degree of protection both from prosecution and the threat of assault or worse. While I can understand why these ideas seem to have some merit, I think those who support them are missing a very important point. If we legalise, or turn a blind eye to prostitution, we are in effect, legitimising the exploitation of vulnerable people, and effectively locking them into a cycle which, in all too many cases, will lead to them suffering an early death along with a great deal of misery on the way.

There is a widely believed myth that women who work in the so called ‘sex industry’ are either hard up mums who need to earn enough to feed their families, or do so because they are sexually liberated and enjoy their work. Neither of these stereotypes is true. Between 95 and 97% of prostitutes are working to support a drug habit. Of the remaining 3 - 5% many are women who have been illegally trafficked into this country and forced to sell their bodies. Others are the victims of violent partners who pimp them to the highest bidder. By lending an air of legitimacy to the trade we would not be helping it’s victims at all. We would simply be making it easier for men (and it usually is men who are the pimps regardless of the gender of the prostitute) to exploit them.

Tolerance zones and legalised brothels are not the answer. In order to work in such a place a woman/man would need to be both over the age of legal consent, and healthy. Many prostitutes would fail in one or both categories. Sadly, there is a market for under-age girls and boys, and legalisation would do nothing to protect young runaways who find themselves first addicted to drugs, and then forced out onto the streets by older people who initially claimed they wished to help them. The same is true of those who are HIV+, they would end up on the fringes, with even less protection than they now have, selling themselves even more cheaply because they are proven to be ‘damaged goods’.

Prostitution may be the oldest profession, but that does not mean it is an acceptable one. Not because of any kind of morality, but because it is something people only do out of sheer desperation. If the only people who did this kind of work did so through choice and a desire to provide a service, then it would be perfectly acceptable - it is not up to me to tell anyone how they should earn a living - however, those people are very, very few, and far between. Lets face it, ask any ten year what they want to be when they grow up, and I’m pretty sure a drug addict and prostitute won’t be responses you will hear.

Most prostitutes are in that situation because they feel they have no other choice, and if we really wish to help them we need to give them an alternative. Drug treatment programmes, safe havens for those fearing violence, education and training would be of far more use, especially when coupled with much tougher treatment of the real problem - those who choose to exploit others. We no longer allow small children to work 12 hour days in factories, and anyone found to be administering such a practice would, rightly, be imprisoned and become a social pariah. Yet, we have a situation where vulnerable young people are being exploited for profit, ruining both their own lives and those of their families, and some people say we should legalise this.

* Technically, prostitution is legal, it is soliciting which is against the law.

I am crying for my son

A sad father cries because of his death son.
Please, read this history.
The Nacion has a interesting interview too
The photos are from E. Richards ( The Nation, USA)

A hug from Costa Rica
Julia

Big brother arrives as UK plans X-Ray cameras in streets.

The Government is considering installing X-ray cameras on lampposts to spot armed terrorists and other criminals.

According to a leaked memo seen by The Sun, "detection of weapons and explosives will become easier" if the scheme drawn up by Home Office officials is adopted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6378084,00.html

Link to BBC image of such a picture

"Privacy is an issue because the machines see through clothing." --guardian.co.uk

Links
You can also read more at locknome but be warned at least one advertiser is randomly redirecting users to other sites. lockergnome.com Link if you want it.
FixTheLaw.co.uk page on the subject
The Prime Minister would like to know what you have in your pants.

Summary
Despite all this coverage there is little new factual information on the subject. I have it on good authority that Keztral clothes have a preliminary anti-x-ray coat and a range of other security enhancing items.

The best next action to take if you live in the UK is to write to your MP and express outrage. This will tell your MP that voting against the cameras is a seat winner.

If you live else where write to the nearest brish embassy and write to your reprisentitive and ask them to object to the UK on moral grounds.

This will make it very hard for this big brother style camera to see active use. If it makes it to active use then the only action left will be playing silly buggers in the EU courts. Good luck pushing anything through there in under five years.