I find this to be really interesting. The European Union is a loose union of nations with different cultures and values. Views on sexuality and sexual imagery are different from culture to culture. Yet here you have one big entity making decisions for the whole. This is a microcosm, though perhaps not the best example, of why I find these "unions" or "confederations" to be unworkable. Nations are more than government buildings and laws...they're cultures, as well, each with their own tastes. Anyway...enough of my rambling! http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,984416,00.html Brussels considers ban on raunchy TV images EU may act against stereotypes that do not respect human dignity Ian Black in Brussels Wednesday June 25, 2003 The Guardian Sexist or raunchy images on television or in advertising could be banned across the European Union under a directive being considered in Brussels. Anna Diamantopoulou, the Greek commissioner for social affairs, has ordered an internal study of gender questions outside the workplace, it was confirmed last night. But officials said discussions were still in their early stages, with different commission departments being asked for their views, and some already strongly opposed. "This is a trial balloon," insisted one well-placed source. "No decision has yet been taken." Such a directive could have implications for Europe's media, advertising and insurance industries, and could stop TV programmes that stereotyped women - or men - and ban advertising that did not "respect human dignity". It might also force insurance companies to stop using gender as the basis for calculating premiums or pension annuity rates. Strict EU laws, enforceable in all member states, already apply to sex discrimination in the workplace, but the commission's remit was extended in the treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. Pressure groups like the European Women's Lobby are demanding a directive that would deal with sexual stereo typing on the analogy of legislation outlawing incitement to racial hatred. "We want action by the EU in areas other than employment," said EWL policy coordinator Cécile Greboval. "We need an instrument to combat sexual stereotyping, but it's a hard battle inside the commission." Draft papers on the issue say that while freedom of expression must be respected, sex discrimination and affronts to human dignity should be banned from media and advertising. "The purpose is to avoid throughout all forms of mass media all stereotypical portrayals of women and men, as well as any projection of unacceptable images affecting human dignity and decency in advertisements," an internal commission document says. Future legislation could affect TV shows and advertisements which portray women or men as sex objects. If Ms Diamantopoulou goes ahead with a formal proposal it will have to be adopted by the whole 20-member body before being debated and approved by the European parliament as well as member states. Social policy is a notoriously slow-moving area in Brussels because of national sensitivities and powerful business interests. Heavy lobbying has already been reported over this issue, with insurance companies keen to ensure that gender and life expectancy differences could continue to be factored into health and life cover premiums. "We will want to look at the outcome," a British government spokesman said. "We would want to make sure that whatever comes out does not undermine competitiveness or the single market." Commission sources pointed out that rules banning sex discrimination did not outlaw all distinctions between the sexes: for instance, there was no objection to single-sex schools. "Differences between the sexes in areas such as insurance are based on actuarial statistics and are nothing to do with sex discrimination in the accepted sense," one source said. "If a different risk level between men and women is established, for whatever reason, that obviously has nothing to do with sex discrimination and it would be absurd to try to impose identical standards." The European Advertising Standards Alliance said last night that all members - including Britain's Advertising Standards Authority - had their own "own strong and applied provisions on the portrayal of women". Oliver Gray, its director, told the Guardian: "This issue, although sensitive, causes very few complaints. According to 2002 statistics from the EASA it represented only 6.4% of total complaints in Europe. Industry is actively exercising responsibility in this area." An existing commission directive called "television without frontiers" already lays down guidelines on consumer protection, right to reply and advertising content. Vivian Reding, the Luxembourg commissioner for education and culture, has made clear she opposes anything other than self-regulation for TV programmes - suggesting her Greek colleague will face an uphill struggle.
This is a microcosm, though perhaps not the best example, of why I find these "unions" or "confederations" to be unworkable. Nations are more than government buildings and laws...they're cultures, as well, each with their own tastes. Anyway...enough of my rambling! Max, you have repeatedly posted negative comments about Europe, France etc. I'm not sure your reasons. Some conservos hope that these countries don't get together so they can't wield any counterpower to the Rumsfeld/Bush America uber alles crowd. Interestingly I heard a somewhat similar story. It turns out that 8 states, including California allow mar1juana for medicinal purposes. Aschroft and his type of Feds dont like this. So they prosecuted a guy Rosenfeld sp? who grew it legally in Cal. The Judge gave him a one day sentence. I assume that we can't conclude that the United States should not disband because of these type of differences?
You forgot to mention that he was growing it for medicinal distribution and had obtained a letter from the state granting him permission. He, however, was not allowed to present any of this in his defense (feds didn't allow it) so the jury thought he was a drug dealer. Their (the jury) subsequent protest after the verdict is the main reason it became national news.
to the contrary, glynch...i'm respecting these nations' cultures! i'm saying that france should be able to be france...i'm saying that joining unions which require you to check your culture at the door is not a good thing. i'm saying i would fear that for the US as part of some world body...and if it can happen to european countries, it can happen to us. i'm not downgrading any european country here...i think you misunderstand the point of my post. i'm saying that meshing a bunch of cultures together in a mish-mosh fashion and then making laws or regulations to govern those different cultures is a bad idea...laws are a reflection of the values of a culture. this is really an argument for local autonomy and self-rule...not me disparaging european nations. and yes, i strongly believe that criminal law should be left largely to the states.
I'm depressed that the free and open sexuality in European media may become suppressed and boring... like it is here. I find their treatment of sex refreshing whenever I've traveled there. It's not the same in every country, as you say, MadMax. I hope the Union doesn't diminish the glorious differences between the Dutch and the Germans, or the French and the Italians. Texas is losing some of it's special identity. We like to think of it as "another country", but the overwhelming influx of people and the burgeoning population is having it's presence felt. We should all hold on to what distinct culture we possess... the world is better for it.
The lady who wants to introduce this ban is a prudish moron that is just envious because she looks like an old greek witch. They should sack her and move on. End of story.
This is a microcosm, though perhaps not the best example, of why I find these "unions" or "confederations" to be unworkable. Nations are more than government buildings and laws...they're cultures, as well, each with their own tastes. Anyway...enough of my rambling! I think you could argue that when the US was still coming together, the cultures of Texas, New York, Georgia, and California were as different as France, England and Germany today. I don't think an EU-type system is good either, though -- mostly for economic reasons.
i've heard people try to argue that..but i really don't think so. first of all...when the US was coming together, there was no texas. there were two major divisions...the north and south among the colonies. past 1776 and the revolution...and ultimately the war of 1812...there was shared history..common history. places like texas, though texans weren't even in existance at that time, acknowledged that shared history...they referenced it years later in the war with Mexico. there was certainly a pioneer experience. but nations like Great Britain and France are entirely different and have been for centuries. these are nations that beat the crap out of each other for centuries...in the last century, less than 100 years ago...they were beating the crap out of each other. people are still alive in Great Britain who remember Germans as mortal enemies. as those who bombed their cities. that's distinctly different from differences between texas and virginia. certainly there was that feeling in the decades following the civil war here...but the history is just so much longer and deeper in europe. italy is soooo different from germany, culturally. if you do business overseas you see that big time.
