Audax- Suggestions for your homework.

February 16, 2008


TFL (Transport for London) officials have come under fire for banning a poster showing a poster of a classic nude painting of Venus on the Underground train system because it might offend travelers. What type of travelers, you might ask?

The incriminated poster was part of an advertising campaign for the Royal Academy for a forthcoming show on the 16th century German painter and printmaker, Lucas Cranach the Elder. But TFL said the classic painting breached guidelines against advertising which “depict men, women or children in a sexual manner, or display nude or semi-nude figures in an overtly sexual context.”
The importance of this exhibition was highlighted in the press release from the Royal Academy.
“In March 2008 the Royal Academy of Arts will present the first major exhibition in Britain devoted to Lucas Cranach the Elder (c. 1472-1553). Collaboration between the Staedel Museum, Frankfurt am Main and the Royal Academy, the exhibition will bring together some 70 works chosen to represent the quality and range of this important master of the German Renaissance. The Staedel has generously made available to the Academy major works from its collection of paintings, drawings and prints by Cranach; foremost among them is The Altarpiece of the Holy Kinship, dated 1509.”
The exhibition was open to public and there was no age limit.
Children under seven years old could visit the exhibition free. Now what do we do? There are two options: either cover the “overly sexual” images (Water Nymph resting is another painting in the exhibition) or simply rate the exhibition as improper for visitors under a certain age.

What about the plentiful fashion, cosmetics and perfume-related ads displaying if not as much
flesh as a Venus, definitely a more provocative, sensual and sexual content? They seem to be more acceptable than a 500 year old nude.
Would a prostitute be considered more virtuous than a naked model, posing for an art class, only because one is clothed and the other one naked?
For some minds, exposed body is automatically “inviting”, “asking to be raped” , while covered women are models of virtue, even if their exposed eyes are fully loaded with mascara and kohl, in a desperate attempt to emphasize this part of their anatomy and bring attention upon it. Few ask why a “virtuous covered woman” use make up if she is indeed that “modest”.
If you go on a beach with nudists, that nudity is not more provocative than a pair of underwear on the cloth line.
Nudity can be elegant and refined or cheap and vulgar. A fully dressed woman can be as provocative or earthy as a naked one if this is her intention or she was just simply born with no taste at all. Cranach’s intention was obviously far from our modern concept of sexuality. Five hundred years ago, Venus was simply Venus: an important Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility.
Is Cranach’s Venus “overtly sexual”?
The TFL officials behave and think like a bunch of men who see sexual promises and provocations in anyone who has exposed more than her nose. Some seem incapable of noticing that modern men have conquered the battle against their senses and they can control their desires even if they see more than an ankle, a wrist, an ear lob, or a nostril. No matter how “sexy” they are!

Public nudity
In many countries public nudity is forbidden, e.g. in many states of the USA and may be fined as indecent exposure. In Scandinavia, Spain and Germany, public nudity per se is not forbidden, but when other people feel harassed by public nudity, it may be fined. In Barcelona public nudity is a civil right. In the Netherlands public nudity is allowed on sites that have been assigned by the local authorities and other suitable places. In 2004, a Japanese restaurant which serves sushi on the body of nearly naked women caused a storm of controversy in the conservative southwest Chinese city of Kunming. The practice of nyotai mori - eating sushi and sashimi off the body of a naked woman “dates back to the times of the ancient Japanese courts. In 2007, a piece of news was making the headlines for many newspapers: a tall, naked tattooed woman, wearing nothing but golden stilettos, stopped by the petrol station in the town of Doemitz (Germany) to buy cigarettes.

Back in business
In the early 1800’s, Goya’s Nude Maja was declared “obscene”. After outrage in Spanish society he painted “La maja vestida”, The Clothed Maja. But the Inquisition found both paintings unacceptable and thus they were confiscated in 1813, demonstrating that “obscenity” is not strictly related to nakedness. Why didn’t the Inquisition simply burn them? We’ll never know. In 2008, in the UK, the poster of a 500 year old painting is banned from the public sight.
The Inquisition is back.

February 23, 2008

February 23, 2008 -The horrific news doesn’t seem to be run by any newspaper in the UK. I found it on Hindustan Times, DNA and NRI World. IN.
Major Singh was living illegally in the UK since 1994. He was charged with sexually assaulting a 9-year old girl. Singh was sentenced to 6-years in prison by the Leicester Crown Court for assaulting the girl on September 24, 2007, and will hopefully be deported immediately after ending his jail sentence. After his arrest, Singh admitted that while drunk, he forced the child to sexual act against her wish. During this dishonorable act he was caught by local youths who took the matter in their hands and beat him. Singh was able to flee from the crime scene only to be arrested by the police shortly after. No details about the girl’s ethnicity were revealed.
BBC news is dead silent about Singh’s crime, but it’s running the story of John Ruth (”safe” name) who has admitted raping a girl aged 10 in a house in Shettleston November 18, 2007.

What I found about Major Singh is simply outrageous: according to the JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR AND A CHAIRMAN OF THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL, and the OPINION OF LORD NIMMO SMITH in the petition of MAJOR SINGH, Petitioner dated 7 March 2000, Singh entered the United Kingdom illegally in October 1994. On November10, 1994 he applied for political asylum, claiming to be a supporter of the Khalistan Liberation Front and a member of the Sikh Student Federation. In the above mentioned review we can read: ”The appellant was born on 21 March 1965 and is of Indian nationality. According to the appellant, he left India in August 1994 and travelled by air via the United Arab Emirates to the Czech Republic where he remained for approximately 9 weeks. From there he entered the United Kingdom clandestinely by lorry in October 1994. He made an application for asylum on 10 November 1994. This application was refused by the Secretary of State in a letter of June 1996. On 16 August 1996 the appellant was served with directions for his removal from the United Kingdom to India.”

At interview the appellant said he joined the latter organisation in 1989 but the documents at annex E of the main Home Office bundle said that he joined in 1990. The letter of 23 March 1996 at Annex E was written in English, although the appellant claimed to have needed an interpreter for the purposes of his appeal. If the appellant was part of any organisation it was at a very low level. He said at interview that he had not attended rallies or demonstrations but just put up posters and gave food to members of the party. He claimed to have been detained once for four hours on suspicion of hiding guns and sheltering terrorists but he said he was not ill-treated and said he was never tried or sentenced. His family were not harassed or detained. AISSF was not a banned organisation but a mainstream political party. It did contain the Bittu Faction which was banned because of involvement in terrorism. If the appellant was part of this faction the police might want to question him in their role of maintaining law and order. The appellant did not leave India until nearly a year after he claimed to have been detained. It was unlikely that the police had any interest in him, if they did he would have a fair trial. His passport was issued in 1993 and he said he had waited one year for his passport to be issued which suggested that he had applied for it in July 1992. This suggested that he intended to leave India before his alleged difficulty started. At interview he said he had no trouble leaving India. This was despite the evidence of the US State Department report which said that the government of India might deny a passport or prevent travel by those advocating Sikh Independence. The appellant claimed to have spent 10 weeks in the Czech Republic but had made no application for asylum there. His actions were not consistent with someone fleeing for his life as in Manga Singh (11175). If he was concerned that he could not remain in Punjab he could move elsewhere in India, as in Mohan Singh (9151) and Dupovac (11846).”

This is the man who raped a 9 year old girl, destroying her innocence.
This is the man protected by media and an irresponsible PC policy.
This is the man who was not supposed to be in the UK.
Someone should get the balance right.