By their banning orders shall ye know them. Glasgow's city fathers have once again set themselves up as the guardians of decency and wholesomeness. But the decision by the council's licensing applications sub-committee not to grant a licence to the organisers of a planned exhibition of erotica in the city does not stand up to scrutiny. True, it has precedent on its side. Go-go dancers? No. Massage parlours? No. Apart from the organisers' legal representatives, the committee heard only one side of the story. Only the outraged bothered to turn up to yesterday's public meeting.
Figuratively speaking, the rest of us who are probably neutral about erotica, if against pornography, stayed at home. Just as we would had the exhibition gone ahead. If we are offended by something which is law-abiding we can express our disapproval by exercising our choice not to buy it, whether it is a sex aid or a book. That is the civilised option. The ban is inconsistent and hypocritical. Its supporters argued from an absolutist position. Goods sold at the exhibition could end up in the hands of children and the vulnerable, they argued.
Yet is there not a sex shop, licensed to trade, in the city's shopping centre? Cardinal Winning's spokesman warned that licensing the exhibition would give Glasgow a reputation as a city of sleaze. Aside from being an unfortunate choice of phrase, given Mr Blair's current drive against council cronyism, cities such as Brussels and Birmingham in which such exhibitions are regularly held, have not been so tarnished. Edinburgh has a more enlightened and liberal attitude to the sex industry, which recognises its scale and influence, and which is in keeping with the principle that it is better to regulate it than drive it into the back streets and alleys, scene of many of Glasgow's unsolved prostitute murders.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article