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.