My TV screen has been covering itself too often with those scene-blotting squares. This gimmick, and I use the word deliberately with a sneer, has been tried before, relaxed, imposed again and withdrawn and this time, brought on again with greater severity. Stupidly too, I must add.

TV censorship

I am no couch potato, in fact I watch very little TV, but even that little has annoyed me very much these last few days because of those blotting out squares, which appear ridiculously. For instance, two persons, a young man and woman, drew close in the soap I was watching. Out came the squares and blotted out the scene. This happened several times. The two had only to lean towards each other and they were covered with the coloured squares. But at one point they, the censoring squares, came on too early and were withdrawn too early. And there before the viewer were the two in bed – definitely not snoozing, but smooching like crazy! Then later that very night, after spots of squares during the soap Bold and Beautiful, the squares failed to appear and we were privy to Ric and Ridge’s eldest daughter almost carnivoring themselves on each other’s lips!!

The squares appear each time a person raises a glass, no even before. A can of beer or whatever has only to appear and it being poured and drunk are all obliterated.

To me this type of censorship is the height of the absurd. It only annoys and will, I can swear, not reform society. It can, conversely, aberrate. A male young adult seeing a scene obliterated just as an alcoholic drink is to be consumed will definitely be attracted to the forbidden fruit. "This must be something!" will be his surmise and then the next move is to try it out himself.

Scenes of love, passionate or otherwise, merely kissing or going further in bed, titillate more when obliterated. An oldie like me gets merely annoyed which can turn to anger if the squares are seen more often. But I am sure the censoring titillates a young mind more than if it saw the obliterated scene on screen. So what would the denied-viewing young person do? Very probably rent a DVD, the hotter the better and then perchance proceed to viewing the more vulgar.

Apart from this resurrected move to improve the morals of the citizen of Sri Lanka – no kissing, no show of passionate love – the drinker and smoker of tobacco products are also targeted and to be targeted ever more ferociously. The abuser needs to be targeted and improved, most certainly. He harms himself and his family and causes nasty ripples in society too. But the mild drinker? Let him have his drink or two. He harms no one and it is in the nature of man to be social and convivial and often a drink or two are needed to produce conviviality. Live and let live is not only liberal; it improves society.

Tobacco smoking has decreased drastically. One hardly notices the smoke-spirally cigarette stuck in a male mouth. Female smokers are very infrequent in Sri Lanka. How did this obvious reduction in smokers and smoking occur? Most definitely not by falling in line with proposed laws by do-gooders and political parties such as the JHU. Very definitely not because of government strictures or exhortations not to smoke. People realized smoking is a definite health hazard and thus voluntarily many kicked the habit. Bring in legislature to ban smoking and there surely will be a rise in those taking to the habit, and illicit smuggling in of cigarettes. Same with drink: ban licit liquor and the illicit brews are consumed more, resulting in worse consequences

Victorian morality

Imposed-from-above morality instantly brings to mind Victorian morality. Moral values and ideals were imposed on the British by Queen Victoria and/or her Court. Thus during Victorian times, prudence, sobriety, piety, devotion to family, honour, no sex prior to marriage, devotion to Christian worship, attending church at least once a week were strictures imposed by the Crown and to be followed. Even stating an obvious and innocuous fact like "I have to go to the bathroom’ was considered vulgar. Women were covered from ankle to neck. A lewd woman was one who lifted her skirt ever so slightly and showed a man her lower leg!

What was the result? It is said that morals reached their nadir during the Victorian Age. Sexually transmitted diseases were rampant, so also drunkenness and of course cruelty to women and children which was, I suppose, a conduit for man’s frustration forbidden his baser desires.

Also these values were imposed on the lower middle classes mostly. Poverty was rampant as evidenced by Charles Dickens’ novels, so also social evils such as the poor house. Charity was the in thing, but charity of the most non-altruistic kind. A hand out was given if the recipient foreswore any enjoyment in life. The upper classes lived their lives merrily and the aristocracy with zest and total disregard for morality. Proof? The Prince of Wales growing old in waiting for the crown was supposed to be THE playboy of the time, immersed in immorality. He lived a free and fast life we would say, but judged by Victorian values, he was a sinner. The hypocrisy of the age was horrendous.

Local hypocrisy

So are we heading for a Victorian style of double standards? People are made to be moral by law. How preposterous! But the powers that be can sin and sin. They can be profligate, extravagant, self indulgent, corrupt to unbelievable extent. We mere mortals have to tighten our belts, follow our religions with a show of it and be virtuous in our State imposed poverty.

If one lists the sins of the powers-that-be, the list would cover this entire newspaper. Think of the metta and karuna of the highest Buddhist prelates of the Siyam Nikaya in closing their eyes to the suffering of four elephants: two babies and their mothers, because politicos were involved in the abduction and the ceremonial presentation of these poor creatures to them as guardians of the Temple of the Tooth. The Cabinet decided on the gift and they had to go along with that decision, forsaking the most basic of Buddhist principles. Think of the hubris of the Diyawadana Nilame and his co-animal-abductor, Minister Lokuge who continue to keep the animals separate from their mothers and the herd just because they want to show they took no notice of public opinion.

I don’t know whether you had the email circulating as originated in the US of America, enter your inbox. I got it and was stunned to read that 4.5 million was spent on a birthday party for the offspring of a minister and, horrors, the audacity of the man to palm it of for payment to his ministry. Somebody should ask a question in parliament and nail the issue one way or another. Fifty persons were supposed to accompany our President when he visits New York to address the UN, plus fourteen of the First Ladyentourage and they stay at the Ritz Carlton Since that story appeared in print, we’ve been told the prez is not going, thank goodness. Back home patients are dying because of the malfunctioning of apparatus such as dialysis and heart machines. No money to repair them.

We read in Thursday’s newspapers that all parliamentarians are coming together to serve themselves a bigger helping. This time "The ruling SLFP–led coalition and the UNP are now planning to extend a scheme to pay Rs 5 million as compensation to families of MPs killed due to terrorism and to those who die of natural causes." I turned red reading this and my inflamed colour turned apoplectic purple on reading the extension. Be an MP, die of old age, or rather too much of the good life, and we the taxpayer has to foot a bill of five million to his family. They get life long pensions for serving just five years debating and of course eating excellently and earning for each sitting. And now five million to their families when they depart this mortal round of good living.