Very recently photographs of a completelynaked Prince Harrybecame the hot favourite item searched in the virtual world through the search engines. The celebrity news site, which first revealed its prize possession to the world at large, stated that Prince was involved in game of "strip billiards" at his VIP suite at the Wynn Resort, Las Vegas. It all began when he intercepted some hot chicks at the hotel bar, whom he invited to his VIP suite. The main aim of celebrity news sites is to cash in on crass sensationalism, and so most of us not are really not that prepared to analyze these incidents with seriousness they actually demand. For the average mass these happenings deserve passing attention-one that's mixed with cheap thrills. The tabloids keep serving such items, at regular intervals, to make average mass kill their boredom.
That's the impression which is generated in haste to avoid deeper speculation. For instance, just look at the way one section of media tries to portray such issues with touch of dignity. After all, it involves a royal family. Ingrid Seward, royal biographer and editor of Majesty magazine, was quick in offering a suitable defense stating that such acts do not damage the reputation of Royal Family at all."I don't think it will damage the Royal Family at all," Seward said. "He's the Boris Johnson of the Royal Family." So the ultimate conclusion that gets pasted on our minds is that temporarily these acts might cause some embarrassment for the oft-spotlighted British Royal Family but all in all such acts are okay in royal circles.
So when such incidents appear in the life of a person belonging to lower echelon of society, such a person be ready to be labeled as a womanizer, a person with loose morals and etc. but when same acts get committed in the higher sections of society, the person still enjoys enough dignity to serve as "the Royal Family's representative at the closing ceremony of the London Olympics." In fact, such incidents are great blow to the flawed Victorian ideals once prevalent in this part of the world, which never believed that "sex is about affection, caring and warmth, and is the ultimate expression of love" and indulged in brutal suppression of niceties associated with love-making- a wonderful art form which found brilliant expression in Kamasutra of Vatsyayana.
When a section of western media was pretty busy in providing a touch of honour to the glorious acts of Prince Harry, a section of mainstream western media was baying for the blood of British MP George Gallowayfor offering defensein the favour of Julian Assange that "having inappropriate sex with a woman while she was asleep is not rape". He is being severely condemned for expressing thatallegations against Julian Assange "don't constitute rape".
"Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100% true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape," he said.
"At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this. Woman 'A' met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him, claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again."
"It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?'. It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning..I don't believe either of these women, I don't believe either of these stories."
Obviously, this was bound to give rise toferocious reactionson part of various circles representing United States and other important bodies associated with this case, termingGalloway's observations as "offensive and deeply concerning". Without going further into this debate whether or not Galloway was right in his observations, it's interesting to note that anybody who reveals the dark sides of powerful governments becomes a person with achequeredpast. Julian Assange is not all wrong when he accuses US government of awitch-huntagainst himself and his team. That's the most standard pattern noticeable in almost all the nations.
The moment an individual or anorganisation exposes the misdeeds of powerful governments, the respective governments order theirinvestigativeagencies to trap them under various sections of law. Isn't the same thing taking place in India againstBaba Ramdevand TeamAnnatrying to put the Indian government on mat over issues pertaining to corruption and black money? So it's hard to believe in the version offered by the United States thatWikiLeaks founder is trying hard to divert the attention via "wild" claims.
Interestingly, nobody can understand the whole issue better than me. Veryrecently, one of mypopular websitesoperating in United Kindom and other nations was blocked in such a manner that's its now impossible for me to access the site. No suitable explanation was offered. The real reason was to curb the growinginfluence of this website, which had taken tough stand on sensitive issues not in league with popular sentiments. The same website, not a long time back, received loads of compliments from various quarters but the moment it took a rigid and candid stand on critical issues, it gottargeted.
Anyway, it really needs to be analyzed that why people belonging to royal background and the powerful governments remain in good books despite being found involved in corruptpractices, but at the same time individuals andorganisations, involved in making world a bit better place for survival, are treated as criminals? For how long this tendency would prevail? Any answers?
British MPDismisses Sex Assault Allegations
Reactions AgainstGeorge Galloway's Observations
Indowaves Not Accessible To Its Owner