Lynne Featherstone is Member of Parliament for Hornsey and Wood Green, part of the Liberal Democrat party and a twit.
This is the woman who called the emergency services because her boiler was 'making funny noises' and brought to the government's attention the dangers of the terrifying, but utterly fictional drug Progesterex (featured in a ten-year old hoax email) and praised the Daily Telegraph for their work uncovering the MP expenses scandal (ignoring that her underlings had bought £22,000 of stationary in a single month to wriggle out of complying with government stationary allowances.)
But perhaps the worst thing about her is her dedication to the so-called 'progressive' agenda - which basically involves controlling how people express themselves to ensure they comply with what is deemed 'politically correct.'
One of the targets in her sights? The British institution that is the 'Page 3 Girl.'
My American and Australian readers might not be familiar with this concept, so I'll explain. On Page 3 of some tabloid newspapers - most notably The Sun - you'll find a half-page photograph of a topless beauty. This is a tradition dating back to 1970 and I personally believe it's one of Britain's only truly significant contributions to world culture in the last forty years (the other one being Doctor Who.)
Anyway. If Lynne Featherstone had her way (and God help the world if she ever did) there'd be a ban on topless models in newspapers.
"I would love to take on Page 3," she pompously declared.
A ban? Really?
How come Britain's solution to everything is a ban?
But of all the things to ban, Page 3 girls are, quite frankly, the most ridiculous. I don't really understand how a ban would contribute anything of benefit to British society. Page 3 girls aren't raising crime rates, triggering riots, preaching religious extremism or bulk-buying £22,000 worth of biros and envelopes with taxpayers money.
The only justification for wanting to ban them is because Featherstone (she should be called 'Featherweight') is a prissy little control freak with delusions of being a feminist (and most self-respecting feminists are probably all too keen to distance themselves as much as possible from this blithering harpy.)
But more pressing than the question of why anybody would ban Page 3 girls is the question of how. What justification could there possibly be? It's just government censorship - dictating the contents of national newspapers seemingly oblivious to the fact that this is the sort of thing that goes on in Iran and North Korea.
"Oh, wait," cry the so-called progressives, "this is different! We're only banning topless women, not dictating what the newspapers can write about!"
But how long is that really going to take? In America we already had the first injection of political correct lunacy when critics called a political cartoon in The New York Post racist because it suggested the stimulus bill was written by a runaway chimpanzee that happened to be in the news that week.
Britain's just the kind of country to introduce bans - always with the bloody bans - to control what newspaper content they deign to be 'offensive' or 'racist' or 'homophobic' (and, like in the case with the 'racist' New York Post cartoon, what's designated 'offensive' is almost invariably critical of the progressive agenda.)
Enough is enough.
You can't start censoring the British press - just like you can't start arresting people for preaching Christianity or ban people from entering the country for criticizing radical Islam. We're supposed to live in a free democracy - but under the guise of 'progressive' and 'liberal' policies, Britain's slowly turning into nothing short of a politically-correct police state.
Thank goodness that I live in America - where freedom of expression and freedom of religion are the cornerstone of this nation's identity.
Yes, it does mean I have to listen to an awful lot of offensive, inaccurate, blithering rubbish (have you ever listened to the Glenn Beck show?) However, it means that I can happily express my own offensive, inaccurate, blithering rubbish with absolute impunity (welcome to Militant Ginger, by the way.)
Britain has never had any formally dictated 'right to freedom of expression' - which makes it all the more easy for so-called progressives like Lynne Featherstone to tarmac over what shreds of free speech we Brits still have left.