I heard Gary Glitter's Christmas song in a mall today, should we still listen to it or should it be banned?

Question

For those of you who don't know, Gary Glitter is a convicted paedophile.

The song is called "Another Rock N' Roll Christmas." It's a very catchy tune and was in the charts at Christmas 1984.

I've noticed that it's been quietly deleted from the Christmas compilation CDs that are out there.

Answer 1

Banned

Answer 2

I don't like banning things, just because some people are uncomfortable. I would hope that most people would choose not to play Mr Glitter's music.

Bigger question - does the knowledge that an artist is an objectionable person mean that his or her work is therefore invalid?

Incidentally, if you think all of Glitter's records should be banned, you should get round to your local bookshop and demand the withdrawal of Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through The Looking Glass. Lewis Carroll's relationship with Alice Liddell was very suspect!

Answer 3

It shouldn't be banned. It's just a song, and not a song that condones paedophilia. If we banned it, you would also have to ban music by other people whose morals we consider to be not not so hot - Wagner, Michael Jackson, Pete Docherty (Hmm, maybe not a bad thing). Or stop watching Roman Polanski films. Good music shouldn't be banned just because the author or singer isn't liked very much.

Answer 4

As I stated earlier paedophilia isn't against the law. although performing on impulses to damage or endanger a baby easily is. there is an major distinction in regulation between our innovations and our deeds, and that i visit wrestle for it to proceed to be so. it really is argued that viewing newborn Porn, even with the very undeniable truth that no longer harming a baby without delay, does create a marketplace for some thing that does damage and endanger children. The equivalent is staring at a snuff video, which will want to carry similar consequences. no matter if it really is inflicting wilful depravity of the innovations, then it is resembling taking LSD, and could be seen resembling taking a category A drug. If it arouses suspicion that particular fantasies will be acted out, and that children are at risk, then this warrants surveillance. He won't be able to be to blame of paedophilia (it is a innovations set), yet he has been stumbled on to blame in a Vietnamese courtroom of performing on his impulses with an 11-365 days-previous, and that i see no clarification why this conviction won't be able to be confirmed in England. it will be argued that paedophilia, like inspite of fuels the psychopaths right here, is a psychological condition it is a danger to society. In both situations then, the finest ideal answer to to section the sufferer and enable the psychiatrists type it out. Neither are crimes even with the truth that. those tormented by paedophilia in the journey that they prefer to stay on the aspect of the regulation and of society want to channel their emotions constructively in route of the welfare and wellbeing of children and reserve their sexual frustrations for consenting adults. those tormented by psychopath attacks are properly suggested to attend anger administration classes before they commit an offence.

Answer 5

Well he was a very disturbing sick perverted man who should rot in hell for what he did to those girls. It should be BANNED and never ever played again. I didnt actually know he had a christmas song but hey. And anyway as Alicia S said its a season for joy not worrying about some perv.

Answer 6

Yes. The very idea of a creepy old guy telling kids to sit on their knee because "I have something for you" has no place at Christmas time.
NB: Jonathan King's somg "let it all hang out" is used in a tv commercial & he's also a convicted paedo.

Answer 7

This reminds me of the time I saw the painting of the convicted child-murderer Myra Hindley. It is huge and made up of children's hand prints! I considered it art and extremely thought provoking and would not consider banning it from public exhibition. Would I have it in my home? No!

I haven't heard the song you refer to and don't know if it has any artistic merit in itself but I would not be inclined to ban it. Would I listen to it? Yes! Unless I am prepared to listen to it at least once I cannot form an objective opinion about it. But I'm not a Glitter fan and will not be seeking it out. If I heard it and considered it high art would I bring a copy home? Yes, I would - I'd be judging the product rather than its composer.

The principle I would work on is that whatever evil a person has done they remain capable of doing good. And whatever the intentions or motivations of the one who creates that which is created is, in itself, an independent object of worth, or not, depending on the assessment of the observer.

Answer 8

Banned. Christmas is a season of joy, not worrying about some paedophile.

Answer 9

I think they should still be played, but he shouldn't get any income from the sales and rentals.
The Glitter Band - his ex- musicians - are sick of glitter ruining everything they try to do. They are missing out on gigs world-wide and royalties they have earned over the years.

Answer 10

If it gets banned then collectors will rush out to buy it in the hope that because it is controversial, it will make money in years to come. Don't give it any more publicity - I completely agree with Mr Sceptic, people should just refuse to play it or buy it.