Where’s the difference?
It’s reported (e.g. here) that the Queen’s grandson wants all the royal family’s ivory destroyed.
I am reminded of the Taliban destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas. The act looks much the same: destroying priceless works of art. The motivation looks much the same too: the works are founded on something seen as absolutely unacceptable. Is there a difference?
I heard someone debating this on the radio today. A lady supporting the Prince’s line put the Endarkenment argument: by owning the ivory, the royal family is complicit in the slaughter of elephants to collect it. Just as consumers of sex and violence are complicit, and we must be protected from such depravity as Shakespeare …
Hmmm. Yes, it’s a good link. A close analogy between policing the ‘net, destroying the ivory, and destroying the Buddhas.