British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

November 9, 2009

Noted anti-game politician Keith Vaz is up in arms over Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

The Leicester East Labour MP made comments to the Daily Mail about the title, saying, “'I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks.” Vaz said he would let his concerns be known in Parliament this morning.

Meanwhile, West Bromwich East Labour MP Tom Watson told the BBC that Vaz’s remarks had pushed him over the edge. Watson responded by setting up a Facebook group called Gamer’s Voice, which is billed as “unashamedly pro-video games.” In recruiting people to join, the group asks, “Are you sick of UK newspapers and (my fellow) politicians beating up on gaming? So am I. The truth is, UK gamers need their own pressure group. I want to help you start one up.” 478 members have already joined. Watson writes on Twitter that he’s looking for a logo for the group.

In regards to Vaz, Watson stated:

Everything that comes out of Parliament in relation to video games is relentlessly negative. There are thousands of people employed in this industry, there are 26 million people playing games. We should have a much more balanced view of the industry, indeed we should be supporting them through difficult times.

While noting that he found the MW2 content in question “deeply repulsive,” and that he would not play it himself, Watson thinks that as long as a classification is in place and policed, there is no issue.

Thanks wardrox

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

SEE as long as there is an appropriate classification there should be NO bannings.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

I joined the group. Hopefully it'll prove useful.

"God, is that you?"

"No! It's a me, Mario!"

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

That almost makes me want to join Facebook. But then, y'know, the world might end or something.

<Standard comment about the Daily Mail goes here.> 

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

Wow.  A politician who can tell the difference between what he personally finds offensive, and what ought to be banned for everybody.  Will wonders never cease?

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

See, this is what Vaz never seems to quite figure out, he is elected to represent the people in his constituency , not as some kind of basis for imposing his own moral agenda on them.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

Vaz does represent the people in his constituency. The mother of Stefan Pakeerah (whose murder was incorrectly linked to Manhunt) lives in that constituency and it was her wqho started Vaz off on his moral campaign. Granted that's only one person in his constituency, but he is speaking about an issue that "affected" people in his constituency.

Regardless, you can always bet that Keith Vaz will be there to criticise the latest game causing some degree of controversy. I also think that it's good that the other MP in question has said that whilst he himself does not like the content of Modern Warfare 2, he says that the right certification is in place and has left it at that.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

Originally, I'd agree, he was representing Stefan Pakeerah, incorrectly, however, this isn't a situation where he's been contacted, or even misled by the mother, or any other constituent, it's him bandwagon jumping for popularity.

In the case of Manhunt, I could almost forgive him, because he was being misled, it wasn't entirely his fault, he thought he was doing the 'right thing' because he thought there was a general link between the game and the murder (having been told as much by the mother), but there's no such justification in this situation, he's just picked something that affects his own sensibilities, has had no impact, and is accused of nothing, it's just that he, personally, doesn't like it.

He's already aware of the systems put in place to protect younger gamers, he's perfectly aware of the laws regarding them, so there was no call whatsoever to bring this up in Parliament other than a 'look at me!' moment.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

In the caseof Manhunt he wasn't mislead, he was correctly told at the time and has been told over and over since then that there was no link.

Dispite this he has continued to use it atleast up until shortly before the Byron report (he might've used it since then but if so I haven't heard), even after being told by the police officers and detectives in the investigation that there was no link.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8344000/8344298.stm

You can watch it all from about 21minutes 20 in the video above- this might be available outside the UK, but I don't know for sure.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

Keith Vaz is a moron...did he even play the game before making his comments

 

 

Never underestimate the power of idiots in large amounts.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

"It contains such scenes of brutality that even the manufacturers have put in warnings within the game"

Yeah, how dare they warn people....

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

Worth noting that 2 Labour MPs responded to the comments by Keith Vaz by basically telling him that the game is rated 18 and that in the UK that is seen as enough.  This was just Vaz making a pointless comment to get himself noticed... and he has...

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

*sigh*  I guess none of these guys have watched a slasher flick have they.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

It is about time someone from politics has opened a Pro-Gamer facebook page, I am joining even though I hardly ever use facebook nowdays.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

I have joined & I'm standing up for my gaming rights on there.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

I took great heart from the way that the question from Vaz was answered and that Tom Watson stood up to defend the industry.  Maybe, just maybe, the new blood that has grown up on gaming is starting to stand up for it and not allow it to be a scapegoat for any of society's problems.

Re: British MPs Battle Over Modern Warfare 2

Yeah I know, People think that this game & others will NOT be good for others. So basically they are speaking for everyone, when "everyone" has a voice......& their own opinions. UGH! Yeah people do cease to amaze me.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Login or register to post shouts