NSW Council for Civil Liberties challenges book bans
The censorship debate is in the spotlight after the recent banning of two 'Islamic hate books' in Australia. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties is contesting the ban in the Federal Court. Bonny Symons-Brown speaks to NSWCCL Secretary Stephen Blanks about the issue.
In July 2006, the Classification Review Board released its finding that two of the eight so-called ‘Books of Hate’ would be refused classification. The decision has fuelled free speech debate which has been simmering since the introduction of tough new sedition laws last year.
The books, Defence of the Muslims Lands and Join the Caravan, were originally classified as unrestricted by the Classification Board and were also cleared by the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Their review came after an application by the Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, who under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 is entitled to make an application for a review at any time. Interested parties can then make their own submissions on the matter, and you can read the NSWCCL's here.
While the books were cleared by a number of authorities, Stephen Blanks says he has “no problem with the regime where the Attorney-General is able to make an application to a review board – an independent review board – for an independent review.”
However in February 2006, the Attorney-General announced that the Classification Board and the Review Board would be separated from the Office of Film and Literature Classification – an independent body – and instead would be “serviced by a secretariat from the Attorney-General’s Department.” Furthermore, the “OFLC’s policy and administrative functions will be folded into the Attorney-General’s Department,” according to a media release published on the Attorney-General’s website.
“I think that is a matter of grave concern because one of the valuable aspects of the way in which those boards are constituted is that they are independent of the government and they’re perceived to be independent. When you have a system which is not independent, the danger is that you have censorship for purely political reasons,” says Mr. Blanks.
In 1986, The Sydney Morning Herald reported outgoing chief film censor, Janet Strickland, as suggesting that by the mid 1990’s censorship would be stronger than it had been for three decades. In 1996, Strickland was quoted as saying “I think that’s exactly what has happened. And it’s speeding up. It’s going to get worse. God knows what kind of society we’ll be living in in 10 years’ time.”
In 2006 Mr. Blanks believes we are only just entering this phase of stringent censorship, and says the proposed tightening of Australia’s censorship laws are, “part of a political campaign to continue a climate of fear amongst the general population, so that the population is accepting extraordinary limits on their freedom which the government is imposing.”
Representing the NSWCCL in the Federal Court, Mr. Blanks says adults should be able to see, hear and read what they wish. But there are times when he believes censorship is appropriate, and says the guideline – that works which promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence can be censored – is a “legitimate exception if properly understood.” In relation to the two banned books, Mr. Blanks does not believe this has been the case.
The NSWCCL Federal Court challenge commenced on the 7th August 2006 and will be heard on the 28th November. Mr. Blanks says in the last few days an issue has arisen “in relation to some legal advice which was given by the Australian Government Solicitor to the Classification Review Board and the Board is claiming legal professional privilege over that advice.” The nature of the withheld information is not known and a challenge to the Board’s claim will be heard on the 29th September.
In July 2006, the Classification Review Board released its finding that two of the eight so-called ‘Books of Hate’ would be refused classification. The decision has fuelled free speech debate which has been simmering since the introduction of tough new sedition laws last year.
The books, Defence of the Muslims Lands and Join the Caravan, were originally classified as unrestricted by the Classification Board and were also cleared by the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Their review came after an application by the Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, who under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 is entitled to make an application for a review at any time. Interested parties can then make their own submissions on the matter, and you can read the NSWCCL's here.
While the books were cleared by a number of authorities, Stephen Blanks says he has “no problem with the regime where the Attorney-General is able to make an application to a review board – an independent review board – for an independent review.”
However in February 2006, the Attorney-General announced that the Classification Board and the Review Board would be separated from the Office of Film and Literature Classification – an independent body – and instead would be “serviced by a secretariat from the Attorney-General’s Department.” Furthermore, the “OFLC’s policy and administrative functions will be folded into the Attorney-General’s Department,” according to a media release published on the Attorney-General’s website.
“I think that is a matter of grave concern because one of the valuable aspects of the way in which those boards are constituted is that they are independent of the government and they’re perceived to be independent. When you have a system which is not independent, the danger is that you have censorship for purely political reasons,” says Mr. Blanks.
In 1986, The Sydney Morning Herald reported outgoing chief film censor, Janet Strickland, as suggesting that by the mid 1990’s censorship would be stronger than it had been for three decades. In 1996, Strickland was quoted as saying “I think that’s exactly what has happened. And it’s speeding up. It’s going to get worse. God knows what kind of society we’ll be living in in 10 years’ time.”
In 2006 Mr. Blanks believes we are only just entering this phase of stringent censorship, and says the proposed tightening of Australia’s censorship laws are, “part of a political campaign to continue a climate of fear amongst the general population, so that the population is accepting extraordinary limits on their freedom which the government is imposing.”
Representing the NSWCCL in the Federal Court, Mr. Blanks says adults should be able to see, hear and read what they wish. But there are times when he believes censorship is appropriate, and says the guideline – that works which promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence can be censored – is a “legitimate exception if properly understood.” In relation to the two banned books, Mr. Blanks does not believe this has been the case.
The NSWCCL Federal Court challenge commenced on the 7th August 2006 and will be heard on the 28th November. Mr. Blanks says in the last few days an issue has arisen “in relation to some legal advice which was given by the Australian Government Solicitor to the Classification Review Board and the Board is claiming legal professional privilege over that advice.” The nature of the withheld information is not known and a challenge to the Board’s claim will be heard on the 29th September.
posted by Sydney PEN at 2:15 pm
1 Comments:
This is some seriously frightening stuff, especially when you view it in the light of our broader political climate. We're vesting censorship control directly in an arm of the government at the same time as a particular racial section of the community is being examined and called into question. If we hope to have a fair and balanced debate on this issue it's imperitive that we make sure any relevant information is freely available.
Along the same lines as the neutering of the OFLC it's worth taking a look at Labor's policy on internet censorship. I may be commiting anathema by supporting a Liberal policy but on this issue they've got it right. In short, Labor is advocating country-wide censorship of questionable material. This is affronting enough on a small scale, but what happens when this power is handed to a political faction?
If we continue down this path we could be China2 within ten years and North Korea2 within 20.
Post a Comment
<< Home