censorship war looms
by stephen blanks
secretary, nswccl
Recent manoeuvres in censorship
laws reveal a government intent on curtailing free speech.
The Federal Attorney-General has written to State and Territory
Censorship Ministers ahead of their meeting on 27 July 2006.
The Attorney-General has raised the issue of whether Australia’s
current censorship laws are adequate. The New South Wales Council
for Civil Liberties welcomes open discussion on all issues,
but the current attitude of the Commonwealth Government on censorship
is both alerting and also alarming. There is every reason to
believe that the Attorney-General has prejudged the issue and
is using it for unnecessary political purposes.
Attorney-General to be Censor
In February, the Federal Attorney-General announced that the
Classification Board and the Classification Review Board would
be separated from the Office of Film and Literature Classification(i).
In the future, the administrative functions of these boards
will be undertaken from within the Attorney-General’s
Department. The NSWCCL believes that it is important that the
Classification Review Board maintain its independence and not
be seen as part of the political process or to be making politically-motivated
decisions.
Victory by Silence
Yet the NSWCCL is not alone in voicing concern. In the past
few months a number of Senators have attempted to challenge
the proposed changes. The Attorney-General has still been unable
or unwilling to justify the change and continues to provide
no opportunity for community consultation(ii). By refusing to
address the issue, the Attorney-General has effectively sidestepped
any scrutiny.
Censorship as a Political Act
Already, the Attorney-General is using his power under the
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act
1995 to intervene in censorship matters. On 5 June 2006, the
Attorney-General applied to the Classification Review Board
to reconsider eight Islamic texts and one film. The film was
a speech by a lecturer at an American University and has since
been passed by the Board.
The texts had been reviewed by the Board on several occasions
before the Attorney-General's intervention, in addition to prior
reviews by the Classification Board, the Commonwealth Director
of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police. The
texts were not considered to be a threat to Australian society
or a contravention of the recent sedition legislation by any
of these bodies. The AFP determined that the material in question
is “descriptive, rather than inciting any type of violence”(iii).
Nevertheless, the Attorney-General applied for the review of
the eight books.
Freedom of Communication
The NSWCCL believes that freedom of expression (and freedom
of political communication in particular) is fundamental to
the functioning of a successful democratic society and an Australian
ideal upheld by both tradition and law. A citizenry well-informed
by a range of competing ideas and a variety of information will
always be better equipped to deal with challenges posed by people
who oppose Australia’s liberal democratic tradition.
In the late 1990’s the High Court of Australia found
and developed the implied constitutional freedom of political
communication(iv). The High Court correctly determined that
such a right was essential to representative government and
that, while it was not all-encompassing, it protected free and
public political discussion.
Moreover, descriptive literature and film, however unpopular
politically, should not be examined with more heightened scrutiny
than the Board would normally employ. On the contrary, political
literature should be entitled to even greater deference. Ultimately,
pushing material underground will only prevent open and honest
discourse. The NSWCCL believes that the best way to confront
politically sensitive material is free and public discussion,
not through sensationalised second-hand accounts available through
the media or over the internet.
Conclusion
The Classification Review Board, under Commonwealth government
pressure, has banned two of the eight books submitted by the
Commonwealth Attorney-General(v). The NSWCCL had a very limited
opportunity to make submissions to the Board (see link below).
It is the NSWCCL’s view that the banning of these books
was unnecessary and counter-productive.
While the material in question may be politically and socially
controversial, as it does not present a threat to Australian
society, it ultimately serves an educational purpose. The material
provides people in Australia with insight into the views that
underlie the current political climate and the motivations of
those that oppose the liberal western tradition.
You Can Help
The NSWCCL is currently seeking active volunteers to help in
this impending censorship war. Please consider becoming a member
of NSWCCL and helping us in fighting this dangerous politicization
of censorship.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only
one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no
more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he
had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”—
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Date: 26 July 2006
footnotes
the nswccl submission
|
