@Daniel: Interesting theory. It’s funny how Aussies think of themselves as liberal and easy-going and relaxed when really, the country is anything but. Growing up in NZ, I always had this idea of Australia as a kind of hippy utopia of surfers and sunshine. It wasn’t until I moved to Hobart in 2004 that I realised how wrong that impression was. Even after moving to the Gold Coast, I never regained that idea.

As I wrote in my Blog, not seeing Happiness does not mean one does not know how to be happy, not seeing Sadness does not prevent one from being sad … so not seeing, hearing or speaking about humanity, its ills, its controversies, its experimental behavior, its foibles, and its radical free will does not mean it all just goes away. The Internet has provided for the first time in humankind’s history a Globally Open Forum, to opt out of that forum, to not be part of that intricate conversation means one might as well abolish schooling as well and be done with it.

I’ve seen the government here work hard to encourage isolation, especially in areas of collective communication such as Universities, the Internet, Pubs (think about the government restrictions now on public venues) where ever people meet and talk is considered dangerous to the government. People are easier to control in isolation.

I suppose this however had to arrive at some time, and I guess it is good that it has – we’ve battled censorship capers like this before in the past and won so hopefully this one will be written about in the same way Miller wrote about the banning of his books, and others who have challenged the values and views of “decision makers”.

Rupert

“There is nothing in law that states that material which isn’t in accordance with the guidelines has to be be refused classification”

Here in the Government Gazette is former Darryl Williams amendments to the Classification Code

http://tinyurl.com/y9gjnx6

(In Force until March 2003 but presumably assumed to be legally binding.. )

Section 1 a) of the code states that material that falls into this category

(there are three categories of RC material a) general material b) underage material and c) promoting crime )

has a qualifying statement with the words “.. to the extent they should not be classified”.

In the case of Baise Moi for instance this is the wording that arguably caused the film to be legally classified R18+.

The same wording appears in the regulations regarding prohibited imports under the Customs Act meaning (in my view) that in any legal proceedings it would be up to the prosecution to establish an argument as to why a film being imported should not be classified other than RC.

Such a provision does not appear (rightfully) under sections b) and c)

It is Xmas Eve. I’m awaiting Santa Claus

Bob

Refer the Refused Classification website..

http://www.refused-classification.com/Films_ISpitOnYourGrave.htm

“In keeping with the rising censorship of the late 90′s, in 1997 the Classification Board took one more look at the film. On December 15th of that year the rating was withdrawn, and the film was effectively banned in Australia. Technically, any of the three previous video releases should have been withdrawn from rental. In practice, a search of any half-decent video store would usually come up with this title tucked away on the shelves somewhere”

and then…

“The DVD was released on September 13th 2004. It is uncut with a running time of 96min 57sec. The following is the Force Entertainment press release that accompanied the disc. Although they claim it has been banned for 17 years by the OFLC, this is not true. It was rated R18+ from June 1982 until December 1997. The RC rating lasted from December 1997, until it was once again rated R18+ in June 2004.”

Banned then unbanned. Some films go through a cycle of banning unbanning and then being banned or “Refused Classification” in a seemingly never ending cycle depending on the mood of those in power at any particular point in time.

Bob

The first I heard of the term was in classification legislation introduced into by the New South Wales government in 1984. The law stated that video tapes previously exempt from classification law were subject to the same provisions as film shown in a cinema. Any video tape without classification markings had to be sent to the OFLC to be classified. The criminal penalty that applied was determined after the event by the rating applied to the video tape – with harsher penalties applying to higher levels of rating. If a tape was refused classification then the penalty was reasonably harsh although in practical terms the only available penalty under that law was a fine (terms of imprisonment required decisions by the Supreme Court).

There is nothing in that legislation which specifically outlawed the newly introduced “X” rating and the criminal penalty for a film subsequently rated “X” by the OFLC or the Classification Board didn’t exist in the legislation – so no criminal penalty applied.

In this regard a search through Hansard reveals that some in the parliament thought that a film rated “X” had in fact been refused classification. They were wrong.

A classic example of the refused classification fiasco is the film “I Spit on Your Grave”. When first released into Australia it was given an “R” classification. Shortly after the Howard government took office the film was reviewed and it was determined that the film was now refused classification despite the fact the film could be hired from numerous video hire outlets with the original “R” classification on the cover.

I hired the “R” rated video tape many many years ago due to it’s controversial nature but didn’t take any time to study it – preferring instead to fast forward until the end and return it to the video outlet.

While it was in it’s refused classification state I picked up a Region 1 DVD copy from an oulet underneath the George Street strip of cinemas (not sure if it’s Hoyts). This shop imported Region 1 classification movies and stated that if I discovered a region 1 film that interested me they would import it for me regardless of classification law.

It was then that I took time to study the film in detail. I still have it on my video shelf although many other RC titles have since been sent to to the “tip” as I no longer have room for olde olde video tapes – some dating back to 1976.

What happened then was that somebody submitted “I Spit on Your Grave” again and this time the OFLC (or the Classification Board) decided that it was now rated “R” and no longer refused classfication.

In Western Australia it is illegal under their “Censorship Act” to be in possession of RC material so what can we make of this – a person in WA has a an olde olde copy of “I Spit on Your Grave” and suddenly the film is refused classification and they become subject to criminal penalties for possession, and then lo and behold the film is rerated “R” and they are no longer subject to criminal penalties for possession.

In my opinion very few films should be refused classification givent that the job of the Classification Board is to classify films and video. If they cannot classify a film then it’s up to Ministers of the Crown to amend the guidelines so that many films subject to the extremely harsh refused classification stigma are classified under Australian law.

The myth is that we don’t ban films – we classify them. The reality is that if a film or video is refused classification it can be seized at the point of entry into Australia and otherwise innocent people convicted of an offense for importing a film that is legal to sell purchase and view in many western democracies including France and the Republic of Ireland.

Bob