There is no censorship worth noting in Australia: Clive Hamilton
June 13, 2008 – 11:51 pm
‘There is no censorship worth noting in Australia.‘ The words of former Australia Institute Executive Director, Clive Hamilton, at last nights Art Censorship debate in Sydney (video here).
Clive must be losing his memory. Did he forget that recent case where those nasty chaps at David Jones tried to silence The Australia Institute’s criticism of their advertising practices? Some might tag that corporate censorship. The ABC even reported Clive saying it was affront to free speech.
And that book he co-wrote, Silencing Dissent: how the Australian government is controlling public opinion and stifling debate. I take it that was merely an exercise in printing 279 blank pages? Nothing worth noting? Odd considering what Clive said in this interview around the time of the book’s launch:
‘Some of the laws restricting free speech that have been introduced recently go too far and represent a significant threat to our civil liberty.’
And this one:
‘Australia runs the risk of losing international standing and gaining a reputation for being intolerant and undemocratic. The most worrying long-term outcome is that Australia will become a democracy in name only. An uninformed citizenry trotting off to the ballot box every three or four years is not really democratic. If we don?t stop the erosion of our democratic institutions then the creeping authoritarianism we have witnessed over the past decade will inevitably escalate. ‘
Maybe it’s time Clive Hamilton was not worth noting.
9 Responses to “There is no censorship worth noting in Australia: Clive Hamilton”
Clive hasn’t been at the receiving end of one of the OFLC’s whimsical decisions - http://mcv.e-p.net.au/news/lesbian-film-banned-1709-9.html
By Ell on Jun 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
I’ve just seen your comments that “there is no censorship worth noting in Australia.”
I am an artist who has had films banned by the OFLC from film festival in both Sydney and Melbourne, and had my film removed from the shelves of stores by Australian police. I’ve become rather more familiar with the OFLC than I care to be, I’m quite certain there is censorship in Australia.
Whether or not it is worth noting, well I suppose that depends on one’s point of view. I certainly find it notable, and I’m sure the people who would like to see my films find it notable too.
Also, both of the afore mentioned films will be playing later this month at the Tel Aviv International LGBT Film Festival, as well as having several well-received screenings here in the US. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether or not that is notable.
Cheers!
Tony Comstock
By Tony Comstock on Jun 16, 2008
ELL: Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, in the mystical world of Clive Hamilton, that act of censorship is not worth noting.
Tony Comstock: Your experience with the OFLC is all too common. Too many filmmakers have been jerked around by their inconsistent and erratic decisions.
From a business stand point and an artistic one, calling it frustrating is no doubt an understatement.
“Spokesperson for the OFLC, Nick Perrett said, “A film does not have to be viewed to get an X rating, and in this case the filmmaker’s previous films were rated X; and therefore we assume from the information we have that this film would not be suitable for public viewing.” SOURCE
Amazing.
By Mike on Jun 16, 2008
Mr. Hamilton replied to me less than 30 minutes after I hit the “send” button:
——
Tony
Thanks for your email. On what grounds did the OFLC ban your films? Your comments suggest you believe there should never be any grounds for banning films. Is that your view?
Clive
——–
I responded as quickly as I could:
——-
Dear Clive,
The OFLC gave several conflicting reasons for not allowing my films to be screened. A recitation of that drama would take some few hours. If your curiosity is piqued, I can send you a few links to essays, news article, and blog posts.
The first film banned was “Damon and Hunter: Doing it Together” which was banned from the 2006 Queer Screen Gay and Lesbian Documentary Film festival in 2006. Aside from the warm reception this film has received from both critics and audiences, this film is also used by the Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana, the San Francisco Sex Information Hotline, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis in New York, by Planned Parenthood throughout the US.
The second film banned was “Ashley and Kisha: Finding the Right Fit”, banned from the 2007 Melbourne Underground Film Festival, in apparent retaliation for their “illegal” screening of “Damon and Hunter”. ” “Ashley and Kisha” is also held by the Kinsey Institute, etc. “Ashley and Kisha” was banned without the OFLC having seen a single frame of the film.
Worth noting, or at least notable to me, the very same night that police were sent to prevent the “Ashley and Kisha” screening, “Destricted” was playing across town at the Australian Center for the Moving Image. The OFLC’s explanation for this was that they consider the “quality of the applicant” when considering festival exemptions. My understanding is that “a fair go” if not enshrined in your law, is a colloquially held Australian value. “Quality of the applicant” hardly seems like a fair go, let alone an impartial method for deciding which films adult audiences can and cannot see.
Later that same year our best retailer in Australia, OutDVD a gay and lesbian speciality retailer was raided by the police. Again, notable to me (and perhaps to you) police seem unconcerned with the thousands of unclassified kung fu DVDs available through out Australia, yet they seem to have a keen interest in the viewing habits of gay and lesbian men and women.
Two other of my films, similarly recognized here in the US and elsewhere have been classified “X” by the OFLC, which prevents them from being sold or screened. Several film festival directors have expressed an interest (Lisa Daniels of the Melbourne G&L said A&K was “the most sentimental lesbian love story” she’d ever seen), but because they must get permission from the OFLC to screen *all* foreign films, none of them feels they can afford to take a chance on screening my work, lest they suffer the same retaliation experienced by the Melbourne Underground Film Festival.
On the basis of your recent comments, I’m guessing that you and I disagree as to whether or not, absent the commission of a crime during the creation of images, the state has any legitimate interest in regulating what sort of images and/or films artists create, or regulating what sort of images and films adult view. I understand that Australia and the US have somewhat different histories and laws in that regard. My own view is that attempts by the state to parse “artistic merit”, however well-intentioned, have results that are ultimately anti-social.
But allowing for our disagreement, I’m sure we can agree that if we are to cede these awesome powers to the state, then the state must wield these powers with consistency, impartiality, and fairness. In that respect, my films have been let down by Australia’s censorship regime, and so have the Australian people.
Yours,
TC
—–
A day later I haven’t heard back. Maybe he’s busy other things.
By Tony Comstock on Jun 17, 2008
This is a reminder about Richard Wolstencroft’s Open Letter to the OFLC which I believe involved MUFF or MIFF or something else related to teh arts in Victoria…
http://www.esotericrabbit.com/blog/?p=695
Hi Amy,
I thought I’d write to you about this year’s decision.
So the films I cannot play at MUFF 8 are the following:
70k, Schulmädchen-Report: Was Eltern nicht für möglich halten (a.k.a. The Schoolgirl Report), Sex Wish, The Farmer’s Daughter, Ashley & Kisha: Finding the Right Fit, Whore, and 60 Second Relief.
Is this correct?
I will comply and withdraw them from screenings and replace them with films you have granted permission for me to play (like Moonlight and Magic, Left Ear, etc).
A few small questions, you might be able to answer or maybe the OFLC director can answer them. (If you have his email I’ll cc this to him):
Why is pornography of the most gross and offensive nature (like shitting and pissing films) available for sale in most adult bookshops in Victoria?
Also: Are not X rated films only supposed to be available in Canberra but for sale in 90% of Adult shops in Vic and NSW and in other states?
Why is MUFF referred to the justice department for wishing to screen a couple of classy or forgotten pieces of erotica with artistic merit to an audience over 18 (who are keen to see them) and nothing done about the illegal X rated sale of videos and DVDs in sex shops that is rampant?
Is there not a hint of corruption or hypocrisy and definitely absurdity here?
Why are X rated films banned at all? It begs the question given the ready availability of it in on the internet? Available on any PC, anywhere.
A MUFF screening is a minor problem compared to the flaunting of your rules every day of every year by the adult sex industry.
Why are films like Shortbus and 9 Songs passed though they clearly contravene some of your guidelines?
Why is MIFF allowed to play a film like Exterminating Angles in a section that focussed on perversity and erotica though that too contravenes your guideline? And we cannot do it?
We will comply with your absurd ruling out of fear of prosecution to our small festival but register our complaint also that this is neither fair or just. We believe strongly it represents a violation of the basic human rights of Australian citizens to freedom of speech, assembly and expression.
Enabling a festival like MUFF or MIFF to play whatever they choose from the classy end of the sex industry will lift both festivals standing in the international community and not reveal a backward 1950s attitude to sex and censorship in Australia. Your own guidelines date from over 50 years ago. Surely a review is in order?
I am cc-ing this email to the MIFF Festival Director Richard Moore for his interest. His comments and feelings on the matter I would be interested to hear.
Any answers to these questions or our complaint will be greatly appreciated from the OFLC.
This letter is not written in disrespect but in a wish for better clarification of the important issues it contains.
Best Regards
Richard Wolstencroft
PS. Why is 70k banned? It has no sex or violence at all. Does it?
By Bob Bain on Jun 17, 2008
My pleasure on the link Mike - well sort of…if it weren’t so thoroughly galling to hear Clive’s comments on his belief that nothing notable gets censored here in Australia. I think that’s a very narrow and ignorant stance.
Bob, Richard’s letter was indeed in response to the OFLC’s decision to not grant a festival exemption from classification for a number of films so they could be screened at last year’s Melbourne Underground Film Festival. It’s interesting to note that there is no avenue for appeal against a decision regarding a Film Festival Exemption - I had many circular discussions with the OFLC.
Tony’s own Open Letter regarding the banning of his film from QueerDOC in 2006 can be read here - it makes for good if very disheartening reading. Perhaps Clive might like to take a closer look at what actually goes on in Australia - http://tinyurl.com/5pbg8b
A more comprehensive series of blog posts on the OFLC debacle is here - http://tinyurl.com/62p85u
Thanks for blogging about this stuff Mike.
By Ell on Jun 17, 2008
Tony:
I read on your blog that the positive feedback you receive gives you reason to power on (well along those lines).
It’s a shame that despite positive feedback, one complaint is enough to warrant a hard-handed response from the OFLC. No amount of support is enough to reverse their decisions. That doesn’t represent community standards.
By Mike on Jun 18, 2008
I used to have some sort of respect for Clive Hamilton. I have met Sarah Madison the co-author of Silencing Dissent. The book raises some important issues but Hamilton has totally lost me on his views on art. We have to remember that Emma Rush’s report was released by the Australia Institute. This institute being one of the very few left-leaning think-tanks makes it even more disappointing. I think of the aims of Rush’s report was to leave corporate Australia red faced and blushing, but the only thing it did was stoke the fires of Australia’s own puritans.
By dan008 on Jul 21, 2008