28 April 2001
On the Inquiry into the Operation of the Films, Videos and Publications
Classification Act 1993
1.
This submission is from Anjum Rahman (Ms), Chartered Accountant, on
behalf of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, 48 Howell Ave, Hamilton,
New Zealand.
2.
I wish to appear before the Committee to speak to my submission.
I can be contacted at 07 8566 883. I
wish that the following also appear in support of my submission:
Rehanna
Ali, Local Co-ordinator (Wellington), Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand.
3.
Our organisation was formed in 1990 to respond to the needs of Muslim
women in New Zealand. We are
affiliated to the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ), the
national organisation that represents all Muslims in New Zealand.
Our structure consists of seven local organisations, each of which elects
a representative to the national council. The
national council is responsible for organising national events, presenting ideas
and requirements to FIANZ, and liaising with overseas organisations.
The local organisations are responsible for organising local events, and
meeting the needs of the Muslim women in local areas. All Muslim women are considered to be members of their local
association, and through this membership are members of the national
organisation. A conservative
estimate of our membership would be six thousand women.
4.
In the process of preparing this submission the National Council of the
Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand were consulted with, as well as:
Ms Shadia Rahman, Solicitor, Perth, Australia;
Dr Anwar Ghani, President, Federation of Islamic
Associations of New Zealand;
Dr M. Anwar Sahib, Member of the Religious Advisory
Board of FIANZ.
All Muslim women in New Zealand would agree with the
views presented in this submission.
5.
We welcome the inquiry into the Films, Videos, and Publications
Classification Act 1993, which we believe is long overdue.
There should be much stronger censorship of objectionable material.
The Government should take a much more active role in protecting the
rights of the people, by ensuring that objectionable material is not publicly
available. This should be done by
changing the wording of specific sections of the Films, Videos, and Publications
Classifications Act 1993, by broadening the scope and powers of the Chief Censor
and by increasing the resources made available to the Chief Censor, to enable
him or her to carry out the functions of office in an effective manner.
6.
Islam does not accept that any group should be treated in a degrading
manner, regardless of their ethnic background or sex. The Holy Quran states:
“O mankind! We
created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into
nations and tribes, so that you may know each other.
Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is one who is the
most righteous of you.” (49:13)
7.
In Islam women are given a high status and are to be treated with equal
dignity and respect. The Holy Quran
states:
“O Prophet! Tell
thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their
outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that
they should be known (as such) and not be molested.” (33:49)
Islam requires a high standard of dress from women, and one of the main
reasons for this is that a woman should not be treated merely as a sexual
object, but as a human being equal in intelligence and spirituality.
8.
In Islam children are seen as a gift from God.
They are given to us in trust, and as adults it is our responsibility to
nurture them and give them the love, care, nourishment and education they
require. Again it is their right to
be treated with dignity and respect and to be protected from any deviants in
society.
9.
While Muslims agree that individuals should have the freedom to choose
courses of action, we believe that this freedom is limited when the effects of
that freedom impinge on the rights of others.
Individuals live in society and the actions of one individual will affect
others. Where the effect is
adverse, then society as a whole has the right to restrict the individual’s
freedom to minimise or stop any adverse effects. It is the responsibility of government, as the representative
of the people, to ensure that the required actions are taken to minimise any
adverse effects.
10.
By treating women and children as sexual objects, pornography diminishes
the respect and dignity with which they are treated. Women are no longer seen as
equal, but in most pornography, are treated as submissive beings available
merely for the sexual pleasure of men. By depicting women in such a way, all women in society are
affected. By allowing individuals
the freedom of choice to produce, participate in, and to read or watch
pornographic material, there is an adverse effect on all members of society.
Women are no longer seen as human beings of equal intelligence,
capabilities and spirituality. They may be denied opportunities or they may be subject to
harassing comments or dangerous situations because of the attitudes of those who
have been exposed to pornographic material. So women have suffered an adverse effect without having had
any choice in the matter, while those who produce and view the pornography have
complete choice. This situation is
wrong and must be corrected. The
freedom of choice should be in favour of women.
11.
Pornography involving children has even more adverse effects.
The children involved in the production of such material have been
exploited in the worse possible way, and have been denied their basic rights.
For those who view such material, they begin to see children as sexual
objects and then to treat the children who they come into contact with in the
same manner. We refer the Committee
to an article in Time magazine,
February 26 2001, page 31, which deals with a British group involved in child
pornography on the Internet. One
member of this group “created new videos by preying on his children’s
friends”. Pictures and videos
included explicit sexual acts, rape and torture of infants; and those involved
in the group egged each other on. Their
attitudes had changed to such an extent that one said “We just didn’t see it
as abuse. We saw it as, there were
some children involved in relationships.”
12.
Muslim women as a group are subject to some of the worst racist
behaviour in this country. Due to
their manner of dressing, they are conspicuous and so become obvious targets.
There have been several cases around the country, and particularly in
Christchurch, of Muslim women having their headgear being forcibly removed while
they were out in public. They are
also subject to many racist comments and aggressive behaviour, and are often
made to feel that they are not welcome in this country.
Objectionable material, in this case material that disparages or degrades
Muslims (or any other group), should not be publicly available. The effect of
such material is that it provides a validation of the views of those who produce
and view them. It confirms to these
people that the views they hold are acceptable.
It increases the intensity of their antagonistic feelings and thus serves
to make attacks on particular groups more acceptable to those making them.
13.
It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that such material
is neither produced nor distributed in this country. Strong measures are required to ensure that the dignity,
respect and rights of all sections of the population are restored.
It is not right that the freedom of choice argument is sufficient to
allow objectionable material to be available, thereby harming innocent
individuals.
14.
The State should have the power to censor any material that is available
to the public. The State, through the appropriate official agency, should at
least have the power to censor any material that is:
·
accessible through Internet web sites
·
accessible through any retail outlet
·
distributed freely at any public gathering
·
on show or open for viewing to the public
15.
While we recognise that under Section 14 of the Bill of Rights everyone
has the right to freedom of expression, a right that is as wide as human thought
and imagination, this right is not unlimited. It is subject to reasonable limitations in terms of Section 5
of the Bill of Rights. It is also
subject to limitations imposed by other statutes.
Where the right to freedom of expression is overridden by other values,
that right can - and should – clearly be restricted. Here, those values are the protection of society from the
exploitation of women and children, and the abuse of those from different
cultures or groups. The protection
of members of society from abuse, and from being depicted in degrading and
dehumanising ways – in ways that detract from their integrity as equal members
of society – far outweighs the dangers of restricting freedom of expression.
16.
The right to freedom of expression is often defended on the grounds that
without it, there would be little room for public discussion and debate.
It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials, and it
promotes the discussion of different ideas among members of a State.
The free expression of pornography is not essential in a free and
democratic society – it does not encourage public debate about essential
matters, nor does it act on a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. All it does is exploit innocent members of society,
portraying women and children as objects for the fulfilment of the sexual
desires of men. It promotes
inequality and injustice.
17.
Public debate in society can be carried out without degrading or
depicting any particular group. One
can debate about concepts and ideas without being disparaging about the group
that holds those ideas. Furthermore,
those who produce and distribute publicly available material have a duty of care
to ensure that any facts contained in that material are accurate, and any
opinions are clearly labelled as such.
18.
While the definition of objectionable material is wide-ranging, the
interpretation of this definition is not strong enough.
Even nude photographs of women affect the attitudes of those who view
them. Nudity is available in the
normal weekly magazines and on public television.
Pay television channels air movies that have explicit scenes at prime
time (for example, a film like Sirens
was broadcast on a paid television at 6:00 pm in the evening).
This should not be allowed. It
is unnecessary to have such images, as they are merely gratuitous, with the sole
purpose of increasing readership or the number of viewers.
There is no reason why such scenes can not be removed from movies before
they are broadcast, as this would not detract from the plot, neither are
explicit scenes required to convey the idea that the producer wishes to get
across. The argument is often used
that the individual is free to “switch it off” or to abstain from buying the
offending publication. However, how
does one “switch off” the adverse effects on others who have viewed the
material, and the changed attitudes of the people who haven’t “switched it
off”?
19.
There are some cases where a higher than normal standard should be
applied, which is not happening at present.
One case is when there is no freedom of choice involved in viewing
objectionable material. Billboard
advertising should not allow any images that are offensive or demeaning in any
way (such as certain advertisements by The Rock radio station) as these images
are on public display and one cannot avoid seeing them.
Another case is the evening news or other items that are family oriented.
Children are encouraged and sometimes required by their teachers to watch
news programmes. Such programmes
should therefore be subject to very stringent requirements, which exclude scenes
of nudity and graphic violence. Verbal
descriptions are sufficient for the presentation of any newsworthy items.
20.
The interpretation of what is objectionable material does not take into
account the views of all cultures. Our
cultural values are such that any scenes of graphic violence or nudity are
offensive and we strongly believe that they are degrading to those involved as
well as to those viewing these scenes. There
are many people from other cultures who agree with the values that we hold,
including many members of the predominant culture. Yet the interpretation of
objectionable material does not take into account these cultural values.
Only the values of one portion of the predominant culture are being taken
into account.
21.
The interpretation of the Court of Appeal in recent cases (namely Moonen
v Film and Literature Board of Review (CA42/99, 17 December 1999) and Living
World Distributors v Human Rights Action Group (CA58/00, 31 August 2000)) is
too narrow. It has allowed material
to be made available that is clearly damaging to the public good, by defining
the statute in a very narrow manner. The Court of Appeal has used the words
“promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support” in Section 3(2) of
the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993 to allow
publication of material that merely describes the items listed in the remainder
of that section. Even describing or
depicting any of the acts that are mentioned in this section is objectionable
– especially for fiction or entertainment purposes – and should be an
offence, since a mere description or photograph can validate the act described.
22.
Section 19 of the Bill of Rights protects against discrimination on
various grounds, and objectionable material often discriminates against the
grounds specified in Section 19. Legislation
must be amended so that the values of equality and freedom from discrimination
supersede the value of freedom of expression.
In order to do this, the definition of what is “injurious to the public
good” in Section 3(1) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Act 1993 should
deal with more than matters “such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or
violence”.
23.
The Chief Censor is currently only able to act when a publication is
submitted for classification. The
Chief Censor should not be bound in such a way, as it is the responsibility of
government to protect the rights of every member of society, and this
responsibility should not be dependent on members of society submitting
publications they object to. Anything
that is made available to the public should be checked for material that is
objectionable.
24.
The Chief Censor and the police do not have access to the resources and
expertise required to ensure that objectionable material is not produced or
distributed. There is so much
material available presently on the Internet that a larger staff would be
required to deal with it. Also,
many sites have sophisticated encryption techniques that require a high level of
expertise to access. For example,
the child pornography group that was mentioned in paragraph 10 above had
“seven layers of electronic security” as well as a requirement that each new
member produce 10,000 explicit photographs of child pornography.
We recognise that providing resources to adequately fund policing of such
material means that some other area of public spending would suffer.
However, the input of resources in this area would result in the
prevention of crime. Together with
an active education policy, particularly at secondary school levels, the
adequate censoring of objectionable material would result in much lower levels
of violence and hate crimes, and would also reduce the level of harassment and
abuse faced by women and children.
25.
Currently there are no specific guidelines relating to objectionable
material on the Internet. Material
made available on the Internet is not required to be submitted to the Chief
Censor. Sites do not have any labelling of the age level they are suitable for,
nor is any attempt made to restrict the access of those below a certain age.
Typing in one or two key words allow any user to access sites that show
graphic material. Even sites that require users to pay for access have
objectionable material in advertisements for their sites.
Often, a user is subjected to objectionable material with no choice - for
example, typing in certain key words will have the effect of showing small
pictures of topless women at the side of the screen, inviting the user to
certain sites, when it was never the user’s intention to view any such
material. A user is not able to
search for research material on the effects of pornography without being
subjected to such images. A
small typing error when attempting to access a particular site could lead the
user to graphic material, when it was never the users intention to view such
material (for example, if a user wishes to send an electronic greeting card and
mistakenly enters “123greeting” instead of “123greetings”, the user will
have accessed a pornographic site). In effect, users who wish to avoid such material have
absolutely no choice.
26.
There are many Internet sites whose sole purpose is to demean a cultural
group and to put down their values. There
is often significantly incorrect information included.
Much greater control is required, so that material available on the
Internet is subject to the same standard as material distributed by any other
means.
27.
There seems to be a lower standard applied to objectionable material if
it happens to be described as “art”. An
example of this is the “Virgin in a Condom” exhibit at Te Papa.
Where symbols are held sacred by any particular group, that group should
have some protection against any other person depicting those symbols in an
offensive manner. The artist has a right to portray his or her point of view,
and shock is a factor used to capture the attention of the viewing audience.
However, there must be a limit as to the extent to which any religious
symbol is desecrated. Also, just because a work has been produced by an artist,
does not mean that it should be subject to any lower standards than that
expected of other material that is publicly available.
28.
The penalties for producing and distributing objectionable material
should be much harsher than they are at present.
Current sentencing does not cause a sufficient deterrent.
Financial penalties should be made much more severe, as the profits
gained by producing objectionable material are often considerably high, so a
small penalty would have little effect. There
should also be harsher penalties for those accessing and viewing objectionable
material, even if they have not been involved in producing it.
Penalising the viewers would act as a deterrent and thus reduce the
target audience of those producing the objectionable material.
It would send a message that viewing the material is also wrong.
Recommendations
29.
There should be a much tighter interpretation of what material is
objectionable. We would recommend
that specific guidelines be produced to specify what is objectionable.
Such guidelines should take into account the values of all cultures
living in this country.
30.
In certain situations, a much stringent standard should be applied.
Individuals should have the freedom to go about their normal business,
and to watch television programmes at prime time without being subjected to
scenes of nudity or graphic violence, or images that demean and degrade any
section of the population.
31.
The legislation should go further than using the words “promotes or
supports, or tends to promote or support” in Section 3 (2) of the Films,
Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993.
These words should be replaced by “describes, depicts, expresses or
otherwise deals with”, as with section 3(1).
32.
Section 3(1) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act
1993 should be broadened to include the areas of discrimination detailed in
Section 19 of the Bill of Rights. All
material that is made available to the public should be subject to the test of
whether or not it is “injurious to the public good”.
33.
There should be one central body responsible for the censorship of
material that is available in this country. It should deal with all material
that is broadcast through free-to-air or paid television channels, all videos,
books, magazines, works of art, as well as any material available via the
Internet.
34.
The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 should have
specific legislation dealing with material available on the Internet.
There should be harsh penalties for providing objectionable material, and
there should be restricted access to any site or any images of nudity, sex or
violence.
35.
The body should have sufficient funds and access to any expertise
required, to ensure that it is able to do its job effectively.
This funding should come from the State.
36.
The body should actively be involved with international organisations to
ensure control over material that is available on the Internet but originates
from other countries.
37.
This body should have sufficient power to enforce the rules and
regulations made. It should have a
pro-active, rather than a re-active role, ensuring that anything made available
to the public is checked for objectionable material before being made available.
38.
Penalties for being involved in the production, distribution and viewing
of such material should be harsh enough to act as a deterrent to those involved.
Financial penalties should be at least double the level they are now, if
not higher. Where severe cases of
exploitation are involved, jail sentences should also be much harsher.