by David Lane
President
Wellington Christian Apologetics Society
Challenge Weekly
Vol. 59 Iss. 25, 3 July 2001
On
20 June the Film and Literature Board of Review released
its long-awaited decision on the re-classification of
the two Christian videos Gay
Rights/Special Rights, Inside the Homosexual Agenda
and Aids: What
You Haven't Been Told, both produced by Jeremiah
Films of California. The videos which had been
classified "objectionable" and banned by the
Board in its decision of 18 December 1997 under the
Films, Videos, and Publications Act 1993, a decision
which, later on appeal, was upheld by the High Court in
its decision of 1 March 2000; have now been
re-classified by the Board as "unrestricted".
The
Board was forced to reconsider the classification, when,
subsequent to the High Court action, the appellant,
Living Word Distributors Ltd, won an appeal to the Court
of Appeal, against the banning order. In a unanimous
decision all five Court Judges quashed the ban and ruled
that the High Court, and therefore the Board, had made
"errors in law" in their decisions. The case
was therefore remitted back to the Board by the Court of
Appeal in its decision dated 31 August last year.
The
seven member Board of Review deliberated for nine months
on the matter (holding its first meeting on 24 January)
before coming to a decision which is dated 31 May 2001.
Its release came a day after the Evening
Post published a report revealing that legal
action was about to be taken in the High Court by the
plaintiff, Living Word Distributors, to force the Board
to bring closure to the matter and issue a ruling. The
plaintiff, through his lawyer, had intended to file a
writ of mandamus
against the Board, arguing that that the Board had
failed to fulfil its statutory obligations.
In
its report the Board expressed their concern "about
the deleterious effect" that the videos "could
have on young persons at the stage of coming to terms
with their own sexual orientation, when they may be
reaching a realisation that they are homosexual".
The report argues they are "injurious to the public
good", not because of any depiction of sex, but
because "overall they are an expression of opinion
and attitude about homosexuals and homosexuality"
that some members of the public as well as all Board
members, find objectionable.
None
of the five Court of Appeal judges or the two High
judges expressed the view that the videos constituted
"hate propaganda" or "hate
material". However, the Board did in its recent
decision, describing them as "contain[ing]
significant elements of hate speech" (par. 44). The
Board presents this view in the report after quoting in
paragraph 43 the words of Judge Thomas from his minority
opinion in the Court of Appeal judgement. He wrote:
"...these publications do have the propensity to
cause harm ... and are hurtful and oppressive to the
homosexual community ... and do tend to victimise and
alienate a sizeable proportion of the population".
In the next paragraph the Board 'interprets' Judge
Thomas to have said: "Put simply, the subject
publications contain significant elements of hate
speech". But this is not what Judge Thomas stated.
He wrote: "Nor, on the other hand, do I wish it
thought that I accept the submissions of those who
perceive the videos to be blatant bigotry or hate
propaganda". It is noteworthy that the Board quote
these exact words from Judge Thomas and fail to support
his judgement. Instead they misrepresent it, by
'interpreting' it to substantiate their claim that the
videos contain "significant elements of hate
speech".
The
Court of Appeal judgement in the Living Word case will
shortly come under the scrutiny of the Government
Administration Committee's enquiry, now underway, into
the operation of the Films, Videos and Publications
Classification Act 1993. The battle for "freedom of
expression" will soon move from the Court room to
the select committee rooms of Parliament. |