Page 1227 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
been allowed expression - for example, conscientious objection.
If such freedoms of belief, choice and expression are not permitted, then the state risks going beyond those powers sanctioned by the wider community. It risks straying from its democratic base towards those of less attractive systems of government, as in South Africa. What is there in common between the books, Five Ways to Fantastic Sex and Free Nelson Mandela Now? Both are currently banned by the South African Government under its infamous Publications Act. Both books are seen as corrupting and undesirable by the state. Both are doubtless criticised by influential members of the public. However, are these legitimate grounds for outlawing them?
In a recent case in the United States, a federal judge ruled as unconstitutional a new law making it a crime to burn the US flag. In reaching her decision, Judge Barbara Rothstein said, "In order for the flag to endure as a symbol of freedom in this nation, we must protect with equal vigour the right to destroy it and the right to wave it". In a free and just society the same reasoning can and must be applied to the issue of X-rated videos. However repellent these videos are to many of us, there is more at stake here than simple content.
Recently, I went at night to an isolated place a good day's drive from here. It was a place for group camps. Apart from an apparent caretaker, I saw no member of the public there. At that place I secured some literature. I have some here. I will table a copy of the January-February 1990 issue of The New Citizen, a recognised journal of the League of Rights. At page 9 there appears a large advertisement on Mr Stevenson's behalf, calling upon people to attend the anti-pornography campaign at the Legislative Assembly. This raises many questions yet to be addressed. An indication of the overall political viewpoint behind this Bill comes from the provision to proscribe possession of more than five videos. I believe that this is an extreme response and demonstrates Mr Stevenson's political viewpoint.
The fact that the presumption is rebuttable amounts to a reversal of the onus of proof and is of great concern. It requires an accused person to give a reasonable excuse as to why he or she has possession of five or more videos. This is a horror to right thinking persons, as well as lawyers. It is virtually a "guilty until you, the accused, prove otherwise" approach. This is against established criminal law policy and an indication of Mr Stevenson's original intent. It is opposed by all members of the Alliance Government. So far as this debate is concerned, I say to those outside this Assembly who are on Mr Stevenson's band wagon that I hope when they ring the bell the conductor will let them off, or at least tell them the final destination.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .