Page 1254 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am interested in the letter, which I think was quoted in an earlier debate on another day, from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the largest union in Australia, to parliamentarians, highlighting the degradation of women. That letter states:
Although physically not violent or coercive, 'X' videos, according to evidence cited by the Joint Select Committee on Video Materials, engenders in the habitual viewer "a sexually calloused and manipulative orientation towards women" depicting women in general as being highly promiscuous and available.
We agree with the observations made by Dr J. Zubrzycki, Emeritus Professor (Sociology) at the ANU, that pornography functions quite similarly to anti-semitic or racist propaganda: it serves as a tool of anti-female propaganda. The intent of all three is to distort the image of a group or class of people, to deny the fullness of their humanity and to depict them as objects for exploitation.
Most of our members are women. This is union business. We ask that urgent action be taken to ensure that 'X'-rated videos and their 'R' equivalents be made prohibited imports and be placed in the refused category. The Labor Council of New South Wales has expressed its support for this action.
It seems that not only forces of darkness and reaction are opposed to pornography in this form.
There is a fourth reason. Banning these sorts of videos fulfils our obligations to not only our citizens but also Australians generally. Previous speakers have referred to the Darwin agreement of June 1988 by Attorneys-General to outlaw these videos Australia-wide.
I want to remind members of the Opposition in particular that a majority of those Attorneys were members of the Australian Labor Party; they were Labor Party Attorneys. I think it is worth contrasting their position in Darwin, and presumably their position even today, with the somewhat hysterical statements being made by members opposite about the limits on freedom of speech, comparisons with Lady Chatterley's Lover and so on. I think there is very little comparison between the sorts of materials being presented to us tonight and works such as Lady Chatterley's Lover.
Mrs Grassby: We did not mention Lady Chatterley's Lover. It was Bernard.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Moore, I think, did - or certainly someone else.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .