Page 1264 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
stuff which is not rated at all, which has been specifically excluded, and perhaps be able to charge a higher price for it".
We have heard people mention tonight evidence that the viewing of pornographic film, X-rated film, leads to all sorts of difficulties. All this evidence tonight has been anecdotal. There have been several government inquiries into pornography. Firstly, I mention the US Presidential Commission of 1970 which concluded that pornography, however unattractive or in bad taste, was relatively harmless, a victimless crime; exposure to pornography could create a short-term arousal but did not contribute to a higher incidence of deviant or antisocial behaviour; moreover, persons convicted of sexual offences did not use pornography to any significant degree.
The Williams inquiry in the United Kingdom in 1979 concluded that there was no evidence to support the argument that pornography acts as a stimulus to the commission of sexual violence. Notwithstanding the testimonies of so-called victims of pornography, the Meese Commission on Obscenity and Pornography in the United States, in 1986, concluded that there was no causal relationship between non-violent material and sexual violence. The Special Commission on Pornography and Prostitution in Canada, in 1985, came to a similar conclusion to the Williams commission in the UK in 1979.
The Australian Joint Select Committee on Video Material, in 1988, was divided over the issue. However, those who supported the prohibition of X-rated videos cited the submissions of "concerned citizens", "feminists" and "family groups" who believe that sexually explicit material destroys the family and degrades females. As proof of the supposed evil of X-rated videos, those groups cited the research of Dr John Court of Adelaide, who claimed that "real life" evidence showed that pornography causes rape. Dr Court's evidence was damned by the Williams commission and numerous other researchers. The Williams commission stated that Dr Court's publications about pornography are more successful in exposing condemnation of pornography than they are in giving the study of its effect a sound scientific basis. All thinking persons discount Dr Court's evidence and, to the extent that they rely on his work, the evidence of those who quote him. As a result, the evidence of those who gave evidence to the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, in Australia in 1988, is also shown to be faulty. Real life evidence tends to disprove Dr Court.
Dr Berl Kutchinsky's 1973 study in Denmark has withstood the critical examination of researchers. He found that the decrease in sex crimes between 1959 and 1970 in Denmark was related to the relaxation of anti-pornography legislation. Further studies by Dr Kutchinsky in Germany showed that, after the legalisation of pornography in 1973, sex crimes dropped by 11 per cent between 1973 and 1980, while total crime decreased by 50 per cent over the same period. So
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .