Page 3693 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In our society we have for far too long ignored the issue of violence towards women and children. Recent phone-ins have shown that rape and child sexual abuse have existed for decades, with little resulting action on the part of governments and authorities to control what has been, in the overwhelming majority of cases, systematic abuse of women and girls by men who treat them as possessions. What appears to be happening is that an increasing number of women and non-abusing men have joined forces to say that enough is enough and that rape and sexual abuse in our society are unacceptable. Rape and sexual abuse always have been and always will be about power and violence, not about sex and relationships. I therefore believe that banning non-violent erotica which strictly prohibits violence is a retrograde step. I am more alarmed that there continues to exist a defence under the Publications Control Act for exposing minors to pornographic material if you are a parent or guardian.
In the Michael Moore Independent Group election platform we stated:
Pornography ... is an area where the black market will most likely draw on the highest profit forms such as the most harmful areas of bestiality and child pornography. It is better to allow sales, but restrict these so that would-be consumers have to make an effort to find and purchase goods.
In many forms of pornography, issues are raised concerning the exploitation of women by men. Indeed, there are general issues of exploitation of both sexes for profit in the industry. Nonetheless, while such issues should properly be raised in public discussion, they are not the basis for censorship and prohibition.
I firmly believe that this is the case; that in banning the X-rated video industry altogether, or by establishing it overseas where the restrictions on the type of material available are not so stringent, we face a real risk of increasing the violence and degradation of the material available.
What we, as part of the Australian population, should be doing with regard to X-rated videos and printed material is insisting that the standards that are set by the Chief Censor are being adhered to, and that there is a concerted effort to reduce the violence in films and publications that are not subject to the same restrictions of publication that X-rated videos are subject to. Our efforts would be much better channelled into raising the level of public debate and demanding that crimes of violence be treated as such and not as some male form of the much vaunted oestrus which is supposed to be the central premise of all female sexuality in X-rated videos. It is impossible to argue that oestrus, a wild animal-like sexual response, does not exist and is unfairly attributed to women in pornography and then allow a similar animalistic action as a defence to a charge of rape or sexual assault.
Mr Stevenson makes the claim, also made by others during the Senate committee's hearing into pay television, that in Canada the Supreme Court has determined that "pornography which subordinates or degrades women or which has as a dominant characteristic the undue exploitation of sex is obscene and it harms women". Dr Judith Reisman delivered that interpretation of the Canadian verdict in her paper presented to the Senate select committee. Having read Dr Reisman's paper, and having obtained a copy of that Canadian Supreme Court judgment, I cannot agree with the current use of that information.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .