Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 26, No. 11. 1963.

Censorship, What For?

Censorship, What For?

Political discussions in Parliament have recently been dominated by the Indecent Publications Bill, especially by the clause enabling the Censorship Tribunal to ban the publication of its proceedings and decisions. But there has been little discussion of the rest of the Bill.

Censorship itself is repugnant. It can be justified only in the case of "the weaker members of society," and in this context that can include only children. I know of no evidence to suggest that adults are undesirably affected by literature of any sort, and on a priori grounds such an influence would seem unlikely.

Those adults, whose minds are such that they are able to be influenced by erotic or "criminal" literature, are unlikely to read anything apart from material intended for child readers. Censorship of comics and similar literature is tolerable even though it is regret-able but censorship for other than children is intolerable.

But there is the problem of what is meant by the word child. Is an adolescent to be classed as a child? It is possible, though it seems to me unlikely, that an adolescent may be undesirably affected by reading into some literary works meanings not intended by the author. But this problem can be avoided without recourse to censorship by the obvious and simple expedient of putting such works as "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and "Lolita" on sale only by mail order from a central depot. The burden of responsibility is then shifted to the parent.

It may be objected that many parents do not take their duties seriously enough to be entrusted with this. Although some parents are inadequate, their children are unlikely to be interested in such works as those listed above. Their appetites ore more likely to be satisfied by such books as "Peyton Place" that abound in retail bookshops despite censorship. And New Zealand bookshops will be very bare places if the Tribunal bans all such works.

As far as the adult population is concerned, it is entirely unacceptable that its reading should be dictated by any one section of the community. And within that. I include the educated section.

While most of the readers of this article will agree that Shakespeare or John Wain is preferable to Carter Brown, for a variety of reasons, this is no justification for forcing the former on those who prefer the latter. It is desirable that such people be persuaded that Wain has 'literary merit' not shared by Carter Brown. The forcible removal of the latter will not help in this, but would be an unwarranted assertion of sectional tastes.

I have argued that censorship is undesirable except in a special case. One other argument should be mentioned. It is that censorship is administratively impossible.

It is true as Mr. Hanan has asserted, that for a book to be banned will be a stimulant to sales. But his counter to this, not to announce the banning of a book, overlooks the fact that books banned overseas will be reported by overseas newspapers available here, and that these books will often be banned in New Zealand also. Are the English immigrants to be denied their precious Daily Mirror because it notes that some book has been banned?

Further, some people must know of the ban if it is to be operative at all. And customs officials have friends and acquaintances, who have further friends and acquaintances ...

One of the interesting sidelights to arrive from the debate on the Indecent Publications Bill is an example of members opposing measures sponsored by their party.

The Labour Party has avoided the situation by allowing members a "free vote" on the issue, but two Government members have announced their opposition to at least one section of the bill.

This situation raises the old question of the relationship between the MP and his Party. New Zealand procedure is based on English custom as far as elections are concerned. The theory is that votes are for the individual, and not for the party, and only names are printed on the ballot paper.

This is increasingly divergent from political realities. Elections, where they are not decided by habit or emotion, are dominated by Party programmes issued through mass communication media. Electors can expect their members to support the programme for which they were elected, the programme announced nationally, and not at a small local party meeting.

On Party measures members must be expected to support the Party proposals. An individual, whose conscience will not permit him to do so, has no option but to decline nomination or to resign, but I would not expect this to happen often.

Since it is the Party that rules, and not a casual majority of members, the Party name should be on the ballot paper.

It is time to be rid of outmoded paraphenalia, and recognise the reality of Party rule.

"G. R. Hawke."