page 2

Censorship and the Arts

R. H. Brookes

"The censors' committee was as blatantly a collection of cringing noodles or pompous asses as all such organisations are . . ." This comment by Vladimir Nabokov, who has since added to his fame by writing "Lolita," was made not about the Indecent Publications Tribunal in New Zealand but about the literary censorship under Tsar Nicholas I. It serves, however, to epitomise the views of those who object on grounds of principle to all censorship. Such opinions exist in New Zealand. From Whim Wham's poem, "A Decent Bunch," inspired by the appointment of the first members to the Tribunal, we may Instance the following lines:

Thus Censorship, that sordid Operation,
Presents a Front of shining Reputation,
Five shining Reputations, I Should say,
They read! They rule! WE tremble, and obey . . .
. . .All those superior qualities somehow
Lose Lustre, as the Censor takes his Chair.
If You were asked to make one, would You care
To join the Five? Or rather, would You Dare?

This is not the unanimous attitude of New Zealanders, however. Indeed, it is doubtful whether it is shared by a majority. Certainly our freely-elected governments have long maintained their right to restrict our access to the lewd in literature and the sadistic in cinema. Only in recent years has there been a counter-attack sufficiently widespread and powerful to secure a more liberal policy, and that only in regard to books and similar publications. Even in this field, while the impact of censorship has been reduced, it has not been abolished. In my view, to expect abolition at this stage is unrealistic, and to seek it on grounds of principle, doctrinaire.

That is not to say that the case for censorship has been proved. Whether in fact the written word has the power (in the words of the Cockburn judgment) "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such Immoral Influences" I do not pretend to know. Perhaps Brigid Brophy was more accurate when she wrote recently that:

Of all sexual activities masturbation and its literary equivalent, pornography-reading, are the most nearly guaranteeable harmless; our moral obloquy against the one and legislation against the other are the most completely Irrational of all our acts of intolerance.

In time, perhaps, experts will establish conclusively the extent to which (if at all) the lively arts give birth to the deadly sins. Meanwhile, lawyers, legislators and laymen should proceed cautiously. They should take care not to restrict access to whatever has artistic or scientific merit; but they can reasonably ask the doctrinaire opponent of censorship to establish a case where such merit is lacking.

From this viewpoint, the judgments of the Indecent Publications Tribunal have been commendable. Close regard has been paid to literary merit and to the moral seriousness of the author. Even when the Tribunal has failed to discover literary merit. It has not been hasty to condemn, but has taken care to distinguish what falls to promote the public good from what may be injurious to it.

Eternal vigilance is still necessary. The Tribunal may not always be so enlightened. The film censorship may become unreasonable. Trouble over plays, or paintings, or photographs, is always possible. But It must be recognised that the Indecent Publications Act. 1963, removed the most obviously objectionable legal provisions. It is in any case, an Illusion to suppose that everything can be accomplished by legislative changes. The problems occur at least as often in the fields of Interpretation and administration.

This is so, for example, in what is at present the most contentious area—the activities of Customs officers in enforcing s.46 of the Customs Act, under which the importing of indecent documents is prohibited. It must be agreed that the Customs Department's administration of this provision has not invariably been wise. To suspect a book merely on the strength of its title as seen in the invoices is likely to lead on occasions to odd results. You will remember that a volume entitled "Fun in Bed" turned out to be a collection of games for Invalid children. Again, books which appear to have some literary or scientific merit should not be listed unless at the same time they are referred to the Tribunal by the department. If it really has qualms about the importation, e.g., by a university library of "A Textbook Of Psycho-sexual Disorders," it should rapidly procure for Itself a copy and decide whether to ask the Tribunal to rule on it, though the department would be much wiser, in my opinion, not to concern itself with such items (nor indeed with any purchases by university and some other libraries) but to stick to the pornographic. The establishment of the Tribunal has not eliminated the need for the department's powers of listing and of seizing: the power of seizure is necessary if the Importation of comics, pulp magazines, and paperback pornography is to be checked, and the listing of suspect items is merely a convenience to all save the fainthearted. It is open to any Importer to refer any seized or listed item to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal is too valuable, too expert, and too expensive to be required to examine and rule on every verbal equivalent of a dirty postcard.

Those distrustful of censorship and Interested in the arts are justified in keeping a close watch on developments. But for the time being, no crusade is called for.