http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12004926/porn-study-grant-worth-790-000/

Comment: One of the objects for which the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc., (“SPCS”) was established was to focus public attention on the harmful nature of pornography. For the purposes of section 3 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”), “a publication is objectionable if it descibes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters of sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availabliity of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.”

The Act recognises that children and young persons, in particular, are vulnerable to the harmful effects of exposure to pornography – hence age restrictions are imposed by the censors on poronographic publications and others are banned. The “extent and degree to which, and the manner in which the publication depicts…  sexual conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning sexual conduct” is one criterion used to determine whether or not it is to be classified objectionable.

Family First NZ, a charity registered with the Charities Commission, has also been at the forefront of highlighting the offensive nature of hardcore pornograhy and documenting how it is injurious to the public good.

Denise Richie, director of Stop the Demand Foundation, another charity registered with the Charities Commission, put it this way, in her submission to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) , as part of  her complaint against a “mobile billboard” displayed prominently in a public place – promoting the Erotica Lifestyles Expo:

“The image is designed to simulate a woman with her fingers in her [******] It is standard Steve Crow fare, with its focus on dehumanising women and reducing them to their genitalia”. (ASA decision dated 14/09/2010 concerning complaint 10/448).

(Eden Digital Ltd, directed up until recently by John Malcolm Carr, which owned the license for Erotica Lifestyles Expo, was put into liquidation on 22 November 2011).

The Society (SPCS), as part of its objects, seeks “to support freedom of expression which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people.” Hardcore pornography has the effect degrading, dehumanising and demeaning women. Its negative impact on viewers of such material has been well-documented in the literature.

Able Seaman Ryan Donovan had been obsessed with the video game Grand Theft Auto – linked with murders in the US. After being disciplined for disobedience, Donovan told shipmates he was planning a killing frenzy based on the game. He later shot dead an officer and seriously wounded three others (The Guardian, 19/9/11).

Not long afterwards, UK and Swedish researchers identified evidence of “Game Transfer Phenomena”, where some gamers integrate video experiences into their real lives (Daily Mail, 21/9/11). The study involved 42 in-depth interviews with participants ages 15 to 21, all of whom were frequent video gamers.

Almost all had experienced some type of involuntary thoughts in relation to video games, and half sought to use something from a video game to resolve a real-life issue.

“This study reinforces our concerns about the link between violent and explicit games and real life behaviour,” said FamilyVoice research officer Ros Phillips.

“It also reinforces our concerns about the proposed new 18+ games caregory agreed to by Australian attorneys-general in July. There is doubt the new guidelines would exclude games with a higher impact than games currently available – despite the agreement reached by attorneys-general last November,” Mrs Phillips said.

Source: VoxPoint, November 2011, p/. 7.

Reprinted from VoxPoint by permission of FamilyVoice Australia, 4th Floor, 68 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA, 5000.

For many years the FVLB was headed by Mr William (Bill) Hood, with whom the SPCS had regular contact. He retired as FVLB committee member and executive secretary on 31/01/2011. Ms Sharon Rhodes has taken over his leadership role.

The gross income of the FVLB for “service provision” for the financial year ended 31/12/2010 was $1,504,338, according to financial records it registered with the Charities Commission (www.charities.govt.nz). From this income, $588,376 was absorbed in salaries and wages.

The FVLB employs five persons full time and two part-time  to achieve its “service provision” and the total hours worked by “all employees” per week is 262 hours (equivalent to 6.55 full time persons). Each full time equivalent employee receives on average an annual remuneration package of about $90,000 per annum.

The FVLB has been registered as a charity by the Commission on the basis that its purpose it to serve “some other public benefit” to society ( it does NOT qualify as a charity on the basis that it fulfils any one of more of the remaining three charitable purpose categories:  relief of poverty, advancement of education or adavancement of religion). (Note: The SPCS qualifies as a charity for its “advancement of public welfare” or “public well-being”, which are terms recognised in law).

All films supplied to the public must be submitted to the FVLB which rates only unrestricted films (e.g. “G”, “PG” and “M” ratings). It also cross-rates such unrestricted films that have been rated in Australia or the UK. It issues the coloured sticky labels that must be affixed to films before they can be suppliedv to the public. It also acts as the agent for distribution when films are submitted to the Office of Film and Literature (“OFLC”).

Under the law, all film distributors intending to make a film available to the public, must first submit it to the FVBL and this includes all distributors of hardcore pornographic (Adult only) titles, such as Eden Digital Ltd and Calvista Australia Pty Ltd.

The FVLB has total assets of $800,389 acording to its latest financial statement for the year ending 31/12/2010. The cost 0f service is recorded as $537,663 and the cost of its trading operations $312,840 leaving a net surplus of $1,7101.

The FVLB plays a very important role in society – making sure official stickers are attached to film advertisements in cinemas, DVD covers and videos allowing parents and care-givers to ensure that children and young persons have some idea about the rating/suitability of unrestricted films. This charitable entity also has a critical role, recognised one would hope by the Charities Commission – in ensuring that films that are intended for public screening that contain or may contain “objectionable” content and are likely to be “injurious to the public good”; are directed to the OFLC (the Chief Censor’s Office) for classication – films such as those containing gratuitous depictions of necrophilia, the sexual xploitation of children, gang rape, sexual violation and bestiality etc.

The SPCS, a recognised charitable entity, has standing in the Courts as an organisation that is entitled to appeal the classication decisions issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) and the Film and Literature Board of Review. It has successfully used the legitimate avenues in law open to it  to do so, both in the Court of Appeal and the High Court. It has also made applications to the Broadcasting Standards Authority relating to such matters. However, it has not pursued any legal action in the courts, thus far, since being registered as a charity with the Charities Commission on 17 December 2007.

The concept of the ”moral welfare” or “moral well-being” of children and young persons is well-documented in case law, as is the nature of activities that when promoted or supported (AND even when there is a tendency to promotion or support), are “likely to be injurious to the public good” or ”likely to [put] in jeopardy” the “moral welfare” of  members of the public, including vulnerable children and young persons (see below).

It is the ever-present threat of “likely” harm and injury (mental, physical and moral) and their far-reaching negative inter-generational consequences, as well as the accepted Judaeo-Christian belief in human dignity (“Man made in the image of God” – often not acknowledged), that have undoubtedly undergirded successive governmental decisions (driven perhaps in part by quickened consciences and pragmatism) to enact child protection and censorship laws to safeguard our precious children and young persons from the dangers of exposure to child abuse, family violence, depiction of gratuitous violence and inappropriate sexual content in the media and exposure to morally corrupting hardcore pornography etc.

In the New Zealand censorship laws a publication is deemed to be “objectionable” and thereby “likely to be injurious to the public good” if it promotes or supports, or tends to promote of support” six listed activities, including the exploitation of children for sexual purposes, necrophilia and bestiality. The “moral welfare” of children is clearly put in jeopardy when they are given access to publications containing such content. Adults cannot even view such banned material lawfully, with the exception of censorship officials.

Government has empowered the NZ Police, NZ Customs officers, the Courts, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, The Film and Literature Board of Review, the Censorship Compliance Unit of the Department of Internal Affairs and other enforcement agencies to ensure that censorship laws are enforced.

Child Youth and Family (NZ) acknowledge that the concept of “moral well-being” undergirded earlier legislation:

“The Child Welfare Act 1925 … was the first codification of child welfare as a professional activity. The legal grounds for intervention in the lives of families were: indigence (no person accepting responsibility for the child); neglect by parents; living in an environment detrimental to a child’s physical or moral well-being; not being under proper control; and delinquency. These differ somewhat from the modern emphasis on causation of harm to children as a result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse and maltreatment by reasons of neglect or deprivation. These earlier grounds shaped not only formal complaints heard by a Children’s Court, but also the informal work of the Child Welfare agency.” [Emphasis added - see ref. 1]

The “moral welfare” of children who live in close proximity (i.e. in a domestic setting) with those using their homes as a place of prostitution, even though making a living from prostitution is no longer unlawful, is clearly put jeopardy. Child, Youth and Family Services will intervene to remove such children from their ‘care-givers’ when they are alerted to such dangers.

If a child was allowed by her mother or mother to accompany her/him each time she/he went soliciting for sex on the streets and it came to the attention of the NZ Police, they would be required to intervene and ensure the safety of the child.

The concept of the “promotion” of “moral welfare” has a long history in the charitable sector within Western jurisdictions.  For example, society clearly has a vested interest in the long-term, fruitful and successful nature of marriages and recognises the harmful nature of acrimonious marriage breakdowns, infidelity, partner abuse etc. Its social and enforcement agencies have officers empowered in law to intervene and/or assist in order to promote “moral welfare” – strong family life and wholesome personal values as the foundation of stable communities. 

It is critical that non-government agencies and organisations promote the “moral welfare” of children and young persons and seek to have our government-appointed enforcement agencies supported and empowered to uphold “the public good” and prevent “”the likelihood of injury to the public good”.

Reference:

1. Care and protection: Capturing the essence of our practice

“Some history of New Zealand’s approach to child welfare

By Mike Doolan and Marie Connolly

http://ww.practicecentre.cyf.govt.nz

Many are of a sexual nature, deal with violence, horror and crime and might have only been fully read by one person in New Zealand – and that person decided they shouldn’t be available to the rest of us.

A total of 1319 books are banned and a further 728 restricted in some way.

It was up to the Office of Film and Literature Classification and the Censorship Compliance Unit to assess books, films, DVDs and even T-shirts and determine whether they should be banned or restricted.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/5664782/More-than-1300-books-banned-by-censor

“It has to include sex, horror, crime, cruelty or violence in some way for us to ban or restrict it,” the office’s advisor Michelle Baker said.

Items that include offensive language and self harm, risk taking and “suicide issues” can’t be banned, but could be restricted.

Some of the titles belonging to objectionable or restricted books included Confessions of a Pimp, Horney (correct) Housewife, Inside Linda Lovelace and A Lesbian Happening.

Baker said the office hardly reviewed its decisions, unless someone requested it to do so.

Books published about homosexuality before it was made legal in 1986 could have been banned at that time and remain so, unless someone had requested they were reviewed.

Decisions on more than two-thirds of the 2047 books restricted or banned in New Zealand were made before 1987.

A book was brought to the office’s attention usually by police, customs or the public.

The author, publisher, complainant and interested parties were given 14 days to make a submission, while one of the office’s 15 censors started reading the book.

People and organisations could be charged up to $200,000 and sentenced to 10 years in prison if they were found with, or supplied a banned or restricted book.

If a person was found with an objectionable book they could be sentenced to five years in prison, or receive a fine of up to $50,000.

A person who exhibited or displayed a banned book could be sentenced to up to 10 years in jail.

Someone who made a restricted book available to people under the age of restriction could be fined $10,000 or sentenced to three months’ jail, and an organisation could be fined up to $200,000.

Source – Fairfax Media

Article by Michelle Cooke

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/5664782/More-than-1300-books-banned-by-censor

The Censorship Compliance Unit assessed the book, written by fundamentalist Christians Michael and Debi Pearl, and decided not to ban or restrict it. 

A spokesman for the Department of Internal Affairs, which the office and unit belong to, said while the book was contrary to section 59 of the Crimes Act, which stated a parent or guardian could not use any force on a child “for the purpose of correction”, that wasn’t sufficient reason to justify restricting or banning the 20-year-old book.

The complainant could, however, ask that the Office of Film and Literature Classification also investigate the book’s content.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/5664782/More-than-1300-books-banned-by-censor

 To Train Up A Child courted controversy worldwide after a California couple who followed its instructions were convicted of murdering their seven-year-old adopted daughter.

An American child abuse victim, now living in New Zealand, complained to Whitcoulls last month and the bookseller agreed to remove the book from its website.

They also made a complaint to the compliance unit.

The victim said he was shocked to find out the book was being sold in New Zealand, despite the country’s anti-smacking law.

“I’m not one to prevent books from being sold, but I think an instruction manual on how to enact violence on your child is a completely different story,” he said.

“New Zealand has such a high rate of child abuse and to instruct people on how to do this is just so irresponsible.”

Source: Fairfax NZ

Hi SPCS

I’m writing a story about a gay porn zombie film called LA Zombie showing at Out Takes film festival in Auckland and Wellington in June [2011]. It was censored by the Australian Film Classification Board last year. They advised organisers of the Melbourne International Film Festival that the film couldn’t be shown as it was likely to be refused classification.

New Zealand’s Office of Film and Literature Classification has allowed the film to be shown here and classified it R18. A warning that the movie contains “violence, sex scenes and content that may disturb” is attached.

I understand the movie contains full frontal nude scenes, zombies with prosthetic cucumber penises, wound penetraion and implied sex with corpses.

The plot is described by Wikipedia as follows:

“A homeless schizophrenic thinks he’s an alien zombie sent to earth. Roaming the streets of Los Angeles in search of dead bodies, he tries to bring the dead back to life by engaging in homosexual sex.”

I’d like to know the Society’s thoughts on this and whether it plans to protest or complain.

Please get back to me as soon as possible ….

Kind regards

Andre Huester: Reporter

Herald on Sunday

__________________

Email Reply from John Mills, President SPCS

Thanks for the enquiry seeking comment.

For the legal and technical reasons why SPCS is appealing [to the Film and Literature Board of Review] against this Office of Film and Literature Classification’s decision [re LA Zombie], please consult with our Executive Director….

I [John Mills] am disappointed to learn that this film is being promoted by the [New Zealand] gay community, if indeed that is the case.

The gay community has gained widespread acceptability of their lifestyle within society during the last 20 or so years. I have come to accept and be supportive of this as a reality of the society we share. However, having said that, it is unfortunate that they allow themselves to be represented by what I think must be a radical minority who are seeking to promote this type of [film] material which has to be attempting to set a new low, pushing way beyond the boundaries of reasonablenes.

This film needs to be judged as not [as a valid form of] “freedom of expression” but injurious to the public good. For the sake of political correctness New Zealanders have become pressured into agreeing that anything goes, just as long as it does not hurt others. If we had not lost our senses of what will be harmful, we would not even need to be having the discussion [over this film].

I think we ought to be working together with the gay communitty to keep this material [that is injurious to the public good] out of New Zealand.

John Mills

__________

?COPY of Email sent to Andre Hueber from SPCS

Email from Department of Internal Affairs to SPCS.

Friday April 29, 2011 at 2.34 PM

[To SPCS]

“On behalf of Julie Wall, Senior Business Advisor, Business Services, Ministerial and Secretarial Services, Department of Internal Affairs, this is to confirm receipt of your completed application for a review by the Film and Literature Board of Review ……[received] today 29 April.”

Kind regards

Robyn Brooke

Executive Assistant to General Manager

Ministerial and Secretarial Services

The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua

Bowen House, Wellington

www.dia.govt.nz

________________

References

Banned Horror Film to Screen [in New Zealand]

by Andre Hueber 1 May 2011. New Zealand Herald: 1 May 2011

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/movies/news/article.cfm?c_id=200&objectid=10722596

Australian Reports

Festival zombie porn flick banned. 12 July 2010

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/21/2959594.htm

Zombie porn screening leads to police raid. 12 November 2010

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/11/3063975.htm

WHITE SUPREMACIST Malcolm Chaston was allegedly able to watch soft-porn movies before being released from prison and murdering young mother Vanessa Pickering.

Chaston will be sentenced on Monday on the murder charge and also of the sexual assault of another female.

Sensible Sentencing Trust founder Garth McVicar has released an email sent to him from a prison guard in the months leading up to Chaston’s prior release from jail in mid-2008.

The unnamed guard wrote of Chaston: ”He is a very sick puppy and these sex movies just feed his sickness.

”He watches these movies and skites about things he is going to do when he gets out.

”This is a very sick place, can you imagine why they would let sex offenders watch sex videos. God help us and the poor woman these mongrels come across when they get out.”

The email stated: ”I wonder if you are aware that the Dept of Corrections has recently decided that R16 videos and DVDs are OK to be shown in prisons.

”There is no distinction as to what type of R16 is shown to what type of prisoner _ i.e. a soft porn R16 can be shown in a sex offenders unit, and R16 with violence can be shown to violent prisoners.

”Can you imagine what these videos do to mongrels like Malcom [sic] Chaston …”

Source: Sex Movies before murder. By Neil Reid 15 April 2011 (Fairfax Media)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4893344/Sex-movies-before-murder

It was revealed on February 14 that Chaston  a 41-year-old former member of white supremacist gang the Fourth Reich  had in November 2010 pleaded guilty to Vanessa Pickering’s murder.

 But the plea was suppressed until the heavily-tattooed former freezing worker appeared in the Christchurch High Court in February to face a charge of assault with intent to commit sexual violation against another woman.

Ms Vanessa, 27, was killed in February 2010.

Crown Prosecutor Brent Stanaway has called for Chaston to be handed an open-ended sentence of preventative detention.

Following the lifting of suppression of Chaston’s guilty plea, it was revealed several prison guards had issued chilling prophecies about him in the months leading up to his release from prison in mid-2008.

At the time, Chaston was being prepared for release after being handed a six-year sentence after being found guilty of unlawful sexual connection, rendering unconscious and injuring with intent.

He also had a raft of previous convictions for sexually-related and violent offending.

Several guards from a South Island prison wrote sternly-worded warnings to Mr McVicar outlining why they believed Chaston was a threat to society, and saying they had approached prison bosses with their concerns.

Corrections’ southern regional manager Paul Monk confirmed that prior to November 2007: ”Some rented DVDs were able to be screened in recreation rooms or other communal areas. Prisoners have access to general television channels which air adult rated content.”

Mr Monk said Chaston’s prison manager and unit manager were not made aware of staff concerns about the killer prior to his release.

Talking to Fairfax Media, McVicar said the prison guards’ anger towards Chaston’s release had reached ”fever pitch” as they realised the risk he posed.

While he acknowledged Corrections had cracked down on videos, games and magazines available to inmates, he said it was an ”indictment” on the system that someone like Chaston could source objectionable material while behind bars.

”It is hugely irresponsible and a disgrace,” he said.

Reference: ‘Sick puppy’ saw porn in prison before muder. By Neil Reid.

Dominion Post 18 April 2011. p. A3

Fairfax Media

TVNZ and TV3 are appealing last year’s BSA rulings which said scenes in TVNZ’s Hung and TV3′s soap Home And Away breached standards.

For full NZPA story see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/4801344/Networks-appeal-sex-scene-rulings

“The trend by the networks to sexualise news and current events is disturbing” – Family First NZ

Family First NZ is welcoming a ruling from the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) demanding that TVNZ publicly acknowledge their breach of broadcasting standards for a programme in August 2010 which offended many families with its gratuitous display of the porn industry. TVNZ has also been ordered to pay a paltry $3,000 fine.

“As a result of a campaign by Family First supporters, TVNZ received an ‘unprecedented’ number of complaints regarding this programme. The Close Up story was based around the promotion of the porn industry – all under the guise of so-called ‘daily news and current events’. The trend by the television networks to sexualise news and current events and use sexual innuendo is disturbing,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.“Unfortunately, despite Family First’s request, Close Up refused to apologise on air to families for this programme, and the complaint was referred to the BSA by a concerned family. This is not the first time that Close Up has been found guilty of breaching broadcasting standards for this type of material. They continue to flout the regulations thinking that they can just easily apologise to people who make the effort to complain.”

“The BSA said that the material was ‘raunchy and sexually explicit’, ‘prolonged and sustained’, and that it would have offended a significant number of viewers. Close Up should apologise on air to families for this breach.”

“Parents are sick and tired of lunging for the remote to protect children from offensive and inappropriate content during family viewing hours and family movies. They are also disrespecting families by promoting adult programmes during family movies.”

“We would warn families that viewing news and current events programmes together as a family for educational and informational purposes is no longer guaranteed to be safe and appropriate. And that’s a tragedy.”

In a poll of 1,000 NZ’ers last year, respondents were asked, ‘Television broadcasters are obliged to protect children from sexual content, violent material, and language that exceeds current norms of good taste and decency. Are you concerned about the type of language used, or the level of violence and sex shown on TV before 8.30 pm when children are likely to be watching?’ 65% said they were concerned, 29% said they weren’t, and 6% didn’t know or refused to answer. Women and over 60 year olds were most concerned.

“While this particular decision is welcome, it’s time the broadcasters were put on notice by the BSA and the Minister of Broadcasting to clean their act up and start putting the welfare of families first and protect them from this increasing level of offensive and sexual material,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First: Bob McCoskrie – National Director Mob. 027 55 555 42

[Source: Family First NZ Website: www.familyfirst.org.nz]