Sun, 20 Feb 2005
Living World Distributors vs Human Rights Action Group (inc)
The Society for the Protection of Community Standards and Garnet Milne have made several erroneous comments in their
latest press releases regarding the case of Living World Distributors vs Human Rights Action Group (inc) Court of
Appeal, Wellington 10, 11 July; 31 August 2000. In the releases Mr Milne has stated
We know this because the censor previously tried to punish those who showed two “living Word” videos criticising
homosexuality under then existing law. After some excellent work done by SPSC and others the Court of Appeal rejected
the censor’s conclusions, because the law as it then stood was intended to prevent videos showing demeaning sex to
minors. The law was not intended to prevent pastors or parents warning our youth about the evils of homosexuality.
Mr. Milne has stated that the law declares something as objectionable “ because the law as it then stood was intended to
prevent videos showing demeaning sex to minors”. This is not correct, under the act the meaning of objectionable is as
follows:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals
with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication
is likely to be injurious to the public good. (2) A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the
purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support, – (a) The exploitation
of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or (b) The use of violence or coercion to compel any
person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or (c) Sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person;
or (d) The use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or (e)
Bestiality; or (f) Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.
In making its judgment the Coram of Richardson P, Gault, Thomas, Keith and Tipping JJ had to apply and interpret the law
as defined by the act. Under such light, the videos could not be banned. In paragraph 68 of the judgment with particular
reference to the last sentence, it is says:
“I do not wish it thought, therefore, that in holding that the board exceeded its jurisdiction I condone the contents of
the videos or endorse the view that the publication of the videos is in the public good. Nor, on the other hand, do I
wish it thought that I accept the submissions of those who perceive the videos to be blatant bigotry or hate propaganda.
In truth, my views are beside the point. What is in point is the question whether videos of this kind fall within the
scope and intent of legislation directed at the censorship of unacceptable portrayals of pornographic sex and violence.
I am not prepared to accept that this is the case” In this case, as the videos never satisfied the legislative
definition of what is objectionable, and therefore the appeal was overturned. This does not however constitute the
‘victory’ that both SPCS and Mr Milne claims it to be. By simply citing the verdict, they are perhaps losing sight of
those comments made in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the document which paint a damning picture of the material contained in
the video tapes:
“[66] The videotapes portray the beliefs and prejudices of religious fundamentalism. Marty and Appleby have written
that such fundamentalism manifests itself as a strategy or set of strategies by which its believers attempt to preserve
a distinctive identity as a people or group.
Feeling that this identity is at risk in the contemporary era they fortify it by a selective retrieval of doctrines,
beliefs and practices from a more sacred past. Promoting a rigorous socio-moral code for its followers, the boundaries
are set, the “enemy” is identified, converts are sought and institutions are created and sustained in pursuit of a
comprehensive reconstruction of society. (Martin E Marty and R Scott Appleby (eds), Fundamentalisms and Society:
reclaiming the sciences, the family and education (University of Chicago Press, 1984) at p 3.) [67]
The videos fit this perception. While directed at the danger of an AIDS epidemic in the one case and the threat of an
enlarged protection of civil rights embracing homosexuals in the other, both videos reveal an abhorrence of what is
called the “homosexual lifestyle”. This phrase is used persistently throughout the videos without being defined. It is,
however, identified with promiscuous and irresponsible sexual behaviour by male homosexuals. Lack of balance is evident
in the dogmatic way in which these characteristics are attributed to all homosexuals, and there is no recognition of the
diversity of homosexual associations which do not accord with this stereotyped description. Nor is any appreciation
shown as to the nature and depth of gay and homosexual orientation, such as the appreciation which has resulted in
sexual orientation becoming a prohibited ground of discrimination in this and other countries.
The propensity for such presentations to cause harm is apparent: they may mislead the uninformed; they simplify the
issues in a manner which is unrealistic; they give credence to false facts and figures; they demean and trivialise
homosexual associations which do not fit the popular negative stereotype; they are hurtful and oppressive to the
homosexual community; they pose a wounding challenge to the personal belief that sexual orientation is a deeply personal
characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs; they may psychologically
scar homosexual individuals who would not otherwise repress their sexual orientation; and they tend to victimise and
alienate a sizeable proportion of the population.”
We at HappyClappingHomos.com challenge Mr. Milne to respond to the views of the Coram stated in those two paragraphs.
While the appeal could not be sustained under the current legal definition of “objectionable” the view of the members of
the Judiciary involved was one of concern for the harm that publications such as those distributed by “Living World” are
capable of causing. Full text of the judgment, Living World Distributors vs Human Rights Action Group (inc), can be
found in [2000] 3 NZLR 570 or by requesting it from the Court of Appeal Registry, Wellington.
ENDS