Media Report 7 June
The Society’s investigations have determined that over a two year period before a 49-year old prominent Wellington town planner, appeared on 22 March 2007 before Wellington District Court Judge Stephen Harrop to face charges over the importation of 11 “objectionable” publications; he had embarked on a hugely expensive exercise, aided by his lawyer, Mr Greg King, to use the Film and Literature Board of Review and the Chief Censor’s Office to help him overturn the charges. Robert John Schofield attempted unsuccessfully to have the classification of the publications downgraded from “objectionable” to “age restricted” (R18) so he could avoid conviction. The Society has applied under the Official Information Act to the Board Secretary and the Chief Censor’s Office to obtain copies of all the classification decisions issued with respect to these publications.
Judge Harrop convicted Schofield on two charges he pleaded guilty to, relating to his “prohibited imports”, fining him $150 for one charge and $750 on the other and ordered him to pay $130 court costs. He also denied him name suppression, but this remained in place since March 22 because of an appeal which was recently heard last week in the High Court in Wellington.
After charges were first laid, all the “prohibited publications” were submitted by the Wellington District Court, following the direction of Schofield’s lawyer, to the Chief Censor’s Office for classification, under section 29 of the Act. Schofield, no doubt, had hoped that the Office would sanction his lewd “fetish DVDs” and other offensive material by classifying them “restricted to those 18 years of age and over” rather than imposing a total ban on them. The huge cost of this exercise, well in excess of $11,000, was covered by the Crown – yes by taxpayers! Disappointingly for Schofield, the Chief Censor’s Office classified the imported publications “objectionable”: including four DVDs, one video, two computer files and three computer image files. Schofield had to cover all the costs of submissions made to the Office by his lawyer, with respect to the publications.
Unwilling to let the matter rest, Schofield chose to appeal ten of the classification decisions to the nine-member Film and Literature Board of Review, a process that cost him personally close on $11,500 in application fees alone. On top of this was the legal bill for complex and lengthy submissions put to the Board by his lawyer, who argued that the material should not be banned. Again, disappointingly for Schofield, last year the Board upheld all of the decisions of the Chief Censor’s Office.
Again, not willing to let it rest there, Schofield appealed to the Wellington High Court against both Judge Harrop’s decisions on conviction and name suppression and he sought to be discharged without conviction. Again, disappointingly for Schofield, Justice Warrick Gendall confirmed all of Judge Harrop’s decisions last week in the High Court at Wellington, and refused to grant Schofield name suppression on the basis of open justice and refused to grant his request for a discharge without conviction which he said was argued on baseless grounds.
Why on earth did Schofield import 11 illegal publications that included “fetish DVDs” containing “depictions of urophilia, a sexual fetish focused on urination”, as well as a computer text file that “described non-consensual [sexual] acts with a male described as a ‘teen’”? (Dominion Post 31/05). Was his intention to test the censorship law to the limit as it applies to the depiction of urophilia and the rape and sexual abuse of male teens? Was he importing the material for personal use only, with no other agenda, or was it for the purposes of supply, distribution, display, or exhibition of the material to another person or persons? For example, was he intending to show this material to teenage boys to sexually arouse them and/or those involved in a compulsion/addiction to seek sexual satisfaction in urophilia?
Any person who is convicted of supplying an “objectionable publication” to any other person is liable “to a fine not exceeding $10,000” under section 123(2) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (henceforth referred to as “the Act”). Schofield clearly took a huge risk importing such vile and lewd sexual material.
Customs officers intercepted all the publications Schofield imported via an overseas “Adult Only” internet website. Eleven of the items were ruled by Customs to be “prohibited imports” under s. 54(1)(aa) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. They were determined to be “objectionable” publications “in the hands of all persons and for all purposes” as defined in section 2 of the Act. The multiple offences committed by Schofield were ones of “strict liability”.
Defence lawyer Greg King told the High Court that Schofield had imported the illegal publications by post and via the Internet, not knowing the contents were illegal. Neither Judge Harrop nor Justice Gendall accepted this spurious defence line. The offences were ones of strict liability. It is noteworthy that experienced Customs officers know that the content of such lewd and explicit sexual material is always described in salacious and gratuitous detail to on-line potential buyers, particularly the “objectionable” content which serves as a magnet for obsessive consumers of hard-core pornography that includes urophilia and the sexual abuse of teenage boys.
Urolagnia (also known as urophilia or undinism) is a sexual fetish which participants derive sexual pleasure from urine and urination. These activities are often described by the euphemisms “golden showers” or “watersports”. (A fetish is an object whose presence is necessary for sexual satisfaction).
Lawyer Greg King argued for his client on appeal in the High Court, that the inclusion of urophilia in section 3(2) of the Act was an oddity because it was not illegal but images of it and descriptions of it were classed objectionable. King sought to show that the law was inconsistent – that it was an ass. This is the same flawed argument – the one based on perceived inconsistency – used by those who made submissions to the Government Administration Committee when it received submissions on the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill, that was enacted into law in 2005.
The Ministry of Justice responsible for the Act, together with the Department of Internal Affairs and the Chief Censor’s Office, all recommended to the Committee that section 3(2)(d) of the Act be moved out of the “deeming provisions” and be relegated to section 3(3) of the Act. S. 3(2)(d) states:
(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 – …
(d) the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct.
The Society made a robust submission to the Committee opposing the relegation of 3(2)(d) to s, 3(3) and in the end the status quo was upheld by the Committee. Relegating s. 3(2)(d) it to s. 3(3) in the Act, the Society argued, would considerably weaken the Censor’s powers to ban degrading lewd and corrosive sexual material containing urophilia and coprophilia etc. The Society argued before the Committee that it is the degrading sexual conduct that is integral to this so-called “fetish” activity that is “likely to be injurious to the public good” and thereby constitute the publication “objectionable”.
For over 25 years the Society has sought to “focus [public] attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity, obscenity, pornography and violence” and “uphold and press for the proper enforcement of applicable law and its amendment where the law is ineffective”. People addicted to hardcore porn who justify such perversions by claiming dependency on sexual fetishes, should seek professional and psychiatric help. ISPs should be required by law to block public access to such content that corrodes and corrupts minds, and destroys relationships.
Reference: “Businessman bought fetish videos”
Leave a Reply