Chief Censors’ denial of involvement in banning religious videos is proved false

“Censors and Videotapes”
Letters to the Editor
The NZ Herald, 6/03/06

Chief Censor Bill Hastings says that columnist Jim Hopkins’ attempt at satire over South Park evaporates in the harsh light of truth because he did not ban religious videotapes to which Hopkins refers.

Hastings’ claim is disingenuous. He was largely responsible for writing the decision that resulted in the banning of the two videos (GayRights/Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda and AIDS: What You Haven’t Been Told) when he was the deputy president of the Film and Literature Board of Review, a statutory position he held before becoming Deputy Chief Censor in 1998.

Both videos were classified “objectionable” and therefore banned, by the Board, in 1997.

The Board’s lawyer, John Oliver confirmed that Hastings wrote this decision, when he appeared before the Court of Appeal last year in a case in which the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards appealed successfully against another board decision.
Living Word Distributors finally succeeded in having the board’s banning orders effectively quashed in a unanimous decision issued by the five judges of the Court of Appeal in 2001. The board was directed to reclassify them both and classified them “unrestricted”.

David Lane
Secretary, Society for the Promotion of Community Standards.

Reference

Letter to the Editor by Chief Censor Bill Hastings
The NZ Herald 28/02/06
Censor’s Jurisdiction

Columnist Jim Hopkins alleges that I did not ban the “Bloody Mary” episode of South Park for two reasons.

He first states, tongue-in-cheek, that it would be utterly improper to argue that this “New Zealand/Canadian Chief Censor”, having previously banned at least one religious videotape because it insulted, demeaned and ridiculed gays, should have banned “that episode of South Park on the grounds it did the same to Catholics”.

His attempt at satire evaporates in the harsh light of truth. I did not ban the “religious videotape” to which he refers.

He then states that I did not ban the “Bloody Mary” episode because I share Canadian nationality with the corporate owner of C4. Once again, the truth ruins the whole point of Hopkins’ column. The reason I did not ban that episode of South Park is that neither I nor the Classification Office has any jurisdiction over television and radio broadcasts. We, therefore, cannot ban any television programme.

Hopkins might claim in his defence that his column was satirical. I would agree that satire based on fact is legitimate social commentary. Satire based on falsehood is just inept.

W.K. Hastings,
Chief Censor of Film and Literature.