Otago Daily Times
January 10th 2006 pg 4.
By Rebecca Fox
The time it is taking the censor’s office to rule on the September “Offensive Issue” of University of Otago student magazine Critic makes a farce of the process, Society for the Promotion of Community Standards spokesman David Lane says.
The Office of Film and Literature Classification received multiple submissions from the public about the issue, which caused concern over an article on drug rape that was labelled a “how to guide”.
Office information unit adviser Deborah Gordon said, when contacted yesterday, that while the applications had been examined by a censor, a decision had yet to be made as the office had to fit it around its normal classification work.
Society spokesman and national secretary David Lane said when contacted he had been told the office was busy dealing with material submitted by the police.
“I do not see that it justifies . . . holding up a major work like Critic.”
Given the number of copies of Critic in circulation, believed to be around 5500, Mr Lane said the delays made a “farce” of the whole classification process.
The outcry over the Critic issue showed people were not “wearing” publication of that sort of material in any shape or form, he said.
University of Canterbury sociology associate professor Greg Newbold, however, supported Critic in its submission to the censor’s office.
When contacted yesterday, Dr Newbold said he thought the article was clever, funny, satirical and made a good point.
“If anything, it has made people more aware. It is clearly ironical and makes the rapist look like an idiot.”
He believed the instructions given were inaccurate and did not think the article should be censored.
“It does not instruct anybody, except how to stuff it up if you follow the instructions.”
Leave a Reply