Jane Norton: Curb on freedoms a double-edged sword

COMMENT

How ungrateful the New Zealand community is. For years the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards has been working tirelessly and selflessly to ban any film that it saw as lowering the standards of our community. So you can imagine its shock when the chief censor gave The Passion of Christ an R16 rating.

How could he have missed the "where Jesus is the main character" exception in the Film, Video, and Publications Classification Act 1993?

You have to laugh at the exquisite irony of the situation. The society has been stung by the very system it tries to exploit.

In light of the arguments it has put forward for banning other films such as Baise Moi, The Piano Teacher and Y tu mama tambien, its case for lowering the rating of The Passion is at best weak, at worst blatantly, unashamedly hypocritical.

It also highlights how limiting others' freedom expression is a double-edged sword.

What the society apparently fails to appreciate is that freedom of expression, as guaranteed by our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, means freedom of expression for all, not just Christians or conservatives.

The right is not exclusively owned by a select group who proclaim to be guardians of community standards. Nor is it a right that only those who express popular views are entitled to.

As Grant Huscroft, former lecturer at the University of Auckland, has written, the very point of freedom of expression must be to afford protection to those whose expression lacks community approval, for theirs is the only sort of expression which requires protection.

Freedom of expression often comes at a high price - if the society wants its expression tolerated so must it tolerate the expression its members may find intolerable.

The same freedom of expression which would allow the violent depiction of the life of Jesus to be shown in cinemas would also allow the showing of violence in other films, such as Baise Moi.

What this case sharply illustrates is that the moment you call for someone else's freedom of expression to be limited so are you opening your own to such a limitation.

But presuming that the society should actually decide what the community may view, is there any merit in its case?

First it claims the violence contained in the film is justified by its historical context. According to the society the film depicts the most significant and influential story to have shaped Western culture.

Regardless of the strong possibility that the film is factually inaccurate (for example it conveys only a Christian understanding of how Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism came to be separated), we have not seen the society appealing the ratings of films representing other non-Christian historical events. Maybe we do need such violence to remind us of the lessons from the past, but where were they when Saving Private Ryan was rated R15?

Where were they when Schindler's List, a film representing one of the most tragic and monumental historical events for the Jewish people and the worldwide community alike, was rated R16?

And what about the hugely successful film The Pianist, rated R15?

It is hard to see any logical basis why the depiction of a violent historical event should be distinguished from a violent fictional event when the effect on the viewer is the same.

David Lane, the secretary of the society, states the distinction is simple. The Passion of Christ is not gratuitous violence, it is justified by the accounts of Jesus' death.

There really was a spear pierced into Jesus' side. Nails were really used on the cross.

Presumably this means depictions of violence in modern-day stories are also justified by their historical context. People really are murdered. People really are raped.

Once again, the distinction the society draws is not clear.

Does that mean that religious depictions of violence, for example of the Old Testament account of Noah being raped by his sons once he left the ark, are justified but the rape scenes in Baise Moi are not?

It would seem that what it constitutes gratuitous violence is whatever Mr Lane declares it to be.

This debate about what constitutes gratuitous violence simply illustrates how finding any objective standard for what expression should be protected is almost impossible.

However, despite this, the society arrogantly presumes its standard is the standard for all.

It claims to support responsible freedom of expression although, if this case is anything to go by, it appears the only responsible violence is where it promotes Christianity. This bias discredits all the society's arguments for objectivity.

It is hard to see how it can claim as such when it is so clearly biased towards the promotion of Christian films.

It is slightly concerning in a country of religious freedom that a group trying to enforce the viewing norm for the rest of the community is clearly influenced by one religion.

You would think the society would at least comply with the honesty standard and change its name from Community Standards to Christian Standards.

One final irony, the society has appealed to libertarian arguments stating that churches should make this call [whether people under 16 should view the film] with respect to their members.

I note that the society did not wish to afford the public the liberty to make the call with respect to Baise Moi.

I don't have a problem with the society seeking to lower the rating - it has every right to do so.

I do have a problem with such hypocrisy and intolerance. They threaten the very foundations of freedom of expression.

* Jane Norton is an Auckland lawyer.