By Kath Gelber
The Howard government has moved to increase censorship, in the name of "protecting" women, children and families from the horrors of family breakdown, suicide, youth homelessness and unemployment. Sections of the media and "morals campaigners" are in a frenzy over the breakdown of "family values". They argue this is the cause of social ills.
The morality debate is allowing the government to broaden its right-wing agenda. Not only are obvious groups targeted — youth are thrown off the dole and have to pay more to get an education, access to social welfare is restricted and government services are privatised — but the Howard government is also waging an ideological campaign to push women back into the family.
As the gains won by the social movements of the last few decades come under increasing threat, this "morality" campaign seeks to justify conservatism by presenting it as "normal" and for the "common good" .
Howard claims a mandate for his conservative moral agenda, but how valid is this claim? In a debate screened on the ABC program First Wednesday on May 7, Kevin O'Rourke from the NSW Civil Liberties Council pointed out that the conservative shift is taking place among politicians, not the community.
The federal parliament's overturning of the Northern Territory's assisted suicide legislation was an example, O'Rourke said. Numerous polls, posing the question in a variety of ways, had shown public support for the NT law was extremely high. The federal government had ignored public opinion, he said.
David Marr, a member of the recently formed Watch on Censorship Committee, agrees. The public mood has not shifted significantly; regulation of what people are allowed to see, read and hear has, he explained.
Before the 1996 election, the Liberals promised to ban X-rated videos which can be purchased in the ACT and the NT. After the election they extended this to the removal of all R-rated material from pay TV. Australia is the only country in the world to ban R-rated content from pay TV.
In April, federal cabinet agreed to replace the X-rated classification with a new non-violent erotica (NVE) category. Interestingly, this decision evolved from lobbying by the adult video industry for a NVE classification.
The idea emerged because video classifications were overwhelmingly determined on sexual grounds. Films depicting gratuitous violence, blood and gore were readily available, whereas films depicting consensual sex were not.
However, in agreeing to the change, NVE has been redefined. Both the X and the NVE categories restrict violent material and child pornography, however the NVE category may also restrict "fetishism", bondage and material deemed "demeaning" and "degrading".
The NVE category has yet to be approved by state and territory governments, which means the definitions of these terms have not been finalised. Ultimately, the lines on issues like "degrading" and "demeaning" will be drawn by state attorneys-general and unrepresentative, appointed classification boards.
Community groups are divided over the potential impact of the reclassification. Some have expressed concern that the new definitions will lead to an image of some sexuality as "normal" and safe, while others will be condemned as abnormal, deviant and degrading. This has obvious implications for gays and lesbians.
Chris Miles, a federal MP from Tasmania well known for his vehement opposition to gay law reform, has said publicly that he regards anal sex as degrading and demeaning. Although Miles was relegated to the back benches after disagreeing with the passage of the federal privacy bill in 1994, designed to override Tasmania's anti-gay laws, he has since been resurrected and is now the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary.
The new classifications are regarded by some as a cop-out by the federal government. It stopped short of a total ban on X-rated material demanded by "morals campaigners". The decision was influenced in part by the financial clout of an industry estimated to have a turnover of $40 million per year. However, reclassification has opened the floodgates to further restrictions.
Miles is not the only parliamentarian involved in the morals push. Long-time "morals campaigner" Senator Brian Harradine, whose vote is crucial to the passage of government legislation, said on First Wednesday that censorship is a "careful, balanced evaluation of what is conducive to the common good of a society". He declined to elaborate on his definition of the "common good" and refused to draw a line between advocating his personal, highly religious views, and imposing those views on others through legislation.
When politicians like Harradine and Miles take it upon themselves to define the "common good" and embody that definition in legislation, campaigners for social justice have cause for concern. The existence within federal parliament of the Lyons Forum, a group of deeply conservative Christian Liberal and National Party parliamentarians who aim to influence social policy, is a further cause for concern.
The forum was formed in 1992 and is named after former prime minister Joseph Lyons, a Catholic with 13 children. Other parliamentarians reported to be members include Qld MP John Bradford, Senator Richard Alston (minister for communications) and treasurer Peter Costello. Its secretary is Kevin Andrews, instigator of the federal anti-euthanasia bill. Total membership is estimated at around 40.
The direct impact of the Lyons Forum on Coalition policy is unclear, but it serves the parties' moral agenda in much the same way as the Pauline Hanson-inspired "race debate" does. Forum members express extreme views on social issues. Howard's reactionary social policies seem moderate by comparison, making his policy agenda that much easier to implement.
Moral conservatives' vision of what constitutes a "good" society conflicts starkly with that of many people. Those opposed to censorship argue instead for people's right to informed choice. "Protection" by a small and unrepresentative group of people cannot lead to a healthier society. Rather it will lead to a narrow, repressed and repressive society in which the Lyons Forum, Harradine and their ilk can impose their moral intolerance on everyone else.