Banning “Ken Park”
(Law and morality, part 4)

Police have now chosen not to prosecute protesters who tried to screen “Ken Park” at Balmain Town Hall – including the Movie Show’s It’s a good result, but it’s a bad law that relies on sensible policing to avoid absurdity.

For those not up to speed, “Ken Park” – accepted as an art film in most of the western world and given either cinema release, or limited release for film festivals – has been banned in Australia for depicting actual sex between, involving or with characters portrayed as minors. The actual sex made it only eligible for, at best, an X rating; while the violence context and suggestions of incest or abuse of minors meant put it beyond what was accepted for an X film. There’s an “art film” exception, but as “Ken Park” clocked in with a hefty 6 minutes of actual sex (most of which is apparently adolescent male masturbation) it exceeded the “art” guidelines. Thus, fitting no category, it was rated “RC” (Refused Classification), making it an offence to distribute it, or screen it in public.

Our “Chatterly-ban” era censorship system works like this. The Classification Board of the Commonwealth government’s Office of Film and Literature Classification reviews publications, assesses what age-group they are suitable for and publishes ratings advice – or can refuse them classification altogether. This is purely advisory, as the Commonwealth has no constitutional power to regulate film and literature. All the enforcement laws are state laws. Classification Board ratings can be challenged before a three-member appeal panel, the Classification Review Board. The CRB said in its statement on “Ken Park”:

“The film depicts scenes of sex and violence in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it warranted Refused Classification status. These included scenes of child sexual abuse, and actual sex by people depicted as minors and sexualised violence.”

Margaret Pomeranz has made the point, having seen the film, that the comments as to child sexual abuse are not at all clear. There is apparently a scene in which a father attempts to fellate his sleeping son, whose age is not directly disclosed in the film and who is portrayed by an actor over the age of eighteen. As for sex between teenagers, Pomeranz has argued publicly that this is not actually a crime anywhere in Australia, provided the parties involved are close in age. This is a film about the bleakness of life in deeply disfunctional urban families, not sex.

I suspect that like “Baise Moi” I’d probably not go see it, if released. And like Pomerantz I support the classification ratings system up to the point where it results in an outright ban. Adults should be allowed to make up their own minds and not be subjected to the rhetoric of obscenity prosecutions that belongs to a time when postal and customs services confiscated “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” (Alan Moore’s graphic novel “From Hell” also suffered this fate first imported). These are deeply subjective judgements that should be left to mature citizens to make, not entrusted to prurient bureaucrats with stopwatches.

Besides, banning things only gives them greater publicity, and prompts people to download it from the internet for private (and legal) viewing. I only hope the upcoming review of this absurd situation by Australian Attorneys-General will result in a more sensible system.