Gay Books For ‘smith’ (Press, 1 September 1980)

On 1 September 1980, Patricia Bartlett, a known campaigner for moral issues in Wellington, found herself in a complex situation regarding the importation of five homosexual-themed books. The titles, which included "Split the Sky," "Getting the Shaft," "Men of the Bluegrass," "A Camp in the Woods," and "A Shot in the Corral," were advertised in a local homosexual magazine, prompting Bartlett to investigate their content. To discreetly obtain the books without being added to mailing lists for explicit materials, she used the pseudonym "J. Smith." Upon receiving the books, Bartlett quickly deemed them "absolute filth," leading her to turn them over to the police. However, she encountered a legal quandary: to prevent the books from being destroyed without a proper hearing, she had to dispute their forfeiture, despite having been the one to surrender them. This procedural necessity required her to fill out a non-forfeiture form. The hearing was scheduled for 22 July, while Bartlett was in Canada, which prevented her from being present to present her case. In her absence, the Indecent Publications Tribunal evaluated the books and unanimously deemed them “explicit,” “coarse,” “obscene,” and “lurid,” thus categorising them as unquestionably indecent. Bartlett expressed satisfaction with the tribunal's ruling, recognising that the magazine would have to cease its three-year advertisement for these books, potentially protecting the public from what she considered harmful literature. Despite her victory, Bartlett was displeased with the tribunal’s decision to publish her name in its findings. She argued that this could lead to misunderstandings about her motives, as those who import similar materials for profit typically do not have their names disclosed by the government. This situation drew her ire, as she viewed her actions as a community service aimed at safeguarding public morals, while commercial entities involved in the same kinds of materials received government protection. In her view, this disparity highlighted an inconsistency in how individuals opposing indecency are treated compared to those profiting from it.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand