Explicit Videos (Press, 18 July 1987)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Explicit Videos (Press, 18 July 1987)
In a letter dated 27 June 1987, Bert Walker expressed his disapproval of the Labour Government’s Homosexual Law Reform Bill, highlighting that 835,000 citizens had petitioned Parliament against it. Walker stated that despite this considerable opposition, the legislation was passed, which he claimed allowed the Chief Film Censor to approve explicit videos featuring homosexual acts. He raised concerns that these videos, marked with a censor’s certificate, were being distributed legally and pointed to the apparent lack of accountability for their content. Walker referenced a quote from a 1963 article in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, which outlined a strategy for undermining a nation through the promotion of drugs, alcohol, and sexually explicit literature, implying that this was akin to the actions of the Labour Government. He accused the Government of yielding to influences he associated with Moscow. In response, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Tapsell, clarified that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was a private member’s initiative, not a Labour Government measure, and that it received support across both governmental and opposition benches during the conscience vote. He also pointed out that guidelines for the Chief Film Censor were established under the Films Act of 1983, which had been passed by the preceding National Government—a government in which Walker had served in the Cabinet. Tapsell noted that the censor’s role was not to impose personal standards but to reflect the changing public attitudes towards such content over time. He acknowledged concerns regarding shifts in public standards since World War II but emphasised that the new Video Recordings Act would introduce an oversight authority that would address video content rated R18 and above, suggesting it might adopt a different stance compared to the Chief Film Censor due to the lack of controls in private viewing compared to public cinema screenings.
Important Information
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