Rob Ward, 29 April 2010

Over the last year or so, the media has made much of an apparent rise in violent attacks directed at Indians living or studying in Victoria. The Indian media reacted strongly and the Premier and other members of the Victorian Government have understandably bent over backwards to address this issue.

One action taken was to amend the Sentencing Act 1991 which now requires courts to consider when sentencing whether the offence was motivated by hatred or prejudice against a group with common characteristics. This consideration, which effectively targets crime that is based on a person’s identity, is a specific response to perceptions about racially-motivated crime.

The ACL strongly condemns acts of violence, whether randomly directed against an individual or against someone based on their belonging to a group such as a racial, religious or other group. A crime is a crime and it should be dealt with by the law based on available evidence. We acknowledge that crime, especially violent crime directed at members of an identifiable group, can have a negative impact on the whole group, not just the individual who is directly attacked.

A further measure to address crime motivated by hatred in Victoria is an inquiry by the Department of Justice, and headed by The Hon Geoffrey Eames AM QC. ACL is making a submission to the inquiry. The basis of the Eames inquiry appears not only to be recent attacks on Indian students, but a contentious report by the ‘ALSO Foundation’ called ‘With Respect’ (see here), which may create divisions within the community and may be used to advance the homosexual agenda.

Our contention is that while we agree that identity-based hate crime is wrong and must be condemned, the ALSO report calls for new offences to be created which could challenge freedom of speech as well as making it a crime to even say something which might “offend” a member of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender or intersex (GLBTI) community. This goes much further even than the discredited Racial & Religious Tolerance Act 2001 in terms of limiting religious freedom.

The Eames inquiry is due to report to the Attorney-General in September 2010. We will be watching closely and will keep you informed.

media release

May 7, 2010

 

Film degrading minors sparks call for review of classification system

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has called on the Federal Government to conduct an urgent review of the classification system following a review board’s decision to clear for release the controversial Salo film.

“In rebuffing the Minister, who clearly had concerns with the initial decision, the board has thrown out its own rules which prohibit the sexual degradation of minors,” ACL National Chief of Staff Lyle Shelton said today.

“How can any Australian have confidence in the national classification guidelines anymore?

“The Government in conjunction with the States should either rewrite the guidelines or it should act to ensure that the boards it appoints follow the rules.”

Mr Shelton said the Classification Review Board’s decision to clear for DVD release a sadistic and graphic film about the sexual abuse and degradation of teenagers makes a mockery of Australia’s classification system.

“The decision to classify the DVD of the film Salo as R18+ clearly breaches Australia’s classification guidelines and is completely out of touch with community standards.

“Even fans of this film say it is sadistic and full of unspeakable misery and sexual depravity. But far worse than that, this depravity and abuse is inflicted on captive teenagers who are apparently depicted as being under the age of 18,” Mr Shelton said.

“At a time when child sexual abuse is reaching alarming levels, what kind of justifiable reason can there be for permitting a film about young people being raped and tortured to go legally on sale in Australia? Adding three hours of additional ‘context’ material people can easily skip through is a ridiculously inadequate excuse.”

Mr Shelton said the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board have a responsibility to protect the community from this kind of abhorrent material.

“The classification guidelines are weak enough, but for the Classification Board and its review body to both disregard the guidelines in approving this film is reprehensible and shows how ineffectual the classification system has become.”