Good on Ontario...It is
truly a shameful state of affairs when the Government demands to pre-vet the entire nation's film viewing. Perhaps it is time to challenge the very existence of shit law such as the Video Recordings Act in our very own repressed country.
From The Toronto Star
The Ontario Film Review Board's sweeping censorship powers are
unconstitutional, a judge has ruled, effectively putting the nearly 100-year-old screening body out of the business of deciding what movies people can watch.
In a long-awaited ruling on a major constitutional challenge,
Justice Russell Juriansz said yesterday that a scheme requiring the board to approve films before they are distributed or shown in Ontario violates guarantees of freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and cannot be justified.
He suspended his ruling for 12 months in order to give the government time to change the law, but legal experts say for all practical purposes, the board has lost authority to censor films or require they be screened.
I think the board will have to respect the judgment, said criminal lawyer Frank Addario, who attacked the board's powers on behalf of his client, Toronto's Glad Day Bookshops Inc. and owner, John Scythes.
Addario's clients faced up to a year in jail and fines of up to $25,000 after being charged with distributing a film without board approval. On Aug. 16, 2000, a provincial inspector walked into the Yonge St. shop and purchased a
film called Descent . The judge dismissed those charges yesterday.
The censorship scheme set out in the province's Theatres Act and its regulations subject films to a system of "prior restraint," for which
the government has offered no justification, Juriansz said.
It is ineffective, secretive, bans material far beyond what would be considered obscene under the Criminal Code, and creates a double standard between films and
other media, he added. The Ontario government has not created boards that must approve books, plays, art exhibitions, concerts or other forms of performance before the public may have access to them.
The board's censorship powers also create a double standard between films intended for the general public, which must be approved, and those shown at film festivals, art galleries and libraries, which can be exempt from review, he said.
The government submits that these audiences are more sophisticated. Without evidence, I do not accept that the general public is any less sophisticated, Juriansz said, adding that if pre-approving
films is reasonably necessary to prevent harm to society in Ontario, then one would expect that it would be reasonably necessary at film festivals, art galleries and public libraries as well.
Generally, the public has no way of knowing if a film has been edited and the board provides no annual reports, he said, adding although it says just 3 per cent — or 550 — of the 18,452 films screened in the last five years have been banned, that's more than 100 films a year.
The system's usefulness must also be questioned because Ontario residents who wish to view an adult sex video of which the board has disapproved may simply purchase it from a foreign distributor and have it delivered
directly, Juriansz said.
Short of appealing, yesterday's ruling effectively leaves the government with two options. One is to scrap the board's censorship powers, policing films only after they're in the public domain.
Such a system has been in place in Manitoba since 1972. The board could also restrict the list of images that can be censored, bringing it in line with material considered obscene under the Criminal Code.
Reached in
Vancouver, board chair Bill Moody referred questions to a spokesperson for the consumer services ministry, who said the government is studying the ruling.
In 1984, the absence of censorship standards led the Ontario Court of
Appeal to strike down the board's censoring powers, but the province responded with the criteria ruled unconstitutional in yesterday's Superior Court of Justice ruling. Banned material could include depictions of people nude or partially nude in a
sexually suggestive context, graphic scenes of violence or crime and, in some cases, drug use. The government argued any infringement of freedom of expression was minimal and justified in order to protect society and vulnerable groups from harm.
But the board's requirements meant even an animated children's film, Scruffy the Tugboat, must be reviewed, the court said.
