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.
