The nutters of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards has written to New Zealand's Film and Literature Board of Review, seeking a review of the approval of the book for R18 release.

The society's executive director David Lane says the material breeds a culture of death in New Zealand and is not just a matter for the chief censor to deal with legally.

Lane says the society is seeking an assurance that those who deal with depressive and suicidal people have been consulted over the release of the book.

He says there will be calls for bookshops to be publicly shunned, should they stock the title.

A euthanasia book containing graphic descriptions of ways people can kill themselves is set to go on sale in New Zealand within weeks after a ban was lifted on Friday.

Australian euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke had resubmitted The Peaceful Pill Handbook to the Office of Film and Literature Classification with sections blacked out after it was banned last July.

Chief censor Bill Hastings told the Sunday Star-Times that the revised book could be sold to people over 18, but it had still been classed as objectionable. It must be sealed and have an R18 label on its cover before it can be sold in bookshops.

Nitschke, head of Exit International and the 214-page book's co-author, lauded the decision and hoped it would prompt a rethink by Australian authorities which banned it last year.

The decision is sure to be controversial. Pro-life group Right To Life claimed in its submission to Hastings that the revised book's contents were an incitement to suicide. The group was worried the book would fall into the hands of young people and those who were depressed or suffering serious mental illnesses.

When Hastings first banned the book, his decision highlighted parts needing to be deleted because it told readers how to break the law. It included advice on how to avoid detection if assisting a person to commit suicide and on importing Nembutal, the common name for pentobarbital, a drug used by vets to euthanase pets. It is illegal to import and possess the class C drug in New Zealand without medical approval, but has become popular in euthanasia circles as a "peaceful pill" to end someone's life.

The revised edition contains about 15 partially or completely blacked out pages but still contains graphic details about how to commit suicide, including how to travel to Mexico to buy Nembutal, which some New Zealanders have done.

It canvasses suicide methods, including how to make lethal concoctions. It contains various diagrams and photographs, including a table comparing eight suicide methods, rating them from 1-10 depending on certain factors, such as reliability and peacefulness.

Hastings said it was a well-intentioned book that advocates law reform and gives advice to enable the seriously ill and elderly to make carefully considered and fully-informed decisions about their own life and death.

As repugnant as some members of the public may find the open discussion of voluntary euthanasia, suicide methods and the law, the New Zealand Bill of Rights preserves the author's right to freedom of expression and to impart the information and opinions contained in the book in its present revised form, his decision said.

However, it noted the book's clinical accounts of meticulously planned suicides by various methods could make self-inflicted death appear acceptable, even desirable, and its rating of suicide methods could encourage readers to believe death could be achieved without undue suffering to themselves, the prospect of which may previously have acted as a deterrent.

A complaint that an episode of Californication on New Zealand's TV3 involving a threesome sex scene breached standards of good taste and decency has been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

A man complained after he said he had stumbled on the episode while trying to find something for his family to watch: What met our eyes were two men and one woman on a bed, and the most graphic act of oral sex that left nothing to the imagination.

Another man also complained saying this pornographic segment ... although not showing any explicit genitalia is totally unacceptable for free viewing regardless of the screening time.

The scene screened at 10.04pm a during school holidays.

The complaints were under three sections of the Broadcasting Act - good taste and decency, programme information and children's interests.

TVWorks (TV3) replied that the scene was simulated, did not shown any explicit nudity and was not intended to be titillating.

Three members of the authority found the scene as close to pornographic as possible without showing genitalia. But one member of the authority said he could not uphold the complaints that the scene breached good taste and decency, because it was an integral part of the overall plot of the series. Because the decision was not unanimous, the authority declined to make any order over the breach.

The authority declined the complaints over programme information and the broadcaster not considering the interests of children. It said the sex scene screened after 10pm and TV3 gave sufficient warning that the programme contained sexual material and language and was not suitable for children.

The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board is a small but sensitive state agency that in recent years was caught in the maelstrom of controversy for banning a seemingly harmless documentary of a fallen president and for the highly irregular tampering of the classification of a science fiction film.

For several months now, the board has been under a state of unrest for another reason—an irreconcilable feud between its chairman, Ma. Consoliza Laguardia, and the agency’s rank-and-file employees. The conflict stemmed from the employees’ disenchantment with, and loss of confidence in Laguardia due to alleged incompetence and abuse of power, resulting in a string of purported anomalies.

The rift broke into the open when the employees union wrote a letter to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on July 9, asking her to replace Laguardia to put an end to the alleged misgovernance and to the restiveness and demoralization among their ranks.

...Read article

The Indian film censors have been reporting about activity in 2007

The Central Board of Film Certification certifies films as per the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952. There is an 'A' certificate for adults only, a 'U' certificate suitable for all and a 'UA' certificate in between

The guidelines stipulate the following:

• Anti-social activities such as violence are not glorified and justified.
• Pointless or avoidable scenes of violence, cruelty and horror, scenes of violence primarily intended to provide entertainment and such scenes as may have the effect of desensitizing or dehumanizing people are not shown.
• Human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity, or depravity
• Words with dual meaning as obviously cater to baser instincts are not allowed
• Scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented
• Scenes showing sexual perversions shall be avoided and if such matters are germane to the theme, they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown.

The Indonesian constitutional court turned down a request to abolish the country's censorship body, sparking wild celebrations from hardline Muslims in the public gallery.

But filmmakers who were seeking the abolition of the censorship panel also claimed victory after the court ruled that a new assessment system is "needed urgently" to unlock the country's cinematic creativity.

Constitutional judge Jimly Asshidiqqie ruled that the current film law is not in line with modern times and there is an urgent need to form a new film law and new film assessment system that is more democratic.

The court decided that the Film Censorship Board, which often cuts violence and sexuality from movies and public television shows, could not be abolished until the new assessment system is in place.

A group of around 40 hardline Muslims who packed the public gallery cried "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) and cheered the ruling as a victory for what they see as Islamic values.

Then they carried Anwar Fuady, the head of the television cinema association who stands firmly against abolishing the review panel, around the courthouse in triumph. Fuady praised the ruling and said the censorship board was needed as a filter otherwise the country will be a nation of free sex.

However one of the plaintiffs, filmmaker Rivai Riza, told AFP the ruling gave Indonesia's film industry hope: The decision was clear that our request was rejected but we are happy that there is at least a rational dissenting opinion. This means that the democratic process worked and there is hope.

A dissenting opinion by Judge Laica Marzuki said that censorship can be seen as violating the constitution... that guarantees the right to communicate and acquire information.

Taking a dig at health minister Anbumani Ramadoss who favours a ban on smoking and drinking in films and who has criticised filmstars for endorsing junk food, censor board chief Sharmila Tagore retorted: First it was about smoking, then the minister spoke about chips and now alcohol. I think what is primarily important is that he should focus on real issues like fake medicines.

The minister had criticised superstar Shahrukh Khan for ‘promoting smoking and drinking’ on screen by playing characters like Devdas and, more recently, his performance as a drunken junior artist in the box-office hit Om Shanti Om.

The minister had regretted that the actors, by smoking or drinking on screen, were conveying a wrong message to the country’s young and old who watched their films.

However, what may have really put off Ms Tagore was his jab at her son, film actor Saif Ali Khan, for endorsing Lays chips, during the course of which he even cited Khan’s recent heart problem.

Thailand's new Film Act will go into effect on June 4. And though nothing ever goes as planned when it comes to the Culture Ministry, moviegoers should brace for the historic introduction of the rating system, which is likely to be accompanied by confusion and clamour.

The Film Act was actually passed last December, but the Ministry Regulations, the practical rules that will implement various provisions of the law, are being written by the scribes at the ministry.

When the new law is applied in June, each movie, Thai and foreign, will be assigned one of six ratings:

• G (fit for all age groups)
• 13-plus
• 15-plus
• 18-plus
• 20-plus
• ''P'' an unusual label designed for films that deserve to be promoted to the society because of its content. For instance, a historical Thai movie that everyone including young children should be encouraged to see it because of its historical and patriotic values.

What's not clear right now is how the ratings and filtering will be enforced. As it is understood, theatre staff at the box office will check the IDs of customers before letting them buy tickets. But since nobody has seen the Ministry Regulations, it's not certain whether the age classifications are simply a guideline for parents and multiplexes, or are actual legal restrictions with punishment clauses.

It's rumoured that the ID check will be carried out only with the 18- and 20-plus movies. But if, say, a 19-year-old wants to see Rambo 4 with his father, will he be allowed to go in? And if not, why? Because when he goes to an election booth, a process more detrimental to his mental health, he doesn't have to bring his dad in there with him to tell him which box to tick or which politician is a thief.

I feel itchy about the 20-plus rating, itchier and sadder still that the new Film Act still has the cutting and banning provisions. Hardly any country in the world restricts access to cinema for its 20-year-old people, except, well, Singapore. What's very funny in the Thai law is that the 20-plus rating will not be applied to those who have reached their legal age of consent by marriage. So if you're a 17-year-old girl who's already married, you can breeze into the theatre to see a 20-plus film, supposedly because since you've already had sex, nothing else can shock you. Just remember to carry your wedding certificate as proof.

As reported recently, Singapore has adopted a rating system for video games.

While the move seems like a step in the right direction, not everyone is pleased with how the new ratings are to be assigned. People Like Us , which describes itself as a Singapore gay and lesbian group focused on advocacy and public education notes that that the government’s Media Development Authority (MDA) lumps homosexuality with crime in an “Adult Theme” rating category:

People Like Us considers this new rule unjustifiably strict. Children should not have to be kept ignorant about the presence of gay people in society any more than they should be shielded from people of other faiths and ethnicities. The path to acceptance of gay people is through teaching children about diversity from a young age.

It is pejorative to lump gay sexual orientation with crime and drug use as the MDA’s new guidelines do, as if gay orientation is some kind of social threat.

Sharjah municipality in the UAE has launched a crackdown against the distribution of an old video game which has been banned.

Several residents complained about the game as it contains material offensive to religion, values and social norms.

The 18-rated video game God of War is based on Greek mythology that encourages players to kill different "gods" to reach the next level of the game. It contained sexual scenes.

A UAE national said: I knew that it was banned, but many of my friends were able to buy pirated copies from Dh5 to Dh10. I was shocked to see how much it contradicted Islamic values, said Khalid Bin Deemas, adding that it was dangerous as the video game was popular among children.

The permanent fatwa committee has instructed all concerned government departments to forbid the sale of such games and to confiscate them.

A Sharjah Municipality official confirmed that they continue to confiscate all video games that contain language and scenes that offend the religion, values and traditions of the country, including God of War. The games were confiscated during recent inspections.

Gameplanet put a few questions to Bill Hastings, New Zealand's Chief Censor about the censored version of Grand Theft Auto IV submitted by the distributor

GP: If they submitted the edited Australian version, why was it rated R18 here instead of a rating more in line with Australia?

Bill Hastings: The game was classified R18 in New Zealand because the version we examined was sufficiently violent to warrant an R18 classification. We noted little, if any, difference between GTA IV and any of the other games in the series.

You should also consider that Rockstar says it edited the game to comply with Australian law, not New Zealand law. In the past, US/EU versions of the Grand Theft Auto series have complied with New Zealand law without the editing required to comply with Australian law. This is because, unlike Australia, New Zealand has always had R16 and R18 classifications available for games.

I leave it to you to surmise what pressure there must be on the Australian MA15+ classification to absorb games that would otherwise have to be banned in Australia because they have no R classifications.

GP: If our readers import the unedited version from, for example, the UK, what is the likely penalty if they get caught?

Bill Hastings: Unless the game a person imports is objectionable (as is the case, for example, with Manhunt 2), there is no penalty for importing a game for your own use. A foreign classification is no guarantee that a game is not objectionable under New Zealand law. In the case of GTA IV however, I note that the British Board of Film Classification has given it an 18 certificate, so I rather doubt that either version is objectionable.

Singapore's censor, the Media Development Authority (MDA) has fined StarHub Cable Vision $10,000 for airing a commercial that depicted lesbian kissing scenes.

The MDA posted a statement on its website about the cable operator's breach of TV advertising guidelines, which disallows advertisements that condone homosexuality.

The commercial, which aired over two days in November on MTV's Mandarin-language channel, was to promote a song by pop singer Olivia Yan.

Her music video from the album Silly Child featured two scenes of herself and Taiwanese actress Pei Lin in a "passionate embrace", as described last November in the Taipei Times: The portrayal of a lesbian in a music video was supposedly a first for Taiwan.

According to the MDA, in the commercial, romanticised scenes of two girls kissing were shown and it portrayed the relationship as acceptable.

The MDA said it had taken into account the "severity" of the breach and that the commercial was aired on a youth-oriented TV channel.