Unthinking Censorship

[Won the 2007 Ecobusiness Consultants Prize for Nonfiction - Flinders University, South Australia]

The time is past when knowledge can be kept as the exclusive privilege of any caste or class [1].

So proclaimed Judge Windeyer in 1888 when the courts rejected the Hicklin test of obscenity – which implied that a book might be legally obscene if it corrupts the immature and uneducated, even if it does not corrupt the minds of the matured and educated. The judgement gave a stimulus to the free public discussion of sexual morality – a taboo subject of the times [2].

In July 2006, the Australian Government banned two radical Islamic books on security grounds. The decision taken by the Classification Review Board followed an application from the Attorney-General to review the classification of eight Islamic books and a film – even though the books were not considered to be a threat to Australian society or a contravention of the recent sedition legislation by the Classification Board; the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police [3]. It not only resulted in the first books banned in Australia in many years, but it was the only western democracy to have reacted so towards the books.

Dissatisfied with the Review Board’s decision to ban only two of the eight books in his application, the Attorney-General indicated that a review of censorship laws was required to ascertain whether they dealt adequately with material which urges or advocates terrorist acts [4]. Evidently, terrorism is in the process of being made into the taboo subject of the twenty-first century.

In a subsequent interview, when queried on the necessity of the proposed classification laws that would cover these books of hate [5], the Attorney-General reasoned: you have to think about how in the impressionable eyes sometimes of relatively young people – sometimes even people of relatively diminished capacity read these matters, when they hear or look at that sort of content encouraging them to be involved in acts of martyrdom along with a promise of a better life hereafter [6].

After 120 years, censorship is still seemingly underpinned by a belief that there exist in society an incorruptible class that must shield from society, elements that would wreck havoc on frailer and more susceptible minds. But, does this class-consciousness have more nefarious intentions? Like the ‘moral’ censorship that turned to political censorship during the early twentieth century [7], is its real aim the surreptitious cultivating of a more docile citizenry to serve political ends?

Australia’s system of censorship was developed in conjunction with its White Australia policy, and grew in strength until its inherent racism caused its breakdown. The intent behind it was to make Australia a vital part of the Empire and its ‘moral’ centre. The need thus arose to protect the moral and racial strength of the nation from the threat of impure imported literature. The intervening xenophobia resulted in Australia having, till the Second World War, the severest censorship law in any democratic country. The preservation of morality through censorship was perceived as an issue of national security (or national purity), and carried out through a system designed to enforce a class division and to deny a freedom of information to the public – knowledge of what was going on elsewhere in the world [8].

Puritanism epitomised the early history of censorship, till the tenuousness and ambivalence of ‘morality’ made the laws relating to it indefensible. But the spectre of censorship had never left Australia; it just needed the right conditions (or excuse) for resurgence. ‘Security’ is now the catchword that justifies censorship. But, like the dire warnings attached to the overzealous censorship of pornography, it could be the advance guard of the politics of servitude [9].

Censorship laws have a two-fold effect on the publishing industry. Firstly, they incite fear that permeates into all levels of the industry – publishers, agents, authors and readers. Secondly, they cloud and stymie a public discourse on the real or pertinent social issues.

The banning and forced removal of the two books – Join the Caravan and Defence of the Muslim Lands – from the public and university libraries of Australia goes beyond threatening the freedom of information [10]. It threatens Australia’s capacity to respond to terrorism.

The freedom to research and study is central to a university’s role of educating the leaders of the future, as well as to research important issues relating to society. As the National Research Priority – Safeguarding Australia [11] paper asserts, it is absolutely essential that researchers can examine the problems of environmental damage, economic risks and the threat of terrorism. Good and effective research demands examining the difficult questions surrounding these issues and that contrary opinions – including the most extreme – must be perused.

But once a book is Refused Classification (RC), a special exemption from the Attorney General is required to obtain it. Limiting academia's access to books on terrorism is also limiting the ability to understand and critique the ideas expressed in them. Even if academics do not commit an offence through their research, they may be taken into custody and questioned by ASIO [12]. When queried, the Attorney General warned that researchers need to be aware that research of that sort might excite considerable interest, and he hopes that the researcher would be willing to disclose information that would assist the broader Australian community [13]. Last year, a Monash University student was questioned by police after purchasing and borrowing books on Palestinian suicide bombings, a subject he was researching for his course on terrorism [14].

These laws will inevitably have an effect on what academics say, and the research they undertake. They are less likely to use robust critical speech about the war on terror or may even shy away from undertaking terrorism research altogether [15]. Academics would not be able to pursue research into the ideology and causes of terrorism, or the motivation and psychology of terrorists, when the threat of interference from government or the fear of committing a terrorism offence looms over them [16].

The problem is compounded as the proposed censorship laws are backed by severe and unclear legislation. The history of Australia’s censorship laws is one punctuated by severity and not clarity, the proposed laws that relate to ‘advocating’ terrorist acts [17] follows this tradition.

Australian National University terrorism expert, Clive Williams, rightly observed: Where do you stop? There are anarchist texts and all sorts of things that also fall into this category. It's a fairly useless exercise because there are always going to be texts that you can access that are revolutionary [18].

The penalty for breaching a Refused Classification (RC) ruling can be stiff. In the Northern Territory, individuals could face a $22,000 fine or two years' jail, and a corporate body could face a fine of $220,000 [19].

This fosters a climate of fear and breeds the most insidious form of censorship – self-censorship. And it has started to manifest itself.

A leading children's publisher took a novel off the shelves because of political sensitivity over Islamic issues, even though the author’s writing was described as almost flawless and his book a gripping page-turner. The story was about four children chased by Afghan terrorists after discovering a plot to blow up Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. The author’s agent described the decision by the publishers as a censorship by salesmen [20].

Following the banning of the two books by the Classification Review Board, the University of Melbourne's lawyers and library officials decided to go a step further: they took the two banned books and a third, The Lofty Mountain, off their shelves. Even though The Lofty Mountain was not banned or on the list of works under review, they felt the book by the same author – Sheik Abdullah Azzam, an alleged inspiration to bin Laden – contained similar subject matter [21].

A cursory check of the Internet revealed that lengthy excerpts from the two banned books are available online, and a number of mail order bookstores around the world stock them [22]. As a result, Internet publishing will be coming under scrutiny. When asked about this incongruity, the Attorney General emphasised that those who seek to display them, hire them out or sell them, do commit offences. And that the internet always presents a variety of new complications that has to be looked into [23].

Australia’s Internet censorship laws are presently more akin to those in China and Saudi Arabia than to other Western democracies [24]. And it might get worse. The current book ban is perhaps a precursor to a new age of censorship in Australia, which might not augur well for the small or independent publishers.

There is a ready audience for a distinctively Australian literature, a demand ignored by the conservatism of larger publishers. Independent publishers have met this steady increase in demand of locally published works by carefully defining their niches [25]. The small and independent publishers’ need to define niches are imperative for their survival in the face of competition from the global publishing conglomerates. This would be jeopardised if the boundaries of acceptability are blurred, not knowing when they might run foul of the law and be hit with hefty fines. In climates of legislative uncertainty, they invariably resort to self-censorship [26], preferring to err on the side of safety.

Censorship laws are a godsend for the global publishing conglomerates. Their guiding principle is one of maximising profits in the short term, for which they desire a simpler global marketplace where tastes are less differentiated. An easier task with the ‘local’ competition stymied by legislation.

Australian writers and publishers presently have to persist against the government’s commercially, rather than artistically, orientated approach to arts. The unenthusiastic support reflects the government’s opinion that the local publishing industry is reluctant to engage in competitive trade and needs to be nudged towards an open market. Or perhaps, this is indicative of the view that arts are the realm of discontents, leftist rabble that need to be constrained rather than promoted [27].

Be that as it may, the present quagmire facing the local publishing industry might result in an irrecoverable loss for Australia. The great richness that is world literature in English is embedded in the ‘voice’ of its writers; these subtle differences would be flattened out in a ‘global’ literature [28].The recent manoeuvres in censorship laws reveal a government intent on curtailing free speech. While the material in question may be politically and socially controversial, it does not present a threat to Australian society.

The material will provide Australians an insight into the views and motivations of those that oppose the liberal western tradition [29]. It will serve an important educational purpose, that of a clearer understanding of issues surrounding the current political climate.

In a letter to the Australian Society of Authors (ASA), the Attorney-General wrote: The Government is keen to ensure that inflammatory material is not used to encourage the naive and impressionable to engage in acts of terrorism [30]. A deft statement that implies the government has the public good at heart. It is also a paternalism that exhibits a grave distrust for the reading populace. So much so that laws are needed to deny access to ‘controversial’ material; to establish a system of control to moderate and control public or intellectual discourse.

Books run the gamut from the trivial to the deadly serious; an ability to provide a good laugh or a life changing epiphany. Readers consciously or unconsciously soak up what is read; the thoughts that shape thoughts, the building blocks of thinking. The banning of the two books represents the denial or control of those building blocks, and is seemingly a prelude to what the future holds for ‘controversial’ books, and the country’s ability to think.

Multiculturalism demands a multi-facet approach to truth. Differing and alternative perspectives must be openly and carefully examined. To properly defeat what is perceived as a perverted understanding of Islam, it is not enough for the government to simply say these ideas are bad and ban them from the public sphere. These ideas must be comprehensively debunked and refuted, and only an open debate will do so – Muslim leaders, scholars and intellectuals have been doing just this for more than a thousand years. This is the only means by which people will be dissuaded from adopting these ideas [31].

Censorship laws are not so much about restricting books, but restricting thought. It would be easier for any government to attain acquiescence from its polity if free thought did not reign, but this denial of exposure to alternative views, or ideas, does more than restrict thought. It stifles thinking.

The result of these short term political goals is a more divisive community, which does not augur well for society in the long term. Now, more than ever, is the time for liberalism to come to the fore, cultivating a knowledgeable and thinking polity to address the ills foisted upon it by the past greed and myopia of colonialism – within which terrorism has festered and erupted.

The access to different perspectives is crucial in this process of learning and understanding, not a descent into right-wing conservatism and hysteria. Politicians presently seem much happier enacting law-and-order legislation, and being seen to support family values than they are tackling the complex social issues that underlie poverty, crime or terrorism [32].

Banning books could be viewed as the Federal Government’s lack of trust in the Australian people. But the fear incited could be a reflection of the fear that is behind the use (or abuse) of governmental power:

It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it [33].

Censorship is a manifestation of fear. A fear of new ideas that might upset a democratically elected government’s tenuous hold on power; a government’s fear of democracy itself, for implicit in a democracy is a thinking citizenry.

This fear has historical resonance. It has manifested itself in different cultures through the ages. The power of the written word in books have always represented ideas to be feared and controlled, or destroyed, by different rulers in humanity’s long history with the book.

But history has also proved the resilience of the human psyche; censorship had not stopped humanity from imagining something better for itself, and struggling to achieve it. This tenacity would, in due course, answer the questions that censorship wanted to suppress.

But one question would always remain unanswered: Could humanity have progressed further and faster if not for the obstacle of censorship?

NOTES

[1] Peter Coleman, Obscenity, Blasphemy & Sedition, (Australia: Angus & Robertson, 1974). 53-54.

[2] Coleman, Obscenity, Blasphemy & Sedition, 56.

[3] Stephen Blanks, Censorship War Looms, at: <http://www.nswccl.org.au/stories/story2006-07.php> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[4] Norman Abjorensen, Strike up the ban: Censor joins the war on terrorism, at: <http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20060830_abj_cens.pdf> Accessed 6 June 2007.

[5] Transcript of Interview with the Attorney-General, 18 MAY 2006, at:

<http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/Interview_Transcripts_2006_Transcripts_18_May_2006_-_Transcript_-_Interview_-_Ray_Hadley_-_Sydney_Radio_2GB>

[6] Transcript of Interview with the Attorney-General, 13 April 2007, at: <http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/RWP97FB89557ED00538CA2572BC002622E6> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[7] Coleman, Obscenity, Blasphemy & Sedition, 76-89.

[8] Martin Lyons and John Arnold, ed. A History of the Book in Australia 1891-1945 (Australia: University of Queensland Press, 2001). 69-82.

[9] Peter Coleman, Obscenity, Blasphemy & Sedition, (Australia: Angus & Robertson, 1974). Second Thoughts 1973.

[10] Council of Australian University Librarians, Australian Library and Information Association, Australian Society of Authors, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Statement on Forced Removal of Books from a University Library, at: <http://alia.org.au/media.room/2006.10.03.pdf> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[11] National Research Priorities - Safeguarding Australia, Protecting Australia from terrorism and crime, at: <http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/national_research_priorities/priority_goals/safeguarding_australia.htm#4> accessed 11 June 07.

[12] George Williams and Edwina MacDonald, Fear of the law on terror, at: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20441621-12332,00.html> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[13] ABC Lateline, Terror research under threat from Aust law, at: <http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1738491.htm> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[14] George Williams and Edwina MacDonald, Fear of the law on terror, at: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20441621-12332,00.html> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[15] Williams and MacDonald, Fear of the law on terror.

[16] Williams and MacDonald, Fear of the law on terror.

[17] Attorney-General’s Department, Material that advocates terrorist acts - 1 May 2007, at: <http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/AllDocs/10AE457C710B1085CA2572CE0028849F?OpenDocument> Accessed 6 Jun. 07.

[18] Brendan O'Keefe, Book ban stirs ugly memories, at : <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20441478-12332,00.html > Accessed 2 June 2007.

[19] O'Keefe, Book ban stirs ugly memories.

[20] Murray Waldren and Jodie Minus, Islamic fears kill off children's thriller, at: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20817548-16947,00.html> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[21] Mark Dunn, Uni bans books on jihad, at: <http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20408624-661,00.html> Accessed 6 June 2007.

[22] Abjorensen, Strike up the ban: Censor joins the war on terrorism.

[23] ABC Lateline , Melbourne Uni to challenge terrorism laws, at: <http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1753912.htm> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[24] Australia's Internet Censorship System at: <http://libertus.net/censor/netcensor.html> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[25] Carolyn West, Independent Publishers: obstacles and opportunities at: <http://www.english.unimelb.edu.au/pubcomm/thepub/pdfs/CarolynWest.pdf> accessed 28 April 2007.

[26] Coleman, Obscenity, Blasphemy & Sedition, 117-119.

[27] Steve Evans, Lecture on National Identity, Literature & the Australia Council, Flinders University, 13 March 2007.

[28] Hilary McPhee, Other People’s Words (Sydney: Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd, 2001). 178-180.

[29] Blanks, Censorship War Looms.

[30] Christopher Bantick, Thought police seize control, at: <http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20607904-5007146,00.html> Accessed 2 June 2007.

[31] Amir Butler, Banning books won't protect us, at: <http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/ha/default.aspx> 10 June 2007.

[32] Richard Guilliatt and Jon Casimir, The return of the Wowsers, at: <http://web.archive.org/web/19970113054119/www.smh.com.au/daily/content/Jul/6/features/960706-features.html> Accessed 6 June 2007.

[33] Aung San Suu Kyi, Freedom from Fear and other writings (UK: Penguin, 1991) 180.

Bibliography

ABC Lateline. Melbourne Uni to challenge terrorism laws. At: <http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1753912.htm>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

ABC Lateline. Terror research under threat from Aust law. At: <http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1738491.htm>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Abjorensen, Norman. Strike up the ban: Censor joins the war on terrorism. At: <http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20060830_abj_cens.pdf>. Accessed 6 June 2007.

Australia's Internet Censorship System. At: <http://libertus.net/censor/netcensor.html>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Bantick, Christopher. Thought police seize control. At: <http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20607904-5007146,00.html>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Blanks, Stephen. Censorship War Looms. At: <http://www.nswccl.org.au/stories/story2006-07.php>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Butler, Amir. Banning books won't protect us. At: <http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/ha/default.aspx>. Accessed 10 June 2007.

Coleman, Peter. Obscenity, Blasphemy & Sedition. Australia: Angus & Robertson, 1974.

Council of Australian University Librarians, Australian Library and Information Association, Australian Society of Authors, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Statement on Forced Removal of Books from a University Library. At: <http://alia.org.au/media.room/2006.10.03.pdf>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Dunn, Mark. Uni bans books on Jihad. At: <http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20408624-661,00.html>. Accessed 6 June 2007.

Evans, Steve. Lecture on National Identity, Literature & the Australia Council. Flinders University. 13 March 2007.

Guilliatt, Richard and Casimir, Jon. The return of the Wowsers. At: <http://web.archive.org/web/19970113054119/www.smh.com.au/daily/content/Jul/6/features/960706-features.html>. Accessed 6 June 2007.

Lyons, Martin and Arnold, John. ed. A History of the Book in Australia 1891-1945. Australia: University of Queensland Press, 2001.

McPhee, Hilary. Other People’s Words. Sydney: Pan Macmillan Australia Pty Ltd, 2001.

National Research Priorities - Safeguarding Australia, Protecting Australia from terrorism and crime. At: <http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/national_research_priorities/priority_goals/safeguarding_australia.htm#4>. Accessed 11 June 07.

O'Keefe, Brendan. Book ban stirs ugly memories. At : <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20441478-12332,00.html>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Transcript of Interview with the Attorney-General. 13 April 2007. At: <http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/RWP97FB89557ED00538CA2572BC002622E6>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Waldren, Murray and Minus, Jodie. Islamic fears kill off children's thriller. At: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20817548-16947,00.html>. Accessed 2 June 2007.

Williams, George and MacDonald, Edwina. Fear of the law on terror. At: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20441621-12332,00.html>. Accessed 2 June 2007.