Planet of the Arts Vol.3 No.7 May 1988 ara Diamond Most Canadians want to see some sort of control around child pornography; whether or not they support censorship, few would disagree that the production of child porn is abhorrent and sexual abuse of kids is terrible. Most Canadians also want to see some sort of intervention against violence against women, whether that be censorship or social serv- ices. | think the illusion people have is that this new legislation deals with those issues, when in fact it doesn’t effectively deal with them at all. It deals primarily with explicit—with what one would call the range of what most people do in bed, or wherever they do it—that huge range of relatively mundane sexual activity. That is what it is really going to affect. In terms of where it affects child sexuality—a child is defined as 18 years old and under—you can’t even talk about sexuality even if it is not explicit. Anything in a sexual context cannot even be referred to. SL: So high school kids won’t get a sex education at school? SD: Not if it could give them detailed information, might in some way be stimulating or allow them to engage in sexual activity which could be stimulating. You couldn’t do a demonstration of how to put a condom on, or give a birth control demonstra- tion that was in any way realistic. You can get married at 14 in this country, but you would have to wait four years to see images of what you could legally do with your partner. It’s a really threatening situation and something that people should act on in terms of contacting their local MP. Every library in Vancouver carries a special card that you can go in and sign and mail to Ottawa. SL: Will this legislation affect art works already in existence? SD: Yes, it will. | went through one of the texts which is used in high school art education in B.C. at the grade 11/12 level, and | found 30-40 images that wouldn't be legal. | also went through “The History of Civilization,” another high school text and | found 20-30 images—everything from Greek and Roman sculpture to Michelangelo’s David—which could be illegal for under 18 year olds. There is a definition in the proposed legislation of ‘erotica.’ ‘Erotica’ is defined as the display of genitals or body parts. So, Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler, all of which show women in various states of display, will not be affected, but any material where the women becomes an active sexual being will be illegal. Furthermore, the naked body will not be allowed to be shown in any place where someone under the age of 18 could access it. This means, in the worst case scenario, that art galleries will have to drape body parts or create an adult section. The same is true for libraries in terms of written material. These possibili- ties are ludicrous; | hope a lot of institutions won't drape nudes, etc., except as a form of protest. But if the law is pushed as it will be in parts of Canada, this may happen. Fundamentalist groups will be on the heels of their local police department to enforce it because they are the ones that fought for it. Bill C-54 will affect the kind of information in education that young people get in Canada, no question. Also, because schools, libraries, and art galleries will be afraid of being penalized in terms of their funding, they will avoid ‘sensitive’ material. Curators will think twice before they program art that has sexuality in it; they will want to feel very strongly that they can defend that material because they know that they have a potential court case on their hands, and that will affect the freedom to show work. Artists will begin to self censor too, if they feel that their work is potentially going to put them in jeopardy. This bill is one of the strongest pieces of censor- ship legislation in the world. Moreover, Canada Customs will use it as a guideline in terms of material both in literature and film coming in to Canada. People see Bill C-54 as affecting pornography, when in fact what it is going to affect is everything from Canadian literature, to film to theater perform- ance, to experimental work by artists, to popular fiction. Even films like Zeferrelli's Romeo and Juliet and Bertolucci’s The Last Emperor may be consid- ered unacceptable. All kinds of things that we take for granted as part of our cultural heritage and fine arts tradition will be under scrutiny. There is a “Hear No Evil, See No Evil” kind of attitude on the part of the government. Rape, incest and violence exist; the way you make them go away is not by banning the ability to speak about them creatively or critically. It is by providing the social resources to change them. SL: Who is responsible for this bill— whose head did it first come out of? SD: The first draft was done by John Crosbie when he was Minister of Justice. It was severely criticized and withdrawn. Everyone thought the government would bring in milder amendments to the criminal code. Instead, Ray Hnytysyn brought in a stronger piece of legislation that had been extended to include print. The only change they made in terms of definitions of what would be illegal is that they took out the term “expectorate.” So, with this draft you are allowed to spit on someone - in the last, you weren't. But you are not allowed to lactate (breast feed), menstruate, or have sex in any kind of public way. Sandra Lockwood Censorship Awareness Week In conjunction with an exhibition of traditional media and video, a panel discussion regarding the implications of Bill C-54 was held in the Con- course Gallery. Effectively curated and organized by Susan Sear, challenging questions were raised and addressed, fulfilling a mandate of provocative visual information and open discourse. The panel was made up of Russel Kazziere, editor of Van- guard; Sara Diamond, video artist; Svend Robin- son, MP; and painting faculty Dick Overfield and Landon MacKenzie. To the credit of the panelists, very little of this emotive discourse was prefaced with “asa , | feel... “. In other words, the implications of this ill-concieved piece of legisla- tion served to galvanize a cross-section of people. The fundamental problem with the bill is the shifting of the burden of proof from the prosecu- tion to the defence. If a complaint is made about an installation at a gallery for example, the work is removed, the artist charged, and must then, at a criminal trial, prove the work has artistic merit. The threat becomes self-censorship - the fear of artistic exploration which may lead to arrest and financial ruin, something nearly every artist lives on the brink of anyway. While by no means con- clusive, the discourse seemed to illuminate the individual perception and recognition of art and pornography and the further inability to define them as such. lan Verchere ne re Plneofthe Ars Val.3. No.7 May 1986 ara Diamond ‘Most Canadians want to see some sort of control around child pornography; whether or not they support censorship, few would disagree that the production of child porn is abhorrent and sexual abuse of kids is terrible. Most Canadians also want to ‘599 some sort of intervention against violence against ‘women, whether that be cansorship or social serv- ices. 1 think the illusion people have is that this new legislation deals with those issues, when in fact t doesn't effectively deal with them at al. Itdoals primarly with explict—with what one would call the range of what most people doin bed, or wherever, they do it—that huge range of relatively mundane sexval activity. That is what itis really going o affect. Intorms of where it affects child soxuality—a child is defined as 18 years old and under—you cant even talk about sexuality even if itis not explicit. Anything ina soxval context cannot even be referred to SL: Sohigh schoo! kids won't get a sox ‘education at school? SD: Nott could give them detailed information, might in some way be stimulating or alow them to engage in sexual activity which could be stimulating. You couldn't do a demonstration of how to put a condom on, or give a bith control demonstra- tion that was in any way realistic. You can get ‘married at 14 in this country, but you would have to Wait four years to see images of what you could legally do with your partner. W's. really threatening situation and something that people should act on in terms of contacting their local MP. Evory library in Vancouver caries a special ‘card that you can go in and sign and mailto Ottawa, SL: Will this legistation affect art works. dy in existence? SD: Yes, itwill. I wont through one of the texts which is used in high school art education in B.C. atthe grade 11/12 level, and I found 90-40 images that wouldn't be legal. | also went through “The History of Civilization,” another high school text ‘and | found 20-30 images—everything from Greek ‘and Roman sculpture to Michelangelo's David—which ‘could be ilegal for under 18 year olds. “There is a definition in the proposed legislation of ‘erotica.’ ‘Erotica is defined as the display of gonitals and Hustler, ‘or body parts. So, Playboy, Penthous all of which show women in various st will not be affected, but any material whe ‘women becomes an active sexual being willbe illegal. Furthermore, the naked body will not be allowed to be shown in any place where someone under the age of 18 could access it. This means, in the worst case scenario, that art galleries wil have to drape body parts or create an adult section. The same is true for libraties in terms of writen material. These possibil 38 are ludicrous; | hope a lt of institutions won't drape nudes, etc, except as a form of protest. But it the law is pushed as it willbe in parts of Canada, this may happen. Fundamentalist groups will be on the heels oftheir local police department to enforce it ‘because they are the ones that fought fori. Bill C-54 will affoct the kind of information in ‘education that young people get in Canada, no question. Also, because schools, libraries, and art galleries willbe afraid of boing penalized in terms of their funding, they wil avoid ‘sensitive’ material Curators will think twice before they program art that has sexuality in it; they will want to feel vary strongly that they can defend that material because they know that they have a potential court case on their hands, and that will affect the traedom to show work. Artists will begin to self censor too, if they fel that their work is potentially going to put them in jeopardy. This bill's ono ofthe strongest piaces of censor- ship legislation in the world. Moreover, Canada Customs wil use it asa guideline in terms of material both in iterature and fim coming in to Canada. People see Bill -54 as affecting pornography, hon infact what itis going to affect is everything from Canadian literature, to film to theater perform- ‘ance, to experimental work by artist, to popular fiction. Even films Ike Zeferrell's Romeo and Juliet ‘and Bertoluce's The Last Emperormay be consid- ‘ered unacceptable. All kinds of things that we take for ‘granted as part of our cultural heritage and fine arts tradition willbe under scrutiny. There is a "Hear No Evil, See No Evil kind of attitude on the part of the government. Rape, incest and violance exist; the way you make them go away isnot by banning the ability to speak about them creatively orciticall. Itis by providing the social resourees to change them. SL: __ Who is responsibie for this bill— ‘whose head did it first come out of? SD: Tho fist draft was done by John Crosbie when he was Minister of Justice. twas severely criticized and withdrawn, Everyone thought the ‘government would bring in milder amendments to the criminal code. Instead, Ray Hnytysyn brought in a stronger pioce of legislation that had been extended to include print. The only change they made in terms (of definitions of what would be illegal i that they took ‘ut the term “expectorate." So, with this draft you are allowed to spit on someone - in the last, you weren't, But you are not allowed to lactate (breast feed), have sex in any kind of public way. Sandra Lockwood Censorship Awareness Week In conjunction with an exhibition of traditional media and video, a panel discussion regarding the Implications of Bill C-54 was held in the Con: course Gallery. Effectively curated and organized by Susan Sear, challenging questions were raised and addressed, fulfiling a mandate of provocative visual information and open discourse. The panel Was made up of Russel Kazzlere, editor of Van- guard; Sara Diamond, video artist; Svend Robin- son, MP; and painting faculty Dick Overtield and Landon MacKenzie. To the credit of the panelists, Vory little of this emotive discourse was prefaced with “as. eel... In other words, the Implications of this Ill-concieved plece of le tion served to galvanize a cross-section of people. ‘The fundamental problem with the bill is the shifting of the burden of proof from the prosecu- tion to the defence. If a complaint is made about an installation at a gallery for example, the work is removed, the artist charged, and must then, at a ‘criminal tral, prove the work has artistic merit. ‘The threat becomes self-censorship - the fear of financial ruin, something nearly every artist lives Cn the brink of anyway. While by no means con- clusive, the discourse seemed to illuminate the. individual perception and recognition of art and pornography and the further inability to define them as such. lan Verchére