Oraft

Planet of the Arts Vol.3 No.7 May 1988

Interview:

Re: Bill C-54

Bill 30 (Motion Picture Act)
Sara Diamond is the spokesperson for the Coalition-
For-the-Right-to-View. She is a widely recognized
video and installation artist who has exhibited
internationally. She has curated many video and
multi-media exhibitions including last year’s success-
ful Visual evidence exhibition. She teaches both at
Video In and here at Emily Carr.

SL: There are two bills that affect artists.

SD: Yes, Bill C-54 is the proposed amend-
ments to the criminal code of Canada on Pornography
which would replace the existing criminal code
legislation, and it is the bill that has been in the news
a lot recently. It is a Federal bill, but it will cover all
the provinces and every level of cultural production.
There’s been quite a reaction around it because it is
the bill that says any depiction of sexual intercourse
or any depiction of human sexuality that is explicit will
be completely illegal in Canada. It also forbids any
sexual images to be available to people 18 years and
under. Part of the reaction has been around concerns
for AIDS education and sex education for younger
people. Just think of the implication of what it means
to ban visual and written depictions of human
sexuality, and the kind of society that it implies we
would be living in if it passes. The bill-has currently
gone through second reading and hasn't yet passed
the House of Commons, but with any likelihood it will
sometime in the next month.

The other piece of legislation is called the Motion
Picture Act which used to be Bill 30. It is now law in
British Columbia. What it sets up is a system of
classification and censorship for films and video
material produced in the province. It requires that
those be screened and classified, and gives the very
broad right of censorship to the Classification Branch.
Video artists in particular have been militantly
opposed to it.

SL: Who are these ‘Classifiers?’

SD: The head of the Classification Branch is
Mary Louise Auslane. She is a civil servant.
In her thinking, she is relatively liberal, but she is
certainly a staff person who could disappear if her
framework doesn’t jive with that of the government.
Employees of hers, responsible to her, also classify
material. | think that the concern that people have
had is not whether or not these people are knowl-
edgeable about film and video, which , of course is a
concern, but that allowing a small body of people the
right to choose what artists can produce and what can
be shown is pretty terrifying. Theoretically, every
screening, including screenings at artist run centers,
are supposed to submit the work in advance or write
for an exemption—in some way negotiate with them
for permission to show the work. Video centers have

been quite adamant in refusing to recognize them. To
some extent the classification branch has publically
stated that they don’t want to end up in some confron-
tation with artists, which is what has happened in
Ontario with similar legislation.

SL: How does that affect me as a video student?

SD: It will affect you as any kind of video
producer. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be sexual
content; they have also classified work because of
political content. It means that if you want to screen
your tape, you would have to submit it to the Classifi-
cation Branch before screening. Artist run centers
and galleries have not complied, but film centers
have, so there is a problem. A lot of people in the
video community would like to see the film community
be alittle bit more hardline in how they deal with
censorship. Where you will really run into problems is
when Bill C-54 is proclaimed, because if you deal with
sexual content in your work, if you even refer to it,
your work will have to be classified depending on the
nature of the content so that it can only be shown to a
certain kind of audience, have warnings on it, be
behind a barrier and so on. If the sexuality is explicit,
the work itself will be illegal.

The proposed law has.in it something called “the
Defence of Artistic Merit,” which is really a joke. As
an artist, if my work is seized, | can go into the court
room and argue that there is artistic merit in the work
if it shows sexual intercourse. If it deals with youth
sexuality, or any kind of sexual violence, even if it is
critical of that violence, | don’t have that defence. But
if it is explicit, | can plead that it has artistic merit.
Then, the judge and the jury will act as the art critic
and decide whether or not my work is of value. You
can just imagine the kind or trials that are going to
take place; there’s going to be a number of years of
sheer mayhem.

SE: It’s almost as unbelievable as the
abortion debates in this province.

SD: Unfortunately, | think that they are all
connected, certainly with Bill C-54 on the Federal
level. | don’t think a lot of people in Cabinet are
behind this legislation in their hearts, but they have
drafted, and are going to stand behind, a bill that they
know the extreme right in Canada, which is part of
their electoral base, is going to be thrilled about and
has lobbied for. Part of the reason they are doing that
is because the far right lost on capital punishment and
lost on the Supreme Court ruling on abortion—which
is a real victory for choice, although in B.C. it was at
first perversely turned around. In a way, they are
giving them something that there is less public protest
around than the right to choose on abortion or capital
punishment.

smouyeW epualy
rat

Plaetofthe Ars Yol.3 No.7 May 1588

Interview: S

Re: Bill C54
Bill 30 (Motion Picture Act)
Sara Diamond is the spokesperson for the Coaltion-
For-the-Right-to-View. She is a widely recognized
video and installation artist who has exhibited
internationally. She has curated many video and
multi-media exhibitions including last year's success-
{ul Visual evidence exhibition. She teaches both at
Video In and here at Emily Carr

SL: There aro two bills that affect artists.

SD: _ Yes, Bill -54ii the proposed amend
‘ments tothe criminal code of Canada on Pornography
Which would replace the existing criminal code
legislation, and it isthe bill hat has been in the news
alot recently. itis a Federal bil, but t will cover all
the provinces and every level of cultural production,
‘There's boon quite a reaction around itbecause itis
the bill hat says any depiction of sexual intercourse
‘or any depiction of human sexual that is explict wil
be completely llogal in Canada, i also forbids any
sexual images to be available to people 18 years and
under. Part of the reaction has been around concerns
for AIDS edueation and sex education for younger
people. Just thik ofthe implication of what it means
to ban visual and written depictions of human,
sexuality, and the kind of society that it implies we
would be living int passes. The bilthas currently
gone through second reading and hasn't yet passed.
the House of Commons, but with any likelinood it will
sometime in the next month,

The other piece o legislation is called the Motion
Picture Act which used to be Bill 30. Itis now law in
British Columbia. What it sets up is a system of,
classification and censorship for films and video
‘material produced in the provines. Itrequires that
those be screened and classified, and gives the very
broad right of censorship to the Classification Branch,
Video artists in particular have been miitantly
opposed to it.

SL: Who are these ‘Classifiers?”

SD: The head of the Classification Branch is
Mary Louise Ausiane. She isa civil servant.

In her thinking, she is relatively liberal, but sho is
Cortainly a staff person who could disappear if her
framework doesn't jive with that of the government.
Employees of hers, responsible to her, also classify
‘material. | think that the concern that people have
had is not whether or not these people are know!
‘edgeable about film and video, which , of course is @
concer, but that allowing a small body of people the
fight to choose what artists can produce and what can
'be shown is pretty terying. Theoretically, every
screening, including screenings at artist run centers,
are supposed to submit the work in advance or write
for an exomption—in some way negotiate with ther
for permission to show the work. Video centers have

en quite adamant in fusing to recognize them. To
some extent the classification branch has publically
stated that they don't want to end up in some contron-
tation with artists, which is what has happened in
‘Ontario with similar lagisation.

SL: How does that affect mo as a video student?

SD: __Itwillafect you as any kind of video,
producer. It wouldn't necessarily have to be sexual
Content; they have also classified work because of
political content. it means that if you want to screen
Yyour tape, you would have to submit it to the Classi
Cation Branch before screening. Artist run conters
and galleries have not complied, but film centers
hhave, so there is a problem. Alot of people in the
video community would like to see the film community
bo a itle bit more hardline in how they deal with
Cconsorship. Where you will really un into problems is.
when Bill C-54is proclaimed, because f you deal with
‘sexual content in your work, if you even refer to it
your work will have to be classified depending on the
nature ofthe content so that itcan only be shown to a
‘certain kind of audience, have warnings on it, be
bohind a barrier and soon. ifthe sexualty is explicit,
the work itself wil be illegal

The proposed law has in it something called the
Defence of Artistic Meri,” which is really ajoke. AS
an arts, if my work is seized, I can go into the court
room and argue that there is artistic merit in the work
ifit shows sexual intercourse. fit deals with youth
sexuality, or any kind of sexual violence, even itis
critical ofthat violence, I don't have that defence. But
ifivis explct, I can plead that it has anistio meri.
Then, the judge and the jury will act asthe art cto
‘and decide whether or not my work is of value, You
Can just imagine the kind or trials that are going to
take place; there's going to be a number of years of
sheer mayhem.

SD: Unfortunately, | think that they are all
connected, certainly with Bll -54 on the Federal
level. I don’ think alot of poopie in Cabinet are
boohind this legislation in their heats, but they have
drafted, and are going to stand behind, abl that they
know the extreme right in Canada, which is part of
their electoral base, is going to be thriled about and
has lobbied for. Part of the reason they are doing that
is because the far right lost on capital punishment and
lost on the Supreme Court ruling on abortion—which
is a eal victory for choice, although in B.C. itwas at
first perversely turned around. In a way, they are
‘giving them something that there is loss public protest
around than the right to choose on abortion or capital
punishment,