To its third annual seminar held in Toronto on February 2, Canadians for Decency attracted a crowd of over 300. The topic was “Obscenity, Violence and the Future of Society”; the speakers for the most part took for granted the existence of shocking conditions in our society, and went on to discuss fundamental reasons for their existence and possible remedies.
The keynote address on “Where do you draw the line?” was given by Victor Cline, a clinical psychologist from the University of Utah. If he did not make clear exactly where the line should be drawn, what did he say was important. He maintained that all sexual deviations are learned; therefore we should be concerned about those kinds of experience which affect behaviour unfavourably. The sexual fantasies encouraged by viewing pornography are locked into the brain; the images do not disappear.
This was the his first point: the powerful addictive quality of pornography, especially in men. Then he discussed three further steps or consequences: escalation, the demand for more violent imagery; desensitization, so that the erotic and violent imagery is no longer thought of as shocking or disgusting; and acting out. Those who have watched a great deal of violence become injured to it, become brutalized. Recent research, especially in the last seven years, has made very clear the relation between pornography and violence sex acts. Even setting this effect of pornography aside, we should be concerned about the sex roles which it teaches males. What does it mean to grow up in a society which accepts pornography as normal? Dr. Cline said “We are all subject to the laws of learning.”
Emphasizing the desirability of healthy sexual relationships within marriage, the strengthening of the core of the family, and the expanding out of healthy attitudes from the family into all of society, Dr. Cline went on to demonstrate both the needs and the right for us to clean up our environment. We should not try to interfere with private behaviour, he said, but things that are disseminated publicly affect all of us, and there is such a thing as public morality. In this view, the research is there, the documentation is clear, and the right to insist on reasonable standards is also apparent. So is the need. He quoted the head of an American film-rating agency as saying “Sometimes I wish the earth would open up and swallow all these films – and the people making them.”
Robin Badgley
In his luncheon address, Robin Badgley, head of the governmental Committee on Sexual Offences against Children and Youth, also said that there was no question about the need for restrictive measures. His committee found plenty of evidence that there was no question about the need for restrictive measures. His committee found plenty of evidence that Canadians are deeply concerned about the exploitation and abuse of children through child pornography – and about pornographic material being freely available to them; this concern cuts across all social, political, and religious boundaries. He then outlined the specific measures his committee has recommended, including stiff penalties for those who make, sell, or otherwise disseminate child pornography; the strengthening of enforcement agencies; and a programme of national education. If, as his committee recommends, the employment of children under 16 in pornographic films is prohibited by law, one large step will have been taken in the elimination of pornography.
In the afternoon panel discussion, presided over by Lauren Marshall, four speakers addressed four various aspects of “Speaking Out.” From a religious perspective, Suzanne Scorsone talked about the removal of sexuality from its rightful context, the use of persons as objects, and the debasement of human dignity. She viewed pornography as an attack on human rights and human justice, as well as having deep theological significance.
John Williams
Peter DeJulio, a Crown prosecutor with a great deal of experience in obscenity cases, explained the present legislation concerning the dissemination of obscene materials. Only obscene materials comes within the law’s purview – that is, material which is so pornographic, so sexually indecent, that it is considered offensive, or sexual matter involved with crime, cruelty or violence. He stressed that obscenity has to be a dominant characteristic of the material; a paragraph or two in a book will not condemn it. He also pointed out that judges are not prepared to let a minority dictate; since they know that hundreds of thousands of Canadians welcome magazines containing nude photographs into their homes, they tend to believe that society as a whole is prepared to tolerate sexually-explicit material. If this is not the case, then individuals and organizations like Canadians for Decency need to establish the fact.
Gail Rutherford of Georgetown then described how one group of concerned citizens had informed an organization called “Citizens against Violent Pornography.” She set out, in a very clear and effective way, the need for establishing precise aims for such an organization; methods of gaining public support; use of the media; ways of responding to opposition; and so on. As she showed, such initiatives can have considerable impact on the community, given clear knowledge of what the group is trying to do and sufficient determination to accomplish its objectives.
The last member of the panel, John Williams, M.P.P., Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Consumer Relations, explained how the Ontario government is responding to public concern about the explosion of the video industry and the spread of pornographic video films. Recent legislation codifies the guidelines used by the Ontario Board of Film Censors, as was asked for by the courts, and also gives the Board power to classify video films. The government is not saying, “You must not take such and such a film into your house,” but “Be informed of what you are taking into your house.” Far from objecting to such restrictions, Williams said, the distributors welcome them, since they give them an idea of the limits under which they can operate.
Maud Barlow
The last speaker of the day was Maud Barlow, a founding member of the Canadian Coalition against Media Violence. An attractive and interesting speaker, she made a very good impression – a better impression than she should have made, considering her own intellectual confusion. Her illustrations of the effects which pornography has had in the debasement of our society, especially in the creation of a new culture and new language among children, were highly disturbing. When she got down to the root causes, however, she soon went out of her depth. She attributed pornography to the degradation of women – as though it never involved the debasement of men – and she related this degradation to the economic exploitation of women, which is surely to oversimplify.
One of her own shocking examples, in fact, provided an implicit refutation of her line of reasoning. She read out a number of letters written by girls as young as 13 in competition to meet members of a group called the Motley Crew. These girls offered anything – their bodies in every possible way – if only they could have the privilege of meeting these rock stars. It would take some curious logical gymnastics to prove that such grotesque behaviour was the result of economic exploitation; it was undoubtedly connected to something Dr. Cline talked about – the images with which people’s heads are filled. Having such a view of the dignity of human beings, these girls are undoubtedly ripe for abortion. Why not?
To Nancy Pollock, president, and the other officers of Canadians for Decency goes a great deal of credit for organizing three very successful conferences in a row. What became apparent at this seminar was the need for many larger groups, such as Canadians for Decency, and many smaller community groups, such as that in Georgetown, to increase public awareness of the problems posed by pornography , and to convince legislators and judges that community standards are not as debased as they sometimes think. Or are they?
Dr. Dooley is a professor of English at St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto.
