Since September 1990, the Ontario Film Review Board has left uncut scenes of sexual intercourse between consenting adults, board head Robert Payne explained early in February.
Mr. Payne said that the board has no problem with explicit sex “as long as it doesn’t involve violence, kids, degradation or humiliation or necrophilia.” Films containing such scenes are classified as ‘adult sex movies’ restricted to people over 18.
A complete reversal
This represents a complete reversal of the policy which existed when the board, then called the Ontario Censor Board, was headed by Mary Brown. It insisted on cuts to The Tin Drum and banned Pretty Baby. Even though these decisions caused a great deal of controversy, the board maintained that it knew what Ontario citizens would find acceptable and that it was operating in accordance with such a standard.
Have community standards deteriorated substantially in the last ten years, or is Payne’s board ignoring them and making its decisions in terms of other criteria?
Sgt. Bob Matthews, head of Project P, the Provincial and Metro Toronto police section assigned to deal with pornography, maintains that depiction of explicit sex contravene the Criminal Code.
“Explicit sex in movies has always been unlawful – to sell it, make it, distribute it, whatever,” he says. He said that a 30-minute movie containing 28 minutes of explicit sex acts was undue exploitation, and charges would be laid against people distributing it.
“Our position has been to carry on as normal,” he said, “until the courts decide otherwise. I’d love to see this settled in the courts and give us a clear decision on what’s really obscene.”
Courts divided
Judicial decisions have clouded rather than clarified the situation. Sgt. Matthews’ position was given support by a decision last year I which Judge David Humphrey found a businessman guilty of obscenity for distributing magazines featuring depictions of the sex act.
But, as the Ottawa Citizen pointed out editorially on February 8 of this year, the Film Board’s policy had been reinforced three days before “when another judge in Toronto who observed a veritable cornucopia of sexual acts on celluloid acquitted a company that was ready to plead guilty to distributing obscene material.”
In this very curious case, David Anstey and Tri Star Media were charged last October after a police officer had bought $49.95 copy of Amazing Sex Stories II through the company’s phone order service.
When the case came to trial, the prosecution pointed out that the video included explicit scenes of vaginal intercourse, lesbian sex, masturbation, and so on. Anstey was ready to plead guilty to one count of obscenity and pay a $1,500 fine. Nevertheless, Judge Stephen Borins insisted on seeing for himself, and when he had done so he pronounced the video acceptable and dismissed the charge.
Editorial confusion
The Ottawa Citizen praised both the Film Board and the judge for helping to put an end to “Puritanism.” Although scenes of graphic sex may not be everyone’s idea of entertainment, the paper said,
“Instinct compels us to tolerate the nuisance only because a free society must be able to choose – so long as no one is harmed or degraded in the process.”
This is a good example of editorial confusion.
The fact that we live in a democratic society does not imply that people should be free to put filth into movies or magazines any more than they are free to spread filth of a different kind on the sidewalks. There is a standard of decency in society and there is nothing undemocratic in attempting to uphold it.
