Film censor calls for debate on pornography to update legislation

IRELAND needs a debate on pornography to modernise inadequate legislation dealing with the sex industry, according to the film censor.

John Kelleher said the current system fails to protect children and ignores technological realities.

“I think our society would benefit from a rational and informed discussion about all the issues and viewpoints relating to pornography.

“For example, what implications are there in content that would currently be prohibited here being readily available on the web?” he said.

Most European countries have licensed sex-shops available to distribute adult movies. Ireland does not and what is sold in self-proclaimed adult stores is deemed illegal by laws which amount to policing by proxy.

The material is not illegal but under the Video Recordings Act 1989, it is not legitimate until it is rated by the Irish Film Censor’s Office first.

Because of prohibitive costs and the knowledge that most films would be too extreme for an 18s certificate, shop owners by-pass the censor’s office. This is policed with occasional raids where films are seized en masse.

The DVDs and videos are sent to the censor’s office to confirm they have not been rated.

In 2006, the censor’s office was involved in 55 court cases where films were being sold without being certified.

The second strand of policing is the Revenue Commissioners’ customs and excise division intercepting imported material.

Despite publicity on the concept of ‘Lepreporn’, there is no indigenous production industry in Ireland. Films are imported and their place of origin dictates the severity of material.

British content is softest, European movies are more explicit, while the hardcore material is coming from America and Asia.

Revenue figures show its officers in 201 seizures in 2006, with hauls of 1,503 DVDs and videos.

Mr Kelleher said the current system fails to appreciate most of the material he has to ban could be released without causing too much offence.

“The term pornography is not used in the film and censorship legislation. The 1989 Video Recordings Act empowers the film censor to prohibit a video if, in his opinion, it contains ‘obscene or indecent matter’ which would tend to ‘deprave or corrupt’ persons viewing it.

“Note the act refers to ‘persons’, not young children, so that includes all persons, ie adults,” Mr Kelleher said, adding: “It’s quite hard to envisage how any of the (pretty risible) so-called soft-porn DVDs could possibly be deemed to ‘deprave or corrupt’ an adult.”

This issue could be solved with the introduction of licensed sex shops which are exclusively allowed sell pornography.

Britain introduced this system in 2000 and since then 282 licensed sex shops have been granted permission to sell R18 films. R18 is a “special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex between adults”. The censorship office in Britain is now passing more than 25 explicit films a week.

Last year, it also made moves to criminalise violent pornography.

However, if Ireland is to go down this route, Mr Kelleher said it needs to update its laws and make sure adult content does not end up in hands of a younger audience.

“The real problem in Ireland is how we ensure that what may be deemed acceptable for an adult is not readily available to a young person.

“Bizarrely, it is actually not an offence for a video store to supply a DVD to a person who is younger than the rating age designated on the label,” he said.

One shop owner said the current system is farcical: “I get on a plane in Germany and I am a businessman but here I am a criminal. No matter what I have in this store, if it is nudity or bestiality I am breaking the same law. It has nothing to do with what is on, it is just that it has not been rated by the censor.”

Many shop owners are against regulation at all costs. They see the business as a modern reality and one that should be outside the scope of the film censor.

They do not bother sending titles for classification and there is increasing disillusionment with the manner in which they are dealt with.

Cost is a major gripe. Pornographic movies are filmed on tight budgets, striving to exploit novelty themes rather than have lasting appeal. There are no blockbuster titles and shop owners have to constantly refresh supplies to entice customers back.

New charges introduced in 2004 means the cost of getting a film classified will not be recouped on the profits from its sale.

Shop owners say since increased rating charges were introduced, the small sales for each film title would not justify the costs imposed on distributors.

Mr Kelleher does not agree: “It is far from a valid argument and it is no excuse for breaking the law. Most of what they are smuggling is material that would not be certified, if submitted regardless of the cost, namely content that would be certified R18 in the UK.

“Legitimate distributors would like to see our costs lowered for a product that is specialist or minority interest and I fully support their case. I am hopeful that legislation will be enacted soon to take account of this.”

From all sides, there is at least consensus on the need for a public debate on how the country manages the sex industry.

In October, the Irish Observatory on Violence Against Women focused its entire second report to the European Women’s Lobby on pornography.

“There has been little debate on the impact and consequences for Irish society. The usual claim by those promoting the sex industry that this is an issue of sexual liberation and freedom is perhaps particularly difficult to challenge within an Irish context, as a country still emerging from a long history of sexual oppression and censorship,” it said.

Mr Kelleher said people should be focusing on the violence and extremities in the industry rather than simply making it an issue of sex. This included films trading on brutality without necessarily involving sex.

He said the issue of sex provoked hysterical responses but often avoided the most troubling aspects of the culture.

“What one person deems pornographic, another may find innocuous. It is a term commentators find notoriously difficult to define.

“In my view, images that are sexually explicit need not necessarily be pornographic,” he said.

Former film censor and current chair of the Internet Advisory Board, Audrey Conlon said: “In my view, the authorities are turning a blind eye to the sex industry.

“We need to bring in regulation but we also need to face up to what is out there because it is not soft porn and is extremely violent.”