Censorship of Books

New Zealand Listener, Volume 29, Issue 736, 21 August 1953, Page 7

Censorship of Books

HE Advisory Cofftmittee on the Importation of Books, which was appointed by the Minister of Customs last February, has so far received about ten books, including one magazine, for consideration. It has recommended the prohibition of only one book, of which there was no doubt in the committee’s opinion that it:came within the meaning of the Indecent Publications Act of 1910. All decisions of the committee so far have been unanimous. This information was given to The Listener last week by Professor Ian A, ‘Gordon, Chairman of the Committee, when he gave a brief outline of the work that had been done since its appointment, and discussed some of the problems involved. The other members of the committee are Miss Irene Wilson, formerly headmistress of Queen Margaret College in Wellington, and Randal Burdon, author of New Zealand Notables, The Lite and Times of Sir Julius Vogel. and other books. Book censorship in New Zealand operates under two Acts of Parliament, Professor Gordon said, the Indecent Publications Act of 1910, and the Customs Act of 1913, The most authoritative interpretation of the Jaw is contained, in his opinion, in a Supreme Court judgment given by Mr. Justice Blair in 1939. An Auckland lending library had been pr and convicted in the Magistrate’s Court for lending for hire a copy of the Decameron of Boccaccio. The decision was reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Blair, after reviewing leading cases from English and American law, ruled as follows:The offence-as I translate the New Zealand law--~is that not only must the matter

be indecent but that the circumstances of its publication must be such as to, so to speak, bring the indecent element. somewhat to the forefront. To put what I am endeavouring to convey in another form, that means that if the publication is such as to give prominence té the indecent portions of the work, an offence is committed, but unless this is shown then no offence is committed under our statute. Further to illustrate what I am endeavouring to convey, let us take the case of a medical work upon the subject of obstetrics, with appropriate illuStrations. The exposure of such a work in a shop window open at a page showing certain illustrations might well be within the statute, whereas the carrying of stock of such books inside the shop for the benefit of persons interested in obstetrics would not. be. Again taking the case of many classical works, and modern works, and even the Bible itself. An exposure of any such works designed to attract attention to particular passages might well be within the mischief aimed at by the statute. J Proof that there are certain portions of classical works which offend against -modern ideas of decency is not enough to support a conviction under our statute. Section 5 also requires that the nature and circumstances of the selling or hiring or exposing of such works, and their literary value, and the purpose for which the act was done must be considered . . . Our statute makes the intention of the doer of. the act an essential factor. It is not the purpose of the purchaser of the book that has to be considered, it is the purpose of the person selling or exposing the book. He had circulated this ruling among the other members of the committee for use as a guide in forming their judgment

of books submitted to them, Professor Gordon said. In" his opinion the literary value and the intention of a book were important, and doubtful passages should be considered in their context. A book should be read as a whole and should not be censored because of half a page or a few lines. "As ‘a layman, I would say that the Indecent Publications Act of 1910 is in some aspects out of date,’ Professor Gordon said. "The definition of things which are indecent in Section 6 is not in line with contemporary opinion. But by and large it is a good Act, because if a bookseller is prosecuted he can get a lawyer to prepare his defence and submit evidence from expert witnesses. This occurred in the 1939 prosecution, when the defence obtained an opinion from Professor Arthur Sewell, then Professor of English at Auckland University College, on the ‘literary value of Boccaccio’s Decameron." The second Act under which censorship operated in New Zealand, the Customs Act of 1913, was probably of more interest to his committee, Professor Gordon said. Section 46 of the First Schedule of the Customs Act (prohibiting the importation of indecent documents within the meaning of the Indecent Publications Act) made it not merely a right but a duty of Customs officers to prohibit the importation of books coming within the meaning of the Act. "In my opinion the Customs Department has _ been very reasonable and liberal in the exercise of its powers," he "said. For a number of years the Bepartment acted under its own responsibility, Sat there had been a previous advisory committee, appointed by the Minister of. Customs, headed by Dr. Guy H. Scholefield. It had ceased to function in 1935. The present. committee was set up largely because of representations made by the Libraries Association, and was announced by the Minister of Customs, the Hon. C. ‘M. Bowden, on February 4. Professor Gordon said that: the committee was not intended to deal, and had not in fact dealt, wath books which coulde be classed as seditious or subversive or which contained defamatory matter. Nor did the committee deal with undesirable comics, which were in the hands of a different committee set up by the Education and Customs Departments. | | There were a number of misconceptions about the function of his commit- tee, Professor Gordon said. He had several times had telephone calls from

individuals suggesting that a@ certain book be banned, usually one borrowed from the public library. When. this happened he told the caller to ring the police or the Customs Department. All the books which the committee received came from the office of the Minister of Customs. : According to its order of reference the committee was set up "to consider any proposal put forward by a Minister of the Crown or by the senior officer of any department of state to prohibit the importation or sale of any work of art or literature coming within the provisiong of the Indecent Publications Act, 1910, and to communicate to the responsible Minister the views and recommendations of the committee with reference to such a proposal." The Custums Department had made a list of -books based on previous court decisions, he said, and had worked out a system of classification over the years of those books which should be totally prohibited, and others which should be: restricted to a certain kind of importer. This list was quite rightly not available to the public, but copies were held by the Booksellers Association and the Libraries Association. The main categories in the list were first those books on which there was a ‘total prohibition, secondly those which might be brought into the counfry on special order for a medical or legal practitioner or student, and thirdly those books which might be imported on special order by a psychologist or other specialist engaged in certain kinds of scientific research. Several books formerly listed astotally prohibited in the Customs Department list had come to the committee for an opinion, he said, and on the committee’s tecommendation had been. placed in the category of being available on special order. Some which were previously allowed to be imported only on special order were now completely freed. ‘ The Customs Department is under no necessity to accept the committee’s — recommendations, Professor Gordon said,’ but the understanding was that the Department would not prohibit any import without first seeking an opinion from the committee. The committee acted only in an advisory capacity, and as the Minister of Customs had said when the committee’s appointment was . announced: "The final decision, if the importer exercises his right to dispute the Department’s action in seizing any document on importation, rests with the Court." d % +