Transcript of Sheila Jeffreys testimony to Federal Senate Committee considering new pornograhy film legislation (23 March 2000)

(Read Sheila Jeffreys comments to CATWA members on this experience.)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Proof Committee Hansard
SENATE
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Reference: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999
THURSDAY, 23 MARCH 2000
MELBOURNE
CORRECTIONS TO PROOF ISSUE

This is a PROOF ISSUE. Suggested corrections for the Bound Volumes should be lodged in writing with the Committee Secretary (Facsimile (02) 6277 5794), as soon as possible but no later than:
Monday, 10 April 2000

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
[PROOF COPY]
SENATE
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Members: Senator Payne (Chair), Senators Coonan, Cooney, Greig, Mason and McKiernan
Participating members: Senators Abetz, Bartlett, Bolkus, Brown, Brownhill, Calvert, Chapman, Crane, Eggleston, Faulkner, Ferguson, Ferris, Gibson, Harradine, Knowles, Lightfoot, McGauran, Stott Despoja, Tchen, Tierney and Watson
Senators in attendance: Senators Greig, Harradine, Mason, McKiernan and Payne
Terms of reference for the inquiry:
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999
WITNESSES
EVERTSZ, Ms Jari Claudia, Program Coordinator and Clinical Psychologist, The Centre for Children, Australians Against Child Abuse 1
JEFFREYS, Associate Professor Sheila, Public Officer, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (Australia) 5
STOKES, Mrs Jennifer, Research Director, Salt Shakers 14
STOKES, Mr Peter, Executive Officer, Salt Shakers 14
HOLMES, Mr Geoffrey David, Principal Legal Officer, Attorney-General's Department 27
RAE, Ms Jennifer, Classification Education and Training Manager, Office of Film and Literature Classification 27
WEBB, Mr Simon, Acting Director, Office of Film and Literature Classification 27
[2.16 p.m.]
JEFFREYS, Associate Professor Sheila, Public Officer, Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (Australia)

CHAIR—Welcome. Dr Jeffreys, you have lodged submission No. 36 with the committee. Do you wish to make any amendments or alterations to that submission?
Dr Jeffreys—No, except that I would like to say something in addition.
CHAIR—Yes, that is fine. I invite you to make a brief opening statement and, at the conclusion of that, members of the committee will ask you questions.
Dr Jeffreys—The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, which I represent here today, is an international non-government organisation which has consultative status with ECOSOC. There are branches in regions all around the world. In 1991, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women drew up a proposed convention against sexual exploitation. Pornography is recognised in that proposed convention as a violation of women’s human rights. It is really from that perspective that I will be speaking today.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to say these things. As I understand it, under this legislation, the material to be considered is explicit sexual acts. Our understanding is that it is pornography because we define pornography as the representation of prostitution in which women are paid—and sometimes induced by force—to engage in sexual acts which are the desires of the male consumers of that material.
We understand pornography to be harmful to the rights of women and girls. These harms are several. The first harm is that we consider pornography to be the propaganda of women hatred. Kathleen Barry, who was the original founder of our organisation and the author of The Female Sexual Slavery calls pornography the propaganda of women hatred. We see pornography as in direct contradiction to the rights of women to equality and justice in a social democracy in the ways in which it shows women. We see pornography as encouraging contempt towards and violence against women by brutalising men’s emotions and undermining those social controls which normally prevent them from acting abusively towards women. Pornography, we consider, causes men to develop callous attitudes because it shows women simply as objects loving to be used for men’s sexual satisfaction.
Thirdly, we see the use of women in the making of this material to be abusive in and of itself. I think this is particularly important. The prostituted women who take part usually have to disassociate emotionally to survive the violation with harmful effects on themselves and their sexuality. Fourthly, we see pornography as training men to use all the other forms of abuse of women available in the sex industry. It trains men specifically to use women in brothels with no concern for their pleasure or their personhood. It is a crucial part of the development of the sex industry.
We do not think that the term ‘erotica’ is suitable for this material. The term ‘erotica’ suggests that this material shows cheerful adults engaging in egalitarian sexual pursuits. This is not the case. Some years ago I was on a Terry Laidler radio show with a representative of the Eros Foundation, which is of course the lobby group of the sex industry. She was saying that non-violent erotica—this was about six or seven years ago—was the ordinary stuff that depicted just good old-fashioned sex in an equal way. I had just visited a sex shop with some students so they could see what was there, and there were shelves in the sex shop of Fisting. The magazine cover showed just women’s torsos, with two male fists up anuses and vaginas. I asked the Eros representative if this was non-violent erotica, and she said of course it was. In fact, the women would have had to take drugs for this activity to take place, and it showed contempt for and violence against women. I understand that the NVE classification is supposed to specifically exclude Fisting, but this incidence suggests what the pornography industry has wanted for many years, and I suggest that that is to get the right to sell openly very abusive depictions of women and of sex.
What is the motive behind the legislation? We consider that the motivation behind the legislation must be the pacification of the demands of the sex industry to increase the range of materials they can sell openly. Maybe it can be explained to me what the other motivations are, but that seems to us to be what it is about. We consider that this industry is founded upon the actual abuse of the women and girls used in pornography and the propagation of women hatred. It is not an industry that the government should set out to facilitate. There may be some desire to placate those men who demand to use women in this fashion for pornography too, but it is not legislation which is aimed at protecting women from abuse or improving women’s status.
What is to be covered by NVE seems somewhat vague. I have seen estimates that 99 per cent of that presently covered by the X classification would be included and therefore more freely available. It is laudable that some attempt has been made to exclude certain obviously abusive uses of women. However, much other abusive behaviour will remain available, as I understand it. For instance, racially specific abuses of women do not seem to be covered. Depictions in which Asian or African women are seen as naturally subordinate or seen as sexually voracious. The abuse of women by multiple partners is not excluded. It seems to us that the majority of Australians, particularly women, are unaware of what the material to be classified as NVE consists of. When asked whether they agree that erotica should be available, they may say yes because they have no idea of what is actually involved. We think it is unreasonable that legislation should be passed by stealth or on the basis of misrepresentation.
I move now to the abuse of women in the industry. Legislators need to be aware that pornography involves the abuse of real live women. It is important to consider who these women are and how they got into that pornography. What drugs, for instance, are they needing to consume to cut off sufficiently to be able to survive the abuse? Is it drug abuse that forces them to seek money in this way? Are they there by force? Certainly, it is possible to identify bruises and blood, expressions of disgust and pain in ordinary magazine pornography available at sex shops. Are those responsible for monitoring the NVE classification going to look for this? The expressions of pain show the difference between pornography and the mainstream movie industry. No industry in which women seek to survive pain, disgust or are controlled by pure naked force can never be respectable.
It is likely to be hard for people to recognise when brute force is involved. For instance, many of you may be aware of the movie Deep Throat, which, back in the 1970s, was seen as opening up to respectability the pornography industry. The star of that movie, Linda Lovelace, had penises forced into her throat. That was the content of the movie. She was the slave of her pimp and covered in bruises that are visible in the video. He controlled her with a gun. We know this now because she escaped and told her story. After the movie was released, women started to show up in the emergency departments of hospitals with injuries directly caused by male partners demanding to engage in the practice of throat rape.
The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women would like legislators to consider how women in pornography movies got there. Some will have been seasoned by childhood sexual abuse. In the case of prostitution, that seems to be at least 60 or 70 per cent. They will have learnt to be a passive object and even to pretend to enjoy abuse before the pornographers find them and are able to exploit their victimhood. When such women smile as they are used as a receptacle by several men, it is not good clean fun but exploitation.
Pornography, we say, educates boys and men to have contempt for women. Often, when pornography is talked about, it is as if it is quite different from other forms of visual media in having no effect whatsoever on attitudes or behaviour. I would like all of us in this room to use some common sense this afternoon. Corporations would not put huge amounts of money into advertising if they thought it had no effect. Teachers would not be concerned about the ways in which girls were portrayed in schoolbooks if this had no effect. Pornography is a powerful educator and it advertises. It is particularly powerful because it rewards the boys who watch it with orgasms, thus the learning is enforced. Pornography is the main means of sex education for males. Hardly any male has seen no pornography. Thus what sex is as well as what women are is conveyed to boys and men through pornography. The boys and men who watch hours of pornography every week—and many do—learn that women love to be used every which way by men and by multiple men. They learn that women enjoy it: the women are shown smiling.
The right to consume pornography in private is in this legislation, and that is very worrying to us. We do not accept the position that male individuals should be able to watch what they like in the privacy of their homes. Firstly, homes are not private; there are women and children there, as the speaker before me was pointing out. I have heard teachers describe to me how young boys who are sexually abusive in schools have often had considerable exposure to the pornography freely available in their homes through one means or another. Secondly, it is not a private matter because there are real live women being sexually exploited in the pornography. No-one has the right, in private, to enjoy or profit from this exploitation. Thirdly, it is not a private matter because the attitudes and behaviours that the male consumers learn will affect how they relate to the women and children they live with and meet at work and in the whole of their lives. And it would be very surprising, considering the power of pornography, if it did not.
The rights of those men who wish to enjoy sexual exploitation in their homes should not be seen to be more important than all the harm done by pornography to the women abused in the industry and to the status of all women in Australia. In a genuine social democracy in which women’s interests were considered, pornography would not be available; laws would prohibit sexual exploitation. We do not understand why legislation to support the pornographers and the desires of some men to enjoy sexual exploitation is being proposed at all. If there is some compelling reason why the rights of pornographers and porn abuses should be supported in preference to those of women, then at least classification should certainly be non-violent pornography, rather than erotica, to express social disapproval of the material and limit availability. Thank you.
CHAIR—Thank you, Dr Jeffreys. You refer in your submission and in your comments to what you describe as pornography that ‘only includes women’. Does that mean you do not have a view on any other sort of pornography, or no interest in it?
Prof. Jeffreys—We do have views on other pornography. I consider that gay male pornography and lesbian pornography have exactly the same problems: they are also using men and boys and girls in prostitution in the creating of that material and they promote values of objectification and dominance and submission that I consider are concerning.
CHAIR—When you use the term ‘in prostitution’ are you saying that anybody who is involved as a participant or performer in a pornographic film—male, female, young, old—is a prostitute?
Prof. Jeffreys—The vast majority of those involved in pornography are involved in other forms of prostitution. According to my information, both the men and the women involved in these movies are very often on various kinds of drugs, both to allow the procedures to take place and to allow them to survive the abuse that is happening.
CHAIR—I would find it very interesting to see the information on which you base that assessment, both in relation to drugs and prostitution. Is that something you can make available to the committee?
Prof. Jeffreys—I have to say that the information about drugs has been given to me by people who have phoned up; and, indeed, on radio programs people have phoned in and told me this—people who are prepared to talk about their experience.
CHAIR—So it is not an empirical assessment that you have?
Prof. Jeffreys—No, that is not.
CHAIR—Is it an empirical assessment in relation to prostitution?
Prof. Jeffreys—What, exactly?
CHAIR—In relation to your assertions that the men and women involved in the pornography of which you speak are prostitutes, do you have empirical evidence of that or is that an assessment you have made?
Prof. Jeffreys—I think the evidence is very considerable for that, yes.
CHAIR—I am in the position of trying to get the best evidence that is available to the committee. If you can point me in the direction of that evidence I would be interested to look at it.
Prof. Jeffreys—I cannot get something that says 90 per cent or whatever. That is difficult to do. I do not know anybody who has exactly studied that.
CHAIR—You said in your opening remarks that you regard pornography as—in fact, I think you said it is—the main means of sex education.
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes.
CHAIR—On what evidence, empirical or otherwise, do you base that statement?
Prof. Jeffreys—Most of the evidence, of course, is simply the fact that the vast majority of young males have seen a great deal of pornography. I teach young males and so I actually get a great deal of information from them. The amount of pornography they have seen vastly outweighs any other kind of sex information that could ever have been available to them. Even supposing they received sex education at school, or even from their parents, the hours of pornography that they watch must certainly be the primary influence in the construction of sexuality for them.
CHAIR—So that is an assessment that you make based on your own experience, on anecdotal evidence?
Prof. Jeffreys—I think it would be very difficult to disagree with that. It would seem fairly clear to me, in any commonsense way.
CHAIR—In the amount of reading that I have done in preparation for these hearings, I have to observe that you are the first person to have suggested to me that the main means of sex education is pornography.
Prof. Jeffreys—I find it difficult to understand what else would be. Young males, particularly teenage males, are consuming vast amounts of pornography.
CHAIR—What environment do you teach in, Dr Jeffreys?
Prof. Jeffreys—I teach sexual politics in the department of political science—and pornography and prostitution.
CHAIR—In terms of the perspective that you bring to the committee this afternoon from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, do you have a view on what effect removing pornography to a complete black market would have on the people who are participating in it and the people who are viewing it?
Prof. Jeffreys—I think what it is necessary to do is to take a lead, and in a social democracy which respects the rights of women, it is important to have legislation which puts into practice certain understandings that we have. For instance, it is important to have legislation against domestic violence. It is important to have legislation against all forms of violence against women. I think it is from that perspective that it is important to say that it is action not acceptable to abuse women in the making of pornography and then to be selling that product.
CHAIR—Forgive me, but I do not think that answers my question in relation to the black market.
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes, there will probably always be attempts to enslave women and abuse them in ways that are not legal. I do not think making it legal is the correct thing to do with that abuse. We need an effective police force. We need effective laws which will actually do something about those abuses of women, rather than say, ‘We cannot control it. There is nothing we can do in this society about the abuse of women so we must make it legal and open slather.’ That is what has happened with prostitution, I suggest, and I do not think it should be happening with pornography as well.
CHAIR—Do you think that removing all material, as you suggest in your submission, to a black market position will exacerbate the problem?
Prof. Jeffreys—No, I do not suggest moving it to a black market position.
CHAIR—You just told me, and I can refer to the Hansard, if I have this wrong—
Prof. Jeffreys—Violence against women is not legal, but the fact that we have—
CHAIR—Dr Jeffreys, if I might ask the questions, at this stage at least. I think you conceded that there would be a black market operation if we were to take up the suggestions in your submission. My question in relation to that is: do you think that exacerbates the problem faced by women, or leaves it the same, or makes it better?
Prof. Jeffreys—What I would suggest is that whenever you have laws against violence against women, there will be men who do not obey those laws, and it is the role of the police to do something about that. It is the same in respect of pornography. There is, indeed, black market domestic violence and black market rape, and there will, indeed, probably be black market pornography. I do not think that that justifies saying that pornography, therefore, should be unregulated, or that any form of violence against women should be unregulated.
CHAIR—When you say that there is a black market in domestic violence and a black market in rape, are you suggesting that they are commodities available for purchase?
Prof. Jeffreys—Not necessarily for purchase, but they are illegal and they still go on.
CHAIR—If we are talking about a black market in the term that you and I both understand market to be, that is, where there are commodities available for purchase, I was wondering what effect you, from your expertise, thought that would have on the position of women?
Prof. Jeffreys—What I understand pornography and prostitution to be is the commercialisation of sexual violence against women. What I understand is that all of the forms of sexual violence which we are actually trying to get out of bedrooms and homes and streets, like unwanted sexual intercourse for instance, which is very distressing for women in ordinary marital relationships, but extremely common, is the absolutely standard thing that is bought in pornography and in prostitution. I understand that to be a real problem. What I understand the sex industry to do is to commercialise those activities and sell them to men so that they can actually practice them through pornography or through prostitution. I do not see them as in any way separate from other forms of violence. I do think that the buying of sexual violence should be prohibited in the way in which other forms of sexual violence are.
CHAIR—Do you think if we moved to that point we will completely obliterate pornography, prostitution, domestic violence, rape and all the other problems you cited?
Prof. Jeffreys—I think what we need to do as a society is have an aim towards which we want to go, and we need to express in legislation the ideals that we wish to pursue. If we wish to have a society in which women are treated with respect, in which they are equal citizens, and which they are not the victims of violence, I think it is important to have legislation which expresses that view of the society.
CHAIR—Have you tested your views in relation to what is private and what is not private in any academic papers or any publications that we might have reference to? You were talking about the privacy of the home, for example, or lack thereof I think you would term it.
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes, I have written a paper on consent, for instance, which actually talks about the division between public and private. I have written quite a lot of things about that.
CHAIR—There might be some that you might provide to the committee for our information.
Prof. Jeffreys—That would be fine.
Senator McKIERNAN—In your written submission from your organisation, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women: do you stand by that submission?
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes.
Senator McKIERNAN—The submission makes one recommendation to the committee. You support that recommendation?
Prof. Jeffreys—I do support that recommendation, yes.
Senator McKIERNAN—Were the committee and the parliament mindful to accept your recommendation, what difference would it make?
Prof. Jeffreys—It would show social disapproval of the material which is being consumed and it might actually help the men who might otherwise consume this material to have some kind of second thoughts about it. I think, for instance, that when pornography was actually much more carefully restricted than it is now, men actually might have felt a little guilty about the consumption of that material. I consider that that was a very good thing. I do not consider that men consuming material of this kind and abusing women through those materials in this way is socially acceptable. So I think it is important not to call it erotica because that actually gives the feeling that this is acceptable.
Senator McKIERNAN—Might it not be more attractive to less responsible people by calling it pornography rather than erotica?
Prof. Jeffreys—No, I do not think that would make a great deal of difference. In fact, I think it is important to show the social disapproval. I would like to call it ‘commercial sexual violence’. I think that would probably be a better title.
Senator McKIERNAN—You do not think it would make a great deal of difference? The names are not all that important then—the words?
Prof. Jeffreys—I do not think men will buy the pornography more if it is called pornography than if it is called erotica. I do not see that that would make a difference. The name ‘erotica’ is supposed to get it into homes more so that it can be used in relationships between men and women. My understanding, from talking to many women who have actually been in relationships where pornography has been used, is that it not good for the women or something that they would wish.
Students have told me that they have been asked by boyfriends to get into demeaning poses. So a lot of their boyfriends use pornography with them and in the bedroom with them. Erotica, I think, is more likely to get into that situation. Women will feel less able to object to what is happening, so I think it is important that the word ‘pornography’ is used.
Senator GREIG—I was interested in your comments about the home not being a private place. You said, ‘I think that it is not private because there are women there.’ Do you acknowledge that there are women, too, who watch and enjoy erotic and pornographic videos?
Prof. Jeffreys—I think there are probably some women who do that. What I think is more significant is that there is a very large number of women who actually feel under pressure to accept the use of pornography in relationships who would not otherwise wish to do so. Pornography is becoming more and more commonly used in ordinary relationships, almost always at the instigation of men. I do not think it is something that women go out and decide that they will do. The pornography that is available is not pornography which is something that shows men in vulnerable and subordinate positions that were invented by women, and so on. The content of the pornography, I think, shows who the audience is and I suggest that it is men who actually encourage women to be involved in that activity, and it can be deeply distressing to the women who are drawn in and involved in that activity.
Senator GREIG—Do you have any evidence that in countries, legal regimes, where there is a strong prohibition on sexually explicit material—I am thinking largely of Islamic or Muslim countries—that women in those countries as a result of that are treated more equally in the home, or are safer from violence or sexual abuse?
Prof. Jeffreys—No, I do not know that. What I do know is that recently in Sweden there was something of a shock because Sweden is a country that last year passed legislation against the buying of sexual services. It is the strongest legislation in the world against prostitution. It is very good legislation but they have still got a fairly liberal regime on pornography. A few weeks ago a video documentary called The Shocking Truth was made by a young woman. She actually went out and interviewed the young girls being used in the pornography that was shown late at night. She had been a pornographic model herself and it was the pornography that was going into ordinary homes all over Sweden and men were consuming it late at night. Apparently some of the girls that she showed on screen being interviewed actually had the semen hanging out of their mouths as they were speaking to her. It was a very shocking video showing terrible abuse of girls who had also been abused in other ways. It was shown in the parliament because it was so shocking. The legislators in Sweden have had to come to terms with what this can mean that in a social democracy where there is an apparent respect for women this extraordinary consumption of abused young women was going on during the early hours of the morning and so on in ordinary homes in Sweden. Unfortunately, I think it can be the case that pornography is a very firm factor in the end in holding back women from full equality. It has been recognised in Sweden that they need to do something about prostitution. Now they are going to do something about pornography as well. It seems to me that they certainly are going to do so.
Senator GREIG—You mentioned that in terms of video production. I do not know whether you are extending that to magazines as well, but it may apply. You argued that many, most or all women are forced in some way, that it is not a matter of choice, but there may be socioeconomic circumstances which predicate them towards the industry. You said specifically there were examples of drug abuse in terms of performing some specific acts and bruises indicating some kind of force. Do you have any evidence of that in Australia with the Australian video industry?
Dr Jeffreys—Unfortunately, I do not think that sort of material is available in Australia. There is some material now available talking about drug abuse in gay pornography to relax muscles and create situations in which the boys used in that pornography can put up with what is done to them. In fact, there is some material to suggest that these boys are often in situations where they are taking drugs and get HIV-AIDS diagnoses. A very famous one, who was one of the most famous models, died at 27. There is a book about him explaining his experience and what happened to him. I have quite a lot of information about what happens in gay pornography but not necessarily from this country. It does seem that it is extremely abusive to the young men who are involved in it.
Senator GREIG—Are you still opposed, therefore, to those people who legitimately claim that it is a matter of adult consensus and a matter of choice, that it is a job they choose and enjoy, that they are not taking drugs; they are not being abused. Is that not a valid life?
Dr Jeffreys—No. We have to think about social harm. We have to recognise pornography in the context of what it means for women and girls and all exploited and vulnerable people who are likely to be involved in the industry or have visited upon them practices which men have learnt from this industry can be considered to be acceptable. The so-called rights of particular individuals or small groups of individuals to say they want to use that material or be able to be in that material are not as important in the end as the ideas of harm to the whole society in terms of women’s position within it.
Senator COONEY—Can I just put up a proposition to you? It seems to me that this is the way you are arguing. I have some difficulty with it because it seems to me that you are expanding the amount of pornography we will be able to look at. I do that on the following basis. As I understand the classification system, nothing can be released unless it has a classification. On what you have said, non-violent erotica would allow a smaller range of material than would non-violent pornography. It seems to me that, in going to the classification of non-violent pornography, you are increasing the amount of material that might be looked at were it only non-violent erotica that was allowed to get a classification. I think you said pornography is worse than erotica, so if you go from a non-violent erotica classification to a non-violent pornography classification, you are increasing the range of undesirable material that you might look at.
Dr Jeffreys—I am not sure what erotica is. What I understand to be under consideration here is pornography. It is sexually explicit activities in which women are paid to be penetrated and to perform other sexual acts. It is not what I understand to be erotica. I am not quite sure what that would be. But simply, I would call pornography what is now being described as NVE. I think that is a better name for it.
Senator COONEY—But do you see the point? You seem to be wanting to get a category that would allow more material in by the very notion that you are asking for a classification of material as non-violent pornography. It seems to me that—whatever your understanding of erotica is—that would allow a wider range of material than would the classification of non-violent erotica. I am just wondering why you would want to—
Prof. Jeffreys—I am not sure why that would be the case, I have to say.
Senator COONEY—On your own argument, it seems to me that it must be, because your objection to the use of the word ‘erotica’ is that it is a more respectable range of material than pornography. I understood that was what your objection to the word ‘erotica’ was.
Prof. Jeffreys—No. My objection is that it gives a respectable name to a range of material that I consider needs to be called pornography—not that the word ‘pornography’ would allow anything different in but that the material that is being considered here needs to be called pornography.
Senator COONEY—I am sorry, I cannot quite follow the argument. You object to the use of the word ‘erotica’ because you say that that in some way refers to more respectable material.
Prof. Jeffreys—No, it is just a respectable word for the same material that I would like to call pornography.
Senator COONEY—I cannot quite follow that. If it is the same material, if the same book is both erotica and pornography, the words are coextensive, surely. I cannot quite follow the argument that you are putting.
Prof. Jeffreys—What I am saying is that the word ‘erotica’ is a euphemism.
Senator COONEY—But how can it be a euphemism if it describes material that is pornography and it is coextensive with it? Just take it steadily and work your way through it.
Prof. Jeffreys—I cannot say more than I have just said, really, which is that the range of material being considered here under NVE that I would call pornography, those who wish to be able to sell it and build a much bigger industry through making it more respectable and sell it in more places want to call erotica.
Senator COONEY—That might be so, but it is not them you have to worry about. Somebody has to make a decision about this material, haven’t they? Nothing can be sold—with some exceptions—unless it gets a classification. Our approach in Australia is that things are not available to the public unless they get a classification. So you get a general classification and then—what comes next?
Senator HARRADINE—PG , MA, R and X.
Senator COONEY—So you get right up to this issue. It seems to me that if you have a category there, on your argument, as I understand it, you are going to make available to the public non-violent pornography. That just seems to me to be a very interesting approach for somebody who is against pornography.
Prof. Jeffreys—I am sorry, but I do not completely understand even now the point you are making.
Senator COONEY—The point I am making is this: you are, as I understand it, wanting us to have a category called non-violent pornography. If you are going to make pornography available to the public, that seems to me to be a pretty big step that you would want to think about.
Prof. Jeffreys—What I am saying is what you are considering already is pornography. That is what I am saying.
Senator COONEY—What I cannot then quite follow is why you want to change the word ‘erotica’. Are we just talking about semantics? That seems to be the issue in this debate.
Prof. Jeffreys—I think there is a great deal that hangs by the choice of words used here.
Senator COONEY—If you want to say that, if there is a great deal in the use of words, then erotica, as I understand it, is going to be a less offensive range of material.
Prof. Jeffreys—Erotica could be a bunch of roses, but I think in this case it is not.
Senator COONEY—I cannot quite follow. ‘Erotica’ seems to me to be a word that is going to let in less than the word ‘pornography’. You say, no, it is not, that it is going to be coextensive. But, if it is coextensive, why this fight? Is it just simply because one sounds better than the other? Is that the distinction you are making?
Prof. Jeffreys—I think you have a distinction in your mind that I do not have. What I am saying is that I would like to have the material being considered under NVE called pornography. I am not talking about different material coming in there; just that that material is itself pornography, which is the actual depiction in films and videos of explicit sexual acts that are actually taking place.
Senator COONEY—All right. I think we are obviously not communicating. If erotica—and this is what you seem to be saying—is coextensive with pornography, if that is the situation, if that is what you are saying, then it does seem to me to be a battle of semantics.
Prof. Jeffreys—But it is a very important battle of semantics, because erotica means something very different from pornography. ‘Erotica’ is a whitewashing word which will allow an industry to market its products in different places and in different ways and give it a kind of social acceptability which I think the word ‘pornography’ does not.
Senator COONEY—If you are a censor, you are sitting down and this stuff is screening before you the whole time, and if the test you have to apply is, ‘Is this pornography?’ and the answer is, ‘Yes, and even though it is pornography I have to let it in because the standard is non-violent pornography,’ then that seems to me to open the floodgates, to tell you the truth. Just anything can come in because pornography is that sort of stuff. Everybody seems to be saying that erotica cleans it up somehow. If erotica does clean it up, then in the decision maker’s mind, as he or she is looking at a particular film, he or she might, I would suggest, say, ‘This is more than erotica, it is pornography, therefore I’m not going to let it in.’
Erotica, as you say, is a clean word; it has got a sense of respectability about it. I would have thought that if I were a decision maker and applying the test of erotica, I would be inclined to give that word the respectability that you are talking about and to exclude a lot of the pornography. What worries me about your approach is that, by using the word pornography, you are going to open the floodgates to a lot of material that, in my view, perhaps should not be allowed in.
Prof. Jeffreys—My understanding from the legislation is that there are certain things that are excluded from this category of non-violent erotica already, so they would be excluded anyway—that is, that which is categorised as violent pornography is already excluded. So it seems to me there is not a problem in calling this category non-violent pornography.
Senator COONEY—So you are suggesting to the committee that it allow non-violent pornography into the country?
Prof. Jeffreys—That is what this legislation does.
Senator COONEY—But that is what your position is, isn’t it?
Prof. Jeffreys—No, I would rather that none of this were allowed into the country, but since we will have to reach a compromise, I assume, in this legislation and since a lot of people seem determined to allow this particular kind of material in, I think it is important that it is called pornography and not erotica, for reasons I have already suggested.
Senator McKIERNAN—I asked you about standing by this submission earlier, and you said you did. I asked you about supporting the recommendation, and you said you did. Are you now changing your mind in response to that last question from Senator Cooney? Is your position that you want it all banned, or do you support what has been put in this submission?
Prof. Jeffreys—What we would like to have is not what we can always have in an ideal world, so what I am suggesting is that here the good compromise would be that we use the term ‘pornography’.
Senator McKIERNAN—One of the great difficulties that we have on committees such as this is asking questions and trying to get responses. I thought it was a fairly simple question to you. Do you support what you put in your submission?
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes, indeed.
Senator McKIERNAN—So your position is not to ban everything?
Prof. Jeffreys—I would have to reply still what I would like, which is that that may be what I would like but it is not what I am putting in in response to this particular proposal.
Senator McKIERNAN—Is that yes or is that no?
Prof. Jeffreys—In relation to this legislation, what I am suggesting is that the word ‘pornography’ is substituted for the word ‘erotica’. That is not my position on the whole world; it is just in relation to this legislation.
Senator McKIERNAN—So it is not yes and it is not no. Thank you.
Prof. Jeffreys—That is fairly clear, isn’t it?
Senator HARRADINE—Could I clarify this matter? What I heard, from the evidence that you have given, is that the material is such that you would, as an organisation, have that material not available.
Prof. Jeffreys—That is correct, yes.
Senator HARRADINE—In your submission you state:
To label something ‘non-violent’ suggests it is therefore not harmful.
That is what you are saying, isn’t it?
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes.
Senator HARRADINE—You say that at the very least, if a classification change is deemed necessary by our committee, the current X rating on a graphic video should be non-violent pornography and not erotica. Is it your preferred position that it should still retain the classification of X?
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes, I would prefer that.
Senator HARRADINE—So you would prefer to retain the classification of X for explicit material —
Prof. Jeffreys—That is correct.
Senator HARRADINE—rather than the use of the word ‘non-violent pornography’.
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes. I have just been at the Commission on the Status of Women in New York trying to work out wording for documents there. What we have always been told is that you have to try and reach this compromise. It may say X, but you will try and make it say Y. I guess that is what I am doing on this occasion. I have come straight from New York to try and do this, which is to offer the compromise immediately rather than go for exactly what one might actually want because it is not possible in international negotiations.
Senator HARRADINE—Thank you.
Senator McKIERNAN—We are but a humble Senate committee. That is why we ask simple questions and expect direct answers. But now I think we have greater clarity in the field following the most recent round of questions.
Senator MASON—Professor Jeffreys, I want to focus on just one issue that Senator Payne and Senator Greig raised. That is the public-private divide. That really seems to be the intellectual justification for your position. I think I am right in saying that, even if there are two adult consenting people watching a pornographic video in their home, that still is a matter for public regulation.
Prof. Jeffreys—Yes.
Senator MASON—I think you argued it is because of the broader social harm, the violence, people involved in the video, prostitution, the use of drugs, and so forth. So what classic liberal democracy would see as a private issue, you would say is a public issue for public regulation.
Prof. Jeffreys—Certainly, that is correct.
Senator MASON—If you argue that, what then is your position on abortion? If you are going to take that position, the classic liberal view might be that it is an issue for a woman to decide; it is not a matter for public regulation. If you take your view about violence and social harm, wouldn’t it then be a public view?
Prof. Jeffreys—I do not see that a woman’s individual decision to have an abortion is going to have social harm on a society in the way that the watching of pornographic videos is. My position on abortion is that, although it is not something to be taken lightly in any way, women might find it necessary for certain very cogent reasons to make such a choice. I do not see it as harming another human being because I do not see the foetus as a live human being. I do not see abortion as being a matter of social harm in the same way as pornography.
Senator MASON—You can see that many people would disagree with that. Some would say that the social harm to the doctors, the nurses and the woman involved is an issue as equally susceptible to public regulation as pornographic videos.
Prof. Jeffreys—No. For me, the harm of pornography is about the harm to the status of all women, serious harm to the women and children involved, and harm to the women in relationships with the men who are consuming pornography, on a scale very different and quite separate from anything involved in abortion.
Senator MASON—Thank you.
CHAIR—Professor Jeffreys, thank you very much for your time this afternoon.