Jim Wallace’s Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) likes to portray itself as moderate, reasonable, and generally a cut above the other groups comprising Australia’s Religious Right. But slice through the holier-than-thou attitude and all you really have left is a bunch of 1950s-style wowsers.

Let’s have a look at ACL’s recent media release entitled ‘Access to Sex Videos in Prison Highlights Wider Social Problems‘. Wallace is at his most po-faced:

People [What people? How many people?] are rightly concerned that sex offenders in Ararat [Vic.] Prison have been repeatedly watching films that could feed into their problems and encourage deviant behaviour.

No clear link has ever been established between pornography consumption and crime, although people like Wallace pretend that a demonstrated connection exists. But if you read his words carefully, you’ll notice that he’s slipped in a qualifier - ‘could feed into their problems’. Viewing such films ‘could’ also have a cathartic effect, but the ACL’s not interested in that.

Back to Jim:

But what about all the potential and undiscovered sex offenders in the community who are also readily able to view this material and far worse? I’m not as worried about people who are already locked up seeing these types of videos as I am about the people who aren’t locked up who might be titillated by this material.

Notice again that Wallace doesn’t seem quite sure of his ground. All these ‘potential and undiscovered sex offenders’ might be titillated into action by this material. Only ‘might’ be? Come on, Jim, have the courage of your convictions and say they will be titillated, and then just lay your evidence on the table. Fair enough? (Don’t worry, folks, all he’ll be able to come up with is some discredited and decades-old ultra-conservative nuttery, mainly from the US.)

But what sort of ‘material’ are we talking about anyway?

The videos under question which were seen in Ararat prison weren’t even ‘R’ or ‘X’ rated - they were M or MA15+ - but were obviously inappropriate.

Thanks, Jim. So, in other words, they weren’t even what the vast majority of Australians would regard as ‘pornography’ at all, but have been judged suitable for viewing by accompanied (MA15+) or unaccompanied (M) 15-year-olds! Is that right?

This shows once again how lax the enforcement of our film classification standards has become.

Ah, so now we change tack and start attacking the censorship (sorry, ‘classification’) authorities, who spend all day looking at films but don’t know pornography when they see it.

News today that more than 100 Australians are suspected of being involved in a worldwide child pornography internet ring demonstrates that these are very real issues which need to be taken seriously.

Jim, how did we get from M-rated films to ’suspected involvement’ with child pornography in one easy step?

Unless, of course, it’s all the same thing to you. ‘It’s all filth’ - is that it? Just like it was for the wowsers in the ’50s.

Filed in: Censorship, Sexuality