Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
What’s an objectionable film in Victoria?
We're not too different, although ours is somewhat more objectively defined:
A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
(a) The exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or
(b) The use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
(c) Sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
(d) The use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
(e) Bestiality; or
(f) Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.Other material may also be banned, or restricted:
giving particular weight shall be given to the extent and degree to which, and the manner in which, the publication—
(a) Describes, depicts, or otherwise deals with—
(i) Acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm, or acts of significant cruelty:
(ii) Sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct:
(iii) Other sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature:
(iv) Sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both:
(v) Physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain:
(b) Exploits the nudity of children, or young persons, or both:
(c) Degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person:
(d) Promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism:
(e) Represents (whether directly or by implication) that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class, being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.The basic test is not offensiveness to reasonable people, as in Victoria, but the extent to which a publication is injurious to the public good.
-
In respect of the "requirement" that the adult film actresses in Australian pornography should be well-endowed, the laws are largely the same in New Zealand.
Our laws ban material that encourages the sexual exploitation of children. If pornography involving only actresses aged 18+ encourages the sexual exploitation of children (for example, by using actresses that look younger than 18, in situations that suggest they are younger than 18), then it will fall foul of the law.
It's not as simple as "A-cup is banned", but physical development (breasts, pubic hair, etc) of those involved is one factor taken into account.
-
and since we somehow share our movie censorship/ratings with the Aussies
Not really true.
Films rated as unrestricted in Australia (G, PG, M) can have those ratings applied to their films in New Zealand by the labelling body (and for PG and M a descriptive note can be added: contains coarse langauge, contains violence, adult themes etc.).
The labelling body can decline to adopt the Australian rating and refer the matter to the censor, who rates it in accordance with New Zealand censorship law. People not satisfied with the auto-rating can ask the censor to call it in, and ask him re-make the decision according to NZ censorship law.
This happens quite a bit - you'll notice a fair proportion of DVD packaging has a different rating as part of the cover than on the sticker that covers it. Last year, after complaints from the public, the censor called in the film of Land of the Lost, and upgraded the rating from PG to M. I understand after complaints this year, the censor has called in The Princess and the Frog.
Restricted material (R, R13, R16, R18, etc) is separately classified in each country.
Our laws are somewhat similar (which means that the cross-rating system is usually beneficial), but violence tends to be less restricted in Australia, and sex more restricted. of course, there is also the issue that computer games manufacturers often consider Australia and New Zealand to be part of the same market, and occasionally tailor their releases to Australian requirements (Australia has an R16 rating for games, but no R18, meaning that a game that would earn an R18 is effectively banned in Oz).
-
Wouldn't know.
I believe this is the first time this has happened with the HRRT. But:
After Taito, Parliament passed a law in an attempt to prohibit criminal appellants wrongly denied appeals a second chance at having an appeal.
After Taunoa, Parliament passed a law to try to prevent prisoners receiving compensation for breaches of their rights from keeping it.
After Ngati Apa, Parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
Were those the kinds of policy change you were after?
-
They won't.
1. The Government does not take the HRRT seriously.
2. The Government likes to claim that it is at the forefront in human rights the world over. It can't credibly do that if there are findings that its laws or policies are discriminatory or otherwise breach human rights.The government may concede or accept findings that individual breaches of rights have occurred - a particular employee was discriminated against, a particular prisoner was mistreated, a particular individual was wrongly convicted, a particular iwi needs a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi remedied, etc.
But when that breach is systemic - affecting all parents of disabled people, or all prisoners held in the behaviour management regime (see the Taunoa Case), or all criminal appellants denied legal aid by the Court of Appeal (see the Taito case), or all Iwi/all beaches - it takes its argument as far as possible.
-
On any decision by the Human Rights Review Tribunal that a government policy or law is discriminatory, the Government will always appeal. National or Labour ... reviewing a policy from their government, or from a government of a different stripe ... they will always appeal.
-
In the end, he pleaded guilty to a sole count of assault and was sentenced on that basis.
It was a charge a injuring, which is substantially more serious.
-
But apart from "it didn't happen at all", "there was consent" is pretty much the defence to a rape charge.
There was also: "there wasn't consent, but I thought there was". However, after a couple of really bad cases, in New Zealand (and I think the UK as well - probably most places) this is now: "There wasn't consent, but I thought there was, and my belief was reasonable in the circumstances).
-
Of course, if it's about Rugby, it's not a real sports film anyway...
At least according to filmsite.org:
Sports should play a predominant role in a 'true' sports film, although there have been some that stretch the definition of sport, such as films about:
bob-sledding (i.e., Cool Runnings (1993))
bowling (i.e., Kingpin (1996))
cheerleading (i.e., Bring It On (2000))
chess (i.e., Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993))
... rugby (i.e., This Sporting Life (1963))Roller Derby is also out. And Rowing, skiing, and running.
Best sports movie I ever saw: Lagaan. Cricket + Bollywood. It is as awesome as it sounds.
I'm a sucker for a good (or not so good) sports movie. Caught The Greatest Game Ever Played on TV over the break, and Miracle some time last year. Best ever? Probably not, but when the story is just really cool, I can't help but get into it.
And the game in the Stallone/Pelé vehicle Victory is awesome =)
-
But I think, and Graeme can correct me if I've cocked this, that there's a level of probability required to make it through a depositions hearing to go to trial, and then a much higher level (beyond reasonable doubt) to secure a conviction.
For a matter to go to trial the question is basically: "having looked at all the evidence the crown intends to offer, could a reasonable jury properly convict the defendant?"
This is a question for the judge, but also a question for the prosecutor - if the prosecutor looks at the evidence they now have and thinks "we have evidence, but it would be wrong for any jury to decide that that evidence precluded the reasonable possibility that there was consent", then the prosecutor is under an obligation to stop the case.
As to what happened in this case, I have no idea. My basic idea is that there must be more than meets the eye, because I really don't see that a prosecutor would drop a case based only on prior statements made on-line of this nature. Anyone who has ever been involved in a court case that has been reported in the media knows that the media rarely get it right. I have no real idea what's gone on in this case, but I do anticipate that it is likely there's more going on than has been reported.