Irish Film Censorship Board

Press Statement: November 1994 FILM CENSOR'S POWERS UNACCEPTABLE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY The ICCL is profoundly concerned by the decision of the Film Censor, Mr Sheamus Smith to ban the IFC season of "Natural Born Killers". The ICCL believes that this confirms that the Film Censor's powers are unacceptable in a democratic society.

* There is neither transparency nor accountability in the way in which individual censorship decisions are taken. Neither the Film Censor or the Appeals Board are required to hear arguments or evidence in public, or to state the reasons for their decisions. Lack of transparency hampers citizens - all are affected by any decision to curtail freedom of expression - in exercising their rights, such as their right of access to the courts or their right to protest. This is just as much the case when the decision is to tolerate as when it is to ban. However, a decision to ban prevents people from judging a work themselves - for that reason alone, the reasons for ban must be available for public scrutiny and discussion.

* The Film Censor's criteria seem not to conform to standards applied in other progressive constitutional democracies such as the United States, Canada and New Zealand. This no doubt results from the sweeping language of the Censorship of Films Act, 1923 - "indecent, obscene or blasphemous...or tend[ing] to inculcate principles contrary to public morality." These vague criteria contribute to the unacceptable lack of transparency already noted. They also place an unfair burden on one individual - however conscientious and well-informed - to take such decisions on behalf of the community. If films and videos should be censored because, by degrading and dehumanising women, they help to maintain inequality and domination, censorship laws should explicitly state this. Our notion of the harms which censorship seeks to prevent has already changed since 1923. The reasons for censorship should not change so radically without express recognition in legislation.

The ICCL believes that it is insufficient to protest against decisions in individual cases. Until the failings in the system itself are addressed, no decisions made under it can be fully legitimate.