Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

No. 202
In the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in the
matter of an application to the Tribunal for decisions in
respect of the magazines Girls of the World, Vol. 1, No. 5,
8, 9, 10, and 12, and Vol. 2, No. 1, published by Top Sellers
Ltd., London.

DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL
Upon the hearing, Mr Middleton, of counsel, appeared for the
applicant.
These are a series of “girlie” magazines. Mr Middleton
submitted that the magazines were not indecent but conceded
that an age classification would be appropriate to restrict their
distribution. We have given careful consideration to his
submissions, but find no reason to depart from the decisions
we made with reference to Girls of the World, Vol. 1, No. 7,
published in New Zealand Gazette and dated 28 October 1969.
In that decision we referred to our earlier decision, published
on 18 September 1969 (New Zealand Gazette, p. 1798).
We again apply the criteria set forth in that decision and,
accordingly, come to the decision that each of the above
magazines is indecent.
L. G. H. SINCLAIR, Chairman.
16 April 1970.

Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

No. 199
IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in the
matter of an application to the Tribunal for a decision in
respect of the book The Age of Perversion, by Jason Douglas,
published by Canova Press Ltd., 50 Alexander Road, London.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
THIS paper-back book is described on its front cover as “A
close-up view of Sexuality in our Permissive Society”, the
scientific-sociological tone of which seems at odds with the
melodramatic title. A similar prevarication as to the intention,
scope, and approach of the book is found on the back cover,
where the book is claimed to be both an "investigation" and
“a whistle-stop journey through the world of perversions,
commercial sex, teenage and post-teenage promiscuity”. The
dominant impression of this cover material is that the book is
aimed at being excitingly inclusive in its account of sexual
experience rather than concerned to explore in any sustained
way the complex of issues—moral, psychological, social—that
sexuality involves along with physical relationships. It is “an
investigation of the scores of different varieties of con-
temporary sexual behaviour and their enthusiastic followers”.
In certain other books of comparable format and presentation the Tribunal has found that the cover material
misrepresented the tone and method of the book itself, and a
redeeming seriousness of treatment was identified. In the
present case this is not so. There is no argument to justify the
judgment that the title makes on contemporary society, and
the terms “perversion”, “permissiveness”, and “sexual freedom”
are used indiscriminately, and even interchangeably, in the
confused discussion of the sexual experiences and practices
which are reported from “case-histories”, “confessions”, and
other writings.
The author is an advocate of “sexual freedom” and this
advocacy proceeds without any coherent recognition of the
cruel, sadistic, and debasing aspects of some of the behaviour
he surveys, as in the chapters “Variety is the Spice of Life”
and “Anything Goes”. The practices he reports on are all
candidates, it seems, for liberation from the “regressive
opinion” that forbids them. Each person’s sexual taste should
have an accepted place in society. Accordingly, we find incest
discussed in the following way "The great prohibition against
incestuous relations is, of course, the possibility of abnormal
children resulting from such a union. With reliable contraception, this problem has been removed and the most forceful
argument against toleration of these liaisons is unpersuasive.”
The absence of any dimension other than the physically sexual
in this passage is characteristic of the book’s treatment of
personal relationships as a whole; and, together with the
prurient appeal to curiosity in the use made of “confessions”,
etc., compels the view that it deals with sex in a manner that
is trivial and injurious. We therefore classify it as indecent.
L. G. H. SINCLAIR, Chairman.
16 April 1970.

Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

No. 200
IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in the
matter of an application to the Tribunal for a decision in
respect of the book Sexual Techniques, by Mogens Toft, published by Souvenir Press Ltd., 95 Mortimer Street, London.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
THIS book is not an easy one to classify. It is a publication of
Souvenir Press, consisting of an explanatory text on the
techniques of sexual love illustrated by 42 photographs. These
are naturally disturbing because of the intimacy of the subject
but they all show restraint and delicacy in the photographing
and they all express a tenderness and repose that suggest love
in more than its physical aspects. Production and format are
dignified and of good quality.
We are required by the Act to consider what groups of
persons could be harmed or helped by the book under
consideration.
Some would argue that this book could be overstimulating,
even inciting, to young persons; but the knowledge is given
straightforwardly, and its general tone could counteract in a
salutary way the cheap incitements to casual sex seen every
day in advertisements and magazines and on screens. Moreover,
we recognise that any good thing can be put to improper use.
On the other hand, and more positively, there are people
who perhaps because of a lack of imagination, an inhibiting
upbringing, or plain ignorance, have found that their sexual
experience in an otherwise good marriage has become mere
routine. Such couples could well find help here, and for them
too the photographs are justified, not only because of their
honesty and grace but because so many people find the
printed word much harder to follow than the visual image.
There is nothing indecent in nudity or in the sexual act,
unless put in the wrong context or treated salaciously. Neither
applies here.
We should not wish to see a flood of such books on the
market, nor any of a standard inferior to this, but we think
there is a place and a use for this one.
We consider the book is not indecent in the hands of mature
readers; but, because of its nature we think some restriction
on its availability should be made. We decide that it is indecent
in the hands of persons under the age of 16 years, unless such
persons are being instructed by parents or professional
advisers.
L. G. H. SINCLAIR, Chairman.
16 April 1970.

Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

No. 203
IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in the
matter of a reference to the Tribunal, under section 12 (1) of
the said Act, by the Magistrate’s Court at Wellington for a
decision and report in terms of the said section in respect of
the July issue of the magazine Cock, published by C. R.
Wheeler, of Wellington.
DECISION AND REPORT
IN this matter the Tribunal has had the benefit of submissions
from Mr R. C. Savage, of the Crown Law Office, for the
Police Department; Mr C. R. Wheeler, described as the editor,
publisher, and printer of the journal, appeared on his own
account. Mr Wheeler trades under the name of the Cockerel
Press.
The circulation of the journal is some 3,000 and the price
is 20c. Distribution is principally in the grounds of universities,
in hotels, through a few socialist bookshops, and by
subscription.
The journal came before the Tribunal by way of reference
from the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington: the charge there was
that of printing an indecent document.
At the hearing, attention was directed particularly to a
satirical two-page centre-spread, a cartoon entitled “Phonus
Balonus”, and to a cartoon inside the back cover. Both were
unpleasant: each had an element of satire. Other less extensive features, minimal in size, came within the matters proper
to be considered by the Tribunal.
We are concerned only with indecency of the kinds contemplated by the Act, vide our decision No. 178 in the matter of
Masskerade 1969, delivered 28 October 1969 and gazetted
6 November 1969, pp. 2217–8. In this decision we cited and
followed, on this point, the decision of the majority of the
Full Court in Robson v. Hicks Smith and Sons Ltd., [1964],
N.Z.L.R. 1113, pp. 1119 and 1122.