1406
THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE
No. 37.

The Tribunal therefore classifies Glass Head as not indecent
and classifies each issue of High Times as indecent. In respect
of High Times it makes a restriction order under section 15A
of the Act for a period of 2 years applying to every issue
of that publication each issue to be treated as indecent.

Dated at Wellington this 12th day of April 1979.

LAURENCE M. GREIG, Chairman.

Decision No. 923
Reference No. IND. 4/79

Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in
the matter of an application by Comptroller of Customs
in respect of the book: Erotic Art of China; published by
Crown Publishers.

BEFORE THE INDECENT PUBLICATIONS TRIBUNAL

Messrs. L. M. Greig (chairman), D. M. Wylie, Mrs L.
Edmond, Mrs H. B. Dick.

Hearing: 27 February 1979.

Appearances: Mr P. E. Lcloir for Customs.

DECISION

This book is a collection of erotic pictures which were
originally produced for the edification of young couples of
the Ming period. There are 53 prints, accompanied by a
selection of Chinese love poems, some written as early as
100 A.D. and translated by American Orientalists with the help
of the Chinese artist-poet Walasse Ting who is known for his
translations of Chinese classics into contemporary idiom.

Dr Franzblau, Emeritus Professor of Pastoral Psychiatry of
the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, New
York, and now on the psychiatric staff of Mount Sinai Hos-
pital, says in his introduction, “These prints clearly are not
pornography, whose goal is only sexual arousal, but represent
a valid form of instruction in the techniques of conjugal love.”
Professor Franzblau surveys the social and cultural milieu in
which the sexual practices shown in the prints existed; thus
giving the whole work a sound historical perspective.

Erotic Art of China is a serious contribution to artistic and
cultural history. Its study of unfamiliar sexual mores is
scholarly and humane, and both prints and poems are taste-
fully presented. The Tribunal classifies this book as not
indecent.

Dated at Wellington this 12th day of April 1979.

LAURENCE M. GREIG, Chairman.

Decision No. 924
Reference No. IND. 18/78

Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and in
the matter of an application by Comptroller of Customs
in respect of paperback edition titled: Delta of Venus, by
Anais Nin.

BEFORE THE INDECENT PUBLICATIONS TRIBUNAL

Messrs. L. M. Greig (chairman), D. M. Wylie, Mrs L.
Edmond, Mrs H. B. Dick.

Hearing: 27 February 1979.

Appearances: Mr P. E. Lcloir for Customs.

DECISION

Anais Nin, who died in 1977, was born of mixed Spanish
and French parentage, spent part of her formative years in
the United States and did most of her writing in English. She
lived in France between the two world wars, and returned to
America at the beginning of World War II. She is known for
several novels, poems, and other literary works, and a multi-
volume diary covering some 35 years. She could be described
as a minor literary figure of the 20th century, but of particular
interest to feminists. The stories collected in Delta of Venus
were written in 1940-41, at a time she and a group of her
friends were hard up in New York and had an opportunity
to write frankly erotic stories for the money. In spite of this
genesis, the stories are easily distinguished from run-of-the-mill
pornography by their literary character. This is illustrated
both by the style and by the characterisation of the persons
whose stories they tell: they are real individuals, not simply
puppets who proceed straight from one lurid sexual adventure
to the next. There is certainly frankness in the description of
sexual encounters, and for this reason we place an age
restriction on the book, which should certainly otherwise be
available. The Tribunal classifies Delta of Venus as indecent
in the hands of persons under the age of 16 years.

Dated at Wellington this 12th day of April 1979.

LAURENCE M. GREIG, Chairman.

Decision of the Films Censorship Board of Review

IN the matter of the Cinematograph Films Act 1976, and in
the matter of an application by Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation (N.Z.) Ltd., for a review of the feature film
“The Pom Pom Girls”.

THE FILMS CENSORSHIP BOARD OF REVIEW

Messrs A. B. Beatson, S.M. (chairman), W. Colgan, R.
Tanner, Dr R. A. Sharp, Mrs M. T. Cole, Professor E. M.
Dalziel, C.B.E. (Mrs V. Forbes, was absent).

Review: 2 March 1979.

DECISION

The board conducted a review of the film The Pom Pom
Girls on the application of the distributor on 2 March
1979 pursuant to the powers vested in it by section 84 (5)
of the Cinematograph Films Act 1976 and the Cinematograph
Films Regulations 1977 section 11 (2) (e). No submissions
were made on behalf of the distributor and the Chief Censor
accordingly was not called upon. The board’s decision was
reached after viewing the film and discussing it at length.
All members of the board other than Mrs Forbes (who was
granted leave of absence) were present.

The decision of the board was to approve the film for
exhibition, to classify it as approved for exhibition to those
aged 16 years and over, and to direct the Chief Censor to
enter the board’s decision in the Register of Films. The
decision however was subject to the film being cut in part
one of it after the titles when one of the youths in the film
was portrayed running round the perimeter of a football
field muttering “fuck you” in response to his coaches exhorta-
tion to “move it, move it”. It was felt that this cut was
necessary to bring the film within the language guide lines
set by the censor in other decisions. Such a cut would not
effect the continuity or meaning of the film in any way.

In coming to its decision as to whether or not the film
was likely to be injurious to the public good the board took
into account the matters set out in section 26 (2) (a) (b)
(c) (d) and (e) of the Act. In considering subsection (b)
the board was unanimous in considering the film had little
or no artistic merit or value or importance for social, cultural,
or other reasons. It was considered to be a fairly slight
teenage romp which was likely to appeal mainly to relatively
young audiences.

The film was not particularly well made or tastefully
made and if the board were to be the arbiter of public taste
it would no doubt have considered that there was little merit
in the film at all. However that is not the test.

What was considered was (a) the extent to which the
film depicted anti-social behaviour, cruelty, violence, crime,
horror, sex, or indecent or offensive language or behaviour
and (b) the extent to which the film denigrated any particular
class of the general public by reference to the colour, race,
or ethnic or national origins, the sex, or the religious beliefs
of the members of that class. In considering (a) (i.e. section
26.2 (c) of the Act), the board considered each of the
episodes which no doubt would have caused concern to the
censor in coming to his decision to ban the film. In particular
there was a flick knife scene. The board considered this to be
more comical than frightening. The youth’s handling of the
knife was so unskilled and his “disarming” so ironic as to make
him appear ridiculous. The board considered this scene in itself
could not be considered as frightening as the knife episodes
in other films including West Side Story and that the conduct
displayed was not likely in its context to promote imitation
and thereby be injurious to the public good. Nudity in the
film was considered unexceptionable and unobjectionable in
its context. Indeed it was not nearly as explicit as in many
other films approved for general release.

There were two episodes of cannabis smoking shown in the
film. The first related to a number of students smoking reefers
whilst being addressed by the headmaster. The second depicted
two of the school’s football team having a reefer before a
football match. While it is agreed that such conduct cannot
be condoned by the board it was not considered in the con-
text of the film to be likely to be injurious in the wider
sense to the public good.