'Ban now, ask later'
By Jamie Parker
After a few days of media hype and outrage about Arena's article on shoplifting, I suppose I shouldn't be amazed by the reaction. The mainstream media latch on, and anyone with the slightest interest has their say whether they have read the article or not.
With the change to a one-hour news show, Channel Ten picks up most of the "controversial" issues which would never have been noticed otherwise. Its not easy to fill up an hour every night.
One of the most frightening aspects of the current wave of censorship (and I don't use that term lightly) is the window it has opened into the level of student involvement/concern around state powers.
Students have been remarkably quiet when papers, diaries and articles have been censored. There are a few explanations for this, but one of the most obvious is that students are now paying HECS and working full or part time to finance their studies. A fee which can add up to a few thousand a year means that time taken out of study to become "active" is money spent with no return.
Nevertheless, the perennial explanation still remains that people just are not aware: not aware of the powers that the state has over publishing, not aware that it is not prepared to listen to any "alternative" viewpoints or explanation of a piece.
This is exemplified by the most publicised case of student censorship, the UTS orientation handbook. It was banned by the Office of Film and Literature Classification without UTS even being allowed to present a case. Even though the office is required to examine controversial work in context, it made its decision on a photocopy of a couple of the pages in question.
This type of "ban now ask later" attitude is much the same as the executive director of the Retail Traders Association, who said, "Authorities at Macquarie University should ensure that they exercise control over publications ... to avoid a repeat of this sort of activity" and the students "ought to be denied their opportunity of continuing at university" — without (it seems) even reading the article.
Academics have also been remarkably quiet on the subject, but this can be understood in terms of publishers reactions. When the treat of censorship is raised, the general reaction, especially from student papers, is to keep their heads down and let it blow over.
It should be the opposite. As soon as the issue is raised, it's important to seek support from academics and students and to publicise the facts, prepare your line and stick to it.
This is all a lot easier if it is organised before the paper comes out. The next edition of Arena contains an article on heroin pointing out its positive aspects against the anti-illegal drug xtaposed against the tacit approval of "legal drugs".
We have to remember that it's important for the government and its repressive arms to instil a bit of fear once in a while, to shore up confidence in the need for police, censorship and our "justice" system. Whether it's condoning the use of drugs, laughing at a police record or shoplifting, talking openly about sex and sexuality, it all involves liberating people from guilt, repression and fear.
The message from the state is simple: safe sex or safe drug taking is acceptable so long as the politics are safe.
[Jamie Parker is one of the editors of Arena at Macquarie University.]