Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Feeling free by acting free

Investigative journalist and Professor at the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at the University of Technology, in Sydney Australia, Wendy Bacon is also the Australian Director of the Global Environmental Journalism Initiative. This picece was first published in the autumn edition of Overland Magazine, and is republished on Webdiary with Wendy's permission.

Feeling free by acting free
by Wendy Bacon

When I was growing up in the early 1960s, I knew that on the top shelf of our bookcase, beyond easy reach, were copies of the unexpurgated editions of DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover and Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer. Both were banned in Australia.

No-one knew then how many books and films were prohibited because the list of banned titles was not published. In 1963, a Literary Censorship Board review was ordered to cut the list back to the explicitly pornographic. The outcome was, however, a big disappointment, with the board’s recommendations overruled on grounds that were never explained. James Baldwin’s celebrated Another Country, a book that dealt with homosexual relationships and race relations, was banned. The minister for customs, Denham Henty, explained on television that ‘normal healthy Australians would not be interested in the works of DH Lawrence and Henry Miller anyway’ – though he released James Jones’ The Thin Red Line, a novel about the emotional trauma of war, because it would be read mainly by men.

At that time, Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War was building, university students were radicalising, and the contraceptive pill was available. Australian audiences were increasingly irritated by the regular partial censorship of movies that overseas audiences could watch uncut. Meanwhile, offset printing and computerised typesetting replaced hot metal publishing, giving editors more control over content and layout. As with the internet a few decades later, the developments extended the power to publish to more people.

Politically, the ruling conservatives confronted community groups and unions, and movements on campuses and in schools through-out Australia. Such was the situation in which, in late 1969, I joined a group of editors, writers and political activists taking over the University of New South Wales student newspaper Tharunka, a paper that had already fought censorship battles in the 1960s. When our money ran out, we launched an underground version called Thor, which we sold to students and other eager customers in pubs. Over two years we campaigned for the ‘freedom to write, read, think and express without restraint’.

We published hundreds of pages: stories about Vietnam, apartheid, conscription, student sit-ins, gay sex, high school protests, police persecution of homosexual men, film censorship, the early women’s liberation movement, drugs, contraception, Afghanistan, Opus Dei, the environment, along with detailed reports of our own court appearances, adorned with sexual images. The articles were accompanied by erotic stories and poems, pornographic cartoons of Disney characters, tracts on urban warfare and a basic recipe for bombs (then being reprinted all over the Western world), extracts from Yippie Jerry Rubin’s banned book Do It, and essays by Sydney philosopher John Anderson, whose argument that censors spread illusions to disguise their own special powerful interests influenced our own ideas.

Our aim was political confrontation rather than sexual arousal. After police arrested a protester for handing out a pamphlet of a US soldier holding up a mutilated body, we juxtaposed sexual images with the violence of war.

In March 1970, a UNSW academic suggested we publish the bawdy poem Eskimo Nell, which, as we pointed out, was well known to our conservative critics as it was sung widely in football shower rooms. We positioned the 48-line poem beneath a carefully chosen picture of a bride.

But Eskimo Nell was an infidel – she equalled a whole harem,
With the strength of ten in her abdomen and her rock of ages beam.
Amidships she could stand the rush like this flush of a water closet,
So she grasped his cock like a Chatswood lock on the National Safe Deposit.
She lay for a while with a subtle smile while the grip of her cunt grew keener,
Then giving a sigh she sucked him dry with the ease of a vacuum cleaner.

A mass meeting of UNSW students approved publication, while the mainstream media predictably screamed: ‘Students publish filthy sex ballad.’

At the same time, a La Trobe University student newspaper republished extracts from Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint, the banning of which had become a cause célèbre. Recommending others follow suit, we made our intentions clear: ‘If the government prosecutes in all cases, it slows up the courts, if it picks and chooses, their ridiculous inconsistency will be more apparent and underlined; if it prosecutes in no cases, at least there will be a temporary and minor victory against censorship and for freedom.’

Author Frank Moorhouse organised a Tharunka literary supplement of works that would be or had been ‘banned or interfered with by Australian censorship legislation’. The supplement was ‘not intended to meet the establishment on its own terms – that erotic or obscene writing is acceptable sometimes, if the English is correct and a professor of English testifies to its literary value,’ he wrote. Rather it was a ‘gesture by writers against censorship but also as a thing in itself – “being free by acting free”.’ AD Hope, Frank Hardy, Judith Wright, Tom Shapcott, Robert Adamson and Michael Wilding contributed works. Thomas Keneally (even though he had not been censored) included a statement supporting the supplement. Confessing to ‘spinsterish views about eroticism’, he found the ‘ability of our Customs to ban seminal books (the pun not intentional) is to me the embarrassment of never having been banned myself’.

In his introduction Moorhouse wrote:

printers, editors and distributors work on the safe side of the margin when dealing with difficult material. Writers eventually come to censor themselves to get publication and of course the readers never know that they are reading emasculated material. The dependence of the literary magazines on government grants has inclined them to get on with ‘safe’ publication and to avoid the offensive and troublesome. They publish articles against censorship but not censorable material … This supplement is not, then, an argument for freedom for only ‘serious’ material or material of ‘merit’. Free communication cannot be reserved for the intellectual modes.

Soon afterwards, we published Cunt is a Christian Word, a disturbing poem about the repressed sexuality of women, and in particular nuns, in the Catholic Church:

Think of all the careless girls
who let men touch them there,
Who were foolish and silly
and forget about their immortal souls
Thinking instead of fleshly pleasures
and who have been brought to ecstasy
five thousand times.
But you have been saved from that.

But soon you will realise,
That you have been getting fucked all along.
For there is no cock as big and rough
As the one your church has thrust into you.
God’s great steel penis …

Catholic priests called on the government to censor Tharunka, and soon our editors and student publisher were charged with publishing indecent material. Our printer was also charged, which forced us to find printers for future editions who would print in return for cash and without identification.

We responded by spending a weekend sewing nun costumes with words from the poem concealed by a bib. The lines were dramatically revealed during a court hearing at which we also distributed copies of the offending poem. I was arrested.

That was how, in February 1971 – forty years ago – I found myself in a paddy wagon on the way to a week’s imprisonment in Mulawa Women’s Prison, while the court prepared to sentence me for exhibiting an ‘obscene publication’ with a tendency to ‘deprave and corrupt’ –  to wit, the nun’s habit with the slogan ‘I have been fucked by God’s steel prick’.

The Act under which I was charged still used the language of depravity and corruption. But those nineteenth-century concepts already sounded absurd, and so the jury was not shown the Act itself. Faced with the impossibility of proving depravity, courts had replaced the need to prove the ‘tendency to deprave’ with a ‘community standards’ test, which is still widely used in censorship regimes today.

The job of lawyers is to apply the law, not attack it, so I defended myself. I asked the jury to question the notion of the ‘average person’ and ‘community standards’, suggesting that the strong support we had at UNSW was evidence itself that a single community standard was an illusion used by conservatives to impose their views on others. The judge cut me off, on the basis that I could not address the jury on ‘matters of law’.

My approach was vindicated, however, when the jury returned with a split decision. We were later told that there had been a big argument, with one jury member assaulting another before they reached a compromise verdict. I was guilty of exhibiting the slogan on the habit but not guilty of distributing the poem. A supportive lawyer immediately sent the poem to lawyers and the media as an example of what could be published. The Daily Telegraph later reported that a police investigation was launched when a solicitor complained that his female secretary opened the ‘obscene’ letter. Omitted from the story was the information that the pamphlet had been found not to be ‘obscene’.

A week later, I was placed on a good behaviour bond. But by then my short stay in prison had further educated me in the contradictory ways of the ‘protectors’. The destitute and prostitutes were my fellow prisoners. Prostitutes, serving time rather than paying fines for what was then an illegal activity, told me that they regularly bribed the very same vice squad that kicked in my door at 3 am a year later to serve me with another summons. The sex shops, too, were paying off the police. It was another decade or so before evidence emerged that money from bribes made its way to ministers in the same NSW government that was pursuing us.

The following year, I, along with John Cox, was on trial again for distributing an obscene publication, in this case a whole issue of Thor. Showing signs of the pragmatism we so criticised in others, we now used the ‘literary merit’ defence to introduce political witnesses and arguments during the two-week trial. One expert witness was Germaine Greer, then a Cambridge academic and now featuring on Australian postage stamps, who gave evidence that cunt was an Anglo-Saxon word.

The prosecution focused on a particular page that was a reprint of a US cartoon of Disney cartoon characters in every imaginable sexual pose. The verdict was guilty. We were again imprisoned for a week and released on bonds. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal overturned the verdict on the basis that the judge misdirected the jury by not telling them to consider the publication ‘as a whole’ rather than dealing with each individual part – something that incidentally is, in practice, very difficult to do.

The censorship laws were in disarray. Scores of publishers, booksellers and activists were awaiting trial for a large range of publications. Jurors in two NSW obscenity trials relating to Portnoy’s Complaint failed to reach agreement and the cases were dropped. With judges now bound to follow the NSW judgement, convictions were unlikely.

As our opponent, the right-wing politician Peter Coleman, later wrote, our actions had ‘dramatically smashed’ the liberal compromise that allowed ‘the middle-brow and high-brow magazines’ to attack Christian morality but did not extend the same freedom to popular magazines.

We believed, as I still do, that by bringing what was considered shameful into the open, we would extend sexual freedom. Our stance was also influenced by the Sydney Libertarian position of permanent protest and direct action. A year after publishing Eskimo Nell, I noted, in a piece for Monash university paper Lot’s Wife, that no-one was interested in Nell anymore. In the same article, I wrote:

I also see printing pornography as just a protest in itself. Now as far as I’m concerned, if something is forbidden, unless there is some good reason not to do it which I feel myself and understand myself, the fact that it is forbidden is enough for me to want to do it. So providing pornography is banned, or that it really freaks politicians right out, I’m going to be really keen to keep doing it.

While the Tharunka campaign was particularly vigorous, it echoed similar actions across Australia. So began a gradual shift away from the customs and criminal law regime towards the current bureaucratic system, built around publishers applying for classification codes enforced by occasional bans and criminal action. Conflict around censorship became less common by the end of the 1970s.

We were, however, wrong to think that the censorship battle was won. The old language of depravity was replaced by community standards tests, while references to drugs, violence and instruction in crime were now explicitly included.

The Australian women’s liberation movement, which I later joined, was only in its infancy in the early 1970s. By the end of the decade, pornography – and the objectification of women it often involves – had become a feminist issue. Some feminists joined conservative groups campaigning for censorship, although this tendency was not strong in the Australian movement, which was influenced by libertarian forms of socialism. Feminists who opposed censorship, like me, argued that whatever one thought of pornography, censorship would cause more harm than it prevented, especially given the way the law had historically been used to restrict women.

People sometimes ask me whether, in the light of feminism, I regret publishing pornographic images. My answer is ‘no’, but it needs some explanation. While we used the word ‘pornography’ to distinguish ourselves from those claiming ‘literary merit’ in erotic writing, very little of what we published would meet current definitions of porn, which often include the qualifier ‘design[ed] to sexually arouse’. Naked bodies imposed on the cenotaph, explicit Aubrey Beardsley drawings, penises splashed across court drawings, Disney characters in outlandish sexual poses: these were scarcely designed to arouse and were, for the most part, not particularly sexist. We were not interested in commercial porn, which, as we said, was already available in sex shops.

When Janet Strickland, Australia’s most liberal chief censor, resigned in 1986, she warned of a swing to conservatism, which she linked to a more fearful economic and political climate. In 1995, the Australian Retailers Association and a talkback radio campaign pushed the Classification Board to ban a satirical shoplifting guide published by La Trobe University’s Rabelais on grounds that it ‘instructed in matters of crime’.

No wonder that Strickland later told the Sydney Morning Herald she felt her predictions had been right: ‘God knows what kind of society we’ll be living in in ten years’ time. It could be like Victorian times again, with all the hypocrisy and double standards … Why is it that we are not allowed to be shocked and offended? It’s good to be shocked and offended. It means we can still feel.’

A glance at recent classification decisions shows that our censors still refer vaguely to ‘coarse language’, with the word ‘cunt’ still coming in for special treatment. I also imagine many children would find it amusing that Narnia is PG (parental guidance) not G (general) because it has what are referred to as ‘scary scenes’.

The most disgraceful recent banning is that of Philip Nitschke’s pro-euthanasia book The Peaceful Pill Handbook, prohibited in Australia in 2007 because it ‘instructs in matters of crime’. While narrow political and religious interests impose their views of the Australian community, widespread public support for euthanasia is evident. It occurs to me that the publication of this book might be an appropriate case for direct action by anti-censorship campaigners from my own generation.

Like all anti-censorship campaigns, Tharunka emerged from a particular political context. From today’s perspective, it appears like the period piece it is, and my early defiance seems optimistic, even naive. Nonetheless, I still believe that direct action and resistance is the best way to counter censorship in whatever form it comes.

The terrain shifts but the struggle continues. Today, for instance, I would not embrace the then common practice in oppositional media of publishing bomb recipes, which in any case are now freely available on the internet. But I am very concerned with constraints on freedom of expression created by draconian anti-terrorism laws that were barely debated in parliaments and are now taken for granted as part of our political landscape, even though they leave us open to selective surveillance, raids and prosecution – and even prevent people from telling anyone that they have been questioned by ASIO. Writing in Griffith Review in 2006, Frank Moorhouse predicted that the ‘government will probably have to send some of us to jail’. This has not yet occurred, but we have moved back to not knowing what is kept secret in our name. If someone fell foul of the laws against publishing security information in the public interest, I would still approve of republication.

In 1970, we could never have imagined a global, internet-based anti-censorship campaign on the scale of WikiLeaks. While the survival of WikiLeaks will depend on the deployment of the full ambit of available tactics, the mirroring and hacking actions in defence of the site remind us of the efficacy of direct action against censorship – being free by acting free.

[ category: ]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Handmaiden's Tale

A couple of things come to mind.

Would women have been free to help finally create that critical mass that overthrow the old puritan order, had it not been for their liberation from the tyranny of fertility with the arrival of the Pill in the early sixties?

What hamstrung the movement toward a better society, relaxed and educated, was the parallel overthrow of the old order through de-industrialisation coupled with the recessions of the seventies and eighties.

The tabloid media exploited frictions within society at a time when people were trying to come to terms with what the end of the nuclear family set up since Federation meant for them, across different facets of their lives.

Rightist media worked out that the shock jocks and the information free zones of tabloid news papers and tv could muddy the waters, magnifying confusion and discontent and subverting a readjustment to new realities.

The elite right did not want an educated society, this meant too much scrutiny of their activities, so their media directed attention toward the foibles of working class people, against celeb culture,  with much moralising and then presented  Howard Blair and Bush as the solution, in a phony return to "old values", in light of the deliberately induced failure of civil society.

The system has become so dumbed down that the Republicans have succeeded in swiping even more $trillions off American society, after the burglary of the mid decade with their current "Lockout" .

They have made the Tea partiers happy with a consolation; the dismembering of the sacrificial goat; the remnants of the US working classes. Many working poor and many welfare-stranded are now having the rug pulled further from under them to pay for the wars and more tax cuts for Wall St, which you would think would have been already glutted from the antics of earlier in the decade, culminating in the $trillion dollar heist that was the "Bail Out" of 2007-8.

The masses are troubled, but kept ignorant and their emotionalism is exploited.

Here in Australia we have the folly of the carbon tax denialism triumphant, as the current symptom of the information vacuum and increased consequent fear and loathing, exacerbated by a timid, captive Labor government retreating to Howardist positions on "morality", education and media , that presages ill for the chances of a society of the future able to cope with change, having now been trained to resist  critical thinking, hence incurring a damaged mechanism for adaptation.

In a sense, we never really left the late nineteen sixties. We still live in a late capitalist society and remained captive to fears reimposed by people like Abbott, Minchin and Andrews and Rudd, Gillard and Conroy and their sponsors. 

With the manufactured anxiety, it becomes possible for all forms of dumbing down, including the ultimate and crude tactic of overt censorship, to thrive again.

The Australian Woman's Weekly and all that

As a *blush* coronation baby, so much of this elicits such powerful memories - good and bad - for me.

I remember Richard Walsh and the Oz mag trial of the mid 'sixties, at a time when the Prasad immigration case also dominated the news. As a kid, who was encouraged to watch 4 Corners and allowed to watch and laugh at our first genuine satirical tv show, Mavis Bramston, a sort of Barry Humphries thing for Moonee Ponds "us", I wanted to make sense of these things and found it bit stuffy, all these old Bush Baptist types saying what was wrong and what wasn't.

What was wrong about these things and what did it mean? And you didn't always get a straight answer from the"olds", who had preoccupations of their own concerning some of these "personal" things.

So what changed (in) Australia to get it out of the fearful priggishness, racism, ignorance, McCarthyism and the like, back from the forties, fifties and early sixties?

Was it Kennedy, a president from and for a new generation?

TV and the music of the radio, especially folk music, then the rock'n'roll of the Beatles and Dylan? Hard news on TV reporting in graphic detail the unjust violence of freedom marches in America, then Vietnam? The emerging publicisation of the fearsome conditions and problems that our own Indigenes faced, emphasised by the graphic actuality of how red Indians actually lived in the Richest Country in the World?

Whatever, by the end of the 'sixties an entire generation was aware that the cartoon-like heroics of Jet Jackson - the Flying Commando, and the happy-families fantasy world of the Andy Griffith Show, Brady Bunch and the like were largely illusory. Certainly, the famines in Bihar, Biafra and Bangladesh provided evidence of a hitherto unconsidered, ugly world and a shameful indifference from our previous role models, the Madison Avenue executive types.

And if they lied to us about these things, what else were they were lying to us about? Hence the upswing in interest when the Stones - our heroes - got intrusively busted for smoking "pot" (surely their own business) and the Vietnam War got bogged down and we saw our friends dragged off to conscription, whether they wanted it or not.

You could point to demographics and the notorious demographic bulge of the Boomers. We were better fed and educated than any previous generation. The momentum being generated by questioning spilled into the streets as thousands of us took to the streets to voice concerns at what seemed to us to be bullshit excuses from the old stuffed shirts running things, on quite a few issues.

The responses offered us, in the way of "commie plots" and sexual "decency" and the manner in which they were delivered, completed the radicalisation of a significant portion of a generation, who instead went out found out for themselves and then said so.

Bacon is right to mention that in turn the new certainties had themselves yet to be tested. The free'n’easy of Debbie Does Dallas again changed to concern as women like Andrea Dworkin highlighted the dark side of the porn industry, throwing up new question about the exploitation of women and children. And finally, the issue of child abuse was finally overtised.

This was typical of the gloomy mid-seventies to mid-eighties, as an optimistic generation also experienced the reality check of the sacking of Whitlam, high unemployment and the sombre Easter Island face of Malcolm Fraser. The "happy" of Itchycoo Park of the late sixties gave way to the tired disbelief of David Bowie's Low and Cold Chisel's Breakfast at Sweethearts, as Cheap Wine and a Three Day Growth became a reality for many people.

I think Bacon identifies the 'eighties as a sort of rebirth altho that maybe only derived of personal experience on my part. This era featured the victory of the Franklin River, Hawke after Fraser, and the impact of people like Shirley Strickland. The journos at the National Times and ABC were surely rewarded, at last, for their persevering efforts.

But looking back, I think it was the beginning of the end, also.

Globalisation and neoliberalism brought an end to the "National Project" in reality and culture.

People turned away from academics like Anne Summers and Marilyn Lake, Howard did down the Aborigines, while Labor turned on the Greens, while the end of mass TV brought an end to the economies of scale that had produced a good home-grown national cultural revival through the seventies and eighties. Instead, we got Alan Jones, "dumbing down", and medieval fear and loathing derived of ignorance on everything from refugees, through welfare and education to ecological denialism.

Yet, just lately, the new Cyber warfare following on from the discrediting of neolib and neo con projects about 2007, has suddenly produced a 1968 Year.

When all hope had died, yet another change to the paradigm that conservatives, as ever, have tried to suffocate, as the disowning of Egyptian democratic impulses, the Republican shut down and Cameron "austerity" (read ransack) budgets have demonstrated, not to mention the brutalism of Abbott, Conroy and co in Australia.

What the last decade has left me with is the sense of magnitude of corporate greed and the urge to micromanage and control.

So, this has been a long rave. Well, Wendy Bacon is an icon for my generation, and I also want to thank Richard for inviting her contribution and Wendy herself for allowing access to her commentary.

Because (post?) modern times offer this writer only the sense of an anticlimax.

It's all changed and nothing has changed…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 4 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 11 hours ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 12 hours ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 12 hours ago
Justin Obodie: Bye bye - and thanks for all them fishies in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 12 hours ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 17 hours ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 1 day ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 5 days ago