Dear Prime Minister John Key
As a New-Zealand born who was resident in NZ at the time there were unsuccessful calls to ban Tim Shadbolt’s ‘Bullshit and Jellybeans’ and the youth education text ‘The Little Red Schoolbook’ in the early 1970s, I am dismayed by the interim ban on the youth novel ‘Into The River’.
In those days, the extremist Left and Right forces were less organised than the conservative Christian and Radical Left anti-sex lobbies are today. The sheer annoyance and time taken to deal with them leads to disproportionate results, such as the recent dropping of The Zoo magazine by Coles in Australia. They achieve some success because of the narrow focus of their campaigns, with more mainstream groups having more pressing and wider concerns.
In this case, a letter-writing campaign seems to have convinced the board. This is a distressing lack of awareness and responsibility by those appointed to represent the views of the citizenry. The extremist forces, whether Left or Right, will attempt to stack such boards and to bring undue pressure on them. There are, as you will be aware, even cases where Ministers who are sympathetic to extremist views will themselves participate in appointing to judicial positions those who do not represent the broad concerns and opinions of the citizens.
It is the responsibility of your government to appoint to such positions of judicial review, those that have the moral courage to withstand pressure brought by groups that represent small minorities and that place their own moral and ideological concerns above a respect for the views of their fellow-citizens and the processes of a democratic society. Are we to see boards of scientific review back down on Climate Change because of a letter-writing campaign pushing the unscientific views of Family First? Where such persons or boards lack this moral courage, or where they fail signally in their task of representing the public opinion, they should be dismissed.
Although I have not read the work in question, it seems to me well-accepted and reviewed and it is dubious that it would be more extreme than books such as Lolita, The Catcher in the Rye, Justine, and other books that are currently not banned or censored by your government. In general the censorship of literary or artistic works is an undesirable thing and has undesirable consequences for freedom in a society. Indeed, such censorship is in general associated with repressive views.
I well remember as a young adolescent how useful The Little Red Schoolbook – so tame nowadays – was in giving unbiased and accurate information on sex, drugs, and similar matters, at a time when all advice from schools and governments was roundly rejected by many young people because of its obvious bias and misrepresentation.
It was the start of a movement that led to the realisation by schools and government that accurate and fair information needed to be provided, as is generally the case nowadays. An examination of Family First’s policies and website, at least here in Australia, show that at least some of the information it provides is biased and misleading. I would hope that the New Zealand government will ensure that any schools that are run by affiliated organisations are not misleading children.
In the meantime, however, I remind you that it is ultimately your responsibility to determine that the organs of your government and the appointments to your judiciary are consistent with the views of your people.
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Kent
Pic: Bronwen Manger
*Tom Kent is now semi-retired after a lifetime of Public Service and media work. A well-known internationally-published poet and composer in Melbourne who works with the band My Melbourne Down and classical musicians, he continues to take an interest in human rights issues, having especially worked with Asian and African migrant communities.
