British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill 2007-08

BILL TO TACKLE VIDEO VIOLENCE

British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill 2007-08

2nd Reading: Friday 29th February

 

The problem

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has two roles, on the one hand to recommend to licensing authorities (local councils) whether or not to show films - and if so on what classification - and secondly a statutory power to determine which videos and games should be available on the market at all and who may buy them.  In practice, in the last few years the BBFC has followed a policy of allowing increasingly violent and sexual material onto the market.

Example 1: The DVD/video game Manhunt was passed by the BBFC.  The central character, Cash, is a convicted killer on Death Row who has to kill everyone he meets to avoid execution.  The first killing involves a plastic bag, then moves on to knives, guns and baseball bats.  At each stage the hero is shown revelling in the killing.  In Leicester in 2004, Warren Leblanc admitted murdering his 14 year old friend Stephan Pakeerah with repeated blows from a claw hammer and knife.  Stephan's mother has publicly attributed the murder to Leblanc’s obsession with playing the game Manhunt, although the trial judge did not confirm her view. For the first time in 10 years a DVD, the successor game, Manhunt 2, has been banned by the BBFC but many other violent games continue to be passed.

Example 2: In November the BBFC passed the film "Eastern Promise” this includes graphic scenes of throat slitting, child prostitution and a man having an eye gouged out.  A spokesman for the board said it was up to adults to decide what they wanted to watch and movie goers were free to look away from the screen. 

Last month I was horrified to see that they had cleared ‘SS Experiment Camp’ for sale – a film which uses the hideous context of Dr Mengele’s pseudo-scientific experiments conducted during the Holocaust to provide an erotic backdrop for a film in which the torture of women is glamorised.

Andreas Whittam Smith, president of the BBFC from 1998 - 2002 criticised the decision and said the board's attitude to violence had become more relaxed since he left.

Evidence and Testimony

In September the Ministry of Justice published a research paper (research series 11/07) which concludes that there is "clear and consistent [evidence that] exposure to pornography puts one at increased risk for … committing sex offences… and accepting rape myths."

In contrast to the BBFC the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launched a seminar last year under chairman Lord (Chris) Smith on the issue of violent imagery in advertising.  A statement said “The day focused on four categories of violence: the depiction of guns and knives, horror films, video games and general violence.  The discussions explored whether violence is ever acceptable…." In 2005 the ASA banned a Reebok advertisement after campaigning groups including Mothers against Guns complained that it glamorised gun violence. BBC Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4556093.stm. More Recent complaints on violent advertising upheld by the ASA. BBC link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7104843.stm

In November, David Cameron said: “… studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it's OK to force a woman to have sex. In my mind, this is an example of moral collapse. We need widespread cultural change, and addressing this moral failure represents a real challenge to British society: to families, schools, local communities and businesses. … the past decade or so has seen the growing sexualisation of our society, where sex is aimed at an ever younger audience and it's cool to treat women like sex objects. …we need those that work in the media and music industry to exercise their responsibility in how they present female role models.”

The Bill

The bill aims to make the British Board of Film Classification accountable to Parliament and the public in a way that should encourage a return to more responsible decisions.  It has four principal measures:

1) To give the power of scrutiny for the appointment of the four principal officers of the BBFC to the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons. (That is the president, two vice presidents and director). In each case the BBFC would be required to submit a short list of three names to the Committee, allowing it to interview each of them.  The BBFC would then make the appointment but the Committee would have a veto.  At present the BBFC makes all its appointments internally.  Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the Home Secretary was given a power to designate the body with control over videos (and now DVDs).  This means that the government - now, the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport - has to be consulted on the appointment as otherwise the BBFC would risk losing its video/DVD role.

2) To give a similar power of veto to the Home Affairs Select Committee over the BBFC’s guidelines.  These are the guidelines which the BBFC's examiners work to:    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/policy/index.php This would enable the select committee to force the BBFC to tighten its guidelines in the face of public opinion, were it to choose to do so.

3) At present only the industry can appeal against a ruling by the BBFC, either to restore cut material or to lower a classification.  No appeal from anybody else is allowed.  Appeals are currently handled within the BBFC and the last violent video game to be rejected before Manhunt 2, Carmageddon in 1997, was released after its makers employed an expensive QC on the appeal.  It may be argued that there has to be limits on appeals or there would be potentially vast numbers originating from a handful of objectors but the current system is completely unbalanced.  (Interestingly, anyone can appeal in Australia)  The Bill proposes to introduce a power for an early day motion signed by 50 members of Parliament to trigger an appeal.  The BBFC would be required to keep a list of volunteers from whom a jury of 12 should be selected by random selection to hear all appeals. The current appeals committee overruled the BBFC on Manhunt 2 (the first game for years the BBFC has banned) just before Christmas, which would have permitted it to be distributed, had the High Court not ordered the appeal committee to look at the game again.

4) There is no way of retrospectively reviewing a decision except by behest of the BBFC.  The Bill would allow for retrospective rulings, again if triggered by an early day motion signed by 50 Members of Parliament.

Sponsors Rt Hon John Gummer, Rt Hon Keith Vaz, Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe, Jimmy Hood, Stephen Pound, John Hayes, Lyndsay Hoyle, Nadine Dorries, Jim Dobbin, David Burrowes, Greg Hands

Link to earlier ten minute rule bill

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo970708/debtext/70708-05.htm (scroll down a page or so)