As much as I hate films that are sympathetic to terrorism (Paradise Now, Syriana, etc.), I don't like stomping people's free speech rights (at least in America - I don't know how things work in Aus).

Still, if the film blatantly calls for sectarian violence or overthrowing the government or a coup or something, it should not be allowed to be shown. But that's just my opinion.

This looks to me very much like a moral panic in the making - and one that is very conveniently timed given that the Australian government is - yet again - seeking to tighten their already censorship rules.

In short, Ruddock - who hasn't seen the film and wants more powers - is claiming that this film should be banned. Office of Film and Literature Classification director Des Clark - who has seen the film - is saying that, although it's offensive, it contains no incitement and doesn't deserve anything stronger than a PG.

For Drew's information, we actually have NO guaranteed freedom of speech in Australia, and we never will as long as governments here insist that we don't need a bill of rights (while continuing to infringe on what rights we do have).

Paul is right, this is just the latest manifestation of government-sponsored Islamophobia in this country. Theoretically, I know, it could lead to the banning of almost any film celebrating the armed overthrow of a regime, but in practice it will only be limited to this sort of Islamist jihad type of production. I'm not saying, of course, that I necessarily believe these films should be made available; I'm just not blind as to why the government doesn't want them available.

The story of the film getting a PG classification is interesting. A few years ago there was a kerfuffle about a planned screening of a David Irving video in Melbourne. Upon doing a bit of research, I was interested to discover the OFLC had actually passed this video for sale in this country (ironic, given that Irving himself is banned from entering Australia) with a G rating about ten years earlier. Apparently they concurred that it could be considered as offensive, but it wasn't contravening any actual laws as such. It apparently does contravene anti-vilification laws in New South Wales, hence you couldn't sell or show it here, but in Victoria it's OK.

This is why the new fuss over the terrorism videos is interesting. They don't contravene any laws either. Yet. Why is there such a fuss now, though, when hardly anyone gave a damn about the Irving tape in 1993 and not many more people really would've cared about the proposed screening in Melbourne in 2003? Because people here aren't as scared of Irving as they are of Muslims. Indeed, deep down I'd say a substantial number of people here would probably agree with Irving's shit, whether or not they'd publicly admit it. There must be some reason why the Australia League of Rights (who openly sell Irving's stuff along with a mass of other racist and anti-Semitic material without seeming to suffer the same degree of official harrassment as Muslims cop for selling the same thing; I presume the fact that they're nominally Christian helps them get away with it) has survived for nearly half a century; someone must be putting money into it...