“Baise-Moi” A Case of Censorship Collusion
“Baise-Moi” and Metropolis Film Ltd A Curious Case of Censorship Collusion
The appeal case against Film and Literature Board of Review’s classification of the French sex violence film “Baise-Moi” (transl. “F**k Me”), that came before the High Court for the second time on 8 July 2003, was dismissed in a decision issued by the Hon. Justice Goddard dated 11 November 2003 (Goddard J, Wellington Registry, CIV-2002-485-235). Counsel for the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (SPCS), the Appellant, was Mr Peter McKenzie QC. The Board was represented by Mr John Oliver (Crown Law Office), acting in the non-adversarial role of amicus curiae. The film’s New Zealand distributor Auckland-based Metropolis Film Ltd, which holds the exclusive NZ rights to the theatrical and non-theatrical release of the film, was represented by Mr Eugene St John.
Although the distributor, whose Managing Director is Mr Gordon Adam [see F.N. 1], had never submitted the film for classification, nor made any submissions to the Board or High Court until after the Hon. Justice Hammond had ruled on 23 July 2002 that the Board’s classification was wrong in law; it is now seeking costs against the appellant which first initiated the review under s. 47 of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”). Counsel for Metropolis Films Ltd Eugene St John made the false statement in Court before Goddard J. on 8 July 2003 that his client had submitted the film for classification. In fact the film was called in for classification by the Chief Censor, Mr Bill Hastings under s13(3) of the Act on 15 March 2001 and was therefore never submitted to the Film and Video Labelling Body (FVLB),
The film “Baise-Moi” came to be classified prior to its mainstream cinema release in NZ by a route which suggests a “curious case of censorship collusion” involving the importer/ ‘distributor’, Chief Censor Mr Bill Hastings and the CEO of the FVLB Mr Bill Hood. This curious case of apparent collusion involving a NZ film distributor and the heads of two supposedly independent statutory censorship authorities – Mr Bill Hastings and Mr Bill Hood - raises serious questions about the robustness and independence of our NZ censorship system.
If a film which has been described by a senior NZ clinical psychologist as setting “a new bench-mark in terms of sadistic violence”, banned in Australia, and created serious controversy overseas due to its glamourisation of graphic violence combined with brutal explicit sex scenes, can be defended in the High Court by a distributor who never submitted it for classification, and by the Chief Censor and the Board; then something is seriously wrong. Furthermore, if such a distributor can be shown to have sought an independent appraisal of the film from the Chief Censor, Hastings for possible film festival screening, by a method which by-passed the law, and had the support of both Hastings and Hood, then a Government enquiry is called for.
The Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal late Monday afternoon, 8 December 2003, against the decision of Goddard J. that dismissed the appeal. Three of the four grounds of the appeal in the unsuccessful High Court case form the basis of the new appeal.
For further details on the new appeal see:
APPENDIX (with additional footnotes)
1. Film classification in New Zealand
All films in New Zealand must be rated or classified, and labelled before they can be lawfully supplied to the public, except those exempted [see F.N. 2] under s. 8 of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”). Those intended for “supply to the public”  must be submitted under s. 9 of the Act to the Film and Video Labelling Body (FVLB) in Auckland. This is the statutory body approved by the Minister of Internal Affairs under s. 72 and whose functions are set out under s. 71. Its functions are essentially threefold: (1) to rate unrestricted films, (2) to cross-rate unrestricted films that have been rated in Australia or in the U.K., and (3) to issue the labels that must be affixed to films before they can be supplied to the public.
Under s. 2 of the Act “Film” means “a cinematograph film, a video recording, and any other material record of visual moving images that is capable of being used for the subsequent display of those images; and includes any part of any film and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film.”
The process the FVLB “must follow” in dealing with film classifications has been set out on a flowchart on the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) website. Once a film is submitted the FVLB must then make thorough “checks for overseas rating or classification” of the publication. If it has been classified as “restricted” in any way by a recognised overseas censorship body it must be forwarded to the OFLC for classification.
Prior to a NZ distributor making a decision to import a 35 mm print of a film intended for supply, it may seek and receive, or have sent to it unsolicited, an advance (promotional) copy of the film, usually on video or DVD, from the overseas distributor. Both the latter formats constitute a “film” under s. 2 of the Act. Once supplied to the FVLB for classification they must be forwarded to the OFLC if they are intended to be supplied to the public and have been either (1) banned, (2) required excisions, or (3) received a restricted classification by an overseas censorship authority. If such a restricted publication is loaned to any person “in the course of any business” by a distributor, this action constitutes “supply” under s. 2 of the Act (see footnote 3).
2. Mr Anthony Talbot Timpson, sub distributor of “Baise-Moi” for Metropolis Film Limited. The film “Baise-Moi” was imported into NZ on VHS video and Metropolis Film Ltd. assigned sub-distribution rights to Mr Anthony Talbot Timpson who trades as “2Brothers Films”, prior to the commencement of his 2002 Beck’s Incredible Film Festival. Timpson, who planned to screen it at his festival in Auckland from 11 April to 2 May 2002, and in Wellington from 2 May to 22 May 2002, requested Metropolis Films Ltd to secure the rights. A High Court document  lodged by his solicitor on 5 April 2002 states “Anthony Timpson is the sub distributor of the film “Baise-Moi” for Metropolis Film Limited.” (par. 2).
The classification decision given Baise-Moi by the OFLC, dated August 20, 2001 (OFLC Ref. No. 100334), was published by the Classification Office in its List of Decisions on September 14, 2001 and stated:
Objectionable except if the availability of the publication is limited for the purpose of study in a tertiary media or film studies course or as part of a film festival organised by an incorporated film society, and in both cases to persons who have attained the age of 18 years. [Emphasis added]
This decision meant that Timpson’s film festival which he describes as a “one person operation and not subsidised in any way” could not screen Baise-Moi. It has never been “organised by an incorporated society” or constituted an incorporated society or been a member of the NZ Film Festival Federation. In a sworn affidavit dated 5 April 2002 Timpson stated:
My role is to organise, manage and run the Incredible Film Festival. As detailed in the [film festival] guide, my title is “Festival Director”. I am also a sub distributor of the films for Metropolis Film Limited. As a result of my request for a particular film to be included in the “Film Festival” Metropolis Film secured the rights to that film. I then arrange to book the film and have it rated for screening in the Festival”.
In the case of Baise-Moi, neither Metropolis Film Ltd nor Anthony Timpson submitted it for classification to the FVLB which would have required the payment of an application fee and a classification fee of about $1,000. Instead, it was supplied to the Executive Secretary of the FVLB, Mr Bill Hood, by either the Managing Director of Metropolis Films, Gordon Adam, or Mr Timpson, for the commercial purpose of obtaining an informal assessment from the Chief Censor of its suitability for film festival screening. Adam, Timpson and Hood would have known that the film was highly controversial and had been banned in France where it was made and in Ontario.
3. False claim made by Counsel for Metropolis Films Ltd. in High Court
In the High Court in Wellington on 8 July 2003, the lawyer acting for Metropolis Film Ltd, Mr Eugene St John, stated before the Hon. Justice Goddard that his client had submitted the film “Baise-Moi” for classification. In fact the film was called in for classification by the Chief Censor, Mr Bill Hastings, under s13(3) of the Act on 15 March 2001 and was therefore never submitted to the Film and Video Labelling Body (FVLB).
4. Documenting Collusion [F.N. 9]
On 20 February 2001 Mr Bill Hood, Executive Secretary of the FVLB, wrote (using the FVLB letterhead) to Mr Bill Hastings, Chief Censor of Film and Literature:
Thank you for lunch and a most productive meeting with the Ministries of Justice and Internal Affairs last week. I look forward to receiving your draft paper [F.N. 10] to the Ministry of Justice in due course.
As discussed during our conversation, please receive a VHS copy of Baise Moi. Clearly, the content does have artistic merit, as was the case considered by two states in Canada, but nevertheless will require careful consideration.
As agreed, the publication is not offered to you in a formal fashion but merely for you to consider as to whether this form of content could be made available to a selective audience in a film festival type environment. [Emphasis added]
I look forward to receiving your comments in due course.
With kind regards
Yours sincerely FILM & VIDEO LABELING BODY INC
Bill [Hood] EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
It needs to be emphasised that this informal submission made by Hood had been planned and “agreed” to in advance with Hastings, who must have been told by Hood from whom he had obtained the VHS copy. It would appear to have come from either Gordon Adam or Anthony Timpson. 5. Bill Hastings on “Baise-Moi”
Mr Hasting’s personal responses after first viewing the film in 2001 were recalled in a live radio interview he gave with Steven Grey on Radio 95 bFM on March 27 2002. The following extract from the transcript referring to with Baise-Moi is illuminating (copy made available to the Film and Literature Board of Review):
Bill Hastings: “It’s pretty ‘out there’ ”
Steven Grey: “There’s some real shit in it [Baise-Moi] as well which I found quite interesting. Some of it is incredibly exploitational.
Bill Hastings: “O God yes! I didn't enjoy it [Baise-Moi] I have to say. And when I - The first time I saw it I thought, God ! If there is any movie the law applies to for a ban it's this one. I mean it's just like they read the legislation ..tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, ...we're going to put all that in and it's going to be banned. But you know I called it in early to the Office because some film festival or something didn't submit it at the last minute in order that we could consult widely so we went to women's groups, like Women's Refuge and three rape crisis centres and film experts at Victoria University and the public jury. We just read everything we could….” [F.N. 11]
Hastings having decided to call it in, wrote to Mr Peter Hughes, Secretary of Internal Affairs on 15 March 2001 stating:
“I have determined that the publication (on film or video recording) entitled Baise-Moi … should be received for examination by the Classification Office. I hereby direct you under s13(3) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (the Act) to take all reasonable steps to obtain a copy of the publication and submit it to the Classification Office…
…Given the international controversy the film has generated, in my view it would be prudent for the Classification Office to examine the film, reach a considered opinion after some reflection, and then classify it, rather than classify it as a result of a more rushed commercial or festival submission.”
The Classification Act gives the Chief Censor the discretionary power to act “on his or her own motion”  to call in “dubious publications”  for classification. Baise-Moi was the only publication of the total number of 1,931 received for classification during the 2000/01 financial year, that was called in under s. 13(3).[see F.N. 14] Hasting’s explanation given on Radio 95 bFM that he called it in “because some film festival or something didn't submit it at the last minute” is erroneous. What he meant to say was that he had sought to reach a considered opinion after some reflection, and then classify it, rather than classify it as a result of a more rushed commercial or festival submission.
As late as 22 November 2001 the Classification Office stated in its submission to the Board (par. 7) that it was not aware of any person in who had acquired distribution or exhibition rights to Baise-Moi. (Mr Timpson must clearly have obtained sub-distribution rights for the film from Metropolis Films sometime before 13 April 2002, its scheduled NZ premiere).
In a letter dated 20 March 2001 Steve O’Brien, Manager of Censorship Compliance, wrote to Hastings. He acknowledged receipt of his letter of 15 March 2001 written to Mr Hughes and on his behalf replied: “Please find attached a copy of the video entitled Baise-Moi which is being submitted under Section 13(1)(b).”
6. Hood acts as a conduit between Adam and Hastings
On March 21 2001 at 13:41, Bill Hood sent a five page fax to Hastings which was carbon copied to Gordon Adam, Metropolis Film Ltd, and headed “Re Baise Moi”. It stated:
Claire has found a website which gives some information on the above French film title.
Enclosed for your interest are some documents surrounding the being of this film. The interesting document to read obviously is the views of the BBFC [British Board of Film Classification] in London.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely FILM AND VIDEO LABELLING BODY INC WJ Hood EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The first article supplied was a BBFC report dated 26 February 2001 pointing out that it had imposed cuts “to the scene of violent rape early in the film” It also notes:
The Board’s policy on sexual violence (published in its Classification Guidelines in September 2000) warns that, where the portrayal eroticises sexual assault, cuts are likely to be required at any classification level. Additionally, any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut. This policy is in part informed by the evidence of media effects research that violent pornography may excite aggressive responses from some male viewers. But the Board also recognises that the graphic presentation of violent non-consensual sex is unlikely to be acceptable to the British public at any level. For these reason, the [Board] concluded that one particular shot was unacceptable. Its extreme sexual imagery is unmatched elsewhere in the rape scene.
The second article was a short review from “Boxoffice Online” which notes that the film “was labeled as pornographic in its native France, courts controversy [and] is in fact shot like a porno film, with befitting music and camera angles, and is just as explicit.” The third article documented box office data on the film. The fourth article was a review dated 8 January 2001 headed “Baise Moi: Porn or art? And who really cares?” It states:
I’m sure you’ve heard all kinds of things about this movie by now. Some artsy-fartsy crap involving feminist banter and, if the shit really hits the fan, maybe even the inevitable Dogma comparison, I’d assume. I guess if you’re a self-proclaimed “counterculture” movie critic with your head firmly inserted in your rectum and you see someone filming two women having lots of sex and killing a bunch of guys with a shaky hand camera, it follows logically to your mind that you are gazing upon a post-postmodernist/feminist underground masterpiece.
Well it’s nothing of the sort. It’s exactly what you’d expect from a movie called “Fuck Me” … the porn star kidnaps the hooker (don’t ask), they become friends and go on a fucking/killing spree, basically picking up guys, making out with them and then killing them, and snorting about their own body weight in cocaine in the process. They also blow some woman’s brains out over her ATM card, so forget about the “feminism” angle.
Highlights include the porn star shoving someones dick so far down her throat that it makes her puke all over it, … “Baise Moi” is a lot like these porn flicks with “plots”.
Be that as it may, if you’re looking for a completely insane road movie with lots of gratuitous sex and violence and don’t mind the trashy picture and sound quality, go see it. It’s fun.
Later that day (21 March 2001) at 18:09 Gordon Adam faxed Hood setting out “those locations where Baise-Moi has been played, uncut, in Europe, Canada, South America etc.” This fax headed “Baise Moi: European Festival Screenings” with its unsourced ‘documentation’ was then faxed on 22 March at 9:38 to Hastings by Hood with a signed note “as discussed”. Hood acted as a willing conduit for Adam to get his promotional material on the film’s merits to Hastings.
On 22 March at 12:09 Adam faxed Hood a copy of a three page Time article with a note stating:
Re Baise Moi
Dear Bill [Hood]
Attached is a copy of TIME MAGAZINE’S (Dec 18, 200 issue) “BEST AND WORST” of 2000 article, listing their 10 BEST cinema titles for the year.
BAISE MOI appears in the top 10 BEST, at No. 9
On the same day at 13:39 Hood sent this material including Adam’s covering note, by fax  to Hastings. Hood’s covering note to Hastings was copied to Adam and stated:
Please receive a copy of the Time Magazines’s article (December 18, 2000 issue) in regard to the above film title.
I am sure you will find the article self-explanatory and may well be of some interest to you in regard to your future deliberations.
With kind regards, FILM AND VIDEO LABELING BODY INC.
W.J. Hood EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
It seems clear from this documentation that Gordon Adam of Metropolis Film Ltd must have supplied the VHS copy of Baise-Moi to Hood and knew that it was being passed on to the Chief Censor for an informal assessment to see whether it was suitable for “a film festival environment” screening. All three Adam, Hood and Hastings were in the loop.
In a submission to the Film and Literature Board of Review (“the Board”) dated 22 November 2001, Hastings stated:
Metropolis Film Ltd, a New Zealand company based in Auckland, has been offered exclusive rights to Baise-Moi for the territory of New Zealand for theatrical, video and TV use. The copy of Baise-Moi used by Metropolis to assess whether or not it wanted to pick up those rights is the copy called in under s13(3) by the Chief Censor, and is the copy currently held in the Labelling Body vault. The classification given to Baise-Moi by the Classification Office has restricted the legal availability of the title to an extent that its commercial value has been diminished. As far as the Classification Office is aware, no person in New Zealand has acquired distribution or exhibition rights to Baise-Moi. [Par. 7, p. 2. Emphasis added]
In a submission to the Board on behalf of the OFLC dated 12 December 2001, Hastings wrote:
The Secretary submitted the video recording of Baise-Moi now located in the Labelling Body vault [to the Chief Censor] on 21 March 2001. [Par 14, p. 3].
An OFLC communication dated 5 March 2002 notes: Mr Hastings, “was already aware that the publication was available in New Zealand” prior to directing the Secretary to obtain a copy of Baise-Moi. He had been informed that it “had been imported into New Zealand in video format and although he could not be certain, he was concerned that the title might be submitted to the Classification Office at short notice as part of a future film festival.” [Emphasis added].
7. Calculated impropriety?
The actions of Hood and Hastings are highly irregular to say the least. Hood acted in his role as Executive Secretary of the FVLB when he forwarded a copy of Baise-Moi to the Chief Censor and yet he asked for the ‘submission’ to be treated in an informal fashion “as agreed”, when seeking Hasting’s views on its suitability in terms of “form of content” for film festival screening. No person, is entitled to approach the Chief Censor directly or indirectly and seek his opinion on the suitability of an unclassified film for “supply” to the public. There is only one route that Hood could lawfully take after having been supplied with and accepted an unclassified restricted film/objectionable film from a known distributor or potential distributor such as Mr Gordon Adam of Metropolis Film Ltd. That was to insist that Adam make a formal submission of the publication for classification. If Adam had no intention to supply it to the public, or was undecided, then Hood was outside his jurisdiction to seek an informal ‘classification’ judgement on it from the Chief Censor, on behalf of Adam, or Timpson, or for any other reason.
Mr Hood’s enquiry to Hastings indicated a particular purpose for the use of Baise-Moi – a screening to “a selective audience in a film festival environment” – the same use that Timpson had in mind. By making his approach to the Chief Censor as an office holder in the FVLB and effectively on behalf of Adam/Timpson, Hood not only acted outside his jurisdiction, but also compromised his Office.
By accepting the video for private/informal assessment in terms of the “form of content” and for film festival use, Hastings also acted outside his jurisdiction and seriously compromised his Office. He knew (as documented) that the VHS copy of Baise-Moi had been sourced from Adam or Timpson and that Hood’s communications to him had been copied to Adam. Hastings is only entitled to deal with restricted and potentially objectionable publications in his statutory role as Chief Censor after the publication has been classified, or leave has been granted for it to be classified, or if it has been received by his Office by way of a formal submission for classification.
If distributors of films, directors of film festivals, or those acting on behalf of such persons (e.g. Hood), were able to lawfully forward copies of potentially objectionable or restricted videos to the Chief Censor for private assessment for film festival usage or mainstream release, then the Act the processes of law embodied in the Act would be made a mockery of.
8. Questions of impropriety?
A number of questions need to be raised concerning Hood’s actions. Who was he acting for in supplying the video to Hastings on 20 February 2001 and where did he get the film/video from? Was he acting for a film festival director and/or distributor who had plans to screen the film? What if any was the personal relationship between Hood and those he may have acted for?
A number of questions are raised concerning the actions of Gordon Adam. Why did he not submit the film for classification or allow the sub-distributor to do so?
In a facsimile dated 14 May 2001 Mr Jon Peacock, Censorship Compliance, wrote to Hastings stating:
I received this letter last week advising that Metropolis films have been offered the rights to Baise-Moi, and some factors the distributor would like considered during classification.
How is it that a potential distributor who has circumvented the classification process and avoided paying any fees, have the ear of Hastings to the extent that he can seek to influence the classification of a film intended for release by his sub-distributor?
The undated letter by Adam of Metropolis Film Ltd stated:
Further to our previous phone conversation where you detailed the current situation re this title, I confirm that Metropolis Film Ltd. has been offered exclusive rights for the territory of New Zealand for theatrical, video and TV use.
I have taken note of the film’s international theatrical release pattern and inclusion in Time magazines TOP 10 films of 2000 in approaching the content. I would ask that these factors be considered during the course of the film’s examination for censorship requirements.
It is important to note the following points (1) Mr Peacock identified Metropolis Film Ltd as the potential “distributor” of Baise-Moi on 14 May 2001, (2) only a “distributor” can be offered exclusive rights for a given territory and/or particular usage, and (3) Mr Adam was acting in his role as “distributor” with commercial interests when he sought to bring certain “factors” to the attention of the Chief Censor to be considered “during the course of the film’s examination”.
In reply to an enquiry dated 30 November 2001 concerning the film Adam wrote on 1 December 2001.
The film has been rated for New Zealand as an R18 feature with the following conditions: ‘Objectionable except if the availability of the publication is limited for the purpose of study in a tertiary media or film studies course or as part of a film festival organised by an incorporated film society, and in both cases to persons who have attained the age of 18 years. [Emphasis added]
Based on this classification, the film would not be able to be shown for the purposes you propose. Baise-Moi will receive a 35mm screening at an incorporated film society event sometime in 2002 and this will be advertised publicly.
It is clear that Adam was fully aware of the restricted classification given to Baise-Moi by overseas censorship bodies, well before Timpson’s film festival brochure was printed on 13 March 2002. Timpson, whose festival has never been organised by an incorporated society, described the film as “a headline film title in the advertisement and promotion of the Film Festival. The film “Baise-Moi” is scheduled to be shown only four times in Auckland and three times in Wellington during the course of the festival”. (p. 2 point 4) .
9. Concluding Comments
This curious case of apparent collusion involving a NZ film distributor and the heads of two supposedly independent statutory censorship authorities – Mr Bill Hastings and Mr Bill Hood - raises serious questions about the robustness and independence of our NZ censorship system. If a film which has been described by a senior NZ clinical psychologist as setting “a new bench-mark in terms of sadistic violence”, banned in Australia, and created serious controversy overseas due to its glamourisation of graphic violence combined with brutal explicit sex scenes, can be defended in the High Court by a distributor who never submitted it for classification, and by the Chief Censor; then something is seriously wrong. Furthermore, if such a distributor can be shown to have sought an independent appraisal of the film from the Chief Censor, Hastings for possible film festival screening, by a method which by-passed the law, and had the support of both Hastings and Hood, then a Government enquiry is called for.
11 December 2003 Society for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc. P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville
 Metropolis Film Ltd. Managing Director Mr Gordon Adam, 6b Jubillee Avenue, Devonport, Auckland.
 S. 8 of the Act - “Films exempt from labelling requirements” - lists a wide range of exempt categories including: natural scientific, religious and travel films, those related wholly or principally to personal training and development, or public business.
 S. 2 of the Act (Interpretation) states: “Supply” means to sell, or deliver by way of hire, or offer for sale or hire. “Supply to the public”, in relation to a film, - (a) Means supply by way of sale, hire, exchange, or loan, in the course of business; and includes sale, hire, exchange, or loan by – (I) Any public library; or (II) Any club or association, whether public or private, and whether incorporated or unincorporated, that, as part of its activities, makes films available to its members; but (b) Does not include any supply of any film to any person who makes or distributes or supplies films, unless that person intends to supply that film to the public or, in the case of a club or association to which paragraph (a) (II) of this definition applies, to its members; - and “public supply” has a corresponding meaning,
 Notice to High Court by Anthony Talbot Timpson AP No: 76/02.
 Decision recorded on 20.8.01 signed by Senior Classification Officer N. J. McCully. Video Recording VHS/PAL. Nicola McCully was appointed Deputy Chief Censor in 2002.
 Application for Waiver of Classification Fees for Festival Purposes Feb 20, 2002. 2Brothers Films.
 Affidavit of Anthony Talbot Timpson sworn on 5/4/032 to High Court AP NO: 76/02. Par 10 p. 5.
 All correspondence obtained by the Society under the Official Information Act.
 The Society believes that this paper dealt with Mr Hasting’s call for the disestablishment of the statutory position of Deputy Chief Censor.
 For full transcript see: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0205/S00218.htm This transcript prepared by SPCS was submitted to the Board in the review process of Baise-Moi.
 S. 13(3) of FVPC Act 1993.
 OFLC fax from Ms Catherine Austin, Manager of Information Unit, to Mr Owen Davie, Board secretary dated 5 March 2002.
 OFLC Annual Report 2001, Table 2, p. 34.  FILE NO. 793 21.03.01 ID: FVLB.  FILE NO. 793  FILE No. 796. 22.03.’01 09:38 ID:FVLB  FILE No. 803 22.03.01 13:38 ID:FVLB
 Facsimile dated 5 March 2002 from Catherine Austin, OFLC, to Owen Davies. Board of Review Secretary.
 E-mail to JM from GA dated 1/12/03.  Notice of Opposition. AP No: 76/02.
 Wriiten submission to the Board of Review considering the classification of “Baise-Moi”. Written by Mr Hamish Dixon, a registerd clinical psychologist since 1975 and manager of Wellington STOP for six years. He has worked as a senior psychologist for the Corrections Department for seven years and a senior psychologist for the Wellington Hospital Board’s Child Youth & Family Service for ten years. He has been involved in treating sex offenders for approximately the last 18 years. He has acted as a consultant to the Office of Film and Literature Classification on matters relating to the effect of pornography on men. Quoted from par. 85, p. 16 Board Decision dated 1 November 2002.