CENSORSHIP IN THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

Durban:

The recent banning in South Africa of QUATREFOIL, a thoroughly moral book on the subject of homosexuality by James Barr, has stimulated the interest of our "gay" fraternity in the laws under which such action may be taken. The first peculiarity to note is that the act covers only imported material and may be evaded at present by issuing banned books from publishing houses in the Union.

When books are imported, the Customs Department or other local officials examine them to see if they appear to warrant scrutiny by the Censorship Board or its appointed readers. THE RAPE OF THE EARTH (a treatise on soil erosion) was actually sent to Cape Town under this classification and not released to the public for weeks. In such circumstances all copies of the books in question are impounded pending the board's decision.

As the board of 11 members with 3 alternate members and 31 readers has to cope with the entire importation of books into the country, delays are often prolonged. Furthermore, many books which have been selling in the country for years-QUATREFOIL was one-are taken up suddenly and banned, presumably as a result of complaint by some enthusiast for "moral uplift."

When this happens, libraries, booksellers and private owners are required to destroy their copies. It has sometimes happened that, through erroneous publication of a title in the Government Gazette, books have been destroyed when banned only in a limited edition. One at least-Kinsey's female studywas banned for a period, after which the ban was lifted.

However, the private citizen who cherishes a book in the hope that the Mother Grundies will endure a change of heart is likely to be disappointed in no uncertain manner, as he is liable to be fined up to £1,000 even for owning it. The fact that he does not offer it for sale or loan, or even show it to a friend, is quite irrelevant. By March last year the Durban Civic Library had already burned 300 books to the value of some £150, and a commercial library was facing a charge after a police sergeant had trapped the librarian into lending him a copy of Noel Langley's CAGE ME A PEACOCK.

Reasons for banning come under the three headings, Race Relations, Communism and Sex. The trouble-particularly as regards the last-is that the law cannot lay down any specific standard, which leaves the decision to individual opinions and prejudice. Furthermore, the only "remedy" is an appeal to the Minister of the Interior, whose most likely response would be to send the decision back to the board for review. There is no way known to me by which the chairman of the board can be taken to court, put on the witness stand, and required to explain and justify his action in banning a book under oath. In practice, therefore, there is no way in which the reign of prejudice can be effectively challenged.

In the case of the particular book mentioned I am advised that is was the subject matter itself which "profoundly shocked" the chairman of the board. In such circumstances, what chance has any other book, once it has attracted official notice? Very few of them have sufficiently apologetic endings, sufficient threats of doom or sulphurous breaths from the holocausts of Sodom and Gomorrah to satisfy such puritanical characters as are arbiters of our public morals today. It is a profoundly depressing situation.

B. E. J.