DURING the City Forum (Sunday, March 19) discussion on pornographic comics, particularly those aimed at juveniles, the vetting system of the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT) was attacked.
One speaker remarked that the existing categorisation was defective as it did not provide for appeals by individuals or organisations. A speaker, who identified himself as an OAT adjudicator, criticised the OAT, saying he had been on the panel for less than a year and had been persuaded by longer-serving members to accept a rating he did not agree with. He criticised the OAT for its ineffectual role as a watchdog saying there had been instances where orders to omit parts of indecent comics had gone unheeded.
Hong Kong is a society in which differences in opinions are allowed. This is a value to be treasured. Yet, this does not mean facts can be ignored.
There are a total of 80 adjudicators who are required to sit with the presiding magistrate of the OAT for the classification of articles and court hearings. Selection of adjudicators is based on those whose age, education, profession/ occupation make them likely to be able to perceive the standards of morality, decency and propriety accepted by reasonable members of the community.
Section 14 of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance require that the deliberations of the tribunal be private. The results are then published.
My experience from almost 10 sittings on the tribunal is that two adjudicators work with the presiding magistrate. After reading a submitted comic or magazine, the magistrate asks for the opinions of the adjudicators. If they agree certain material is obscene or indecent, the presiding magistrate will record their decisions for endorsement.