There are two legislative issues I'm passionate about. One is summary execution of serial rapists, child molestors, and people with marketing degrees. The other is the R rating for video games. Or more accurately, the lack of one.

The problem with this issue is that there's a lot of misinformation about it. As soon as a game is "banned" people immediately jump to blame the OFLC.

The OFLC

I want to therefore clarify something straight up. The OFLC have never ever banned a game. That's not what they do. The responsibility of the Office of Film and Literature Classification is to provide the appropriate rating for any content submitted to them. Where they cannot provide an appropriate rating they must refuse to classify it. An unclassified game (or movie) cannot be sold in Australia. While in effect it is a "ban" it's important to be clear that the OFLC is not a cens...

There are two legislative issues I'm passionate about. One is summary execution of serial rapists, child molestors, and people with marketing degrees. The other is the R rating for video games. Or more accurately, the lack of one.

The problem with this issue is that there's a lot of misinformation about it. As soon as a game is "banned" people immediately jump to blame the OFLC.

The OFLC

I want to therefore clarify something straight up. The OFLC have never ever banned a game. That's not what they do. The responsibility of the Office of Film and Literature Classification is to provide the appropriate rating for any content submitted to them. Where they cannot provide an appropriate rating they must refuse to classify it. An unclassified game (or movie) cannot be sold in Australia. While in effect it is a "ban" it's important to be clear that the OFLC is not a censorship board. The "C" stands for Classification, not Censorship.

Blaming the OFLC is just shooting the messenger. The problem is the message, and the message is that gamers are children. The numbers, the facts, do not back this up. The video games industry is not made up entirely of ignorant kids, despite what the Australian Government and Nintendo think.

But I'm not going to just spout well-intentioned nonsense, backed up by questionable research falsified to make a dubious point. While that might get you a Nobel Peace Prize these days it's not good enough for Australian Gamer.

Why don't we have an R rating?

NightTrap. In 1993 a Labor Senator, Margaret Reynolds, saw or heard about, or was told misleading nonsense about the video game "NightTrap". She was appalled and outraged and began a senate committe looking into video games. The findings they made were inconclusive by any standard other than moral outrage. They decided that gamers were children, and that violence in video games has more impact than movies and should be rated accordingly. These findings were built upon in later papers that were used to build the Australian censorship code. Later controversial games such as Phantasmagoria built on and confirmed these findings, either with their actual content or with nonsense and half truths based on it.

How do we get an R rating? (and why we don't part B)

This is the crux of the matter, and cruxy indeed it is. The OFLC guidelines can be reviewed, twice a year at a meeting of the Attorneys-General. Each state has an Attorney General, and they define local censorship laws. Changing federal laws are a bit trickier though. The problem is that any change made to OFLC guidelines has to be approved by the Attorneys General of every state, and also ratified by the federal Attorney General.

The OFLC themselves can make recommendations on their guidelines and have done many times. Among their recommendations in 2001 were - get this - an R rating for video games. In fact, in general the OFLC recommends the reduction and simplification of existing guidelines. They're quite an interesting read if you're an incredible nerd. I enjoyed them.

In 2001 the OFLC recommended the addition of an R rating to video games, in consideration of the age of players, and their own code, which right up states "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want". However, when put before the standing committee one man refused to discuss it.

Michael Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney General.

Mr Michael Atkinson

Michael Atkinson is a long-serving conservative Labor Christian who happens to be the federal member for Croydon, one of the safest Labor seats in Australia. He also has a reputation as a man who uses his power and position to ensure is own moral view.

I'm a libertarian myself. Without going into a lot of detail that means my opinion is that the goverment should pretty much piss off and leave me alone. No government or agency of said goverment should have any right to tell me, as a taxpaying citizen, what to do as long as I harm no one and break no laws. So I honestly cannot even begin to comprehend the position of a man such as Michael Atkinson, a man whose literal job is telling me what to do regardless of the fact that I've done no harm and broken no laws. Atkinson's views are that he's the last bastion, the dam that holds back a wave of moral depravity. My view is that he's a conservative Christian forcing his personal and religious views on a country despite vast opposition to them.

Using a religion, ignorance or public sentimentality has long been an excellent way to obscure civil rights abuses. Hell, look how well the Dalai Lama does using all three. He's revised an oppressive, despotic, feudalistic theocracy into a lost golden age, and the world bought it. What? You didn't know? Australia does the same thing. Concealed beneath the concept of "protecting the children" it is OUR rights that are being violated. By protecting minors, miners and minahs he is interfering with my personal choice as an adult, a concept that not only do I respectfully disagree with but reject with all ferocity and rage I can possibly bear. That is anathema to me, like mandatory child abuse, or another season of Big Brother.

So what can I do?

Nothing.

What? You expected more than that? You wanted some call-to-action, an extravagant exortation to mount a letter writing campaign? Some sort of long term strategy involving the word "ombudsman"? The fact is it won't make any difference. Australia will never get an R rating while Atkinson is in his position. He's said that outright. Australia will not get an R rating because Jesus wouldn't like it. Those weren't his exact words, I'm just trying to make sure it sounds as stupid, insulting, and ethically apalling as it is.

Australia has no Bill of Rights, and a very boring constitution, with no fancy amendments. We have no official freedom of speech, and Seperation of Church and State is a wet dream of mine, and as far from reality as the one about Megan Fox, Jessica Alba and Pauline Hanson. Best not to ask. In any case, this is particularly interesting in terms of video games in that many of the challenges to the games industry have been resolved on First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) grounds. You ever wonder why the most important priciples of American Civil Liberties weren't written into the constitution originally and had to be amended later on? Regardless, Australia lacks that basis to fight for our rights.

In fact, we lack any basis to fight at all.

If you happen to be a state Attorney General, maybe you can make a difference. If you're a gamer, and thinking you live in a democracy and the will of 88% of the population carries any merit... think again.