Madam Deputy Speaker, the core mandate of the FPB is to ensure the protection of children by the classification of films, interactive games and publications which go out to the public. So when this amendment Bill was first presented in draft form, and the reasoning behind it was that it was aimed at rooting out and eradicating child pornography, one could not help but applaud the noble intention. No right-thinking person would support or condone any form of child pornography. [Applause.]
However, upon a closer, detailed reading of this draft Bill, it became clear that the original intention was not so honourable after all and that there seemed to be an attempt on the part of the drafters to muzzle free speech. The principal Act of 1996 exempts newspapers and broadcasters from having to submit material to the board for pre-publication approval. The proposed amendment wanted to end the exemption. This intended censure on newspapers and broadcasters was nothing short of the old-style censorship typical of the apartheid era. Many public submissions spoke of a possible hidden agenda on the part of government to clamp down on media freedom.
The comment by the CEO of the FPB that it was her intention to create a regime to police the industry was indeed cause for concern and helped to confirm this perception. Broadcasters are regulated by Icasa, the Newspaper Press Union regulates newspapers, so, why the FPB felt the need to extend its own mandate and give itself extraordinary new powers, and unconstitutionally at that, was beyond the comprehension of many.
Yet another mystery is: How did the state law advisors certify this Bill? Do they not go through a basic check list first? It was always the contention of the DA that the removal of the exemption was unconstitutional and we declared that to continue deliberating on the Bill as it was, was an exercise in futility. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and sanity as well, and the exemptions in respect of newspapers and broadcasters were reinstated and the right of appeal retained.
Clause 16 of the Bill requires that all films be classified. The manner suggested introduces prepublication censorship and this is unconstitutional. Classification of a film as a refused publication would prevent that film from being broadcast on television and this is equivalent to a prior restraint on expression and constitutes a limitation on the freedom of expression.
A film may be classified as refused if the film contains depictions or sequences of child abuse, propaganda for war or incites violence or advocates hatred based on any identifiable group characteristics, unless the film judged within context, is a bona fide documentary or a film of scientific merit on a matter of public interest. So virtually every movie or documentary of World War II would be refused or banned under this Bill. How ridiculous is that?
The Bill as it stands increases quite substantially the scope of publications which must be submitted for classification. A pamphlet, which may have the mildest form of erotica, for example, breastfeeding or breast examination for cancer or a pamphlet on sexual health would be required to be submitted for classification.
Those HIV/Aids pamphlets issued by the Department of Health showing how to fit a condom would need to be classified. What about the life orientation booklets issued by the Department of Education? Pamphlets around sexual violence will need to be classified and will limit public discussion on vital issues. Surely this cannot be the intention of the Bill.
As the Bill stands, a simple publication disseminated by Sactu or Cosatu calling for their workers to engage in a strike or in mass action could be construed as incitement to imminent violence. It is unfortunate that the FPB in seeking to eradicate child pornography has altered classification categories and criteria so significantly that it could lead to self- censorship and stifle important sociopolitical debates central to a functioning democracy.
The hon Minister of Housing spoke about which side of the road we are on. Minister, I'd like to tell you: It is a stop sign. The broadness of the classification criteria, and the fact that it is so subjective and moralistic, in that it decides for any liberal adult what is harmful sexual behaviour and classified accordingly, will, in reality result in many sexually explicit films surfacing on the black market. We should be promoting healthy sexual attitudes rather than encouraging people to break the law.
The principal Act was good enough as it was. A single amendment regarding the Internet and cellphones and their impact on child pornography would have been sufficient. Instead, the department chose to contaminate the principal Act and bring in provisions, which are already more than adequately covered in the current Act, the Constitution, the Sexual Offences Bill and the Equality Act. In doing so, free flow of information is significantly restricted.
The DA is not opposed to the introduction of tighter measures to control child pornography, but the Bill as it is currently proposed does not actually achieve its objective and is open to constitutional challenge. Furthermore, the reality is that the FPB does not have the capacity to deal with its own ambitious proposals in the Bill and is actually on the road to nowhere.
We note the absence of both the Minister and the Deputy Minister. If they are that serious about child pornography, they should have been here. And I would like to say that video outlets countrywide have voiced their concerns at the functioning of the FPB. A petition was drawn up and I was asked to forward it to the Minister. I will send it to her house.