Date: 19/02/2004
Source: Democratic Alliance
Title: Waters: Film and publications amendment act
Madam Speaker
The initial intentions of the amendments to the film and publications Act were to tighten control over child pornography.
However, in its quest for ever-increasing centralisation and control, the ANC has slipped into these amendments censorship that can only be compared to that of the Apartheid National Party.
These amendments have very little to do with combating child pornography and more to do with what adults can and cannot see.
The original intentions of the amendments were to close loopholes that existed regarding child pornography. These amendments have been in the pipeline for over two years, and were ready for tabling in parliament over a year ago. The Democratic Alliance repeatedly called for them to be tabled.
However Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, who is responsible for the Film and Publications Board, only tabled the amendments in September last year.
Currently, Madam Speaker, there are over 1 000 000 images of child abuse in circulation on the Internet and it is estimated that 90% of all paedophile-related activities involve the Internet. According to a Sunday Times report, there are over 100 000 websites worldwide that offer child pornography.
The report further argues that these figures represent an increase of 345% between February and July 2001 alone!
The Democratic Alliance welcomes any steps that will combat this awful crime.
Let us be honest with ourselves, Child pornography is a sick crime and to my mind, the sickest of them all. It is hard to imagine how the sight of children being raped and tortured holds any sexual appeal.
And if we as the peoples representatives fail to act in stopping this crime, then we have failed abysmally in our duties.
I would like to touch on the positive aspects of the amendments.
Firstly, under the current law, possession, creation and distribution of child pornography are all lumped together as one offence. The proposed amendments would separate these offences for the purpose of sentencing. This would allow the courts to hand down stiffer sentences for more serious crimes.
Secondly, Section 27(2) of the Bill proposes to make it an offence if a person who knows, or even suspects, that a crime is taking place pertaining to child porn, fails to report a crime. This is a special provision as a general duty in terms of the law to report a crime, which currently does not exist. A person will only be prosecuted with the written authority of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
In other words if the authorities suspect that a person failed to report a child porn crime, he or she will be investigated and could face criminal charges, if permission from the National Director of Public Prosecutions is acquired. Madam Speak, the DA strongly supports this step to broaden the net to catch child abusers, tacit or otherwise.
Lastly, there was initial concern from the cell phone companies, Telkom and the Internet Service Providers Association regarding the broadcasting and distribution of child porn. It would be impossible to expect these organisations to police every piece of information that flows through their systems on a daily basis. This would be like asking the post office to open every piece of mail that passes through its system.
However, after inserting the words "knowingly" before the words "broadcasts and distributes", these concerns seem to have been addressed.
Madam Speaker, that brings us to the sections to which the DA is opposed. And it is unfortunate that the ANC took this opportunity to use the back door to bring back good old-fashioned apartheid-style censorship.
I will focus on two amendments which are frightening, to say the least, and have absolutely nothing to do with child pornography, but everything to do with censorship.
Firstly, the Film and Publications Board under section 29 wants to expand its authority over broadcasting, which has serious implications. According to Section 192 of the Constitution, broadcasting is the sole jurisdiction of ICASA.
Section 192 states; National legislation must establish an independent authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest and to ensure fairness and a diversity of views broadly representing South African society.
These amendments trample on that independence.
Both ICASA and the National Association of Broadcasters have objected to this amendment, but to no avail.
In the past, the DA and IFP have had a number of Broadcasting laws sent back and amended on the same point, when government tried to usurp ICASAs powers. No doubt we will be back here later this year doing the same.
ICASA is an independent body established through the Constitution and appointed by Parliament, while the Minister of Home Affairs appoints the Film and Publication Board. There is no guarantee that the board will remain independent and it could become a political appointment. This amendment would clearly encroach on the independence of broadcasting.
Secondly, under schedule 10, which deals with the promotion of hatred. The board wants to take jurisdiction, presently resting with the courts to include "race, ethnicity and gender as criteria for banning films and publications, if when judged within context they advocate hatred on one or more grounds". This has nothing to do with child porn, but it does reintroduce censorship on political grounds by an administrative body.
Currently, Section 29 of the Act makes provision for the Courts to decide whether a film or publication exceeds bona fide literary, artistic, political or scientific free speech and constitutes hate speech. The Court process allows for appeals up to the Supreme Court of Appeal based on the merits of the case, while the suggested option would mean that a statutory administrative body would have the authority to ban films or publications.
Currently, the only material banned in our country, and thus classified as XX, and forbidden to be broadcast - with which everyone agrees - is child porn, bestiality, explicit sexual material including violence, material that degrades and certain forms of awful violence.
What we are opening the door to, Madam Speaker, is a potentially political board becoming the conscience of our nation, rather like the thought police.
It is a sad day when the ruling party uses a serious issue such as child pornography to re-introduce apartheid style censorship. Perhaps the ANC is learning a lot more from its junior alliance partner than we first imagined.
Madam Speaker, the DA wholeheartedly supports the original intentions and many aspects of this Bill. However, because of the ANCs additional unconstitutional amendments and the reintroduction of political censorship in South Africa, the DA cannot support this Bill.
Democratic Alliance
19/02/2004
Source: Democratic Alliance
Title: Waters: Film and publications amendment act
Madam Speaker
The initial intentions of the amendments to the film and publications Act were to tighten control over child pornography.
However, in its quest for ever-increasing centralisation and control, the ANC has slipped into these amendments censorship that can only be compared to that of the Apartheid National Party.
These amendments have very little to do with combating child pornography and more to do with what adults can and cannot see.
The original intentions of the amendments were to close loopholes that existed regarding child pornography. These amendments have been in the pipeline for over two years, and were ready for tabling in parliament over a year ago. The Democratic Alliance repeatedly called for them to be tabled.
However Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, who is responsible for the Film and Publications Board, only tabled the amendments in September last year.
Currently, Madam Speaker, there are over 1 000 000 images of child abuse in circulation on the Internet and it is estimated that 90% of all paedophile-related activities involve the Internet. According to a Sunday Times report, there are over 100 000 websites worldwide that offer child pornography.
The report further argues that these figures represent an increase of 345% between February and July 2001 alone!
The Democratic Alliance welcomes any steps that will combat this awful crime.
Let us be honest with ourselves, Child pornography is a sick crime and to my mind, the sickest of them all. It is hard to imagine how the sight of children being raped and tortured holds any sexual appeal.
And if we as the peoples representatives fail to act in stopping this crime, then we have failed abysmally in our duties.
I would like to touch on the positive aspects of the amendments.
Firstly, under the current law, possession, creation and distribution of child pornography are all lumped together as one offence. The proposed amendments would separate these offences for the purpose of sentencing. This would allow the courts to hand down stiffer sentences for more serious crimes.
Secondly, Section 27(2) of the Bill proposes to make it an offence if a person who knows, or even suspects, that a crime is taking place pertaining to child porn, fails to report a crime. This is a special provision as a general duty in terms of the law to report a crime, which currently does not exist. A person will only be prosecuted with the written authority of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
In other words if the authorities suspect that a person failed to report a child porn crime, he or she will be investigated and could face criminal charges, if permission from the National Director of Public Prosecutions is acquired. Madam Speak, the DA strongly supports this step to broaden the net to catch child abusers, tacit or otherwise.
Lastly, there was initial concern from the cell phone companies, Telkom and the Internet Service Providers Association regarding the broadcasting and distribution of child porn. It would be impossible to expect these organisations to police every piece of information that flows through their systems on a daily basis. This would be like asking the post office to open every piece of mail that passes through its system.
However, after inserting the words "knowingly" before the words "broadcasts and distributes", these concerns seem to have been addressed.
Madam Speaker, that brings us to the sections to which the DA is opposed. And it is unfortunate that the ANC took this opportunity to use the back door to bring back good old-fashioned apartheid-style censorship.
I will focus on two amendments which are frightening, to say the least, and have absolutely nothing to do with child pornography, but everything to do with censorship.
Firstly, the Film and Publications Board under section 29 wants to expand its authority over broadcasting, which has serious implications. According to Section 192 of the Constitution, broadcasting is the sole jurisdiction of ICASA.
Section 192 states; National legislation must establish an independent authority to regulate broadcasting in the public interest and to ensure fairness and a diversity of views broadly representing South African society.
These amendments trample on that independence.
Both ICASA and the National Association of Broadcasters have objected to this amendment, but to no avail.
In the past, the DA and IFP have had a number of Broadcasting laws sent back and amended on the same point, when government tried to usurp ICASAs powers. No doubt we will be back here later this year doing the same.
ICASA is an independent body established through the Constitution and appointed by Parliament, while the Minister of Home Affairs appoints the Film and Publication Board. There is no guarantee that the board will remain independent and it could become a political appointment. This amendment would clearly encroach on the independence of broadcasting.
Secondly, under schedule 10, which deals with the promotion of hatred. The board wants to take jurisdiction, presently resting with the courts to include "race, ethnicity and gender as criteria for banning films and publications, if when judged within context they advocate hatred on one or more grounds". This has nothing to do with child porn, but it does reintroduce censorship on political grounds by an administrative body.
Currently, Section 29 of the Act makes provision for the Courts to decide whether a film or publication exceeds bona fide literary, artistic, political or scientific free speech and constitutes hate speech. The Court process allows for appeals up to the Supreme Court of Appeal based on the merits of the case, while the suggested option would mean that a statutory administrative body would have the authority to ban films or publications.
Currently, the only material banned in our country, and thus classified as XX, and forbidden to be broadcast - with which everyone agrees - is child porn, bestiality, explicit sexual material including violence, material that degrades and certain forms of awful violence.
What we are opening the door to, Madam Speaker, is a potentially political board becoming the conscience of our nation, rather like the thought police.
It is a sad day when the ruling party uses a serious issue such as child pornography to re-introduce apartheid style censorship. Perhaps the ANC is learning a lot more from its junior alliance partner than we first imagined.
Madam Speaker, the DA wholeheartedly supports the original intentions and many aspects of this Bill. However, because of the ANCs additional unconstitutional amendments and the reintroduction of political censorship in South Africa, the DA cannot support this Bill.
Democratic Alliance
19/02/2004
Advertisement
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
