I now call the hon Minister of Housing. [Applause.] I'm sure she'll explain what films are doing in Housing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, please allow me to explain this quirk of history. I was responsible for the Films and Publications Bill. It now turns out that it was not quite what it should have been, and the Minister of Home Affairs has set it right. She has asked me to stand in for her, because for reasons beyond her control she is unable to be here. So I'm about to set right what I did not do a few years ago when I should have done it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, almost all of us present here in the House today arrived here in a vehicle of some sort or another, whether we drove ourselves or were driven here. We arrived safely because almost all of the drivers in our country accept, almost all of the time, that we in South Africa drive on the left side of the road. They accept that we keep to the left, not for political reasons even though we might want to, but because this is, in fact, an old colonial rule that we have inherited. We accept that we keep to the left because that requirement forms part of the rules of the road laid down in the laws of our land. And, although the law is uncompromising about which side of the road we drive on, it leaves a lot of leeway to the judgment of the individual as he or she regulates the speed, negotiates intersections or changes lanes. But whatever our professions, whatever our personal preferences in many aspects of life, all of us have accepted that traffic drives on the left side of the road, because there is a law in place for the good of all of us.
I make this point about the general acceptance of the rule that we have to drive on the left in order to illustrate that the state does indeed have a right and, in fact, a constitutional duty to regulate certain aspects of the life of the community in the interests of the safety and welfare of all of us.
If the approach were to take hold that some commentators and critics took during the consultative process on this Bill before it went through, it would be up to each motorist - alone and without guidance - to decide each time he or she gets into the car which side of the road to drive on. We can imagine the catastrophic results.
So, because we do not want a similar free-for-all with often tragic consequences for individuals in the arena of films and publications, this Bill sets out to put up road signs and to regulate what must be regulated in the interests of the community of the over 40 million people in this country. We accept that this Bill is not about the integrity of life and limb of our citizens as they use the roads; that is true. But it is about ensuring the safety and the long-term welfare of some of our most vulnerable citizens, our children and our young people; and about the emotional safety - and, unfortunately, all too frequently by extension - the actual physical safety of our children and young people forced into involvement in pornography.
It is about saying that children and young people have a right to grow up in an environment which gives them the space and time to be children and adolescents - an environment in which they can play and learn, find their way safe from predators and protected from the excesses of industries which are generally understood to contribute to the brutalisation of attitudes and behaviour patterns, particularly towards women and girl-children.
So we are talking about the fundamental question of the kind of society we want to build. We are not talking about censorship here. We are not talking about the heavy hand of the state. We are talking about that which we fought for: the right of the child. We are not talking about censorship because we fought against that. We have no intention whatsoever of bringing it back.
The Bill says very clearly that it is our duty as legislators and as government to give meaning and content to our constitutional order by spelling out where and under what circumstances we will protect our children and young people and the dignity of women. Indeed, it says very clearly that it is our right and our responsibility to build a society in which there is a constitutional precept to the right and dignity of the people that we have just indicated.
Allow me to remind members of the objects of the Act in this context, as spelt out in the Bill before us today. The objects say that the Act will "regulate the creation, production, possession and distribution of films, games and certain publications" in order to -
... provide consumer advice to enable adults to make informed viewing, reading and gaming choices, both for themselves and for the children in their care ...;
to "... protect children from exposure to disturbing and harmful materials and from premature exposure to adult experiences"; and to "make the use of children in and the exposure of children to pornography punishable".
I doubt that it would be possible to be much clearer on this matter than the Bill already is. It is very clear that it is the job of the Bill to make punishable the use of children for pornographic purposes. I doubt whether anyone besides the most wayward libertarian would have a problem with that. The Bill says very clearly that its job is to ensure the provision of consumer advice to enable adults to make informed viewing, reading and gaming choices both for themselves and especially for the children in their care.
I doubt whether anyone could discover anything in that paragraph but an attempt to empower adults in their lives as caregivers of children. There is no heavy hand of an authoritarian state that I can perceive here, and the Act says that it aims to protect children from exposure to disturbing and harmful materials and from premature exposure to adult experiences.
Once again, Members of Parliament, we are talking about protecting the vulnerable, and about creating the space for children and young people to grow up in. Young people already have innumerable impressions, demands and stimuli crowding in on them every day through advertising, education, cellphones and the Internet.
We submit that it is in the interests of our society and of our very young people to pass legislation that provides the basis for the state to protect, inform and, where necessary, to intervene in the interests of the vulnerable.
I doubt that there is a single person in the House who is not aware of the uproar that has been created by sections of the media around this Bill. I doubt any of you could have missed it, even though you may have missed some of the other views expressed in the communities across the country as the consultation on this Bill was progressing. This is because we have had a one-sided interpretation of most of the sections by the media.
This was, in some ways, a very sobering experience. It was a sobering experience because it told us that the media is indeed a part of our country, and not some fourth estate ordained by a higher order. It is a part of our country which is as passionate and often as partisan as any other group, whether they be government or opposition parliamentarians, or city or village dwellers.
So, there has at times been robust debate, typically passionate South African debate. We are grateful to all who contributed to it, because it is our culture of debate, our culture of addressing the issues seriously, which is at the heart of our democracy.
The media did, in fact, have some important points to make, and very early in the process of fashioning the Bill we told them that we had heard them. But we also told them that our respect for the parliamentary order which lies at the heart of our very hard-won democracy meant that we had insisted that the Bill make an orderly way through the processes of Parliament, which it has done. We insisted that the consultative processes, run so ably by the portfolio committee, take their course because that is how people in our country are able to express their views.
We were a little surprised at the volume coming from these sections that seemed to get a kick out of tilting at windmills. So, as we soberly have this debate and contemplate the Bill coming into law, we should not be led to believe that it was the hot air that got these windmills turning; they were turning already.
Last week during the Budget Vote of the Department of Home Affairs, it was made clear that Cabinet and the ANC leadership were firm believers in the freedom of the press and that we would defend this as an integral part of the democracy we fought for. But, at the same time, we make no apologies for saying that we must and we will expect more from those who daily work and exercise these freedoms we are discussing, because that is indeed a compromised position that we have arrived at today.
This compromise says: as much state regulation as necessary, together with as much self-regulation as possible. We have kept our side of the bargain. Now it is up to the practitioners to keep theirs, whether they are active in the traditional print and electronic media, or whether theirs are the newer spaces involved in the Internet and in mobile telephony.
The point is simple: Self-regulation involves a conscious and willing acceptance of an obligation to ensure - and, here, Members of Parliament, I quote from the Press Code of Professional Conduct - " ... accuracy, balance, fairness and decency". We might add, in the spirit of the Constitution, that self-regulation involves the conscious and willing acceptance of an obligation to hold the principle of the individual's right to dignity very, very high, particularly in a country like ours with its history of trampling on the dignity of individuals.
We are all familiar with the argument that the broadening of the media landscape has seen the advent of a type of tabloid journalism in our country, which makes certain types of reporting and the use of certain types of images inevitable. There is, in our view, nothing inevitable about pictures of naked women on the front pages of our newspapers. There is nothing inevitable about the salacious style of reporting under the guise of informing and mobilising communities who are all too aware of the ills in their midst.
Anyone who argues that a society which requires of its media that it take these matters seriously is demanding censorship of some sort is simply out of touch with reality. And, let us remind ourselves, it is not the heavy- handed government of this Parliament which demands higher standards of care from the media on these issues; it is the people in their communities for whom it is a necessity that the media contribute, through serious self- regulation, to a de-escalation of violence, gangsterism and the abuse of women.
Yes, we have heard the arguments and seen the documents from the media houses, but the Bill before you is designed to streamline processes within the Films and Publications Board. Those processes streamlined by the Bill will contribute to the development of policies, for example, the classification guidelines that reflect the changing views and morals of our society.
To those of you who have expressed concern that it will no longer be possible to appeal decisions to the High Court, the Bill provides for internal remedies for those who feel that their rights or interests have been infringed. Once these internal remedies have been exhausted, it is always open to the aggrieved party to take the decision of the Films and Publications Board on review.
So, Members of Parliament, colleagues, I am sure that over the coming months and years we will together, with all the industry segments affected by this legislation, find ways in which the compromises found with the active assistance of Parliament will become a viable reality, enriching our society and our constitutional reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Home Affairs, I ask you to support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It is a privilege again to stand before this House to address the issues of films and publication. Since 1996 these issues have been very controversial. From the beginning when we decided to lift the ban on pornography in the name of freedom of expression we have had problems throughout.
Therefore, in 2005 a conference was convened by the Department of Home Affairs in consultation with the Film and Publication Board in Port Elizabeth to address the current challenges that the board faces with regard to the issues of distribution in particular of child pornography. That report was tabled in this Parliament and it was noted. Comrade Andries, this report was noted and not adopted. This means we still have to go back to that report at some stage.
The report addresses a number of areas that need to be looked at. Part of it addresses the issue to capacitate the Film and Publication Board. Clearly, this board could not cope with the work that it was faced with. Therefore, the board had to be capacitated. The confusion that has been created within the structuring of the board is that examiners were members of it and the people who were checking on how films are classified were themselves part of the board. Therefore, the Bill was proposing that we establish a separate body to look at the issues of governance.
When this Bill was tabled before that committee last year, we decided to go on public hearings as a normal practice that the committee does, and we visited all the provinces in the country. Members of the public were given an opportunity to make their inputs. It was clear from their inputs that the issue of pornography in newspapers and on televisions and cellphones was of great concern. If you look at the kind of gadgets that we use today, young children as young as ten can easily access pornography on their cellphones.
When you look at the television nowadays you have to sit with a remote control if you watch it with your children because time and time again pornographic material will be shown and you will have to switch off the television, or you will be embarrassed.
There are problems with the media, and in particular with what the Minister has referred to, the so-called tabloid newspapers. Here in the Western Cape we have the Daily Voice, where they deliberately distribute child pornography featuring children that are raped. Nobody condemns that and it is fine because it is in the name of freedom of the press.
The committee called that very newspaper to appear before it and to account for that, and they apologised. The same applies to the renowned newspaper called The Star. It advertised a black 12-year-old, curvaceous Brazilian girl. The committee again called the editor of The Star newspaper and he appeared before the committee and apologised.
Clearly this problem comes in the name of the freedom of the press; it comes in the name of freedom of broadcasters and cellphones. Therefore, even whatever we have tried to address in this Bill we have not as yet addressed the problem. Part of what the conference resolved was that there is a need to have a national debate on issues of pornography, because from 1996 when this whole thing started, it came in as an amendment.
Therefore, much time was not given to the issues that we have to grapple with today. You saw as Members of Parliament that even across from Parliament there was an attempt to open this kind of business. It is a very big business that involves trillions and trillions of rands and I am not surprised that when we try to address this problem the DA will object. I am not surprised that it is only the DA that objects to what we are trying to address, obviously because of the business interests. [Interjections.]
The issue of consultations between the executive and the print media came up during the public hearings that we organised in Parliament. It was very clear that between the executive and the media there was no co-ordination in the manner in which they deal with the issues pertaining to the media. The committee has really made a call that there must be wider consultations between the print media and broadcasters generally with the executive in which the Minister in the Presidency has confirmed that they are engaging with Sanef.
But the broadcasters, the print media and the cellphone service providers in fact agreed that in their self-regulation they are going to look at this matter which is quite serious. We engaged with Icasa, and it agreed with us that it is not as such the terrain of Home Affairs to deal with issues of a code of conduct because Icasa is in place to deal with issues of broadcasters. But in the new development of a code of conduct Icasa is going to take into account the issues that we have raised as Parliament to make sure that within the code of conduct they address the issues as we see them.
The watershed period which e.tv insists very much is their terrain, and therefore nobody should come in and advise them, is something that is of a concern and as we engage e.tv and other broadcasters, either we need to extend it that this kind of material can only be shown at three in the morning; or it has to be debated in the House whether the issue of pornography in free-to-air television is necessary or not.
These are things that we must engage on because if you look at the material that comes out of e.tv, not of same-sex marriages, but of e.tv, you will find that it is material that is harmful and abusive especially to women. What one finds most of the time is that it is women who are at the receiving end, in particular white women. [Interjections.] The member says she doesn't mind. I thought that is what she said. [Interjections.] Shut up!
Therefore, if you don't mind, for us it is a concern because as the ANC we have a responsibility to build a society that is free from this kind of harmful material that would expose and abuse our women and children. Therefore, the call that I want to make in the minute I still have, is that let us have a national debate on these issues, and the Minister has rightfully said that it is the majority of us trying to address this problem. Let us have a national debate and debate these issues of pornography. We need to debate whether there is a need to have pornography in the name of freedom of expression. Is there a need to have pornography in the manner in which we see it and its impact that we see in the country?
The media agrees that it is a problem that is why that within their own self-regulatory framework they will try to address this problem, but their interest is one: profit. Their interest is nothing else but profit. Therefore, as legislatures ...
... baba, kufanele ukuthi senze imithetho ezovikela izingane zethu nabantu besifazane ngoba yibo abasetshenziswayo kulezo zenzo ezinjalo. Ngokwesiko lesintu, akuvumelekanga ukuthi ubone umama ehamba nqunu laphaya emgwaqweni bese uthi, "Hhayi, kuhle lokhu futhi inkululeko yokuzenzela okuthandayo." Akusilo isikompilo lase-Afrika ukuthi umuntu osekhulile ahambe nqunu emgwaqweni noma enze lezi zinto ezenziwa komabonakude, phambi kwezingane zethu. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[... hon member, we have to make laws that will protect our children and women because they are vulnerable to such acts. In an African custom, it is unthinkable to see a woman parading naked down the street and cheer her on and say, "Well, this is good and it is freedom to do as one pleases". It is not an African custom to see an adult person walking down the street naked or doing these lewd acts that are done on TV, in the presence of our children.]
Sex is something sacred and children should not be exposed to it. This is what we now do, we cry over child rape and all the things we complain about and we forget that the people who distribute these things do that in the name of freedom of expression. The DA will stand up here today and reject this amendment because it encroaches on the freedom of expression and of the press, which is not true. Currently, the print media and broadcasters are very happy about the outcome of what we have done. I am not sure on whose behalf you are going to speak today, but they are happy that we were able to address their concern without infringing upon the rights of media and the rights of broadcasters.
I want to thank members of the committee for the wonderful contribution they are making. Let us have this debate and let us engage. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]
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.
On a point of order, Chairperson, it is well within the Rules of Parliament for a member of the executive to request another member of the executive to represent them in a matter in the House. It is within the Rules. To suggest that the member of the executive for Home Affairs is abrogating responsibility, actually denies ... [Interjections.] ... I am speaking to the presiding officer and not to the loud voices on the roof. It is within the Rules.
I don't think there is a dispute whether it is within Rules. I agree with you but I don't think it is a point of order.
Madam Chair, may I also address you on the point.
Excuse me, hon Doman, but the hon Minister has already been there.
This is a point of order. I think it is completely out of order that the hon member should stand up there and not even have the hindsight of why these members are not here and say the kind of things that she said. It is completely out of order. You are impugning the integrity of these members and they would not have made the necessary arrangements if they did not care.
Thank you, hon Minister. It is not a point of order.
Madam Chair, I just want to point out that it is absolutely in order for the hon member to express her view on how she feels about the absence of the Minister and the Deputy Minister responsible for this portfolio. [Applause.]
Chairperson, we all know and we do not have to go into this, how the original draft of the Film and Publication Bill caused enormous concern and debate, not only within the affected media, but within the public in general. At the onset of this debate we would like to reiterate our commitment to the constitutional definition of freedom of expression contained in section 16 of the Bill of Rights and also its limitations.
We would also say that we entered the debate wanting to exempt content in section 22(3) of the existing Bill to be retained. In our discussions with the media, and I must agree with the Minister, they were very robust, very informative and I for one, felt that there was a very sincere commitment - and possibly because of the amount of publicity this Bill has already received - by the print media to enhance its self-regulatory processes. And I would suggest to the committee and to all of us that we pursue this matter with them and stay in contact with them and share the discussion around this matter. All the discussions we had were very open and constructive. We would like to say that despite all the extra meetings that were necessary to arrive at the conclusions we have today, because the Bill extends child protection laws criminalises creating, distributing and possession of child pornography through the Internet and cellphones, and Internet and cellphones providers no longer being self-regulatory yet subject to offences for noncompliance with regulations, we can agree with it.
I would like to separate issues here. Child pornography is a major issue not only in South Africa; it is a global issue which most of the country and I have looked at legislation and the debates on the subjects of pornography, and the answers are not there yet.
On behalf of the IFP, I would want to record our commitment to finding workable solutions to limiting access by young people to all forms of pornography. And I must say there is a somewhat cynical description. We heard during our discussions that there was real pornography which should be stopped, but it was alright to have virtual pornography. I mean all these things affect our children and we have a duty to protect our children.
So I have given you the reason why we support the Bill but I need to concentrate on this: On the things that the Bill is doing and the things it does not do. And I am of course referring to controlling juvenile access to all pornography, of course, especially child pornography.
We know juveniles have found ways to bypass existing access systems which are meant to prevent them from viewing pornography on the Internet or cellphones. We have to realise that whatever new control systems will be designed, they will try their utmost to find ways of bypassing them too. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, this Bill attempts to balance the rights of freedom of expression with the protection of children. This was never going to be an easy task and it must be said that there have certainly been some improvements made to the original Bill, such as the restoration of exemptions.
These exemptions, however, only apply to the members of the Newspaper Association of South Africa. There are roughly 500 other publications in the country which are not members and have to comply with the conditions laid down by the Act.
As the ID, we fully support the objective of the Act to deal with the scourge of child pornography but we question whether this Act will, firstly, adequately deal with the scourge and, secondly, whether the right to freedom of expression will not be severely curtailed. We therefore at this stage cannot support the Bill and believe that its constitutionality should be tested in a court of law.
The ID agrees with the assessment of the chairperson that we need a national debate on this issue and that legislation like this should emanate from this debate rather than the other way round. This is the approach that the ID is taking towards MXit. We will be holding an international conference soon, to obtain the views of all parties on this issue. I thank you.
Chairperson, the ACDP has emerged as the unlikely champion in fighting to protect media freedom considering our opposition to all forms of pornography. In our view, pornography is the theory but rape is the practice. In view of this approach one would have expected the ACDP to have supported the Bill as tabled. However, we shared grave concerns expressed by the media that the Bill as tabled would have amounted to prepublication state censorship of all print media and broadcast material. This would have severely restricted the media from being able to report on news items.
Television and radio broadcasters would have been required to submit all programmes to the board before broadcasting. All live news, parliamentary current affairs, sport and music coverage would cease.
The common good is best served by the free flow of information. It is a vital function and indeed the duty of the press and other media to make available information on every aspect of public, political social and economic activity. The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expressly includes freedom of the press and other media.
The media has a duty to investigate and be a watchdog of society and more particularly of government. It has played a crucial role in exposing crime, corruption, mismanagement and nepotism in both the public and private spheres. It is only where competing ideas are freely aired, debated and challenged that the truth can be attained. As the SA National Editors Forum, Sanef, pointed out: "The restriction on dissenting opinion impoverished the search for truth".
Vast members of the majority party did not agree with all the ACDP's proposals, particularity to reinstate the total exemption, with the media being subject to criminal sanction relating to child pornography. We were able to persuade members of the portfolio committee to accept certain vital amendments, not only exempting the press from private classification and criminal sanctions but also to strengthen the fight against pornography. We were however still concerned about the very broad hate speech provisions, and whilst the additional test was insisted on, we still believe that there could be a constitutional challenge on this aspect. In conclusion, we wish to express our gratitude to the chairman of the portfolio committee for being so indulgent and even allowing the ACDP at a very late stage to argue for the insertion of a very vital amendment. Whilst we still have reservations regarding its constitutionality, we do believe that the Bill in its present form should be supported particularly in view of its fight and its aim to fight child pornography. We, therefore, as the ACDP will support the Bill. I thank you.
Chairperson, I don't think that there is any rule that requires any Minister to explain his or her whereabouts. I just wanted to mention that one. Aristotle said:
At his best, man is the noblest of all animals, separated from law and justice, he is the worst.
As the ANC-led government we have long said that we are on a noble course and we will never allow our little loved ones to be exploited and corrupted by ruthless, irresponsible and careless people out there.
This Bill is long overdue. In Sesotho: E siilwe ke nako. [It is long overdue.]
The noble objectives are to protect our kids from the potential dangers of digital technology, especially pertaining to child porn. If we do not stand up as parents and responsible adults and say, enough is enough, we are busy destroying ourselves and the future of our children. I don't know what the DA is doing.
If this government does not put its foot down on child pornography as displayed on the Internet, cellphones, films, computer games and magazines, we will go down as the most irresponsible government that ever ruled this country, and we cannot afford that.
Ha re no e dumella ntho eo. [We will not allow that.]
Furthermore, the Bill seeks to bring the broadcasters of the films within the scope of the Act so that there is compliance. There should be compliance officers who will monitor this business, which produces such dangerous material. These officials should be given authority to enter any premises of distribution at any given time, for the purpose of requesting certificates of registration.
Akuna "mangamanga" lapha. [There "ain't any lying business" here.]
This Bill further seeks to provide the compliance officers the authority to examine or inspect the premises used for conducting businesses, ensuring that they comply with conditions stipulated by the Act. In addition, compliance officers should be given the powers to examine or inspect any film or computer game offered for sale.
One of the objectors to the Bills says:
The proposed legislation is unconstitutional it reminds us of the past, it threatens the democracy and freedom for which many South Africans fought and lost their lives.
Is it true? It cannot be true. Chairperson, please, our brothers and sisters did not fight and die for the so-called "democratic freedom" in order to corrupt our children. They did not die for the so-called "democratic freedom" for sexual exploitations. Surely, they did not die to make our beloved kids cannon fodder for the unscrupulous business people. It cannot be right, we are not going to allow it.
Batho ba heso, re keke ra kekisa bana ba rona jwalo ka Judas Iskariota lebitsong la tjhelete. Re keke ra e etsa taba eo.
Modulasetulo, bekeng e fetileng ke ne ke dutse le setloholo sa ka se ka bang dilemo tse tsheletseng ho isa ho tse supileng, re shebeletse televishene. Ha re ntse re bohile, ha hlaha thobalano e tshabehileng, setloholo sa ka sa mpotsa sa re: "Mama, ba etsang, na ebe ba a lwana"? (Translation of Sesotho paragraphs follows.)
[Good people, we cannot betray our kids like Judas Iscariot, in return for money. We will never do such a thing.
Chairperson, last week I was sitting with my grandchild - who is about six or seven - watching television. Whilst we were still watching, a shocking sex scene came up and my grandchild then asked me: "What are they doing, mum? Are they fighting?"]
What kind of a fight is that one? She also said: "Mama ke a kgolwa hore ena ha se resiling." [Mum, I'm sure that this is not wrestling.] It is embarrassing! How are you going to explain that to a six-year-old? Please, I do give my children advice, so I do not want anyone to destroy them.
Modulasetulo o tla ntshwarela, ka Sesotho manyala ke manyala, ha a dumellwe, mme ho tla dula ho le jwalo. [Chairperson, with all due respect, in Sesotho an abomination will always remain an abomination, it is unacceptable and will always stay like that.]
One little child said: "Parents, you have a right to reprimand us, but please do not abuse us, as our mothers and fathers do not turn yourselves into our enemies."
Ka Sesotho re re: "Thupa e kojwa e sa le metsi." Setjhaba se sa hlompheng bana ba sona, se sa rateng bana ba sona, se tla ya timelong jwalo ka bona bana ba tseleng e yang timelong. Le a ba bona le lona. (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[In Sesotho we say: "Spare the rod and spoil the child". A nation that does not respect its young, which does not love its young, will perish just like these who are doomed to perish. You can see them yourselves.]
Most of our objectors, especially business, are mostly worried about the effect of the Bill on their businesses. This government is more worried about building a society that is stable. I don't want to comment on the dissatisfaction that I pick up from the members in here, because the very same person who is busy shouting "Ke bana ba mang mebileng?" ["Whose kids are those?"] knows the reality very well. The person is just doing this to satisfy somebody.
Hon member, please take your seat.
Thank you, Chairperson.
Ke tshwareha hampe ha ke utlwa nkgono a re sheba ka mona, a re jwale reya timelong. Ke ne ke batla ho tseba hore na le mme Feiki o ya timelong na? Hobane o dutse ka kwano le ena.
Modulasetulo, setjhaba se sa hlompheng bana ba sona, lebitsong la thobalano, se ya timelong. (Translation of Sesotho paragraphs follows.)
[I feel bad to see the old lady looking in our direction, saying that we are on the road to perdition. I would like to know whether Mrs Feiki is also heading for perdition, because she is sitting on this side as well.
Chairperson, a nation that does not respect its young, where sex issues are concerned, will perish.]
A certain Mr Hamon is right when he says that children in South Africa are exposed to pornography and violence on television and in advertisements. Attention should be given to the future generation, since they are to be our future presidents, governors, and public representatives.
Instead of producing X-rated publications, which are degrading to human beings and sexual explicitly, the service providers such as Telkom and others, should develop more packages for kids, especially designed to improve their education. Those who oppose this Bill, should not stand here and pretend that there is infringement of freedom of expression, when they know very well that it is not the intention of the government to delve into media censorship, but it is indeed the intention of the government to protect children against sexual implicitly publications.
I wish those people who oppose the Bill in their submission of consensus should also have race as a counter measure. What actually constitutes a moral society? Madam Speaker, please let us not instil a culture of pornography especially in the minds of our kids. It is immoral, it is evil, it is irresponsible, it is a shame, it is cruel, it should not be allowed. It ends here, today. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, with the rapid pace of development and advancement of digital technology comes a responsibility to ensure safe and morally correct accessibility of services. It is a fact that access to sexually inappropriate sites on the internet, cellphones, film and interactive computer games are also accessible by children.
The MF is pleased that this Bill serves to put in place a number of provisions that should address the situation. While the MF believes that parents and guardians also have a very important role to play in preventing the kids from accessing such material, we think that services need to come up with firewalls that will filter such access to pornography.
The MF also feels that with a view to cellphones, parents should be equipped with the means of blocking their children from getting access to these sites. The MF supports this Bill.
Thank you, Chairperson. The objectives of this amending Bill deal with the capture, editing and transfer of pornographic material amongst children, as well as from adults to children, which is a major challenge. Technology already exists to address some of the problems identified and it is possible for programmes like Internet-based and mobile instant messaging to filter pornographic material, which may find its way to children.
However, this is only to a limited extent, especially on mobile phones. One mobile instant messaging service, I will not mention its name, has no autofiltering mechanism based on a clear link between the registration details of such users and their date of birth in particular. The identity number or the age of registered mobile phone users should be recorded in terms of the Electronic and Communications Transaction Act, and the interception and monitoring Act with its amendment Bill.
Such a filtering and linking mechanism can be introduced through appropriate regulations under the Amendment Bill with the assistance of the EST Act and the interception and monitoring Bill, which is being considered by the Portfolio Committee on Communications at the moment. The application, service provider, the Film and Publications Board and the Independent Communication Authority of South Africa must co-regulate this oversight.
Another major challenge that needs to be regulated by the FPB, Icasa and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa is the broadcasting of certain music videos that may fall foul of the definition of child pornography or erotica. Freedom of expression does not justify one's rights to abuse children in pornographic profiteering.
These finite rights must be limited when they posses a threat of child abuse as this other legislation protects children, such as the Divorce Act and the Child Care Act amongst other things. The Progressive Independent Movement will therefore support the Film and Publications Amendment Bill and I dedicate this to my children who are aged three and two. Thank you.
Modulasetulo le maloko ao a hlomphegago, Molaokakanywa wo o bolela ka taba ya go ?irelet?a ditokelo t?a bana - o bolela ka taba ya go ?irelet ?a gore bana ba se ke ba bont?hwa t?a phaku gape o tloga o bolela ka taba ya gore bana ba se ke ba bont?hwa t?a bo?ilo.
Seboledi sa go t?wa ka lehlakoreng la DA, mohlomphegi Sandy, ga a mmakat?e ge a be a bolela mo pele ga lena a laet?a gore yena ga a thekge taba ye ka ge e le motswadi e sego mmelegi. Ka moka bao ba rego ga ba thekge Molaokakanywa wo ke bao e lego batswadi e sego babelegi. Motho yo a belegago e le motswadi, ga go ka mokgwa wo a ka se thekgego Molaokakanywa wo.
Mohlomphegi Sandy wa DA o laedit?e gore go ya ka mokgwa wo pu?o ya rena ya ANC e bu?ago ka gona, ga e ba kgotsofat?e. O a rere?a ka ge maikemi?et?o a DA go t?a pu?o e le go ?irelet?a mahumo a bona. (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)
[Mr K W MORWAMOCHE: Chairperson, hon members, this Bill is about the protection of children's rights - it is about protecting children from being exposed to bad and silly things.
It is not surprising that the speaker from the DA, the hon Sandy, indicated that she does not support this Bill because she is a parent but not a child bearer. All those who do not support this Bill are parents but not necessarily child bearers. There is no way that a person who is a parent cannot support this Bill.
The hon Sandy from the DA indicated that they are not satisfied with the manner in which the ANC-led government rules. She is correct because the aim of the DA in government is to protect its wealth.]
Madam Chairperson, on a point of order: I am prepared to accept that there is a kind of cultural difference, perhaps, between the speaker and myself and I'm not quite sure of the point he is making, but it seems odd to me ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): What is the point of order?
I am making a point of order. It would seem odd to me that a person can talk about being a parent without being a child bearer. [Interjections.] I am asking ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Ellis, honestly, it cannot be a point of order.
But it is a point of order, Madam Chair. I am asking you to look into this, because I don't understand what the point is that he is making. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): But, hon Ellis, excuse me, if you don't understand what he is saying, that doesn't make it a point of order.
Madam Chairperson, may I ask you something? Do you understand it?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Ellis, that is certainly not under discussion.
It is under discussion. I am asking for an explanation.
Don't argue with the Chairperson!
I can't believe this woman.
Chairperson, on a point of order: I think you need to be respected as the Chairperson. It is the DA's strategy. Very often when we bring forward important issues, they want to divert from those issues.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Chauke, I appreciate your support and protection of me, as I must protect you, but I think it is in order and we will continue with the debate. Thank you.
Chairperson, may I please ask a question? Is it parliamentary to actually attack the parentage of any member of a church? I understand the idiom used. It is uncalled for and it is unparliamentary to speak in such a way to another adult. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon member, I will refer you to the Rules, to both persons who have raised points of order: It is not for the Chairperson to judge the accuracy of a statement. This is a matter for debate and not a matter of procedure and it is out of order for a member to rise on a point of order to contest the truth of a statement by the member speaking. Please, may we now proceed? Hon member, please continue.
Voorsitter, die DA kan maar l en gaap en droom, want die ANC gaan regeer! [Chairperson, the DA may lie around yawning and dreaming, because the ANC will govern!] [Interjections.]
Modulasetulo, ANC e thekga Molaokakanywa wo gobane o ganet?a mekgatlo ya dikuranta le dithelebi?ene go laet?a bana t?eo di tla go senya dikgopolo t?a bona. ANC e thekga Molaokakanywa wo gobane ga o dumelele bot?hup?a golola t?a dinaka di hlabane. Gape Molaokakanywa wo o gana t?a bo hlaga swaa re je t?a bo pilo. Molaokakanywa wo o gana t?a bo huwane molapo'a ditaba ba rego ba kwele ba re ba bone. [Legofsi.]
Ke na le kgati?obaka ya molao yeo maina a bao ba bolet?ego mo pele ga lena ba le bot?a ka ga ``constitutionality'' a sego gona ka go yona. Ke kgati?obaka ya bao ba ?omago ka melao ya Molaotheo.
Molasetulo, ANC e a bu?a gomme ebile ga e kgopele tumelelo ya go dira bjalo go motho yo mongwe. ANC ge e kwele gore set?haba se lla ka taba ya gore dilo t?e di amanywago le lepono di se laet?we mmu?ong wa yona, re ka se kgopele tumelelo go Seremane; re ka se kgopele tumelelo go DA gobane ga se seboleledi sa boradikuranta.
Seo ba bego ba swanet?e go le bot?a sona, Modulatulo, ke gore ka 't?at?i leo Komiti ya Photefolio ya t?a Selagae e kwanego le boradikuranta ka t?eo di sa nyakegego gomme gwa be gwa hlongwa khansele yeo e tlago hlokomela gore melao ya maitshwaro a bona e ?ome gabotse, bona ba ile ba ngala ditheri?anong t?a ntshe. Ka fao, seo ba bego ba swanet?e go le bot?a sona mo ke gore ba t?wile ka ditheri?anong t?a komiti.
Morena Greyling, yo le yena a bolet?ego mo, ke t?ea gore ke yo mongwe wa bao ba ngwalelago bangwe t?eo ba swanet?ego go di bolela dingangi?anong t?a Ntlo ye. Le ka 't?at?i la mohlolo ga se ka ke ka bona a tlile komiting ya rena go tla go ikwela ka t?a gagwe gore kgoro e sekaseka bothata bjo bja lepono la bana bjang.
Modulasetulo, mohlomphegi Sandy o bolet?e mo gore Molaokakanywa wo ka mokgwa wo re o boilego re le ANC o mo gopot?a melao yela ya go bewa mehleng ya apartheid. Seo se makat?ago ke gore dikonokono t?a DA lehono ke batho ba go t?wa go apartheid. O dulelang le bona ge e ba o a rere?a gore ga a kwane le apartheid?
ANC e thekga Molaokakanywa wo gobane "manyala" ga re a tsome. Di ile le mu?i wa dikwekwele. Ke a leboga, Modulasetulo. [Legofsi.] (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)
[Mr K W MORWAMOCHE: Chairperson, the ANC supports this Bill because it prevents the media from exposing children to images that would adversely affect them. The ANC supports this Bill because it does not allow powerful people to fight at the expense of powerless ones. This Bill also does not allow people to gain at others' expense. The Bill is against people who act without knowledge of the issue in question. [Applause.]
I have a document in which names of those who addressed you, telling you about constitutionality, do not appear. This is a document of people dealing with constitutional rules and regulations.
Chairperson, the ANC rules and it does not require permission from anyone to do that. If the public demands that pornographic programmes not be broadcast in the country, we will never ask for permission from Seremane, we will never ask for permission from the DA because they are not spokespersons for the media.
What they should have told you, Chairperson, is that when the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs agreed with the media people about things that must be censored and an authority to monitor their code of conduct was established, they withdrew from those negotiations. Therefore, they were supposed to tell you that they withdrew from the committee's negotiations. I believe that Mr Greyling, who also spoke here today, is one of the people who prepares speeches on behalf of other speakers for debates in this House. I have never seen him on a single day in our committee meetings to hear how the department is dealing with this issue of child pornography. Chairperson, the hon Sandy said that the manner in which this Bill was presented by the ANC, reminds her of the laws of the apartheid era. What is surprising is that the powerful DA members today are from the apartheid era. Why is she seated on their side if indeed she is anti-apartheid? The ANC support this Bill because we do not want immoral acts. That is all. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Minister, members, before I call the hon Minister to address us, I would just like to indicate that on account of discussions I have had with the Table, I am going to consult Hansard on the issue raised by the two Ministers and will come back to you in this House on it. Please, the two Ministers who raised points of orders, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Housing. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairperson, I am very aware of the fact that I have very serious time constraints here. I had waived my right to come back and close this but I thought that after listening to the debate, it was important for me to come back here. I want to thank the hon members who have participated in this debate constructively.
I was very disturbed by the bile that was spewed out by the hon member of the DA. It is understood that perhaps the DA might have its own views but I think that the spirit in which she conducted the debate was so destructive that I needed to come back here and indicate that, in fact, it is completely unacceptable. I would like you, Chairperson, to consult Hansard and actually rule on the matter. [Interjections.]
I want to point out a number of things that had been distorted here because it is important that we leave this House understanding what it was that we were saying. We have a Constitution that this House passed and to which we all share allegiance. It is very specific on some of the things that we have in this Bill here. Our constitutional responsibility is set out in section 28(1)(d). It is very clear on our responsibility to the child and says that it is the right of the child "to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation."
We support that.
Chairperson, I think you are in an invidious position as a leader of the DA and having the DA going on like that. I would be extremely embarrassed if I were in your position.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon members, please. Hon Minister, do not reflect on the position the Chair takes as if it could be partisan. I will really appreciate that. As for the members on the left hand side, please give the Minister an opportunity to be heard.
A child's interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child, as it is set out in the Constitution. What we seek to do, the hon member has deliberately decided that she is going to exaggerate. We should not accept that. There is no way that we on this side would have fought the kind of struggles we have.
She stands here and says that we would like to muzzle the media. We have said so from day one that it was not our intention to do that. It is a very fine balance that we seek to achieve here. We have worked very hard to arrive at this point. [Interjections.] Even beyond that, it is important that we note that even the Promotion of Equality Act limits publication of anything which impinges on the dignity of persons on the basis of race, religion or gender. This is not to be challenged. The right is absolute.
I am appalled at the conduct of the DA and I really think ... [Interjections.] ... I think you are in an invidious position, sitting there with your members misbehaving like this.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Minister, I must call you to order. [Applause.] Hon members, it is absolutely not acceptable to reflect on the objectivity of the Chair. I cannot accept that. I will repeat what I have said before: Interjections come from all sides of the House but to harass a speaker by making him or her inaudible, is not acceptable. I hope that everybody will retain that in their minds. Hon Chauke, on what point of order are you rising?
On a point of order: In this debate today I am surprised as to why hon Sandy is wearing a mini skirt. [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon Chauke, please stand up. I have least four people who want to make a point of order. Before I recognise them, I would like to respond. Please withdraw that particular statement.
I withdraw.
Hon Chair, I just wanted to indicate that I hope you were misunderstanding me when you indicated that I was implying that you were not objective. That was not my intention. I wouldn't do that.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, in the same spirit in which the Minister has rised, I just want to say that I sincerely hope that the ANC will take that matter further, the one mentioned by the hon Chauke. It is absolutely unacceptable.
Hon Ellis, I have already ruled and he has withdrawn. Can we please continue? [Interjections.] I cannot compete with a full House. I can't raise my voice any more. That concludes the debate. Are there any objections to the Bill being read a second time?
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance and Independent Democrats dissenting).