Deputy Speaker, in passing this Bill today, we are addressing an important vacuum in the fight against harassment. The current legal status only provides for remedies in respect of people who are or who have been in a domestic relationship. This Bill provides for a quick and inexpensive remedy in the magistrate's court for anybody who is being harassed. The harm inflicted may be mental, psychological, physical or economic. Sexual harassment has now also been specifically included.
The category of electronic harassment or cyber-bullying has also needed attention for some time, and this Bill will now provide remedies for obtaining a court order prohibiting same. Of particular significance is the provision that it enables the court to compel an electronic communications service provider to divulge the identity of a person who is anonymously harassing a complainant.
We have been mindful of concerns regarding people's right to privacy and their right to retain their anonymity on the Internet. To cater for this, we have specifically provided that a service provider, before furnishing the details of an alleged harasser to a court, must advise the individual whose details are to be disclosed, no less than 48 hours before the details are to be given to the court. In this way, if a complainant is abusing the system to obtain the details of an individual without good reason, they may approach a competent court for an interdict prohibiting the disclosure. If a person is in fact harassing somebody and trying to hide behind an anonymous Internet or cellphone identity, they should not be allowed to do so.
The media had some concerns that this Bill may interfere with their freedom to conduct investigative in particular. We fully support freedom of the press and understand their concerns in the light of recent events. However, journalists also do not have the right - to coin a pun - to have carte blanche in the way in which they collect their information. Their behaviour will still have to be reasonable, and we accordingly did not assent to a complete public interest defence.
We have, however, taken their concerns seriously and believe that the final Bill is a very satisfactory balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of people, such as journalists, to do their jobs. There are a number of safeguards for journalists in particular. Firstly, nobody will be prohibited in any way from performing their day-to-day activities. If someone believes that their behaviour amounts to harassment, they must approach a court for an order. Before the court grants such an order, it will have to be satisfied that the conduct does in fact amount to harassment. An integral part of the definition of harassment is that the conduct must be unreasonable.
In order to protect people from being unfairly accused of harassment in the course of their work, such as may be the case in respect of journalists or police officers, the following factors have been included, which a court must take into account when determining whether conduct is unreasonable. These are whether the conduct is being engaged in for the purpose of detecting or preventing an offence, in order to reveal a threat to public safety or the environment, to reveal an undue advantage in a competitive bidding process, or to comply with a legal duty.
Given that the hon Jeffery is speaking after me, I feel obliged here to comply with his specific request to acknowledge that this was in fact his idea, and I hereby do so. [Interjections.] It was a good idea, and we agreed with that fully. [Interjections.] When a court determines whether the conduct is unreasonable, all these factors, as well as any others the court considers relevant, must be taken into account. These must all be considered against the Constitution which places a high value on freedom of speech. We are thus quite comfortable that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that only extreme behaviour by journalists and the like would possibly be affected by this Bill, and that if the behaviour is that extreme, the person suffering as a result of that behaviour should be entitled to an order restraining it.
Secondly, if an order is obtained without the respondent having notice thereof, there is the option that the return date may be anticipated by 48 hours' notice, so that anyone who wishes to challenge the granting of the order will be able to get back to court within a few days of the order being granted. This is an additional safeguard to protect legitimate interests from being thwarted by the complainants under the guise of a harassment complaint.
There are times when a person is harassed by someone whose identity is unknown to them. This can be as simple as someone following a person, or loitering where they happen to be. Too often in cases like this, there are complaints that the police do not take that matter seriously. Unfortunately, given the high rate of violent crime in this country, the police often tend to regard this kind of matter as unimportant, as there is no blood involved. This Bill provides that a court may order the police to investigate a matter of harassment in order to ascertain the identity of the complainant.
We have also included an enabling provision for the police to empower them to investigate the identity of an alleged harasser who is not known to the complainant, if the complainant makes an affidavit to the effect that he or she intends applying for a protection order, and if it appears that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person against whom the complaint has been made is engaging in harassment.
We thus believe that the Bill is an important step in combating all forms of harassment, and the interests of all parties have been taken into account in drafting a well-balanced piece of legislation that provides for a quick, effective and inexpensive remedy. The DA supports this Bill. [Applause.]