In a flashback to the past, the censors published a list of banned magazines last week. Why?
Gaye Davis reports
THE country’s chief censor, Dr Braam Coetzee, says he feels like ”lying down and saying, ‘Carry me off the field.”’ He and the 50 or so housewives, retired school inspectors, theologians, lecturers and teachers who judge films, objects and publications under existing censorship laws are ”waiting to hand over the keys”.
Last week, the directorate published a shortlist of banned magazines. Such lists used to appear regularly, with anti-apartheid pamphlets and political tracts jostling for room among all the skin-mag titles. With new liberal legislation being dealt with in Parliament, the sudden reappearance of the list drew surprised comment. Was this the last kick of a dying horse, a last-ditch bid by the censors to reassert their right to pronounce on what citizens should see and read?
Those feeling vulnerable to moral onslaught have diligent Narcotics Squad members to thank. Coetzee’s committees act only on complaints, and they went into action after being handed a cache of magazines seized in a Narcotics Squad raid.
The last time magazines were judged undesirable in terms of the Publications Act of 1974, which the new Film and Publications Bill will replace, was in May. They included copies of Hottest Asian Babes, Lusty and Thrills Readers’ Wives, and were also handed in by police.
For the Publications Control Board, pickings have been slim for some time. Coetzee is surprised, ”even amazed”, that so few publications arrive for scrutiny; instead, ”99% of the job” involves pre- screening films for classification.
”Either people have given up, or it’s because new legislation is in the offing, or people are simply making their own choices. We’re still operating in terms of the Act. Even if Parliament approves the new Bill, as expected, it will take a few months to set up the new structures. We’re guessing that by January everything will be done by the new board,” he said.
Given the new constitutional rights of freedom of choice and expression, what will be okay in terms of the new Bill? If it’s a bona fide literary, dramatic, documentary, scientific or art work, just about anything goes. But the Bill draws a line at photos of child sex or ”a lewd display of nude children”.
The Bill provides for a Film and Publications Board which, on complaint from the public, can rate as XX, and ban for distribution, magazines, films and videos carrying photos of child sex, explicit violent sexual conduct and bestiality — as well as ”degrading sex” and explicit violence, which must amount to incitement to cause harm.
So what’s child sex? According to the Bill, it involves a person under 18 (or presented as being under age) taking part, engaging in or helping another person to engage in ”sexual conduct” or ”a lewd display of nudity”.
”Sexual conduct” means stimulated or aroused genitals, genitals lewdly displayed, masturbation, intercourse (which includes anal intercourse), fondling or touching genitals with an object, the penetration of a vagina or anus with any object, and oral-genital or oral-anal contact.
According to one expert, ”lewd” was added to avoid the axe falling on material like David Hamilton’s soft-focus shots of nubile, cheesecloth-clad teens. Will a family snap of a scantily clad little girl playing the vamp send parents for the high-jump? No, says Professor Kobus van Rooyen, former Publications Appeal Board chief and leader of the task group appointed by Home Affairs Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi to draft the Bill: ”Lewd must be narrowly interpreted.
”We tried to delineate areas and leave some leeway for interpretation. The aim was to use adverbs and adjectives, rather than the sweeping terms of the past, such as ‘indecent’ or ‘obscene’. If you want laws in this area you must leave room for motivated discretion.”
One of the amendments by the parliamentary portolio committee was to insert ”degrading sex” in the XX category, the impetus coming from African National Congress MPs driven by a strong women’s lobby. The task group was opposed, believing it to be too vague — and it may be challenged in the Constitutional Court.
It’s defined in the schedule as ”explicit sexual violence which degrades a person and which constitutes incitement to cause harm”. One expert suggested material showing a woman to be enjoying rape would qualify. The Bill provides for appeals all the way to the supreme court, so again, interpretations are likely to be narrow.
Material rated X18 — non-violent, explicit sex and visuals of genitals — will be available only at adults-only, specially licensed shops. Another category, R18, will cover material that, judged within context, may be harmful or disturbing to children under any age up to 18 years, and which will be restricted, in the case of films, or sold in a sealed wrapper if a publication.