Censorship may be at an end in South Africa, but can the public accept the ramifications of this freedom? Katy Bauer reports
ON Monday this week the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) heard two submissions from the public which challenged the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s revolutionary broadcasting of controversial gender material.
What linked the hearings was South African society’s staunchest taboo’s — the frank discussion of female genitalia.
The catalysts for outrage were prizewinning artwork by Kaolin Thompson called Useful Objects — the scarlet ceramic vagina with cigarette resting at its centre — debated in SABC 2’s Focus of August 20. And SABC 1’s two-part documentary Abortion — The Last Resort screened on August 13 and 20. The coincidence highlighted the BCCSA’s role as guardian of non-reactionary morality.
Of the average 850 000 complaints received by the SABC annually, the BCCSA hears about 100. Hearings are purposely conducted in an informal manner, making them less intimidating for public complainants as well as emphasising the commission’s status as a recognised but not legal forum.
Procedure is simple and reasonably brief. The offending material is screened, after which both complainant and defendant are each allowed a maximum of 20 minutes in which to state their case before being questioned by the panel. (Owing to the casual convening of Monday’s hearings, the punctual women from the pro-life Women’s Social Upliftment League there for the second objection, were inadvertently exposed to Useful Objects — twice.)
For the first hearing, Focus presenter Max du Preez, to whom the complainant Colin McGuinness had referred in his letter as “that grinning idiot” and “pervert”, appeared rushed, irritated and ready to defend his journalistic integrity as well as his ego. The complainant, a seemingly affable and surprisingly seedy looking man, was of a nervous rather than vitriolic demeanour which defied the prudish tone of his missive.
In need of a soothing smoke, McGuinness and his companion were pulled up on an ashtray issue themselves when BCCSA commissioner Dr Caroline White suggested they either make final use of the plain white ceramic vessel on the table before them, or leave the non-smoking area. The complainant was compliant.
McGuinness began his verbal submission with an apology to Du Preez for the abuse directed at him personally. The general manager of the SABC’s central complaints office, Malan Otto, then read out an eloquent submission which lent integrity to the Focus debate.
McGuinness argued that not only was the “so-called artwork” offensive to women, but that its artistic value was questionable, saying that “anyone could have made it, given a piece of clay”.
Commissioner Dr Rex Mathie stated that he, for one, could not have done so. McGuinness said the close-up of the ashtray had looked like a “gyne shot … The closer it got, the worse it looked.” Du Preez argued the importance of zooming in on the Gauloise Blond cigarette rather than the vagina.
Censorship and viewer warnings were discussed, and everyone had their say, as proceedings progressed in a measured and civilised tone.
The same can’t be said of the second hearing. The agitator, however, was not the neat, ad-hoc Women’s Social Upliftment League complainant. The heckling pro-life contingent was led instead by an
un-named middle-aged woman in flowing floral with demented hair and a face that seemed to express a thousand furious thoughts every minute.
As the screening of Abortion — The Last Resort began, the anonymous Bodecia planted herself firmly behind BCCSA chairperson Kobus van Rooyen, for a more advantageous perspective, and proceeded to huff and shake her way through the viewing. Once both half-hour episodes of the documentary were over, the protester returned to her seat. Momentarily relieved, the chair attempted to proceed as usual.
While the unsuspecting representative for the formal complainant was still being coaxed to complain, the furious lady in floral punched the air and demanded to be heard. Her interruption was cut short by Van Rooyen, who braved rebuffing the aberrant contingent with some details of official procedure; that is, only complaints already received in writing may be heard at the hearings.
After some persuading, a hush fell and the correct pro-life representative calmly reiterated her league’s feelings on what they considered to be nothing short of a pro-choice film which has “used” the SABC to “present lies to the public”. The league therefore proposed that the least the SABC could do was to redress the imbalance allegedly created by the film by commissioning a pro-life programme of equal length.
The film, in fact, showed a variety of opinions from both sides, but focused more on real abortion issues (that is, women who had had abortions) than moral debate.
The SABC argued that Abortion —The Last Resort was not a pro-choice production, while the aberrant contingent snorted.
While Dr Mathie, principal of Rosebank Bible College, pleaded for a rational, compassionate response from the complainant, she remained unmoved.
Meanwhile, film producer Ingrid Gavshon offered film participant Sister Sheila Mary, a Catholic nun, as an example of positive pro-life response to the film. The complainant ignored this comment, as did the hecklers.
The issue was too emotional to be argued rationally and once the hearing was adjourned, fire and brimstone hailed down upon the heads of the SABC and BCCSA alike, and they were damned as promoters of “death and destruction”.
The BCCSA panel, however, ruled in favour of Gavshon on the basis that the programme was insightful on the issues relating to abortion and was not a for- and-against debate about the topic of abortion or the phenomenon of abortion.
“the programme was an excellent piece of television journalism which was an honest effort to bring enlightenment and did not seek to solicit support for any legislation that is now before Parliament,” the panel said in its finding.
It added that all aspects of abortion were dealt with and contrary viewpoints “fairly represented” resulting in a “balanced and fair” programme. Gavshon was also noted for her “sensitive, insightful handling” of the topic.