We have an admirably liberal Constitution, but on many issues, South Africa is a conservative country. In the past 13 years, conservative interests have launched attack after attack on the more advanced rights enshrined in the Constitution. Laws guaranteeing freedom of choice on abortion, outlawing the death penalty and sanctioning gay marriages have been the subject of raucous debate as conservatives have sought to roll back the gains of democracy.
This week, freedom of expression advocates sought to defend themselves against another encroachment: this time the Film and Publications Bill, which seeks to give extraordinary new powers to the Film and Publications Board responsible for the classification of all media.
The Bill is ominous, though the jury is still out on whether this is by conspiracy or cock-up.
The drafters have sought to bring the mass media into the ambit of classification, though they have been excluded for 38 years by an exemption granted to publishers and broadcasters. In addition, they seek to give the board more powers to limit free expression than are provided for by the Constitution. In effect, the Bill would mean that most content related to the reportage of sexual conduct, incitement to imminent violence and the advocacy of hatred based on any identifiable group characteristic would be subject to pre-publication censorship.
The film and publications board would not have the capacity to handle the flood of material it would have to decide on, and the flow of news would be impeded, while the viral spread of child pornography would continue.
This is no alarmist prediction: we live under an administration under pressure. The national lottery has ground to a halt because of bungling; there are logjams in the licensing of new cars and the granting of drivers’ licences; the registration of companies takes longer in South Africa than in most other countries. The list goes on.
The Bill has one intention: to stop child pornography; a purpose which no right-thinking South African would disagree with. Broadcasters and newspapers are not the purveyors of child pornography, yet they will be stymied while the evil minds who produce kiddie porn will continue going about their business unscathed. And media freedom will suffer a body blow from the removal of the exemption from classification at the heart of media freedom.
What has become clear in the months of debate since the draft law was first tabled was that while the declared target is child porn, there is a larger and more chilling agenda.
At its heart is a full frontal attack on nudity and sexual content. At the heart of the complaints are newspaper pin-ups, back-page poster girls and e-tv’s late-night soft-porn slot, all legitimate under our Constitution and a matter of individual taste and parental guidance rather than government control.
In Parliament this week the chairperson of the home affairs committee, Patrick Chauke, stressed the importance of media freedom to democracy. It was, he said, a freedom he was willing to die for.
Our constitutional state is robust, and Chauke does not need to die to protect it. All he has to do is ensure that the Bill is in line with the country’s Constitution and its express protection of media freedom.
Eishkom
Writer Zakes Mda said last month he had to return to the United States to write because Jo’burg was becoming like Lagos, with its power cuts.
Those in Bedfordview this week could spot the similarities with the Nigerian capital. Amid the blanketed darkness, there were spots of dim generator-produced power. If the good residents of Bedfordview had been asked whether they would agree to Eskom’s request for hefty increases for a better power supply, they may have dipped quickly into their wallets. You only know the value of regular electricity when you don’t have it.
So, the M&G believes that profligate users should be made to pay steeper tariffs in order to secure the national power supply. And profits should be used to get households to save power and use renewable sources of energy. This is good for the grid; and even better for the planet. It’s the only way to go.
Electricity regulator Nersa this week issued a report on the state of 11 electricity suppliers. It found that the larger metros are generally up to the job, but the smaller entities are “generally in poor shape”. Earlier, Eskom came in for severe criticism from Nersa for widespread outages in the Cape.
The entities responsible for generating and delivering power have got better at selling the stuff cheaply than at operating a sound system.
We are proud of the fact that our electricity is the cheapest in the world.
We have even used this as a competitive edge to lure overseas investors. But with cheapness has come inefficiency. Our economy is both energy intensive and energy inefficient. We burn rather than conserve. We hardly use our abundant solar resource. We are a developing economy but our carbon footprint approximates that of a developed one.
Eskom is asking the regulator for a price increase, in part to be able to finance its R150-billion development of more power stations.
There is some evidence of South Africans switching to alternative energy solutions such as solar and gas. But how many have done energy audits of their own homes to reduce and diversify their energy usage?
The hard fact is that only a price increase is likely to encourage energy conservation. New tariffs need to be stepped up so that the poor are not disadvantaged, but profligate users of energy need to pay for the privilege.