The FXI is concerned about the way the Bill deals with pornography, violence and religious hate speech. While the Bill concerns itself mainly with regulating pornography, there are other provisions for the appointment of classification committees, the Board and the Review Board, which would classify films, videos and publications. The FXI in no way supports or likes pornography, but it is opposed to any form of banning of a film or publication. No matter how abhorrent the content of expression may be, bans or limits on it mean that freedom of expression is being denied, and a fundamental right is being taken away or seriously limited.
The word "pornography" itself is a loaded term which is difficult to define and is subject to various cultural and social norms in its interpretation. The term is so vague, subjective and expansive that it could apply to all sexually oriented speech. While the Bill does not use the word "ban" it can in effect ban a publication or film if this is classified XX (see insert). The FXI feels that government can no longer, through legislation, impose a set of values on society or any individuals within it, or decide what citizens may or may not view or read. Chapter Three of the Constitution guarantees citizens individual rights including those of freedom of religion and expression. Citizens now have the responsibility to decide for themselves what their religious and ethical values are, and to practise these as a matter of free choice.
While the FXI is in favour of the classification of films, it is opposed to the classification of publications. One is not obliged to pay for a publication in the same sense that one has to pay for seeing a film or to purchase or hire a video before one can view it. It is much easier to decide before purchasing a publication whether one wants to buy it or not. In regard to the protection of children from certain publications, it is the responsibility of parents to regulate the reading material of their children and they should not rely on government to do this.
The Bill provides for exemptions to the classification rule, and all films or publications that are deemed to be educational, scientific or of a literary or artistic nature are exempt from classification. These terms are particularly loaded and subject to widely different interpretations. The distinctions between art and non-art are not rigid (if such distinctions exist at all) and such an exemption clause could foster an elitist concept of art which may even infringe on the equality clause of the Constitution, the implication being that rich people's art ( Lady Chatterley's Lover ) is acceptable while popular culture ( Hustler ) is not.
Civil society in fact provides the most effective mechanisms to regulate pornographic material. Consumers have the right to object to any pornographic material stocked by the shops they patronise and will be able to peacefully enforce their rights of objection. Consumers have the right to draw up petitions, to picket premises, to hold protest marches and consumer boycotts in a bid to force their local shop not to stock certain types of publications. Apart from this, commercial distributors of adult magazines already impose their own voluntary restrictions on certain publications.
One other concern about the intro duction of adult premises is that material considered by some as "art" will end up only for sale at these premises.
Because the bill makes provision for search orders, the regulations on child pornography contained in the Publication Bill could lead to the invasion of people's homes by police in the form of raids reminiscent of the behaviour or the previous government. The FXI believes that the importation and public distribution of child pornography should be banned, but private distribution (for example, the passing on by hand of such material from one individual to another in a non-commercial setting) should not be banned, so as to protect citizens from raids on their homes.
The protection of religious freedom is guaranteed by the Interim Constitution. In this sense religious supporters of any faith need not fear that their rights are threatened in any way and should therefore be more tolerant of attacks on and criticisms of their religion. Religious groups also have the right to peaceful forms of protest and can use their rights to protest against those who criticise or defame their beliefs in the form of petitions, pickets, marches, consumer boycotts etc. It is far better for the public to accept the hard fact of robust freedom of speech, to learn to live with it and in the process learn to use their right to freedom of expression to debate contentious matters in the open.
The FXI questions whether mem bers of the Board should be permitted to make applications to themselves. In the past, such practices led to the perception that the Board was providing itself with employment, and this reflected badly on the credibility of the process (among other things).
The FXI also believes that the police should not be entitled to make complaints to the Board. If ordinary citizens are offended by a publication, they should complain and bring it before the board, but this should not be the task of bodies of the state. By involving the police in the process, one runs the risk of making the police politically controversial, and also opens them up to the possibility of undue influence.