ACCESS TO INFORMATION - "Business Day" on November 3 reported that the drafters of the Open Democracy Bill have been instructed to write a new chapter regulating the right of a person to access to information held in the private sphere. The bill deals with the right to access to government information as stipulated in the Constitution. However, the Constitution broadens the right to include information held in the private sphere that is required for the exercise or protection of any right. A special joint committee in Parliament dealing with the bill has asked the drafters to base the new part on private-sphere information on a draft submission from the Open Democracy NGO Campaign Group. The Group said although the drafters deal extensively with the right of access to government records, they fail in dealing with privately held information covering banks and other companies. They argued that not correcting this defect will render the bill unconstitutional. The drafters were instructed by the committee to use the submissions by the campaign group as the basis for developing a framework for regulating access to privately held information. The group's submissions propose that a request for privately held information should be directed at the holder of such information and should identify the right to be exercised or protected. The holder of the information is obliged to provide the records within 30 days unless it meets one of the criteria for withholding information. Exemptions include protection of personal privacy and trade secrets or other sensitive commercial information, third party information not consented to and information and information which comprises the security of buildings ans systems. If adopted along the lines proposed, it is expected the courts will determine whether individuals and bodies such as unions have the right to information relating to, for example, share holding and bank records. Meanwhile, political parties in Parliament will consider proposed this week to revise the ODB into three pieces of separate legislation, the right to information; the right to privacy and the protection of whistle blowers. The proposals come in the wake of the unanimous decision by the Justice Portfolio Committee in Parliament to remove the privacy and whistle blowers sections of the Bill and make them into separate pieces of legislation.

BROADCASTING COMPLAINTS - "The Citizen" on November 4 said the Cape Town based Radio 567 was ordered to apologise to the Jewish community following the broadcast of an interview two weeks ago during which anti-Semitic remarks were made. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of SA found that aspects of an interview by former "Sunday Times" columnist Jani Allan with American "militiaman" Keith Johnson were offensive to the religious convictions and feelings of Jews, and that this constituted "incitement to harm". Allan, who conducted the interview on 567's late night Capetalk show came under fire from listeners for allegedly failing to stop Johnson from making the remarks. But, the BCCSA concluded that Capetalk's management must shoulder the blame. In his judgement, the BCCSA chairperson Professor Kobus van Rooyen said Johnson's observations were "so one sided they would simply be rejected as such by a large majority of listeners". Van Rooyen said Johnson's reference to Israel as the "litter box" of the Middle East was "clearly so biased it would have no inciting effect" in terms of Section 16 (2) of the constitution. "The observations would probably amount to an advocacy of hatred, but as a result of the clear one-sidedness and Johnson's own attempts to shy away from these aspects, would not incite harm,"said Van Rooyen. However, Van Rooyen said, these statements which directly and indirectly pertained to the Jewish community set the stage for little tolerance when religion was drawn in. He said that when a guest on a programme made controversial statements, it was the duty of the host to attempt to soften the blow by, for example, asking some questions, or at least stating that there must be other views on the matter. No such correction however came from Allan. "What we accordingly have, is a statement which amounts to a blatant attack against Judaic Scripture". Van Rooyen concluded that Capetalk manager Louise Venter draft an apology to members of the Jewish community and that the station broadcast the apology as well as the BCCSA's findings within seven days during prime-time listening.

CENSORSHIP - A classification committee of the Film and Publications Board recently ruled that there were not sufficient grounds to prohibit the distribution of the November edition of "Hustler" magazine. The ruling came after a number of Muslim organisations complained to JT Publishing that the magazine used the term "Allah" in an insulting and derogatory manner. The complaint resulted from a feature article "Heroin For Allah" published by "Hustler". According to "The Citizen" the article contained an investigation on Taliban drug trafficking in Afghanistan. According to JT Publishing, the Muslim Judicial Council described the article as biased and accused the magazine of having a blatant disregard for religious rights of others. In a letter to the magazine and the board, the United Ulama Council of SA accused "Hustler" of a "demented crusade against religion". JT Publishing said the Muslim Judicial Council described the article as biased and accused the magazine of having a blatant disregard for religious rights of others. It said the moral implications of the alleged drug trade in Afghanistan was no less devastating than the illicit sensuality of the magazine. A "Hustler" spokesperson said the name Allah had not been used in a derogatory fashion. Neither the headline nor the story suggested that Allah welcomed or condoned the drug trade. "The article makes it perfectly clear that it is about the hypocrisy of Taliban Muslims who smuggle drugs and claim to be good Muslims at the same time. It is valuable to society in that it exposes the blatant hypocrisy and criminality of an overseas group of drug smugglers. This is obviously in public interest," the spokesperson said. The Film and Publication Board said that in terms of schedule 10 of the Act, the publication's distribution would have been prohibited if it was found to advocate hatred based on religion and if it incited people to cause harm.

PUBLIC BROADCASTING - On November 3, a task team appointed by the SABC to examine its own editorial independence found that there was no evidence to support allegations of unfair labour practices, infringement of editorial independence or bias towards any political organisation. The task team consisting of SABC board members, with only one independent counsel was appointed following requests in April and May by several organisations for an independent probe into the public broadcaster. The request followed the axing of Special Assignment presenter Max du Preez, which sparked allegations that the corporation did not tolerate dissent in the SABC's news department. Organisations invited to make submissions were the SA Union of Journalists, FXI, Friends of the Public Broadcaster, the Special Assignment production team, Africa in Motion Production and SABC news management. Individuals who also made submissions were Du Preez, Freek Robinson, Amina Frense and four people who did not want to be named. Chairperson of the board Paulos Zulu said there was no evidence to support allegations of interference. He said when it came to protection of journalistic integrity, there were at least three external sources to which journalists could turn, the code of conduct for broadcasting services, the code of conduct for the BCCSA and unions. Regarding internal and external influences, research by the IBA, BCCSA and the Human Sciences Research Council found that there had been no deliberate bias. In a statement, FXI said "this was not a proper investigation as we had hoped, but a whitewash".

Ends