Parliamentary Task Group on Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children, & Media Codes of Conduct: briefing

Meeting report

COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
10 August 2004
PARLIAMENTARY TASK GROUP ON PREVENTION OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN, AND MEDIA CODES OF CONDUCT: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Chairperson:

SABC presentation
ICASA submission
Department briefing
Parliamentary Task Team on Sexual Abuse of Children Report (2002)

SUMMARY
The Committee received a briefing by the Department of Communications on the relationship between the report of the Parliamentary Task Group on the Prevention of Sexual Abuse of Children and codes of conduct in the different forms of media in South Africa. In essence, the Committee registered its concern that self-regulatory codes of conduct were not being applied uniformly in broadcasting and printed forms of media. In addition, Members were particularly concerned at visual material being broadcast without sufficient warning of its potentially harmful content and its potential relationship to sexual abuse of children and women.

MINUTES:
The Chair informed the Committee of an amendment to the programme on 17 August. The Committee had requested the print media to make a presentation about their area of work, more specifically about their structure, ownership and about who is who in the industry to give the Committee a global view of the industry. This presentation would now be given on 17 August and would replace what was scheduled for that day. He informed the Committee that the Telkom workshop would require an extra day and would now be held on both Monday 23 and Tuesday 24 August.

Ms D Smuts (DA) responded that these dates had previously been agreed to and asked when the workshop would commence on the Monday. The Chair responded that the workshop would commence at 11 am to allow Members from other provinces to fly back to Cape Town

Ms Smuts commented that the Committee did not usually have any dealings with print media, as government does not write laws to regulate this media. She asked for clarification on the issues that would be discussed with the print media and whether they would only discuss issues in that the print media’s interests intersect with those of the rest of the sector, for example with cross-ownership and matters that appeared in the IDA Act and on which ICASA had done a new enquiry.

The Chair clarified that the print media presentation was not to interrogate the media. The print media would be there only for the benefit of the Committee to inform it on the structures of their industry. He added that he could ask the print media to also address the issues raised by Ms Smuts. He proceeded to welcome the members of the Department of Communications and informed them that the meeting had been convened following the report put before Parliament by the Task Group on Sexual abuse of Children.

Following that report, one of the areas referred to the Committee by the Speaker was that the Departments of Communications and Home Affairs should investigate the effectiveness of the Independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission in enforcing its broadcasting code of conduct and how it dealt with public complaints with a view to reporting to the relevant Committee. Home Affair would present later. It was on that basis that the Committee asked the Department of Communications to report to it so that the Committee could report to the Speaker.

Department briefing
Mr J Mjara, Deputy Director General of the Department of Communications introduced his delegation consisting of Ms M Lengonsane (Department of Communications: Policy Unit) and Ms L Kanto (SABC General Manager: Policy and Regulatory Affairs). He apologized for the delay in furnishing the Committee with the report which was due to a technical failure. He promised to make the report available after the meeting.

He continued by saying that his presentation would deal with the issues and recommendations that emanated from the task team report and the legal and regulatory frameworks that governed the media with regard to the coverage of children and how problems were dealt with. Lastly, he would discuss the proposed action plan on how the broadcasting industry could take forward the recommendations of the task group as they pertained to the media and broadcasting.

The Task Group on sexual abuse of children was established by the Speaker to give effect to the motion passed in the National Assembly on 14 November 2001. The task group conducted public hearings and 76 submissions were received. No input in this regard was received from broadcasters, the Independent Communications Authority, which was the regulator, or the Department of Communications. The role of the media in promotion sexual violence against women and children was raised in various submissions, while some presenters believed that the media had a positive role to play in campaigns combating that kind of violence. The issue was not simply that the media contributed to this kind of violence, but that the media was also contributing to the fight against it by the messages it was conveying.

It was argued before the task group that the media was contributing to the image of women and children as commodities, in particular through the medium of advertising. Since then an advertising transformation process had taken place in which the content and manner in which advertising was structured was looked at. At some stage during the present year the task team would be making its report on advertising dealing amongst other things with the presentation of both women and children in advertising.

It was argued that the unequal power relations between men and women had further exacerbated the situation and that the media had generally contributed to this. The task team had noted the concern expressed about programming content on the national television channels, particularly as it related to violence and sexually explicit material. An issue raised in this regard was the accessibility of adult pornography to children.

There were submissions made that the self-regulatory board, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) was not sufficiently effective in dealing with complaints from the public and that its code of conduct was regularly breached, leaving the public with no remedies for complaining when the code was breached.

Mr Mjara continued that in his presentation he would deal briefly with how the BCCSA functioned and with the question of the code, what the code specifically said and how it was applied so that the Committee could move forward with some understanding of how the regime worked. The task group did not receive any submissions that detailed any instances of a breach of the code of conduct or any single complaint that warranted the review of the system.

The task group had noted that it was important to use the media as an effective tool for raising public awareness around sexual violence. The Department of Communications agreed with the submission that more could have been done through the use of media to raise public awareness around sexual violence and sexual depiction of children by using the media to galvanize society to fight this threat. The Department called for a partnership with broadcasters, so that they would use their public service announcements to highlight the dangers associated with the depiction of children.

The task group had also noted that the media had a responsibility to report matters surrounding sexual violence against children rather than predominantly covering sensational issues. The question that arose in this regard was whether the media helped create an environment where there were copy-cats due to the media sensationalising issues. There has been much international research into whether the media can be held responsible for causing people to act in a certain manner or contributing to people acting in a certain manner. The Department was not in a position to comment on this and was under the impression that it would take a vast amount of time to establish a causal link between the media and social activity. It encouraged other researchers, including universities, to delve further into this issue.

The present South African regime was considered with respect to the issue of sexual abuse of children, the media and the issues that were raised at the task group, what programs were in place and what could have been done to improve the present regime. The South African position was underpinned by principles contained in the South African Constitution and Art 24 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which necessitated the need for countries to have legislation which protected children from commercial exploitation. The African Charter of Rights and Welfare of Children (Article 27), to which South Africa was a partner, made clear reference to the obligation on states to protect children by preventing the use of children in pornographic activities, in performances and in materials. The link between child pornography and the commercial sexual exploitation of children was further established in the International Labour Organisation’s Convention 182 to which South Africa was party. Those international instruments that were binding on South Africa were also used in the analysis of the causes of rape and abuse.

South African law established that the state and its agencies were responsible for electronic media policy. The regulatory mandate and task of supervision was carried down to the level of regulations, which lay with ICASA and the Film and Publications Board. The Acts with respect to electronic media included the Constitution of South Africa Act of 1996 and the IBA Act of 1993 as amended, the Broadcasting Act of 1999 as amended, the Film and Publication Act as amended and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Act of 2000. In addition to those Acts, the SABC as a broadcaster had editorial policies to meet the requirements of the Broadcasting Amendment Act of 2002. The editorial policies served as operational guidelines and principles to ensure that the SABC provides programming content that was fair, accurate, accountable and advanced the national interest of South Africa which included the advancement of the protection of children.

The current operational regulatory framework in the broadcasting context consists of targeted regulations, which controlled broadcasting and the Internet through a statutory regime that has a defined reach and application. Those controls determined the content of programming. There was also self-regulation and self-monitoring, in which the industry set its own standards of conduct and a code of ethics containing a statement of principles which were used as guidelines to establish what would be acceptable for the industry. The area of protecting children with respect to media or media management fell under two regulatory regimes. ICASA and the Film and Publications Board were under separate rules. ICASA took responsibility for the regulation and licensing of radio and television broadcasters and imposed conditions and expectations on them about what they could and could not do. The Films and Publication Board was responsible for the classification of films, Internet and other content. There was also a third level in which broadcasters themselves managed their own self-regulation.

To ensure broadcasters complied with the code of ethics, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) was established to monitor compliance with the code. The BCCSA was a non-statutory disciplinary body for the electronic media, who had agreed to its jurisdiction. Those who were covered by that body had to agree to its jurisdiction. It was officially recognized by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa in 1995 in terms of section 56(2) of the Independent Broadcasting Act of 1993. Almost all broadcasters in South Africa had affiliated to the BCCSA.

The Code of Conduct contained several provisions that were directly applicable to the protection of children and Mr Mjara read the clauses pertinent to the discussion. Section 18: "Broadcasters are reminded that children as defined in paragraph 3, embraces a wide range of maturities of the station, and in interpreting this code it is legitimate for licensers to distinguish if appropriate, those approaching adulthood from a much younger, pre-teenage audience. Broadcasters specifically shall not broadcast material unsuitable for children at times when large numbers of children may be expected to be part of the audience. Broadcasters shall exercise particular caution, as provided below, in the depiction of violence in children’s programming. In children’s programming portrayed by real live characters, violence shall, whether physical, verbal or emotional, only be portrayed where it is essential to the development of a character and the plot. Animated programming for children, while accepted as a stylized form of story telling which can contain non-realistic violence, can not have violence as its central theme and shall not invite dangerous imitation. Programming for children shall, with due care, deal with themes which could threaten their sense of security, when portraying for example domestic conflict, death, crime and the use of drugs. Programming for children, shall with due care deal with themes which could invite children to imitate acts which they see on screen or hear about such as the use of plastic bags as toys, use of matches, the use of dangerous household products or other generous physical activities."

There was a very elaborate code that dealt with all the aspects that were contained in the task group’s report. The issue was not whether, at the level of self-regulation and of the regime that governed broadcasters, appropriate standard had been set. The question was rather whether these standards were enforced, how they were enforced and what should be done in case of slippages in the system. It was important to note that in terms of the Complaints Commission and the Code of Conduct, licensers and broadcasters had to be aware of the advancement of the watershed period, which became progressively less suitable. A programme might have been acceptable at 11 o’clock that would not have been acceptable at 9 o’clock in the evening. The Department thought that some of the complaints that were generated revolved around the issue of the watershed period and when it started. It normally started at 9 o’ clock in the evening, and there might have been instances where large numbers of children were still around at 9 o’ clock when adult material was aired. As a result, there were parents that felt that the watershed period should begin later. This was an issue that might have warranted some discussion, and not whether the watershed period was effective or not.

The watershed system also relied on the broadcaster warning the public that there was material that might be harmful to children and not suitable for their viewing. The responsibility was then transferred away from the broadcaster to the parents to ensure that the children were not viewing these materials. The Department believed that there was a case for calling for the standardization of the warnings before programs and that it would be prudent for all broadcasters to classify their material before broadcast. It would establish a classification that meant one and the same thing regardless of which channel the viewer is watching, and that the classification has been approved or is given by the Films and Publications Board. Once a broadcaster has submitted all the material to be broadcast and these are classified, not censored, there would be a standard for the viewers. In terms of the code, this was an area that needed some improvement and a standard uniform system.

There had not been complaints or many cases of broadcasters breaching the code. There had been complaints to the BCCSA, and once the BCCSA had received the complaints, it scheduled a hearing and then requested the broadcaster at the hearing to answer to the breach. At the end a finding is made about the conduct. The Department felt that improvement was possible and requested that a register of all the complaints of the public about the problematic broadcast material and all the corresponding findings of the BCCSA was made. It would be accessible to and lodged with both the broadcaster and the regulators at all times to ensure that the broadcaster has it within its means to research public response to programming. While it would not be legally binding it would make the broadcaster aware of the issues society is still dealing with and would be a resource for broadcasters to use to initiate discussion with the public around these issues. The register would also help the regulator when it licenses broadcasters to ask them how they planned on dealing with the issues raised in the public discussion and debate. Therefore, the register would help research and an on-going discussion on how broadcasters are dealing with the issue of sexual abuse of children and the media.

The task group’s report also dealt with the question of the Internet, what can be done and what are the issues in this regard. There were no specific regulations for the Internet beyond those of the Film and Publication Act, to manage how children were portrayed on the Internet. The legal South African position was that child pornography was not a matter of freedom of expression and anyone who disseminated, originated or stored child pornography was violating a law. In Internet law, child pornography was dealt with like any other crime. The Electronic Communications Act has provisions about how the authorities could deal with those matters. It placed the onus on the police and other state agencies to deal with all those involved in illegal activities in the electronic communications domain. The Internet service provider had to apply to the Minister for limited liability of content and to be able to do this they had to be members of a self-regulating board which had a code of conduct, especially with regard to illegal material. Once the service provider was granted this limited liability, they would then no longer be liable for material posted on their service. However, when the authorities found illegal material, the service provider would be notified and had a limited period to remove these or it would be held liable for them by the state. The present system defined which materials were undesirable and illegal and set a regime for removal of this material. It allowed the members of the public to inform the authorities of such material. The Department felt that there needed to be an awareness campaign that would inform the public on how and where to report illegal material. There also needed to be a campaign to make parents aware that they are responsible for their children and that it was essentially the access of children to material on the Internet that needed parental supervision. The Internet is an international communication tool and does not fall under one regime, therefore one jurisdiction could not impose standards to be maintained on all the other jurisdictions. This meant that children were going to stumble onto a number of unsuitable material and it became an issue that society needed to take responsibility for. There were tools with which to filter the Internet which parents could use to block unsuitable sites. This level of awareness was also necessary at schools, where computers were becoming more commonplace and the possibility of it being used for the wrong purposes existed. The Department would be working with the Department of Education to make sure that there was effective policy around control and guidance.

The Conventions Act would also have a chapter dealing with illegal materials and child pornography, along with issues such as hate speech and other material that the Constitutional Court had ruled as problematic. This would put further regulations in place around child pornography in case the present regulations were not sufficient.

Ms Kantor commented that since the task team report was published, the broadcasters code of conduct had been amended and two of the significant amendments were to improve and strengthen the clauses dealing with children and to insert a watershed provision and strengthen the clauses dealing with adequate warnings to the public. The SABC’s editorial policies went beyond what the code of conduct prescribed, for example their watershed period, by internal policy, of material unsuitable for children and sexually explicit material would only be shown after 10:30 at night.

The SABC received thousands of complaints every year of which 500 were serious complaints in terms of the code, and only 150 of those went to formal tribunals and the SABC was found to have breached the code on only six occasions. The SABC took complaints very seriously and they had a department dedicated to this area which responded to every complaint received within 48 hours and records of all the complaints were available on the BCCSA website. The SABC also held quarterly workshops with all their services and all their channels, in which they took them through all the complaints that had been received, the judgments that had been made and how to deal with the issues. It was problematic as it was not a science and was often left up to individuals’ judgment what warnings to put on and when the program should be scheduled. The SABC tried to empower their staff on the ground to make those decisions in line with the code that the industry had adopted and the SABC editorial policies.

Discussion
Ms D Smuts (DA) commented that there was a universal reaction to blame the media for phenomena that appear in society and that it was the present task group that called in a BBC documentary producer and tried to prevent production, even though it was not a politician’s job to tell the media how to report. This was a classic case of people being upset by reporting of what was actually happening in society. She was in broad agreement with everything that Mr Mjara and Ms Kantor said and put forward her views on a few matters. The Committee was dealing with an enormously worrying phenomena in society and from the report it was clear that sexual child abuse was becoming a way of life in certain parts of society. Sexual activity of young people was also becoming commonplace and most of what happens in society could not be blamed on pornography. There was proof or suggestions that child abuse occurred because people watched child pornography or other erotic material. Those things occurred in society where they were frequently institutionalized. She supported the Department’s analysis that no imitation factors had been demonstrated. The Broadcasting Code of Conduct dealt with ‘copy-catting’ in respect of violence where there had been research which suggested that children copy violence, but it had never been demonstrated. It would be useful if universities and academics did more research. This made the link between the work of the Communications Committee and the problem in society quite tenuous.

Ms Smuts asked for clarification on whether the suggestion that all broadcasters must classify before they broadcast meant that all programming must be classified or just movies. She asked if Mr Mjara meant that all programming had to be approved or classified by the Films and Publications Board, as this would be logistically impossible and the Films and Publications Board should not be involved. ICASA had jurisdiction for broadcasting. Last year, against the wishes of the Minister of Home Affairs, the Films and Publications Board had started amending its own laws to give itself jurisdiction on matters of race. The Board should not start involving itself in politics but she guaranteed that they would in the area of media and all films and publications as they were defined in the Act. The question would then be what role Mr Mjara foresaw for the Board, and that it should be approached with great caution as ICASA had jurisdiction and had already published regulations and everyone functioned under the code of conduct, and the work had already been done.

Ms Smuts reminded the Committee of how the Home Affairs Committee had once called a special meeting as they did not like one episode of ‘Yizo-Yizo’. It was a rough episode of the programme reflecting what happened in South African prisons, but the Jali Commission had made it perfectly clear that those things happened in our prisons and on a scale where attention needed to be paid to them.

Ms Smuts agreed that the Register of Complaints was a good idea, even though the SABC complaints were available on the BCCSA website. The addition of a compendium was a good idea, and any idea of consulting the public was good. The SABC had not yet fulfilled its mandate from the Broadcasting Act to consult with the public on an on-going basis.

Ms Smuts commented that the position of our law with regards to the Internet simply reflected the reality, in that the service provider could not be held legally responsible for what another person put on the web, what it stores or cashes or transmits. Even in the amended Film and Publications Act it was only what the service provider knowingly posted that they could be held responsible for. Solutions would be found for these problems as the technology refined itself. Parents and schools carried the real responsibility for looking after their children.

Mr R Pietersen (ANC) agreed with Ms Smuts that parents were responsible for raising children with a solid family foundation at home moving outwards. Looking at the outcry from the Yizo-Yizo episode, it was not just from Home Affairs but also from the present Committee and across parties. There were great similarities between that episode and the task group’s report as people do not want to be reminded of what happened in reality. To deal with the reality of sexual abuse of children, it could not be left up to one Committee or one entity. A collective response was necessary.

Mr Pietersen asked about the role of the ‘cyber inspectorate’ established in the ECT Act passed last year. He enquired whether there was a role for the inspectorate to monitor or how its assistance could be mustered to try and deal with the concerns raised about children and the Internet. It would be extremely difficult but the Committee needed to look at what they had and how that could play a role.

Ms C Nkuna (ANC) commented that one aligned oneself with the sentiment of the report but needs to keep in mind that the question could not be addressed if was not accepted that the abusers were members of the community, family members and part and parcel of households. If the mechanisms to address this problem moved from that level the problem would be addressed from a more convenient level. Education is necessary, starting at home. The question is whether children, without adult supervision, leave if programming is unsuitable. Also, as abusers are members of the family, often cases were withdrawn as the victim had to continue living with the abuser. The Committee needed to look at in-house rules and households needed to become well acquainted with these issues. As 2010 approached, the situation needed to improve or South Africa would have a bad name.

Mr G Oliphant (ANC) asked if the Department would give the Committee a copy of the report so that the Committee could study their proposals. He asked the Department to clarify what their proposal was, as the SABC had a watershed time of 10:30 and the views were not gelling. He also asked for clarification on whether the Department, with regard to the issue of standardisation of warnings, was putting forward a proposal of how it should be done or if it was only an idea to improve the situation. He asked whether there was access to the reported cases as the position of the SABC and that of the Department differ and how this could be brought into one position about accessibility.

The Chair welcomed Councilor Bubulia (ICASA) and asked about what the watershed period covered as there were explicit verbal descriptions of sexual activities on television which took place in the watershed period, in other words before 9 o’ clock.

Ms Kantor replied that the general rule was that material that had an adult theme should be broadcast outside the watershed period. That did not imply that after the watershed period anything goes. There was an issue with soap operas as they had an adult theme and the audience should be either audibly or visually warned that the content was not suitable for children. The time of the visual warning had recently been extended to 180 seconds at the beginning of every programme and 30 seconds after every advertising break as required by the commission as people joined the show after it had already started and would miss the warnings.

Mr Mjara clarified that the issued that was raised was whether the Department was suggesting that all broadcasters subject all their programming to classification by the Films and Publications Board and not ICASA. As the regime stood at present, if the program was a dramatic act then it should be classified for cinema viewing, and that classification would also guide broadcasters as to whether they will screen the programme. The requirement was that dramatic works or presentations were classified and there may have been a loophole with respect to the classification as it is too vague, making it uncertain if drama would have to be classified. There may have been a need for all dramatic works to be classified by the Films and Publications Board, which would not censor, just classify. The classification would then be used uniformly in the broadcasting system.

Ms Smuts asked if that meant that the board would have to watch every episode of a "soapy" to be able to classify each one.

Mr Mjara recalled that there was a Films and Publications Act to classify programming, not to ban programming. That system was already in place and it would be inappropriate to ask ICASA or the BCCSA to run the system. It would not be a major extension of what the Board was doing if the classifying is confined only to dramatic or serious acts. The body that had the capabilities and expertise to do the classifications was the Board, keeping in mind that it would not actually ban any programme.

Ms Smuts answered that if the Board were given that task, before the Committee knew where it was the Board would be telling broadcasters how to make programmes and banning them. The Board sat in a different area and was only still under Home Affairs because the National Party used to run it like that. Jurisdiction of broadcasting fell solely on ICASA and the Department was proposing that the Board would do the classifying for ICASA on some agency basis. The Board was a statutory body and she foresaw a lot of trouble, especially as the personalities on that Board thoroughly differed from ICASA. It was unhealthy to allow the Board to exercise a form of quality control over the product of a free media.

Ms Kantor asked if the concern was that the warnings were not being applied or whether there was not sufficient consistency amongst the broadcasters on the warnings. It was a challenge to ensure that each broadcaster was applying the warnings consistently as the viewer was not necessarily distinguishing between the different channels. It was suggested that the challenge to cooperate with each other was put to the broadcasters to find equilibrium. The SABC was planning a public information campaign later in the year to inform the public what the warning stood for and what could be expected if the warnings were used.

Ms Bubulia apologized for being late and did not do her formal presentation. She reminded the Committee that ICASA had a code of conduct for broadcasters and that all broadcasters who were not part of the BCCSA would fall under ICASA. These were mainly the community broadcasters, but there were not many of them as most fell under the BCCSA.

She commented that in 1999 it was agreed that the watershed time was to be 9 o’ clock for free-to-air and public broadcasting services and 8 o’clock for subscription broadcasters. It was also agreed in 1999 that broadcasters would themselves organize a consensus to standardize the warning systems. The authority would not like to prescribe to the broadcasters but rather allow them to organize themselves. This has not happened and if this failure continues ICASA would have to step in, not in a heavy handed way, but in a facilitating manner.

With regards to the Films and Publications Board, it was agreed that all films had to pass through them with specific rating all broadcasters would have to adhere to. Broadcasters could not apply their own ratings. If it came to ICASA having to veto every program as suggested, that would be problematic and called for a healthy discussion to take something forward. One would have to recognise that by their nature soap operas were very charged, and many argue, morally degrading, and ICASA looked to the discretion of the broadcasters themselves to determine whether that program should be aired during the watershed period when large numbers of children were watching. The question was how responsible broadcasters were acting in this regard. No one wanted to move back to past practices and wanted to move forward in the spirit of the Constitution and of moral values in society that were forever changing. This was why ICASA was pleased that built into the code of conduct was the opportunity to review the code of conduct and adapt it to environmental changes and to respond to urgent needs within society.

What is needed is more active participation by broadcasters to establish an across the board classification system so that sufficient warnings were coming out. The concern was also about the kind of filler information or music, which usually had very sexually charged videos. There was also a concern about the way in which forth coming attractions for non-watershed films or programmes were advertised in between watershed programming, showing violent images.

ICASA did not want to step on the toes of the Films and Publications Board that had been set up to do a very specific job, but if ICASA believed that the time had come, within the South African context, for something more meaningful to happen then ICASA would engage with that. But the nuance around whether all programming should be viewed before being broadcast was a bit prescriptive and broadcasters would prefer to have the discretion to be in control of the services they rendered. It was kept in mind, however, that ICASA was in a very interesting time in South Africa and was dealing with very difficult circumstances when dealing with women and children.

ICASA was aware of broadcasters that were putting out inappropriate material in violation of the watershed and while not naming the broadcasters, she wanted to remind the Committee that it was possibly time for more specific action.

Mr Pietersen asked who should assess programming if not the Films and Publications Board. He commented that the 17:00 "soapies" that aired while most parents were still at work had no warnings about unsuitable content. There was also the possibility that there was abuse of the warnings to attract more viewers, for example warning that there was nudity and there was none.

He also commented on the explicit pictures that were shown on the news of dead people and the effect they had on younger viewers. Parents wanted their children to watch topical and relevant programming so it should be kept in mind.

The Chair comment that with the 11 September 2001 bombing in America, all one saw was the rubble of the buildings as opposed to South African media that would show torn bodies all over. He asked whether the symbols SNLV communicated the message and whether the public understood what they meant.

Ms M Magazi asked who should monitor and does monitor the print media as there was a lot of pornography available to children in retailers. This caused premature sexual development in children. She asked if it fell under the scope of publications.

Mr Mjara replied that the concern with standardization was to ensure consistency. He added that there was a position that films which one voluntarily went to see had to be classified so why not films that were broadcast to one’s home. The suggestion was not that every programme had to be classified but rather that dramatic programmes similar to film would need to be classified by broadcasters. There needed to be a uniform system of how to classify and the suggestion was that the Board do it as they had the necessary capacity to do it. If however, under the code of conduct and the supervision of the BCCSA the individual broadcasters were going to develop a standard, it would not be problematic as long as the standardization occurred. The code of conduct needs to be improved on to include a standardized standard, the duration and the visibility, possibly requiring the warning to be read out.

He commented on the BBC documentary and stated that in South Africa it was illegal to identify the victims of rape and sexual abuse if they are minors and the BBC documentary wanted to do that. The filmmaker was violating South Africa law, rather than politicians trying to control what were seen outside South Africa. The Department had received many complaints on the issue of identifying rape and sexual abuse victims.

He answered the question of the cyber inspectorate, saying that they could help with the investigation of websites after members of the public had notified the authorities or the cyber investigators of illegal material. The inspectorate could issue lawful take down notices to ensure the material is removed. It would still be necessary to have a public campaign to make the public aware of the issue and of how the public can complain and monitor this problem and of the serious effects of this issues, so that it would become a communal effort. He continued that language also formed part of the watershed period as well as music videos, which are often very vulgar and violent, often going beyond violent portrayal of sex to hatred of women.

Ms Bubulia answered that music videos fell within the watershed period and ICASA had already issued a statement in this regard. The broadcaster had also done so in regard to music aired during children and teen programming. It is often inappropriate and can amount to hate speech.

Ms P Mokoto (ANC) commented that most of the warnings were only in English but not everyone speaks English. She suggested that the standardized warnings should be fixed to televisions before they are purchased to make the information accessible to all. She asked about the effectiveness of the enforcement of the code of conduct with regards to radio as most of the emphasis was place on visual media, while many people only had radios. The emphasis was also only on violence and sex. She asked what was being done about other issues such as stereotyping.

Ms Bubulia responded that the code of conduct dealt with issues such as stereotyping. The need to have a standardised warning system was to address to problem of language and whether the symbols meant the same thing to people from different parts of the country and different cultures.

In 2002, the BCCSA and ICASA received 57 complaints about programmes harmful to children and 62 on indecent programming. Those complaints increased in 2003 to 63 and 73 respectively. The majority of complaints were around the use of the "F-word", particularly on radio. She added that ICASA had not yet done their best with regards to audience advisories and communication to the public, as the citizenry was not aware of where and whom they could complain to. The advisories occur too infrequently and people are not informed. It is not acceptable under these conditions for broadcasters to respond that people have not complained.

On the issue of what is broadcast on the radio, she responded that many have argued that there was such a diverse range of programming and the responsibility lies with the parent to control the dial and moving to a more preferable program. The duty of the caregiver cannot be removed from the parent and given to the broadcaster. This also applied to how parents should be dealing with the challenges of a youth radio station which broadcasts 24 hour a day that is accessible to young people. It was a whole new environment in South Africa and real discourse and research was necessary. Broadcasters needed to start assessing how effective the system of warnings had been and assess how their own coding had worked. It was important to remember that the code of conduct was only passed last year so it was still in its early days with regards to monitoring it.

She commented that ICASA would come up against huge issues around freedom of expression and these would have to be balanced against the freedoms and the protection of rights of women and children particularly. ICASA would like to do more testing in terms of measuring commitment and performance of broadcasters in adhering and complying with the code and would like to see broadcasters organizing themselves. They are affiliated to umbrella organizations and have the resources to do that in the best interest of children in South Africa. South Africa should not fall into the trap of looking at what is happening elsewhere in the world and failing to deal with it because the South African situation is very unique in having to deal with the complexities and levels of violence against women and children. The role media has played in communicating women’s rights has been a celebration not a look at the real challenges and interfacing carefully around how the media would be able to impact more positively to shape a society who knows its rights.

Ms Nkunda commented that the issue of language was raised and needs to be addressed.

Mr Pietersen asked if Mr Mjara was suggesting a uniform warning sign which would state that it was the watershed period and the public could expect the following and that would also be the warning about where the public can complain. Some broadcasters did give that information while others did not, so was the suggestion that for uniformity everyone knew that where one could lodge a complaint if one was not happy with the content even after warning.

Ms Bubulia added that ICASA would be embarking on a public development program around children’s programming specifically in the next financial year. This would mean that ICASA would want the intervention and submissions of the stakeholders that had presented before the Committee, specifically in addressing children’s programming issues, including issues of stereotyping and gender portrayal and informational programming due to the concern about the blur between informational and entertainment programming.

Ms Marotua (NA) asked whether the attitudes on power relations between men and women had been taken into account especially in publications and films that would like to expose women. Women were portrayed as objects for making business.

Ms Bubulia added that ICASA had committed itself to engaging with the BCCSA with a view to establishing a mechanism to deal with public dissatisfaction on some of the rulings of the BCCSA, due to the criticism against the body in that it was self-regulatory and had not always acted fairly and independently.

The Chair stated that the Committee had dealt with the issues of standardizing warning signs, watershed periods and parental guidance. He recommended that for example the watershed period should take speech and music into consideration. He asked how the Committee could say that those things had been taken care of and whom could they hold accountable at a late stage.

Ms Smuts responded that the Committee could say that a fruitful exchange had been conducted with ICASA in particular along various lines, and there was an exchange of views with the regulator which had the jurisdiction, and it would be pursued in future in relation to all the matters discussed.

Ms Bubulia wanted clarity on whether the chairperson wanted suggestions from the people present on a way forward or if Ms Smuts had covered it.

The Chair responded that the matters had been raised and in further interaction the Committee would monitor if there had been any improvements. The only fear was that with that approach the Committee would spend the entire term only speaking about the same matters.

Mr Oliphant asked if the presentations of ICASA and the Department of Communications would be left with the Committee. He added that the issue of reporting back was very pertinent in terms of the Committee’s mandate. He expressed concern with the perceived dislocation of what each presenter was saying and asked if they were coming to a common type of approach on the issues.

The meeting was adjourned