Freedom of expression on edge of being cut to death
Why, in a democratic SA, can people tell others what they can watch?
DURING my short term British Council scholarship in the UK, I had an opportunity to watch a movie, which incidentally was banned by the National Party government. The movie was titled
I was later informed by my friends that the movie was banned because it misrepresented the Christian faith and the majority of Christians were aggrieved by its screening. The government took the role of an “elder” and banned the movie in response to protestations by a section of the Christian community.
I later smuggled a video copy of the movie to show to my friends and family. During the height of repression by the National Party government, it was a common practice for comrades to smuggle struggle literature in and out of the country. My friends shrugged off the banning of the movie by the government of those years. They were of the unanimous opinion that banning literature just because some people are offended runs contrary to freedom of expression. Shortly after 1994, a new democratic government lifted the ban on the screening and circulation of
and there was no public outrage from the Christian community. In no time, the movie and its controversies were removed from the public agenda. I think few adult Christians don’t even remember the movie and none of those who saw it have deserted their faith.
The rationale for sharing this experience is to share my disillusion with the outrage of some sections on the screening of the controversial movie There is nothing wrong with sections of the public expressing their disapproval on the screening of a movie, but there is everything wrong when a section of the community (irrespective of the position of authority that such individuals hold) go out of their way to aggressively sabotage the screening of a movie.
What happened in the Eastern Cape where sheer aggression was used to prevent cinemas from showing the movie was wrong and it must not be allowed to happen in any corner of our democratic country.
I thought government by way of law enforcement would step in to remove the angry protesters. Our world-acclaimed constitution makes us a secular state where the state is supposed to be neutral in matters of culture and religion, and that all forms of cultural and religious expression should be treated equally. Such a constitutional obligation on the part of the state makes a compelling case for the state to protect the screening of in cinemas. The state cannot stand by and allow any person to throttle freedom of expression which we fought for against the apartheid system.
Our constitution makes provision for peaceful protest, and there is nothing wrong with anyone protesting at cinemas where is being screened, but things become wrong when other people take a decision about what movie we should watch or not watch. There are mechanisms in the movie industry such as age restrictions which protects children from being exposed to material which may cause harm to them. In the case of I am made to understand that the age restriction is 18 years which is standard practice for movies which have explicit sexual scenes, use of strong language and violence. This age restriction shields the young and fragile from possible bad influence by the movie. But for goodness sake, adults in South Africa cannot be restricted like kids in a country which purports to be a free democracy.
The courts of the land remain the last resort for those who feel aggrieved by the screening of
Such people may approach the court and convince it that has so much distorted the Xhosa culture to an extent that after viewing the movie, the audience will automatically change their views about the initiation school practices of the Xhosa. I don’t think courts will agree to this position but, as they say, try is the best.
Like many other movie-goers, I have watched so many controversial movies but none of these have changed how I look at the world and other cultures. My world view and values cannot be swayed by a single movie made by imperfect people like myself.
Movies as work of art are by their very nature a reflection of the realities of our society. In portraying such realities, movie makers may make distortions which may compromise our understanding of reality. This is because movie makers, like all other artists, have what is often called “an artistic licence”, which allows artists to express something contrary to the norm. That’s precisely the reason why people like movies because they show a different side of our reality which may not necessarily be true. The makers and actors in
have brilliantly exercised their artistic licence, no wonder that the movie has received numerous international awards. Instead of blindly condemning the artistic work of our movie makers and actors, we need to appreciate the creativity and raw talents of our young artists. But we are free to make constructive criticism of their work of art which will enable them to make improvements.
There have been many controversial dramas in our new democracy such as and
which at some point explored the theme of male to male sexual intimacy. These movies were criticised by many people but there is no evidence that suggest those who watched them have changed their lifestyles.
As a Xhosa man, I am passionately opposed to the apparent distortion of cultural practices of isiXhosa initiation schools by but I am willing to defend to my best ability the right of others to watch the movie and then make up their mind about what the movie says on the contradictions of our realities.
The continued screening and distribution of is a litmus test on how seriously we (including the state) are committed to protecting the freedom of expression which is guaranteed in our constitution. If we fail this critically important test, our children will smuggle copies of
like we did during the apartheid era. If that happens (God forbid) then someone tell us what was the struggle against apartheid about.