Film board to classify painting
THE Film and Publications Board yesterday ruled artist Brett Murray’s painting will receive a classification by Friday, rejecting arguments to have the matter dismissed outright.
THE Film and Publications Board (FPB) ruled yesterday that Brett Murray’s controversial painting, The Spear, will receive a classification by Friday, rejecting arguments by applicants, the Goodman Gallery and the City Press newspaper, to have the matter dismissed outright.
Yesterday’s hearing in Pretoria centred on the jurisdiction of the board in placing an age-related warning on the painting depicting President Jacob Zuma with exposed genitals. Both applicants contended that classification would mean the board overstepped its mandate.
Following representations from the applicants, who repeatedly requested the board to clarify the extent of its jurisdiction, FPB chief operating officer Mmapula Fisha said the board had decided to proceed with the process of classification. This was due to the board’s “duty” to SA’s children, and despite the concerns of the applicants over issues of jurisdiction, the board could not “fold its hands over the issue”.
Ms Fisha chaired the hearing following FPB CEO Yoliswa Makhasi’s recusal last Wednesday which followed City Press editor Ferial Haffajee’s complaint that she was biased. Advocate Steve Budlender, for City Press, argued that the matter should never have been brought before the classification committee, as bona fide newspapers were regulated by the press ombudsman and guided by the South African Press Code.
Following the board’s decision to proceed with the classification, Ms Fisha said the FPB board had “always been aware” that the complaint related to the City Press did not fall within its jurisdiction, yet the board had “an obligation” to hear the City Press representation.
In this regard, the classification of the content would continue due to the FPB’s duty to protect children.
Adv Matthew Welz, for the Goodman Gallery, had argued that following the defacing of the painting it “no longer exists”.
As such it fell outside the jurisdiction of the FPB, which had obligations to classify content that was being published, he said.
But Ms Fisha said the gallery continued to display the painting on its website “as we speak”.
Ms Fisha then rejected Adv Welz’s argument that the formal complaint which served as the basis of the hearing had made no mention of the gallery’s website, saying its display there “cannot be looked at in isolation” from the exhibition.
Adv Welz also expressed concern that the issue of the painting on the gallery’s website “had not been on the table” until after the board’s decision to proceed.
He then reiterated that the committee should refrain from placing an age-related warning on the painting, saying it was in the public interest.
Adv Welz referred to legal precedent where rulings were not made if judged to have no effect, and could therefore undermine the authority of the court, saying that if the committee “wants to make a show of being ineffective, it will classify this painting”. The applicants reserved the right to appeal against the ruling, which Ms Fisha said should happen “within two days”.
Adv Welz requested that the board submit in writing its reasons why it had jurisdiction in the matter, along with the classification committee’s decision.