Uganda:
Uganda's Anti-Pornography Bill - 'If a Woman Wears a Miniskirt, We Will Arrest Her'
ANALYSIS
With its vague and broad definition of 'pornography', Uganda's proposed Anti-Pornography Bill could curb a range of individual rights and freedoms.
Uganda has hit the international headlines once again recently following the re-tabling in parliament of a proposed Anti-Pornography Bill. Just months after MP David Bahati's Anti-Homosexuality Bill - referred to by many as the 'Kill the Gays' Bill - attracted international attention and much condemnation, the Anti-Pornography Bill has now generated another storm of controversy in Uganda and beyond.
If passed, the Anti-Pornography Bill would cover a range of practices and activities, but much of the outrage and debate has come to be centred on one particular issue: the miniskirt.
The Bill laid bare
The Anti-Pornography Bill is purportedly a reaction to an "increase in pornographic materials in the Ugandan mass media and nude dancing in the entertainment world". Its provisions would aim to "equip the country with a better law to tackle the insidious social problem of pornography".
What exactly constitutes pornography, however, has long been a point of contention around the world. In a case in the US Supreme Court in 1964 regarding the proposed banning of a film for obscenity, Justice Potter Stewart famously declined to define pornography, instead saying "I know it when I see it". His remark reflected the subjective and changeable nature of different societies may deem to be pornography.
Unlike Stewart, Uganda's Anti-Pornography Bill does put forward a definition of pornography. But, ironically, this definition does not seem to iron out ambiguities but rather embraces vagueness. Furthermore, the Bill's understanding of pornography is so broad as to extend it from something seen on our screens to something seen on our streets.
The Bill defines pornography as "Any cultural practice, form of behavior or form of communication... or leisure activity... that depicts a person engaged in explicit sexual activities or conduct ... erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement or indecent act or behavior intended to corrupt morals".
This leaves as much unsaid as it says and could restrict a range of practices and activities, including the wearing of certain items of clothing. Indeed, Simon Lokodo, Uganda's Ethics and Integrity Minister and the main figure behind the Bill, has clarified: "Any attire which exposes intimate parts of the human body, especially areas that are of erotic function, are outlawed. Anything above the knee is outlawed. If a woman wears a miniskirt, we will arrest her."
Source: http://allafrica.com
Uganda's Anti-Pornography Bill - 'If a Woman Wears a Miniskirt, We Will Arrest Her'
ANALYSIS
With its vague and broad definition of 'pornography', Uganda's proposed Anti-Pornography Bill could curb a range of individual rights and freedoms.
Uganda has hit the international headlines once again recently following the re-tabling in parliament of a proposed Anti-Pornography Bill. Just months after MP David Bahati's Anti-Homosexuality Bill - referred to by many as the 'Kill the Gays' Bill - attracted international attention and much condemnation, the Anti-Pornography Bill has now generated another storm of controversy in Uganda and beyond.
If passed, the Anti-Pornography Bill would cover a range of practices and activities, but much of the outrage and debate has come to be centred on one particular issue: the miniskirt.
The Bill laid bare
The Anti-Pornography Bill is purportedly a reaction to an "increase in pornographic materials in the Ugandan mass media and nude dancing in the entertainment world". Its provisions would aim to "equip the country with a better law to tackle the insidious social problem of pornography".
What exactly constitutes pornography, however, has long been a point of contention around the world. In a case in the US Supreme Court in 1964 regarding the proposed banning of a film for obscenity, Justice Potter Stewart famously declined to define pornography, instead saying "I know it when I see it". His remark reflected the subjective and changeable nature of different societies may deem to be pornography.
Unlike Stewart, Uganda's Anti-Pornography Bill does put forward a definition of pornography. But, ironically, this definition does not seem to iron out ambiguities but rather embraces vagueness. Furthermore, the Bill's understanding of pornography is so broad as to extend it from something seen on our screens to something seen on our streets.
The Bill defines pornography as "Any cultural practice, form of behavior or form of communication... or leisure activity... that depicts a person engaged in explicit sexual activities or conduct ... erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement or indecent act or behavior intended to corrupt morals".
This leaves as much unsaid as it says and could restrict a range of practices and activities, including the wearing of certain items of clothing. Indeed, Simon Lokodo, Uganda's Ethics and Integrity Minister and the main figure behind the Bill, has clarified: "Any attire which exposes intimate parts of the human body, especially areas that are of erotic function, are outlawed. Anything above the knee is outlawed. If a woman wears a miniskirt, we will arrest her."
Source: http://allafrica.com
