The legislation would also see television dramas
and films banned if it is passed by parliament.
The Anti-Pornography Bill 2011 proposes that those
found guilty of abetting pornography be fined up to 10 million Ugandan
shillings (£2,500) or jailed for up to 10 years, or both.
Simon Lokodo, Uganda's ethics and integrity
minister, who proposed the Bill, said: '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.'
The bill, which is backed by Deputy Attorney
General Fred Ruhindi, would also see many films and TV dramas banned from the
airwaves and internet use monitored.
Mr Lokodo, a former Catholic priest defrocked
by the Vatican for his involvement in politics, said that would mean that
celebrities such as Beyoncé and Madonna would be banned from Ugandan
television.
'Television should not broadcast a sexy person,' he
said.
He added: 'On the internet, we're going to put a
monitoring system so we know who has watched which website and we know who has
watched pornographic material.'
Mr Lokodo said the Bill was needed to protect women
and children against exploitation and curb increasing immorality.
If passed, the proposed law would mark a return to
the era of dictator Idi Amin, who banned short skirts.
Many Ugandans are against the idea and some have
taken to Twitter to express their outrage using the hashtag #SaveMiniSkirt.
But on Thursday the draft law ran into problems
when some members of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee voiced
concerns about its implications for freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
MPs said the Bill’s definition of pornography was
too broad and said it went against Uganda’s tradition of being a tolerant
country.
The Bill defines pornography as any cultural
practice, behaviour or form of communication that depicts naked breasts,
thighs, buttocks or genitalia.
The definition also includes anyone engaged in
explicit sexual activities, erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual
excitement and any indecent act or behaviour tending to corrupt morals.
But MPs criticised the lack of definition about
what constituted 'decent dressing' and said the Bill could inhibit the sexual
behaviour of married couples.
They asked the Government to stop curtailing
freedoms, which they said could scare away tourists.
Mr Lokodo responded by saying that the legislation
will not outlaw 'any act or behaviour between spouses or couples performed in
fulfilment of their conjugal rights and responsibilities, where such matters
are strictly private.'
He said that one of the dangers of pornography is
that it fuels sexual crimes against women and children, including rape and
child molestation.
He suggested that women who were victims of sexual
violence were sometimes attacked because of their provocative dress.
'One can wear what one wants, but please do not be
provocative,' he said. 'People who are indecently dressed ... do it
provocatively and sometimes they are attacked.
'An onlooker is moved to attack her and we want to
avoid those areas. He is a criminal but he was also provoked and enticed.'
While some committee members said that pornography
was already outlawed under Ugandan law, Mr Lokodo said that the existing laws
only covered the publication of obscene material and that the issue
of pornography transcended publication.
Mr Lokodo is no stranger to controversy. Last year
he raided a workshop for gay activists and announced a ban on 38 pro-gay
groups, saying they were undermining the national culture by promoting
homosexuality. Revealed secrets
No comments:
Post a Comment