Xingwana’s stance on porn

This is certainly not one of my favourite ministers - quite the opposite; she still owes SA the documents about the corruption at the Land Bank (who is she protecting)? But her absolute right to have turned and walked the painting, picture, photo - whatever - I will defend with my life!Art is in the eye of the beholder. As a woman and a mother, I would have done exactly the same. Not because I have moral objections to nudity in paintings, but from media photos the piece looks exactly like the millions of magazine covers that flood shop shelves where ever one goes. So it is not subtle - it does indeed promote lesbianism, something I don't agree young children should be exposed to. And finally, the lack of any uniqueness about the way the nudity is portrayed in the photo, places it in the "common" category. It would have offended me and tax payers money should be used to promote art of a far higher standard and unique quality than that. Walk minister. Walk!

Sandile Memela's article is appalling. There is so much wrong with it, it's difficult to know where to start. My biggest problem with it is that Mamela is trying to blame the victims of the situation for complaining about their mistreatment.Let us just reflect for a moment about who has the power here. On the one hand, a cabinet minister, with the ability to speak and have her voice heard whenever she wishes to, Wiith the full muscle and financial power of the state behind her. With the power to call in teams of lawyers to try to bully and muzzle voices that the minister finds offensive.On the other we have black, female artists. A group of people who struggle to get heard, to get their work shown, to be taken seriously. Lesbians -- often victims of 'corrective rape', and murder.Just who is in danger of having their right to freedom of speech violated? Just who has the responsibility to defend to the death the rights of the other to have their voices heard? Surely it's up to those with power and privilege, appointed to public office and sworn to defend our constitution, to take the lead and protect and promote the voices of the weak, the victims of stigma and prejudice? The minister, as an individual, is entitled to her own views of what constitutes pornography. I happen to disagree with her profoundly, but she's entitled to her opinions and to express them. However, we, and she, must differentiate between the minister as an individual and the minister acting in her official capacity. In opening an art exhibition on Constitution Hill, she is acting in her official capacity and is obliged to uphold the values of our constitution, and if that means opening an exhibition of works she finds personally offensive, she is obliged to do that. She can go home and complain all she likes. She is not entitled to walk out, to snub or to just be plain rude. Not only is Mamela's argument faulty. His choice of words and manner of expression indicate he would also gladly silence those whose voices are already endangered. What is 'pro-Lesbian' supposed to mean? What are 'same-sex indulgences'? His language oozes prejudice. Lesbians, along with many other sexual minorities, just want to have their rights as humans respected. Mamela sounds like Mugabe, Museveni and the others who somehow believe that gays and lesbians go around trying to recruit. As if homosexuality is so tempting, that the mere mention of it, or the depiction of same-sex affection is likely to immediately flick a switch and transform hitherto God-fearing heterosexuals. As if what they're asking for is something more than just the right to be, to exist, to live their lives undisturbed.How dare an official of the Department of Arts and Culture, also writing in his official capacity, defend official prejudice on the grounds that "same-sex" tendencies are not yet accepted in our society! It is up to him and his colleagues to respect our Constitution by supporting efforts to promote that acceptance. I also profoundly disagree that artists have any responsibility to help reconstruct our new democracy. Artists have the responsibility to create excellent art. In my view, excellent art opens up debate, opens minds, gets people to think. Which is something I suggest Mamela and the minister should try out, sometime.

I find The Minister's reaction to the Innovative Women Exhibition, and the stance taken by the writer of this article, disturbing to say the least!If this is Pornography, according the the Minister, then what about what we are faced with on television every day? Surely some of the shows on our screens, and especially on our independent channel are more immoral and break down the fabric of the South African Family & Society more?What gets my back up is that I see total bigotry in her remarks and that begs the question "Would she have reacted the same if the pictures were of a heterosexual couple?"Minister, there are many of us that do not accept polygamy as being right or moral, but in the words of our President "One cannot impose your culture on other people, we all have our own cultures..."Freedom of expression is guaranteed in our Constitution as are the rights of Homosexual and Lesbians! These pictures were tastefully done and in no way pornographic!In all write-ups and advertising for "Innovative Women", it was described thus: "Their work is unique, innovative, cutting edge and features various media from video, installation and photography to painting and performance art."and"Each artist expresses their own sense of identity and what it means to be a woman in South Africa today and comments on issues that are relevant to all South Africans."Well, Lesbian rights and the right to live their lives free of hate and violence is a VERY relevant subject, or are you not aware of the so-called "Corrective Rapes" that continue to occur? Are you aware that your branding this as "pornography" is fueling such hate crimes? Do you care?Perhaps the people who took their young children to this exhibition should have read the write-ups/media releases first!Your first duty as a Minister is to respect the SA Constitution and defend the rights governed by it, not express your own personal views in public as you did!Maybe the Minister and the author of this article should actually read our Constitution and acquaint themselves with the Rights contained therein!

Sandile Memela goes straight to heart of the matter when he points out the deficiencies in the story and talks about Minister of Arts L. Xingwana and the artworks by Muholi. It is, like Memela points out, within her rights to free speech and expression for Xingwana to state her opinions. This right is protected by the constitution. Apologies to the artists. The downpours by interest groups and individuals have expressed sympathies with the artist. I state mine as well. But these "sympathies" have been, oh my goodness,one sided. However they are valid. The minister overstated her case by verbally stating thoughts and walking out. But such can easily be isolated as the downside to her action and thoughts. It is true that the minister can be reminded to act with caution and and her actions be thoroughly be informed. Surely in her department, she may have have those versed with art tales so that she helps familiarise herself and represent herself and the public well. But I am sure the Minister takes courage in the idea that we are with her in this down moment of poor judgement. It is also true that art has been the priviledge of the few. It remains so. Xingwana was left out of the whole art stories and juicy tales by apartheid. Let those of us who do and take art seriously defend her right to err and grow from it. Mandla Mlotshwa