Pornography Has No Limits

Non-governmental organization “Parents’ Union” has protested the removing the law from the Georgian Legislation that protected juveniles from being influenced by indecent material. More precisely, based on the Parliament’s decision on December 29, 2006, amendments were introduced to the law on “protection of juveniles from indecent influence” but all prohibitions on TVs have since been abolished.

Giorgi Kifiani, the head of the “Parents’ Union” stated in his conversation with the Human Rights Center, that the amendments were voted by the parliament too quickly and many MPs did not understand what they had actually voted for.

Giorgi Kifiani: “There was a law on the protection of juveniles from indecent influence” in the Georgian legislation. As stipulated in the law, materials about violence, drug abuse and sexual relations, are prohibited from being aired on TV during certain hours of the day. As a result of its abolishment, a child can watch films about drugs, violence and pornography any time and anywhere. Generally, every country in the world admits that films on similar topics should not be shown on TV during the daytime because children can watch them and might be influenced. Under the amendments, television can air anything at anytime and pornographic literature continues to be sold out openly. The society will not be able to bring a suit against the decision of the court even if they hold a demonstration regarding the situation.”

The respondent said that he has already appealed to the Parliament in the name of the NGO and attended the discussion of the question but wasn’t able to change anything.

“They removed the chapter anyway. The MPs do not know what they have voted for. It is a serious violation and breaches all international declarations on human rights.  The few amendments were introduced to the first hearing at the Parliament, at the second hearing they discussed the question too briefly and on the third session they removed the whole chapter from the law. Most of MPs did not read the amendments thinking they were voting for the amendments discussed at the previous two sessions.”

The Human Rights Center contacted the MPs to comment on the situation. The conversation proved that they really did not know the results of their actions and that the chapter was removed.

Manana Nachkhebia is a representative of the opposition in the parliament: “As far as I remember two laws were discussed regarding the topic. One of them was a law on “broadcasters” and the second was on “the protection of juveniles from indecent influence”. In the past, adoption of the latter was initiated by the Department for Youth Affairs. The department was in charge to control the televisions not to show the films about violence, sexual relations, etc in order to avoid the children from seeing them. According to my information, amendments resulted into abolishing the aforementioned department; however, the chapter was not removed. I think, similar prohibitions are necessary to include the law.”

The question was discussed by the Parliamentary Committee of Education and Science. The chairman of the committee, Nodar Grigalashvili, said that he did not remember the fact of removing the chapter from the law. “I have neither discussed anything nor removed the chapter from the law. We have adopted the law during Shevardnadze was in office and I have not introduced any amendments to the law. Maybe, I have missed the discussion and some other committee has discussed it. By the way, the law should envisage similar prohibitions and it really does.”

In fact, the third chapter of the law, dealing with prohibition of films that could have indecent influence on juveniles, does not exist anymore. The Article 5 of the law stated the following: 1.Films, that can have indecent influence on juveniles, must not be aired because they can damage their mental and spiritual development. 2. The film about sexual relations, violence, drug produce and abuse can be considered harmful for juveniles. The Article 11 stated that, “magazines and newspapers that include materials about sexual relations, must not be sold to juveniles or given to them for further realization.” 

The public opinion about the parliament that the MPs adopt the laws without through discussion can be proved by this particular case. Unfortunately, it is not a single case when the MPs are not aware what they have voted for.

Eka Gulua