DFL submits evidence against child pornography in court case

Press Release
Doctors For Life International

Tascoe Luc De Reuck versus The Director of Public Prosecutions (Witwatersrand Local Division); Minister of Home Affairs ; Minister of Safety and Security; Government of the Republic of South Africa; Film and Publication Board.

The facts involve a film producer applicant, Tascoe Luc De Reuck who was allegedly found in possession of in excess of 3 000 child pornographic images in the home of film critic Leon van Nierop.

The applicant asked for a halt on the criminal court hearing pending the outcome of the civil application in which De Reuck is challenging legislation (i.e.: section 27(1) of the Film and Publications Act 65 of 19961).

De Reuck’s argument entails his declaring the above-named legislation unconstitutional. He is aiming at the governments granting of protection under the Act for people including film producers, journalists and all interested persons for purposes of their vocation (i.e.: for documentaries, various media purposes, etc.).

The Constitutional Court is expected to hear arguments as to the merits of this case.

With South African legislation at risk, we decided to get involved when the case was brought to our attention in early February 2002. We made contact with the State and were promptly requested to make a submission which would strengthen its argument against De Reuck.

With the advice of various international persona, the legal department at DFL International arrived at the decision of approaching the matter by attempting to gather information which would wed the psychological, legal and human rights issues surrounding the effects of pornography on society in general.

With this in mind, DFL aimed at receiving information in the form of affidavits from the four corners of the globe. This involved a tedious struggle in locating the right people and/or organisations around the globe, most of which were enthusiastic to assist in the battle against pornography in our country irrespective of tight time constraints.

On 18 March 2002, a 385 page document was transported to the State Advocate’s offices for submission to the upcoming hearing in mid-April 2002.

Although the outcome has not surfaced as yet, we have handed the baton on having run the race in the task behind us. We have victory in mind and heart regarding the court’s final decision in the protection of our children.

(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if he or she knowingly – (a) creates, produces, imports or is in possession of a publication which contains a visual presentation of child pornography; or (b) creates, distributes, produces, imports or is in possession of a film which contains a scene or scenes of child pornography.

You are viewing this page from one of the Doctors For Life web sites. To return to the site you were visiting, close this window.