buy information pills http://ccresourcecenter.org/wp-includes/class-wp-meta-query.php geneva; font-size: small; line-height: 200%;”>With all due respect to my senior learned colleague, side effects http://couponadventures.com/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-users-list-table.php it is my considered opinion that his article does not portray the actual implications of wearing a mini-skirt; at least for purposes of educating the public. Therefore, http://clearlakefestival.ca/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-links-list-table.php my article is not meant to challenge or belittle counsel Jet’s opinion, but rather to supplement it.
Section 13 of the Anti-Pornography Act 2014 flows as follows; (1) A person shall not produce, traffic in, publish, broadcast, procure, import, export, sell or abet any form of pornography. (2)A person who produces, participates in the production of, traffics in, publishes, broadcasts, procures, imports, exports or in any way abets pornography contrary to subsection (1) commits an offense and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred currency points or imprisonment not exceeding ten years or both
On the plain reading of the above section, one remains in great doubt as to whether or not the new Act out-laws a mini-skirt. Would a woman who is found wearing a mini-skirt be said to have produced, trafficked in, published, broadcast, procured, imported, exported, sold or abetted pornography within the meaning of section 13 of the Anti-Pornography Act 2014? This question must be answered in the negative.
Four of the nine arms of the offense of pornography under Section 13 (i.e traffic in, publish, broadcast, procure) are defined under Section 2; and the definitions in no way cover people’s dress codes! Even the undefined arms of pornography under Section 13 do not cover people’s dress codes! For example, would a woman walking on the streets of Kampala in a micro-mini-skirt be said to have produced, imported, exported, sold or abetted pornography within the plain meaning of Section 13? This question must also be answered in the negative.
So the question is; How, Where and When does the Anti-Pornography Act 2014 make it unsafe for our women to wear Mini-Skirts, Slit-Dresses, Leggings, Open-Bras, Kundi-Shows, tight pants, see-through?
The lawyer’s critical analysis of sections 2 and 13 of the act reveals that in the face of sections 2 and 13 of the Anti-Pornography 2014, it is ‘‘a venture in risk’’ for any woman to wear a miniskirt. What do I mean?
Under Section 2 of the Anti-Pornography Act 2014, pornography is defined in the following words; ‘‘Pornography’ means any representation (through publication, exhibition, cinematography, indecent show, information technology, or) by whatever means, of a person engaged in real or stimulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual excitement. (Emphasis mine)
First and foremost, by inserting the phrase ‘‘by whatever means’’ in the middle of the definition of pornography, the preceding words, i.e. ‘‘….through publication, exhibition, cinematography, indecent show, information technology, or…..’’ became completely superfluous; while the scope of pornography was rendered abysmal.
When pornography is subjected to a ‘legal microscope’, its definition as it appears in the new Act brings out three inescapable arms of interpretation. These are; (1)Pornography’ means any representation, by whatever means, of a person engaged in real (explicit) sexual activities.(2)Pornography’ means any representation, by whatever means, of a person engaged in stimulated (explicit) sexual activities.(3)Pornography’ means any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual excitement.
While the 1st arm of interpretation presumably refers to the penetration of the vagina by the penis (real sexual activity), the 2nd arm of interpretation is meant to cater for other issues such as oral sex, finger-sex, artificial gadgets, kissing… (Stimulated sexual activity).
The 3rd arm of interpretation is strangely vague, ambiguous and absurd. Suffice to say that without it, indecent dress-cords would not be captured by the new law; and the new Act would not be controversial in any way.
It must be noted that under the 3rd arm of interpretation, the Anti-Pornography Act 2014 introduces two complex legal phrases i.e . ‘‘sexual parts of a person’’ and ‘‘for primarily sexual excitement’; but does not provide any answers to the following legal questions; (1)What is the legal definition of ‘‘sexual parts of a person’’? (2)What is meant by ‘‘for primarily sexual excitement’’?
Perhaps the definition of ‘‘sexual parts of a person’’ can be traced in the Anti-pornography Bill, 2011 which gave birth to the Anti-pornography Act 2014. Therein, ‘the sexual parts of a person’ were stated to include; ‘‘breasts, thighs, buttocks or genitalia’.
However, this clarification was subsequently omitted from the Anti-Pornography Act, 2014 thereby leaving ‘‘the sexual parts of a person’’ undefined at law.
Due to the ambiguities surrounding the outlawing of a mini-skirt, the rules of statutory interpretation would come in handy to demystify the criminality of indecent dress codes. In this case, the ejusdem generis, mischief and purposive rules of statutory interpretation would be, to the prosecutor, what a life jacket is to a sailor.
By the operation of the ‘‘ejusdem generis rule’’ of statutory interpretation, the words ‘‘produce, traffic in, publish, broadcast, procure, import, export, sell or abet’’, (which are directly used in section 13 of the Act) must be found to be ‘‘ejusdem generis’’ (of the same character) as the words ‘‘represent, display, show, reveal’’ (which are not directly used in section 13 of the Act). Accordingly, the wearing of a mini-skirt must be held to be ‘‘a display’’ or ‘‘revealing’’ of the thighs, within the meaning of the law.
Therefore, by referring to the Anti-Pornography Bill, 2011 (as an external aid to statututory interpretation) which already defines ‘‘the sexual parts of a person’’ as including; ‘‘breasts, thighs, buttocks or genitalia’’, it would go without saying that a woman who wears a miniskirt displays, reveals, or shows her sexual parts (i.e. thighs) contrary to sections 2 and 13 of the Anti-Pornography Act 2014.
Also, by pursuing the actual intentions of our legislature as exemplified by both the Bill and the Hansard, it would be clear that in creating the Anti-Pornography Act, 2014, our legislature intended to inter-alia outlaw indecent dressing in public places.
By this discovery, both ‘‘the purposive’’ and ‘‘the mischief’’ rules of statutory interpretation would join chorus with the ‘‘ejusdem generis rule’’ to lead any judicial tribunal to a conclusion that the mini-skirt is an outlaw in Uganda.
This be it as it may, the correct interpretation of the law is that, ‘‘the mere wearing of indecent clothes’’ such as Mini-Skirts, Slit-Dresses, Leggings, Open-Bras, Kundi-Shows, tight pants, see-through does not, per-say/alone, constitute/complete the offense of pornography within the meaning of Sections 2 & 13 of the Anti-Pornography Act 2014. This is because section 2 of the Anti-Pornography Act, 2014 uses the words, ‘‘for primarily sexual excitement’’.
Under the Act, the offense of pornography (as regards indecent dress codes) is not a ‘‘strict liability offense’’; and ‘‘the mere act of representation of the sexual parts of a person’’ by way of a person’s dress code is not enough to complete the offense of pornography under the 3rd arm of interpretation. Rather such ‘‘representation’’ must be coupled with ‘‘a primary intention to arouse sexual excitement’’.
Consequently, a woman who is found dressed in a micro-mini-skirt on a busy city street is not Ipso-Facto guilty of pornography within the meaning of Section 2 of the Anti-Pornography Act 2014; but the same woman is a strong candidate for arrest on suspicion of committing the offense of pornography. Indeed, it is as oxymoronic as it sounds?
At this juncture, however, it is sufficient to plainly state that, ‘‘the lawyer’s consideration of the Anti-pornography Act 2014, the Anti-pornography Bill, 2011 and the Hansard leaves no doubt that a woman who wears a ‘‘mini-skirt’’ and ‘‘exposes her thighs’’ would be ‘‘lawfully arrested’’ on ‘‘suspicion’’ of committing the offense of pornography, pending trial.
It is however doubtful that a conviction would be possible, since the prosecutor would have an uphill task to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the suspect’s code of dress was precipitated by ‘a desire to cause sexual excitement’.
Unfortunately for the suspects however, any acquittals may not be useful for the purposes of sustaining civil actions for malicious prosecution. Like I have said, the mere wearing of a mini-skirt raises a prima-facie ground/justification for a lawful arrest and or prosecution, hence negating the ‘cause of action’ in malicious prosecution.
Therefore, in all honesty; and by all necessary implications, the wearing of a mini-skirt is not lawful in Uganda. The correct legal advice is that, for all intents and purposes, it is conspicuously unsafe for any woman to wear Mini-Skirts, Slit-Dresses, Leggings, Open-Bras, Kundi-Shows, tight pants, see-throughs… without risking a lawful police arrest and or prosecution—and this definitely offends the right of ‘freedom of movement’ and ‘self determination’!
Definitely, this law has serious consequences on swim-goers, athletes, beach-goers, club-goers, children, musicians, actors and tourists. It is absurd. Isn’t it?
I say so, for God and my country.
The author is a Lawyer/ Legal Consultant