The Prime Minister took part in this debate in his capacity as Minister of Justice. Though harrassed by numerous interjections. Adv. Vorster ex­plained the basic principles underlying this Amendment Bill. He un­ambiguously stated the reasons which necessitated this legislation. He stated quite clearly that everyone was aware of the fact that the Bill would not stamp out immorality completely, but that measures concerning immorality should not be neglected for that reason. Another interesting aspect brought to light during this debate was the fact that no Non-White had ever lodged an objection to the Immorality Act.

I have listened attentively to the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton 1 and I want to say at once that I have not heard a single argument from the hon. member which induces me to adopt the attitude that this Act, or any of its provisions, should be repealed. On the contrary, every argument advanced by the hon. member is in my opinion a further reason as to why this Act should remain unchanged. I shall come back to that later on.

I am, of course, not surprised at the attitude adopted by the hon. member. In taking this stand she is simply being faithful to the philosophy which underlies her views. In the nature of things one is not liberal in respect of one matter only. Liberalism is a philosophy which per­meates the whole of one's life and determines one's attitude in all spheres of life. I am therefore not surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton. Viewed in the light other political beliefs and views, it is a consistent attitude.

Although I have said this about the hon. member for Houghton, I cannot say it of the United Party unfortunately, because I am not sure what the party's attitude is. I am never sure how long the United Party will adopt a certain attitude before discarding it for another. I am being perfectly honest when I say that if I have to reduce the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Coast 2 to their logical conclusion, then it simply amounts to this that we on this side are correct in retaining this Act because he says he does not want miscegenation, but in the same breath he says that the hon. member for Houghton is correct in introducing this Bill for the repeal of this Act. That is what his stand­point amounted to. The hon. member tried to make political capital out of quotations which he read out from speeches made by my hon. colleagues in the past. Why does the hon. member not tell the House that in 1950 the third reading of the then Bill was passed by this House without any discussion and without any dissentient vote? Why does he not mention that?

But let us go further. This Act was very radically amended in 1957. Hon. members will recall - just to link up with the history that the hon. member for Houghton has given here - that in 1927 actual carnal intercourse between a White person and a Bantu - only between a White person and a Bantu - constituted an offence, and it applied to actual carnal intercourse only. In 1950 the word "Bantu" was simply deleted from the Act and "non-White person" was substi­tuted for "Bantu". That is the only material change that was brought about in 1950. Now I come to the change in 1957, that is to say, in Section 16 to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. Section 16 provided that "any White person (l) who has unlawful carnal inter­course with a non-White female person shall be guilty of an offence". That is as far as the 1950 Act went. The 1957 Act added the words "or attempts". But it also added three subsections: "Commits or attempts to commit with a Coloured female person any immoral or indecent act; or entices, solicits or importunes any Coloured female person to have unlawful carnal intercourse with him; or entices, solicits or importunes any Coloured female person to the commission of any immoral or in­decent act." All this was added in 1957. On that occasion the hon. the Minister of Immigration 3 again spoke on behalf of the United Party. And has it slipped the memory of the hon. member for South Coast that as a result of the attitude adopted by the hon. member, the second reading of this Act, the repeal of which is now being advocated, was accepted without a division and with only one speaker taking part in the debate, namely the hon. member who now sits on this side? It was accepted without any division. No division was even called for and the united Party endorsed that attitude without a murmur. What was interesting in the 1957 debate was the fact that the attitude which the hon. member for Houghton now adopts, was adopted by the then mem­ber, Mr. Stanford, and that the hon. the Minister who now sits on this side strenuously repudiated him, and so did the whole of the United Party.

Mrs. Suzman: May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is it not true that the then member for Benoni, Mr. LoveII, wished to ask for a division but that Mr. Speaker ruled that no new principle was being introduced and a division was therefore not called for?

No that is only a half-truth as far as this matter is concerned. Many clauses were inserted and the whole House was certainly at liberty to vote against those clauses and therefore against the Bill. Nobody could be compelled to vote for it. That does not in any way alter the fact therefore that there was no division on the second reading, in spite of this new principle that was being introduced. But the point I want to make is that the hon. the Minister repudiated Mr. Stanford, and at that time Mr. Stanford adopted more or less the attitude that the hon. member for Houghton now adopts, and the hon. the Minister repudiated him on behalf of the United Party. But to-day, the hon. member for South Coast allows himself to be taken in tow by the hon. member for Houghton. That is the difference between the stand then taken by the hon. member and the attitude which he adopts now.

I would therefore respectfully make this submission to the hon. mem­ber for South Coast for his consideration: He is trying in vain to shield behind the attitude which the Ministers concerned adopted in this House at the time in an attempt to conceal his party's lack of policy. He will not succeed, and just to show you how hot and cold the United Party is blowing in regard to this measure and this very serious principle that we are dealing with today, let me point out how cynically the United Party views this principle. Take the attitude of the hon. mem­ber for Durban (Central) 4. On the one hand he tells us with great verbosity that "there is no such thing as a pure race". He has said that on more than one occasion in this House. And then in the next breath he says, "We are deadly against miscegenation." If it is true that there is no such thing as a pure race, why is he against miscegenation? Surely then one does not have the elementary right to be against mis­cegenation in principle. After all, they are two conflicting principles, and even if one wishes to do so one cannot reconcile them.

But before I deal further with the arguments of those hon. mem­bers, you will permit me to deal in the first instance with the argu­ments of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member herself, apparently because she realizes the untenability of the point of view which she tried to state here, touched upon a point which to my mind is a very serious one. Let me say in the first instance that it is of no importance to me what the hon. member said and what she wished to do with her Bill which is now before the House; what is of importance to me is what the hon. member does not want to do. It strikes me as strange that the hon. member should come here and ask in all seriousness that the provisions which form the very basis of the Immorality Act should be repealed but does not ask that the Mixed Marriages Act should be repealed. Towards the end of her speech the hon. member herself realized that she was placing herself in an untenable position. The question that occurs to me is this: If one is in earnest in connection with this type of racial relationship, why not begin by asking that the Mixed Marriages Act be repealed? Because what is the essence of the hon. member's request? Let us assume that we conceded that she was right, that we took her at her word and accepted and disposed of all the stages of this Bill to-day without further ado. What would the result of that be? The result would be that this House would be placing its stamp of approval on the conduct of unmarried people, who give free rein to their carnal pleasures while denying the right to people to live together in decency as married couples. That in essence is what the hon. member asks for in this Bill .

Mrs. Suzman: I am prepared to repeal the other one too.

That is in fact what the hon. member should ask us to do. She now realizes what she is up against, and now she says that if we pass the Bill to-day, she will repeal the Mixed Marriages Act next week. If the hon. member were in earnest she would first have tried to get the other Act repealed. Let me say to the hon. member that it is firstly a question of philosophy - and I do not hold this against her - it is the liberal philoso­phy that causes one to advocate the extreme step which the hon. mem­ber seeks to take here. But in the second instance -- and this is my charge against the hon. member -- it is not a popular thing to ask that the Mixed Marriages Act be repealed.

Mrs. Suzman: No, that is not the reason.

Yes, that is the reason. It is more popular to drift along with the stream and to ask that the Immorality Act be repealed. Perhaps that is the reason why the hon. member adopted that attitude.

I told the hon. member for South Coast this by way of interjection, and I also want to say it to the hon. member for Houghton: There is a great deal of talk going around as to what the effect of this measure is going to be. I do not want to try in any way to minimize the serious consequences of the Act from the point of view of the publicity that wives and children have to endure. I am fully conscious of its seriousness and how it affects these people. I do not want to deny that, nor do I want to minimize it. But at the same time I should like to put this question: Does that not in fact prove in what a serious light this offence is regarded? Why should such a great stigma attach to the commission of this act if the public does not regard it as a particularly serious offence? Does that stigma not prove that we were right when we introduced this Bill originally, and that in doing so we were expressing the feelings of the public, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking? But I want to go further. Has the hon. member ever heard of a single Bantu father or Bantu mother or of a single Coloured father or mother who has asked that we should repeal this Act? Are the Bantu father and mother not intensely grateful to us for protecting the honour of their daughters against unscrupulous people who have money and influence and posi­tion? Are the Coloured father and mother not intensely grateful to us for safeguarding the honour of their daughters? Let me say this to the hon. member for Houghton: However poor one may be, whatever one's colour may be, there is not a decent father or mother who does not value the honour of his or her daughters and children. I want to make this accusation against the hon. member, that she used the most shocking argument that I have ever heard in this connection, and that was the following: One of the arguments that she advanced as to why this Act should be repealed is that "the number of European prostitutes is soaring on account of this Act". She said that the number of White prostitutes was soaring as a result of this Act because people are afraid now to have intercourse with non-Whites. In other words, the hon. member stated - and she must accept the consequences other argument because she said it in this House - that we should rather see to it that there are more non-White prostitutes and then there will not be so many White prostitutes. That is the implication of the argument advanced by her, and it is in­escapable in that is in fact the argument which the hon. member advanced.

Dr. Jonker: On a point of order, is the hon. member for Houghton entitled to say, "What a twist"?

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member for Houghton use those words?

Mrs. Suzman: Yes, I did.

Mr. Speaker: Then the hon. member must withdraw them.

Mrs. Suzman: I withdraw them.

I do not believe for a single moment that the hon. member was referring to me. I think she is accustomed to talking to herself. I repeat the argument that I have not come across a single Bantu or Coloured or Indian who holds it against us that we passed this Act. On the contrary, numerous appeals have come from Coloureds who ask that their daughters should also be protected against the Bantu, and from Bantu fathers and mothers who ask that their daughters should also be protected against Indians or members of other races. I say that every decent person - and one is very grateful that that is so - values the honour of his daughter and I am grateful for any law which seeks to protect that honour.

The hon. member then goes on to submit as one of the reasons why this Act should be repealed - and I do not want to put into her mouth arguments that she did not use but I made a note of this - is, as she put it, "because the law cannot properly be enforced". Because we cannot stamp out the evil entirely, we must repeal the Act. By implication therefore her argument is that if we could catch all those who contravene the law, then it would be all very well and then she would not ask that this Act be repealed. Surely that is not the sort of principle to adopt. That argument was also used in part by the hon. member for South Coast. I know that we do not arrest all those who contravene the Immorality Act. I know that there are many people who do so secretly, of whom we are not aware and on whom we cannot lay our hands. But that does not mean to say that the State must close its eyes to that fact. I do not want to allege for a moment that we have stamped out immorali­ty. The hon. member has said that unless we can prove that we have done so or that we are in the process of doing so, we should adopt a different attitude. Since when has that been the criterion by which laws of this nature are judged? Let us take the law in respect of prostitutes. There is not a single civilized country in the world which is without legislation in respect of prostitutes and which does not make it punishable for them to roam the streets at night. And yet no single country in the world has succeeded in stamping out prostitution. We know that in spite of all the laws in Britain, the Netherlands, France and South Africa, and laws which may exist elsewhere, there is still prostitution and it is probably still increasing.

Mr. D. E. Mitchell: But this Act does not deal with prostitution.

No, but I am using that as an analogy. The hon. member's argument - and he must not try to run away from his argument now - was that because we cannot stamp out this thing completely, we must not retain this Act. My argument is that in that case we should also say that because we cannot stamp out prostitution, which is also an immoral act, and because it is steadily increasing, we should abandon all legislation dealing with prostitution. That is no valid argument.

The hon. member for Houghton talked about "this disgusting law". She was referring to this measure as it stands on the Statute Book. Since when has it been a "disgusting law" to the hon. member?

Mrs. Suzman: For a very long time since the effect of it has become clear.

And nevertheless, in spite of that, the hon. member did not even condescend in 1957 to vote against this "disgusting law". We are not dealing here with a "disgusting law"; it is the act itself which is so dis­gusting and so abhorrent. If the hon. member wants to render this House a service, she must not come here and attack this Act. She should attack those people who commit acts which bring them within the ambit of this measure. Let me put this question to the hon. member for Houghton: She did not have a single word of condemnation for those people who contravene this Act -- not a single word throughout the whole of her speech. I do not want to mention the reasons why she did not do so. I leave that to her. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker: Order! I gave the hon. member for Houghton every opportunity to make her speech. The Minister did not interrupt her once.

Mrs. Suzman: He keeps on putting questions to me,

Mr. Russell: A lady would say "no".

I have already said that the hon. member for Houghton has not advanced a single argument as to why we should repeal this legislation. On the contrary, every argument advanced by her is a reason why we should retain this Act. You will recall that the hon. member's entire argument amounted to this that we were trying to achieve the im­possible by trying to draw a line between colour and colour as far as this matter is concerned; that we were trying to do the impossible and that was why we were in this predicament. The hon. member says that we might as well repeal this Act because, to use her words, we need not be afraid that "there will be a stampede to marriage officers". In other words, here again we have evidence of the hon. member's attitude that she is not concerned with those people, however wrongly and badly they may be advised, who wish to marry; her concern is that we should repeal this law so as to come to the assistance of those people who wish to give free rein to their carnal desires. That is why the hon. member her­self gives the answer that "there will be no stampede to marriage officers". The hon. member has drawn the inference from what she has read that the Government or rather that I intend forbidding the publicity which is associated with contraventions under this Act. Let me say that I have no such intention and that the Government has no intention of forbidding publicity in respect of these contraventions only.

Mr. Russell: What do you mean by "only"?

Precisely what I say. That is my reply to the hon. member for Wynberg.

The argument has been advanced here by the hon. member for South Coast and by the hon. member for Houghton that we are not dealing here with a crime really: "You made it a crime". In other words it is an act to which no stigma attaches. That is the argument on the one hand. But on the other hand we are told that people - and I accept that that is so - commit suicide because of the stigma which attaches to this crime. I realize that; as a matter of fact, I am one of those who subscribe to the belief that a great stigma attaches to the commission of this crime. But, after all, why is it emphasised so much in this case? It is done because the sensation-seeking Press ex­ploits particularly this type of court case to publicize it to the world. It is true that people who have been charged under this Act have committed suicide. It is also true, however, that people - you would be surprised to know how many - commit suicide because they are arrested on charges of falsitas and theft and for other crimes. But the point is that you will seldom read in the newspapers that a person committed suicide because he was charged with falsitas. But wherever a person commits suicide because he is afraid of the consequences that will flow from his rash deeds, you will find it reported in banner headlines. It is true and one regrets it very sincerely that innocent wives and children do suffer. Nobody has seen that more than I have and nobody appreciates it more than I do. But all wives and all children suffer when husbands and fathers commit crimes or contravene the law. That is a matter about which I am not indifferent and about which I do not want to be indifferent. But if we adopt the attitude that it is only these wives and these children - for whom we are all extremely sorry indeed - who suffer then we are wide of the mark and we certainly do not promote the object that we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Russell: What crimes are you going to protect against publicity?

That is typical of the hon. member. I did not say at all that I was going to prevent publicity being given to any crime. That is the inference that the hon. member draws. The hon. member has al­ready erred in the past in drawing certain inferences, as he did at Bloemfontein when he inferred that the Progressive Party would be the party of the future. It is frequently said by members of the public that people are being prosecuted nowadays for every bagatelle. One fre­quently hears, particularly in private conversations between the un­initiated, that the position is so dangerous to-day that one cannot even take one's domestic servant home or that one cannot do this, that or the other. I have challenged hon. members on the other side, and I shall be glad if they will accept the challenge, to bring to my notice one case amongst all the cases which come before our courts, where, to use the word of hon. members opposite, a person was "framed under this Act". I shall be grateful if they can produce one bona fide case where people have been framed under this Act. I shall be very grateful if such cases are brought to my notice. I was being perfectly serious when I said that to the hon. member. I have discussed the situation very fully with the parties concerned and I am not aware of any person who has been caught innocently in the net of this Act. I want to say that very clearly. Let me also make this submission to the House and re-assure the public that the Attorneys-General and the prosecutors exercise the greatest care in deciding in connection with these cases whether they should prosecute or whether they should not prosecute. Let me give this as an example in connection with the figures which I have already given the hon. member by way of reply to a question; let me take the year 1960. The hon. member will recall that she asked me how many charges there had been in 1960.

The reply was 780 - these are charges in respect of the whole Republic of South Africa. In respect of 273 of those charges the Attorney General or the prosecutor decided not to prosecute. They did not decide not to prosecute because the person concerned had been arrested for a mere bagatelle; they did not decide not to prosecute because the person concerned, on the papers before them, was innocent, but they decided not to prosecute because of the stigma which attaches to it when a person is charged under this Act, and they gave him the benefit of the doubt in 273 cases. The hon. members also tried to in sinuate that, amongst other things, we were simply prosecuting indis­criminately because we have a mania in this connection. I give these figures, Mr. Speaker, because I want to indicate that Attorneys-General and prosecutors exercise the greatest care before they charge people in this connection. There are many other arguments that one could advance, but in view of the lateness of the hour, I move that the debate be now adjourned.

1 Mrs. H. Suzman.

2 Mr. D. E. Mitchell.

3 Mr. A. E. Trollip was initially a UP-MP and on 18 October 1961, when he was the Administrator of Natal, he became the Minister of Labour in Dr. Verwoerd's Cabinet. He became Minister of Indian Affairs and of Immigration until his retirement in 1968.

4 Dr. Al Radford.

BACK TO INDEX PAGE

back to top