‘Landmark’ ruling over race poster
THE decision by Chief Magistrate Daniel Thulare that a controversial poster with the words “F*** White People” was not in contravention of South Africa’s hate speech laws and that it was an expression of art has elicited-mixed reaction.
The Cape Party had opened a civil case against Iziko Museum, claiming its Art of Disruption exhibit was an incitement to hate speech and perpetuates violence towards white people
“This court case was not about any one specific race, it was about ensuring that the laws of the country are balanced and applied equally to everyone, that it protected minority rights, and ensured common respect and decency between our many different cultures and races,” party leader Jack Miller said yesterday.
“In 1994, government under Nelson Mandela promoted a vision of a ‘Rainbow Nation’. Today, ‘F*** White People’ is art. Where is this country going?”
Iziko’s lawyer, Jeremy Klerck, applauded the ruling: “This is a landmark decision. It came to the defence of freedom of speech. And it came to the defence of
artistic expression.”
Social media erupted, with some people opposed to the artwork, while supporters of the artist, Dean Hutton, have posted their support.
His work came to prominence during last year’s #FeesMustFall student protests. Hutton, a gender binary freelance photographer, captured an image of Zama Mthunzi wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the message “F*** White People”.
Chief Magistrate Thulare compared Hutton’s work to the messages of the Struggle expressed by ANC liberation stalwarts such as Albert Luthuli and Nelson Mandela, referring to them as “three thought leaders”.
The chief magistrate found that “the work in general, and the words ‘f *** white people’ in particular, as used by Hutton in his protest art, is not unfair discrimination on the ground of race as envisaged in section 7 of the Act”.
Thulare added: “It is not hate speech as prohibited by section 10 of the Act and its dissemination, publication and display by the respondent is not prohibited as envisaged in section 12 of the Act.”
The chief magistrate ruled that the words “white” and “people” were not directed at all white people but rather a general system of oppression inherent in “white domination”, and therefore the display could not be seen as discrimination against all white people according to the Act.