Influence of EFF on race relations
It abuses freedom of speech to propagate hate speech and bullying to target vulnerable minorities
IN THE 24 years since the inception of constitutional democracy, with the advent of the Interim Constitution on April 27, 1994, the nation with its diverse population has made progress in virtually every aspect of government and society.
The constitution and its Bill of Rights brought into being a new, democratically vibrant and dynamic society. Of all the rights found in the pantheon of these elaborated in the Bill of Rights, human dignity, is undoubtedly the most important.
Because of the human dignity accorded to all our people in a working democracy we are an infinitely more moral and improved society than under our discredited previous constitutional society. Race relations and social cohesion have improved inordinately. Despite the still vast economic inequality and need to urgently address it, the country and its people have the potential to become a nation of social and economic justice by eradicating poverty, unemployment and homelessness.
Liberty is however not licence and with freedom must come responsibility.
One of the most important of the rights the Constitution bestows on us as people and communities is freedom of expression. It is fundamental to a robust, penetrating political discourse and debate. But it is not unlimited and does not extend to, inter alia, advocacy of hatred based on race or ethnicity, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
When and should this occur the right to freedom of expression is being abused. This is indeed what has occurred in relation to the most recent political utterances of Julius Malema, the EFF leader.
Speaking at his party’s Youth Day commemoration in Klerksdorp he declared in an unstrained tirade that “the majority of Indians hate Africans, and we must never be scared to say that they are racist… The same applies to some of our coloured brothers. They see themselves more white than black”.
Daleep Lutchman, SA Minority Rights Movement (Samrem) chairperson, as reported in The Mercury of (June 18: “Julius called out over ‘racist’ rant”, said they would decide what charges to press against Malema. This is not the first time Samrem has locked horns with Malema. Indeed, his apparently pathological abhorrence of Indian persons is clear when in 2011 it was reported that he referred to them “c**lies”. Malema later apologised for using this highly offensive term, and expressed his ignorance that the word was derogatory. As a result, it is submitted, most unfortunately Samrem dropped the charge. His use of the term was and remains inexcusable.
In relation to whites Malema has also used language of a hate speech character, such as his notorious inflammatory statement with a shocking genocidal implication that he “invoked his own authority to call his devotees not to slaughter the whites yet”. Why is Malema behaving in this way and what is the actual state of affairs race relations in South Africa?
Michael Morris, head of media at the SA Institute of Race Relations, a body with an international and domestic reputation for its impartial and sound research, opined that “Malema has run out of ideas to keep his party relevant, and is sowing division in the communities” (Daily News ,June 18).
He explained further that “[w]e know racism exists in all communities, but our research indicates it is nonsense to suggest that people of Indian descent or any other racially defined group collectively hold antagonistic or racist attitudes towards others”.
In a dispassionate and factual approach he indicated that the SAIRR’s most recent poll mirrored the pattern of similar polls in 2015 and 2016, demonstrating that most South Africans were moderate and believed that co-operation among all citizens was the key to a better future”.
Morris further opined that it was “deeply insulting to underrate the contribution to the fight against apartheid made by the Indian community or to suggest that Indians did not suffer under apartheid. This impacts on both the dignity of individual Indians and the Indian community as a whole.
During the later years of the Zuma presidency the EFF and its leadership caused such pandemonium in Parliament that made it became virtually impossible for other political parties to exercise their democratic role of oversight.
As a result of political spectacle they did inordinate harm to both the esteem of Parliament and the office of the president.
In so doing the EFF revelled in the media attention. With the demise of the Zuma presidency, this is no longer possible. Using bully-like tactics the EFF leadership has decided to attack and malign the Indian community, a relatively small and indeed vulnerable one.
This is severely prejudicial for social
cohesion and the non-racial character of the Constitution.
The EFF is committed to a policy of aggressive racial nationalism or totalitarian African domination in all spheres of government.
It pursues this in a chauvinistic manner using a fascist strategy, inimical for the constitutional democracy encapsulated in our constitution.
In so doing it abuses freedom of expression and its conduct and political language fall, it is submitted, within the ambit and territory of hate speech and possibly constitute crimen injuria which needs to be urgently restrained politically and by judicial means.
George Devenish is an emeritus professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and assisted in drafting the Interim Constitution in 1993.