Lawman erred in exonerating cricketer over his Israel stand

Advocate Wim Trengove’s exoneration of David Teeger, the Proteas under-19 captain, raises questions about the boundaries of freedom of speech in the context of sports representation. While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, our constitution unequivocally prohibits hate speech or any endorsement of racial, ethnic or religious superiority.

Teeger’s dedication of his Absa Jewish Achiever award to Israel and its soldiers, a state implicated in enforcing hate, racial superiority, war crimes and crimes against humanity, challenges the essence of our constitutional values. Unfortunately, Trengove, one of the soundest legal minds in terms of forensic and technical legal skills, applied an atomistic mode of reasoning, relying on a disconnection of facts from their contextual embedding.

Trengove seemingly disconnected constitutional jurisprudence from the harsh reality of the nature of the speech. If Trengove applied a holistic interpretation, considering political facts and events in terms of an interaction between individuals and groups, and their social and political environment, it is likely he would have come to a different conclusion.

Teeger’s speech was not mere offensive speech. Instead, it was speech in support of Zionism, a political ideology of racism. Teeger dedicated his award to Zionist soldiers who brutally enforce racist and apartheid rule against the Palestinians. These soldiers are implicated in war crimes — the most serious offence in international law. If Trengove adopted a holistic method of interpretation, he would have related the speech to Zionism, racism, and our own history of apartheid — the raison d’être of our constitution, which is the rejection of any and all manifestations of racial superiority and attendant military conduct.

The endorsement by Lawson Naidoo, chair of Cricket South Africa (CSA), of David Unterhalter, an avowed Zionist, for appointment to the Constitutional Court and recently to the Supreme Court of Appeal informs us that some in the upper echelons of CSA find nothing repugnant about Zionism.

Did the upper echelons of CSA deliberately select Trengove to head the investigation so that the findings, which gloss over support for Zionism, have a veneer of respectability? Had CSA appointed an advocate with struggle credentials, the perception of what is implicated as hate speech, views based on racial superiority and the use of military force including war crimes could have been different. Crucially, the outcome of the findings would most likely have been different. Teeger’s statements are comparable to someone praising apartheid and soldiers from the 1980s South African Defence Force who engaged in unspeakable barbarity, war crimes and genocide in the preservation of apartheid.

Trengove gave credence to the view that Teeger made the statement among members of his community. This justification is mind-numbing. Let us assume a speech extolling the virtues of apartheid and the South African soldiers of the 1980s was given by a cricketer at a meeting of fellow white supremacists at a reconstituted Broederbond and Dutch Reformed Church gathering. This cricketer would likely never ply their cricket trade in South Africa again.

Those accepting of Zionism would obviously not grasp the gravity of Teeger’s statement regardless of the platform on which it was uttered and could casually dismiss it as possibly offensive to some, which is what Trengove seemingly did. It is inconceivable that CSA would accept that “there is nothing unbecoming or detrimental about an opinion expressed seriously and in good faith, however offensive it might be to some”, which is the finding that Trengove made with respect to Teeger and the Israeli soldiers.

In the pursuit of sport as a unifying force and the upholding of the integrity of our sports, CSA must reconsider the representation of an individual espousing hate, views supporting racial supremacy, and the relegation of non-Jews to third-class citizenship. Trengove mischaracterised Teeger’s statements as “possibly offensive” views. Teeger’s statement praised those who brutally enforce hate and racial superiority of Jews over others that reside in Israel/Palestine and call the region their home. CSA must take decisive action against individuals who glorify hate and compromise the fundamental values of inclusivity and respect. Anything less risks eroding the very foundation upon which sports stand — as a beacon of unity and shared principles.

The time for CSA to reflect on its values is now. It is hard to see how Trengove could find Teeger’s conduct was not “unbecoming or detrimental conduct”. Tolerating views based on hate and violent enforcement of racial superiority jeopardises the essence of sportsmanship and risks alienating a diverse fan and player base. In taking a principled stand against divisive ideologies, CSA can demonstrate its commitment to foster an inclusive and respectful environment, ensuring that sport remains a powerful force for unity and inspiration. Anything short of this risks tarnishing the reputation of the organisation and betraying the core values of our constitution.