Gordhan versus EFF

EQUALITY COURT: JUDGMENT RESERVED OVER HATE SPEECH ALLEGATION

Freedom of Expression Institute says minister fails to make his case over use of word ‘dog’.

Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema’s attack on Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan last year qualified as hate speech under the relevant legislation, the Equality Court heard yesterday.

Gordhan’s advocate, Ngwako Maenetje, told the sitting in the High Court in Johannesburg that when Malema swore to obey, respect and uphold the constitution in becoming member of the National Assembly, it created obligations on him to conduct himself as a public representative and a private citizen in a manner that united South Africans, healed racist divisions and built an equal, democratic and open society.

Gordhan took Malema to court after his statement outside the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture where Gordhan was testifying on November 20 last year.

The EFF leader said: “Our attack against Pravin Gordhan is an attack on white monopoly capital because Pravin is a dog of white monopoly capital.

“We must hit the dog until the owner comes out and once the owner comes out, we must deal decisively with the owner.”

Gordhan is seeking R150 000 in damages to be paid to a charitable cause, an unconditional apology and publication of the apology to all media and on the social media platforms regularly used by the EFF leadership, as well as costs.

But Malema’s advocate, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, said Gordhan’s complaint was abusive, irrelevant and contained emotive language “demonstrative of Mr Gordhan’s angry and hostile attitude towards Mr Malema”.

“Mr Gordhan is being criticised because of his own attitude and views, not his race (or any other protected ground).

“He may be hurt about it, but that comes with the political territory. Provocative, even hurtful speech, will not qualify as hate speech in terms of the Act.”

Ngcukaitobi said Gordhan’s attempt to equate Malema’s use of the word “dog” to “the anthropomorphic use of words in respect of the Rwandan genocide and Holocaust was inapposite and regrettable”.

“This is not what was pleaded in the founding papers to start with. And dog is commonplace in political speech.”

Acting as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, advocate Msondezi Ka-Siboto of the Freedom of Expression Institute said its position was that Gordhan had failed to make his case.

“If we accept the applicant has not established any of the grounds under sub

(a) (race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth) it must then follow he can only rely on sub (b), any other ground.”

Sub (b) is chapter 1 (xxii) (b) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act which defines “prohibited grounds” as any other ground where discrimination based on that other ground, causes or perpetuates systemic disadvantage, undermines human dignity; or adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a person’s rights and freedoms in a serious manner that is comparable to discrimination on a ground in sub a. Judgment was reserved.

Gordhan’s complaint is abusive, irrelevant

–