Sanef to engage with EFF after unfavourable ruling
THE SA National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) said it would continue in its attempts to engage the EFF and other political parties on mutually acceptable rules of engagement.
This comes after the Equality Court, sitting in Pretoria, yesterday dismissed an application by Sanef and various journalists to gag Julius Malema, his party members and followers from bad-mouthing journalists.
Sanef said it would be studying the judgment before making further decisions about the continuation of the legal process.
It expressed disappointed at the outcome, but said it was fully justified to have approached the courts after numerous instances of threats and intimidation by the EFF against journalists.
Judge Daisy Molefe said journalism was “not an inherent and immutable quality”; it was a career choice for which an individual opted and thus fell outside the jurisdiction of the Equality Court. Sanef claimed Malema was engaging in hate speech.
It turned to the court in a bid to protect journalists from the abuse and harassment they had endured by virtue as their work as journalists.
The statements objected formed part of a speech made by Malema outside the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture last year, as well as other utterances. The applicants wanted Malema and his party to publicly denounce the harassment and abuse of the media and apologise to those they had intimidated.
But Judge Molefe said their complaints fell outside the scope of the Equality Act, as journalism was a chosen career path.
“Journalism is not an inherent and immutable quality. It is a career choice for which an individual opts.
“Unlike race, sex or gender, a career choice cannot be what defines ones affiliation, as per what is envisaged by the Equality Act, nor can it constitute a protectable interest.”
She said that the idea that journalists deserved special protections as a class of belonging to their chosen profession was earlier rejected by former constitutional Judge Edwin Cameron. She said he regarded this notion as not only unconvincing, but dangerous as well.
She, however, added: “It is incumbent on all organs of state, including the judiciary, to not only have regard to, but to take positive steps to protect the safety and independence of journalists.”
The judge said she noted that the complainants’ court papers were riddled with instances where they complained about statements made against them by Malema and the EFF. “Some of the statements are indeed hurtful, distasteful and offensive, but they are not excluded from protection. In my view, the objections as framed by the complainants, strictly speaking, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Equality Court.” She added that unpopular, offensive or even controversial views did not necessarily constitute hate speech and caution needed to be exercised when declaring something as hate speech.
“If all distasteful or offensive statements are labelled as ‘hate speech’ (even if they do not qualify as such), then the serious nature and magnitude of such designation will be undermined. The complainants have simply failed to make out a case that the speech complained of is hate speech and they have failed to establish a breach of section 10 of the Equality Act.”
The EFF welcomed the judgment and said it was an opportunity for journa lists in this country to “critically re-introspect” their conduct and profession.
“Journalists who take a side, using journalism as a platform to pursue the propaganda interests of politicians, must never be regarded as journalists.
“When they descend to the arena, they must be treated as having taken sides and no longer acting in the professional interests of journalism,” the party said.