Prosecute Malema for his humiliating hate speech
IN THE 24 years since the inception of constitutional democracy in South Africa, with the advent of the interim constitution on April 27, 1994, South Africa as a nation with its diverse population has made progress in virtually every aspect of government and society.
The constitution and its Bill of Rights has brought into being a new and 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 we were under our discredited previous constitutional society. Race relations and social cohesion have improved by leaps and bounds and despite the vast economic inequality that still exists and needs to be urgently addressed, the country and its people have the potential to become a winning nation by eradicating poverty, unemployment and homelessness.
Liberty is, however, not a licence and with freedom must come responsibility. One of the most important rights the constitution bestows on us as people and communities is that of freedom of expression.
This freedom encapsulated in section 16 of the constitution, which is fundamental to a robust and penetrating political discourse and debate is, however, not unlimited and according to section 16 (a) does not extend to, inter alia, advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
When and should this occur, then 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, who speaking at his party’s Youth Day commemoration in Klerksdorp at the weekend, declared in an unrestrained tirade that “the majority of Indians hate Africans, and we must never be scared to say that they are racist…
“The same thing applies to some of our coloured brothers. They see themselves more white than black.”
Daleep Lutchman, chairperson of the SA Minority Rights Movement (Samrem) as reported in the Mercury, June 18, “Julius called out over racist rant”, said they would decide what charges to press against Malema.
This is not the first time that this organisation has locked horns with Malema.
Indeed, his apparently pathological abhorrence of Indian persons is clear from an altercation in 2011 after it was reported that he referred to them as “c***lies”.
Malema subsequently 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. Indeed, 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 that he “invoked his own authority to call his devotees not to slaughter the whites yet”.
This is also a shocking and inexcusable statement, bordering on a threat of genocide.
Why is Malema behaving in this way and what is the actual state of affairs in relation to race relations in South Africa? Michael Morris, head of media at the South African 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, 2018).
He explained further that “we know racism exists in all communities, but our research indicates that 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, in demonstrating that “most South Africans were moderate in their attitudes 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, referred to and discussed above.
During the later years of the Zuma presidency, the EFF and its leadership caused such pandemonium in Parliament that it made it virtually impossible for other political parties to exercise their democratic role of oversight.
In so doing, they did inordinate harm to both Parliament as an institution and the office of the president.
In so doing, we revelled in the media attention they received. With the demise of the Zuma presidency, this is no longer possible and using bully-like tactics the EFF leadership has decided to attack and malign the Indian community, which is a relatively small and indeed vulnerable one.
This is severely prejudicial for social cohesion and the non-racial character of the delicate fabric that our constitution is woven from.
The EFF is committed to a policy of aggressive racial nationalism or African dom- ination in all spheres of government, using methods that reflect the ideas of political totalitarianism.
It pursues this in a chauvinistic manner using a fascist strategy, which is inimical for the constitutional democracy encapsulated in our constitution and Bill of Rights.
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 even crimen injuria.
This conduct needs to be addressed and restrained, both politically and indeed judicially as a matter of urgency, because of the threat it poses to our fledgling democracy and indeed social and economic justice, since the EFF’s antics distract our attention from the transformation required by such justice. It is more than time for the kid gloves to come off.
Devenish is an emeritus professor at UKZN and one of the scholars who assisted in drafting the interim constitution in 1993