Gagging free speech to suit a few

An incident at a Virgin Active gym is part of a long tradition of stifling debate on Israel in South Africa’s public spaces, writes Suraya Naidoo

MUHAMMED Desai, coordinator of the South African chapter of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, was removed by the police and management from the Old Eds branch of Virgin Active, in Johannesburg, on Wednesday night.

Desai’s “crime” was to wear a T-shirt that read: From the coast of Cape Town to the coast of Gaza. In Solidarity with Palestinians against Israeli Apartheid.”

It was the last two words that so infuriated Old Eds patrons that they gave Desai the option of either removing the item or being involved in a “bloodbath”.

Management called in the police and Desai was escorted out of the gym – even though his shirt was not illegal, and he had not violated the gym’s dress rules. Never mind bend the rules, this branch was willing to break the rules to suit its patrons.

The incident sent social media and radio talk shows into overdrive, with many suggesting that the debacle was simply the result of over-sensitive users at the gym. It is not.

It is, rather, the continuation of a long tradition of stifling debate in South Africa about the conduct and policies of the Israeli government against the Palestinian people.

It is a practice, largely driven by Israel’s organised lobby groups in South Africa, that regularly violates constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression in this country’s public and private spaces.

Three years ago, a Palestinian solidarity billboard graphically depicting the effect of the Israeli occupation through a series of colourful maps was erected near the Joburg CBD.

The billboard was part of a long-running campaign by BDS South Africa to educate the public about the theft and occupation of Palestinian land.

Within six working hours, the billboard was taken down, following pressure from the SA Zionist Federation (SAZF) and the SA Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) on the site owners, Continental Outdoor Media.

In September last year, the courts found that the removal of the billboards had been “unlawful and unconstitutional”. Continental Media was forced to re-erect the Palestine billboard.

In May 2012, the Labia Theatre in Cape Town, in conjunction with the Right2Know campaign (R2K) and the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC), offered a free screening of the award-winning documentary Roadmap to Apartheid.

The documentary compares the circumstances of Palestinians with those of black South Africans under apartheid. The SAZF refused to participate in a panel discussion.

No pro-Israel substitute was ever found by the Labia Theatre and the debate was called off.

A valuable opportunity to debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was snatched away.

The bullying and intimidation continues in newsrooms as well.

The constant threat of being labelled an anti-Semite is one of the main reasons many journalists in South Africa are unwilling to pursue stories related to Israel and its supporters.

Prominent and highly respected journalists Mathatha Tsedu and Tim Modise both appeared in anti-Semitism reports of the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary antiSemitism and Racism in Israel, prepared by David Saks, associate director of the SAJBD.

In 2013, South Africa’s largest book retailer refused to launch a book I co-authored because it “might alienate some of our customers”.

The content of the book made the case for why Israel should be considered an apartheid state.

Like Virgin Active, the retailer was willing to significantly bend its rules to accommodate the political sensitivities of a few pro-Israel customers.

Pro-Israel groups and individuals have no right to dictate what is and isn’t acceptable subjects of debate.

But as long as corporations and institutions continue to pander to pro-Israel lobby groups and those associated with them, they will.

Private corporations and institutions must remember that the constitution applies to them as well, and they are duty-bound to uphold our right to freedom of expression – regardless of whether some don’t like it.

Suraya Dadoo is a researcher for Media Review Network and the co-author of

Press, 2013).

(Porcupine