Let Momberg be a lesson for racists

The effective two-year jail term handed to Vicky Momberg for her racist tirade against a police officer is going to reverberate in many quarters for a long time. And, as emotions get heated, it is well to bear in mind a few salient points about the case. Momberg was not convicted of “hate speech”. She was convicted of, and sentenced for, a particularly brutal example of crimen injuria: the offence of deliberately and grossly impairing the dignity of a fellow human being.

If there had been no hate speech legislation, she could still have been brought to court and convicted of this crime under common law. By the same token, if there had been no constitution at all, she could not have claimed “freedom of speech” to avoid accountability for her deeply hurtful outburst.

That is just as important to remember for those who are citing the provisions in our constitution which describe the difference between hate speech and free speech. Hate speech is defined as words which are accompanied by a “call to action” to incitement to commit, among other things, acts of violence against a specific group. There was, of course, no such call in Momberg’s words.

In the wake of Momberg’s sentence, there has been what a commentator has called a spate of “whatabout-ism”, where people ask about others (on both sides of the race divide) who use similarly racist words and who even accompany those words with threats of violence. That is a valid concern, because justice must be seen to be even-handed.

Those touting “whatabout-ism”, though, should remember: two wrongs will never make a right.

All the heat and anger around the sentencing should also not obscure the clear message to all South Africans: get rid of your racist attitudes or you will pay the price … behind bars.