With regards to the High Court’s decision to interdict ANCYL leader Julius Malema from singing his highly controversial struggle song “Kill, the Boer, Kill the Farmer”, I have played witness to a multitude of different reactions. An outcry by individuals for the need to protect the ANCYL leader’s right to freedom of speech has been of particular interest to me.
The unconstitutionality of the court’s decision is apparent when we delve into the complexities surrounding the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act) versus the Constitution’s definitions of hate speech. The ruling was based on the Equality Act’s perception that hate speech may be defined in terms of its potential to incite harm rather than explicit intent (which is outlined in s 16(2)(c) of the Constitution). This is in itself problematic since, although Malema is overstepping the mark in terms of what the Equality Act outlines as an intention to be hurtful (s 10(1)), his constitutional rights are being infringed. By singing the song, Malema has not explicitly gone against anything that the Constitution defines as hate speech or advocacy of hatred. Robert Brand, in his blog entitled “Low Opinions” shares this contention quite adamantly, yet I choose to reject it.
While I cannot deny the problems that exist when comparing the Equality Act and the Constitution, I feel that they are irrelevant at this stage. Firstly we need to look at the context in which Malema’s actions have taken place. Prominent white supremacist and leader of the AWB, Eugene Terre Blanche was murdered on his farm recently, and before I continue I want to stress that I am by no means drawing an explicit connection between the death of Terre Blanche and the struggle songs sung by Malema. The fact is, as a result of Terre Blanche’s death, the country has been shaken up into a situation containing obvious racial tension. This is not to say that all whites and all blacks have a newfound hate for each other, but rather, minority groups, such as the AWB for instance, have been placed in a position where they undoubtedly feel threatened. Regardless of who the culprits were, if a leader is murdered, the group will feel threatened. Now, in light of Malema’s recent struggle songs, the issue becomes more sensitive and potentially explosive. The words in the struggle songs are directly pertinent to white farmers and therefore the vast majority of AWB supporters, even though Malema’s intentions are irrelevant in this sense. But, following on from Malema’s recent trips to Zimbabwe, where he stirred up Zanu-PF supporters with these struggle songs, the death of a leader by two workers who have pleaded guilty, and the subsequent praise that many have placed upon the perpetrators, it is not irrational to conceive of a situation in which AWB supporters and other white farmers feel threatened to the point of possible retaliation.
So this is the context in which we may view the singing of the struggle songs. In terms of the Constitution Malema is perfectly within his limitations to exercise his right to freedom of expression, but we need to look at the bigger picture. Section 36 of the Constitution outlines the circumstances in which a right may be limited. This section states that a right may be limited if it is justifiable, and part of this clause includes the need to look at the “importance of the purpose of the limitation”. I feel that given the circumstances that we find ourselves in, and the rational possibility of an uprising following the death of Terre Blanche, Malema’s right may be justifiably limited. The fact that the Equality Act provides limitations on freedom of expression that arguably infringe upon those set out by the constitution, and subsequently create a whole new sphere of contradictions and problems is, in this case, irrelevant. So, although in this instance section 36 of the Constitution plays a part in justifying what is offered by the Equality Act, it may also be seen as a coincidence. What is really needed is a revisiting of both the Equality Act and the Constitution to make them more mutually compatible.
I feel that given the circumstances, the court’s decision to interdict Malema from singing his struggle songs is perfectly rational, but not in terms of the Equality Act, it is merely constitutional.
March 21 (Yes, I do realise this is a little late) sees the annual celebration of Human Rights in South Africa, rights being an integral part of our constitution. The day serves as a reminder of the atrocities that occurred in Sharpeville only five decades prior, and highlights the importance and urgency of honouring these rights.
Human rights are most commonly regarded as the right to life, equality and exemption from discrimination, but I think the most important right of all is too often overlooked – the right to education.
Education is arguably the biggest problem in a country with problems coming out of every nook and cranny. While we can all agree that crime is a paramount issue and needs to be dealt with accordingly, and while the spread of HIV and AIDS is quoted by Nelson Mandela as "...no longer just a disease, it is a human rights issue", I would like to argue that neglect for education is the primary reason for almost every other problem that we, as South Africans, are faced with. It is a fact that crime rates drop with a rise in education and literacy, which is only obvious since it allows individuals to conceptualise a better life for themselves, a life with plausible opportunities and goals. HIV and AIDS cannot be beaten with education alone, but 98% of the job will be done if people have the right attitude towards the problem. Education is the only way to bring about such an attitude.
We are sitting in a divided country. South Africa houses some of the best universities in the continent, while schools in rural areas produce children who can barely write, never mind attend an institution for tertiary education. Section 29 of the Bill of Rights states that everyone has the right to a basic education, including a basic adult education, it is a pity that it doesn’t state how good of an education though. If government wants to solve the persisting predicament they always find themselves in, they should stop avoiding a basic human right that has the potential to do this country a whole lot of good.
Just because half of parliament has not received an adequate education, does not mean they have the right to act ignorant enough to ensure the cycle continues.
Denis Beckett’s piece on Eugene Terre Blanche has expanded on the life of the late AWB leader, who was murdered on April 3 2010. His legacy as a Nazi-style oppressor of the black people is well documented and rumors of his cruelty and inhumanity run rife. It is in this context that the article comes across as unique and insightful. Like the author I am by no means condoning any of Terre Blanche’s actions and beliefs, but I feel that the opportunity to get a first-hand account of how he justifies himself is valuable and interesting. Beckett presents us with an outline of the Terre Blanche mind, and it is a pity that we cannot pull from the article a more in-depth analysis of how Terre Blanche viewed his ideologies. We can however gain a distinct sense of the power Terre Blanche exerted through his words. He comes across as a well-versed and articulate man; able to persuade many people into thinking his views are justified and morally viable.
In light of his death, Beckett’s article brings an element of understanding as to how Terre Blanche came to be such a powerful man. I feel he can indeed be likened to historical tyrants such as Hitler. His morals and common sense are unique in that what he believes cannot in any sane world be justified, yet he has the ability to use words as his weapon.
The article questions much when looking at Terre Blanche in a more objective manner. What if he was not so obsessed with his delusional ideas of segregation and white superiority? He could have brought something of true value to this world. He obviously had a powerful mind, but like Lord Acton says, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”