More Hate Speech accusations
Posted on July 25th, 2008 by Richard Catto 1,527 views
I knew this was going to happen. It’s fast becoming a new South African hobby – alleging hate speech and laying complaints with the Human Rights Commission whenever someone exercises their Free Speech to say something that offends you.
Jon Qwelane is the latest one to fall victim to this ridiculous new South African hobby.
Jon Qwelane has an absolute right to hate gays and to express his hatred for them publicly. An absolute right to do that.
He has an absolute right to offend the gay community.
He has no obligation to please anyone.
South Africa needs an amendment to our Constitution which strongly protects Freedom of Speech.
FURTHER READING:
Jon Qwelane in trouble for gay-bashing
HRC mulls Qwelane complaints
Tags: Freedom of Speech, Hate Speech, HRC, Jon Qwelane
Filed under South African politics | 8 Comments »
Zuma sacks Rasool in order to win the Western Cape for the ANC in 2009
Posted on July 24th, 2008 by Richard Catto 1,294 views
“The decision to remove Western Cape Premier Ebrahim Rasool was partly to enable the ANC to win the province next year” – Jacob Zuma
Due to divisions in the ANC party over Ebrahim Rasool’s premiership of the Western Cape, Zuma (president of the ANC party) has decided to remove Rasool and replace him with Lynne Brown.
“That is why we have taken these measures to ensure that the ANC in the Western Cape is properly geared to deal with the challenges of elections. It is that part that would have informed the decision that has been taken.”
Zuma has denied that Rasool’s axing as well as that of Eastern Cape Premier Nosimo Balindlela are part of a purge of political opponents although both of them opposed Zuma in last year’s Polokwane election that saw Thabo Mbeki ousted as party president.
What is your reaction to this? Do you feel that Zuma is shoring up the ANC’s chances of winning the Western Cape in next year’s election? Leave your comment below.
Tags: ANC, Ebrahim Rasool, Jacob Zuma, Lynne Brown, Western Cape
Filed under South African politics | No Comments »
Another in our series about Lovely Crime Free Britain
Posted on July 20th, 2008 by Richard Catto 1,738 views
Yes, I know you’ve all heard the stories: South Africa is so full of crime, that the only sane recourse is to run away to dear old England where the Queen will keep you safe.
O RLY?
Before you terrified little people all run like a herd of stampeding pigs for Britain, please read this article:
Teenagers attack police officers who asked girl to pick up litter
Ja, so two cops axed (sic) a teenie girl ever so nicely to pick up her damn trash, and the next moment, they were surrounded by 30 aggressive teenies and two Limey men aged in their 30s who set about giving them two Limey coppers a thorough beating up.
Oh god, I would love to see this whole scene suddenly and magically transported to New York City, and then ten minutes later, do the body count.
Very funny article. I loved it. I especially loved the Limey commenter (on the article) writing from Russia telling ‘em that he moved out of Britain 30 years ago when he saw how the place was going. Get this, he fled Limey land for Russia in 1978! He preferred the Communist USSR over Britain. Hahaha!
And poor deluded South Africans are running TO Britain to escape crime, when for the past 30 years, Limeys have been running AWAY from Britain because of the crime.
That’s the problem with us South Africans – always at least 10 years behind everyone else.
Tags: Britain, Crime, crime free Britain, emigration, South Africa
Filed under Britain, Crime, South Africa, South African politics | 13 Comments »
Free Speech is under attack
Posted on July 17th, 2008 by Richard Catto 2,441 views
Free Speech is no longer considered an absolute right in many countries, including South Africa.
In fact, the only country which strongly protects Free Speech is the United States of America through its First Amendment.
Recently both Zwelinzima Vavi and Julius Malema have come under attack in South Africa and were accused of hate speech. I, personally, have also come under attack for remarks that I have (allegedly) made that have offended (some) Afrikaners.
To understand what is at stake here, I would encourage you to read this New York Times article published on June 12 2008.
Here are a number of quotes from the NYT article:
“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.
“It’s free speech!” yelled another.
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions – even false, provocative or hateful things – without legal consequence.
And another quote regarding the use of racially offensive epithets:
In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at ones legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called The Exceptional First Amendment.
But in the United States, Professor Schauer continued, all such speech remains constitutionally protected.
Some further quotes in defence of Free Speech:
Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., said “Free speech matters because it works. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship.”
“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death. Justice Holmes wrote in 1919.
An example of what is considered protected Free Speech:
But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.
When you ban Hate Speech, this is the result:
“Innocent intent is not a defense,” defence attorney, Roger D. McConchie said in a bitter criticism of the British Columbia law on hate speech. “Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.”
Finally, here is the opinion of Mark Steyn, author of “The Future Belongs to Islam” which fell foul of Canadian laws against hate speech:
“Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.
So the question for South Africans is which model of Free Speech do you wish to adopt? Do you want to feel the eyes of Big Brother upon your back as you write a blog post or a comment on a blog or a letter to a newspaper or to a magazine?
Do you wish to allow people who hate you to be able to make use of legal loopholes to string you up because you expressed something that you truly believe but which the government has decided you may not?
I vote that South Africa adopts the US model of Free Speech and amends our Constitution appropriately. The cost to outlaw “hate speech” is too high a price to pay for our individual freedoms.
Do not let them take away your Freedom!
Tags: First Amendment, Free Speech, Hate Speech, HRC, Julius Malema, Zwelinzima Vavi
Filed under Politics, South African politics, US Politics | 6 Comments »
Is racial classification in “The New South Africa” desirable?
Posted on July 9th, 2008 by Richard Catto 2,848 views
Dion Chang wrote an interesting article on Thought Leader recently about the recent reclassification of some of South Africa’s Chinese population as "Coloured".
It is a confusing classification, in my opinion, because it does not classify ALL Chinese South Africans as "Coloured", only those born in South Africa before 1994. I find this confusing because it means that one cannot tell just by looking at a Chinese person what racial classification they now hold, instead one has to first determine if they were born in South Africa before a certain year. It strikes me as being rather bizarre.
In response I left this comment on Thought Leader:
It’s really quite ironic that The New South Africa is still engaging in the not so subtle “art” of deciding what race group a person belongs to.
I thought we were supposed to have put all that nonsense behind us?
I suppose the elephant in the room that so many wish to avoid addressing is that any system which relies on racial classifications to function brings us straight back to the ridiculousness of Apartheid.
And so here we sit again, not knowing how to address past inequalities without using the discredited tools of racial classification.
I would love to know how to fix this, because I have no idea.
And got this reply from a commenter known as Benzol:
Start a movement to call each other “people”. When asked for your “race” on a form, fill in “human”. If enough people start doing this, it might sink in one day. It is called “civil disobedience”.
To which I made this comment:
Does this mean that BEE and AA must be considered failed policies because they depend on racially classifying people?
What do you think? Is racial classification in "The New South Africa" desirable? Or is it a hangover from Apartheid that we should speedily put behind us? Is it impossible then to help "previously disadvantaged" people? How should we help them (if at all)?
Tags: AA, Apartheid, BEE, race classification
Filed under South African politics | 2 Comments »
