SA case study: Hate speech and the Jewish community

VANESSA VALKIN

Free speech is guaranteed in Section 16 of the Constitution, which states that this liberty does not extend to speech that advocates hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, or that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Among the instances of hate speech in traditional media that have impacted the South African Jewish community, there were somewhat comforting evidence that South Africa, one of the world’s newest democracies, is doing reasonably well at reacting to inflammatory views in the press.

Most recently, a listener lodged a complaint against ChaiFM to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) for hate speech and propaganda. In the judgment, issued last month, two complaints were dismissed but the third led to a firm reprimand for ChaiFM. The complaint stated that a guest speaker delivered a speech on the radio that was “propaganda hatred for the Palestinians and in general the Muslim world associating the Palestinians with Hitler’s Nazi party”. The speech was actually a re-broadcast of a Canadian TV station clip. The BBCSA cautioned ChaiFM and said that a fine would be considered if it occurred again.

In September 2014, an op-ed article by Likud SA Chairman Leon Reich was published on the Jewish Report’s website. The article compared Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu to Hitler and was accompanied by an image of Tutu’s face with a Hitler-style moustache drawn onto it.

Due to a public outcry the story was quickly taken off the website and and the Jewish Report apologised unconditionally to the Archbishop. Jewish Voices for a Just Peace threatened to file a complaint with the South African Human Rights Commission (HRC) against Reich and requested an inquiry into defamation of character and hate speech, but the case was dropped.

In November 2006, former Minister for Intelligence Services Ronnie Kasrils himself approached the HRC for their view on whether likening Israelis to Nazis qualified as hate speech. This followed negative reaction in the Jewish community to his essays published in the Mail & Guardian which criticised the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in July 2006.

“We must call baby killers ‘baby killers’ and declare that those using methods reminiscent of the Nazis be told that they are behaving like Nazis,” he wrote. Both the late Helen Suzman and the Jewish Report (who declined to publish something he wrote because it was considered offensive to the readership) were asked by the HRC to make submissions about the matter for their deliberations. The Commission later ruled that Kasrils had not engaged in hate speech.

In these cases – interestingly all involving Nazi-like comparisons (where’s the originality?) – two saw our own community media outlets get their hands slapped, and in the two where the BCCSA and the HRC were asked to take a role, they were appropriately proactive.

Yet, despite the diligence of legally sanctioned institutions like the HRC, forcing apologies by the offender is not always easy. Take the example in 2009 where the HRC tried to get Cosatu spokesman Bongani Masuku to apologise to the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) for various threatening and derogatory statements he made in public against the Jewish community and its leadership.

The usual process followed by the HRC is that if no apology is received, it is referred to the Equality Court for further adjudication. Unfortunately when Masuku did not apologise, the SAJBD and the HRC did not pursue it further and the case, like others, withered away.

Moreover, in a digital world where the forums and opportunities for inflammatory remarks have grown a thousand-fold, we have a much more difficult task. According to Kayum Ahmed, CEO of the HRC, the number of cases his organisation dealt with relating to freedom of expression increased from three per cent to 22 per cent of the more than 10 000 cases it handled last year – as a result of increasing electronic platforms.

Indeed Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, have opened up the floodgates for anti-Semitic sentiment in South Africa. Israel’s Operation Protective Edge last year brought a wave of negative reaction. One of many was ANC Western Cape social media manager Rene Smit posting a Facebook message lauding Hitler’s genocide against the Jews.

The post displayed an image of Hitler with the quote: “I could have killed all the Jews, but I left some of them to let you know why I was killing them.” Smit later removed the post and the SA Jewish Board lodged a formal complaint with the HRC.

So far, the SAJBD say there are relatively few recorded cases of verbal or physical intimidation against Jewish individuals in this country. This contrasts with the numerous anti-Semitic attacks, including violent assault, taking place in Europe and elsewhere.

Organisations like the SAJBD and the HRC are vital guardians for a tolerant and just society. But if we, as a community, want to continue to enjoy safe spaces to flourish, we ourselves have to be vigilant in both directions. As this newspaper has, at times, practised self-censorship, so we too, should never allow ourselves to slide into a state of quiet acceptance of abusive hate speech from other groups in any forum or be abusive of them ourselves. For it is there that the seeds of real violence are sown.