After All Is Said & Done, We Are All Part Of The Human Race
The events of the past week in South Africa left me wondering whether there wasn’t something in the weather which affected the behaviour of certain people adversely. If we have regard to the fact that a lack or abundance of insulin was advanced a possible cause, then anything , however hilarious, is possible. If it wasn’t this sad, I would classify it as hilarious.
The race rows got me thinking about my last born daughter, Inez, who, whilst at Buffalo Flats Primary School, set the proverbial cat among the pigeons. It was census time and the teacher was under an obligation to get the statistics right in her class. The teacher (no doubt careful that she does not offend), had asked all the ‘English’ children to stand up. The Coloured children in class all stood up and Inez remained seated. The teacher then asked all the African children to stand. Inez looked around, saw that only the Xhosa-speaking children were standing, and, she remained seated.
The teacher continued and finished her count and asked Inez why she remained sitting. Her response was (and this was related to me by her class teacher), that there were no ‘English’ people in Africa and that further ‘English’ people lived in England. Inez also told the teacher that everyone in class was African so she could not understand why the whole class did not stand up.
The teacher then asked Inez what race her mother was and Inez told the teacher that her mother was Coloured. The teacher wanted to know what race her father was and Inez told her that her father was African because he was Nelson Mandela and lived in Africa. Shocked, the teacher wanted more answers and Inez explained that Madiba was the father of all children in South Africa.
Inez was prodded further and the teacher was becoming somewhat annoyed. The teacher decided to call Mr Goss, the principal. When Mr Goss stepped in Inez was happy. She said yes Mr Goss tell the teacher that a Coloured person who speaks isiXhosa is a Pondo. Mr Goss smiled and left. Inez then told the teacher that the reason Mr Goss didn’t want to entertain the question was because he was a Pondo himself. And so the story was related to me and my other relatives and I was quite excited about Inez’s somewhat complicated interpretation of race.
It was Inez who, whilst a Grade R learner at a school in Umhlanga Rocks, shocked me when I asked her how many White children there were in her class. She told me there was no one who looked like a sheet in her class. According to here there were children but not a single White child. Somehow I felt guilty because it was clear that I was trying to impose my own warped paradigm on my daughter, who it turns out, was the only Black learner in the class.
Day before yesterday I received quite an interesting message on Facebook. Someone, who like myself, is a descendant of among others, European migrants, said she felt like a traitor discussing the issue of race and that she opted not to join the discussions around the Penny Sparrow matter. Whilst I sympathized with her and respected her views, I felt no such internal conflict existed within me at all. My standpoint is clear. Racism must fall.
However, children’s interpretation and cordial conversation aside, what is it that our law says? The point of departure should therefore be that we live in a Constitutional democracy. A democracy which is characterized by, amongst others, the right to human dignity. Human dignity it must be remembered, is a right which cannot be limited. The right to freedom of expression on the other hand, is subject to limitation.
Freedom of expression, as I suspect we all know, is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, especially given the abhorrent past we hail from where people were banned, maimed or even murdered for expressing an opposing view. This brings us to two important concepts being hate speech and free speech.
Hate speech, according to the American Bar Association, is speech which offends, threatens or insults a person, persons or groups based purely on race, colour, religion, national origin or other similar traits. The utterances on social media by Penny Sparrow and others, amounts to hate speech. So apologists like Gareth Cliff who, deliberately, in my view, opt to classify these utterances as free speech (which is the expression of an opinion or thought without fear of reprisals but subject to certain limitations), are fanning the flames of racial intolerance, degradation and insults.
But, do these utterances amount to either crimes at public law or delicts at private law? The simple answer is yes. At law they amount to crimen iniuria which has Roman Law origins. At Roman Law iniuriae referred to specific instances, actions or utterances which amounted to an injustice.
So what Penny Sparrow et al did, was to prejudice the rights of all Black South Africans by equating them to monkeys, apes and animals. Simply put they unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impaired the dignity of Blacks by using racially offensive language.
Are there repercussions for crimes and delicts committed on the Internet? Yes, indeed there are. The transgressor can be sued at private law. An interdict can be applied for compelling them to take down the offending posts and there is a likelihood that they can successfully be prosecuted. There is also the possibility of an award for damages.
We have a precedent where Willis J interdicted a wife for publishing slanderous material about her husband on social media. So whilst in that case it was not racially motivated, it goes to demonstrate that people can be sued for what they say on public platforms. People must thus be very careful.
As we enter this New Year, whilst 2015 was a busy year for me facilitating training on the 2014/2015 amendments to Employment legislation, there is no doubt we will soon be inundated with requests to facilitate training on Change and Diversity Management. The continuing dialogue reminds me of the interesting debates we had when we facilitated Diversity Management training for the entire staff complement at the Johannesburg Fresh Produce Market.
Diversity Training
Race & Ethnic Relations
Change Management
The race rows got me thinking about my last born daughter, Inez, who, whilst at Buffalo Flats Primary School, set the proverbial cat among the pigeons. It was census time and the teacher was under an obligation to get the statistics right in her class. The teacher (no doubt careful that she does not offend), had asked all the ‘English’ children to stand up. The Coloured children in class all stood up and Inez remained seated. The teacher then asked all the African children to stand. Inez looked around, saw that only the Xhosa-speaking children were standing, and, she remained seated.
The teacher continued and finished her count and asked Inez why she remained sitting. Her response was (and this was related to me by her class teacher), that there were no ‘English’ people in Africa and that further ‘English’ people lived in England. Inez also told the teacher that everyone in class was African so she could not understand why the whole class did not stand up.
The teacher then asked Inez what race her mother was and Inez told the teacher that her mother was Coloured. The teacher wanted to know what race her father was and Inez told her that her father was African because he was Nelson Mandela and lived in Africa. Shocked, the teacher wanted more answers and Inez explained that Madiba was the father of all children in South Africa.
Inez was prodded further and the teacher was becoming somewhat annoyed. The teacher decided to call Mr Goss, the principal. When Mr Goss stepped in Inez was happy. She said yes Mr Goss tell the teacher that a Coloured person who speaks isiXhosa is a Pondo. Mr Goss smiled and left. Inez then told the teacher that the reason Mr Goss didn’t want to entertain the question was because he was a Pondo himself. And so the story was related to me and my other relatives and I was quite excited about Inez’s somewhat complicated interpretation of race.
It was Inez who, whilst a Grade R learner at a school in Umhlanga Rocks, shocked me when I asked her how many White children there were in her class. She told me there was no one who looked like a sheet in her class. According to here there were children but not a single White child. Somehow I felt guilty because it was clear that I was trying to impose my own warped paradigm on my daughter, who it turns out, was the only Black learner in the class.
Day before yesterday I received quite an interesting message on Facebook. Someone, who like myself, is a descendant of among others, European migrants, said she felt like a traitor discussing the issue of race and that she opted not to join the discussions around the Penny Sparrow matter. Whilst I sympathized with her and respected her views, I felt no such internal conflict existed within me at all. My standpoint is clear. Racism must fall.
However, children’s interpretation and cordial conversation aside, what is it that our law says? The point of departure should therefore be that we live in a Constitutional democracy. A democracy which is characterized by, amongst others, the right to human dignity. Human dignity it must be remembered, is a right which cannot be limited. The right to freedom of expression on the other hand, is subject to limitation.
Freedom of expression, as I suspect we all know, is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, especially given the abhorrent past we hail from where people were banned, maimed or even murdered for expressing an opposing view. This brings us to two important concepts being hate speech and free speech.
Hate speech, according to the American Bar Association, is speech which offends, threatens or insults a person, persons or groups based purely on race, colour, religion, national origin or other similar traits. The utterances on social media by Penny Sparrow and others, amounts to hate speech. So apologists like Gareth Cliff who, deliberately, in my view, opt to classify these utterances as free speech (which is the expression of an opinion or thought without fear of reprisals but subject to certain limitations), are fanning the flames of racial intolerance, degradation and insults.
But, do these utterances amount to either crimes at public law or delicts at private law? The simple answer is yes. At law they amount to crimen iniuria which has Roman Law origins. At Roman Law iniuriae referred to specific instances, actions or utterances which amounted to an injustice.
So what Penny Sparrow et al did, was to prejudice the rights of all Black South Africans by equating them to monkeys, apes and animals. Simply put they unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impaired the dignity of Blacks by using racially offensive language.
Are there repercussions for crimes and delicts committed on the Internet? Yes, indeed there are. The transgressor can be sued at private law. An interdict can be applied for compelling them to take down the offending posts and there is a likelihood that they can successfully be prosecuted. There is also the possibility of an award for damages.
We have a precedent where Willis J interdicted a wife for publishing slanderous material about her husband on social media. So whilst in that case it was not racially motivated, it goes to demonstrate that people can be sued for what they say on public platforms. People must thus be very careful.
As we enter this New Year, whilst 2015 was a busy year for me facilitating training on the 2014/2015 amendments to Employment legislation, there is no doubt we will soon be inundated with requests to facilitate training on Change and Diversity Management. The continuing dialogue reminds me of the interesting debates we had when we facilitated Diversity Management training for the entire staff complement at the Johannesburg Fresh Produce Market.
Diversity Training
Race & Ethnic Relations
Change Management
No comments have been added yet.
