Julius Malema is seen at the Pretoria High Court during the case against the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in its matter against the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef), 6 August 2019, Pretoria. Picture: Jacques Nelles
South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) chairperson Mahlatse Malatse has written a column to clarify that the forum took the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) to court not because they wanted to “stifle criticism of the media” but because the organisation believed the party’s leader, Julius Malema, “and their supporters go beyond fair criticism and constitute hate speech under the Equality Act”.
While the column, on News24, does not mention former DA leader Helen Zille by name, it is likely a response to her column from Sunday, August 11 titled ‘a Sanef win against the EFF will be a major blow to media freedom‘.
Zille, who is now a senior research fellow at the Institute or Race Relations (IRR), argued that if Sanef was successful, “the media will have been complicit in curtailing a foundation freedom” – freedom of speech, which she said was “often (correctly) cited as the most fundamental right in a democracy, except for the right to life itself”.
“Some of the commentary expressed has misinterpreted our case, which was brought under Section 10 of the Equality Act, and falsely accuses Sanef of undermining freedom of expression. This could not be further from the truth (our full set of court papers is available here),” writes Mahlase.
“Sanef and five journalists are seeking relief against the EFF and Malema following a spate of abuse and harassment by people purporting to be EFF supporters against journalists who had been specifically named by Malema.
“At the heart of our case is the singling out of targeted individual journalists by Malema and the EFF leadership and the creation of an enabling environment for abuse and harassment to be levelled against them.
“Sanef and the journalists approached the Equality Court on legal advice as we believe that the conduct of the EFF and their supporters constitute hate speech and harassment against the named journalists.
Mahlase and Zille also disagree on the definition of hate speech.
READ MORE: The ‘woke’ media built up the EFF with ‘fawning coverage’ – Zille
Apart from her arguments on free speech and media freedom, Zille also argued in her column that comments made by Malema outside the Zondo commission of inquiry into state capture did not constitute hate speech.
If taken in context, it was clear that Malema “specifically urged his followers not to use violence against journalists,” Zille wrote. According to her, for something to qualify as “hate speech”, an utterance must involve “incitement to imminent violence” or “incitement to cause harm”.
Mahlase wrote: “Section 10 of the Equality Act states: ‘No person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to (a) Be hurtful; (b) Be harmful or to incite harm; (c) Promote or propagate hatred’.
“This section does not require hate speech to involve incitement to imminent violence, as wrongly quoted by some commentators.
“Sections 10 and 11 of the act prohibit hate speech and harassment respectively based on expressly prohibited or similar grounds that negatively affect human dignity and enjoyment of rights, such as, in this case, the complainants’ occupation as journalists.
“According to the EFF’s own papers in the Equality Court, the basis of this abuse has been the complainants’ occupation as journalists and the perceived bias in their reportage on the EFF.
“While Sanef welcomes fair criticism of journalists, we cannot condone individuals being subjected to harassment or hate speech on the basis of their occupation, in contravention of the Equality Act.”
(Compiled by Daniel Friedman)
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.