Constitutional Hill

Religious hate speech is still hate speech

Fundamentalist Christians, and the slippery money-making pastors who stir up their prejudices and passions, often say outrageously hateful things about gay men and lesbians under the pretext of promoting their own extremist version of Christianity. But in a recent judgment, the Canadian Supreme Court affirmed that such statements will often constitute impermissible hate speech. The same principles will probably also apply in South Africa.

When Mr William Whatcott – fired up by a queer religious fervor – distributed several flyers to the public of Saskatchewan in Canada in a campaign against what he clearly believes to be the abomination of same-sex love, he must have thought that his right to freedom of religion would trump the right of others to have their human dignity respected and protected.

Mr Whatcott’s pamphlets railed against “sodomites” who “want to share their filth and propaganda with Saskatchewan’s children!” (Mr Whatcott seems to have a rather morbid obsession with anal sex, children and exclamation marks – a rather odd combination, methinks.) In one pamphlet he claimed that “sodomites are 430 times more likely to acquire Aids and 3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!” In another that: “The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination… Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath!” (Judging from these statements, poor Mr Whatcott labours under the misapprehension that only same-sex couples indulge in the delights of sodomy.)

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission found these pamphlets to be in breach of the prohibition on hate speech contained in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. Mr. Whatcott – seemingly not a man to take such a ruling lying down, so to speak  – appealed all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, arguing that to the extent that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code prohibition on hate speech precludes criticism of same-sex conduct or activity, it infringes on the right to freedom of religion. He argued that sexual conduct has long been a topic of religious discussion and debate, and that:

[o]bjection to same-sex sexual activity is common among religious people. They object because they believe this conduct is harmful; and many religious people also believe that they are obligated to do good and warn others of the danger.

The Canadian Supreme Court, in Whatcott v Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, rejected these arguments, affirming the principle that the legislature could impose hate speech codes that limited the freedom of expression and the right to religious freedom of even those with strongly and sincerely held religious beliefs – if this was done in order to protect others from serious harm.

In a judgment that would alarm fundamentalist Christian preachers across South Africa (the delights or horrors – as the case may be – of same-sex sodomy being their bread and butter, so to speak) the Canadian Supreme Court affirmed the principle – also applicable in South Africa – that hate speech should be judged objectively with reference to the effects of the speech and not subjectively with reference to the feelings of those targeted by the speech.

Courts should ask whether “when considered objectively by a reasonable person aware of the relevant context and circumstances, the speech in question would be understood as exposing or tending to expose members of the target group to hatred”. In the course of this assessment, a judge or adjudicator is expected to put his or her personal views aside and to base the determination on what he or she perceives to be the rational views of an informed member of society, viewing the matter realistically and practically.

The Canadian Court stressed the narrow application of hate speech prohibitions. Unlike the South African Equality Act – which prohibits speech that can reasonably be construed as having the intention to be hurtful – more serious harm is required in the Canadian hate speech regime before speech would be deemed unlawful. It was only when the effects of the speech would cause “detestation” and “vilification” that the speech could be prohibited.

Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimise them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims…. The act of vilifying a person or group connotes accusing them of disgusting characteristics, inherent deficiencies or immoral propensities which are too vile in nature to be shared by the person who vilifies.

The Canadian Supreme Court also warned against the use of hate speech provisions to limit legitimate forms of expression:

Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have.

In South Africa, people have a tendency wrongly to invoke the hate speech provision in the Equality Act whenever somebody they do not like (or who they fear) says nasty things about them or about the group they belong to. (The Equality Act itself also draws the hate speech net far too wide and is probably unconstitutional as a result.)

So, for example, if I were to say that pastor Errol Naidoo is a smarmy homophobe, somebody will inevitably claim that I am making myself guilty of hate speech, when all I am doing is expressing my opinion about the behaviour and attitudes of a public figure whose obsession with sodomy and sex I find rather queer. Similarly, if somebody complains about the racism of a fellow South African he or she will often be vilified for indulging in so called “hate speech” when all he or she is doing is challenging the prejudices of a fellow citizen.

It is intellectually lazy to invoke the spectre of hate speech every time somebody says something you find objectionable or hurtful. Often people do so because they are incapable of pointing out why the objectionable statements are factually wrong or morally reprehensible. Often they cry “hate speech” because of an irrational fear born out of their own prejudices, instead out of a concern for the harmful effects of truly hateful speech that is aimed at stopping an argument.

For example, it would be easy to report pastor Errol Naidoo to the Equality Court for regularly indulging in hate speech against gay men and lesbians. It would take a bit more work to develop an argument pointing out the inherent contradiction between his expressed fear and hatred of consensual same-sex love and his purported endorsement of Christian doctrine regarding the all-encompassing and healing love of God. An effective challenge to the good pastor’s reasoning would require some engagement with the perverted morality that underlies the promotion of discrimination and hatred under the guise of spreading love and compassion. You would have to show that it is not very rational to say: I love you so much that I would like to ensure that you continue to be vilified and discriminated against.

I would also have to show that, psychologically, the pastor’s obsession with anal sex would suggest that he is fascinated, maybe even entranced – rather than repelled – by the notion of sodomy. That would take some intellectual work. It would also be more fun than making legal arguments before a magistrate.

Moreover, I am personally rather skeptical of the strategic wisdom of using hate speech laws to try and stop uncomfortable or unpopular speech. I, for one, will not be approaching the Equality Court to prevent fundamentalist preachers from railing against “sodomites”. I always draw attention to such speech because I believe those who are so obsessed with the sexual acts of others do themselves and their arguments no favours. It always strikes me that their prurient and seemingly lustful focus on what other consensual adults do in the privacy of their own homes is more sad than harmful as it reflects badly on their own character – not on the character of those they aim to vilify.

But although I will not rush to the Equality Court in the wake of the Canadian Supreme Court judgment, the principle established in it that even religiously inspired hate speech remain hate speech, is timely. It reminds us that religiously inspired hatred remains hatred and its stench cannot be perfumed away by waiving about quotes from the scriptures. Hopefully the South African courts will follow this example when they are confronted with the same problem in future.

  • Dmwangi

    Wrong, PdV. Not a chance SA will adopt Canada’s insane and intolerant stance that quoting Leviticus in public is unlawful.

    My advice to you: you can attempt to threaten, harass, hector, ostracise, bully, exhort, intimidate religious folk all you want (since your post illiustrates it’s impossible for you to engage them in rational discourse, free of mendacity and ad hominem attacks). But Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and ATR (I’m not familiar with the Hindu teaching re: homosexuality- Maggs will have to assist) have all been around thousands of years and, baring any unforeseen and highly improbable theological revisions, are not going to overturn their fundamental tenets regarding sexual ethics any time soon. So “live and let live.” You can do whatever you want in your bedroom. But that doesn’t mean you have a RIGHT to others’ moral approval or to prevent them from voicing disapproval by characterising scripture as “hate speech.”

    The major religions have survived thousands of years and witnessed the blood of millions of martyrs. I doubt the homosexual thought-police has the stamina, will, conviction, or reproductive capacity to outlast the pious Christians, Muslims, Jews of the world. Multitudes of them are ready to be persecuted and die for their beliefs. You cannot even endure some democratic free speech that offends or makes you uncomfortable. Best of luck outlasting the ~4 billion of the great monotheist traditions in your ideological war on religion:

    “Matthew 5:10-12 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11″Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. 12″Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

    “2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.”

    ““Among those nations you shall find no respite, no rest for your foot. There God will make you cowardly, destroying your outlook and making life hopeless. You will live in constant suspense. Day and night, you will be terrified, never sure of your existence. In the morning you will say, ‘If only it were night,’ and in the evening you will say, ‘If only it were morning!’ Such will be the dread that your heart will feel and the sights that your eyes will see” (Deut. 28:65-67).”

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    “that hate speech should be judged objectively with reference to the effects of the speech and not subjectively with reference to the feelings of those targeted by the speech.”

    Good. Then we all agree that in the democratic new South Africa with such an alarming murder rate and “violent crime” stats we should not be stirring up populist emotions and interracial hatred by chanting slogans like “kill the Boer” – I assume you have now revised your position.

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Spot the difference in approach to a Canadian pastor and an Economic Freedom Fighter?

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    All the same, interesting analysis, although author indulged in excessive verbosity in the latter half.

  • Maggs Naidu – Jesus spelled backwards sounds like sausage! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 8:55 am

    Hey Dm,

    “But Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and ATR (I’m not familiar with the Hindu teaching re: homosexuality- Maggs will have to assist) have all been around thousands of years and, baring any unforeseen and highly improbable theological revisions, are not going to overturn their fundamental tenets regarding sexual ethics any time soon.”

    What’s your source on ATR re homosexuality?

    Buddhism doesn’t take an adverse view on homosexuality. Some Buddhists may.

    Neither does Hinduism (some Hindus may) – homosexuals are often celebrated and are part of cultural/religious Hindu celebrations.

    The no longer implemented, anti-homosexual laws in India were introduced by WHITE people!!!!!

  • Jack

    mmmm yes, Sodom and Gomorrah, where the only “good” man that god could find was prepared to offer up his virgin daughters for gang rape…

    I can see why this would be a useful biblical passage to justify gay hate

    Genesis 19 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Yes, I can see how Pierrot would be ecstatic at being offered Lot’s daughters….

    Kan jy die ding doen, Pierre?

  • Dmwangi

    PdV:

    Conveniently forgot to mention this little obiter: truth-telling is illegal if deemed “hateful.” Unbelievable! But actually accords quite nicely with PdV’s totalitarian program.

    “WEYBURN, Saskatchewan, 4 March, 2013 – Not finding vindication in Canada’s highest court, the country’s most controversial self-styled Christian evangelist has taken to the blogosphere to defend his innocence and exonerate himself from the judges’ unanimous pronouncement that he is guilty of “hate speech”.

    “The reasoning for ruling that two of my four flyers should be deemed ‘hate speech’ is specious and fantastical at best, or dishonest and totalitarian at worst,” wrote Bill Whatcott today on his blog FreeNorthAmerica.

    Bill Whatcott
    Whatcott said that two of his flyers deemed hate speech by the Court contained only facts about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and the biblical word for men who have sex with men.

    “The Supremes didn’t like that I used the Biblical word ‘sodomite’ to describe folks who commit sodomy and they thought using statistics showing the down side of homosexual behaviour, even if backed up with peer reviewed studies, should be censored if it could cause someone to get a negative impression of homosexual behaviour.”

    “The Supremes did not like my facts,” he said.

    While many object to Whatcott’s use of strident language and tone to convey his points in his flyers, many of the same have also condemned the Court’s decision as an unprecedented infringement of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

    In a statement that has practically received universal condemnation from both left and right, the Supreme Court Judge Rothstein wrote that “truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.”

    Critics across the spectrum have slammed the Court for ruling that truth is subject to restriction. Some lawyers have argued that what this means legally is that truth is no longer a defense.

    “Even if something may be true, it’s not a defense at Human Rights Tribunals, and that is particularly scary,” said Chris Schafer, executive director of Canadian Constitution Foundation, to Sun News.

    “The court didn’t just ban hateful religious views,” wrote Ezra Levant, lawyer, political activist, and broadcaster for Sun News. “It banned hateful speech that was objectively, scientifically true. As in, indisputable facts, if they might cause someone to hate someone else.”

    Whatcott called the judges’ restriction of truth an “excuse for censoring.”

    “There you got it. Label truthful statements you don’t like ‘hate speech’ and therein lies your excuse for censoring the statements you don’t like.”

    Whatcott said that medical studies vindicate his warnings about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. He pointed to the secular U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC), which found that the “rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM (men who have sex with men) is more than 44 times that of other men, while the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men.” For this reason, the CDC called HIV, hepatitis, and other STDs “of particular concern” for gay and bisexual men.

    “Well facts are facts, so the Supremes have simply ruled in their Whatcott decision that if facts meet the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’ they are illegal and liable to prosecution,” said Whatcott.

    Despite the ruling, Whatcott has decided to continue publicly witnessing against homosexuality with plans to hand out more flyers this week.

    “I won’t stop speaking the truth and am prepared to lose my freedom and what few assets I have, rather than be silenced and reject the cross my Saviour has for me,” he said.

    “The good news is God is still in control and truth which is rooted in Scripture and natural law has a way of prevailing, even when courts with supposedly learned men and women seek to suppress it.”’

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 8:55 am

    I fundamentally disagree that homosexuality is considered taboo by most religions. I believe such cultural value statements are both class and culture sensitive more than dictated by religioun, i.e. redneck Christian Fundamentalists in rural Canada would fundamentally disagree with middle class Christians from say, uptown New York. Same for cosmopolitan American Muslims with university education versus the rural backwaters of Afghanistan.

    For me personally the central message of all life affirming religions is tolerance, love and compassion. Hate speech towards any group is therefore verboten and against the basic premises and spirit of religion.

    However – if I was a Constitutional expert in South Africa, I would much sooner dedicate a blog entry about hate speech to what happened with Afzul Rehman last week, instead of digging out some obscure court case form Canada about homophobia once again. But I suppose that is the nature of the problem with this blog and its author. He lacks any backbone and moral conviction to take on issues that touch the nerve centre of sensitive issues that is not PC and/or doesn’t matter to himself.

    “The official asked: “Hey Gupta, what are you doing here?” and later “cracked a joke about Indians”, said Rehman.

    The official then called Rehman a Gupta again, and when Rehman asked him if he knew who he was, he replied: “Yes I know, you are a Gupta.”

    When Rehman told the official he was offended, he reportedly replied: “You can go back to India and take offence, here in South Africa, this country belongs to us.”

    After reporting the matter to RTI head King Gama, the official offered to make a personal apology to Rehman, but he refused to accept it and instead opened a case of crimen injuria, The Citizen reported.”

    http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2013/05/08/newcastle-mayor-complains-of-gupta-slur

  • Dmwangi

    How can we rationally debate the morality of homosexual conduct if quoting peer-reviewed statistics about it is “hateful,” ergo illegal????

    Seems some ppl are terrified of rationally debating this issue.

  • Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    About the most silly thing I’ve come across to date re homosexuality is

    “If you took your girlfriend of a different skin colour home, and your sister said to you that blacks and whites mixing was ‘as disgusting as seeing a dog and a pig breeding’, would you calmly point out why the analogy is unconvincing?”

    http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/steak-homosexuals-and-terrorists-1.1514518#.UZHu5EqZl8F

  • Dmwangi

    “fundamentally disagree that homosexuality is considered taboo by most religions.”

    Don’t be ignorant. Name one Muslim country where it’s currently legal? Name one Christian country where it wasn’t outlawed for hundreds of years up until a few decades ago? It’s not only explicitly forbidden in the Bible, Koran and Torah but by 2,500 years of natural law thought and theological explication.

  • Dmwangi

    There was no class/culture divide on this issue until, perhaps, very recently. There was an overwhelming consensus against it. Hence, the anti-sodomy statutes from New York City to rural Canada to London and beyond. Where did you imagine such common law uniformity derived from?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    And you can trust in this new form of “liberal” fascism, to constantly divert attention from almost incomprehensible abuse and injustice and displace “human rights” with “gay rights” for example.

    WASHINGTON — A Guantanamo Bay detainee says he feels abandoned by President Barack Obama and the world after more than 10 years at the U.S. prison.

    “I believe that President Obama must be unaware of the unbelievably inhumane conditions at the Guantanamo Bay prison, for otherwise he would surely do something to stop this torture,” Yemeni prisoner Musa’ab Omar Al Madhwani wrote in a federal court declaration this year.

    Sens. Heidi Heitkamp and Tim Johnson join other prominent figures in endorsing marriage rights.

    About a month later, Obama renewed his vow to close the U.S. detention center in Cuba, but acknowledged one key obstacle: “It’s a hard case to make because I think for a lot of Americans, the notion is ‘out of sight, out of mind.’”

    “Like most of the 166 prisoners remaining at Guantanamo, Al Madhwani is participating in a hunger strike to protest his detention and prison conditions. “Indefinite detention is the worst form of torture,” wrote Al Madhwani, who is in his 11th year at the prison and has never been charged with a crime.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-10-years-in-captivity-guantanamo-bay-prisoner-says-obama-has-abandoned-detainees/2013/05/14/a320e07e-bc69-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html

    What is absolutely absurd is that our socalled “Constitutional expert” has never, even once, spoken out about this.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 10:05 am

    There is no homogeneous agreement amongst most of the religious about such assumptions. The various anecdotes from scriptures are all class and culture sensitive since they reflect a historical pov – lets take the ten commandments for example common to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, there is no prohibition against “homosexuality” at all. Take the central message of the gospels for another example – Jesus dialogue with a prostitute where he makes it clear that it is not up to the community to judge and condemn her sexual morals, rather it speaks of empathy, love and tolerance.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 10:11 am

    Hey Dm,

    “Hence, the anti-sodomy statutes from New York City to rural Canada”

    Is it likely that “the overwhelming consensus against” homosexuality in North America was intended to stop the indigenous peoples from breeding?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Cardinal Napier – “I don’t know any gays”! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)
    May 14, 2013 at 10:03 am

    Excellent. Some more pink washing. When we should be talking today about Indians who are told in no uncertain terms to “go back home” amidst a public orgy of xenophobia and race-baiting. You camouflage your sexual orientation, but you cannot hide the colour of your skin.

  • Dmwangi

    OB:

    It is in the 10 commandments as part of the proscription against adultery- since tautologically men cannot “marry” one another.

    Now stop dissembling. You are neither a theologian nor a biblical exegete. Your philology and hermeneutics are about as authoritative in these matters as PdV’s.

    There’s a reason why for 2,000+ years in the Judeo-Christian tradition and almost 1,500 in the Muslim, there is no renowned or highly-regarded cleric, theologian or religious scholar that doubted this matter. Zero. None. There was universal consensus among religious scholars about it.
    Up until a few years ago, it wasn’t even seriously debated because it would have seemed laughably ridiculous. All your revisionist history in the world cannot wash away millennia of theology regarding sexual ethics.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 10:41 am

    “It is in the 10 commandments as part of the proscription against adultery- since tautologically men cannot “marry” one another.”

    Yes. As I said earlier remove the class and cultural bias in many of the anecdotes and there is nothing in the 10 commandments that forbid homosexual relationships, not even by a far stretch of the imagination.

    What we to have is at least one example for the Old Testament of Kind David and Jonathan.

    David loved Jonathan more than women

    http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/david_jonathan.html

    Then of course we have Jesus and his disciples an all male crowd fishing, braaing and hanging together – no women whatsoever? that to me just seems absolutely suspect and why I avoid like the plague single sex bars.

  • Dmwangi

    For that matter, PdV would probably accuse Jesus of a “hate” crime if a gay approached in the manner of the prostitute, as he showed moral disapproval of the ACT by telling her to “sin no more.” PdV feels the need to use the coercive powers of the state to force others to approve of his “lifestyle” decisions. Or at the least, be prevented from voicing disapproval.

  • Dmwangi

    I see, OB. You’re more learned about these matters than the millions of Jewish, Christian, Muslim scholars over the millennia who dedicated decades of their lives to studying questions like these. How nice for you that you need not study Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic. Or waste all that time reading all that philosophy, theology, philology, hermeneutics, patristics, etc.

    You must be a prophet to be so wise and learned with so little effort. Thank you for illustrating so clearly that all of the theologians from these traditions, who were incisive enough to stand the test of time for thousands of years, were so fundamentally wrong. I’m sure clerics will be studying your works for years to come!

  • Dmwangi

    The prescription is no sex outside marriage (I.e. no adultery), not sex with anyone who isn’t married is permitted. Now only one who isn’t a Derrida acolyte and examines the meaning of the text will be able to deduce that.

  • Boertjie

    “that hate speech should be judged objectively with reference to the effects of the speech and not subjectively with reference to the feelings of those targeted by the speech.”

    That reasoning is flawed. To illustrate…

    1) the k-word used by a speaker at a white right-wing extremist meeting.

    2) the k-word used to scold a black gardener

    according to abovequoted reasoning, the k-word would be hate speech in 1) but not in 2)

    IMHO, hate speech should be judged by the intentions/hate/feelings of the person who commits hate speech. Not by the effects of hate speech nor the feelings of those against whom it is directed.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 11:03 am

    LOL.

    Don’t get all worked up now Dmwangi. I’m simply reading the Bible from a literal, fundamentalist pov. Jesus himself rejected cultural and political baggage dressed up as “religion”, the authentic signifier to what religion is all about.

    That is why we have female circumcision in Nothern Africa but not in Europe/Asia – has nothing to do with Islam as a religion itself.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 11:07 am

    “The prescription is no sex outside marriage (I.e. no adultery), not sex with anyone who isn’t married is permitted.”

    But I’m sure that you know that gays and lesbians can get married now in certain cultures?

  • Gwebecimele

    Brett

    “According to Volksblad, more than 100 poor whites were given front row seats at the African National Congress’s recent elective conference in the Free State.”

  • Zoo Keeper

    The central tenet of the freedom of speech is that people may say what they want.

    This means they may say that they dislike gays and lesbians and think it is an abomination.

    They can say that Professor, yes they can. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom only to say politically correct things.

    The only restriction I believe could be justified is incitement to harm, with the intention of incitement to harm. If someone says we must run off and kill Jews now, that is incitement to harm. If people actually do it, then the speaker should be guilty of murder by common purpose. Whether the initial incitement is sanctionable I am doubtful, but the speaker must take the risk of his speech being actioned upon if that was his intent. If it is actioned upon, then he is guilty by reason of common purpose.

    This would mean a real robust interpretation of freedom of speech, something allegedly pro-constitutionalists like the Professor cannot stomach.

    I feel PEDUPA is misguided and dangerous to freedom of speech to be honest.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Gwebecimele
    May 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Brett

    “According to Volksblad, more than 100 poor whites were given front row seats at the African National Congress’s recent elective conference in the Free State.”

    Yes. You must be very proud of the “transformation” gwebs. Another 2 million to go though?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    “Smit said many white South Africans supported the ANC, but they did not publicly announce it for fear of being victimised. ”

    LOL. Yip. Kill the Boer and “White males” are the problem. You must be pretty fucking dumb and/or suicidal to support such a party that hates you.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Ja! Ons sit tyres om sulke Smitte se nekke.

  • Pierre De Vos

    I am amused that some of the same people who clamoured for a hate speech conviction against Julius Malema for singing his song about Boers now defend freedom of speech and profess a principled opposition to hate speech. Funny – in a sad sort of way.

  • beetle

    Much of PdV’s tirade is an indirect attack on ordinary heterosexual opinion.

    Gays are well networked and are particularly prevalent in the Law community. I daresay they might well serve their own interests thereby.

    Have gay judges and magistrates ever recused themselves?

  • terence grant

    When all is said and done the court has decided that we can, under certain circumstances, be prohibited from speaking the truth(or the truth as we see it),which is scary.Should we also take action on behalf of those who get offended by by being told(for instance)that Blacks couldn’t read ,write or count when whites arrived in this country and are hugely indebted to Western Civilisation for everything from flush -toilets and electrity to democracy and the Bill of R
    ights.

  • terence grant

    When all is said and done the court has decided that we can, under certain circumstances, be prohibited from speaking the truth(or the truth as we see it),which is scary.Should we also take action on behalf of those who get offended by being told(for instance)that Blacks couldn’t read ,write or count when whites arrived in this country and are hugely indebted to Western Civilisation for everything from flush -toilets and electrity to democracy and the Bill of R
    ights?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Pierre De Vos
    May 14, 2013 at 13:44 pm

    “I am amused that some of the same people who clamoured for a hate speech conviction against Julius Malema for singing his song about Boers now defend freedom of speech and profess a principled opposition to hate speech. Funny – in a sad sort of way.”

    I’m amused that intelligent people can compare senior leaders of political parties propagating for some minority groups to be murdered with the some unknown preacher somewhere expressing strong views on homosexuality.

    What if a Julius Malema ran around inciting ANC membership to “kill the queers”, would that be the same as some piet pompies preaching to some rednecks in Ventersdorp about how he believes the bible disapproves homosexuality?

    Surely there is a huge difference on the possible consequences/implications there for gays and for lesbians in South Africa.

    You are the one that has been consistently unprincipled – based on your own hatred for Whites and Afrikaners in particular. When are you going to comment on this new tendency of Indian bashing, you with your fukcing “identity politics” and all that sows the breeding ground and more importantly the mindset for such racism/xenophobia to flourish?

  • Michael Osborne

    “hate speech should be judged objectively with reference to the effects of the speech and not subjectively with reference to the feelings of those targeted by the speech.”

    I agree with Zooks and Brett. As stated, this proposition is too broad. The harmful “effects of the speech” must be likely, serious and immediate. Otherwise, one would allow the banning on Mein Kampf, and of any number of left wing tracts see Lenin’s and Mao’s call for the liquidation of the ruling classes etc.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Professor

    Julius was singing a song calling for the murder of a specific group.

    If he stood up and said: “You know, I hate white people. I think they smell just like raw chicken and are an abomination on African soil.” Fine by me. That’s just, like, his opinion, man.

    Calling for people’s murder on the other hand is where he must take the risk of someone acting upon that call, and be sentenced to murder with the perpetrator.

    I still waiver on the side of him being able to sing it, but if someone acts upon it, he must go down with the perp.

  • Dmwangi

    “But I’m sure that you know that gays and lesbians can get married now in certain cultures?”

    And I’m sure you– as the greatest theologian since the last geological age– knows that a bureaucrat sanctioning a relationship does not create a marriage. It can, at best, make a “marriage.”

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Zoo Keeper
    May 14, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    ZooKy

    “The only restriction I believe could be justified is incitement to harm, with the intention of incitement to harm.”

    Restrictions are silly.

    People who do harmful things should be jailed.

    The then Deputy Minister Shabangu was not charged for screaming “kill the bastards”.

    The cops who do that get charged (and they, more often than not, get away with it :P)

  • Dmwangi

    “That is why we have female circumcision in Nothern Africa but not in Europe/Asia – has nothing to do with Islam as a religion itself.”

    Sure, OB. It’s all “cultural.” Has nothing to do with religion. Christianity and Islam didn’t change any of the sexual mores of Greek, Roman, Arab culture after coming on the scene. In fact, the proscription of homosexual acts that stood in perfect uniformity, until a few years ago, in all the cultures of the world practicing Islam and Christianity was merely a coincidence. Those just happened to be the cultures that already proscribed it! Religion had no influence on Greek sexual ethics or marital norms. Even one with an infant’s knowledge of history knows that.

  • Maggs Naidu – The Lord is my saviour! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Ozoneblue
    May 14, 2013 at 10:38 am

    OB,

    Let’s see where to start.

    - “You camouflage your sexual orientation” – I’m openly gay, everyone knows that. Please marry me (we’ll take with us Dmwangi on honeymoon)

    - “you cannot hide the colour of your skin” – What??? Are you mad? (ok don’t answer that). My skin colour is the envy of WHITE people everywhere – why on earth would you think that I would want to hide it.

    - “When we should be talking today about Indians who are told in no uncertain terms to “go back home” amidst a public orgy of xenophobia and race-baiting.” I also wanted those Indians to go back home. They were causing shit in our country. Good riddance to them – may we never see them again!

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 8:55 am

    Hey DM

    What do you say to this?

    This oke looks more gorgeous than your gardener, ne!

    The winner of Thailand’s 2009 “Miss Tiffany” transsexual beauty contest has entered the Buddhist monkhood with plans to stay there the rest of his life, reports said Tuesday.

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/lifestyle/2013/05/14/former-transsexual-beauty-queen-becomes-a-monk

  • Dmwangi

    At the risk of being charged with HATE speech, methinks:

    Ephesians 6:12

    “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 15:20 pm

    ” Religion had no influence on Greek sexual ethics or marital norms.”

    It is one thing to say have an influence and quite another to state that it is the predominant determinant. For example if religion was the determinant then we wouldn’t have polygamy and monogamy coexisting in Islam and polygamy would be the dominant form of union in Judaism.

    Islam Did Not Initiate Polygamy

    “Islam did not introduce polygamy. Among all Eastern nations of antiquity, polygamy was a recognized institution. Among the Hindus, polygamy prevailed from the earliest times. There was, as among the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians, no restriction as to the number of wives a man might have. Although Greece and Rome were not polygamous societies, concubinage was a norm[1]. Islam regulated polygamy by limiting the number of wives and bringing responsibility to its practice. In fact, according to David Murray, an anthropologist, historically polygamy is more common than monogamy.[2]”

    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/325/

    So again it is very difficult to determine what you believe is religiously determined and what is in fact a historical cultural phenomena. However as I stated before – “culture” is simply how we deal and cope with our environment in order to survive. It may well be that certain cultural norms have become outdated and do not improve our societies overall ability to adapt to new challenges.

  • Dmwangi

    OB:

    Please stop acting as though you’re a subject-matter expert on these things. Read the Koran and Hadiths if you want to know where Islam stands on polygamy.

    If you want to revise millennia old theological principles you’ll need to do more than bald assertion and obfuscations about disaggregating religion and culture.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 16:13 pm

    “Please stop acting as though you’re a subject-matter expert on these things. Read the Koran and Hadiths if you want to know where Islam stands on polygamy. ”

    I’m not an expert on anything dmwangi. But was born and raised in the Calvinist tradition and I can therefore see parallelisms with my personal religious understanding/experience and similarities in other religions. I am entitled to my opinion and I think I understand a bit more about religious concepts than your everyday “New Atheist” dilettante.

    You don’t own a monopoly on the truth either, you know.

  • Dmwangi

    Maggs:

    “What’s your source on ATR re homosexuality?”

    Cambridge Professor, Philosopher, Theologian and leading expert in ATR, John S. Mbiti.

    I would quote from his seminal 1973 work, “Love and Marriage in Africa,” where he discusses homosexuality within the context of ATR but, no doubt, being that it was written several decades ago, the language used would be deemed HATEFUL.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 17:51 pm

    Hey Dm

    “Cambridge Professor, Philosopher, Theologian and leading expert in ATR, John S. Mbiti.”

    Bad reference.

    Your oke converted to WHITISM!

    Any credible sources??

    About the author (1973)

    John Mbiti was born in Kitui, Kenya, and received his education in Africa and abroad. Trained as an Anglican priest, he went on to be both professor and parish minister in Switzerland, where he later settled. As a philosopher and Christian theologian, Mbiti became one of the early African authorities on African religions. Using his philosophical skills, he focuses on deriving a representation of a coherent philosophical worldview from the indigenous traditions. One of his projects, for example, has been to articulate a view of temporality in indigenous African thought different from that of the modern West. Mbiti’s goal, however, has not been simply to develop ethnophilosophical analyses. Concerned with the future of Africa, he has argued that certain traditional African values should be preserved, but also—for the sake of modernization and reform—that other values (based often in Christianity) should be assimilated into the culture. This latter orientation has made him the subject of some controversy among other African philosophers.

    http://books.google.co.za/books/about/Love_and_marriage_in_Africa.html?id=9g2eAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Hey Dm,

    “scholars over the millennia who dedicated decades of their lives to studying questions like these.”

    You do know that you are relying on the knowledge, norms and values of people who believed the Earth was flat and the sun and other planets went wozzy-woozy around the Earth, don’t you?

  • Dmwangi

    Not sure why he’s a bad reference. He happens to be the foremost expert in the field. But it’s not like there’s a lot of disagreement among ATR scholars about whether homosexuality has been permitted or not so pick your favourite one:

    “Unlike Christianity and Islam, homosexuality is un-African

    Homosexuality refers to sexual relationships between two people of the same sex. Karl-Maria Kertbeny coined the term homosexual in 1869 in a pamphlet arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law. And so homosexuality, the ideology that sodomy is good, was born.

    Societal attitudes towards same sex relationships vary. Some ritualistic forms of erotic attraction and sexual pleasure between males existed as part of the cultural norm in some ancient cultures. Nevertheless, nowhere in antiquity or the Middle Ages, is sodomy experienced as it is done today by homosexuals as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality.

    As a result of campaigns that began in the West with the formation of the modern gay rights movement in 1969 (marking the 100th anniversary of the sodomite becoming the homosexual), there has been, in some countries, a trend towards increased visibility, recognition, and legal rights for homosexuals, including marriage and civil unions, parenting rights, and equal access to healthcare. But in most nations homosexuality remains illegal.

    Sober Africans will tell you with religious finality that homosexuality is “un-African.” But those in the homosexual movement dismiss that notion as nonsensical. A cartoonist recently tried to discredit Kenyan clergymen pushing that argument by portraying them as hypocrites since the Bible itself is not African. Some in the homosexual movement argue derisively that there is no intellectual tradition or argument that can rely on an unexamined, uncritical sense of that abstract collectivity called “African.”

    Those like the cartoonist totally miss what is meant by being “un-African.” The philosophically coherent, plausible, and sophisticated, worldview of, say, the Abakhayo (Bantu) and Iteso (Nilotes) of Busia is contained in their elaborate folklores, ritiuals, etc that transmit their cultural values of kinship. That intellectual tradition, which is an aspect of the larger body of African intellectual tradition, places great import on the morality of both public and private life, values found in both the Bible and the Koran. Nothing in the body of Abakhayo/Iteso intellectual life glamorises “Omulosi/Ekachudan” (the wicked one). In fact, it morally binds us to condemn a person whose private activities block the flow of life.

    In African traditions, like in the Abrahamic religions, spirituality has a moral dimension. Human relationship and social harmony are vital elements in the African sense of moral aesthetics. According to John S. Mbiti, it is only in terms of other people that the individual himself is conscious of his own being, his own duties, his privileges and responsibilities towards other people: “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am”.

    This is a morality of ‘conduct’ rather than a morality of ‘being.’ Hence, it matters to others what two consenting adults do in private. This morality occurs in contrast to emphasizing an individual’s sense of self, autonomy or being, that is, of the self which does not place much value on social relationships. Corporate existence signifies a responsibility of many for one, and vice versa.

    According to A. T. Dalfovo, the fact that African ethics emphasises human relationship shows the significance attached to the individual human being, by being perceived as the centre of the relationship, and as an active agent and participant in the relationship. The emphasis is not on the autonomy, freedom, and critical inclination of the individual in the sense of Socratic ethics, but on an appreciation of the status and role of the individual in the ethical and socio-economic pattern, which entails the individual’s active agency and participation in the overriding moral imperative to pass on life.

    Witches, those who engage in activities that block the natural flow of life, are not tolerated in life, and children are not named after them when they die (i.e. they are not given nominal reincarnation) because their evil souls never go to rest with the ancestors.

    One could thus say that whereas secular European ethics conceives the individual as an intellectual being, emphasising the faculty of reason as the basic tenet in moral conduct, African ethics conceives the individual as an ethical entity. It is, indeed, this ethical perception that makes the relationship human.

    The ethical individuality of the human being is alien in African (also Christian and Islamic) ethics which places considerable value on the conformity of the individual to the social group and social consciousness.

    While the sense of relationship and community underlies African traditional ethics, in contrast to the European sense of autonomy, the individual is not perceived as just a mere presence in the community. As an individual, he is perceived both as the centre of the relationship and also as contributing to its sustenance, especially through procreation. Hence, he possesses an ethical status and contributes a role in the ethical and entire social spectrum.

    Hence, within this construct of morality, with reference to the particular African context and drawing on African philosophical and cultural traditions, homosexuality (the ideology that sodomy is good), unlike Christianity or Islam, is un-African to the extent that it is an affront to the community as a whole, especially because it blocks reproduction, which is the main purpose of African morality within the kinship.

    That is what the Most Reverend Peter Jasper Akinola, Anglican Primate of the Church of Nigeria means when, both as an African and a Christian, he asks: “Homosexuality seeks to destroy marriage as we know it, unity as we know it, family life as we know it, so how can we endorse that?”

    - Okiya Omtatah Okoiti

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 19:59 pm

    “While the sense of relationship and community underlies African traditional ethics, in contrast to the European sense of autonomy, the individual is not perceived as just a mere presence in the community. As an individual, he is perceived both as the centre of the relationship and also as contributing to its sustenance, especially through procreation. Hence, he possesses an ethical status and contributes a role in the ethical and entire social spectrum.”

    I’m sorry to say that all that is not distinctly “African” but can also be found in many “European” and “Asian” and whatever societies, from the family bond, to communal, to tribal, to the larger religious commune, to nationalism right through to large socialism. While this phenomenon is commendable, and after all distinctly human, should be attributed to Africa is a mystery beyond my comprehension.

    Lets face it. “Ubuntu” as something uniquely “African” is one of the biggest political scams ever invented.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Ozymandies

    “Ubuntu” as something uniquely “African” is one of the biggest political scams ever invented.”

    Oz is right. I would go so far as to say that UBUNTU was a COLONIAL imposition, like sodomy and sellphones!

    Maggs, WDYS?

  • Gwebecimele

    http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Proposed-Wild-Coast-toll-road-scrapped-20130514-4

    Unlike the Gauteng ANC the KZN side with the people.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 19:59 pm

    Dm,

    “Not sure why he’s a bad reference.”

    That’s because he’s left all the nice African traditions to live with WHITE people. Maybe he’s a Swiss coconut.

    So you want me to accept what a ” Anglican Primate” has to say (in other words a religious monkey)?

    But what’s with you and sodomy? Are you also opposed to sodomy within heterosexual relationships? Why would it matter to you how people enjoy their private encounters? Are you a Peeping Tom?

  • Gwebecimele

    http://www.citypress.co.za/business/energy-minister-backs-nuclear-power/

    Let us hope that the average Mangaung delegate will recognise that this talk of nuclear is different from the much loved proposals of National Dev Plan.

  • Gwebecimele

    http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=376704&sn=Detail&pid=71616

    Apparently there are 2 versions of the NDP

    Which one was discussed in Mangaung?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Guta friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)
    May 14, 2013 at 21:37 pm

    “That’s because he’s left all the nice African traditions to live with WHITE people. Maybe he’s a Swiss coconut.”

    Perhaps you spreading that coconut word around bit too much. For a Gupta!

    WDYS?

  • Dmwangi

    Maggs:

    He works in Switzerland. He also has an academic post in Uganda. I guess at unis like UCT that somehow impugns the credibility of his scholarly research.

    I don’t care about sodomy. As I said: “Live and let live.” But don’t use the coercive powers of the state to compel me to show moral approval or refrain from voicing moral or religious disapproval. Let gays be gay if that’s what they want and let those who disapprove express their convictions about it if they want. I.e. The dignity of gays should be respected AND so should the dignity of those who find it morally problematic. That’s the essence of tolerance, Maggs. I pray you and PdV learn it someday.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 23:28 pm

    “But don’t use the coercive powers of the state to compel me to show moral approval or refrain from voicing moral or religious disapproval. Let gays be gay if that’s what they want and let those who disapprove express their convictions about it if they want.”

    I agree.

    Disapproval can be expressed in different ways. “Shoot the queers”, “gas the queers”, “queers control all the wealth” or “queers must be punished for the sins of their forefather” or “queers should not get jobs” or “queers should go back home”, is substantially different and have different consequences for the queers than saying “we are not queer”, “we don’t agree with queerness” or “queerness is perverse, simply not our norm”.

  • Dmwangi

    You’re full of red herrings. Try to stick to the post: we’re referring to religiously motivated disapproval. None of the religions I’m familiar with, or defending here, sanction murder or forced sloth. As for sending them “home,” in your typical vein, that makes no sense. Home? Most of them are citizens. What home are you even talking about?

    Stick to the post: the man was not advocating murder, job discrimination, forced emigration, violence or any other of your apocalyptic imaginations. Here merely made an offending remark, quoted scripture and some medical stats. Get over it. He’s entitled to speak his mind. It’s not a hate crime.

  • ewald

    Dmwangi’s brain is pure missionary pulp.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi is actually correct.

    The preacher is entitled to speak his mind. That is his right and it must be respected.

    The recipient of the message is entitled to be pleased, offended, angry, happy, or whatever.

    End.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Zoo Keeper
    May 15, 2013 at 7:47 am

    ZooKy,

    “and it must be respected.”

    Why must it be respected?

  • Boertjie

    Im curious what people will think of this with regard to hate speech. I expect prof de Vos will agree with the author’s disclaimer…

    http://www.dutchmen.blogspot.com/

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 14, 2013 at 23:28 pm

    Hey Dm,

    Finally we’re making progress – well done. Soon even Black people will be impressed.

    That you don’t care about sodomy is not the issue – it’s your obsession at venting your views with others who do, that is bothersome.

    “Live and let live” is neither here nor there. Our nation is founded on, among other things, equality – that’s what we really need to respect. Of course you can express your disdain, dislike whatever – but do expect to be robustly engaged.

    “those who find it morally problematic” are not forced into same-sex relationships (except prisoners of course – but then by “choosing to go to jail” all their rights are suspended; and we celebrate the cruel and inhuman punishment. Our prisons are the equivalent of the US’s Guantanamo Bay – i.e. outside the jurisdiction of our Constitution).

    So why should I, or anyone else, respect and tolerate views that are in direct conflict with our Constitution (given that one of the pillars of the struggle for democracy was equality)?

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    Boertjie
    May 15, 2013 at 8:34 am

    In fact if you want to go and dig out some hate speech somewhere then you need look no further than:

    “New Black Panther audio: ‘If they are white, kill ‘em all’

    The New Black Panther Party opened its radio program earlier this week with audio calling for the murder of all white people in South Africa, The Blaze reported liberal hate

    The shocking audio featured the late Khalid Muhammad, a former spokesman for Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.

    “We give them 24 hours in South Africa to get out of town by sundown. I say, if they don’t get out of town, we kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy, we kill the fa**ots, we kill the lesbians, I say god d****t we kill them all,” he said.

    “If they are white, kill ‘em all,” he added.

    “Why kill the women? Why kill the babies? They are just innocent blue-eyed babies? Because god d****t they are going to grow up one day to rule your babies. Kill them now. Why kill the women in South Africa? I say kill the women because the women are the military manufacturing center. And every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs, so shut down the military manufacturing center by killing the white woman,” Muhammad said.

    Muhammad explained that old “crackers” got that way by “oppressing and killing black people…”

    “Kill ‘em all,” he added. “Kill the f****t. Kill the lesbian. And after you’ve killed them all […] I say then you go to the god d**n grave, and dig ‘em up, and then kill ‘em a-god-d**n gain because they didn’t die hard enough.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/new-black-panther-audio-if-they-are-white-kill-em-all

    But of course that is not the kind of hate speech our White liberals will ever take serious issues with because it is not politically correct to do so and in their vast “White Supremacy” conspiracy theory there is no such a thing as racist Blacks. Then it is all “freedom of speech” and so on.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    And here with the typical apologetic, spineless White liberal response to Black racism.

    Threats are bad; white supremacy is worse

    http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-28-threats-are-bad-white-supremacy-is-worse

    And as we know nothing happened to Herr Mngxitama after that. Just as nothing happened on all the previous occasions when he spew his intense racial hatred and his genocidal filth.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    No there is a thought for the day PdV?

    “Kill ‘em all,” he added. “Kill the f****t. Kill the lesbian. And after you’ve killed them all […] I say then you go to the god d**n grave, and dig ‘em up, and then kill ‘em a-god-d**n gain because they didn’t die hard enough.”

    You think that is perhaps “hate speech”. Where are you and maggs going to run to when you reap the fruits of the hatred you have been sowing?

    hmmmm… liewe Pierretjie?

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Where are the Minister’s reasons?
    We’re entitled to them – in writing.

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/no-parole-for-de-kock-1.1515970

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Holy shit!

    “In the answering papers filed by Zuma late last year, a perplexing allegation was made. He submitted, no doubt on legal advice, that the complaint by Daniel should not enjoy direct access to the highest court in the land. In effect, Zuma contended that the matter should be taken away to a high court. Daniel had not asked for leave to be given direct access; he approached the Constitutional Court directly as of right. Imagine his surprise and consternation when, on January 31, his attorneys received an order from the Constitutional Court refusing him direct access in the matter. No opportunity to respond, no hearing, no argument, nothing. Just an order based on a false assumption that leave to be given direct access had been requested, when it had not and did not need to be.”

  • Gwebecimele

    While we are busy with hate speech others are not so fortunate.

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Girl-13-raped-stabbed-left-to-die-20130515

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za/ Ozoneblue

    maggs-

    You would be happy to hear that Indians are not black!

    “A sore point has been the treatment of domestic workers, gardeners and other staff working for Indian families and businesses. While white-on-black racism, or its reverse, usually dominates the conversation in South Africa, Indian-on-black prejudice is an issue that has come to the forefront at various times in our democratic history.”

    http://mg.co.za/article/2013-05-13-the-guptas-and-racism-among-indians

    So we can remove you racist Indians from the designated groups in the EE act under category “Black people in general” now?

  • Gwebecimele

    Our courts at it again. Another white man making joke of our justice.

    http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Financial-Services/Ex-Fidentia-boss-gets-off-lightly-20130515

  • Gwebecimele

    With one eye on the Judicial Handbook our Magistrates continue to underperform.

    http://ewn.co.za/2013/05/15/Cop-accused-of-rape-abandons-bail

  • Gwebecimele

    Anonymouse

    With one eye on the Judicial Handbook our Magistrates continue to underperform.

    http://ewn.co.za/2013/05/15/Cop-accused-of-rape-abandons-bail

  • Gwebecimele
  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Gwebs

    “Our courts at it again. Another white man making joke of our justice.”

    Gwebs is right. I think it is very important that we all contribute intelligently on sentencing, without wasting any time reading the judgement or familiarising ourselves with the admitted evidence!

    Thanks.

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Pierrot?

    Hoe lyk dit my die laaste been van julle konstitusionele klugspel staan ook op voete van klei?

    http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2013/05/15/cringeworthy-case-of-zuma-and-the-persistent-litigant

    Julle ‘progressiewes’ het ons mos verseker ‘n modus vivendi tussen wit en swart IS moontlik, dat ons vrese van onemanonevoteonce met ‘n kleptokratiese diktator daarna ongegrond is omdat ons ‘n verskanste grondwet sou he met ‘n onafhanklike regbank om dit af te dwing?

    Nou hoe nou, ouboet?

  • spoiler

    Up until a few years ago, it wasn’t even seriously debated because it would have seemed laughably ridiculous. All your revisionist history in the world cannot wash away millennia of theology regarding sexual ethics.

    DM that theology needs some revision I think, its literally old testament stuff or perhaps before, but definitely not older than 6000 years because thats when the same theology says the world was created.. Instead of hanging on a few thousand year old sexual ethics, how about some new ideas, or do you choose to simply believe rather than understand?

  • Thomas

    Prof: Can you please give us an analysis of the Former Fidentia boss J Arthur Brown verdict and sentence. R150 000 seems like a slap on the wrist. Can you explain why the judge would give such a sentence.

  • Gwebecimele

    Dworky is right, Brown has suffered more than the widows and orphans who lost their investment.

    May be there is wisdom in paying Prosecutors more than Magistrates THEY decide for them.

    “The section of law stating a minimum sentence of 15 years for fraud did thus not apply, as it was only for fraud involving amounts of more than R500 000.

    “I have the unfettered discretion to pass a sentence which, in all circumstances, is just and fair,” Veldhuizen said.

    “I cannot sentence you for crimes which you have not been convicted (of). That would be wrong.”

    The judge criticised the State’s handling of the case, asking why the chief financial officer of the Financial Services Board (FSB), Dawood Seedat, was only called to testify after Brown was convicted.

    Seedat had testified in aggravation of Brown’s sentence.

    He said they had launched the investigation into Fidentia in 2006 and found there was a shortfall of R406 million.

    “Veldhuizen said if the FSB’s findings were factually correct, it was “astounding” that the State had only brought certain charges against Brown and accepted his plea of guilty on two counts.

    The judge acknowledged the “trauma and personal suffering” Brown had been through while awaiting trial over the past six years.” – Sapa

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Gwebe

    I still say that it is optimal for us to assess an appropriate sentence “impressionistically,” without considering the evidence presented, reading the judgment, or taking into account any “technical” errors the prosecution may have perpetrated!

    Thanks.

  • Zoo Keeper

    OB

    the Professor will not comment on it or even deal with it.

    But Farrakhan to my mind has made his point. He very clearly intends somebody to act upon it.

    If somebody acts upon it, then Farrakhan has to be arrested and sentenced for murder or attempted murder (depending on how far his disciple got). He must take the risk of actions upon his words and suffer the same sentence as his disciple. That is where enforcement of incitement to harm should come in.

  • Dmwangi

    ““Live and let live” is neither here nor there. Our nation is founded on, among other things, equality – that’s what we really need to respect. Of course you can express your disdain, dislike whatever – but do expect to be robustly engaged.”

    “So why should I, or anyone else, respect and tolerate views that are in direct conflict with our Constitution (given that one of the pillars of the struggle for democracy was equality)?”

    I don’t care if you respect my views. Feel free to robustly “engage.” Seems to me, if you really believe the truth is on your side, you should welcome open debate instead of running to the courts to try to silence those you disagree with.

    The Constitution enshrines my right (or anyone else) to voice moral approval or disapproval that may be unpopular. Not long ago, it would have been just as unpopular to speak in defence of interracial marriages as it now is to speak against homosexual ones. The Constitution does not provide for a right that homosexuals – or anyone else- is entitled to an equal amount of social approval. Such a right is impossible and would require a totalitarian state to enforce. You must tolerate expression of views you do not like because that is how democracy works. You do not have a right to forcibly stop those you disagree with from engaging in the public square or to use the coercive powers of the state to quell dissent.

    Even MO, who I surmise strongly disagrees with the pastor’s views, says they must be tolerated unless there is incitement to cause harm, and that it would be “likely, immediate, serious.” Therein lies the difference between a classical liberal and one of the authoritarian/modern variety like you and PdV.

    It does not bode well for this country that people– particularly legal “experts”– are so quick to resort to violence- even if it is violence imposed through courts, law, and police- to attempt to deprive those they disagree with from speaking their minds.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 15, 2013 at 16:26 pm

    You’re confused dude!

    “that is how democracy works” – now you sound just like Zuma!

    “You do not have a right to forcibly stop those you disagree with from engaging in the public square or to use the coercive powers of the state to quell dissent.”

    Huh???

    Why not?

  • Dmwangi

    Thank you, Maggs, for illustrating so clearly what tyrannical dictators people like you and PdV are.

    “Oh my, that man said something I find offensive. (Irrespective of whether it’s true or not inciting violence) Call the police! Have him locked up and quieted until he agrees not to audibly disagree with my position! Everyone is entitled to equality dammit, and we’ll achieve equality of opinion even if that means imposing my view of equality on everyone else.”

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 15, 2013 at 17:22 pm

    Dm,

    “Thank you, Maggs, for illustrating so clearly what tyrannical dictators people like you and PdV are.”

    You’re welcome.

    But do explain why you think that the courts are a no-go?

  • Dmwangi

    For the same reasons as Zoo and MO- I believe in free expression. Unlike you and PdV, I’m comfortable with ppl disagreeing about my deeply held convictions. But it’s not enough for you and PdV to have a right to do as you wish in your bedrooms, you feel you have a right to compel others to assent to the morality of it. I understand that might seem like a nuanced distinction to someone of your limited cognition. But put on your adult thinking cap, and try real hard to fathom why under a democratic dispensation we should not use violence- even if it’s state violence- to force others, who are not inciting violence, to agree with our opinions.

    I know you can do it Maggs. Just keep trying….

  • Maggs Naidu – Eish! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Ozoneblue
    May 15, 2013 at 11:01 am

    OB,

    Not sure what you’re on about but Verashini’s piece is pretty accurate.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 15, 2013 at 17:50 pm

    Hey Dm,

    Me and my husband are lying around doing things I cannot share on this family blog – please join us for a twosome. I know you want to!

    p.s. If you believe in free expression, why are you scared of our courts?

  • Dmwangi

    I’m not scared of courts. I’m scared of courts that limit moral and political expression. And I’m especially scared of courts that are willing to use violence to silence expressions of moral opprobrium (without regard to if they are true, and/or not inciting violence themselves). That is about as Stalinesque as one can imagine.

  • Brett Nortje – Help! Help! The ANC has turned my country into a Bantustan!

    Well said, that man!

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    Zoo Keeper May 15, 2013 at 15:40 p

    I know he wouldn’t want to deal with it because it would expose his hypocracy, his own moral bancruptcy, his lack of any sort of backbone but believe me when the likes of Mngxitama/Malema start inciting enough hatred amongst the masses and push comes to shove it is spineless white liberal elites like him who would be the first ones to run. Leaving us ‘racist Whites’ to do the fighting much like much hated Afrikaners/Apartheid were the bullwark against Communism/defended British colonial interest.

  • http://www.ozoneblue.co.za ozoneblue

    Maggs Naidu – Eish! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) May 15, 2013 at 17:50

    You dont know what Im on about because you dont want to know. Nobody is quite as obtuse as those who do not want to understand.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 15, 2013 at 18:53 pm

    Dm,

    “I’m not scared of courts. I’m scared of courts”

    Makes sense.

    I’m impressed.

    You certainly have a way with words, ne!

  • Maggs Naidu – Eish! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    ozoneblue
    May 15, 2013 at 21:20 pm

    Hey OB,

    “Leaving us ‘racist Whites’ to do the fighting”

    Who do you racist WHITEs intend fighting with?

  • Maggs Naidu – Eish! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Nkethu Joseph Molibeli, 46, a customs inspector at the Cape Town International Airport, pleaded guilty before Magistrate Sabrina Sonnenberg, to receiving a bribe of R1500 for fast-tracking the release of imported T-shirts was fined R50 000.

    J Arthur Brown guilty of fraud involving billions stolen from poor people was fined R150 000!

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/airport-official-fined-for-corruption-1.1516561#.UZRcXkqZl8E

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2013/05/16/brown-let-s-get-the-cash

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi is making the most sense on this one.

    In PDV’s world, we’d be like the British where you can get 3 months hard jail time for calling a Scotsman a sheep-shagger, or for tweeting that you’re glad troops are dying in Afghanistan because they’re fighting on the side of evil or whatever.

    In the Professor’s world, this preacher should be in jail because he offended the Professor. A more counter-constitutional freedom argument is difficult to find, and that it comes from a professor in constitutional law is astounding.

    The Professor must be careful of what he wishes for – Freedoms are easily lost, and not easily won. Once they’re lost, they’re lost until those who took them have been defeated – and the process of retrieving freedom means people have to die. (Insert Brett’s arguments on gun control here)

    Either we defend them, or we lose them. It really is that simple.

    Freedom is awesome, its raw and its addictive – its also extremely rough around the edges and is not for sissies. Maybe the Professor should put his big-boy trousers on or live in a highly regulated, thought-controlled space like Pyongyang.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Zooks

    “…. Insert Brett’s arguments on gun control here)”

    Excellent — this is the way to really up the ante!

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma : “That’s how democracy works!” (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Zoo Keeper
    May 16, 2013 at 8:34 am

    ZooKy,

    “Freedom is awesome, its raw and its addictive”

    Would you hold the same view if there was an advocacy group which went around in openly public saying “Sex with WHITE girls from 2 to 6 will cure AIDS”?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    South African parable: Untransformed judge blames transformed prosecution for messing up so badly that he cannot jail untransformed accused who stole millions from transformed women and children!

    WDYS?

  • Brett Nortje – The New South Africa COULD have worked! Unfortunately the ANC kept getting in the way.

    How nice of Maggs’ criminals to go arounding announcing their plans.

    Even our cops ought to be able to catch them! (That is if the parents haven’t bust caps in them first.)

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma : “That’s how democracy works!” (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Brett Nortje – The New South Africa COULD have worked! Unfortunately the WHITE peopl kept getting in the way.
    May 16, 2013 at 9:29 am

    Hey Brett – what are you on about?

  • Brett Nortje – The New South Africa COULD have worked! Unfortunately the ANC kept getting in the way.

    Your silly counterfactual.

    P.s. Why couldn’t you just wait like everyone else while your T-shirts got cleared through customs?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Maggs

    Actually yes. There is space for the crazies.

    You have to treat citizens like they have their own brain and can distinguish between right and wrong, and filter out the rubbish. It is not for the State to decide for them.

    If someone acts upon that advice, they must take the consequences.

    However, in respect of the advocacy group, should someone act upon their advice and they intended that advice to be acted upon, they must stand in the dock and receive the same sentence as if they were the rapist.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Maggs

    This is exactly what is wrong with the Professor’s views.

    You have to allow people to make up their own minds.

  • Brett Nortje – The New South Africa COULD have worked! Unfortunately the ANC kept getting in the way.

    What ZooKeeper is talking about, my dear Maggs, is the freedom to fukk up.

    And take responsibility for it.

    You want to contrive Utopia.

  • Dmwangi

    Maggot:

    “Would you hold the same view if there was an advocacy group which went around in openly public saying “Sex with WHITE girls from 2 to 6 will cure AIDS”?”

    Your entire being is testament to the truism that where there is free speech there will also be stupid, intemperate, untruthful, offensive, etc. speech.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma : “That’s how democracy works!” (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Zoo Keeper
    May 16, 2013 at 13:49 pm

    ZooKy,

    So as society we should allow this, accept that there will/may be consequences and victims and deal with that by then punishing the perps?

    Seems like you’re saying that it’s ok for someone to shout “fire” in a crowded stadium!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Dmwangi

    “Maggot …where there is free speech there will also be stupid speech”

    Dmwangi, refreshing to note that, for all your impressive erudition, you are not too proud to introduce a note of levity by playing wittily on someone’s name!

    Thanks.

  • Maggs Naidu – Come out of the cupboard Dmwangi, don’t be shy you’re among friends! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Dmwangi
    May 16, 2013 at 15:37 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “Your entire being is testament to the truism that where there is free speech there will also be stupid, intemperate, untruthful, offensive, etc. speech.”

    So in the absence of free speech there will only be wise people about?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Maggs

    What I’m saying is that if someone shouts “fire” in a crowed stadium then they must bear the consequences of their actions.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma : “That’s how democracy works!” (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Zoo Keeper
    May 16, 2013 at 16:26 pm

    ZooKs,

    If someone shouts “Fire!” in a crowded stadium then people will die.

    It will be irresponsible for society to allow people to test those limits, even if the culprits may end up serving several life terms in jail!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Zooky

    “if someone shouts “fire” in a crowed stadium then they must bear the consequences of their actions”

    Zooky is right. And I say the “consequence” for such an irresponsible “false alarm” should be that the armed citizenry at the stadium should immediately SHOOT the alarmist, so he cannot repeat his potentially panic-inducing falsehood!

    Thanks.

  • Dmwangi

    MDF:

    I learned my pithiness from the best.

    Much gratitude.

  • Maggs Naidu – Zuma : “That’s how democracy works!” (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    May 16, 2013 at 17:35 pm

    Hey Dworky,

    “SHOOT the alarmist”

    You mean “Shoot the BASTARD!!!”, don’t you?

    As freely spoken by then Dep Minister Shabangu and General Cele!

  • Maggs Naidu – Eish! (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    And talking about hate speech …

    Mpumalanga – A total of 23 initiates have died in Mpumalanga, police said today.

    The health MEC has said she won’t get involved – because she’s a woman. Candith Mashego-Dlamini argues that tradition prevents a woman from getting involved.

    http://www.enca.com/south-africa/23-initiates-die-school

  • Gwebecimele

    Soon we will hear that male police officers must not attend to female rape cases. Does this MEC only work with women?

  • Rainier Rademan (11030870)

    I find Pierre’s argument’s in this article to be very much in line with my own. I am always baffled by the way in which religious groups (Christians most often involved) have the notion to think that they are above the law. Many churches in South Africa regularly host boycots and protests against any homosexual act/related-act, be it Pride events, films/media, employment, etc. I find it pleasing to note then, that the courts have in many cases, ruled against the radical Christian parties, when faced with a hate-speech or discriminatory civil case. An example is the homosexual music teacher, who was dismissed by the Dutch Reformed Church in Moreleta Park in Pretoria, after it was found that he was a homosexual. A case was opened, and the verdict was that the church unfairly dismissed the music teacher. It is evident to me that even though the churches seem to know nowadays that they don’t have “a foot to stand on” in court (in cases similar to the one mentioned), they still challenge the courts with their religious views. Their audacity shows that they still deem their religion to be the sovereign source of knowledge and governance. This tendency will still change in future, or we can hope that it will change with time. To conclude with Pierre’s thoughts. Hate remains hate, and adding religious scripture to hate (speech) doesn’t make it less hateful. Our courts have a duty to remain objective in tackling the issues of hate speech/discrimination, and not let religion blur the lines of right and wrong.