Hey Mouse,

It seems the oke has got more serious concerns right now.

Will it be defamation if I said drunkard?

Former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride was on Friday convicted of drunken driving and defeating the ends of justice, SABC news reported.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article1010143.ece/McBride-guilty-of-drunk-driving

Anonymouse says:
April 8, 2011 at 16:35 pm
Maggs

Not ‘drunkard’ – but ‘drunken driver’. He has been convicted of drunken driving and defeating the ends of justice, however was acquitted on a charge of fraud http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/McBride-guilty-of-drunk-driving-20110408
Nevertheless, the Citizen was right – he was never a fit and proper person to head the metro Police force, which makes one wonder why there are so many corrupt, thieving, drunken, drug-using high-school-dropouts in that force that were appointed on his watch – e.g., some guys taking you home at night and accepting (or stealing) cash (or credit cards) instead of arresting and charging you with drunken driving (one of them however unfortunately picked the wrong drunken Blue Bull forward to pull this stunt with) – if you get my drift. But there are many such stories and accusations that are never properly investigated (or have never been properly investigated on his watch). Oops, I must watch out, or else the following headline might hit he press: “Mouse sued for defamation”.

P.S. – I think the right place to post this would be under the original post on the SCA decision – and I will copy this there.

Anonymouse says:
April 8, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Another ’split-decision’ by our highest court in the McBride defamation case – http://www.saflii.org.za/za/cases/ZACC/2011/11.html

The majority, so it appears, did not have a problem with McBride having been called a ‘murderer’ in an article by the Citizen – and rightly so! Blowing up MacGoos bar was a brutal act of murder and, even if one received amnesty, the fact that one is a murderer cannot be erased by the state affording one amnesty. Good (no, brilliant) decision by the majority. The only fly in the ointment, this time, was Mogoeng J

If someone was convicted of murdering people but later granted amnesty for their action, does that mean we should no longer call him or her a murderer? The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) thinks not.

It argues that because amnesty aims to achieve reconciliation and nation-building, that requires that we no longer describe someone as a murderer if he or she is granted amnesty. But the Constitutional Court is about to have the final say.”

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-02-mcbride-was-convicted-period

http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/986/81b956c8b084412d8017cd4bc702618e/07-03-2010-01-36/De_Kock_Im_no_racist

A Newcastle businesswoman is claiming R358 000 from the Khulisa Crime Prevention Institute alleging that she was shot by a parolee she had employed at its behest. In documents before the high court in Pietermaritzburg, Daphne Clark contends she was not fully informed about the man. She was not told that he had murdered his wife with a machete, that he had psychological problems and was manipulative, clever and had violent tendencies. Khulisa, headquartered in Rosebank, Joburg, is a Section 21, not-for-profit company that seeks to rehabilitate and educate offenders. It has denied the allegations and intends defending the claim. Clark suffered permanent disfigurement and disabilities. – Sapa”

http://www.thestar.co.za/?fArticleId=5378045

As to whether calling someone a murder is defamatory – all other things being equal I would agree that it is.

Also, let me ask you this: If calling someone a murderer is not defamatory, what is?

But, as you know, “murder” is a term of art, with distinct formal elements. Whether or not someone is a murderer is not, in law, a matter of opinion, and is not a matter of fair comment. On the other hand, the term “killer” has no definite legal meaning.

One might argue that the common law of defamation should be developed in light of the const. value of free expression. But that was not really before the Court.

As you also suggest, the problem may be with the Orwellian TRC Act. But I do not believe that the Citizen challenged the constitutionality of the Act. So you cannot fault the SCA for not striking down the Act.