This is exactly what is refered to as narrow-minded. Of couse Hate speech is defined in the Act as “words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, (in other words, words based on race, sex, gender or sexual orientation, say) against any person that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; or promote or propagate hatred,” and if you measure Malemas outburst against the alleged raped women it would fail the test of being considered Hate Speech.

However, who is Julius Malema? What role does he play in society? What role does he play with the youth of South Africa? On which platform did he choose to deliver his opinion? I’m referring to “You don’t ask for taxi money from somebody who raped you.”

Taking all this into account leads me to one conclusion. Our constitution needs to be revisited. It’s failing to do what I know it set out to. Heal and protect this land and its people.

How can that statement, spoken at that place, by a public figure, do anything but harm.

- Your reference of “ANOTHER”, implies that you are NOT addressing Malema but basing your utterance on OTHER ‘kaffirs’, which would imply that your comment consolidated social relations of dominance and subordination. Malema would only qualify as an INSTANCE of your ongoing racism.
- Then there is the word kaffir which in itself is coloured by racism (not that calling someone ‘bitch’ is a bit more complex to argue. It is an inappropriate use of language but it is hard to prove. For example, if I called Winnie Mandela ‘bitch’, it constitutes as defamation of character. To say it is not hate speech is not to assume that is it acceptable. But I believe that this discussion is on ‘hate speech’ and not other lingual misconducts. If someone said, “women are bitches and they have no place here”, because I’m addressing a non-specific person (but women in general”, the scenario thickens.

Julius Malema’s song of “burn the boer” is a more straightforward ‘hate speech’ than the comment discussed here for 2 reasons. To call it hate speech is not to take away his freedom of speech but to highlight the misuse of that right in reference to others:

- One may argue consequences that Julius’ utterance brought about, but even that must be proven to be direct.
- The context which the song was sung (or its historical context)
- The intent may be easier proven because hate speeches are SINGLE utterances which are NOT ISOLATED, as in they feed on preexistent sexism-racism-tribalism-etc.

Intentions are hard to prove. Malema’s intention could have been to encourage stereotypes or, in his own way, to reinforce Zuma’s innocence, one cannot measure for certain.

Although Malema’s speech is wrong at so many levels, wrongness is not synonymous to hate speech. I am not saying Malema’s utterance is not hate speech, I am merely stating that our rationale in rendering it so needs not be based on a premise, for example, of morality.

Apologies to the SA nation for all his mistakes is what this president has been about since taking office >>

There have been no apologies to the SA nation for lack of jobs & service delivery?