Quote of the week

Excluding refugees from the right to work as private security providers simply because they are refugees will inevitably foster a climate of xenophobia which will be harmful to refugees and inconsistent with the overall vision of our Constitution. As a group that is by definition vulnerable, the impact of discrimination of this sort can be damaging in a significant way. In reaching this conclusion it is important to bear in mind that it is not only the social stigma which may result from such discrimination, but also the material impact that it may have on refugees.

Mokgoro J and O’Regan J (dissenting)
Union of Refugee Women and Others v Director, Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others (CCT 39/06) [2006] ZACC 23
29 March 2010

On the curious case of “shooting the boer”

News that the South Gautenteng High Court Acting Judge Leon Halgryn ruled on Friday that use of the words “dubula ibhunu (shoot the boer)” was unconstitutional and unlawful is odd, to say the least. Unfortunately this was an urgent application so the judge did not seem to have given reasons for his judgment. Nevertheless, if the media reports are correct, the judgment does not seem to make much sense.

I am not sure on what basis the  “publication” and the “utterance” of the words can be declared unconstitutional. It is true that section 16  of the Bill of Rights states that the right to freedom of expression does not extend to incitement of immenent violence or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethinity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. However, section 16 itself does not ban such words, but merely states that the utterance of such words are not protected speech.

This would mean such speech could be regulated or banned by the legislature and such a ban could not be challenged on the basis that it infiringed on the section 16 protection of freedom of expression. It decidedly does not mean that in the absence of such regulation by the legislature the words are “unconstitutional”. How a particular phrase could ever be declared unconstitutional is beside me. There is no provision in the Bill of Rights that prohibits any particular phrase. If the judge was quoted correctly, he was obviously talking nonsense.

Another question is whether a particular phrase could be declared unlawful by a court. I suspect not. The utterance or publication of some words in certain context could amount to defamation or it could fall foul of section 10 of the Equality Act but that could only be done with reference to the specific context and the facts of a particular case.

Maybe the Acting Judge was relying on the criminal law principle in common law and in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act which prohibits the incitement of a crime. But then it would have to be shown that an accused “sought to influence the mind of another person towards the commission of a crime” and that would depend on the facts of a particular case and could not be decided in the abstract.

It seems to me bizarre that a court could decide in the abstract in an urgent application that a particular phrase was unconstitutional and unlawful. Surely one will have to decide on a case by case basis whether the utterances of words defamed someone or falls foul of the Equality Act or constitutes incitement to commit a crime.

To hold otherwise would be dangerous, nonsensical and would lead to absurd consequences. What would happen if I write a short story and one of the characters sings “Shoot the Boer”. Would this mean my story when published would be declared “unconstitutional” and “unlawful”?

At the very least it would be good for the judge to present written reasons for this judgment. Based on the available evidence it makes absolutely no sense.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest