Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

UFS research fellow sheds light on Hate Speech Bill

15 November 2023 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo SUPPLIED

It is on this day that the National Council of Provinces will consider the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill during its plenary session. If the bill is passed, it will become law in South Africa, introducing a very broadly defined crime of hate speech that applies to all South African citizens.

Dr Georgia du Plessis, Legal Officer at ADF International, Brussels, and Research Fellow at the University of the Free State (UFS) and the University of Antwerp, Belgium, points out that, according to the South African government, one of the objectives of the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill is to fulfil South Africa’s responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution and international human rights instruments.

“Here reference is made to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (to which South Africa is a signatory). However, this convention only refers to issues confined to discrimination based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin and not the extensive list of grounds found in Clause 1 of the bill. Furthermore, the international bill of rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) places no obligation on member states to implement hate speech laws,” she states.

She strongly believes that “the so-called international obligations requiring such overbroad hate speech laws are not specified and an incorrect understanding of the actual obligations placed upon South Africa by these international instruments”.

Solving inequalities

Given the deep-rooted inequalities in the country, it is easy to conclude that certain forms of speech contribute to maintaining these historical inequalities, making a case for their regulation and prohibition.

Dr Du Plessis, however, is of the opinion that the current inequalities found in South African society are due to a variety of historical and current factors such as corruption, perpetuated historical inequalities, low employment and education rates, etc., that will not be solved or even alleviated by limiting freedom of expression. “Quite the contrary,” she states.

She believes there are already measures in place to limit speech that threatens to discriminate and violate the rights of others. Here, for instance, she refers to Section 36 of the Constitution and laws such as the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination (Equality) Act 4 of 2000. “Here Section 10 already prohibits ‘hate speech’ even more broadly than the South African Constitution (Section 16),” she says.

“The Equality Act is already an overly broad restriction of freedom of speech found in the Constitution,” states Dr Du Plessis.

According to her, freedom of expression was one of the few tools that can and remains to be used by the vulnerable, oppressed, and poor. “There is no evidence that suggests that such ‘hate speech laws’ will protect the most vulnerable in society and reduce racism. Instead, it gives the government a tool to take away hard-won rights and freedoms that can be used against those very same groups in society that need the most protection. Limiting speech will not reduce inequalities and discrimination. On the contrary, it will disempower those who need it the most,” she says.

The definition

Dr Du Plessis says, “The current Hate Speech Bill contains a circular definition of ‘hate speech’ which boils down to ‘hate speech’ being defined as ‘hate’.”

“This lack of narrowly defined concepts, which is necessary for legal certainty in criminal law, can easily be used to the ‘advantage of a government’ and enlist the general public as ‘agents of the control process’,” she states.

Dr Du Plessis uses blasphemy laws in Nigeria as an example – a country where “blasphemy laws are used as an excuse to act in a discriminatory manner and in violence towards others when the person feels that his or her religion or religious figure has been offended. Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu was stoned and burned to death for posting messages on WhatsApp allegedly insulting and blaspheming against the Prophet Muhammad”.

She suggests that although the Hate Speech Bill may seem different – that it will not allow for such instances within the young democracy – the wording of the current version of the bill is open to being interpreted as putting someone in jail for eight years for causing emotional ‘harm’ (whatever that may mean). “This is not very different from how blasphemy laws operate, which is premised on the emotional subjective experience of the person towards whom the speech is made”.

“In essence,” she says, “Clause 4(1) of the bill states that any person who acts in a manner that can be seen as a clear intention to incite harm and propagate hatred is guilty of hate speech.”

As stated by her, ‘hate’ is not defined further, and ‘harm’ is very broadly defined as any ‘substantial emotional, psychological, physical, social or economic detriment that objectively and severely undermines the human dignity of the targeted individual or group’. Thus, aspects such as ‘offence’ can easily be included under the definition of ‘harm’, even if international law clearly states that speech causing offence cannot necessarily limit the right to freedom of expression as such.

She also points out that there is no universally accepted definition of ‘hate speech.’ “Speech that is defined by an emotion, such as hate, is conducive to the subjective emotional meaning attached to it by the one who utters such speech and the person against whom it is uttered,” she says.

Dr Du Plessis lectured public law subjects at the UFS, which included international law, administrative law, statutory interpretation, and human rights law in general. She later received a scholarship to complete her PhD in Law in Belgium on the right to freedom of religion or belief. At KU Leuven in Belgium, she lectured and published on related topics and thereafter started working at ADF International in Brussels. Her work at ADF International involves legal advocacy and research on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and parental rights – mainly related to the European Union, but also internationally (for example, related matters in South Africa).

Click to view document RSG interview podcast

Click to view document SAfm interview podcast

News Archive

Teachers should deal with diversity in education - Prof. Francis

2010-10-08

At the occasion were, from the left: Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State (UFS); Prof. Francis; and Prof. Driekie Hay, Vice-Rector: Teaching and Learning at the UFS.
Photo: Jaco van der Merwe

Prof. Dennis Francis, the Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of the Free State (UFS), recently delivered his inaugural lecture on Troubling Diversity in South African Education on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein.

He urged teachers to be open to what “diversity” might mean in a particular context and how diversity relates to either inclusion or exclusion.

“An approach that promotes the inclusion of all must be based on an understanding of how exclusion operates in ways that may have typical patterns of oppression, but differ in the specific ways that exclusion is expressed and becomes normalised in that context,” he said.

“The good teacher thus seeks to understand how these forms of exclusion may develop in the school’s context and respond through taking thoughtful action to challenge them. It may require creating a climate that enables the silent to speak and recognising that not all groups communicate in exactly the same ways.”

He said teachers also had to affirm the experiential base of learners and students. He said there was an assumption that students would be more effective practitioners if their own experience were validated and explored.

“It is crucial that the students’ own history is treated as valuable and is a critical part of the data that are reflected,” he said. “Equally important is that such stories and similar activities are intentionally processed to enable students to make the connections between personal experience and relevant theory.”

He also urged them to challenge the ways in which knowledge had been framed through oppression.

“Schools are often characterised by messages that draw on one or another form of oppression. Thus, expectations are subtly or in some cases unsubtly communicated, e.g. that girls are not good at physics, or that, while white learners are strong in abstract thought, African learners have untapped creativity, and so on,” he continued.

“For someone to integrate into their role as educators a commitment against oppression means confronting obstacles that one may previously have shied away from, such as challenging authority, naming privilege, emphasising the power relations that exist between social groups, listening to people one has previously ignored, and risking being seen as deviant, troublesome or unpopular.”

Furthermore, Prof. Francis said dealing with diversity in education was always affectively loaded for both students and teachers. He said in South Africa one injunction from educators was to be “sensitive” and thus avoid risking engagement with the contentious issues around imbalances of power.

“If both students and teachers are to confront issues of oppression and power in any meaningful way, we need to design more purposely for the difficulties they will encounter, for example, creating a classroom environment that promotes safety and trust so that all students are able to confront and deal with prejudice and discrimination. Classroom environments will need to balance the affective and cognitive in addressing issues of diversity and social justice,” he added.

He also said that teachers should recognise the need to complement changing attitudes with attempts to change the structural aspects of oppressions.

“To prevent superficial commitments to change, it is important for students to explore barriers that prevent them from confronting oppressive attitudes and behaviours. In this way students are able to learn and see the structural aspects of oppression,” he said.

“Equally important, however, is to get students to examine the benefits associated with challenging oppression. A fair amount of time must therefore be spent on developing strategies with students which they will be able to use practically in challenging oppression.”

He also advised educators to affirm the capacity of staff and learners to act and learn in ways that do not replicate patterns of oppression.

“Many South African schools have survived both the harsh repression of apartheid and the continuing legacy of oppression of various kinds. Despite that, we are often as educators made aware of the ways in which young people in particular affirm themselves and each other in creative and confident ways,” he concluded.

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Director: Strategic Communication (acg)
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl@ufs.ac.za
7 October 2010

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept