Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
15 November 2023 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo SUPPLIED
Dr Georgia du Plessis
Dr Georgia du Plessis started working on topics related to freedom of expression when in academia, and continued to do so at ADF International, her current employer.

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 documentRSG interview podcast

Click to view document SAfm interview podcast

News Archive

Lecture on interpretations and translations of San place names
2011-09-23

Prof. Peter Raper, recently appointed as Honorary Professor: Linguistics, in the Department of Language Management and Language Practice at the University of the Free State, will deliver his inaugural lecture on Tuesday evening, 27 September 2011. His topic for the evening is “Interpretations and translations of Bushman (San) place names”. With this inaugural lecture, he also introduces an interesting one-day international colloquium on the theme: “Name-change planning – striving towards authenticity”.A panel discussion about street-name changes in Bloemfontein forms part of this colloquium and promises to elicit a stimulating debate.

Prof. Raper is probably better known for three popular place-name dictionaries, Streekname in Suid-Afrika en Suidwes, published in 1972; the Dictionary of Southern African Place Names, published in 1987, updated in 1989 and published in 2004 with some additions as New dictionary of South African place names; and Hottentot (Khoekhoen) place names, a dictionary compiled in collaboration with the famous Prof. G S  Nienaber (a former Kovsie). In fact, Prof. Raper’s work is a continuation of their world-renowned series, Toponymica Hottentotica, which was published between 1977 and 1981. It is generally regarded as the most authoritative work on Hottentot place names. His current interest in Bushman place names builds on this pioneering work and is actually also a re-evaluation of the underestimated role of the Bushman with regard to place naming in South Africa up to now. His work offers a new perspective on what could be regarded as the “first” or earliest names of places in South Africa and brings a sobering perspective to the current debates regarding place-name changes where various claims are made about “who has given the name first”.

However, Prof. Raper is also known for his role in the standardisation of place names, both nationally and internationally. In South Africa, he has served on the South African National Place Names Committee (1972-1999), the South African Geographical Names Council (1999-2002) and, since 1981, on the Names Society of Southern Africa. Currently, he is an honorary member of this association. Since 1984, he has also been serving on the United Nations Group Experts on Geographical Names and has even been the Chairperson of this Leading international standardisation body (1991-2002).

Apart from this, Prof. Raper regularly publishes his research on geographical names in a variety of academic journals and still participates in the most important national and international conferences on names on a regular basis. Prof. Raper is honoured as South Africa’s foremost names expert.

His inaugural lecture will introduce a colloquium on names planning, presented by his host department. Experts from Lesotho, Zimbabwe and the USA are participating in the proceedings, amongst others, the current Chairperson of the Names Society of Southern Africa, Prof. Adrian Koopman (University of KwaZulu-Natal).

RSVP: Joy Maasdorp on +27(0)51 401 2405 or maasdorpjh@ufs.ac.za before or on Thursday, 22 September 2011.

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