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

Weideman focuses on misconceptions with regard to survival of Afrikaans

2006-05-19

From the left are Prof Magda Fourie (Vice-Rector: Academic Planning), Prof Gerhardt de Klerk (Dean: Faculty of the Humanities), George Weideman and Prof Bernard Odendaal (acting head of the UFS Department of Afrikaans and Dutch, German and French).
Photo (Stephen Collett):

Weideman focuses on misconceptions with regard to survival of Afrikaans

On the survival of a language a persistent and widespread misconception exists that a “language will survive as long as people speak the language”. This argument ignores the higher functions of a language and leaves no room for the personal and historic meaning of a language, said the writer George Weideman.

He delivered the D.F. Malherbe Memorial Lecture organised by the Department Afrikaans at the University of the Free State (UFS). Dr. Weideman is a retired lecturer and now full-time writer. In his lecture on the writer’s role and responsibility with regard to language, he also focused on the language debate at the University of Stellenbosch (US).

He said the “as-long-as-it-is spoken” misconception ignores the characteristics and growth of literature and other cultural phenomena. Constitutional protection is also not a guarantee. It will not stop a language of being reduced to a colloquial language in which the non-standard form will be elevated to the norm. A language only grows when it standard form is enriched by non-standard forms; not when its standard form withers. The growth or deterioration of a language is seen in the growth or decline in its use in higher functions. The less functions a language has, the smaller its chance to survive.

He said Afrikaans speaking people are credulous and have misplaced trust. It shows in their uncritical attitude with regard to the shifts in university policies, university management and teaching practices. Afrikaners have this credulity perhaps because they were spoilt by white supremacy, or because the political liberation process did not free them from a naïve and slavish trust in government.

If we accept that a university is a kind of barometer for the position of a language, then the institutionalised second placing of Afrikaans at most tertiary institutions is not a good sign for the language, he said.

An additional problem is the multiplying effect with, for instance, education students. If there is no need for Afrikaans in schools, there will also be no need for Afrikaans at universities, and visa versa.

The tolerance factor of Afrikaans speaking people is for some reasons remarkably high with regard to other languages – and more specifically English. With many Afrikaans speaking people in the post-apartheid era it can be ascribed to their guilt about Afrikaans. With some coloured and mostly black Afrikaans speaking people it can be ascribed to the continued rejection of Afrikaans because of its negative connotation with apartheid – even when Afrikaans is the home language of a large segment of the previously oppressed population.

He said no one disputes the fact that universities play a changing role in a transformed society. The principle of “friendliness” towards other languages does not apply the other way round. It is general knowledge that Afrikaans is, besides isiZulu and isiXhosa, the language most spoken by South Africans.

It is typical of an imperialistic approach that the campaigners for a language will be accused of emotional involvement, of sentimentality, of longing for bygone days, of an unwillingness to focus on the future, he said.

He said whoever ignores the emotional aspect of a language, knows nothing about a language. To ignore the emotional connection with a language, leads to another misconception: That the world will be a better place without conflict if the so-called “small languages” disappear because “nationalism” and “language nationalism” often move closely together. This is one of the main reasons why Afrikaans speaking people are still very passive with regard to the Anglicising process: They are not “immune” to the broad influence that promotes English.

It is left to those who use Afrikaans to fight for the language. This must not take place in isolation. Writers and publishers must find more ways to promote Afrikaans.

Some universities took the road to Anglicision: the US and University of Pretoria need to be referred to, while there is still a future for Afrikaans at the Northwest University and the UFS with its parallel-medium policies. Continued debate is necessary.

It is unpreventable that the protest over what is happening to Afrikaans and the broad Afrikaans speaking community must take on a stronger form, he said.

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