Kasrils Power Wins Out

Last week the Mail & Guardian reported that the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has ruled that recent statement made by South African Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils did not amount to hate speech as defined by the South African Constitution.

Kasrils cunningly requested an opinion from the SAHRC in response to an incident last year when the local SA Jewish Report refused to publish an article in which he claimed that Israelis were behaving like Nazis.

In providing their opinion the SAHRC has prescribed to the narrow definition of hate speech as defined by our constitution whereby statements must amount to propaganda for war or incitement of physical violence in order to be classified as hate speech.

The SAHRC only investigated Kasrils' statements and did not investigate his decision to bring the Media Review Network into this furore. By going this route we believed that he was fomenting anti-Jewish feeling amongst the local Muslim community who had absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish Report saga.

Kasrils accused Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians. This is completely ignored by the SAHRC in their ruling. In a glowing review of Kasrils’ articles they water his accusations down to a man merely trying to ‘provoke and shock’ in an ‘explicit plea for diplomacy and peace talks.’

The SAHRC rules

In our opinion, the comments made by Mr Kasrils in the articles referred to above do not amount to the advocacy of hatred. The obvious and true purpose of the article is to condemn what is perceived as disproportionate, excessive and counterproductive reprisals by the Israeli government. He is participating in a legitimate political debate. The M&G article concludes by calling on the Israelis to see reason and negotiate peace. In the Umrabulo article, Mr Kasrils criticises the Israeli government for being a danger to its neighbours and for imperiling its own people by fermenting war instead of seeking peaceful diplomatic solutions. […] The issue is whether the comparison between the reprisal methods adopted by the state of Israel and those used by the Nazis convert legitimate debate into hate speech. We think that it does not. The M&G article condemns the killing of Arab children by actions of the Israeli army and then asks the question whether Jews are behaving like Nazis. In effect, Mr Kasrils concludes by saying that as Israel is using methods reminiscent of Nazis, it needs to be told that it is behaving like Nazis. The comparison with Nazism is extreme, but in the context of the article, it is clearly designed to demonstrate the extreme distaste of the writer towards the reprisal methods of Israel. A sober reading of the articles reveals trenchant criticism of the methods adopted by Israel and an explicit plea for diplomacy and peace talks.

The other issue here concerns the mandate of the SAHRC who have provided an opinion at the request of Kasrils himself. Who put forward the opposing arguments?

No-one acting on behalf of the Jewish community argued that Kasrils’ comments should outrightly be banned. The SAHRC makes reference to correspondence with Helen Suzman and the SA Jewish Report but their ruling speaks to the Jewish community as a whole.

The SAJR refused to run his article believing that it was hateful. The editor is entitled to wield editorial power in the same way as the editor of the Star is entitled to refuse to print a provocative article slandering the Palestinians as Nazis.

This it is yet another example of how Kasrils leverages the power stemming from his important public profile in his battle against the SA Jewish community over Israel’s right to exist. In this instance he has obtained a ruling from the SAHRC where he was both the defendant and the prosecutor.

In doing so he has managed to paint himself as the innocent victim of systematic Jewish intolerance whilst simultaneously capturing centre stage (yet again) for his hateful arguments which have been repeated over and over again, word for word, in typical Soviet style in our media.

Jane Duncan from the Freedom of Expression Institute actually sums this problem up very well. In a presentation to the SAHRC last year she bemoaned the fact that a person's or group's power may play a role in determining whether or not they are guilty of hate speech.

Whether something is defined as hate speech or poetry may well be determined by who has access to power and who doesn’t, and access to power is still very unequal in South Africa. Groups who feel marginalized or attacked, including religious groups, therefore need to think very carefully before calling for strong incitement to hatred legislation; there is strong reason to believe that such a call may backfire on the very groups seeking its protection.

Ultimately Kasrils should be judged by his comrade style stance with the oppressive regime in Zimbabwe. Nowhere is his partisan hypocrisy more clearly illustrated.

Comments

[Gary]

"Zimbabwe and South Africa share a common world view..."
And what is that world view.
That of the witches in MacBeth : 'Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair'
That of Orwell's 1984" War is peace and peace is war. Slavery is freedom and freedom is slavery".

Remember Ronnie, Bob and Mahmoud:

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight! (NAS, Isaiah 5:20-21)"

[THE DICTATOR / EMBITTERED CORRESPONDENT]

The Freedom Of Expression Institute has double standards. In an article
for the Mail and Guardian (10/2/2006), Jane Duncan's colleague, Na'eem
Jeenah wrote: "That the real issue surrounding the Danish cartoons of
the Prophet Muhammad is hate speech and incitement to violence, rather
than freedom of expression, is clear when the intent behind their
publication is understood.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=263804&area=/insight/
insight__comment_and_analysis/

It is therefore obvious that The FXI is not objective and has a slanted
political agenda when freedom of expression issues arise which affect
South Africa's Jewish and Muslim communities. Hate speech for the
Danish cartoons but freedom of expression for the "Nazi / Israel"
analogy!

Does anyone know whether Geoff Sifrin (editor of The Jewish Report) was
given the opportunity and time to make a full submission to the SAHRC?
If he wasn't then it is evident that Karthy Govender's "judgement" is
not based on "natural justice". It should also be remembered that The
Jewish Report is a small community based newspaper without the
financial resources to put forward the in-depth legal / historical /
political analysis which would have been essential to back-up its case.
When taking on a government minister such as Kasrils, who has massive
power and influence, Geof Sifrin is "David versus Goliath" without
catapult.

I also wonder why Ferial Haffajee ( editor of The Mail and Guardian) is
so reluctant to criticize Kasrils with regard to his support for
Mugabe? Her silence on this matter would bring down the walls of
Jericho ! It is a Faustian pact and Zimbabwe's tortured, starving
population is paying the price.

I have to conclude that a cynical abuse of power is being wielded in
South Africa to further a narrow political agenda focused on Israel's
destruction.