Hate speech: Human rights commission did not consider Malema's influence

  • 📰 City_Press
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 85 sec. here
  • 3 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 37%
  • Publisher: 72%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

Newsletter| SA Human Rights Commission attracted much criticism for its ruling that comments by EFF leaders did not constitute hate speech. It appears the commission did not consider that Julius Malema is a politician with influence, writes Lawson Naidoo

Where there are competing rights, they have to be balanced against each other; no right takes precedence

It is important to understand the legal difficulties confronting the HRC in evaluating the complaints.Various rulings of the Equality Court have adopted different interpretations over the years. It is a specific limitation of the right, beyond the provisions of the general limitation clause in section 36.

Section 39 of the Constitution requires that section 10 be interpreted in a manner that promotes the spirit, purpose and objects of the Bill of Rights – these include not only the right to freedom of speech but also the rights to equality and the constitutional value of human dignity.Its failure to evaluate this right in the context of the offending speech undermines the validity of the ruling.

It is possible that the commission could have reached the same conclusion or outcome without venturing into the controversial terrain of the relative racial identities of those making the hurtful comments and those to whom they were targeted.It sets a problematic precedent by adopting a hierarchical approach to the racial status of the alleged offender and the target of the speech.

To justify its decision in respect of Malema saying that the majority of Indians are racist, the commission emphasises that he did not say that all Indians are racist. Put another way, how would a reasonable member of the audience understand the words and the message being conveyed? Firstly it says: “Robust speech must be protected for those who remain structurally marginalised to be able to express their moral agency through expression that conveys anger or frustration at persistent social injustice.” I think most of us would accept that as being correct.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.

Mxm crying bby we even forgot that speech even though Julius was telling the truth that when masses got tired nobody even himself will able to stop angry black masses who want their land by force

lol askies name that AssKISS

SAHRCommission SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is behaving like a racist organization.

No justice here.

Ngeke balunge

We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 7. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines