Ruling by the Press Ombud
19 January 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Susan Davis and those of Brett Horner, editor of The Eastern Province Herald newspaper.
Davis is complaining about an editorial in The Eastern Province Herald of 21 November 2016, headlined White separatists not what we need.
Complaint
Davis complains that the editorial was malicious and that it amounted to hate speech (details below).
The text
The editorial, written by the duty editor (and not by Horner himself) commented on a plan for a whites-only settlement near Willowmore in the Eastern Cape, spearheaded by Jacqui Gradwell.
The text said it was not surprising that this controversial plan had suffered a setback (Gradwell reportedly could not come up with a R200 000 guarantee for buying the land). What was surprising, he stated, was that Gradwell believed that his dream would still (and soon) realise, as other farmers in the area may allow them to settle there.
The duty editor said someone should point out to Gradwell, who ostensibly believed that some 40 000 people would settle there, that the Orania model with which he could identify had scarcely 1 000 residents – a far cry from the 60 000 its founders imagined it would have by the mid-2000s.
In conclusion, the text stated, “[Though] racism is far from dead, and many are disillusioned for a variety of reasons … we have proven to the world that we can all live in relative harmony. The last thing South Africa needs is a bunch of out-of-touch separatists like Gradwell and his ilk.”
The complaint in more detail
Davis says the editor was “stoking fires of racial hatred” against Afrikaners through-out his text, and especially by saying, “The last thing South Africa needs is a bunch of out-of-touch separatists like Gradwell and his ilk.”
She says South Africans of the same race live in their own enclaves (such as in Soweto) – so why does it invoke editorial comment when white Afrikaners of a certain church group want to live together in the same area? In America the Mormons do the same and no American denigrates them because of that, she argues – adding that Afrikaners should be accorded the same respect that is shown to other race groups.
The newspaper responds
Horner denies that the piece was malicious, that it contained hate speech, or that it called for the demise of white Afrikaners.
He argues that:
· in a country like South Africa, given the damage caused by a legislated separatist system of government, the comment was fair (he says the notion of racial separation is problematic for the newspaper);
· the text did not mention Afrikaners or a Christian church (any such comparison was purely incidental); and
· the newspaper is concerned with the idea of separatism, not with who practices it (“It just so happens that the precedent for this is Orania; a white, Christian, separatist enclave.”)
Horner adds that Davis’s belief that Soweto represented a black enclave showed “a very poor understanding of the legacy of apartheid” (as the forebears of those who live in Soweto were forced to reside there). “Quite why the complainant uses this to advance her ‘argument’ is perplexing,” he states.
Davis replies
Davis says the crux of the matter is “malice” – “I see pure malice in the editor’s comment, and he spreads hatred and contempt against white Afrikaners,” she maintains. She adds, “He publishes incitement to farm murders and other violence against white people.”
To further her argument, Davis says the words “and his ilk” implied malice. “It is an expression of complete disdain, which is not necessary in the context of the editorial. ‘Bunch’ instead of the neutral word ‘group’ also shows disdain,” she asserts.
She calls the editorial an “un-called for denigration” of people who choose to group together. “You are speaking of the group with disdain, and implying that they should be eradicated, because they are not needed,” she states.
Regarding the example of Soweto, she says that Horner lives in the past as the people who are living there at this stage choose to do so.
Analysis
The following sections in the SA Code of Ethics and Conduct are applicable:
|
5. Discrimination and Hate Speech 5.1. Except where it is strictly relevant to the matter reported and it is in the public interest to do so, the media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth or other status, nor shall it refer to people’s status in a prejudicial or pejorative context. 5.2. The media has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest. This right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. 6. Advocacy 6.1. Members are justified in strongly advocating their own views on controversial topics, provided that they treat their constituencies fairly by: 6.1.1. making fact and opinion clearly distinguishable; 6.1.2. not misrepresenting or suppressing relevant facts; and 6.1.3. not distorting the facts. 7. Protected Comment 7.1. The media shall be entitled to comment upon or criticise any actions or events of public interest. 7.2. Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it: 7.2.1. expresses an honestly-held opinion, 7.2.2. is without malice, 7.2.3. is on a matter of public interest; 7.2.4. has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true; and 7.2.5. is presented in such manner that it appears clearly to be comment. |
I accept that Davis finds the editorial “extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced” (she uses other words, but they boil down to the same sentiments as expressed in the Code).
That is her right – the same right the newspaper has to voice such an opinion.
I am not going to argue for or against the content of the editorial, for the simple reason that the newspaper has the right to express an opinion – and did so without breaching any of the conditions outlined above (in Sections 6 and 7).
If I find against The Herald on this count, I would seriously stifle the robustness of debate – which is the last thing this office should do.
As far as hate speech is concerned (Section 5), I believe one needs a healthy dose of imagination to read “propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred” into the editorial. I also do not find the text to be denigratory of Afrikaners, even given the words “ilk” and “bunch”.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
Appeal
Our Complaints Procedures lay down that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud