Basil Brink vs. Cape Times.

SUMMARY

The headline to a letter to the editor read, Shades of reasoning (published on 5 January 2016).

This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.

 

The letter, written by Willem Leach, was about white people being “all part of the delusions of the Stone Age”. He cited several “examples” to prove his point.

Dr Basil Brink (the complaint came via the Human Rights Commission) complained:

• that the letter contained hate speech aimed at white people, and argued that the newspaper – by publishing it – condoned the content of that text;
• about statements such as that:
  • the cause of the white race’s thinking started in its tribal environment;
  • no wonder the white race botched every rational project that they were entrusted with;
  • remorse was a sign of intelligence, which was not evident in the white disposition;
  • sound thinking and reasoning just seemed to evade them all the time – therefore, sound values as well; and
  • the white race refused to recognize or acknowledge reality.

Brink said that by making a conscious decision to bring the writer’s statements into the public domain, the newspaper had “displayed editorial support for these unconstitutional statements”.

Retief said that hate speech was about the intention of causing harm to people – it is about propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, and the advocacy of hatred with the aim of causing harm. It was not about hurting (people’s feelings) – which was a by-product of freedom of expression which was necessary in any true democracy.

He said he could well understand that many people would have found Leach’s letter hurtful, upsetting, insensitive, tactless, inappropriate, etc. – and a collection of generalizations that simply boggled the mind. “But, in the end, Leach’s views are merely controversial and hurtful – and not intended to cause people harm”.

It was also not true that the Cape Times had, by publishing Leach’s letter, condoned the content of that text. Heaven forbade that a newspaper only published letters that it agreed with!

The complaint was dismissed.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Dr Basil Brink (the complaint came via the Human Rights Commission) and those of Aneez Salie, editor of the Cape Times newspaper.

Complaint

Brink is complaining about a letter to the editor in Cape Times of 5 January 2016, headlined Shades of reasoning.

He complains that the letter contained hate speech aimed at white people, and argues that the newspaper – by publishing it – condoned the content of that text.

He singles out the following statements (there are many others in the same vein):

·         The cause of the white race’s thinking starts in its tribal environment;

·         No wonder the white race botches every rational project that they are entrusted with;

·         Remorse is a sign of intelligence, which is not evident in the white disposition;

·         Sound thinking and reasoning just seem to evade them all the time – therefore, sound values as well;

·         The white race therefore refuses to recognize or acknowledge reality; and

·         White people form part of the perceptual world, and regard their senses as their ultimate means to knowledge. The perceptual world, therefore, regards people with the same complexion as theirs – but who are of the conceptual world – as aliens to them. They have contempt and rancor for them. Even more than for those with a darker complexion than theirs.

Brink says that by making a conscious decision to bring the writer’s statements into the public domain, the newspaper has “displayed editorial support for these unconstitutional statements”.

He asks for a prominent apology on page one.

The text

The letter, written by Mr Willem Leach, was about white people being “all part of the delusions of the Stone Age”. He cites several “examples” – some appearing in Brink’s complaint as cited above.

Analysis

Salie says the Letters Pages offer people an opportunity to express their opinions (which are robust from time to time); providing a voice for everybody. This encourages participation and improves dialogue.

He states, “We do not publish letters that would be construed as hate speech. But we do publish views that people would describe as controversial.” The editor adds that the newspaper often publishes letters with which it disagrees – even ones that are sharply critical of the Cape Times and its owner.

He asks this office to dismiss the complaint, and to advise Brink instead to write to the newspaper – which will consider his letter for publication.

In his response to the above, Brink emphasizes that the newspaper did not materially respond to his complaint, which is about hate speech.

My considerations

I am pleased that the Public Advocate accepted this complaint, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify what this office regards as hate speech and what not.

Unless directed otherwise by the Constitutional Court, I work with the definition of hate speech as it is worded in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights – as this section is also reflected in the Preamble to the Code of Ethics and Conduct.

It says:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes: (a) Freedom of the press and other media; (b) Freedom to receive and impart information or ideas; (c) Freedom of artistic creativity; and (d) Academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. (2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to: (a) Propaganda for war; (b) Incitement of imminent violence; or (c) Advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. (My emphasis added.)

The “advocacy of hatred” which is mentioned here (read: hate speech) clearly has to do with the intention of causing harm to people – it is about propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, and the advocacy of hatred with the aim of causing harm.

It is not about hurting (people’s feelings) – that, I believe, is a by-product of freedom of expression which is necessary in any true democracy.

Here is an over-simplified example: If someone calls somebody else a donkey, that would be hurtful (to that person’s ego, feelings, or whatever) – but that does not constitute hate speech because it does not incite violence. However, if you add that people should hit or kill the “donkey”, that would constitute incitement to commit violence and to cause harm. That is hate speech.

In this instance, I can well understand that many people would have found Leach’s letter hurtful, upsetting, insensitive, tactless, inappropriate, etc. – and a collection of generalizations that simply boggles the mind.

But, in the end, Leach’s views are merely controversial and hurtful – and not intended to cause people harm.

Cape Times should be commended for allowing all kinds of opinions on its Letters Page, covering the broad spectrum of the debate – and for leaving it to the reader to make up his or her own mind.

It is also not true that the Cape Times has, by publishing Leach’s letter, condoned the content of that text. Heaven forbid that a newspaper only publishes letters when it agrees with them!

Brink may consider writing a letter to the editor, intended for publication, in reaction to the one he is complaining about. It is then up to the editor of the Cape Times to decide whether his letter will be published (a decision that this office has no mandate to influence).

Note: It does not matter if “whites” were substituted by “blacks” (or any other colour) in Leach’s text – my arguments would have been exactly the same.

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 [email protected].

Johan Retief

Press Ombud