Shaun Westley vs. Daily Voice
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, ‘Maak die moffie vrek’ (‘Kill the faggot’). This was published on 30 June 2016.
This ruling by Press Ombud Johan Retief was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The story was about an attack on a young gay man by two “enraged homophobes” at his uncle’s house in Eerste River (Cape Town).
Shaun Westley complained that the headline:
- was “using the bigoted slur the survivor endured during the attack” (with reference to the word “moffie”;
- merely perpetuated the dehumanization of the gay community at a time when homosexuality was still a crime in more than 30 African states; and
- might have stimulated violence at the expense of a minority, which bordered on hate speech.
Retief said the issue was not what Daily Voice meant by using the word, but rather how it would have been perceived by homosexual as well as heterosexual people. “Once you have categorised someone as belonging to a certain group (using derogatory language), you have taken away something of that person’s humanity, turning him or her from a subject into an object. That is called dehumanization,” he remarked.
He added he did not believe that Daily Voice wanted to incite violence – but again, this was not about the newspaper’s intention, but rather about how homophobic people would have perceived the reportage.
The Ombud upheld the complaint and directed Daily Voice to apologise to the public in general and to Westley in particular for:
- using the derogatory term “moffie” in its headline; and
- publishing a headline that might have led to violence against gay people.
THE RULING ITSELF
Analysis
I confine myself to the headline as this is what the complaint is about.
‘Moffie’
I have several problems with Terblanche’s arguments.
Firstly on the one hand he translates the word “moffie” as “homosexual”, but on the other hand he also admits that the Afrikaans word is derogatory. This does not add up, as the word “homosexual” is not derogatory.
Secondly, he argues that, even though the word in dispute was a derogatory term, the newspaper did not mean it that way, and that the word was used in quotation marks.
Just compare this with the dreaded k-word.
Also, the use of quotation marks does not soften this fact, as argued by the newspaper.
Let me try to make this clear:
I shall return to this issue under the next sub-headline.
I am not arguing that the story was not in the public interest, as it certainly was. The problem is not with the story, but with the use of the m-word.
I am rather perplexed at the newspaper’s arguments, as it creates the impression that the intensity and seriousness of the gay debate has gone largely unnoticed in that particular circle.
Stimulating violence
Dehumanizing a person is not a theoretical thing, as it opens up the possibility of all sorts of inhuman behaviour towards that individual, as it is much easier to commit such behaviour – including violence in all its forms – against an object than it is against a subject.
Let’s once again replace the m-word with the k-word. I can hardly imagine the media reporting: “Kill that k***”.
Why then would “Kill that m***” be acceptable?
(Before anybody misunderstands me: I am not equating black people with homosexuals; I am merely replacing one – previously – disadvantaged group with another, for the sake of using an example to argue the point.)
. It may just have served as encouragement to pursue the avenue of the headline.
In light of so many hate crimes against gay people, world-wide, the newspaper should have opted rather to err on the side of caution – which it clearly did not do.
Sanction
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Shaun Westley and those of Damien Terblanche, on behalf of the Daily Voice newspaper.
Westley is complaining about a story in Daily Voice of 30 June 2016, headlined ‘Maak die moffie vrek’.
Complaint
Westley complains that the headline:
· was “using the bigoted slur the survivor endured during the attack” (with reference to the word “moffie”);
· merely perpetuated the dehumanization of the gay community at a time when homosexuality is still a crime in more than 30 African states; and
· might have stimulated violence at the expense of a minority, bordering on hate speech.
The text
The story was about an attack on a young gay man by two “enraged homophobes” at his uncle’s house in Eerste River (Cape Town).
The arguments
Giving reasons, the newspaper argues that its reportage was truthful, fair, accurate and in the public interest.
Terblanche also submits that the headline was appropriate to the content of the article, saying that the Afrikaans words should merely be translated as “Kill the homosexual”.
He also notes that the word “moffie” is a derogatory term for homosexual, but argues that the word was not published as fact, or meant in a derogatory sense. “It has published the headline in quotes noting that what was published was a statement made by someone else… It was reiterated in the article as well and a reasonable reader would have known that information had they read the article. The publication of the headline was thus fair and appropriate in the context.”
Westley replies that the content of the article is not in question – “[the] complaint rests on whether it is fair to use derogatory slang as a massive headline … and whether that is necessary to accomplish fair reporting”.
He asks that, if the attack was on a member of any other (previously) disadvantaged group, such as blacks, women or mentally retarded people, would it have been in order to use derogatory words?
Westley concludes, “The point of this complaint is to neatly remind the press that there is an incredibly fine margin between reporting on a hate crime and perpetuating … violence” – and argues that the headline fell within the latter category.
Analysis
I confine myself to the headline as this is what the complaint is about.
‘Moffie’
I have several problems with Terblanche’s arguments.
Firstly on the one hand he translates the word “moffie” as “homosexual”, but on the other hand he also admits that the Afrikaans word is derogatory. This does not add up, as the word “homosexual” is not derogatory.
Secondly, he argues that, even though the word in dispute was a derogatory term, the newspaper did not mean it that way, and that the word was used in quotation marks.
However, the issue is not what Daily Voice meant by using the word, but rather how it would have been perceived by homosexual as well as heterosexual people.
Just compare this with the dreaded k-word.
Also, the use of quotation marks does not soften this fact, as argued by the newspaper.
Let me try to make this clear: Once you have categorised someone as belonging to a certain group (using derogatory language), you have taken away something of that person’s humanity, turning him or her from a subject into an object.
That is called dehumanization. I shall return to this issue under the next sub-headline.
I am not arguing that the story was not in the public interest, as it certainly was. The problem is not with the story, but with the use of the m-word.
I am rather perplexed at the newspaper’s arguments, as it creates the impression that the intensity and seriousness of the gay debate has gone largely unnoticed in that particular circle.
Stimulating violence
Dehumanizing a person is not a theoretical thing, as it opens up the possibility of all sorts of inhuman behaviour towards that individual, as it is much easier to commit such behaviour – including violence in all its forms – against an object than it is against a subject.
Let’s once again replace the m-word with the k-word. I can hardly imagine the media reporting: “Kill that k***”.
Why then would “Kill that m***” be acceptable?
(Before anybody misunderstands me: I am not equating black people with homosexuals; I am merely replacing one – previously – disadvantaged group with another, for the sake of using an example to argue the point.)
Not for one moment do I believe that Daily Voice actually wanted to incite violence. But again, that is not the point – it is not about the newspaper’s intention, but rather about how (in this instance) homophobic people would have perceived such a statement. It may just have served as encouragement to pursue the avenue of the headline.
In light of so many hate crimes against gay people, world-wide, the newspaper should have opted rather to err on the side of caution – which it clearly did not do.
Finding
Daily Voice is in breach of the following sections of the Code of Ethics and Conduct:
· 5.1 “[The] media shall avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s … sexual orientation…”; and
· 5.2: “The … right [to report and comment on all matters of legitimate public interest] … must … be balanced against the obligation not to publish material that amounts to … incitement of imminent violence…”
Seriousness of breaches
Under the headline Hierarchy of sanctions, Section 8 of the Complaints Procedures distinguishes between minor breaches (Tier 1), serious breaches (Tier 2) and serious misconduct (Tier 3).
The breaches of the Code of Ethics and Conduct as indicated above are a Tier 2 offences.
Sanction
Daily Voice is directed to apologise to the public in general and to Westley in particular for:
· using the derogatory term “moffie” in its headline; and
· publishing a headline that might have led to violence against gay people.
The text should:
· be published on the same page as that used for the offending headline;
- start with the apology;
- end with the sentence, “Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding”; and
- be approved by me.
The headline should reflect the content of the text. A heading such as Matter of Fact, or something similar, is not acceptable.
If the offending article appeared on the newspaper’s website, the apology should appear there as well.
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