Appeal Decision: Daily Voice vs Shaun Westley

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 the Chair of the Appeals Panel Judge Bernard Ngoepe 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.

The Ombud 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. 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 publication applied for leave to appeal only about the headline.

Judge Ngoepe upheld the application, inter alia because the headline was in quotation marks, and it was reciting the words which had been uttered by the attackers. He added that the public perhaps had a right to know what the attackers had said.

THE RULING ITSELF

DAILY VOICE                                                                                               APPLICANT

versus

[1]     This is an application for leave to appeal by Daily Voice (“applicant”) to appeal the Ruling of the Ombud dated 24 July 2016 to the Appeals Panel of the Press Council for South Africa.  The Ruling was made in favour of Shawn Westley (“respondent”), and followed a complaint by the latter against an article published by the applicant on apparently 7 April 2016.

[2]     The headline to the story was: “MAAK DIE MOFFIE VREK” – in quotation marks.  The article was reporting on an attack on one Gino Jonker who was gay.  He was attacked by two people he knew, and who did so because of homophobia.

[3]     The respondent complained about the use of the word “MOFFIE” but not about the content of the story; to quote one of his statements: “I wish to remind everyone that the actual contents of the article are not in question here and 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”.  In his Ruling, the Ombud summarized the complaint about the headline as follows:

?        “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”

It is therefore clear that, as I have said, the compliant is only about the headline; in particular against the use of the word “moffie”.

[4]     In his Ruling, the Ombud upheld the complaint.  He found that the applicant violated articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Code, and ordered an apology “to the public in general and to Westley”.

[5]     The applicant now seeks leave to appeal the entire Ruling to the Appeals Panel.  For the application to succeed, the appeal needs to show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; this is what I must therefore determine.

Bearing in mind that the complaint is only about the headline using the word “moffie”, I am of the view that the applicant has reasonable prospects of success, for the following reasons:

5.1 the headline was in quotation marks, and

5.2    it was reciting the words which had been uttered by the attackers.  In this respect, right in the body of the article, the following words are quoted as coming from the attackers: “Ons maak die moffie vrek, maak die ding dood.” It is therefore clear that the words in the headline come from, and was quoting, the attackers.

Crass as the respondent says the headline was, I am not sure whether the public was not entitled to be told what the attackers actually said during the attack, or whether it was not relevant (applicant contends it was).

[6]     As I am granting leave to appeal, I cannot comment further on the merits of the case.

[7]     Leave to appeal the Ombud’s Ruling dated 24 July 2016 is hereby granted to Daily Voice.

Dated this 23^rd day of August 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel