‘Prophet’ Jay Israel vs. Sunday Sun

SUMMARY

The headline to the column in dispute read, Rock star pastors in tight suits (published on 23 July 2017).

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

 

The column was about people who use Facebook to connect for sexual reasons. The author said, “That’s not all that I found on Facebook. Some guy named Jay Israel has been circulating pamphlets for a lunch event that costs from R500, promises snacks, lunch and refreshments. He calls it ‘Single, Saved, But Horny’.” The column continued: “If you are horny, never … attend silly churches with pastors who think they are rockstars in tight scrotum squeezing suits bought from the boys department”; it also stated that such “attention-seekers are peacocks, not men of God.”

“Prophet” Jay Israel complained that the above-mentioned statements in the column denigrated his religion and beliefs, that they referred to his status in a prejudicial or pejorative context, and that they attacked his character and good name. He added that the text advocated hatred based on religion and that the journalist did not contact him, or any member of his church, for comment prior to publication.

Citing Section 7 of the Press Code that regulated comments, Retief dismissed the complaint inter alia because:

• the author was not required to ask Israel for comment, as the text was comment and not news;
• he said he could not take seriously the complaint that the column advocated hatred based on religion; and
• the matter was in the public interest, it expressed an honestly held opinion, it was without malice, it had taken fair account of all material facts that were substantially true, and it was presented in such manner that it appeared clearly to be comment.

 

THE RULING ITSELF

This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Tabisa ka Ralawe, on behalf of pastor Prophet Jay Israel, and those of Johan Vos, deputy editor of the Sunday Sun newspaper.

Israel is complaining about a column in Sunday Sun of 23 July 2017, headlined Rock star pastors in tight suits.

Complaint                                            

Israel complains that the column denigrated his religion and beliefs, referred to his status in a prejudicial or pejorative context and attacked his character and good name by:

·         calling him a:

o   pastor who thinks he is a rock star in tight scrotum-squeezing pants bought from the boys department;

o   peacock – not a man of God; and

·         inciting people to boycott a planned event for the church which was meant to highlight issues about sex and sexuality in general.

He adds that the:

·         text advocated hatred that was based on religion; and

·         journalist did not contact him, or any member of his church, for comment prior to publication.

The text

The column, by Kuli Roberts, was about people who use Facebook to connect for sexual reasons.

She wrote, “That’s not all that I found on Facebook. Some guy named Jay Israel has been circulating pamphlets for a lunch event that costs from R500, promises snacks, lunch and refreshments. He calls it ‘Single, Saved, But Horny’.”

She advised readers not to attend this “horny lunch”, as they themselves would become the “snacks”.

Roberts added, “If you are horny, never … attend silly churches with pastors who think they are rockstars in tight scrotum squeezing suits bought from the boys department”, and stated that such “attention-seekers are peacocks, not men of God.”

The arguments

Vos argues that Roberts’s columns were mostly tongue-in-cheek pieces of writing, dealing mostly with sex, relationships, the battle of the genders, and the like.

He says the specific column should be seen in context – the title “Single, Saved, But Horny” was unusual for a lunch event, and it could have sparked her to use it in her column.

He also argues that:

·         the statement about rock stars in tight scrotum-squeezing suits was a generalisation (it was used in the plural form) and was not directly referring to Israel;

·         as a columnist, Roberts was speaking her mind and giving her advice, which was her prerogative (adding that her opinion did not necessarily reflect that of the newspaper); and

·         Roberts was not required to ask Israel for comment, as the text was not a news article, but a column.

The deputy editor concludes, “Kuli is a columnist and her opinion, much as it can be controversial, remains just that, her opinion.”

Ka Ralawe denies the meeting in question was a lunch event – only snacks would be served and “there material difference between the two”.

She also argues the reference to attendees who would become snacks amounted to incitement.

She questions Vos’s arguments, asking if people should accept that the column was referring to pastors in general, while:

·         Israel was the one whose poster had circulated, inviting people to attend a seminar where lunch/refreshments were included in the admission fee;

·         Israel’s name was mentioned throughout; etc.

Analysis

Roberts was indeed not required to ask Israel for comment, as her text was comment and not presented as (hard) news. I also cannot take seriously the complaint that the column advocated hatred based on religion.

Section 7 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct regulates columns. Headlined Protected Comment. It states:

“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.”

As I do not believe that Roberts has transgressed any of these provisions, and realizing that this office would endanger freedom of expression in this country if it inhibits robust debate while all these provisions have been met, there can be only one outcome with regards to this complaint.

Finding

The complaint is dismissed.

Appeal

The 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