Appeal Decision:Willem Prins vs Eyewitness

SUMMARY

The headline to the column in dispute read, Opinion: Looking at life through a white frame (published on 18 July 2017).

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 introductory sentence to the column, written by Haji Mohamed Dawjee, said, “The lack of an all-encompassing slur has left us with poking fun or asking rhetorical questions to imply insult.” She then gave examples of some stereotypes about white people to explain the concept of white privilege. Wrapping up her arguments, Dawjee summarized the gist of her column as follows: “Privilege to white people is so natural that it has become unrecognizable to them.”

Willem Prins complained that the column insulted white people and that it contained racial slurring with the intent to hurt.

Dismissing the complaint, the Ombud said he found this column interesting, well-written – and profoundly thought-provoking. He also noted that Prins complained about “racial slur” against white people but that he had failed to give such an example. The reason for that was simple – it did not exist. He congratulated Dawjee on an excellent piece.

Prins then applied for leave to appeal, mainly because he argued that the Ombud had misunderstood his complaint.

Judge Ngoepe said Prins had equated the reference to stereotypes used in the column to an actual racial slur, such as the “K” word.  The latter is held to be dehumanising in itself; on its own, and therefore not comparable.  “The Ombud was right,” he continued. “Lamenting the absence of an all-encompassing word to insult white people, does not in itself amount to a racial slur!  In any event, the column is undeniably an opinion piece and therefore protected under the Code.”

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

THE RULING ITSELF

In the matter of

WILLEM PRINS                                                                                                  APPLICANT

AND

1.         On 18 July 2017 Eyewitness News (“respondent”) published on its website a column with the headline “Opinion: Looking at life through a white frame”.  Mr Willem Prins (“applicant”) complained about that opinion piece, lodging a complaint with the Press Ombud.  The introductory sentence to the column pretty summed the substance of it: “The lack of an all-encompassing slur has left us with poking fun or asking rhetorical questions to imply insult.” Decoded, the piece really said that in contrast to people of colour in respect of whom there could be just one word to insult them, such as the “K” word, there wasn’t one in respect of white people; one must therefore resort to using fun or rhetoric questions to imply insult.   The gist of the applicant’s complaint was, as succinctly put by the Ombud, that the column insulted white people, and “contained racial slurring with the intent to hurt”.  The respondent’s answer was that the column was an opinion piece, looking at the life of white people through the prisim of a black person. The column was merely presenting certain expectations which white people have in terms of their perceived privileges.  The Ombud dismissed the complaint as he felt it had no merits; he found, on the contrary, that the column was interesting.

2.         In his application for leave to appeal, the applicant argues that the Ombud’s summary of his complaint shows that the complaint was misunderstood.  He then repeats what he said was his real complaint.  What really emerges is that he equates reference to stereotypes used in the column to an actual racial slur, such as the “K” word.  The latter is held to be dehumanising in itself; on its own, and therefore not comparable.  The Ombud was right. Lamenting the absence of an all-encompassng word to insult white people, does not in itself amount to a racial slur!  In any event, the column is undeniably an opinion piece and therefore protected under the Code.  All these put paid to any hope of the appeal succeeding before the Appeals Panel.  In the absence of such prospects, the application fails. The Ombud said he found the piece interesting. Well, one may add that it was actually a caricature of the truth, deliberately presented in an intellectually stimulating manner.

Dated this 9^th day of October 2017

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel