Willem Prins vs. Eyewitness News
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 Press Ombud Johan Retief 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.
The complaint was dismissed. Retief said rather than insulting, 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.
The Ombud concluded, “Rather than upholding the complaint, I am instead commending Dawjee on an excellent piece and am looking forward to reading more of the same.”
THE RULING ITSELF
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Willem Prins and those of Katy Katopodis, editor-in-chief of Eyewitness News (EWN).
Prins is complaining about a column on EWN’s website of 18 July 2017, headlined Opinion: Looking at life through a white frame.
Complaint
Prins complains that the column insulted white people and that it contained racial slurring with the intent to hurt.
The text
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 in an attempt 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.”
The arguments
Prins says that the writer, due to a lack of a word in her vocabulary, tried to slur white people by poking fun at them; he adds that racial slurring is illegal.
Katopodis points out that it was an opinion piece, the intention of which was to give an account of white privilege from the perspective of a person of colour. She also denies that the column contained any racial slur.
Analysis
There is no need to summarize either the complaint or the defence in greater detail, as the complaint has no leg to stand on. Not even one.
Rather than insulting (let alone racial slurring), I have found this column extremely interesting, well-written – and profoundly thought-provoking.
Prins complains about “racial slur” against white people, but fails to give such an example. The reason for this is simple – it does not exist.
Rather than upholding the complaint, I am instead commending Dawjee on an excellent piece and am looking forward to reading more of the same.
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