Appeal Decision: Grant Terrence vs. Cape Argus

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, We must all admit to our racism in order to heal – Only honest discussion about the underlying anger caused by race issues can save us (published on 21 January 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.

Gerhard Papenfus, COO of the National Employers’ Association of South Africa, wrote that, without condoning Penny Sparrow’s remarks (she had compared black people to monkeys), she had in fact done the country a favour in that her remarks “have set in motion a process which has shown us where we stand in the area of race relations – South Africa’s Achilles heel”. He argued that to criminalise racism, as some people had advocated, would merely have left unchallenged the underlying attitudes plaguing this nation.

Terence Grant complained that the article justified hate speech and death threats against white people; that it intimidated them; and that it justified or excused genocide.

The Ombud dismissed the complaint, mainly because:

• any reference to a person or group of people as an animal was bound to provoke some “vicious” reaction;
• the text did not constitute “hate speech” and did not contain “death threats”; and
• the text did not say that only white people would perish – it merely stated Papenfus’s conviction that a catastrophe would result if the problem was not solved.

Grant then applied for leave to appeal.

Dismissing the application, Judge Ngoepe agreed with the Ombud and added that the article:

• called on people to be frank about the issue of racism, and confront it;
• did not invite hatred or violence – it was in fact a call to conduct some introspection; and
• justifiably admitted that some people indeed got angered by what Sparrow (a white “racist”) had said.

THE RULING ITSELF

GRANT TERRENCE                                                                                  APPLICANT

VERSUS

[1]     Mr Terrence Grant (“applicant”) complained to the Press Ombudsman against an opinion piece which appeared in the edition of Cape Argus (“respondent”) of 21 January 2016.  The headline read: “We must all admit to our racism in order to heal”.  The opinion piece was commenting on reactions to what was generally regarded as racist remarks which had been made by one Sparrow.  Some of the reactions were racist.

[2]     The applicant complained that the article justified hate speech and death threats against white people; it intimidated them and justified their genocide.  The respondent’s reply was that the article was a subjective opinion piece of the author, one Papenfus; furthermore, that it did do any of the harm alleged by the applicant.  In his Ruling dated 9 February 2016, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in its entirely, hence this application.

[3]     For the application to succeed, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; therefore, this is what I must now assess.

[4]     As the Ombudsman says in his Ruling, respondent’s reply is that the article was a report on various racial matters which were then in the lime light in. I agree with the respondent entirely that the article was not justifying any of the things applicant was alleging.  I have read the article carefully.  My view is that it was calling on people to be frank about the issue of racism, and confront it.  In the process, it admitted, as it had to, that indeed some people justifiably got angered by what Sparrow (a white “racist”) had said, as also by what one Khumalo (a black “racist”) had said.  I am afraid the applicant misunderstood the article entirely, as also the call it was making.  The applicant read into the article things which were not there at all, which form the basis of his complaint.  When the article for example says people “understandably responded viciously” to Sparrow’s remarks, it does not invite hatred or violence; all it does is to say that there is a problem which should be acknowledged and dealt with.  Far from inciting hatred or violence, my view is that it was in fact a call on the citizenry or the nation to conduct some self-introspection.

[5]     For the reasons given by the Ombudsman, and those above, I am of the view that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; the application is therefore dismissed.

Dated this 4^th day of April 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel