Shoot the Boer

[Dave A]

The news tonight could be interesting, then.

Reading the M&G article here, I can't help think the ANC is missing the point in this.

Mantashe said Malema, in his controversial statements, was merely trying to get the ANC back into power in the Western Cape.

That doesn't make racial incitement and hate speech OK, Gwede!

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

The only winners in this matter are the attorneys and advocates. 14 in total for about 15 days, you do the maths. And then all over again when it is taken to the Constitutional Court!!

[Dave A]

With copy like this, it seems almost worth it.

African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) president Julius Malema told the Equality Court in Johannesburg on Wednesday that Afrikaans interest group AfriForum brought a hate speech case against him only because it wanted the "limelight".

Under cross-examination by counsel for AfriForum Martin Brassey, Malema said the trial was just "cheap politicking" and that AfriForum "came here to boast".

"You [AfriForum] came here for cameras," he told Brassey.
full story from M&G here

[wynn]

I watched 'Kiddie Amin' on E yesterday, he is a credible revolutionary, he said that when they referred to 'Boers' they meant anybody that supported Apartheid including the homelands that had black people as 'Boers'

Interesting!

[Dave A]

Apparently "kill" as in "kill for Zuma" doesn't mean kill either - it means "win."



Maybe he's a martian?

[Justloadit]

Well he did say in court that he is a politician. Never believe anything that is spewed out of a politicians mouth - they are pathological liars.

[tec0]

If this wasn’t such a joke to start with I would take the matter more seriously. The questions were nearly just bickering and the answers were open to interpretation. The argument is the fact that there is still an open antisocial revolt against minorities. And the reason for that is indeed unclear.

In the end it did more damage when it comes to the image of the opposed parties, the ANCYL accomplished their goal to discredit the opposition parties intentions, making race once again the only factor in the coming elections.

They will continue to play the race game because it keeps them in power. As long as they can advocate mistrust they will remain the elected ruler for decades to come. This will always be the intention.

Fact is thousands of farmers are being killed per year as stated in the Media. Not to mention that the “Media gag law” will come into effect soon. In the end the majority of South Africa’s voting public must decide what they want. Only they can.

Yet if you where outside the court of this ridicules case, you would have seen thousands of supporters. They want this song to be sung, this is what they want to teach their children. This is what they want to uphold as “tradition”. Now it is also true that there are majorities that said no, we must work towards a true future of equality.

But needless to say this "fiasco" was an embarrassment at best...

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

I really do not understand AfriForums motives or strategy.
Perhaps Malema has hit on a point in that the action is brought for publicity or more likely to show the members they are taking a stand. From the bits I have seen on TV, their strategy really seems strange.

This matter could have been taken straight to the Constitutional Court. The hate speech element vs Malema is miniscule. It boils down to the song itself. Yes or No is the question. The hate speech part to me seems like a play to its members. This is more understandable and motors on a more emotional level than a Constitutional battle.

I do not know why they, in their evidence, they even entered the realm of the meaning of Kill and Boer. I would let it stand in terms of it's grammatical meaning as it stands. We can undertsand the defence wanting other meanings to be established. Their bringing it up again seems to be the desire to play to its members.

On this point, to my mind, the "real or intended" meaning is irrelevant. The majority of people intepret a song as we hear it. We do not analyse the real or hidden meaning. We take it at face value. Again Afriforum conducted a poll of do people find the song should not be allowed and the results were 66% or something(across the racial spectrum). However amongst the youth league and others as to where the song originates would have made more sense, in terms of winning the case, not in terms of making members happy though.
If, as Malema claims, Boer relates to the system, I wonder why counsel did not push home on this. A few questions leading him along the way to state that they hated the apartheid system and taht is what they were fighting and singing about, followed by why change the words to KISS the boer, may have left him some what tangled. (Perhaps linke dto inciting behaviour, see later in post)

I do not believe that they will be able to make the link and to prove that the song is leading to the deaths of farmers. to my mind, the stratgey should evolve around the inciteful nature of malema's actions. In terms of this they maybe missed a few tricks -
Malema in his own evidence or in answer to cross examination, does not deny that in the time of Peter Mokaba the ANC leadership stopped the singing of the song because it was causing rift. This is already a key indication that the people intepret it as Kill and Farmer not any other meaning. Add to this that, to my mind, I do not believe any of the other ANC leaders are singing the song. (The media may play a role in this because from a news view point malema singing it and JZ singing it would be different) It also appears apparent that Malema CHOOSES to sing the song at times and moments that indicate defiance and to be inciteful. Examples such as after the murder of Terblanche, outside the court at his previous Gender case, outside the court now etc, ect - again the media may play a role, but there seems to be a behaviour pattern.
Any behaviour that incites, particularly on race lines and violence, can and must be outlawed. This is a much easier case to prove than a song that leads to deaths of farmers.
More interesting will be what the court will do if the song is declared unconstitutional. It will not be possible to ban the song, because how will this be enforced?

[tec0]

I completely agree Anthony, you cannot order a gag on a song, people will sing it because “they want to sing it” there reasons and motives may vary but it is what it is. That said, I cannot help but think that AfriForum did more harm than good.

Was it calculated? I cannot say, but I do know that the opposing parties may not bounce back from this till well after elections are done.

Was this the plan?

Well the possibility exists.

[ChrisNG53]

I think everything distills down to the following -

1. On the evidence it appears clear that the words "dubul' ibhunu" also bears the idiomatic meaning - "destroy the system".
2. However, the ordinary meaning was, and remains, as - "shoot the Boer", i.e, shoot a human being.
3. The reality is that this is a meaning that "ordinary" folk, not steeped in ANC liberation culture, understand the words.
4. If you do a simple "test sample" of say 30 -40 ordinary South Africans, of all races, you will find that hardly any of them know the words of the song -- and therefore obviously do not ascribe the "struggle" meaning as claimed by Malema and Mantashe.
5. So, at best for Malema, the song is being sung with a "reckless disregard" as to how it is being understood.
6. This is impermissible in a constitutional democracy, (that is the relevant "context") and undoubtedly constitutes "hate speech", as the reference to "Boer" is a reference to a human being.
7. The jurisprudential paradigm is that, with independence and the adoption of our constitution, EVERYTHING CHANGED FOREVER. Hostilities were ended, together with their support structures.
8. At a stroke, ALL were rendered equal before the law - regardless of their political persuasions.
9. What this means is that, even those who oppose our new dispensation, hanker after apartheid and believe in racist oppression, stand equal before the law .... and fully entitled to equal protection.
10. Under our constitution, all are entitled to the protection of the State/law. The State is obliged to provide safety and security -- to everybody.
11. Jurisprudentially, this includes providing an environment in which all human beings "feel" safe.

Judge Lamont has been presented with an exceptional opportunity to, not only resolve the legal issues, but to provide long overdue education to all South Africans, (and the World) particularly to those in leadership positions.

It is blindingly obvious that there is a general level of poor/defective emotional intelligence --- undoubtedly an apartheid legacy -- aggravated by divisive macro management since independence.

The worst thing that could happen is that he hands down a "wishy washy" judgment that is not diamond hard on what is right.