Ruling by the Press Ombud
26 May 2017
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Ms Mmane Boikanyo, on behalf of South African Women and/in Sport Federation (SAWASF), and those of Abdul Milazi, editor of the Sunday World newspaper.
SAWASF is complaining about:
· an opinion piece in Sunday World of 23 April 2017, headlined BSA licencees must help choose board – Chairwoman Ravele did well for the fistic sport but a more stout-hearted leader is needed to deal with industry; and
· text it sent to the newspaper for publication, meant as an article, but which has been published, in a shortened form, as a letter to the editor (headlined, Magasela deals low blow to women’s rights).
The crux of the complaint is that the journalist has championed the fallacy that men are superior to women.
Chronology of texts / correspondence
April 23: Publishing of the opinion piece
The opinion article, written by journalist Bongani Magasela, said the newly appointed Sports Minister, Mr Thembelani Nxesi, “will … be well advised to appoint a man as the chairperson because this sport is like the taxi industry, which requires a stout-hearted individual to fearlessly deal with law breakers.”
He stated that Ms Muditambi Ravele, the first female chairperson since Boxing South Africa (BSA) came into being in 2001, “did well under the circumstances”, but added that she had been “misplaced”.
The journalist wrote that Ravele was a marketer and did a good job for the PSL (the national soccer federation) and argued that she should have been appointed “in that department”.
He ended his piece as follows: “The current board had its successes as well as its failures. It did well to discipline some law breakers, brought back annual boxing awards but failed to deal decisively with PBL organizer Dicksy Ngqula who still owes four boxers prize money totaling R1.6-million.”
April 26: SAWASF’s article
In response to Magasela’s column, Boikanyo sent an article to Sunday World on behalf of SAWASF.
The federation says the Constitution of this country prevents / prohibits unfair discrimination and promotes the achievement of equality through advancing, by special legal and other measures, of historically disadvantaged individuals, communities and social groups who were deprived opportunities and their human dignity.
SAWASF accuses Magasela of perpetuating the “double discrimination” (read: apartheid, and women being regarded as inferior to men) in the past against women for arguing that BSA requires a man as its chairperson.
It inter alia criticizes Magasela for saying that, even though Ravele did well under the circumstances, she was “misplaced”.
The federation also argues that Ravele was a role model to many women and girls who aspired to rise up in all roles in sport and in life in general. “Therefore, articles such as the one authored by Mr. Magasela, can easily tell women that there is a ceiling to their ambitions if they aspire to be leaders in environment that were exclusively reserved for men,” it argues.
SAWASF asks for a retraction of Magasela’s text, as well as for an apology, and suggests that he should undergo gender sensitivity training to equip him to do his work as a journalist effectively.
April 30: Publication of SAWASF’s ‘letter’
Sunday World published SAWASF’s response as a (shortened) letter to the editor, which read:
“As South Africans, we know that women in particular had to bear double discrimination in the past and it seems, according to Magasela, this needs to continue.
“Magasela states that the new minister of sport needs to be ‘advised to appoint a man as the chairperson because the sport is like the taxi industry, which requires a stout-hearted individual to fearlessly deal with law-breakers’.
“What Magasela is actually saying is that men are better than women.
“Therefore, he is in violation of the Constitution that provides for equality of men and women.
“The funny part in his argument is that he acknowledges that the current board, whose term expires shortly, led by a woman, has been successful.”
May 3: Complaint lodged with this office
In SAWASF’s complaint to this office, Boikanyo refers to Magasela’s “sexist” article and her correspondence to Milazi in this regard, saying that she did not receive any formal response from the publication – “[it] just posted a brief abstract of my response letter in the letters section without any apology…”
She says a publication of Sunday World’s magnitude should be encouraging gender equality, but instead the journalist and editorial team seemed not to be bothered by the misrepresentation of women’s positive impact in sport leadership.
She asks this office to hold the publication to account for gender discrimination and “advising the publication to apologise to Miss Muditambi Ravele for the unfair depiction.”
May 5: Sunday World’s response to the complaint
Milazi says the newspaper has received SAWASF’s e-mail as a reply to Magasela’s opinion piece, and treated it as such (e.g. publishing it as a response in the letters page). “If it had been labelled as a complaint, we would have responded [accordingly],” he adds.
The editor also submits:
· The newspaper does not censor the opinion columns it receives, unless they are overly offensive, destructive or promote hate speech;
· Magasela did not attack Ravele as an individual or denigrate women in general;
· The gist of the journalist’s column was that BSA needed a male touch after Ravele left;
· Saying an organisation, project or business needs a “female” or a “male” touch does not amount to gender discrimination;
· The column did not say that Ravele failed, or failed as a woman, or failed because she was a woman; and
· The same Constitution SAWASF is referring to, also guarantees Magasela the right to free speech.
May 12: SAWASF’s response to the above
Boikanyo et al say it is unacceptable that Milazi defends the article by arguing that it was an opinion column – the editor’s reply boils down to the opinion that a woman cannot head BSA. They say the newspaper was following in the steps of those who look down on successful women and girls, “thereby discouraging these women and girls from striving to qualify themselves for leadership role in sport in particular and society in general”.
They argue:
· Citing the Preamble to the Code, which states that the media enable citizens to make informed judgments on the issues of the day, an argument can be made that Magasela was in a position to influence people in judging Ravele;
· Magasela did not in any way show how a man would be different or do better than Ravele, “thereby appearing to perpetuate the stereotype that men are superior to women”;
· The journalist has tarnished Ravele’s dignity and reputation; and
· Magasela’s opinion was not based on facts or evidence.
“SAWASF on behalf of women and girls of South Africa told the Sunday World … that his ‘opinion’ about the role of Ms. Ravele hurt women surely; the Sunday World cannot decide that they did not hurt women.”
The federation says the newspaper has trivialised gains that women such as Ravele have made in a sport dominated by men. It appeals to Magasela to acknowledge that everybody should be treated solely on their performance, and adds, “We want a South African media that is sensitive to detect articles that are controversial and can be misunderstood as biased or too simplistic in their analysis… [we want] to build a truly non-racist, non-discriminatory and representative South Africa in all its organisations and structures. The basis of a journalist’s opinion on an area that is working hard to transform, is not helpful at all.”
SAWASF concludes, “Surely, the Sunday World does not want to be seen to be tolerating the violation of the rights of women based on an opinion column. We value Mr. Magasela’s right to ‘freedom of speech’… However, this cannot be founded on an opinion, and the fact that women have responded to the article, should be enough evidence that the article is unacceptable in a country that still have women is subservient roles in many areas and professions.”
May 17: Milazi’s response to the above
Milazi replies that Sunday World has published numerous opinion pieces calling for South Africa to have a female president and asks: “[Did] we violate the Press Code by publishing those as well? If we take the reasoning of the complainants, then indeed we should not have published those opinion pieces as well, because they were bound to influence public opinion and were discriminatory in nature against men.”
He argues that opinion columns are meant to spark debate, and they are the opinions of the respective authors whose names clearly appear with them – the only official opinion of the publication is the editorial comment.
The editor repeats that the newspaper will not censor opinions on any issue, including gender issues. “South Africa is an open society, which is supposedly democratic and free and citizens need to feel free to debate on any issue without fear of attack or being silenced. That is freedom as enshrined in our Constitution. Common sense, in a democracy, dictates that if one feels strongly about someone else’s opinion the logical step is to challenge them in a debate, and not silence them. When the complainants sent their ‘reply’ to Mr Magasela, (which we published) that was, we believe, the most logical thing to do in a free society.”
In conclusion, Milazi says a dictatorship by public or private groupings has exactly the same outcomes as the one prevalent during the National Party rule. “One is no better than the other,” he argues.
Analysis
I have recently said in a finding regarding a cartoon (which is comment, just as the opinion piece in question), that this office should never find against a cartoon merely because some members of the public do not agree with the image or the message – the “discomfort of the audience in receiving the artist’s ideas, does not of its own accord form adequate basis for limitation of that right,” I stated.
The same argument applies in this case.
I fully accept that SAWASF is unhappy with Magasela’s views, but the federation should also accept that he has the right to voice his opinion.
Let me quote Section 7, headlined Protected Comment, in full:
“The media shall be entitled to comment upon or criticise any actions or events of public interest.
“Comment or criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, as long as it expresses an honestly-held opinion; is without malice; is on a matter of public interest; has taken fair account of all material facts that are substantially true; and is presented in such manner that it appears clearly to be comment.”
The words “extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced” are indeed strong, but they are not over the top, given the importance of freedom of speech in an open society. They also echo findings by our courts in this regard.
Yes, Section 7 of the Code also contains some restrictions to comment or criticism, as the right to free speech is not absolute – but I do not believe that Magasela has transgressed any of those provisions in his article.
This office shall defend Magasela’s right to his opinion as strongly as the SAWASF’s right to disagree with it. I cannot even begin to think what it will do to the robustness of the public debate if this office should prohibit Magasela from stating publicly that the chairperson of BSA should be a man – even if some people find such a view offensive.
Milazi’s argument about promoting a woman for President is also telling – if it is sexist to favour one sex above the other for a certain position, the media should also not be allowed to advocate a woman as successor to Pres Jacob Zuma.
I also believe that SAWASF is reading too much into the journalist’s piece when arguing that it:
· promoted and perpetuated unfair discrimination against women, suggesting that men are superior;
· carried the message that there is a ceiling to women’s ambitions;
· was not bothered by the misrepresentation of women’s positive impact in sport leadership;
· followed in the steps of those who look down on successful women and girls;
· trivialised the gains that women such as Ravele made in a sport dominated by men; and
· tarnished Ravele’s dignity and reputation.
Finally, I do not believe that Sunday World, by publishing this piece, was counter-productive in building a non-racist, non-discriminatory and representative South Africa.
Please note that I am not defending the journalist’s opinion – I am merely protecting his right to state his views, and the newspaper’s right to publish them.
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 Khanyim@ombudsman.org.za.
Johan Retief
Press Ombud