Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
18 September 2015
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Sean Crookson and those of Dumisane Lubisi, executive editor of the City Press newspaper.
Complaint
Crookson is complaining about an opinion piece in City Press of 24 August 2015, headlined It’s time for whites to get to work.
He complains about the phrase “there are no good whites”, calling it “deeply offensive racism”.
The text
The opinion piece, written by Charl Blignaut, was about views voiced at the annual Ruth First Memorial Lecture. The writer said that First had been portrayed as a “good white” – but that in his opinion, there were no good whites as there could only be better whites.
Analysis
While Crookson was not “attacked” personally, he is white and therefore I have accepted his (third party) complaint (see Section 1.1 of our Complaints Procedures).
The statement that there are no good whites are, of course, offensive because it is indeed racist – hopefully not only to whites, but to all people, irrespective of their race or colour.
However, an offensive and racist statement does not by default breach the Press Code. The question is if it did so in this case.
When I first read the complaint and considered Blignaut’s statement in isolation, I thought maybe this was in breach of Section 5.1 of the Press Code in that it could have been considered as a denigratory reference to a certain section of the population. If the same statement was made of blacks, many people would find that offensive and denigratory too, I reasoned at the time.
So therefore, I have read the article with interest and with intent – and soon realized that the reversal of the statement would have been chalk and cheese (as the context in which he made the statement is hardly reversible).
While I do not have to agree with the gist of Blignaut’s argument, I happen to do just that. He made the point that white people often are more equal than their equals, and that blacks (unlike whites) often walk the extra mile in furtherance of their goals.
It is within this context that his statement in dispute should be interpreted.
Another factor is the definition of hate speech. In both Section 16 of the Bill of Rights and the preamble to the South African Press Code, hate speech is defined as propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence, and advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
Yes, Blignaut’s statement is hurtful in that it surely (and hopefully) offended many people. But it was not intended to be harmful. It can therefore not be described as hate speech.
So therefore, his statement is a generalization, and it is indeed offensive and racist – but within the context as described above, freedom of expression overrides objections to the statement.
I am mindful of:
· the fact that the statement is part of a robust debate, which should be allowed in an open society such as ours; and
· Voltaire’s famous saying, “[Even] if I disapprove of what you say…I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This office has to defend Blignaut’s right to voice his opinion, as well as the newspaper’s right to publish it.
Let the debate continue.
Finding
The complaint is dismissed.
Appeal
Our 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 Ombudsman