Julius Malema: De Klerk Foundation fume as Juju escapes hate speech charges

The F.W de Klerk Foundation has been left spitting feathers this week after their complaint about Julius Malema to the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) was not upheld. It marks the end of a three-year battle, where the organisation took particular offence to one of Juju’s bellicose rants in 2016.

What Julius Malema said

After emerging from the court in Newcastle – an appearance he had to undertake for encouraging citizens to participate in illegal land grabs – Malema addressed his followers again, and instead of toning down the rhetoric, he lifted it to 11:

“White people found peaceful Africans here. They killed them. They slaughtered them like animals. We are not calling for the slaughtering of white people, at least for now. What we are calling for is the peaceful occupation of land and we don’t owe anyone an apology for that.”

Julius Malema

Julius Malema’s land grab cases

It’s a quote that has gone down in infamy and ranks as one of the most contentious things he’s ever said. Quite an achievement, given his back-catalogue. Julius Malema would later be dragged back to court to debate his land grabs case, where he argued the law forbidding such actions shouldn’t be enforced as it’s from the “apartheid era”.

But the F.W de Klerk Foundation – who monitor political activity and act in the interest of civil rights – demanded that his “slaughter” comments were pulled into sharp focus. Their complaint eventually made it to the SAHRC, but on Wednesday, it was confirmed that the organisation would not be pursuing a case against the EFF leader:

“The determination of hate speech hinges on whether the addition of ‘at least for now’ to the statement that Mr Malema is ‘not calling for the slaughter of white people’ can be reasonably construed to demonstrate a clear intention to incite harm at some indeterminate time in the future.”

“Such incitement is not ‘imminent’, as per the language of section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution or foreseen at the time when the utterances are made. The statement deals with the subject matter of land dispossession and redistribution, and is not aimed at inciting harm to white people.”

SAHRC

Why is this not classed as hate speech?

The commission concludes that the comments regarding “slaughter” and “at least not now” are within the wider context of land dispossession and that the mitigating factor – where he doesn’t make an urgent threat – is enough to protect him from any further action.

The foundation has expressed their bitter disappointment over the findings. In a statement circulated on Thursday, they’ve labelled his language as “genocidal” and slammed the politician for reciting a “prejudicial version of history”:

“The SAHRC brushed aside the truly chilling implication that Malema might call for the slaughter of white people at some later stage. Also, his highly prejudicial version of history that ‘white people’ slaughtered peaceful Africans ‘like animals’ was clearly intended to sweep up racial hatred.”

“His words, by his own admission, also constituted incitement to cause harm. Does the SAHRC really think that the illegal occupation of the land of white farmers could be achieved without causing them ‘harm’?”

F.W de Klerk Foundation

What is classed as hate speech?

Julius Malema may have just got lucky with this whole affair. At face value, his statement seems to match one of the main grounds of hate speech: If you are directly calling for the harm of a certain group of people, based on ethnicity, race, gender or religion, you have gone over the line of free speech and have strayed into “hatred” territory.

Using extremely derogatory terms (based on the demographics mentioned) to refer to an individual is also classed as hate speech. However, Juju did not use any offensive language – but he did toe-the-line by adding “for now”, giving an otherwise innocuous statement a sinister tone.