Malema’s incendiary comments should serve as a red flag to us all
“We are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now…” Julius Malema’s comments, made on Monday 7 November after appearing in the Newcastle Magistrate’s Court on two charges of violating the Riotous Assemblies Act of 1957 for urging land invasions, are hugely irresponsible given that Malema is an influential public figure. This racially charged rhetoric, suggesting that the slaughter of white people may become necessary in the future, is reckless incitement and should be strongly condemned by all South Africans.
We at the DA reject it outright as being divisive, dangerous and entirely against the national interest. Accordingly, the DA has reported him to the SA Human Rights Commission for investigation and recourse, and they have confirmed that they will address the matter.
The proliferation of social media has highlighted many incidents of overt racism in our society, including Penny Sparrow’s offensive racist remarks, Malema’s incendiary comments and the “coffin assault” incident, in which two white men forced a black man into a coffin and threatened to set it alight for trespassing on their property.
All of these instances are the most visible examples of a pervasive racism that still persists in South Africa today. These actions betray their perpetrators’ ignorance of our history and ingratitude for our 1994 consensus. They are extremely insulting and hurtful towards black people, the vast majority of whom still suffer the daily hardships and indignities of a society that still locks them out and denies them opportunity. And where they are aimed at white South Africans, they are also hurtful and provide fertile ground for fear and bitterness.
We must capacitate the current legislation, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), to punish and deter perpetrators of racism. But the DA rejects the proposed Hate Speech Bill, a bad piece of legislation with good intentions. It is unconstitutional in that it curbs freedom of expression. It could even be used to abuse the judicial system to promote political and personal agendas.