On Monday 22 February, there was a violent clash between (mostly white) rugby players and supporters and (exclusively black) students and workers (protesters). I am a white Afrikaans man. I grew up getting in fights, never with sticks, knives etc. but fists happened often when boys or young men disagreed. I am not condoning violence, but it is a fact that for a lot of young men fists are an appropriate way to handle conflict. Let’s also not forget the covert punches in the scrum. Rugby is an aggressive, “violent” testosterone driven game.
The protest mentality in South Africa is to be violent without being violent. Protesters provoke by being physically in places where they are not allowed and not responding to commands to leave or back away. When they are then physically removed, they are the “victims” of violence.
I am not going to go into a debate about the relative importance of a rugby match vs the protesters demands. There can be no debate, rugby is just a game after all. The issue is about rights and when some rights are seen as only applying sometimes, we are on a slippery slope.
People have a right to congregate, protest, sing songs etc. I have a right to swing my fist. My right ends exactly where your face starts.
Does a university have the right to stage a rugby match on its property? Surely it does. Do students have a right to attend said match and support their team? Surely they do. Do protesters have a right to stop said match? Surely they do not. So the protesters were infringing on the rights of both the university and the spectators.
The proper course of action would have been to get campus security or the police to remove the protesters. Had that happened, the protesters would have complained about police brutality. What does outsourcing – which had been and is being discussed – have to do with rugby playing students?