AfriForum Youth slams UP over apathy around EFFSC UP’s incitement to violence and hate speech

30 August 2023

AfriForum Youth condemns the University of Pretoria’s (UP) failure to take action against the EFF Student Command (EFFSC UP), a registered student association, who are guilty of hate speech. AfriForum Youth on 19 April sent a letter to Prof. Caroline Nicholson, registrar of the UP, to demand that action be taken against the EFFSC UP. The letter provided damning evidence of a letter in which the EFFSC UP threatens other students on campus with words that, according to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), are incitement to violence and hate speech. However, the UP failed to act in any way.

The EFFSC UP was fuming after the management of student accommodation in the Hatfield Square put regulations in place to ensure that men and women can enjoy privacy when using the bathroom facilities. They turned it into a racial issue by blaming “racist white girls from Erika” for the “criminalisation of black men” who lives in the same building as them. The EFFSC UP, in addition to several racist statements, cited the controversial statement – which landed Malema in court once again – as a threat in an e-mail on 12 March: “I am not scared of killing. A revolutionary is a walking killing machine. If a need arises, I will kill, especially in defence of my people.”

“It is unacceptable that the University of Pretoria fails to act against students who are guilty of hate speech and endanger the safety of other students. There are clear double standards maintained at universities. Strict action must be taken against any student who incites violence and the university management must fulfil their responsibility to ensure the safety of all students and tackle these types of offenses with the necessary seriousness,” says René van der Vyver, spokesperson for AfriForum Youth.

Julius Malema, leader of the EFF, will face SAHRC on 26 February 2024 for the same statement in the Equality Court regarding the incitement of violence and hate speech during his speech in the Western Cape on 16 October 2022.

AfriForum Youth launched a petition in June, after its Tuks members’ concerns about this matter went unheeded, which resulted in several complaints from students being sent to the UP registrar’s email address. Afterwards, the youth organisation was informed that the registrar’s office had already referred this case to the Transformation Office in April to be investigated.

“There is a defining silence from the UP, although AfriForum Youth asked almost five months ago how action was taken against the EFFSC, as well as that the EFFSC UP should be deregistered as a student association. The obvious conclusion is therefore that the UP is apathetic about hate speech that is specifically committed by the EFFSC,” concludes Van der Vyver.

Text of AfriForum Jeug letter:

19 April 2023

Prof C. Nicholson Registrar

University of Pretoria Private Bag X20 HATFIELD

0028

Dear Prof Nicholson

RE: AFRIFORUM YOUTH: THE UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA – EFFSC UP MEDIA STATEMENT

1. With reference to the above matter we confirm that AfriForum is a registered non-profit company and civil rights organisation with more than 300 000 active members. AfriForum is devoted to the realisation of the constitutionally enshrined principle of non- racialism. AfriForum strongly condemns all forms of hate speech, and especially hate speech based on race.

2. This letter is addressed to the University of Pretoria (hereafter “the University”) on behalf of our members, many of whom are students and parents of students at the University.

3. A recent media statement (attached hereto for ease of reference) published by the EFFSC UP on 12 March 2023 (hereafter “the media statement”), in which inter alia the following hateful and derogatory statements and accusations are made, has been brought to our attention:

3.1 That residents of Erica Residence have decided to go out of their way to reinstate racial laws of the past.

3.2 That residents of Erica Residence are racists and criminalise black men.

3.3 That residents of Erica Residence are white supremacists.

3.4 That it must be instilled in the “racist white skulls” of residents of Erica Residence that black men are not rapists or perverts, “even though their whiteness has reached such a conclusion”.

3.5 That residents of Erica Residence regard and label black students as subhuman or animals.

3.6 Furthermore, the following was quoted with approval at the end of the statement:

“I’m not scared of death. I don’t know why I’m still alive, I died a long time ago. I am not scared of killing. A revolutionary is a walking killing machine. If a need arises, I will kill, especially in defence of my people.”

4. AfriForum Youth hereby submits that the aforesaid statements and accusations are deplorable, hateful, derogatory and in contravention of not only the constitutional principle of non-racialism and the prohibition against hate speech, but also the University’s Anti-Discrimination Policy (“the Policy”).

5. The University in its Value Statement to the Policy, “rejects and condemns racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ethnic chauvinism, religious intolerance, unfair discrimination, hate speech, sexual harassment and harassment based on other prohibited grounds, gender-based violence and violence based on other prohibited grounds; and retaliation, in all its forms.” [Underlining inserted]

6. Moreover, we wish to bring it to your attention that the statement quoted in paragraph

3.6 above has been declared to be hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission and there is currently a pending court case in the Western Cape High Court to compel the national leadership of the EFF to withdraw their statement which used the same words verbatim.

7. AfriForum Youth therefore calls upon the University to provide a written response to the following:

7.1 An indication as to whether your office is aware of the publication of the media statement.

7.2 If the answer to par. 7.1 is in the affirmative, an indication as to which, if any, disciplinary or other steps have been taken against the members of the EFFSC UP responsible for publication of the media statement.

7.3 An indication as to whether the EFFSC UP is a registered student organisation of the University.

7.4 If the EFFSC UP is a registered student organisation, whether their status as a registered student organisation will be revoked.

8. Should the University be yet to take steps to address the deplorable comments made in the media statement, AfriForum Youth calls upon your office to ensure that appropriate action is taken accordingly.

9. We trust the above is in order and look forward to your response by 3 May 2023.

Yours faithfully

René van der Vyver Campaigns Officer AfriForum Youth

***

Text of EFF SC email:

Water, Sanitation & Racial Incidents

1 message

EFFSC UP

Revolutionary greetings

The EFFSC UP trusts this email finds you well.

Water and Sanitation

The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) adopted by the Government of National Unity is more than a list of services required to improve the quality of life of the majority of South Africans. RDP set out a short-term aim “to provide every person with adequate facilities for health” and “clean safe water supply of 20-30 l/c/day within 200 metres and an adequate/safe sanitation facility per site”.

The lack of basic services such as water supply and sanitation are a key symptom of poverty and underdevelopment. Water as a basic service is a human right. This should be interpreted and understood, in terms of the Constitution, as a right to a level of services adequate to provide a healthy environment. They do not imply the right of an individual person or community to demand services at the expense of others.

Furthermore, water has economic value. The students who are users pay for such services for which you are well compensated and have an obligation to provide such services.

The EFFSC UP draws your attention to the following:

Basic water supply is defined as;

Quantity: 25 liters per person per day. This is the minimum required for direct consumption, for the preparation of food and for personal hygiene. It is not considered to be adequate for a full, healthy, and productive life which is why it is considered as a minimum.

Availability: The flow rate of water from the outlet should not be less than 10 liters a minute and the water should be available on a regular, daily basis.

Assurance of supply: The supply should provide water security for the community. Two factors are important here.

First, schemes for domestic water supply should ensure the availability of "raw" water for 98% of the time. This means that the service should not fail due to drought more than one year in fifty, on average.

Second, the operation and maintenance of the system must be effective. The aim should be to have no more than one week's interruption in supply per year.

Quality: Once the minimum quantity of water is available, its health-related quality is as important in achieving the goal of a water supply adequate for health. The quality of water provided as a basic service should be in accordance with currently accepted minimum standards with respect to health-related chemical and microbial contaminants. It should also be acceptable to consumers in terms of its portability (taste, odor, and appearance).

Sanitation

Policy and practice regarding sanitation provision is relatively undeveloped. Because of the strong linkage between sanitation services and public health, the health sector must play a significant role in all aspects of sanitation policy creation, planning, implementation, and monitoring. Details of this remain to be established. In the interim, the following guidelines will be followed by the Department.

Adequate sanitation: The immediate priority is to provide sanitation services to all which meet basic health and functional requirements including the protection of the quality of both surface and underground water.

Students have raised concerns that the water is not clean or “brown in color”. The EFFSC UP directs you to make necessary arrangements to conduct maintenance and ensure that clean water is available to students as clients on the property.

You are to assist them in procuring clean water as they had already paid for such services. This is to avoid any health incidents and outbreak of cholera that will occur because of unhygienic water. Refer to the Gauteng Province Department of Health statement released on 24 February 2023 where the public is urged to adhere to cholera precautionary measures following the first death in Gauteng.

Racial Incidents

The South African Constitution was drafted in response to the country’s history of colonial conquest and, later during the apartheid era, the legal enforcement of the system of racial segregation. The Constitutional Court of South Africa endorses this view and often invokes South Africa’s apartheid past when interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, stating that the Constitution is aimed at preventing the recurrence of past unjust practices. This was to combat the perpetuation of public and private forms of racial discrimination and racism, and this was also to address the effects of past and ongoing racial discrimination and racism by allowing or mandating race-based redress measures to correct the racial injustices of the past.

Section 9 (3) of the Constitution prohibits “unfair discrimination” against anyone on one or more grounds, including on the ground of “race”. This section does not only bind the state, but also private parties, in recognition of the fact that racism and racial discrimination lingers on long after the abolition of discriminatory legislation and policies.

The prohibition against racial discrimination contained in Section 9 (3) of the Constitution, must be read in conjunction with Section 9 (2). The latter section specifically permits the state to take redress measures “designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken”. Section 9 (2) is based on the premise that the abolition of racial discrimination does not automatically lead to the eradication of racism and of racial discrimination by both the state and by private parties.

Section 9 (3) and 9 (2), read in conjunction with section 9(1) which provides that: “Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.”

The provisions of Section 9 (1) and Section 9 (2) are complementary as they both contribute to the constitutional goal of achieving equality to ensure “full and equal enjoyment of all rights”.

Equality before the law protection in Section 9(1) and measures to promote equality in Section 9(2) are both necessary and mutually reinforcing but may sometimes serve distinguishable purposes.

Since the dawn of our democracy, we have seen the repeal of many tyrannical laws, including those acts that have impeded on black South Africans' right to freedom of movement. These acts include the Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923, the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945, the Group Areas Act of 1950, the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951, the Native Laws Amendment Act of 1952, the Natives Resettlement Act of 1954, the Group Areas Development Act of 1955, the Colored Persons Communal Reserves Act of 1961, the Preservation of Colored Areas Act of 1961 and the Aliens Control Act of 1973, to name but a few. These acts were repealed, in part, to protect one of humanity's fundamental human rights – the right to freedom of movement.

Section 21 of our Constitution concerns the rights to freedom of movement and residence, in terms of which every person is guaranteed the right to freedom of movement and every citizen is guaranteed the right to enter, remain and reside anywhere in the Republic. The importance of the rights enshrined in Section 21 cannot be overstated. Its effect is to preclude the former policy of segregation and the severe restrictions imposed on the black populace. It, like many of the rights enshrined in our Constitution, also serves as a stark reminder of the conditions and status quo that warranted the inclusion of a right seemingly manifest.

You, Respublica: Hatfield Square and Erica (formerly known as Erika - pseudo transformation) have decided to go out of your way to reinstate all these racial laws of the past by implementing racist and nonsensical changes in the accommodation. It cannot be that Hatfield Square changes its building structure because racist white girls from Erika decide to criminalize black men who reside at Respublica.

The EFFSC UP will not allow the Hatfield Square management to act out of fear or pressure of the white supremacy from Erika whites. It must be instilled in the racist white skulls of Erika whites that black men are not rapists or perverts even though their whiteness has reached such a conclusion. Black men who have been staying in mixed residences for years will not be bullied into moving to different floors for them to have access to ablution facilities because white racists can’t stand to see who they consider as subhuman on the same floor.

It is quite clear that this is nothing but the arrogance of whiteness and white supremacy as the same should have applied when blacks who stay at House Tirisano were at Hatfield Square due to their building being refurbished. Since House Tirisano is a male residence, could they have also requested that all female ablution facilities at Hatfield Square be changed to be of males?

The EFFSC UP demands that all male ablution facilities that were changed to female ablution facilities because of racist Erika whites be restored, and males be allowed to use them. No male student who is paying for the exact same services and even more will be subjected to moving to a different floor to get mere access to an ablution facility.

Equally, the EFFSC UP should make Hatfield Square fully aware of how the lies of breakage fees that were charged on Tirisano students who are funded by NSFAS made these students to be financially excluded and unable to register as NSFAS does not cover breakage fees. It cannot be that when these students were moving out a room inspection was conducted, and nothing was broken only for them to be charged after. The EFFSC UP will visit Hatfield Square with the affected students and check the inspection forms that were made by the students and Hatfield Square representative. Hatfield Square will be liable for whatever breakage fee is on the student’s account.

The EFFSC UP will pay a revolutionary guerilla visit in your accommodation to address issues faced by students including lease cancellations. All students will enjoy the freedom of movement anywhere and everywhere for the facilities they pay for, and no student will shrink for whiteness to exist simply because you treasure them as some masters. It’s a mixed residence and no one can dictate where and how people move.

Anyone who has agreed to stay in the property must make peace with living with other students including those whom they regard and label as subhuman or animals. The nerve and audacity to force other students to compromise the use of their services so that you can please whiteness, it’s something that will not happen.

The EFFSC UP will not entertain nonsense from any racist whites, deputy white from the Erica HC or Hatfield Square RA/Fellows or UPRes. Worship white supremacy and its whitewashed transformation alone and do not involve students.

“I’m not scared of death. I don’t know why I’m still alive, I died a long time ago. I am not scared of killing. A revolutionary is a walking killing machine. If a need arises, I will kill, especially in defence of my people,” - CIC Julius Sello Malema

Until then #AccomodationIsLand #LandandJobsManje #FreeEducationManje #DegreesManje #HonoursDegreeManje #MastersDegreesManje #DoctorateDegreesManje

Yours in attainment of free decolonised quality education

EFFSC UP

ENDS

Issued by René van der Vyver, Spokesperson, AfriForum Youth, 30 August 2023