Hats off to the South African Constitutional Court
JVL Introduction
We reported recently on the important judgment issued by the South African Constitutional Court (ConCourt) in the Bongani Masuku case.
This is a judgment which should give succour to Palestine solidarity activists everywhere.
The case concerned allegations brought by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) that a series of statements by Masuku, then International Relations Secretary for the South African Congress of Trade Union (Cosatu), critical of the state of Israel, constituted hate speech.
Masuku was found guilty of hate speech on one count but not on three others.
As Steven Friedman explains in this article in New Frame, this has led the SAJBD and much of the local media to gloat that the Court has labelled Israeli state critics as antisemites.
On the contrary. The Court was crystal clear that this is not the case.
Where Masuku was found guilty (of remarks made under extreme provocation in response to a website using blatantly racist language against Cosatu) it was, the Court ruled, because his criticism was “based on Jewishness as an ethnicity and not on anti-Zionism”.
In all the cases considered the Court made a clear distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. It accepted that anti-Zionism is not racism and so is not hate speech.
In other words, it is not racist to criticise a state for being racist.
This article was originally published by New Frame on Thu 24 Feb 2022. Read the original here.
The real trick to Bongani Masuku’s case
Loading article text…
Hooray, now the judgement and its understanding ought be circulated.
Would UK legal texts (eg those read by law students and / or practising lawyers) mention a case like this?
I understand South African cases couldn’t directly influence legal judgements in this country … but maybe they’d affect how similar cases were construed? Anyone know please?
I must say I enjoyed reading this, a win for common sense but most of all a massive loss for the SAJBD, even though they snatched with open arms at one of the Court’s rulings, which effectively was critical of how a sentence was put together. As for the the MSM they would have read every word, probably several times over, that’s why they avoided reporting exactly what the Court had said.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall as the BoD discussed the Court findings, they would have been so disappointed, because they would have been hoping for any Court ruling that suited their views, could be pointed out in Court cases here and around the world.
In answer to Linda, I was once the Chair of a local organisation that required legal help for one of its members, our lawyer quoted as precedence a decision given in a Canadian court and it was accepted.
Thank you John. All the more reason now to hope the South African court’s decision leads to an outbreak of sense and rethinking here in the UK!
‘The Israeli State belongs to one ethnic group’. Which part of this statement is not a self evident truth that Israel is a racist endeavour?
I have a lot more respect for the SA legal system than for the UK’s. A few years ago I watched court proceeding on a hotel TV in Durban where a young woman lawyer was leading the prosecution case against the then President Jacob Zuma for misuse of public funds. I felt frightened for her. Surely some goon would teach her a lesson. But no, he was found guilty and paid the consequences. Imagine that happening in the UK!