Address by the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Hon John Jeffery, MP, at a panel discussion of the SA Psychological Congress
President of the Psychological Society of South Africa, Prof Juan Nel,
Professor Mohamed Seedat,
Facilitator, Mr Eusebius McKaiser, and panellists,
Ladies and gentlemen.
History has had a devastating effect on the psyche of our nation. The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation argues that apartheid regulated and enforced the psychological segregation of South Africa’s constitutive population groups.
Apart from the economic dispossession that coincided with forced removals and the enforcement of pass laws to police geographic segregation, the imposition of these laws also had a profound impact on the psyche of all South Africans, instilling a “toxic understanding of intergroup relations”.
Many will say that the dawn of democracy and the creation of a rainbow nation should have brought about an end to discrimination.
But when the IJR asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement “It is desirable to create one united South Africa out of all the groups who live in this country” the number declined from 72,9% in 2003 to 55% in 2013, together with a smaller decrease in agreement as to whether respondents thought a unified South Africa was possible, rather than desirable.
The report noted that the period between 2010 and 2013 witnessed the steepest decline in citizens’ desire for a united South Africa.
This decline has been accompanied by a rise in importance of both language and race as a marker of identity, with a drop in those who rate their South African nationality as their most important identity marker. The Reconciliation Barometer summarises: “South Africans appear to be steadily moving away from an inclusive South African identity”.
We are increasing living in a world that focuses more and more on difference, a world that it becoming increasingly intolerant. There is no shortage of hate crimes in our society. Examples include incidents such as the Skierlik racially motivated killings of poor Black people by a White youth, the case of the “Reitz Four,” the violent targeting of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, for example the so-called “corrective rape” and murder of lesbians and transgender men, especially in townships.
We have seen the attacks on foreign nationals that South Africa experienced in 2008 and 2015 which resulted in loss of life and damage to property, as well as displacement of migrants, and their displacement to emergency camps. Many of us remember the vandalism targeting religious institutions such as in October 2010, when several tombstones at a Jewish cemetery in Bloemfontein were defaced with swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti.
Events in South Africa in 2014 and this year reveal that the racism and racial discrimination of the past continue to play out, most visibly in the public arena. In 2014 several racial incidents in the southern suburbs of Cape Town made news headlines, while the Curro Foundation School in Roodeplaat was in the news recently for segregating white and black pupils.
Many of us, as parents, try to instil in our children a sense of pride and confidence in their own identity. Many parents have, over the years, read Dr Seuss, who said:
“Today you are you! That is truer than true! There is no one alive who is you-er than you!”
But sadly, our children grow up in a world where being “you” is not always celebrated. For example, many gay adolescents will say that they are rejected by the very people who matter most – their families, friends and communities.
In a study by Professor Deevia Bhana called ‘Under Pressure: The Regulation of Sexualities in South African Secondary Schools’ - study on homosexuality in schools - some learners held the belief that homosexuality is contagious. A common belief in rural schools was that gay people have lots of money and some learners proposed separate schools for gay learners.
Perhaps most concerning is, as Prof Bhana writes: “Not one learner was aware of a school policy or guideline that could assist and support a learner coming out or that speaks to tolerance and acceptance of sexual diversity.”
This raises the question as to what degree discrimination and prejudice can be eradicated by way of legislation and policy measures?
As the CSVR correctly notes, racial biases perpetually find expression in people’s daily speech and practices in subtle ways. Many a time people deny any intentional biases. Many of us would have, no doubt, at some point heard someone starting a sentence with – “I’m not racist, but….” and then they launch into some or other tirade which is racist to the core.
These forms of racism remain complex thus dangerous since it is real. As the CSVR argues, we cannot afford to gloss over our differences as a multicultural society and the legacy of our history of segregation which is still in existence in our society. The question of racism – and I would add, all forms of discrimination and prejudice - must invariably remain on our country’s agenda.
This brings me to the issue of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression must not impinge on the right to dignity.
The rapid development of new communication and information technologies, such as the Internet and social media, has enabled wider dissemination of racist and xenophobic content that has the potential to incite racial hatred and violence.
Here we find people, under the guise of anonymity, saying things that they would never dare to say in person.
In 2014, the South African Human Rights Commission confirmed that it had received more than 500 reports of racism – of which a large part were on social media. In February 2015 the SAHRC said that hate speech cases on social media increased to 22% of matters it investigated, compared to only 3% in the same period the previous year.
As from this past Friday media network, 24.com, decided to switch off comments on articles and to implement a different approach to user contributions and engagement.
Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Trench, explains it best when he says:
“Each day the tone and substance of many of our comments appear increasingly at odds with the mission of editorial excellence which we have set for ourselves. Many commentators insist on pushing the boundaries of free speech available to us in South Africa. Comments tediously drift towards hate speech at worst and, at best, are often laced with prejudice. Interesting and considered contributions are drowned out by a cacophony of insults from a minority of users.
This is not the experience we wish users to have in our home.”
And he discusses this phenomenon from a psychological point of view – “The fact is we translate the truth through the spectacles of our world view. We see it not as it is, but as we are.”
He explains that News24 could publish an article “about chickens being hatched on a farm and the comments would degenerate into a race debate.”
He continues: “It’s called de-individuation and it’s what happens when some people lose it behind the steering wheel of a car and when sane dads go mental at a soccer game. It’s also what happens online; we call it trolling.
It’s a phenomenon not unique to South Africa. Increasingly, publishers globally are switching comments off, citing similar concerns.
In societies where deep fractures exist, such as ours, online commentary appears to exaggerate the extreme and drown out the “middle”, where most of us live.
No one can deny that in South Africa today there is much that polarises us, yet walk into a restaurant, a pub, a church, an office and you don’t see us standing there screaming abuse at each other. It does not happen. Our society would fall over. In physical reality, social mores hold us in line. We respect, or at least pretend to respect, the other humans in our vicinity. In the digital world, the rules change.”
So what can government do? We run a number of constitutional and rights awareness programmes and programmes in schools to foster social cohesion and nation building.
Government has put particular emphasis on improving constitutional awareness and on promoting constitutionalism and social justice so as to contribute to social cohesion. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has, for example, allocated an amount of R73 million in the 2015/16 financial year to this crucial focus area to ensure awareness of the relevance of our constitutional democracy and the rights and obligations of persons in this regard. In addition, other departments, such as DBE and DAC, also run important social cohesion programmes.
We have equality courts. South Africa has a number of laws that deal with discrimination, such as the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) as well as section 9 of the Constitution, yet none of these is specifically tailored to address the issue of hate crime. Pepuda deals with hate speech, unfair discrimination and harassment.
The term “hate crime” does not feature anywhere in the Act. It is important to note that PEPUDA recognises that unfair discrimination and hate speech may constitute crimes and must be regarded as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing. But this does not address hate crimes individually and specifically, as it does harassment, discrimination and hate speech.
We are currently busy with the first draft of a Hate Crimes Bill. Developing specific legislation on hate crimes will have a number of advantages. It will help create a shared definition of hate crime amongst all those involved in the criminal justice system, will send a clear public message that hate crimes will not be tolerated in South Africa and will provide additional tools to investigators and prosecutors to hold hate crimes perpetrators accountable.
It will also provide a means to monitor efforts and trends in addressing hate crimes and for effective coordination between government service providers to reduce the impact of secondary victimisation on hate crimes victims.
Yes, we can and we do criminalise discrimination and harassment. There will be legislation dealing with hate crimes. There are legislative and policy measures in place to deal with prejudice and discrimination.
But we cannot pass laws to dictate the human heart. It is society that must change.
As the father of American psychology, William James, once said “Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” We need to build a society that does not tolerate discrimination in any form. We need to change the way society thinks.
I want to conclude with the words of Constitutional Court justice, Albie Sachs, in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie: “A democratic, universalistic, caring and aspirational egalitarian society embraces everyone and accepts people for who they are. To penalise people for being who and what they are is profoundly disrespectful of the human personality and violatory of equality. Equality means equal concern and respect across difference. It does not presuppose the elimination or suppression of difference. Respect for human rights requires the Affirmation of self, not the denial of self.
Equality therefore does not imply a levelling or homogenisation of behaviour or extolling one form as supreme, and another as inferior, but an acknowledgement and acceptance of difference. At the very least, it affirms that difference should not be the basis for exclusion, marginalisation and stigma. At best, it celebrates the vitality that difference brings to any society”.
We can and must celebrate difference. We can and must celebrate diversity.
As our Constitution proudly declares, South Africa belongs to all who live in it – united in our diversity.
I thank you!
