The limits of free speech in South Africa

I should know better by now than to stir the pot on Twitter, especially when it comes to sensitive issues like racism in South Africa.

Two tweets I sent out on Monday evening led to a bit of a firestorm, resulting in forceful reaction from many people — thankfully, a good deal of it was constructive.

In the first of the two tweets — both of which I knew would be controversial — I defended suspended Standard Bank economist Chris Hart. I don’t know the man personally, but have listened to him extensively in radio and television interviews over the years and found him to expound a generally sober and sensible position on matters economic.

I read through the long list of tweets he published on Sunday and, true to form, he set out a number of eminently sensible ideas — sensible, that is, to anyone who subscribes to the idea of free-market capitalism, as I do.

I have to agree with him when he warns, for example, that “poisonous ideologies are flourishing” in South Africa and that the present government should be blamed, at least in part, for the continued poor state of the education system.

But there was one tweet in particular that got Hart into hot water and suspended by his employer: “More than 25 years after apartheid ended, the victims are increasing along with a sense of entitlement and hatred towards minorities…”

Is that racist? I’m not convinced. Let’s deconstruct it.

Hart doesn’t explain what he means when he says “the victims are increasing” (a result of Twitter’s 140-character limitation?), but reading his other tweets from Sunday, I surmise that he means that the present government has failed to address the terrible legacies inherited from the apartheid system sufficiently.

Much has been done to rectify the grave injustices of the past, but few will disagree that in education — and basic education in particular — there has been a spectacular failure. It detracts from all the good things that have been achieved in the past 20 years, of which there are plenty.

Hart’s tweet arguably becomes more problematic when he says there has been an increase in the sense of entitlement and hatred towards minorities. However, I still don’t believe what he said is racist, or even that it has racist undertones. I think his remarks should be considered next to the ideological nonsense being spewed by politicians on the far left — those calling for wholesale nationalisation and the forced seizure of land without compensation — who too often use race politics as an underpinning to justify their loopy arguments. As an economist, Hart knows all too well what happens when such policies are implemented — one only has to look at failed socialist experiments like Venezuela for the answer.

If you haven’t read Hart’s tweets from Sunday, do go and have a look at them. What I read in them is not the ranting of a racist. His primary offending tweet could have been better worded, but when read in conjunction with what else he tweeted — and what he’s said over the years in the media — I still feel, after careful consideration, that he’s been unfairly treated in the court of public opinion. You’re free to disagree, of course — that’s the beauty of democracy.

I was, however, surprised to learn (via Twitter) that Hart (apparently) only has a matric and no tertiary qualifications in economics. Though this is ultimately a matter between him and his employer, one would have thought that a tertiary qualification in economics of some kind would be a pre-requisite. But I do think that’s ancillary to this discussion.

The second controversial tweet I sent out on Monday evening has drawn a far stronger reaction. Though I find the racist comments posted on Facebook by KwaZulu-Natal real estate agent Penny Sparrow abhorrent (as most South Africans no doubt do), I expressed a view that racist speech should not be outlawed and that even racist bigots should have a right to free speech in a democracy.

In hindsight, I think a more nuanced approach is necessary, especially given the institutionalised racism of the apartheid system and the long-lasting and unforgivable damage it did to black South Africans and their aspirations. It’s been two decades since the end of apartheid, but it will take many, many more decades to undo the massive harm that was inflicted.

But the debate has raised interesting questions about where we should draw the line between allowing maximum freedom of speech and banning speech that causes harm.

Eyewitness News editor-in-chief Katy Katapodis took me to task on Twitter, saying that “hate speech can never be condoned under the false pretence of ‘free speech’”. I see her point of view, but, again, where does one draw the line?

As another journalist, Stuart Theobold, pointed out: “A key argument for free speech is that it alerts us to bad ideas. Ban it and it festers. Moreover, it has pragmatic virtues. Racists might examine their prejudices given what’s happened to Penny Sparrow.”

It’s a difficult discussion, but one we should have. While I am thoroughly allergic to censorship (I am old enough to remember how the Nats crushed free speech in South Africa), I am also sensitive to the fact that racism continues to be a very real problem in our society, especially among whites. We shouldn’t forget that a majority of whites voted for the National Party for decades on end, lending their direct support to an iniquitous system. White South Africa still has much to atone for.

But back to the subject at hand. Our constitution is actually quite clear on the subject on the limits of free speech. It states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but that this right “does not extend to … the advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to create harm”.

Sparrow’s racist comments certainly appear to fall into that exclusion. But how does one define racist speech? Sparrow’s Facebook post was clearly racist. Was Hart’s? Who is the arbiter?

Sparrow has already thrown away any reputation she may have once had. And Hart no doubt rues what he said, racist or otherwise. Is that not punishment enough?

Anyway, I don’t claim to have all the answers. But I’d like to hear your views.

Also, please read part two of this blog post…