EFF ready to defend Malema’s ‘hate speech’

THE EFF has signalled its intention to challenge the Equality Court ruling against its leader Julius Malema, saying it was a “grave distortion” of history, philosophy and the nature of political speech in a democratic society.

The court found that Malema’s remarks in relation to an incident at Brackenfell High School constituted hate speech, and demonstrated a clear intention to incite harm and promote or propagate hatred. He made the statements during his party’s 3rd Provincial Peoples Assembly,   on October 16, 2022.

In an excerpt from Malema’s nearly two-hour speech, he had said: “You went to a school here to protest the other time, and you were beaten by white people, and there is a white man who is visible on camera. If I were to ask you, what have you done in terms of follow-up, after being beaten by that white guy, why have you not, as a revolutionary organisation, followed up on that guy, him alone, to check that guy in an isolated space and attend to the guy properly? What type of revolutionaries get beaten, and they don’t have a follow-up?

“Tell that white man to try me. I’ll come many times here in the Western Cape, appearing (in) a court case, because no white man is going to beat me up and (I) call myself a revolutionary the following day. You must never be scared to kill. A revolution demands that at some point, there must be killing because the killing is part of a revolutionary act […] Why are you scared? Anything that stands in the way of the revolution  must be eliminated in the best interest of the revolution, and we must never be scared to do that,” Malema had said.

The court found that the statements constituted an exhortation to kill white males who had participated in an incident on November 9, 2020, at the Brackenfell High School during which EFF members were involved in a violent confrontation between members of a residents’ group and the police.

The catalyst for the confrontation was that a matric dance was cancelled in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was alleged that the parents of one of the children arranged for the function to be held at a wine farm, and invitations were sent to staff and pupils. 

However, the father of one of the pupils alleged in a YouTube video that the event was held for white pupils only.

As a result of these allegations and other social media posts, EFF members held a protest at the school, as they considered this to be an instance of racist behaviour. 

Following this, the matter was reported to the South African Human Rights Commission, which litigated alongside Dante van Wyk who was identified as the man who was the subject of threats contained in Malema’s statements.

He and his life partner had been inundated with thousands of messages on social media emanating from EFF supporters, many of which were of an aggressive and threatening nature. As a result, he had gone into hiding in the Northern Cape.

Reflecting on the excerpt from Malema’s speech Malema, Judge Sher said members were “adjured to ‘follow up’ on ‘the racist’ who had beaten them, as racism was violence and violence could only be ended by violence, not any other ‘necessary means’: a racist was a violent person and should therefore be treated as such”.

“Once again, they were clearly being told that violent retribution should be exacted for what had been done to them. This was no figure of speech but a clear instruction,” said Judge Sher.

In a statement yesterday, the EFF said the language of revolution cannot be sanitised to comfort the sensitivities of those who continue to enjoy the fruits of colonial dispossession and have never experienced racial violence. 

“The real violence is the daily reality of landlessness, unemployment, and racism that black people endure…The court ignored three critical realities. Firstly, Malema's remarks followed the Brackenfell incident where white racists assaulted black protesters who were standing up to the racial exclusion of black students by the school.

"His comments emphasised that racism itself is violence and cannot be passively endured. Secondly, the historical context that South Africa was built on structural and physical violence against black people. The anti-apartheid struggle included armed resistance because the system left no alternative, as the system still does to this day in order to protect our children from continued discrimination. 

“Thirdly, the EFF is a Marxist-Lenist and Fanonian movement, therefore our analysis of society recognises class and racial contradictions. When Malema spoke of ‘war’, it was a reference to the irreconcilable conflict between white supremacy and black consciousness, a war of ideas and systems , not an instruction to kill white people. To criminalise this language is to criminalise black consciousness and silence any radical critique of white supremacy,” said the EFF. 

The party said it would challenge the ruling not only in Malema’s defence but in defence of political freedom, historical truth and the right of the oppressed people to speak boldly against oppression.

Additional reporting by Siyavuya Mzantsi