STATEMENT FROM ARTICLE 19 ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA’S INVESTIGATION INTO RACISM IN THE MEDIA 18 February 2000 The Human Rights Commission of South Africa has now issued over 30 subpoenas requiring newspaper editors and other media workers to appear before it, as part of an investigation into racism in the media. […]
STATEMENT FROM ARTICLE 19 ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA’S INVESTIGATION INTO RACISM IN THE MEDIA
18 February 2000
The Human Rights Commission of South Africa has now issued over 30 subpoenas requiring newspaper editors and other media workers to appear before it, as part of an investigation into racism in the media. The editors have protested that the HRC is acting in an authoritarian way and that the subpoenas infringe their right to freedom of expression.
All parties agree that there is a problem of racism in the media. But also at issue is the manner in which the HRC, a public body whose members are appointed by the President after nomination by the Parliament, has sought to address this issue.
Under international human rights law, public authorities may prohibit a limited range of material properly characterised as hate speech. Hate speech is described in Article 16 of the South African Constitution as “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” Outside of this, however, the guarantee of freedom of expression under international and constitutional law prohibits public bodies from employing coercive means to impose standards, including of racial tolerance, on newspapers.
It is clear that much of the material of which the HRC complains cannot possibly be characterised as hate speech. Radio 786, for example, has been called to account for an article in a bulletin entitled “Angolans find 90 dead bodies”, on the basis that it contributes towards the depersonalisation of Black deaths. More disturbing is the allegation that a piece from Business Day analysing President Mbeki’s dismissal of Derek Hanekom from the cabinet in terms of racial politics, implies that Blacks are undemocratic. Regardless of the merits of the article’s analysis as such, political commentary of this sort is at the very core of protected free speech.
ARTICLE 19 is of the view that the problem of racism in the media in South Africa, as elsewhere, should primarily be addressed through constructive mechanisms developed with the full and voluntary participation of the media. Specific possibilities employed to some effect elsewhere include training and awareness programmes and journalists’ ethical codes. For example, a set of principles developed by the International Federation of Journalists, an association with members in over 100 countries, calls on journalists to do their utmost to avoid facilitating discrimination.
ARTICLE 19 calls on all parties to this dispute to co-operate to ensure a constructive outcome. Attempts to force the media to respond to allegations should be dropped while at the same time the media should take concrete steps in recognition of their moral responsibility to address the problem of racism, not only in the media but more broadly in South African society as a whole.
