Racism in South Africa has persisted throughout the country’s history. Prior to the achievement of universal suffrage in 1994, white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, had numerous legally or socially sanctioned advantages and rights that were denied to others. Forced removals, racial segregation, unequal resource allocation, and disenfranchisement are examples of racism throughout South Africa’s history. Racial politics is still a serious issue.
As vicious tirades from private individuals and public leaders ricochet across Twitter and Facebook with frightening regularity, South Africa, like many other nations, has been wrestling with how to limit hate speech.
But, unlike other locations, apartheid relics shadow South Africa, lending these outbursts a distinct existential weight.
The democratic era that Nelson Mandela helped usher in in 1994 — the year the country’s first free elections were held — restored political and personal freedoms to millions, but it did not erase the toxic legacy of the racial segregation system enforced by a white-run government for the majority of the twentieth century.
According to the Department of Justice, the Equality Court received 328 hate speech complaints in 2017, a 36% increase from the previous year. 125 of them were race-related.
Hate speech is defined under the proposed law as any statement that intended to injure, encourage harm, or spread hatred on the grounds of race, gender, religion, or nationality, among other inherent traits.
First-time offenders might face up to three years in jail, while repeat offenders could face up to five years.
Proponents of such limits argue that hate speech has become far more harmful in the age of social media, which has become a megaphone for beliefs that were previously only voiced privately.
In addition to the Equality Court, where individuals can file civil complaints, judges have permitted criminal prosecution of hate speech under a common law charge known as crimen injuria – the act of “unlawfully and knowingly harming the dignity or privacy of another person.”
Others are concerned that the law’s hate speech provision is too broad and would limit political discussion and free speech unintentionally.
