Where do you stand on this? I have to admit that I am one of those that wanted “the Spear” freely available but object to this song. Where is the line? If I write a song and use the “k” word, will that be OK?
Afriforum needs to grow up and learn not to take itself oh so seriously. These tantrums it regularly throws are pathetic. Not everything Afriforum doesn’t like constitutes an offence, actionable or otherwise, directed at Afrikaners.
I agree with you on Agriforum, but I am one of those
that wanted “the Spear” freely available, but object to this song.What does that make me? Should it be “anything goes” or what?
Depends on context.
I have a rule of thumb: When you are not sure, then it’s art. And when you are quite sure that it can’t be art, then it’s the best kind of art.
If one [aka the ANC] wants make stupid freedom of speech laws one should expect stupid consequences. That’s what this is, a stupid consequence of a stupid law. This leads to what I’d perceive to be an actual legal foot to stand on, even though I don’t think there’s a moral case at all.
I have to admit that I am one of those that wanted "the Spear" freely available
but object to this song
I don’t agree with it but I’d defend…etc.
Where is the line?
This is exactly the entire problem with freedom of speech laws.
If I write a song and use the "k" word, will that be OK?
OK according to whom?
The law? Depends on who you are.
If a rapper is using it like the N-word? Sure.
If a dude is singing it while whipping a group of line-workers: No.
Should the last one there be illegal? The whipping yes, the singing no. Singing it would still make him a douchebag and a target for reprisals though, so I wouldn’t reccommend it. (This is just my personal opinion)
The comment that follows here does not address the merits of the topic.
I find Pierre de Vos’s habit of intertwining political comment and legal opinion unprofessional. It is of course his right to express his political views, but then it should be presented as a political stance, not as part of a legal analysis. In an objective legal assessment, it should be the merits of the arguments that decide the case, not the (perceived) motives of the parties.
De Vos alludes to this:
Because of the self-serving hypocrisy inherent in the threat issued by Afriforum against Dookoom, it is tempting to dismiss Afriforum’s threat out of hand. But that would be making the mistake (so commonly made by those who engage in political “debate” in South Africa) of conflating motive with the merits of an argument. Just because Afriforum usually takes up the cudgels in defence of white privilege does not necessarily mean that in this particular case it may not have a legally valid (if possibly an ethically tenuous) point.
If De Vos can distinguish between motive and merit, why does he not do it from the start? Why does he find it necessary to taint Afriforum with labels like “defending white privilege” and “self-serving hypocrisy” if these alleged motives are in fact irrelevant to the merits of the case itself?
One can only conclude that De Vos’s own motives are not to serve justice or inform about it, but to abuse his stature in order to promote his own political agenda.
And how, pray tell, could a court order be enforced anyway, in this enlightened age of file sharing. This kind of issue is rapidly becoming as irrelevant as copyright.
I really doubt anybody is going to go burn down farms after listening to that song.
Have a listen to Kill to police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM0vqurIJ08 to argue what is actually “hate speech” is stupid,
we should spend more time worrying about what people say and more about what they do.
A better song about not working in farms. (I don’t think it really about farms thou.)
BOB DYLAN LYRICS "Maggie's Farm"
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more
No, I aint gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more
Well, I wake up in the morning
Fold my hands and pray for rain
I got a head full of ideas
That are drivin’ me insane
It’s a shame the way she makes me scrub the floor
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more.
I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s brother no more
No, I aint gonna work for Maggie’s brother no more
Well, he hands you a nickel
He hands you a dime
He asks you with a grin
If you’re havin’ a good time
Then he fines you every time you slam the door
I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s brother more.
I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s pa no more
No, I aint gonna work for Maggie’s pa no more
Well, he puts his cigar
Out in your face just for kicks
His bedroom window
It is made out of bricks
The National Guard stands around his door
Ah, I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s pa no more.
I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s ma no more
No, I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s ma no more
Well, when she talks to all the servants
About man and God and law
She’s the brains behind pa
She’s sixty-eight, but she says she’s twenty-four
I ain’t gonna work for Maggie’s ma no more.
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more
I aint gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them
They say sing while you slave and I just get bored
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more.
I don’t even object to “one settler, one bullet” or “kill the boer”
Fuck em, better to express their anger and hatred in some way I say. They say those things anyway, out of the public eye, just like some white people continue to talk about “kaffirs” but are oh so careful in front of whom they do it. :
Listened to an interview with one of the singers of this band. He comes across as a complete and utter moron. Yet his stated reason for this song is to instigate dialogue. And that certainly happened. Very indignant and self righteous, but dialogue non the less >:D
The more I think about this the more I agree with you. Anything goes, should go, because where do you draw the line? Better to have no line than a line drawn by ____________ (insert name).
I went to reread the article again
Section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) states that no person “may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words” based on any prohibited ground like race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, language or culture “against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; promote or propagate hatred.
Afriforum will only be successful in getting a court to censor the song if it could convince a court that the song targeted a group of people based on their “race”. (Ironically, those who claim to believe that race as a lived reality does not exist and that they do not see it, will therefore not be able to rely on this section). In addition, it will have to show that a reasonable person (a person who has an understanding of racism and how power works, is not too thin-skinned and self-righteous and thus not your average member of Afriforum) would believe that the song was intended to hurt or harm a group of people based on their race.
The High Court has not interpreted this section contextually as it was supposed to do. Neither has it interpreted the section with reference to the link between racism and power. It was for this reason (much criticised by legal academics) that it found against Julius Malema in the Dubul’ ibhunu judgment. As the case was never appealed, we do not have the benefit of a more informed and nuanced analysis of the hate speech provisions of PEPUDA by the Constitutional Court.
Given the narrow and a-contextual interpretation of section 10 provided by the High Court, I would have to assume for the moment that Afriforum would be able to convince a court that the relevant factors existed and that in terms of section 10 of PEPUDA the song constitutes hate speech.
[b]But because these are not the words of a politician shouted at a political rally, but words contained in a work of art, that would not be the end of the matter. This is so because section 12 of PEPUDA excludes “bona fide engagement in artistic creativity” from the hate speech prohibition in section 10.
Anyone who watches the video and listens to the (very angry but very clever) lyrics of “Larney, jou poes” would agree that this song is indeed a bona fide engagement in artistic creativity. This means that it is difficult to see how a court could find that this song constitutes hate speech. Just because a work of art is upsetting to a section of the population (as art often is) does not mean that it can be censored on the basis that it constitute hate speech.[/b]
So Afriforum does not really have a case here.
I think the clause is really there to stop some “Leader” sweeping up the masses to commit a genocide. and should be left at that.
And not be used as a tool to try silence anybody that hurts your feelings.
This whole story is rife with AfriForum’s sweaty paranoia and craving for a nanny state, preferably with them at the helm. How pathetic.
Instead of whining like a bunch of spoilt toddlers, what AfriForum should do is ask, say, Steve Hofmeyr to do a song for them that satirises or denigrates some or other black issue. If anyone complains, all they need to do is point at Dookoom and say, “What’s artistically good for the goose is artistically good for the gander.”
But apparently this marginally more sophisticated and mature approach is somewhat beyond AfriForum’s intellectual horizon.
“We received various complaints from people who feel tremendously offended by this song,”
I so wish people would get over this preoccupation with trampling on other’s rights, resorting to violence and murder, and losing their collective shit when somebody hurts their tiny little feelings. They have the emotional fortitude of a 3 year old. Seriously now.
Ho hum, that bastion of democratic principles and impeccable common sense, AfriForum, does it again, this time with pomp and fanfare even before any crime has been committed.
Somebody should lay a charge against these dolts. Unfortunately for us, brain-dead grubby superciliousness isn’t a punishable offence.
I wonder if someone could do us a favour and shoot both Afriforum and Malema and his supporters? Or am I guilty of hate speech when I say so?
Personally, I very much hope Malema and his supporters will occupy unoccupied land - might very rapidly teach them that land in itself is in fact quite worthless. They’ll stick it out for a week, and then promptly de-occupy the land again.
“We are going to occupy the unoccupied land because we need the land. For us to eat, we must have the land.”
And what, pray tell, are you folks going to eat once you have the land? Clods and stones?
South Africans are just incredibly naive…
Gosh jokers to the right clowns to the left, has never been more appropriate.