[ad_1]
Julius Malema of the EFF. Malema’s remarks were made in the context of a video showing irate farmers apparently storming court holding cells in Senekal following the murder of 21-year-old farm manager Brendin Horner. (Photo by Gallo Images / Alet Pretorius)
Amid the simmering tension over a murder on a farm in Senekal, the Prosecutor’s Office has brought criminal charges against EFF leaders for tweets that could constitute incitement to violence. But, as usual, when it comes to social media, there are few clean hands.
On October 7, in response to images of farmers protesting in Senekal, EFF leader Julius Malema tweeted: “Since the government of @CyrilRamaphosa is very afraid to respond decisively, we are alone. The next apparition, all peace-loving South African and ground forces will be present, in defense of our democracy and property. Magwala to chechele morago [Cowards move to the back]! The fighters attack! “
In response to Malema’s tweet, EFF deputy Nazier Paulsen posted a photo of a machine gun with the words: “Get ready!”
Malema’s remarks were made in the context of a video showing irate farmers apparently storming court holding cells in Senekal following the murder of 21-year-old farm manager Brendin Horner. In the course of the protests, a police van was destroyed and shots were fired.
There were immediate complaints on social media that if the black protesters had behaved in a similarly volatile manner, the police would have responded in a much harsher way. Malema’s tweet appeared to be a call for supporters to attend the next court appearance of the men accused of Horner’s murder, ostensibly to defend “democracy and property.”
But his last two lines: “Cowards move backwards! The fighters attack! “- have led many to conclude that what Malema was really invoking was violence, which seems to be what Paulsen was responding to.
– Julius Seal Malema (@Julius_S_Malema) October 10, 2020
What fuels the fire is the fact that a few days later, Malema posted a photograph of a machine gun. The context of this tweet was less clear, as the gun in question had a numbered tag and Malema captioned the image with a confusing-looking emoji. Some have speculated that this post was unrelated to Senekal’s comment and may have been related to evidence in the case, now postponed until January 2021, in which Malema is accused of illegally firing a firearm at a rally of the EFF in 2018.
Now the Prosecutor’s Office has taken action against these “social media posts that incite violence,” in the words of a statement by the Chief Prosecutor, Natasha Mazzone.
On Monday, the district attorney filed criminal charges at Cape Town’s central police station against Malema and Paulsen regarding the tweets, which Mazzone says amount to a “reckless attempt by EFF leaders to escalate violence.” in an already precarious moment.
Mazzone added: “We have already seen numerous posts over the weekend from EFF supporters posting photos of guns and shooting on videos in support of Malema’s statements.”
The district attorney wants Malema and Paulsen to be prosecuted for incitement to violence, which Nelson Mandela University public law director Professor Joanna Botha explained to Daily maverick it is both a common law crime and a legal crime.
“At present, there is no law in South Africa that explicitly criminalizes hate speech. Instead, you must fit the conduct into an existing offense: generally crime insult or incitement, ”Botha said.
Incitement occurs when someone intentionally seeks to influence the mind of another to commit a crime, which does not actually have to happen.
Taking into account Malema and Paulsen’s tweets, Botha said:
“The EFF is well aware of the requirements of incitement and comes dangerously close to what criminal behavior is and is not.”
The EFF has rejected the prosecutor’s claim that its leaders incite violence, pointing to the first part of Malema’s tweet as evidence that his call was “to defend the Constitution, our judiciary and the state property of those who believe themselves above the law.”
But Botha says that in Malema’s case, the problematic aspects of her tweets would be the lines:
“Cowards move backwards!” The fighters attack! “
Botha said incitement to violence can be quite difficult to prove, but that a court will likely have to look at the broader context of the tweets. Malema’s profile as a prominent person would also be taken into account.
“This is particularly dangerous [behaviour] for someone who is the leader of a political party, ”added Botha.
To defend EFF leaders, supporters on social media have produced another example of a tweet that they say contains similar indications of violence, yet was never prosecuted.
In December 2018, AfriForum’s Ernst Roets posted on Twitter a video of himself firing an enhanced Glock with the caption: “Target practice.”
Roets ‘tweet was published shortly after Parliament voted to amend the Constitution to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation, which means that Roets’ post can also be seen as a reference to impending violence.
In response to Roets’ tweet, District Attorney Leader John Steenhuisen, at the time the party’s main whip, tweeted: “Nice, Ernst!”
After receiving criticism at the time, Steenhuisen responded to critics: “I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I am on record that I fully support private gun ownership in South Africa and encourage legal gun owners to practice regularly on the shooting ranges designated “.
This very different response to a gun-related post also made in apparent response to political events has opened charges of hypocrisy by the prosecutor.
The district attorney does not rely solely on the police to hold EFF leaders accountable for recklessly tweeting. The party has also asked Parliament to investigate Malema and Paulsen for violating their oaths as deputies.
In the past, the party has complained of the apathy of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) in investigating statements on social media “glorifying farm killings.”
The SAHRC cleared up in august I would investigate several of those publications, stating:
“The commission considers the incitement or call for violence directed against people on the grounds of their race or any other prohibited basis listed in the Constitution and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000 (PEPUDA), in a extremely serious light and is investigating the matter. “ DM
[ad_2]
