Human Rights Commission seeks apology, community service from ...

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) wants former DA MP Renaldo Gouws to apologise, pay damages and perform community service over a “racist” video that resurfaced recently, despite it being made more than 14 years ago.

In the video, Gouws implied that while white people are painted as the enemy, “if Africa had to disappear off the face of the earth, no-one would f**** notice”.

The Herald reported the SAHRC has deemed these remarks “unremorseful” and “arrogant”, accusing Gouws of revelling in the controversy surrounding his hate speech scandal. The matter was heard in the Gqeberha high court on Thursday.

SAHRC Eastern Cape manager Eileen Carter argued that despite the video being posted in 2010, its online presence means it can continue to cause harm.

“What we're asking is that the respondent must apologise for making use of racially inflammatory words. We are asking for damages to be paid to an organisation, and we are also asking for community service. We deem hate speech in this country as a matter we need to address head-on,” she said in an interview with the SABC.

“We are very clear the K-word and the N-word would automatically constitute hate speech. We are very clear the use in any context reinforces the very harm they represent. That is why we have instituted this matter in respect of the Equality Act and section 10 specifically in terms of hate speech, but we are also arguing this constitutes harassment and unfair discrimination.”

TimesLIVE reported on the video in 2020 when Gouws said he was reacting to the singing of “Kill the Boer” by EFF leader Julius Malema.

He said the video resurfaced to tarnish his name. He said he regretted the “colourful language” he used and realised debating was a better way to express himself than angry ranting.

He said by publishing the video back then, he was merely exercising his constitutional right to freedom of expression.

However, Carter said this can't be justified.

“We need to dismiss any assertion that it was done under the auspices of artistic freedom. We can't see the rationality in that respect, so hyperbole that was used trivialises the lived experiences of those who have been targeted by such language.

“We maintain our position. It is clear in our affidavits as well that the words uttered constitute hate speech, harassment and unfair discrimination. We will argue on the merits when we go to court in May, but at this point our affidavits and our submissions to the court are very clear. We do not see artistic freedom and hyperbole being seen as a proper defence in the use of the inflammatory language. Even if it was done in 2010, the harm would continue, as was very clear from the complaints we received from members of the public.”

TimesLIVE