MARY KLUK
In one instance, however, she is incorrect, namely regarding the SAJBD’s case against Cosatu’s International Relations spokesperson Bongani Masuku. She writes that when Masuku refused to comply with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) ruling that he apologise for offensive comments made against the Jewish community, neither it nor the SAJBD pursued the matter further, with the result that “the case, like others, withered away”.
To the contrary the matter, along with all the other complaints that the Board has lodged with the SAHRC, is ongoing, and the Board continues to be involved in it.
To recap: The Board lodged a complaint of anti-Semitic hate speech against Masuku in March 2009. In December of that year, the SAHRC upheld the complaint and directed Masuku to apologise. This he refused to do, supported in that regard by Cosatu.
Since then, the matter has gone through various stages, including an abortive attempt by Cosatu to formally appeal against the decision.
It should be clarified that as the matter stands today, the case is not between the SAJBD and Cosatu, but between Cosatu and the SAHRC. Because Masuku refused to comply with its ruling, the SAHRC instituted proceedings against him in the Equality Court with a view to getting its ruling enforced.
The current state of play is that the case will come before the Equality Court in the first half of this year, during which the SAHRC will demonstrate why it ruled the way it did and Cosatu will present argument against its decision. The Board is involved to the extent of assisting the SAHRC’s counsel in preparing their case by providing the necessary information and expert witness testimony.
Pursuing a hate speech complaint from the time of its being lodged through to a final settlement can, and often does, take years. As Valkin correctly points out, nearly a quarter of the matters before the SAHRC now relate to hate speech and freedom of expression.
These are complicated matters, and the SAHRC is dealing with them as best it can with the limited resources at its disposal. Sometimes, a settlement is reached fairly quickly. Last year, for instance, a complaint by the SAJBD against one Ziyaad Kayat for offensive and threatening comments posted on Facebook was resolved in just under three months.
Others, unfortunately, take much longer to address, either because of their being inherently more complex or, more likely, because the SAHRC has a huge backlog of other cases to deal with.
One thing the Jewish community can be assured of, is that once action has been initiated to address cases of unacceptable anti-Semitic behaviour, the SAJBD will pursue the matter for as long as it takes and do whatever is within its power to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.
It will be remembered how the Board, over 15 years of complex legal wrangling, multiple court appearances and technical and administrative obstacles, refused to abandon its case against Radio 786, but instead persisted with it until achieving what it had essentially set out to achieve when it first instituted proceedings against the station.
