‘Taken together, these laws and bills represent an almost comprehensive package that existentially threatens the continued free and open nature of South Africa’s public discourse.’ – Martin van Staden, Head of Policy at the Free Market Foundation
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) today published a policy brief unpacking nine existing and proposed laws that manipulate, if not outright censor, democratic discourse. Each poses an unacceptable risk to freedom of association and expression, but together represent an existential threat to democracy in South Africa. The brief urges that these pieces of legislation must be undone.
In the brief, author Martin van Staden, FMF Head of Policy, articulates that ‘what these [legislative] measures have in common is that they either explicitly empower (or even require) government to engage in censorious or repressive conduct toward non-governmental organisations and even commercial entities (broadly, civil society) that express views or peacefully and persuasively advocate policy alternatives to those embraced by the incumbent government, or they implicitly allow government to do so.’
According to Van Staden, the measures that these pieces of legislation permit would undermine constitutional rights and freedoms if taken in isolation, but when taken together ‘they threaten the very rules of South Africa’s democratic game’.
Until now, government has made little use of these repressive powers. This is however immaterial, argues Van Staden. ‘The presence of measures of this nature on the Statute Book is reason enough to give democrats and watchdogs pause’, he explains.
In the policy brief, Van Staden considers the risk to freedoms posed by, among others:
- The Equality Act (2000), in which misdefined ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’ are used as fig-leaves to obscure a political agenda to control the contours of political discourse.
- The Equality Amendment Bill (2021), which proposes to force all South Africans to adopt the incumbent government’s narrowly ideological conception of social justice in their daily conduct, without room for dissent.
- The Terrorism Act (2004), which defines ‘terrorist activity’ too broadly and vaguely so as to cover even legitimate, pro-democratic expression.
- The Hate Speech Bill (2023), which contains a raft of questionable and problematic provisions that directly undermine free expression. It feigns the creation of ‘exceptions’ to the criminalisation of hate speech, but these are entirely circular and exempt nothing in reality. In other words, even journalists who report on hate speech might have their reporting criminalised.
- The Spy Bill (2023), which is undergoing changes itself but could severely hamper the ability of non-governmental organisations to operate freely and independently of political diktat.
The FMF urges that the measures and the others discussed in the brief be undone by Parliament or by the courts. Failing this, civil society must prepare itself to constitutionally resist the harms that could be done unto it should government operationalise what these measures empower it to do.
Ends.
Click here to read the policy brief.
Press enquiries
Anneke Burns
FMF Publicist
0714230079 | press@fmfsa.org
***
Die regering besig homself met sensories-ideologiese gerrymandery, waarsku FMF
‘Tesame verteenwoordig hierdie wette en wetsontwerpe bykans ‘n omvattende pakket wat die voortgesette vrye en ope aard van Suid-Afrika se openbare diskoers eksistensieël bedreig.’ – Martin van Staden, Beleidshoof by die Vryemarkstigting
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) het vandag ‘n beleidsnota gepubliseer wat nege bestaande wette en wetsontwerpe wat demokratiese diskoers manipuleer, indien nie uitdruklik sensureer nie, uiteensit. Elk stel ‘n onaanvaarbare risiko vir vryheid van assosiasie en uitdrukking, maar verteenwoordig saam ‘n eksistensiële bedreiging vir demokrasie in Suid-Afrika. Die nota dring daarop aan dat hierdie wetgewing ongedaan gemaak moet word.
In die nota verduidelik die outeur, Martin van Staden, Beleidshoof by die FMF, dat ‘wat hierdie [wetgewende] maatreëls in gemeen het, is dat dit óf uitdruklik die regering bemagtig (of selfs vereis) om betrokke te raak by sensoriese of onderdrukkende optrede teenoor nie-regeringsorganisasies en selfs kommersiële entiteite (in die breë, die burgerlike samelewing) wat standpunte uitspreek óf vreedsaam en oortuigend beleidsalternatiewe voorstaan as dié wat deur die sittende regering aanvaar word, of hulle laat implisiet die regering toe om dit te doen.’
Volgens Van Staden sal die maatreëls wat hierdie stukke wetgewing toelaat, grondwetlike regte en vryhede ondermyn as dit in isolasie geneem word, maar as dit saam geneem word, ‘bedreig dit die reëls van Suid-Afrika se demokratiese spel’.
Tot dusver het die regering min gebruik gemaak van hierdie repressiewe magte. Dit is egter onbelangrik, volgens Van Staden. ‘Die teenwoordigheid van maatreëls van hierdie aard op die Wetboek is rede genoeg vir demokrate en waakhonde om te wonder’, verduidelik hy.
In die beleidsnota oorweeg Van Staden die risiko vir vryhede wat deur, onder andere, die volgende voorgestelde maatreëls geskep word:
- Die Gelykheidswet (2000), waarin misgedefinieerde ‘gelykheid’ en ‘nie-diskriminasie’ gebruik word as vyeblare om ‘n politieke agenda wat die grense van politieke diskoers wil beheer, te verberg.
- Die Gelykheidswetsontwerp (2021), wat alle Suid-Afrikaners sal dwing om die huidige regering se eng-ideologiese konseptualisering van sosiale geregtigheid in hul daaglikse gedrag aan te neem, sonder ruimte vir verskil.
- Die Terrorismewet (2004), wat ‘terroristiese aktiwiteit’ te breed en vaag definieer sodat selfs legitieme, pro-demokratiese uitdrukking daaronder val.
- Die Haatspraakwetsontwerp (2023), wat ‘n reeks problematiese bepalings bevat wat vrye uitdrukking direk ondermyn. Dit simuleer die skepping van ‘uitsonderings’ vir die kriminalisering van haatspraak, maar hierdie is heeltemal sirkulêr en sluit in werklikheid niks uit nie. Met ander woorde, selfs berigte oor haatspraak mag gekriminaliseer word.
- Die Spioenwetsontwerp (2023), wat veranderinge ondergaan, maar wat die vermoë van nie-regeringsorganisasies om vry en onafhanklik van politieke diktat op te tree, ernstig kan belemmer.
Die FMF dring daarop aan dat dié maatreëls en die ander wat in die nota bespreek word, deur die Parlement of deur die howe ongedaan gemaak moet word. As dit nie gebeur nie, moet die burgerlike samelewing homself voorberei om die skade wat hierdie wette en wetsontwerpe aan kan rig grondwetlik te weerstaan, indien die regering dit wat hierdie maatreëls hom bemagtig om te doen, operasioneel sou maak.
Einde.
Klik hier om die beleidsnota te lees.
Persnavrae
Anneke Burns
FMF Publisiteitsbeampte
071 423 0079 | press@fmfsa.org