'We're not sorry for kill the boer slogan'

It's a slogan that the Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) called hate speech last year and it has resurfaced in the flurry of party propaganda in the run-up to the elections. Earlier this year, the Freedom Front Plus lodged a complaint against Mangaliso Kubheka, national organiser of the Landless People's Movement, claiming he had said "kill the farmer, kill the boer" during a speech.

The SAHRC investigated the complaint and ruled that the LPM apologise publicly via the newspaper Rapport, which had reported on the offending speech. They have until March 23 to respond. However, a defiant Mangaliso Kubheka told Saturday Star that the party would not apologise. "We have nothing to apologise for. The Freedom Front Plus is not a friend or a relative. Maybe the HRC should apologise for talking about things I do not know about."

Kubheka said he did not think the "kill the farmer, kill the boer" slogan constituted hate speech. "We are talking about a party that is calling for the death penalty. Can they tell you who the slogan was directed at anyway? If they say it's hate speech then they must say who it is directed at," Kubheka said. Leon Louw, spokesperson for the Freedom Front plus, said the party was considering suing the LPM. "We are waiting until the cut-off date and if there has not been a response by then, we will definitely take further steps."

Mogam Moodliar, head of legal services at the SAHRC, said their recommendation was that the LPM must apologise for the comments but should that not happen, the commission had brainstormed various responses. "We could mediate, ask the party if they really meant it, or the Freedom Front Plus could take the issue to the Equality Court."

Last June, the Freedom Front Plus lodged a complaint with the SAHRC after African National Congress members used the slogan during two public meetings, one of which was the funeral of ANC MP Peter Mokaba in 2002. On appeal, the SAHRC said the killing of a group of people was an "advocacy of hatred" that amounted to harm.

But Moodliar said this pronouncement did not result in any legal precedent. "It does not mean that every utterance is hate speech. We need to look at whether there was harm caused or intention to cause harm," he said.

Source: IoL