The FW de Klerk Foundation says it has submitted a complaint to the SA Human Rights Commission regarding 45 social media postings that incite extreme violence against white South Africans.<\/p>\n
The Foundation said it issued a statement on 5 January in which it strongly condemned the racist remarks made by Penny Sparrow<\/a> regarding black South Africans who made use of public beaches on New Year\u2019s Day.<\/p>\n Sparrow described black beachgoers as “monkeys” on her Facebook page, and has since been reported to the police.<\/p>\n The foundation noted that most media commentators viewed Sparrow’s remarks and the subsequent far ‘less controversial’ comments of Chris Hart<\/a> and Gareth Cliff as evidence of rampant and pervasive white racism.<\/p>\n Hart, an economist at Standard Bank, was suspended pending an inquiry into the events of his commentary on Twitter on Sunday 3 January.<\/p>\n Read:<\/strong> \u2018Reverse racism\u2019 doesn\u2019t exist: Human Rights Commission<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n “However, an analysis of Facebook and Twitter messages shows that by far the most virulent and dangerous racism – expressed in the most extreme and violent language – has come from disaffected black South Africans,” the FW de Klerk Foundation said in a statement.<\/p>\n “The messages are replete with threats to kill all whites – including children; to rape white women or to expel all whites from South Africa,” it said.<\/p>\n Section 16(1) of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and section 16(2) adds that this right does not extend to propaganda for war; to Incitement to imminent violence; or to advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.<\/p>\n Section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prohibition of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), which deals with hate speech, states that “no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could be construed to be hurtful; to be harmful or to incite harm; or to promote or propagate hatred.\u201d<\/p>\n The foundation said that all of the messages that it has submitted to the SAHRC contravenes all these provisions.<\/p>\n The foundation said it has requested the SAHRC to make use of its powers \u201cto investigate and to report on the observance of human rights\u201d in so far as these messages constitute hate speech in terms of section 16 (2) of the Constitution and Section 10 of PEPUDA.<\/p>\n It has also asked the SAHRC to use its powers to \u201ctake steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated\u201d and, if it believes it to be appropriate, to refer communications that directly incite the killing of people or the perpetration of grievous bodily harm, to the National Director of Public Prosecutions for further consideration.<\/p>\n Unemployment a bigger scar than apartheid: \u2018racist\u2019 economist<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\nMore on racism in SA<\/h3>\n