Thank you, hon member. Hon members, before hon Gunda takes the podium, I would like to make a ruling on a point of order put by hon Watson during the plenary of 31 August 2010. In respect of the point of order put by hon Watson, my ruling is as follows.
During the debate on the Social Assistance Amendment Bill, hon B V Mncube spoke the sentence: "Setlhare sa motho e motsho ha se lekgowa, empa ke ANC!" Hon Watson put a point of order that hon Mncube should withdraw the sentence, "Setlhare sa motho e motsho ha se lekgowa, empa ke ANC!" [Laughter.] According to the hon member this sort of sentence was hate speech. I then undertook to study the Hansard in order to give a ruling at a later stage.
I have had the opportunity to consider the Hansard, as well as section 16(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and cases decided on by the Constitutional Court regarding the use of hate speech.
The translation of the Hansard reflects that the sentence, "Setlhare sa motho e motsho ha se lekgowa, empa ke ANC!" directly translated into English means, "A black person's solution does not come from a white man, but from the ANC!"
In the case of Freedom Front v South African Human Rights Commission and Another, the Constitutional Court found that: -
In terms of section 16(2)(c), expression will amount to hate speech if it is advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm ...
The phrase "hate speech" is not a phrase of casual connotation. To promote hatred or hate speech is to instil detestation, enmity, and ill will.
In determining whether the statement made during hon Mncube's speech constituted hate speech, I applied the following test: whether a reasonable person assessing the advocacy on the stipulated grounds within its context, and having regard to the consequences thereof, would objectively conclude that the statement constituted hate speech.
The sentence in question, "Setlhare sa motho e motsho ha se lekgowa empa ke ANC!" when subjected to the above-mentioned test does not instil detestation, enmity, or ill will, nor does it advocate hatred in any way or form.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to encourage members, as public representatives, to promote the provisions of the Constitution when making statements in the House.
My ruling is therefore that the point of order raised by hon Watson cannot be upheld.