Those of us in the human rights field often talk as though what we call human rights are clear, obvious, and of course never up to interpretation. This is certainly the case with some rights. It is never acceptable, for example, to imprison an innocent person for political reasons or commit violence for the purposes of eradicating another group. But most of the rights laid out in distinguished human rights instruments like the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights represent an ideal that still leaves room for nuance. This is especially true when the rights of one collide with the rights of another, which does happen all the time. While this shouldn’t come as any surprise – after all we are talking about human rights and humans are complicated creatures – it is a fact that is often left unspoken in human rights circles.
This is what came to mind when I heard about the current debate in South Africa over whether the lyrics of the anti-apartheid song “Kill the Boer” amounts to hate speech against White South Africans. The song was popular during the fight against apartheid, and several members of the ruling-ANC government have taken to signing it at public rallies recently, most notably the always controversial ANC Youth League President Julius Malema. Last week the Johannesburg High Court ruled that the song did constitute hate speech making it unconstitutional and ordered that it stop being sung in public. The ANC’s response? Malema has been quoted saying that he rather go to jail than stop singing the song while other officials have stated that the ruling is ridiculous and an attempt to stop South Africans from celebrating their history and liberation.
On its face, they have a point. Apartheid was a horrible system that oppressed millions of Blacks for the political and economic gain of a small minority White population. Their triumph over that system, in a not completely but mostly peaceful way, is epic and should be cause for celebration as long as South Africa endures as a country or culture on this planet. And as the film Amandla! showed a few years ago, music played a central role in that struggle. But the end of apartheid also meant a substantial shift in power; while Whites still wield tremendous economic clout, the country is now ruled by a Black government and Whites are now politically the minority that they should have always been. In other words, the days of apartheid are over, liberation has been won, and some feel that it is no longer the place of the ANC to publically encourage in any way, shape, or form the marginalization of the racial minority that they now have power over.
But is it hate speech? Type “Kill the Boer” into any search engine and a number of very impassioned (read: biased and/or racist) blog posts appear on both sides of the argument debating meaning and purpose. A frequent point brought up on the side that it is hate speech is that violence against White farmers has been a issue largely ignored by the government since apartheid ended, though not nearly as significant an issue as other problems facing the republic since 1994 such as the overall crime rate, corruption, or the HIV/AIDS epidemic there. The real question appears to be that now that Whites are in the minority, not just in numbers but in political power as well, should they receive the same human rights protections granted to the rest of the population, even if they once denied those same rights to the people in power now?
What may seem like an easy question on its face is not, as history, narrative, and politics all have their contributions to the answer. This is not just the case in South Africa, as other countries with deep social divisions deal with the same issues just with different pretexts. From my observations, none of them come to easy conclusions. More than anything, these situations show that sometimes the best way of advancing human rights is by asking the questions and discussing together what the answer should be. Though far harder than the clear-cut rules we like to pretend that the human rights movement always has available, I suspect that the mutually agreed upon solutions have far better power and sustainability within those societies than many of the lauded human rights treaties have to offer.
