Search

Protecting people against hate speech and racist slurs requires weighing up several fundamental rights. To maintain legitimacy in enforcing the legislative protection, a fine balance must be struck between the rights to equality and dignity on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other hand. An analysis of the legislative framework ousting hate speech and unfair discrimination on the basis of race and the manner in which the different relevant provisions have been applied by the courts shows that there are discrepancies that must be addressed. Despite the differences between the policy that facilitated the adoption of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 and the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, an alignment must be achieved in the starting point for an objective enquiry dealing with racism. To excuse serious cases of hate speech perpetrated by one population group while presuming that the other population group is racist from the outset does not promote South Africa's nation-building project. On the flipside, to address the unbalanced method of interpretation and implementation of the legislative provisions by adjusting the vantage point from which the assessment into whether an utterance is racist and derogatory is commenced would advance the constitutional value of non-racialism.

The jurisdiction or competence of the Equality Court to hear a dispute concerning alleged hate speech is affected by various jurisdictional factors. The decision in South African Human Rights Commission v Khumalo 2019 1 All SA 254 (GJ) reveals several shortcomings in the provisions regulating jurisdiction in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 which must be attended to in order to provide clarity and legitimacy in regard to the application of the protection against hate speech.