|
On Jewish Report’s censoring of Ronnie Kasrils |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 05 December 2006 |
|
FXI issued a media release on the 17th November 2006 (see below) on the censoring Minister of Ronnie Kasrils by the South African Jewish Report. The South African Board of Jewish Deputies (SABJD) subsequently accused the FXI of 'ideological bias' and of selective protection of freedom of expression. The FXI strongly rejects these claims. Read the full exchange of letters between the FXI and the SABJD:
SABJD letter to FXI
FXI responds
SABJD responds
FXI's second response
SAJBD's third letter
FXI's third response
The Freedom of Expression Institute has carefully examined the issue of the Jewish Report’s refusal to publish a response by Minister Ronnie Kasrils to the article published about him in the same newspaper. This after the newspaper had told Kasrils that his response would be published.
Having examined the correspondence on this matter, the FXI is disappointed that the Jewish Report has decided not to publish Ronnie Kasril’s response to the series of questions put to him by Anthony Posner. The newspaper is engaging in contradictory behaviour by publishing an opinion piece that poses questions and then denying the person to whom the questions are being put the right to answer them.
No one denies that the Jewish Report has the right to editorial independence. However, editorial independence is premised on certain editorial standards. These standards give certainty to readers about how a publication is going to conduct itself in return for that editorial independence; these standards include the sacrosanct principle of the right of reply. No publication worth its salt would refuse somebody the right to reply to an article that mentions that person by name, and especially in an instance where the person is directly called on to answer questions. In refusing Kasrils the right of reply, the Jewish Report has trashed the basic principle of fairness.
Also, the actual contents of Kasril's response bears little resemblance to what the paper’s editorial says he wrote. He is thus being misrepresented by the newspaper, which makes it even more unpalatable that he cannot respond. These features raise serious questions about the editorial quality of the newspaper.
The Jewish Report makes reference to ‘deeply offensive statements’ made by Kasrils and then refers to his piece as ‘hate speech’. Clearly, the newspaper misunderstands what hate speech means. Hate speech is not simply hateful speech and it is certainly not offensive speech. The crucial element of incitement to cause harm must be present for any speech to be regarded as hate speech. Incitement means calling on people to engage in harmful actions; the call to action must be unambiguous. Likening certain policing or military measures that the Israeli state uses to Nazi measures does not meet this objective test. So the assertion by the Jewish Report that this aspect of Kasril’s piece “certainly would qualify as hate speech” is, quite simply, wrong.
While some readers may read into this comparison a call for the destruction of Israel, this is mere inference. The tenuous nature of this inference is borne out by the editorial itself, which says that “…in the minds of most South African Jews, comparing Israelis with Nazis implies that… [Israel] must be destroyed as an evil entity”. In fact, even to imply that Kasrils is calling for the destruction of Israel is factually incorrect since nowhere in the article does he make this argument. As an organisation that defends free speech and freedom of the media, we are becoming increasingly tired of the “hate speech” exception in our constitution being misinterpreted and misused by institutions like the Jewish Report to stifle what they consider to be disagreeable speech.
There are definitely insufficient reasons for the newspaper to worm out of its commitment to the right of reply. It comes out of this incident looking like a mere extension of Zionism's repressive project rather than as a forum for debate within a deeply divided religious community.
Interestingly, this censorious incident comes hot on the heels of another incident where the German Goethe Institute withdrew permission, at the last minute, for an event by the anti-military organisation Ceasefire where Kasrils was to speak. If a government Minister can be treated in such a censorious manner, then we wonder what chance ordinary members of the Jewish community have to be heard if they voice dissent against the Israeli state's policies of forced colonial occupation of Palestinian land. One person has commented on this article. 1. THE NEW ANTISEMITISM
ANTHONY POSNER, Unregistered The "New Antisemitism " Wikipedia article puts The FXI's anti-zionism in an interesting perspective. I hope that Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah read it and discuss its contents on The FXI's website.
|
