Louis Farrakhan visited South Africa to spread his message of segregation, to search for a homeland for the United States’ convicts and to try and borrow a bit of Nelson Mandela’s aura. One could not help but notice that he connected best in radio talk-back shows with South Africa’s far-rightwing ethnic separatists. It is coincidental that his visit comes just as the Constitutional Assembly is debating the merits of qualifying the freedom of speech clause in the new Bill of Rights to allow for legislation prohibiting hate speech. But it was a useful coincidence — because it raised some valuable questions. The African National Congress wants to see the protection for freedom of speech exclude propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence and the advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion that constitutes incitement to discrimination. The Democratic Party has objected to this last clause. The argument against banning hate speech is that such legislation is not the appropriate way to deal with racism and prejudice; it is seldom effective and is frequently abused. Common law which prohibits threats, incitement, crimen injuria and libel are enough protection when needed. The ANC, however, is determined to see a ban on hate speech in place to prevent the voicing of the kinds of hurtful things said in the past which would now endanger the spirit of reconciliation. Why then did Mandela meet Farrakhan, a move which gave credibility and weight to a purveyor of hate speech? If the ANC doesn’t want hate speech, it should isolate its users; if it is prepared to accord the honour of a presidential meeting with such people, it seems a little contradictory to create legislation to criminalise them. The Jewish Board of Deputies was correct in saying there was a difference between Mandela meeting the most racist South Africans for the sake of reconciliation and according the same treatment to foreigners whose proclamations have often offended. If the ANC wins the argument for hate speech legislation, then it will be giving a weapon to Farrakhan’s critics to silence him. Is this its intention? Or is it further proof that such laws are almost always used to deal with enemies and rivals, rather than the true purveyors of hate and racism?