After their acrimonious TV debate, legal academic Dennis Davis and Human Rights Commission head Barney Pityana had a rapprochement in the parking lot, reports Justin Pearce
Dennis Davis has withdrawn his call for Barney Pityana to resign as head of the Human Rights Commission. This was one outcome of a rapprochement between the two men which appeared unlikely to anyone who saw their emotionally-charged television debate on Tuesday night.
TV3’s Tuesday Debate this week involved furious exchanges between the feisty lawyer and the HRC chair, who met face-to-face to continue a debate which began last month in the pages of the Mail & Guardian. In the course of half an hour, Pityana repeatedly accused Davis of racism, while Davis ended with a call for Pityana’s resignation.
It all began with a M&G leader article in February, in which Davis, as a way of illustrating his point about holding government to account, questioned the effectiveness of the HRC, its membership, and the way its members had been selected.
“The commission appeared to be perceived as a useful avenue to reward a number of its appointees for services rendered. In the case of a couple of appointees, their knowledge of human rights was conspicuous only by its absence,” Davis wrote.
Davis singled out John Dugard as a serious omission from the final list.
Two weeks later, Pityana hit back in an angry article in which he dismissed as inaccurate Davis’s accusation that the HRC lacked a public profile. But what aroused the controversy was Pityana’s accusation that “Davis and his ilk are racists” since they could not accept a commission appointed ultimately by an elected black president.
Davis replied that Pityana’s charge of racism was “hate speech” which rendered irrelevant any contribution Davis might make to a debate.
When the two men met on television this week, the tone for the debate was established by an exchange that seemed to slip by accident onto the airwaves before the cameras were on.
“I’m delighted you both could come,” said host Max du Preez.
Pityana replied that the debate was “in the interests of democracy”.
“I’m glad to hear you say that,” came an icy response from Davis.
With the cameras on, Pityana declared that “it seemed Davis did not check his facts” when he penned his criticism of the HRC.
“It was clear to me the reason why Davis was so harsh was that Dugard was not there,” Pityana continued, asking why Davis had singled out a white person among the many nominees who had not been appointed.
Davis insisted he had used the case of Dugard simply as an example, and further challenged Pityana’s charges of racism by saying that the political appointees whose presence on the HRC he had questioned were white.
‘It saddens me that my criticism marks me as a racist,” Davis said, taking exception to what he saw as an attempt by Pityana to define him as someone who had no right to criticise.
“It is not what you say — it is what underlies it,” Pityana insisted.
During the half-hour on air, the two men failed to establish so much as common terms of reference as they interrupted each other and spent more time attacking each other’s credentials than debating. With time running out, Davis called on Pityana to resign from the commission
Du Preez’s on-air prediction that “this debate will go on long after the lights go down” proved correct. The acrimonious discussion continued for at least half an hour in the studio and was still going on when Du Preez escorted his two guests to the car park. Eventually, they reached some common ground.
According to Pityana, “Dennis said, graciously I think, that if by anything that he wrote he caused offence to the HRC, then he regrets that. And I will go back and look again at the piece I wrote and respond.”
Davis said he too would reconsider what he wrote, “and if there is any connotation that damned anyone other than right-wing whites” on the HRC, then he would take back what he wrote. He insisted that his reference to Dugard was an “en passant remark — I wanted to keep the memory of Dugard alive.”
Davis expressed profound regret that Dugard had left for a post at Cambridge University after failing to make it onto the HRC: “We have lost the greatest human rights lawyer in the country.”
Davis also said his call to Pityana to resign had been made in anger: “In the interests of the HRC, I withdraw it. I hope the HRC will promote a culture in which all will be able to talk openly.”
Both men regretted that the heated tone of the TV discussion made it impossible to get to grips with their differences while on air.
Davis said he still felt depressed, but not because of Pityana’s remarks. Driving home, Davis had heard a Sowetan journalist speaking on a Radio 702 talkshow who sided with Pityana simply because “he was prepared to believe anything a black person said”.
Davis saw the remark as a sign of “a dreadful authoritarian culture which exists in popular politics”.
“I no longer see any role for myself as a political commentator and critic,” Davis told the M&G.
Asked what they thought of the way Du Preez chaired the debate, Pityana replied: “It was very badly chaired, and very biased,” and Davis agreed
Du Preez said he had no regrets about the way he had conducted the discussion. “But it’s important to see this kind of thing — people calling people racists — is a phenomenon that needed to be shown.”