/ 26 June 2004

‘We must change our mindset’

A devout Muslim with beard, flowing gown and prayer cap folded his arms as a female participant reached out to shake his hand. They ended up exchanging verbal greetings.

On the opposite side of the hall, a man suggested a dress code for young women, drawing the ire of feminists. Welcome to South Africa’s conference on ‘The Eradication of Unfair Discrimination through Access to Equality Courts’, held in the commercial capital of Johannesburg this week (Jun 24-25).

Since June 2003, 220 equality courts have been established to eliminate the racism that took root in South Africa during the colonial and apartheid eras — as well as other forms of discrimination that can flourish in a culturally diverse society.

“We must change the mindset of our people,” Johnny de Lange, Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, told participants of the conference, which was organised by the South African Human Rights Commission.

“Equal opportunity alone is not enough to address the apartheid-inflicted legacy,” he added.

More than 70 cases have already been heard by these tribunals, including 31 complaints of racial discrimination, 23 of hate speech, 17 of sexual harassment and four of discrimination against people living with HIV/Aids.

About 800 judges and magistrates have been trained to deal with issues pertaining to equality.

At the Johannesburg meeting, whites rubbed shoulders with black, Indian and mixed race South Africans in a way that would have been impossible in the past. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the demise of apartheid, the country’s notorious system of legalised racial segregation.

But despite government’s efforts, South Africa remains a polarised society. Sampie Terreblance, an academic from the University of Stellenbosch near Cape Town, said poverty had fuelled discrimination and tension in the country.

According to a 2003 United Nations Development Programme report, he added, five million South Africans — including 70 000 whites — lived on less than a dollar a day. The country’s unemployment rate also rose from 34% in 1994 to around 40% in 2003, says the Congress of South African Trade Unions.

“This shows how ingrained social disparity in our society is,” Terreblance observed, adding that it was essential for government to increase assistance to the poor.

“I think the poor should be given 100 rand (about 15 dollars) each a month in the form of a social grant. This will go a long way in addressing some of their basic needs like food,” he said on Thursday.

De Lange urged South Africans to report cases of discrimination to the equality courts, and he was at pains to point out that these tribunals have a wide brief.

“Debate should not only be around racial inequality, but should also touch on other equally important issues like gender and the rights of the disabled,” he said.

But while discrimination under apartheid was clear cut, it has been less easy to rule on prejudice in later instances.

A case in point concerned a headline-grabbing incident in 2002, in which supporters of the ruling African National Congress chanted the slogan “Kill the boer, kill the farmer,” during two public meetings. The word “boer”, meaning farmer, is often used to refer to Afrikaans-speaking whites in South Africa.

The opposition Freedom Front, which represents the interests of certain Afrikaners, said the slogan constituted hate speech, and that it had resulted in the murder of Afrikaans farmers. However, the Human Rights Commission chose to view it simply as criticism of another racial group.

Perhaps anticipating that the emotive issues under discussion at the conference might prompt similar exchanges, the chair of the meeting issued an appeal at the start of discussions for participants to avoid inflammatory language.

He need not have worried, however. Although tempers occasionally flared, everything proceeded in an orderly and civilised manner — and the atmosphere remained cordial.

The equality courts were created under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Amendment Act.

Section 13 of the act has sparked controversy, as it shifts the burden of proof in certain instances. In these cases, it is not up to the accuser to prove someone guilty of discrimination; rather the respondent must prove his or her innocence. – IPS