The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) says it may go to the Equality Court to enforce its ruling against the Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ) for holding meetings at which white people are not allowed.
Rejecting the FBJ’s assertion that it had been ambushed, SAHRC spokesperson Vincent Moaga said the commission gave the FBJ two weeks to respond after it wrote two letters to its steering committee chairperson, Abbey Makoe, to which there was no reply.
”The commission further rejects assertions that it has in effect banned the FBJ and that its findings criminalised blackness,” he said. ”The FBJ can continue in its activities but should do so within the parameters of the Equality Act, which provides that the exclusion of particular people solely on the basis of race is prohibited,” Moaga said.
Makoe acknowledged the right of the SAHRC to ”conduct any action against anybody”. He argued that his statements do not mean the FBJ disregards the commission. However, ”our view is that the process was flawed. Had we been made aware that the process was of a judicial nature we’d have sought legal representation.”
Makoe said the sense of exclusion felt by white people is ”legitimate”, but ”you can’t change the constitution of the FBJ in a restaurant”.
”We are confident that any reasonable person who witnessed the sham ‘trial’ last month will be astounded at their temerity — that a step, like a banning order, could even be considered, let alone issued, after the briefest of hearings that evidently has proven to be an inquisition after the fact,” Makoe said after the ruling.
While Talk Radio 702’s Katy Katopodis, who brought the case to the commission, feels ”vindicated”, she nevertheless said it is a pity ”that this issue has now not been completely resolved as the FBJ has threatened to take the matter further. We need to start putting our energies together for the good of the industry and ensure that any and all issues affecting black journalists which the FBJ ostensibly wants to deal with are not swept under the carpet,” she said.
”We need to accept that there may be very real issues in some newsrooms — and we need to address them.” But if the FBJ continues to exclude people based on race alone, ”we will be there to cover the story”.
Caxton professor of journalism at Wits University Anton Harber said ”the SAHRC’s finding was a triumph for non-racialism. Hopefully it will drag the FBJ into the new era — when you should never be able to block someone’s entry to a public event for purely dermatological reasons.”
He adds that ”they should feel chastened and would do well to take some time to think carefully about the implications of fighting for the right to exclude someone only because of their colour. To put up a sign saying ‘Blacks only’ is as ugly as those that used to say ‘Whites only’.”
Black business responds
Nyameka Madikizela, president of the South African Institute of Black Property Practitioners, said that white individuals cannot join the organisation but all companies may take out professional membership. She said: ”We can’t alienate ourselves from white organisations.” While it may be necessary for black people to meet and to hold conversations exclusively as black people, integration remains essential.
”We have to work with white people to help us get there. We acknowledge the need to work with white people and white organisations to help us achieve our goals,” Madikizela said. ”You can’t separate blacks and whites.”
However, Temba Vundla, a director at the same organisation, argued that people should not be in denial that white people thrived in the past because of apartheid. ”The salvation [of black people] cannot rest in the hands of the former oppressors,” Vundla said.
Mncane Mthunzi, MD of the Black Management Forum (BMF), said the BMF is a non-racial organisation that includes white people in its structures even though ”our agenda is focused on black people”.
Similarly, Masedi Molosiwa, chief executive of the Association of Black Securities and Investment Professionals, said his organisation was formed to advance transformation in the financial services sector.
”Our membership is open to anyone, provided they subscribe to our principles and objectives,” he said. The ruling by the commission does not affect the organisation. Although the word ”black” is used in its name, it simply refers to the organisation’s intended beneficiaries.
SAHRC may be wrong
The ruling by the SAHRC on the FBJ’s decision to bar whites has become a constitutional issue that radiates beyond the media, argues advocate Wim Trengove.
Discrimination or differentiation is permissible if it is done for the purposes of affirmative action.
”If these organisations are designed to eradicate the disadvantages inherited from the past”, then their racial exclusivity could be permissible, he says.