In Business Day of April 10, a column by the learned Steven Friedman appeared. I write “learned” because Friedman recently wrote a book titled Power in Action: Democracy, Citizenship and Social Justice. No longer possessing the sitzfleisch for learned tomes, I have not read it. But Adam Habib, vice-chancellor and principal of Wits, no less, has proclaimed it to be “intellectually superb” – so it must be.
The headline on Friedman’s column was somewhat clumsy (not to mention tendentious): “A useless defender will favour the powerful for quiet life”. Clearly, the sub-editor responsible for writing the headline had struggled to figure out the precise or even approximate thrust of the column.
Then – perhaps Friedman complained – the on-line, Businesslive headline was changed to “Human rights rulings show a bias towards a popular persona” and there was an explanatory sub-head: “Firebrand Julius Malema gets away with being outspoken, yet Bongani Masuku is sanctioned for utterances about Israel.” (By the way, the Malema referred to in the sub-head is not a “persona” – unless we are to believe that he’s one kind of person in public while at home he’s a softly-spoken sweetheart who loves whiteys. This is possible; it’s also possible that I’m Robert Redford.)
Anyway, the second headline and sub-head are much clearer, yeah? But, although the sub-head captures part of Friedman’s message, neither the headlines nor the sub-head represent the juicy little piece of offensive cant that is hidden in the column. Well, it’s not really hidden; it’s right there; though I did have to read the column a couple of times. (I must be the only person, besides Friedman, his partner and family, the sub-editors, and Friedman’s eight fans, who bothered to re-read the column.)
Friedman’s article is ostensibly an “attack” on, or snipe at, or “ironic reflection” on, the Human Rights Commission (HRC). Look here, says the learned research professor (Friedman), the HRC found the statements by Malema – about intending to slaughter white folk at an unspecified date and his claim that in KZN “everything is strategically given to Indians” – not to be hate speech, although “offensive”. This being the case, Friedman asks, why, a decade ago, did the HRC find the comments made by former Cosatu official Bongani Masuku about “supporters of the Israeli state” to be hate speech?
Masuku said, as per Friedman, that “Zionists” (explained helpfully by Friedman as “supporters of a state for Jews only”, nothing more) “must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine”; furthermore, they must be subject to “perpetual suffering” until they withdraw from Palestine and have stopped “their savage attack on human dignity”.