"...racism will not be tolerated in South Africa"-lock her up!

[malaise]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43567468
>snip>
A former estate agent in South Africa has been jailed for racist abuse in what has been called a landmark ruling.

A court jailed Vicky Momberg for three years, with one year suspended, for using a derogatory word against a black police officer 48 times.

Her lawyer said she was not in a normal state at the time, as she had just been the victim of a smash-and-grab robbery.

Momberg was convicted of four counts of crimen injuria after her racist rant was caught on video, and went viral on social media.

She hurled insults at black officers trying to assist her after she was robbed on the outskirts of the main city, Johannesburg, in 2016, and complained about the "calibre of blacks in Johannesburg compared to black people in Durban", where she was based.

Handing down her ruling, magistrate Pravina Raghoonandan said some may think the sentence was harsh but it was intended to signal that racism will not be tolerated in South Africa.

Previous prosecutions had not prevented racist incidents, and therefore imposing a direct prison sentence without the option of a fine would send a strong message, she added.

[Marengo]

1. I wonder if Julius Malema might wish to take note.

[procon]

2. Wow! I'd like to see some serious sentencing like that happening in the US, but

it's probably in violation of the 1st amendment. Under the prevailing sentiment, that claim seems to allow every sort of egregious behavior without consequence. As a result, our society is weakened and the rights of everyone else are set aside. It shouldn't be like that.

[JCanete]

5. Seriously? Maybe consider for a moment, just how slippery this slope is and what speech might end up

being counted, in a highest bidder democracy, as racist or pro-terrorist(eco or otherwise) or whatever new line might be drawn to discourage speech. Just because you want such an exception in a particular case, does not mean that the exception itself could not be made broader or more narrow by the same process that made it possible at all, nor that other clever ideas wouldnt emerge that take the same stick to freedom of speech, political dissidence, etc.

It is better to let people say what they will say so that they show who they are, and to use our own voices in solidarity to dismantle their argument with a better one.

[procon]

6. We manage to put restrictions on other rights without upending the

apple cart. There already are some limits on what can be can be considered free speech, so its not unreasonable to expect others to follow. The state is not a neutral player here, the government has a duty to protect society, and most democracies recognise how important hate speech laws are to safeguard the common good from attacks by those who advocate:

1. anarchy, violence, revolution and war
2. hate and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion


The problem I have with the existing status quo is that it fails to address today's threats and challenges to our cultural norms. As a result, the 1st amendment is frequently used as a freewheeling cudgel, lending itself to abuse by almost anyone from the tyranny of the masses, the wealthy, the unscrupulous principals with hidden helpers like the Republican friends of Russian hackers and their social media bots, or unscrupulous IT giants like Zuckerberg and facebook. There's no way individual citizens can compete and get their voices heard on that sort of disparate playing field, so I'd like to level it a bit.

[JCanete]

8. I agree with you on all points, except that in the end it will be the powers that be that shape

either these laws themselves how they choose, or how they are enforced, which sure, can be said about anything, except that when it affects what can be said, that seems particularly hard to recover from.

Nor does forcing racism into the closet combat racism. It may make it culturally unacceptable to be racist, although arguably, culture itself should make that happen more effectively, in part because the latter comes with less risk of making racists martyrs for freedom of speech, and in part because challenging racist ideology is more possible when the extent as it is currently manifesting, is known and understood. Clearly such laws haven't undone racism there, and arguably, now you have a system where a police officer might accuse you of having said something racist, whether that officer is white or brown, etc. The burden of proof has never been that high for police officers in our American courts, for those defendants in particular who can't afford to pay for an attorney.

I mean damn, 3 years for this? That is a scary ass cudgel. Its a lot easier than planting drugs, although granted, maybe harder to convict for on hearsay alone.

[oberliner]

10. You would??

[Billy Jingo]

3. Better than having your farm stolen, I suppose

The minority in that nation is in for a rough patch.

[Igel]

7. Minorities in a democracy

depend on something like a strong constitution; otherwise, 50% + 1 can vote do pretty much anything they want. Unless, of course, there's fear of some sort of push-back or uprising.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Yes, a real history of degradation, abuse, torment, hatred, murder & slavery, right? Poor them. n/t

[HipChick]

12. Yeah...Fuck 'em...

[X_Digger]

4. So fucking glad we have the 1st. n/t

[oberliner]

11. Thank the lord we don't live in a country like that