Following Vicki Momberg's sentence of two years for calling a policeman "kaffir" in 2016, the
liberal-left - the usual suspects of government, SA Human Rights Commission, media,
politicians, ANC wannabe DA and academics - are praising it as a "victory against racism" and saying "racism is criminal", which won't be tolerated.
Magistrate Pravina Raghoonandan was grandstanding politically with the sentence and denial of Momberg's bail while she appeals. Even murderer Oscar Pistorius and multiple murder accused Henri van Breda were granted bail. What gives? The usual politically correct rabble are in paroxysms of pleasure at the alleged victory over racism.
This is the problem with the left's superficial and politically correct view that racism, and specifically, white racism, as an attitude or belief can be criminalised and sentenced out of existence. Generally, they don’t make the distinction between overt and covert (thoughts) behaviour.
Momberg’s sentence is excessive, which Raghoonandan admitted. And when it’s out of ordinary parameters for a particular offense, it invites challenge. Judges and magistrates can be swayed by emotion but are trained to review cases objectively. They’re no use to anyone if they let emotion and political soap-boxing influence them. Raghoonandan created a precedent and presumably ruled based on political, emotional and racial considerations (would a white magistrate have ruled differently?). Vile as Momberg’s utterances were, how is it just the sentence of three years is almost what, say, Oscar Pistorius originally received?
If “sending a message” is what she intended, why in too many cases is the criminal justice system failing victims and families of the really serious crimes that plague South Africa. Disclosure: my family is currently experiencing its lacklustre disinterest to investigate and prosecute where a relative’s psychological and physical integrity was violated - the death of my mother at a public hospital. This is a clear-cut case for which no decision has been made nine months after the event took place and was reported. During this time I had to tell the police and Cape Town's Director of Public Prosecutions how to do their jobs because they appeared to be at sixes and sevens, and I'm not even a lawyer.
This is the reality - police, prosecutorial and official indifference, negligence and incompetence - victims of crime face daily. But the magistrate thinks an emotional, politically and racially inspired sentence sends a stern warning.
In 2016 Jonathan Jansen wrote “Why are we outrage by racism but not by rape” when 10 men raped a 13 year-old girl. “The media barely gave (the event) a glance … We wait for the next racist act and then, for about a week, celebrities, politicians and Joe Blow [media, social media] try to out-moralise each other with statements of outrage. Then everything goes quiet again until the next incident.”
This Daily Maverick article provides a cautious and balanced assessment. “The Centre for Constitutional Rights’ Phephelaphi Dube [said] the sentence might well be overturned on appeal. ‘I’m not too convinced that the sentence will withstand further legal scrutiny and it does not appear to fit the crime, even if she was remorseless’”. If overturned, it may impact future cases and perhaps make them harder to prosecute. As such, the left’s celebration may be premature. The magistrate’s sentencing ruling was poor.
There’s dishonesty in the racism debate, which itself harms race relations. White racists and those deemed to be racist are merciless pursued while black racists go unpunished. For example, I’ve not head if Velaphi Khumalo’s case has been finalised, and Julius Malema’s and EFF’s frequent racist and bigoted comments disingenuously are not worth prosecution and serious comment and analysis by pundits who otherwise fiercely opine about (white) racism.
This case and Penny Sparrow’s, in which there was a large dose of manufactured outrage, show South Africa does not need the “hate speech law” because existing legislation is adequate to deal with it if only government agencies properly applied them across the board.
Momberg's conviction is just because her deed was vile. But I hope the sentence will be reversed and reduced on appeal because it's a miscarriage of justice. And if it is, it may make prosecuting similar future cases more difficult. Raghoonandan did no one favour, and like retired Judge Chris Nicholson, created more division by losing judicial objectivity and playing to the PC gallery.
Cape Town's Director of Public Prosecutions has still not made a decision about the criminal charges I laid several months ago. Perhaps I should have laid a charge of racism because that's taken seriously.
Magistrate Pravina Raghoonandan was grandstanding politically with the sentence and denial of Momberg's bail while she appeals. Even murderer Oscar Pistorius and multiple murder accused Henri van Breda were granted bail. What gives? The usual politically correct rabble are in paroxysms of pleasure at the alleged victory over racism.
Racism is an attitude or belief, and privately held attitudes or beliefs like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, etc are not criminal unless they are acted upon. Hate speech, or in this case, crimen injuria, is the overt – verbal, written or act – expression of an attitude or belief. Or does “racism [as opposed to overt acts] is criminal” suggest this ruling moved us into the realm of thought “pre-crimes” like in the film Minority Report?
This is the problem with the left's superficial and politically correct view that racism, and specifically, white racism, as an attitude or belief can be criminalised and sentenced out of existence. Generally, they don’t make the distinction between overt and covert (thoughts) behaviour.
Momberg’s sentence is excessive, which Raghoonandan admitted. And when it’s out of ordinary parameters for a particular offense, it invites challenge. Judges and magistrates can be swayed by emotion but are trained to review cases objectively. They’re no use to anyone if they let emotion and political soap-boxing influence them. Raghoonandan created a precedent and presumably ruled based on political, emotional and racial considerations (would a white magistrate have ruled differently?). Vile as Momberg’s utterances were, how is it just the sentence of three years is almost what, say, Oscar Pistorius originally received?
If “sending a message” is what she intended, why in too many cases is the criminal justice system failing victims and families of the really serious crimes that plague South Africa. Disclosure: my family is currently experiencing its lacklustre disinterest to investigate and prosecute where a relative’s psychological and physical integrity was violated - the death of my mother at a public hospital. This is a clear-cut case for which no decision has been made nine months after the event took place and was reported. During this time I had to tell the police and Cape Town's Director of Public Prosecutions how to do their jobs because they appeared to be at sixes and sevens, and I'm not even a lawyer.
This is the reality - police, prosecutorial and official indifference, negligence and incompetence - victims of crime face daily. But the magistrate thinks an emotional, politically and racially inspired sentence sends a stern warning.
In 2016 Jonathan Jansen wrote “Why are we outrage by racism but not by rape” when 10 men raped a 13 year-old girl. “The media barely gave (the event) a glance … We wait for the next racist act and then, for about a week, celebrities, politicians and Joe Blow [media, social media] try to out-moralise each other with statements of outrage. Then everything goes quiet again until the next incident.”
This Daily Maverick article provides a cautious and balanced assessment. “The Centre for Constitutional Rights’ Phephelaphi Dube [said] the sentence might well be overturned on appeal. ‘I’m not too convinced that the sentence will withstand further legal scrutiny and it does not appear to fit the crime, even if she was remorseless’”. If overturned, it may impact future cases and perhaps make them harder to prosecute. As such, the left’s celebration may be premature. The magistrate’s sentencing ruling was poor.
There’s dishonesty in the racism debate, which itself harms race relations. White racists and those deemed to be racist are merciless pursued while black racists go unpunished. For example, I’ve not head if Velaphi Khumalo’s case has been finalised, and Julius Malema’s and EFF’s frequent racist and bigoted comments disingenuously are not worth prosecution and serious comment and analysis by pundits who otherwise fiercely opine about (white) racism.
This case and Penny Sparrow’s, in which there was a large dose of manufactured outrage, show South Africa does not need the “hate speech law” because existing legislation is adequate to deal with it if only government agencies properly applied them across the board.
Momberg's conviction is just because her deed was vile. But I hope the sentence will be reversed and reduced on appeal because it's a miscarriage of justice. And if it is, it may make prosecuting similar future cases more difficult. Raghoonandan did no one favour, and like retired Judge Chris Nicholson, created more division by losing judicial objectivity and playing to the PC gallery.
Cape Town's Director of Public Prosecutions has still not made a decision about the criminal charges I laid several months ago. Perhaps I should have laid a charge of racism because that's taken seriously.
Comments
Post a Comment