Solidarity and Another v Black First Land First and Others (EQ2/19) [2022] ZAEQC 1; [2022] 2 All SA 549 (GJ) (2 March 2022)

Solidarity and Another v Black First Land First and Others (EQ2/19) [2022] ZAEQC 1; [2022] 2 All SA 549 (GJ) (2 March 2022)

The court found that the comments made by the second and third respondents, which celebrated the deaths of white children and equated their lives to those of animals, constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act as amended by the Constitutional Court. The statements were objectively harmful, promoted racial hatred, and undermined the dignity of the victims and their families, as well as the constitutional project of nation-building. The respondents' defence of freedom of expression was rejected, as such rights do not protect advocacy of racial hatred or speech that incites harm. The court held that the respondents' conduct amounted to unfair discrimination, harassment,...

Citation
[2022] ZAEQC 1
Parties
Applicant: Solidarity; Applicant: Bereaved Families as per Annexure "A"; Respondent: Black First Land First; Respondent: Lindsay Maasdorp; Respondent: Zwelakhe Dubasi
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2022
Case Number
EQ2/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment After Remittal From Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application granted. The comments of the second and third respondents are declared hate speech and prohibited. Interdictory and compensatory relief awarded.
Judges
Mokgoatlheng
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Freedom of Expression, Racial Discrimination, Damages for Dignity, Interdict
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Family and Children Hate Speech Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Freedom of Expression Racial Discrimination Damages for Dignity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solidarity

Applicant

Bereaved Families as per Annexure "A"

Applicant

Black First Land First

Respondent

Lindsay Maasdorp

Respondent

Zwelakhe Dubasi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment After Remittal From Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the comments made by the second and third respondents constitute hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' statements amount to unfair racial discrimination and harassment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' defence of freedom of expression is sustainable in light of the constitutional and statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the comments made by the second and third respondents, which celebrated the deaths of white children and equated their lives to those of animals, constituted hate speech under section 10(1) of the Equality Act as amended by the Constitutional Court. The statements were objectively harmful, promoted racial hatred, and undermined the dignity of the victims and their families, as well as the constitutional project of nation-building. The respondents' defence of freedom of expression was rejected, as such rights do not protect advocacy of racial hatred or speech that incites harm. The court held that the respondents' conduct amounted to unfair discrimination, harassment,...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The comments of the second and third respondents are declared hate speech and prohibited. Interdictory and compensatory relief awarded.

Orders

  • The comments of the second and third respondents are declared to be hate speech and prohibited under section 10(1) of the Equality Act.
  • The respondents are interdicted from repeating, posting, or publishing the said comments on any social or mass media platform.