Sonke Gender Justice Network v Malema (02/2009) [2010] ZAEQC 2; (2010 (7) BCLR 729 (EqC) (15 March 2010)

Sonke Gender Justice Network v Malema (02/2009) [2010] ZAEQC 2; (2010 (7) BCLR 729 (EqC) (15 March 2010)

The court found that the respondent's statements were based on prohibited grounds of gender and sex and could reasonably be construed as hurtful, harmful, and demeaning to women, particularly rape survivors. The utterances were made in general terms and not limited to the specific complainant in the Zuma trial. Expert evidence established that the statements perpetuated harmful rape myths and stereotypes, trivialised rape, and contributed to a hostile environment for women. The respondent's defence of fair comment failed because the statements were presented as facts, not opinion, and were not based on the true facts of the Zuma judgment. The court held that the statements constituted...

Citation
[2010] ZAEQC 2
Parties
Applicant: Sonke Gender Justice Network; Respondent: Mr. Julius Malema
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2010
Case Number
02/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The respondent was found liable for hate speech and harassment under the Equality Act.
Judges
CJ Collis
Legal Topics
Hate Speech, Harassment, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Freedom of Expression, Gender Discrimination
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Hate Speech Harassment Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Freedom of Expression Gender Discrimination

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonke Gender Justice Network

Applicant

Mr. Julius Malema

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's statements constituted hate speech under the Equality Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's statements amounted to harassment as defined by the Equality Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defence of fair comment is sustainable under section 12 of the Equality Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's statements were based on prohibited grounds of gender and sex and could reasonably be construed as hurtful, harmful, and demeaning to women, particularly rape survivors. The utterances were made in general terms and not limited to the specific complainant in the Zuma trial. Expert evidence established that the statements perpetuated harmful rape myths and stereotypes, trivialised rape, and contributed to a hostile environment for women. The respondent's defence of fair comment failed because the statements were presented as facts, not opinion, and were not based on the true facts of the Zuma judgment. The court held that the statements constituted...

Court Disposition

The respondent was found liable for hate speech and harassment under the Equality Act.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to issue a public apology within two weeks from the date of judgment in the form of a press release.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay People Opposed to Women Abuse (POWA) an amount of R 50,000 within one month of the date of judgment.