The International Campaign for Real History

Posted Wednesday, December 24, 2003

[] Index to the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech
[] Alphabetical index (text)
AR-Online

Quick navigation

Defeat for Traditional Enemies of Free Speech in Africa

Professor Stephen Sniegoski (Washington) Absolved of Hate Speech Crime (South Africa)

by Sniegoski

YES, my presentation of the neocons as the driving force for the Iraq war brought about the charge of "hate speech" in the new, democratic South Africa.

In March [2003], I made a presentation on this taboo subject in a radio interview for the South African national FM radio station SAfm, which is part of the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

An apparent Jewish gentleman, Dr. Cohen, charged that not only was my radio presentation anti-Semitic but that a search of the Internet showed that my presentation had "firm root in previous anti-Semitic hate-speech." (Boy, I guess all my stuff on the Web can really get me in trouble!)

The South African court (Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa) ultimately rejected the charge of "hate speech" and ruled that if the complainant's argument to prohibit my presentation were accepted, this "would spell the end of freedom of expression in South Africa." And I think this is exactly what was sought regarding the airing of anything that might seem the least bit negative regarding Jews.

Here is the summary of the case [repeated in full below]:

"Interview with professor of history on his theory that pro-Israel Jewish right-wingers influenced the USA to wage war on Iraq. Complaint that interview constituted hate speech against Jewish people. Tribunal found that interview and theory not of such inflammatory nature as to exceed the bounds of tolerance. Tribunal also found that there was no incitement to cause harm. Second point of complaint that there was imbalance in the programme because broadcaster failed to air opposing view. Tribunal found on the facts that an invitation was extended to the Jewish Board of Deputies but the Board failed to put forward its view. Offer by broadcaster to present an opposing point of view not accepted by representatives of Jewish viewpoint who set conditions, unacceptable to the broadcaster, for participation in programme. No contravention of Code. The complaint was dismissed."

I might add that I have never presented myself as a "professor." Somehow, those South Africans seem to be under the impression that people with Ph.D.'s in history automatically become college professors. Maybe South Africa is a utopia for historians; in the good old USA I've been told I was lucky to get a job answering the telephone. I also have never claimed to be from New York. But from Africa maybe New York and Washington seem the same.

I might also add that the host of the radio program, Eric Miyeni, was shortly thereafter fired. Probably just coincidental., you know, sort of like those few US congressfolk who dare to buck the Zionist lobby quickly becoming ex-congressfolk. The South African radio station said it was simply an issue of money. But there were intimations that he was removed because he was too controversial.

"The presenter (Eric Miyeni) has been hauled before the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) for his reckless statements during his four months on air." [source]

Well, sorry about that Eric.

If he needed support, I could vouch for the fact that I did all the talking in our interview. But then again, he didn't refute my claims. And he did invite me, after all. And what I had to say was "controversial." Also, there does not now appear to be a transcript of my presentation at the SAFM web site. Guess it was tossed down the memory hole.


[source:]

Case No: 2003/13 SABC (SAFM) - Eric Miyeni Show - Hate Speech

Dr Y Cohen (Complainant)

vs

SABC (SAFM) (Respondent)

Tribunal: Prof Kobus van Rooyen SC (Chairperson)
Mr Ratha Mokgoatlheng (Deputy Chairperson),
Prof Willem de Klerk,
Prof Sunette Lötter,
Prof Henning Viljoen

For Complainant: The Complainant did not attend

For Respondent: Ms Dorothy van Tonder, Manager: Broadcast Compliance, Policy and Regulatory Affairs

SUMMARY

Interview with professor of history on his theory that pro-Israel Jewish right-wingers influenced the USA to wage war on Iraq. Complaint that interview constituted hate speech against Jewish people. Tribunal found that interview and theory not of such inflammatory nature as to exceed the bounds of tolerance. Tribunal also found that there was no incitement to cause harm.

Second point of complaint that there was imbalance in the programme because broadcaster failed to air opposing view. Tribunal found on the facts that an invitation was extended to the Jewish Board of Deputies but the Board failed to put forward its view.

Offer by broadcaster to present an opposing point of view not accepted by representatives of Jewish viewpoint who set conditions, unacceptable to the broadcaster, for participation in programme. No contravention of Code. The complaint was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

HP Viljoen [1] On Friday 7 March 2003 at 14:30 the Respondent broadcast an interview with a certain Professor Sniegoski, a history professor from New York. Eric Miyeni of SAfm conducted the interview. The topic of discussion was some probable reasons for the impending war by the United Sates of America on Iraq.

At the time of the interview the war had not commenced yet. The interviewer's interest in this topic was roused by a paper written by the said Prof Sniegoski titled "War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel".

The interview was a recorded one and comprised a few questions put by the interviewer and for the rest the said professor expounded on the theory that he developed in his paper. [2] Prof Sniegoski's theory, in short, is that a group of people, whom he calls neo-conservative rightwing Zionists, is able to influence the Bush administration to the extent that the USA would wage a war against Iraq, but the country that would really profit from the war would be Israel whose security interests would improve through all this.

He rejects the popular theory that the USA would be waging war against Iraq for its oil and also the humanitarian theory that the United States wants to save the Iraqis from their dictator. [3]

This interview and the theory expounded by Prof Sniegoski upset the Complainant. He lodged a complaint and submitted written argument of some 6 pages together with an appendix of 11 pages to the BCCSA. The complaint by Dr Cohen can be summarized in his own words as follows:

  1. "At its purest form, taken to its logical conclusion, Prof Sniegoski's theory is no different than all the other reincarnations of the myth of the Jew as a war monger. It is simply the same argument modified to fit current circumstances and as such constitutes hate-speech."
  2. and "My complaint before the Board of the BCCSA is not that Prof Sniegoski is an anti-Semite. Rather, my complaint is against SAfm for allowing such a person to express his views. That such views were expressed unopposed is even worse."
  3. and "Even a rudimentary internet research should have alerted SAfm as to the problematic nature of his views. Not problematic because they are controversial but because of their firm root in previous anti-Semitic hate-speech." [4]

From these excerpts it can be gleaned that there are basically two points of complaint before this Tribunal: (a) that the theory of and statements by Prof Sniegoski during the interview constitute hate speech (in contravention of section 16(2) of the South African Constitution, 1996); and (b) that the Respondent failed to present opposing points of view in a programme in which controversial issues of public importance were discussed (in contravention of clause 36.1 of the (new) Code of Conduct of the BCCSA which, by the way, came into operation on the very same day of the broadcast complained of). Hate Speech [5]

The so-called hate speech clause is one of the limitations imposed on freedom of expression in section 16(2) of the Constitution and is stated as follows:

The right in subsection (1)(the right to freedom of expression) does not extend to - (a) . (b) . (c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. [6]

On quite a few occasions, this Tribunal has had the opportunity to decide on complaints regarding broadcasts dealing with what we could call the Middle Eastern conflict. The support by the USA for the State of Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians within and other neighbouring Arab states beyond its borders, is a popular topic for discussion in programmes that deal with controversial issues of public importance.

A recent such complaint concerned the documentary by John Pilger, "Palestine is still the issue" and the debate that immediately followed the broadcast of the documentary. See J Shoot, EMETSA and Others vs e-tv, Case No:08/2003. [7]

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been the subject of debate for a very long time, especially since the start of the latest intifada of the Palestinians against the Jews.

With the direct military involvement of the USA in a country (Iraq) not far from Israel, the interest has moved from the more localised Israeli/Palestinian conflict to the regionalised Middle Eastern conflict.

It is not surprising that the theorists and commentators have found a role for Israel to play in the conflict with Iraq if the importance of Israel in the Middle East is taken into account. This theory is not new.

Prof Sniegoski says in his interview: "I don't claim that I'm original in my thesis at all; other people have said the same thing".

The question is whether Prof Sniegoski's statements constitute hate speech. [8] In a case decided by this Tribunal, Human Rights Commission of SA v SABC and reported in 2003 BCLR 92 (BCCSA), the test for hate speech in a broadcast was laid down as being an objective one.

This means that the norm that we have to apply is not the subjective view of any of the Commissioners on this Tribunal or of any other person, but what the reasonable listener would not tolerate. Taking into account that the reasonable listener of this programme would be a more serious, informed adult than the average listener, we think that such listeners would realise that this is but one theory on the reasons for the war against Iraq and would not accept this as the ultimate truth. We find that there is nothing of such inflammatory nature in what was said, that it exceeds the bounds of tolerance. [9]

Section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution has a second requirement that has to be met before a finding of hate speech can be made: the broadcast must also incite to harm. Degradation was found to be an element of the requirement to incite to harm in the Human Rights Commission case, quoted above.

After carefully studying the transcript of the interview, it is clear to us that the interview was in the nature of a popular-academic discourse and definitely not in the nature of political speech, with the intention to arouse peoples' emotions.

Any reasonably informed listener would know that in all wars the self-interest of the attacking state is usually the motivation for such war. If the theory is that some pro-Israeli right-wingers in the Bush administration, in promoting the interests of Israel, was able to influence the USA to the extent that the last mentioned was willing to start with military action, we find nothing degrading therein of the Israelis as a race or ethnic group.

We fail to find any incitement to cause harm in the interview complained of. Failure to present an opposing viewpoint [10] The second point of complaint, as we understand it, is that there was lack of balance in the broadcast. Clause 36.1 of the Code of Conduct that we apply, reads: In presenting a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed, a licensee shall make reasonable efforts to fairly present opposing points of view either in the same programme or in a subsequent programme forming part of the same series of programmes presented within a reasonable period of time of the original broadcast and within substantially the same time slot. [11]

There is substance in the argument by the Jewish Board of Deputies that the presenter did not go to any lengths to maintain a balance by asking critical questions. Evidence was placed before the Tribunal that the [South African] Jewish Board of Deputies [SAJBOD] complained to the SABC after the broadcast of the interview, on the same day, namely 7 March.

The Board was then invited to participate in Eric Miyeni's show on 13 March. Their response was that they would consider participating, provided they could have a meeting with Eric beforehand to discuss what should be said on the programme.

This condition was contrary to SABC policy and the Board was informed that this condition was not acceptable to the Corporation. In reaction to this, the Board declined the invitation.

We were informed that the SABC sent an e-mail to the Jewish Board of Deputies on 17 March in which the invitation to participate in Eric's programme was repeated. The evidence is that the Board did not respond to this invitation. [12]

The Complainant was at pains to inform us that he is not a member of the Jewish Board of Deputies. The Board is the obvious choice in South Africa for a spokesperson to put forward the Jewish viewpoint in public discussions on controversial matters like these. It would not have been the first time that they would have participated in public debate over the air.

There was no legal duty on the Respondent to invite the Complainant or any other individual Jewish person to put forward an opposing viewpoint on the programme. From the above we conclude that the Respondent made all reasonable efforts to present an opposing point of view in a subsequent programme, but that the Jewish Board of Deputies declined the invitation. [13]

In correspondence between this Commission and the Jewish Board of Deputies, their objection to participating in a subsequent programme on this matter is stated, inter alia, as follows:

"We in fact regarded it as impudent and opportunistic of Mr Miyeni to effectively seek to dodge the substance of our complaint regarding his conduct by simply inviting us onto his show. He would have been well aware that in such an atmosphere it would not have been possible to properly present our case against him personally and instead the Board would have been put into a position in which it would be required to refute scurrilous anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Effectively, therefore, it would not be Mr Miyeni but the Jewish people that would be publicly put on trial." [14]

We cannot agree with this argument. First of all, the broadcaster is entitled to make and implement its own policy regarding discussion programmes of this nature. As long as it complies with the provisions of the Broadcasting Code, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the policy.

Secondly, it is not clear on what ground the Board predicts that it would be the Jewish people that would be publicly put on trial, should it participate on such a programme. This, to our mind, would be the democratic way for the Board to put forward its view and to convince the listeners that Prof Sniegoski's opinion is wrong. We believe that the Board let a golden opportunity slip through its fingers. [15]

We finally have to deal with the Complainant's argument to the effect that by inviting the Jewish Board of Deputies to put forward their argument, an image of legitimacy is projected on Prof Sniegoski's views.

He argues further that the interview had already done damage (to the Jewish cause, we presume), damage that will not disappear by airing an opposing view. This, to our minds, is a self-defeating argument. The very essence of freedom of expression is to allow everyone to express his or her opinion. In this sense everyone's opinion is "legitimate".

How can the views of Prof Sniegoski be exposed as being "illegitimate" (as the Complainant apparently wishes to achieve) if no opposing viewpoint is allowed to be aired? As to the complaint about the "damage" done: this can only be undone by allowing opposing viewpoints to be aired.

Should the Complainant's argument be correct, we should never allow arguments to be aired so as to oppose viewpoints that are shocking, disturbing or unpopular. This, according to the Complainant, would lend legitimacy to such viewpoints. This argument, if accepted, would spell the end of freedom of expression in South Africa.

The complaint is, accordingly, dismissed.

HP Viljoen 20 October 2003

The Chairperson, together with Commissioners Mokgoathleng, De Klerk and Lötter concurred with the judgment.

 

Our dossier on the Origins of anti-semitism

The above item is reproduced without editing other than typographical

 Register your name and address to go on the Mailing List to receive

David Irving's ACTION REPORT

or to hear when and where he will next speak near you

© Focal Point 2003 F Irving write to David Irving