The Young Communist League called on President Kgalema Motlanthe to honour the deceased minister in “a befitting manner: by dissolving the current SABC Board”.

That just smacks of arrogance, disrespect and utter-rubbish to a level I have never before seen. We all know the everybody hates the SABC board and wants to get rid of them (I actually forget which faction is where on this, but anyway) – but to disguise achieving this political goal as respect for someone who died is just plain unbelievable.

It’s plain laughable.

Dear Colleagues and Students

This year’s edition of Sax Appeal, the annual UCT Rag publication produced by students, has elicited widespread reaction and debate. I feel it most important that our community discuss issues like these freely and I therefore share my views with you. I welcome your views.

This year’s edition elicited an outcry from many people – including many Christians – objecting strongly to a feature on pages 84 and 85 offering possible retorts for an atheist to certain imagined questions from Christian fundamentalists contained in 10 picture comic frames. Some also objected to a Zapiro cartoon, and to other statements in the magazine.

Following an intense discussion and interrogation of the content on the two pages in question, the RAG chairperson apologised unreservedly to those offended by aspects on these two pages. As Vice-Chancellor, I publicly expressed a view that the apology was indeed appropriate and I added my own apology, expressing regret at the publication of the two pages.

Both apologies are an acknowledgement that aspects of the two pages were offensive, hurtful and disrespectful, particularly to Christians.

The magazine as a whole is not in question and I regret to say that some people who complain about the general quality admit that they have not read it! There are excellent offerings in it. I believe the magazine is a good one – a typical student offering of satire and humour.

The RAG magazine has been produced by our students since the early 1930s and as you know it is sold to support an excellent cause – the Students’ Health and Welfare Centres Organisation (SHAWCO). The popularity and appeal of Sax Appeal has always been through being provocative, irreverent, funny, satirical and often silly.

I have no doubt that – as is typical in most years – the content will continue to elicit varied responses from different people, from being thoroughly enjoyed to being seen as boring or juvenile.

However, an upsetting number of emails received were insulting in the extreme, even threatening the lives of UCT staff members and insulting individuals in the most grotesque, vitriolic personal attacks. Many have demanded that we discipline the students and institute controls to prevent this happening again. This is regrettable and dangerous, not just for the individuals being threatened, but for society, because such behaviour threatens freedom of speech more generally.

The RAG magazine is produced by a student editorial team that holds editorial independence. Prior to finalisation, the magazine is submitted to an editorial advisory board that this year included one staff member. Its role is to advise on content and other issues relating to the magazine. The emphasis is on advice. It is not – and never should be – the role of the editorial advisory board to edit or censor the content.

For the future, we will strengthen the seniority and weight of academic input into the editorial advisory board.

I think you will agree with me that the independence of students is in itself contributing to the learning experience and we all expect students to take responsibility and to work independently. If, as a result, an error occurs or problems arise, the students have to accept the consequences and we trust they learn from the experience.

In addition to the response from a segment of the community who were offended and wished to see future censorship, there have also been letters in the press questioning whether UCT should have apologised at all, arguing that this hints at self-censorship and concedes to limitations on freedom of speech.

UCT has a proud history of defending freedom of speech. Democracy and political freedom cannot exist if people are not free to express any views and beliefs they have. Furthermore, if this freedom were to be in any way restricted based on the content of the views expressed, it would require some authority to decide which views are unacceptable to society. But how can we trust such an authority not to pursue its own interests, or even with benign intention, to know what is best for all of us, particularly when we are prevented from hearing dissident views. So we tolerate the dangers of ill-informed views, lies, untruths, offensive comments, socially divisive propositions being given public hearing because we cannot trust anyone to hold the monopoly on truth. The evidence suggests that progress is better served through the market place of competing ideas.

A university like ours must defend free speech and enquiry even more vigorously than society in general for it is the basis of our pursuit of truth, and discovery and analysis. The danger of a religious authority prohibiting the expression of views that offend it is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the classic conflict between Galileo and the Church-ruled establishment, for whom the proposal that the earth and humanity were not the centre of the universe was heretical and led to his detention.

For all these reasons, this freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right. Why then would I have discouraged the publication of the picture comic frames, and why have I apologised for them?

Because no freedoms are absolute. The freedom of speech may be limited under certain circumstances. Hate speech is a recognised limitation. So is defamatory speech. In the case of these picture comic frames, they are not hate speech, nor defamatory – but I believe they are gratuitously offensive; they insult people of a particular faith and they insult their God.

If these statements were made in the course of a satirical article, or a political argument, in the pursuit of ‘truth’ or for the benefit of advancing a view on religion in general or a particular belief system – the offence caused could still be justified. But if they are simply the stuff of a joke at another’s expense through ridiculing the other, making a whole group of people out to be stupid, I think it communicates intolerance of diversity, a lack of respect for every individual’s innate dignity which is the foundation of our whole system of equal human rights.

The consequence of these statements is to offer a few laughs for some at the expense of the dignity of others. It also has the consequence of causing social division and conflict. While this in itself is not an argument for censorship, it must weigh against making such statements if no positive purpose can be shown to be served. There is no other utility. So the negative social and individual consequences outweigh the positive. But that is a reason for being more considerate and not publishing them, it is not a reason for censorship, the practice of which would be far more negative in the greater scheme of things.

At UCT we welcome different views. Ideally they are expressed in a respectful manner.

I would like to make clear that we will not discipline the students involved nor will we censor the magazine in the future. We will ensure that the editorial advisory board plays its role appropriately. And we will ensure that the students who produce Sax Appeal understand that with every right – also that of expressing oneself – comes a responsibility.

Anyone wanting to comment is welcome to write to saxappealcomments@uct.ac.za. We value your views and learn from them.

Dr Max Price
Vice-Chancellor

Personally I find this a very good responce. While I think he has some details regarding Gallelio inccorrect, the general idea is excellent. The cartoon was in bad taste and just unfunny – but that’s no reason to censor.

Now without getting too hung up about the issue the column was really doing three things; claiming that Africa would have been exploited by whoever got here first, that Africa would not be where it is by itself and that African leaders are always looking for someone to blame their problems on. He satirises the ideas of the evil of the west, to a certain degree, and points out what the west has brought to Africa.

While it may seem that he was mocking old African traditions, but rather he is mocking those who still hold onto them. By being satirical in the way he is he is mocking those who hold onto these traditions but also adds value to what they meant back when they where relevant.

Suddenly the indigenous population realise what they have been missing all along: someone to blame. At last their prayers have been answered.

This is the only other line which one might be able to consider racist; but all that he is talking about is the tendency to blame the legacy of colonialism for problems.

So while the column may have been out of line it asks some valuable questions; can we blame colonialism and are western ideals wrong?

Parts of a letter to News24 sums it up quiet nicely:

This is a perfect example of what David was trying to portray in his letter: the previously disadvantaged desperately need someone to blame for all the ills of present and past. In this case he is the scapegoat for having written a short satire (if anyone out there understands this), and a rather amusing article.

Jouster,
Pretoria

Ivo Vegter has some interesting ideas about what may have been the real motivation behind all of this.

Maybe I am wrong and the column was to a degree racist, but I can’t see how that would have been it’s primary purpose.