The question that begs to be asked about the Forum of Black Journalists' (FBJ) decision to host a function that excluded whites is; is it racist? I think it is. And seeing that this is largely a BEE blog, I'll answer that question in terms of the B-BBEE Act and other supporting legislation.
This is what I understand.
- The forum planned to host a private event, and the constitution does grant everyone freedom of association (for the trainspotters it's section 18 "Everyone has the right to freedom of association").
- White journalists were either barred from entry, or asked to leave if they had managed to gain entry.
- Abbey Makoe, chair of the FBJ did not understand the problem with this meeting. He repeatedly told journalists after the session that they just "didn't get it" when they claimed it was a public meeting. The Citizen quoted Makoe as saying "what is wrong when black journalists come together? We have the Black Management Forum, the Jewish Board of Deputies and we never had a problem with them".
- Zumachine Gun addressed the forum and then spoke to the riff-raff waiting outside for five minutes. "I don't see anything wrong with this," he said. When asked about the constitutionality of this meeting he deferred to Makoe who said "there is nothing constitutionally wrong with this."
- I can't confirm this - but I believe I heard Makoe saying on 702 that the forum is only open to black people who are defined black by law. I have to include this because it helps with my BEE angle.
And now to respond to each of the above.
Private vs public
Fiona Forde pointed out in her article in today's Sunday Independent - White journalists left out in the cold, (as usual the Independent hasn't put this up on the web yet), that by inviting Zumachine Gun to address the forum and by not putting any issues on the agenda that specifically pertained to the internal workings of the FBJ, it was a public event.
Removing the wrong people
Stephen Grootes of 702 managed to get in to the event, Makoe said "Sir, please don't cause a scene just leave." So Grootes waited outside.
Not getting it
I think that if journalists "didn't get it" then Abbey had cloistered his thoughts like a meditating monk - because I certainly don't get it. And his reference to the BMF and Jewish Board of Deputies is beyond me. Firstly the BMF is not exclusively black - I have a few white friends who are active members of the forum, and I quote the BMF's website "its' (sic) policy and philosophy is non-racial" . Secondly since when has the Jewish Board of Deputies ever been based on racial lines. It is a body that looks after the interests of South African Jews. I have met one or two South African black Jews. Similarly the Muslim Judicial Council looks after the interests of South African Muslims. The FBJ (I keep on wanting to write PFJ) is open only to black people (see more on this below). Even the Black Lawyers' Association constitution states that "membership of the Association shall be open to all lawyers and aspirant lawyers irrespective of colour, race, gender or creed who accept BLA’s policies, principles and abide by its Constitution."
Zumachine Gun and the constitution
I can't say much about Zumachine Gun. But he does speak for himself in this BBC documentary "No more Mandela's". This is part 3 of 3 parts, you might want to watch the other two as well.
Regarding the constitutionality of the event - we must go back to the constitution and look at section 9 - Equality 9.
(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
And now onto the definition of black
According to a quote from the Mercury "the forum allowed membership to anyone who matched the criteria - if they were of African descent, coloured or Indian" . This means that any person of African descent (excluding whites - I used to work with a few Egyptians in London and we used to remind each other that we were all Africans) may join. Technically speaking this includes all black people from any country in Africa.
Whilst the constitution does not expressly mention the words black and white in the context of people (it does use those words when defining the flag in section 5), the definition of black people does appear in a few acts and tends to be "a generic term for Africans, Coloureds and Indians". The latest B-BBEE and Employment Equity codes of good practice have refined the definition to Africans, Coloureds and Indians
- who are natural persons and are citizens of the Republic of South Africa by birth or descent; or
- are citizens of the Republic of South Africa by naturalisation before the commencement date of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act of 1993; or
- became citizens of the Republic of South Africa after the commencement date of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act of 1993, but who, not for Apartheid policy that had been in place prior to that date, would have been entitled to acquire citizenship by naturalisation prior to that date.
If I heard Abbey correctly then this must be the definition he follows. I wonder if the insists on looking at the ID books of each individual and conducts an in-depth interview to ascertain whether they are black enough for the FBJ.
And now to the obvious question - was the event and the handling of white journalists racist?
I have convinced myself that it was. 702 laid a formal complaint with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) of racial prejudice - they'll decide for us. The FBJ in itself is not unconstitutional, but it is a very reactionary way of going about things. And Joey (if you ever read this) - the difference between this group and the white groups of the last government is that the last government legislated racism, the current government actively outlaws it - and we are all better off with the current set up.
Comments