Subscribe now!
SANEF: Can censorship of historical fact lead to reconciliation?
SANEF has taken the decision because it is deeply concerned that through a majority SCA ruling, a law intended to foster reconciliation in the country has the extraordinary power to censor historical fact by declaring that a particular conviction did not take place and that to state that the conviction did occur is "false".
While SANEF is not involving itself in The Citizen's views on McBride, the organisation is expressing its deep concern about the wording of the amnesty legislation which turns fact into falsehood and campaigns for it to be amended.
The SCA decision was based on a section in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, which states that amnesty expunges the conviction and sentence from all official records and also that "the conviction shall for all purposes .... be deemed not to have taken place" -- the sentence that turns fact into falsehood.
The SCA ruling raises a fundamental issue of press freedom in that it would compel the media to be party to the falsification of history, with dire consequences for their credibility.
The case arose because in 2003 The Citizen protested at Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality's decision to appoint Robert McBride to head the metro police. The paper said McBride was a murderer and thus unfit for the post.
McBride, who had been sentenced to death for planting the bomb that killed three women and injured 69 people, was subsequently given amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and released from prison.
The SCA, by a majority decision found on Friday, February 26, that The Citizen had defamed McBride because, according to the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act once he had been given amnesty it was "false" to call McBride a murderer.
Appeal Judge K K Mthiyane disagreed with the SCA majority finding. In a dissenting judgment he argued that The Citizen's description of McBride was fair comment. He said that altering public records was one thing but expunging from the historical record the fact of what the plaintiff did is another.
He said the interpretation of the Act by the majority of the judges "will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution and is not required" by the Act.
SANEF welcomes Judge Mthiyane's view that the interpretation of the law is unconstitutional.
The forum believes it cannot be accepted as a just verdict that truth is turned into falsity. And by all journalistic standards such a partially told story would be regarded as unacceptable and a breach of the Press Code.
SANEF calls for the SCA finding to be reviewed and the law to be amended to comply with Constitutional values. It intends to apply as an amicus curiae in the appeal that The Citizen is making to the Constitutional Court.
SANEF wants to emphasize that its stance against the falsification of history should not, in any way, be construed as passing judgment on the conduct of the liberation struggle.
(The understanding that "the conviction shall for all purposes .... be deemed not to have taken place" will be found unacceptable to many, so the question that we ask is this: can there ever be any justification for turning fact into fiction in a country that is stuggling to move forward?)
 Print story |
Email story
|
Subscribe to newsletter |
|
|
I read this with horror. Surely erasing the truth about our past can not possibly help construct a better future? There is a dire lack of answerability in this county, from all parties, yet if we refuse to acknowledge the facts and are determined to build on a falsified past, then there will never be any hope of reconciliation. Lies breed more lies.
I applaud SANEF for this stance and am firmly behind them - anonymously here, but openly within SANEF.
by RJ on March 10 2010, 17:48
Find this comment inappropriate? Report it