Waiting and watching: Malema's delayed apology and compensation payment and their broader implications

abstract

In 2010, the Equality Court found that Julius Malema's statement about the complainant in the rape case against Jacob Zuma constituted hate speech under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000. This was the first case where an Equality Court ruling was made on hate speech in the context of gender equality. The court ordered Malema to make a public apology and pay R50 000 compensation to a women's organisation within two weeks and four weeks, respectively, of the judgment. It took Malema 15 months to make the public apology and almost 17 months to pay the compensation of R50 000. This Briefing analyses Malema's statement from a feminist perspective arguing that it downplays the seriousness of rape and feeds into widespread myths about what constitutes ‘real rape’. These rape myths contribute to secondary victimisation of rape survivors and reinforce the notion of male sexual entitlement at the expense of gender equality. It is unacceptable that the political leadership and the general public failed to take a stand on Malema's hate speech and on his non-compliance with the court order. If we are serious about promoting gender equality, both political leaders and society as a whole should not fear to speak out when gender equality is under threat or violated.

Keywords:

• Hate speech
• rape
• ‘real rape’ myth
• Julius Malema
• political leadership

Notes

1. Sincere thanks to my colleagues Talia Meer and Kelley Moult for their substantial input and to Laura Huss for her help with editing.