I haven’t weighed in on the noise about the Forum of Black Journalists, whose racist admission policy was recently declared unconstitutional by the Human Rights Commission.
Since the story broke days after my rant about white racists exploded into a raging inferno, I had been toying with the idea of using the FBJ issue to make a similar argument against black racists. But I admit, I was weak. I felt swamped by — and tired of — the subject of racism.
Another reason I desisted is expressed well in this excellent editorial on the reaction to the ruling, by political analyst Prince Mashele.
What both whites and blacks in our country seem incapable of, however, is to subject racial questions to rational thought. And unfortunately, this failure leads to an automatic expectation of racially solidaristic approaches to issues of race. As a result, simplistic formulas take the place of dispassionate analysis — so commentary on racial questions becomes predictable and a platform to parade racial correctness.
Whenever race issues arise, one can easily tell whether it is a white or black person commenting, not on the basis of accent or style of writing, but based on their unconcealed preference for racial solidarity over sound argument.
It’s this kind of approach that has made blacks who dared to raise critical questions about the FBJ’s racial policy to be quickly labelled “coconuts”. In the same vein, a white person expressing sympathy with black people is generally interpreted as a buyer of favour. Is there nothing like a race-neutral mind?
This question makes me sorry I didn’t post my position on the FBJ. In my view, as a white journalist, it has every right to exist, and every right to exclude whites. Why should I care? I feel the same about white racist groups. If they want to congregate and burn crosses and do what white supremacists do, that’s their problem. In their case, I’d only object when they start committing crimes. When it becomes harassment, assault or murder, we have a problem, but that problem does not affect the right to freedom of association or freedom of expression.
Similarly with the FBJ. If it feels the need to have a racially exclusive club because it prefers to think in terms of race and solve problems based on racial analysis, that’s its loss, not mine. I think it’s rich of people who support such organisations to claim racism in others, but that’s also their loss, not mine.
Here’s my objection to the FBJ, though. I have a serious problem that a senior political figure agreed to meet the forum in a closed, off-the-record session. If you’re going to have discussions with exclusive groups, by all means do so. The FBJ wouldn’t be the first group of limited membership and special interests to meet the government or the ANC. But then disclose what was discussed.
You see, there’s an important feature of the Constitution that is often overlooked. The function of a constitution is to bind the government and protect citizens. The Constitution explicitly says so, making only specific provisions, “where applicable”, binding on other persons. For binding citizens, we have the statute books — regular law — that serve essentially the opposite function.
So while the FBJ has a clear right, in my view, to associate however it wishes, that Jacob Zuma meets behind closed doors with an explicitly racist body strikes me as unconstitutional discrimination on the part of Zuma. Especially since, at the time, he was refusing to grant interviews to most other journalists. His argument might be that he was acting in his capacity as ANC president, not as an agent of government, but that seems like a weak defence.
Zuma’s meeting with it, not its existence or constitution, is my main problem with the Forum of Black Journalists. And I disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s ruling.
Is that point racially neutral enough?
(First published on my own blog.)
If one really wants to know what has been said, one can always the appropriate legislation for access to information.
Otherwise; we have had Broederbond, Free “Cement boys” and others with, most of the time, very little comment.
Nooit dude. The liberal in me agrees that any old association with any entrance policy is fine – let weirdos do what weirdos do. But I grew up in SA.
If we say the FBJ can exclude people of a certain race, the Blikkisfontein Castle Lager Appciation Club can also ban people of a certain race from entering a given kroeg (or hotel seminar room) on the basis that they are not members of said Club, and may not be admitted to said Club because of their skin colour. In my view that takes SA many steps backwards. The proverbial slippery slope.
It’s of course totally cool to form race-based, gender-based, ethnicity-based, whatever-based associations, with membership limited to people of a certain race, gender, ethnicity, whatever. SA certainly needs these things. BUT, people of any race, gender, ethnicity, whatever should be allowed to enter and attend meetings of these groups if they so wish. That’s the middle ground, in my view, and that’s how similar groups are constituted and operate.
@ BenzoL: I don’t know what rock you were under, but as I recall, the links between the Broederbond and government were considered fairly insidious by those who valued their freedom.
@ Phil: In principle, a private establishment should be able to reserve admission on whatever grounds they like, or no grounds at all. It’s discrimination by the state that causes real harm. Granted, like you, I’d find such places unpleasant, and wouldn’t patronise such an establishment, but I’d probably feel the same if the same people were legally obliged to let in those they’d prefer to keep out. The point is you can legislate against formal discrimination, but how people think and act in private is largely beyond the law, especially when no concrete, quantifiable harm has been done. A step backwards, sure. Their right to be backward? Yeah, I’d like to think most of us are above that.
I agree that freedom of association should be allowed and that the press should have access to functions that public figures address.
JZ is a public figure by the virtue that he holds a top political party position.
Where the FBJ went wrong is that when it was addressed by a public figure it did not allow the press to cover the event while the Jewish club did allow the press to cover their JZ event.
@Ivo:
)
Where I lived they used to call them “rockspyders”
Did not get your comment. Born stupid, never learned anything since.
I don’t think the ruling regime will take quite so tolerant a view of the formation of a Forum of White Journalists, even if they were magnanimous enough to open their membership to any black scribblers who are prepared to share the core aim of “advancing the interests of white journalists”.
Am I now forced to allow anyone that comes into my home becayuse the constitution prevents me from discriminating?
I will only let in those I want in my home and if that is based on race, then that is my prerogative. However, that is a different story when it comes to public establishments.
Organizations are simply an extention of the self and have very little to do with the building they meet.
When I hire a venue for a party, they ever ask me my entrance criteria because it is none of their business.
@Ivo, the problem is that “most of us” are NOT above that.
It’s a small-end-of-the-wedge kind of problem. You allow this supposedly small thing now, and before you know it, you’re back at formally legislated exclusion and discrimination.
Once you’ve allowed these kinds of organisations to meet behind closed doors, how are you then going to prevent people like Zuma from meeting with them in private?
@ BenzoL: I simply meant that people didn’t think the Broederbond was just fine, or that there has been very little comment about it. Non-members distrusted it, at best, and I doubt many people failed to recognise their purpose as racially-exclusive power brokers.
I’d argue for their right to exist, but I would have grave problems with a government that engages with such groups behind closed doors. I would also expect the government to ban its officials from being members of racially-exclusive or secret organisations.
The point is that discrimination by the state, and before the law, is the real threat. You can’t legislate against racism or hate any more than you can legislate against anger or pessimism. And you shouldn’t legislate against freedom of speech or freedom of association, which are among the rights reserved by citizens to prevent abuse of power by their government.
@ Len: “Public” establishments needs to be better define. You have “public” as in tax-payer-funded, state-owned and in service to the public in general. You have “private”, which means it’s the property of a citizen. Your use of “public” refers to a subset of “private” properties, and that subset includes things like private churches or commercial properties. The owner of a private property can grant or deny access on any grounds whatsoever. That goes just as much for your house, as it does for a church or pub you own. Of course, a private establishment that caters to the public would be daft to restrict access, because it reduces revenue and offends customers, but taking daft business decisions is also a private citizen’s prerogative.
It’s only when someone who is excluded does not have a legal alternative that you run into problems, which is why non-discrimination by private citizens is merely desirable (and smart) for private citizens, but non-discrimination by the state is mandatory — a fundamental human right.
@ Claire: You see, I don’t believe the government should be in the business of telling people how they should live. Next thing, they’ll be requiring us to eat healthy and keep fit. That too is a thin end of a wedge.
As long as people don’t unreasonably harm the person or property or others, they should be free to think, speak and act as their conscience dictates. I might not like it, but then, many people don’t like what I think or say.
As for those meetings, if they really wanted to plot in private, they would do so anyway. I would simply make it a requirement for government officials to desist from addressing meetings that are exclusionary on racial, gender, religious or similar unjust grounds, and enforce it the same way you impose constitutional obligations usually — by means of a free public press, parliamentary oversight and independent courts.
All I was trying to say is that the world has seen many clubs with limitations to participate or join in their deliberations. Even Golf, Tennis and others have their “access to membership” rules with negative decisions not always revealed. The British “club” system being a good example. In conclusion, I have no problem with the existence of the BJF although I consider it a little odd and an outdated copy of the British “club” system. IMHO, the real problem lies in the visit of mr Zuma and his apparent approval -as a public figure- for exclusion based on skin colour. Poor judgement on his part? Just buying some sympathy from the press? The target of our concern should be mr Zuma. But then -in defence of the man- he is just finding his feet in a very delicate situation. Between certain ridicules (showers,AIDS, limited education, polygamy, machine guns), the reality of the two centres of power and trying to support the rowdy crowd that put him in the position of “chief” in the ANC, mr Zuma really needs to draw on all the talents he has. The BJF is just one of the stepping stones. They could be easily discarded when he has reached his pinnacle.