Woordfees or Volksfees?

Yvonne Malan

is a doctoral student and researcher at the Department of Philosophy at Stellenbosch University.

It's interesting to note how those with little track record of tolerance (like some of those who have contributed to the debate) now suddenly wax lyrical about human rights, particularly freedom of speech. Those who cast the issue as a "freedom of speech versus censorship" issue fail to take into account certain limits that apply to one's right to freedom of speech. Once one becomes guilty of infringing on the rights of others, such as the right to human dignity and the right not to be subjected to hate-speech, one foregoes some of one's rights to freedom of speech. Furthermore, the accusations of "censorship" on the part of those that object to Roodt's invitation to speak about his views fail to recognise that censorship entails being banned from spreading one's views by the state, which is clearly not the case here. This is not a "Ban Dan" campaign, but a question of "Not in My Name". Roodt, unlike Van Zyl argues, is not known as an author but as a "taalstryder" of the worst kind, spewing hatred against black South Africans and those who don't agree with his far-fetched take on reality. Those who are objecting to his talk at the Woordfees are not advocating that Roodt be banned from expressing himself. He can do that on his website and in articles and letters to newspapers. Stellenbosch University, however, should not provide him with a platform nor, in doing so, legitimise his bigoted and highly questionable viewpoints. There was no demand that Roodt must be silenced. What was questioned was the wisdom of inviting him in the first place - not that Die Burger or Van Zyl could be bothered with this distinction.

Roodt's past visits to the campus do not bode well. During a debate on the language issue in 2002 he was disruptive and threatened to break up the meeting. Now he is rewarded by being invited back to talk about his "philosophy" on life.

I think the Woordfees organisers made a hasty and ill-judged decision. Instead of admitting how vastly insensitive it is to the majority of South Africans, they are now hiding behind the "freedom of speech" argument, failing to see the possible consequences of inviting a figure like Roodt. Also, they don't seem to be bothered about how deeply offensive the Roodt invitation is to black staff and students (Afrikaner selfbeheptheid op sy beste).Their belated "invitation" to some of those objecting to his presence is a case of too little, too late, and a half-hearted attempt to legitimise their poor judgement. If read together with the University's dismal management of the Fischer "debate", one starts to wonder how sincere Stellenbosch University is about being part of a larger South African community. They are well versed in symbolic gestures (e.g. hosting the ANC conference), but when it comes to actually taking a stand on something important they are found wanting. The attempt by the University's spokesperson to distance the University from the festival on a technical point is highly questionable.

As for the Woordfees, its organisers need to decide whether they are hosting a Woordfees or a Volksfees. Van Zyl ran to the newspapers, claiming that she and Roodt were victims of censorship, and conveniently scapegoating the two people involved in the objection who would generate the most publicity for the Woordfees. Her choice of platform is also telling, in that she chose the two forums that would be most susceptible to a knee-jerk reaction against two "notorious" "opstokers". Arrie Rossouw, in his Burger editorial of 22 February, played the same game. Following Van Zyl's and Rossouw's sensationalist approach to the issue the sentiments of the letter writers were predictable.

As for the comparison with the Fischer debate, there are fundamental differences. Fischer gave his life for an inclusive South Africa. Roodt fights for a bigoted minority. Fischer is a hero to the majority of South Africans. Roodt is deeply offensive to the majority of South Africans. Stellenbosch University voted on the decision to award an honorary degree to Fischer. The decision to invite Roodt was made by a few people, apparently because Van Zyl thought it would draw crowds. She has the publicity that she wanted, but for all the wrong reasons.



LitNet: 24 February 2005

Klik hier en sluit aan by ons nuusbrieflys vir jou weeklikse dosis oemf! Klik hier om die nuutste nuusbrief te sien

Wil jy reageer op hierdie debat? Stuur kommentaar na webvoet@litnet.co.za om die gesprek verder te voer op SêNet, ons interaktiewe meningsruimte.

boontoe

© Kopiereg in die ontwerp en inhoud van hierdie webruimte behoort aan LitNet, uitgesluit die kopiereg in bydraes wat berus by die outeurs wat sodanige bydraes verskaf. LitNet streef na die plasing van oorspronklike materiaal en na die oop en onbeperkte uitruil van idees en menings. Die menings van bydraers tot hierdie werftuiste is dus hul eie en weerspieël nie noodwendig die mening van die redaksie en bestuur van LitNet nie. LitNet kan ongelukkig ook nie waarborg dat hierdie diens ononderbroke of foutloos sal wees nie en gebruikers wat steun op inligting wat hier verskaf word, doen dit op hul eie risiko. Media24, M-Web, Ligitprops 3042 BK en die bestuur en redaksie van LitNet aanvaar derhalwe geen aanspreeklikheid vir enige regstreekse of onregstreekse verlies of skade wat uit sodanige bydraes of die verskaffing van hierdie diens spruit nie. LitNet is ’n onafhanklike joernaal op die Internet, en word as gesamentlike onderneming deur Ligitprops 3042 BK en Media24 bedryf.