Justice 12 years delayed: Jon Qwelane hate speech case to be heard in Constitutional Court on 22 September 21 September 2020 PsySSA is the professional body representing psychology and psychologists in South Africa. The case against Jon Qwelane was brought forward by the SA Human Rights Commission. Moshidi J dismissed Mr Qwelanes application. After almost a decade, Jon Qwelane has been found guilty of hate speech and of violating the Equality Act. In April 2011, Qwelane was found guilty of hate speech, but was not present at the default judgment because of his job abroad. SETTLING THE HATE SPEECH QUESTION: JON QWELANE CASE IN COURT The long standing hate speech case of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) vs Jon Qwelane finally began on 06 March 2017 in the Johannesburg High court and is due to run until 17 March 2017. Qwelane had been found guilty of hate speech in 2017 following a newspaper column he wrote with the title Call me names, but gay is not okay which It should be recalled that following his hateful column, as if being rewarded, President Zuma appointed Mr Qwelane as South Africas Ambassador to Uganda in 2010. Qwelane's utterances are at last being examined legally to decide whether his insistence on his right to free expression has caused harm. On 22 September 2020, the Constitutional Court will hear the case of Jonathan Dubula Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another dealing with the subject matter of hate speech against LGBTI persons. The judgment in the Qwelane case removed the concept of hurt from South Africas hate speech laws and affirmed freedom of expression. In Qwelane is sticking to his guns. 1.6. EXPLAINER: Jon Qwelane hate speech case Download the EWN app to In dealing with issues of hate speech, any Jonathan Dubula Qwelane (10 September 1952 24 December 2020), known as Jon Qwelane, or by his initials JQ, was a South African journalist and broadcaster who also served as the country's ambassador to Uganda in the 2010s. Although former ambassador to Uganda Jon Qwelane is ill in hospital the High Court in Johannesburg has started hearing the hate speech case brought against him by To highlight the damaging effects that the discriminatory speech contained in Qwelanes article has on members of the LGBTI community in particular, and on society at large. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in the Jon Qwelane case removes the concept of hurt from SAs hate speech laws. Qwelane, a former high commissioner in Uganda, was found by the South Gauteng High Court to be guilty of hate speech in that he was hurtful, incited harm, propagated hatred and Columnist Jon Qwelane says he wholly agrees with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the hate speech case launched by the SA Human Rights Commission. However, we are dismayed that the judgment failed to uphold human rights and access to justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI+) communities in South Africa. The hate speech matter is now before the Constitutional Court for declaration. The South African Litigation Centre described Qwelanes column as the gold standard of hate speech and far from being protected speech which should never have been allowed. Columnist Jon Qwelane says he wholly agrees with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the hate speech case launched by the SA Human Rights Commission. Oppenheimer, quoting from a separate SCA judgment, said unless hate speech, incitement of imminent violence or propaganda for war as prohibited in section 16(2) of the constitution are involved, no one is entitled to be insulated Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) No organization has been more aggressively or justifiably pursued on the grounds of hate speech than the Ku Klux Klan, but the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named Clarence Brandenburg on criminal syndicalism charges, based on a KKK speech that recommended overthrowing the government, was overturned. This weeks further postponement of the case, eight years on, denies the seriousness of the impact of hate speech on LGBT people and on society at large. Case Summary and Outcome The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in South Africa held that a law prohibiting speech that is hurtful was an unjustifiable limitation of the right to freedom of expression. Columnist Jon Qwelane has applied to the Johannesburg High Court (sitting as Equality Court) for leave to appeal against Judge Moshidis judgment on August 18. In this case the right to free speech also requires protection while the Commission also protects dignity and the right to equality through enforcing the law against hate speech. PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH AFRICA (PsySSA) TO TESTIFY IN JON QWELANE HATE SPEECH CASE IN HIGH COURT NEXT WEEK PsySSA is amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a matter that concerns the contents of a newspaper article entitled Call me names, but gay is not ok, written by Jon Qwelane and published in the Sunday Sun on 20 July 2008. Veteran journalist Jon Qwelane will appear at the Constitutional Court today over his controversial column published in 2008 column titled Call me names but gay is The court a quo found the statements made by Mr Qwelane to be hurtful, to have incited harm and generated hatred and, therefore, the content constituted hate speech. Hate begets hate. The reason for his appointment was never clear, as his credentials did not extend much beyond being a newspaper columnist, and a bigot. It affirms freedom of On the eve of the court hearing, Qwelane presented himself in person at a police station in Dawn Park to commission an affidavit applying for a postponement. Section 10 deals with hate speech and section 11 with harassment. The Court of Appeal found that the section of the Equality Act under which he was found guilty is unconstitutional a ruling which must now be confirmed or rejected by the Constitutional Court. On Friday, in a case brought by the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the Johannesburg High Court ruled that Qwelanes 2008 Call me names, but gay is not okay article amounts to hate speech. Postponement of Qwelane Hate Speech Case, Eight Years Later, is a Denial of Justice The case was set down to be heard in the South Gauteng High Court over a two-week period, commencing on 29 August. Image: Robert Botha Former high commissioner to Uganda Jon Qwelane says he agrees with a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment passed in November 2019 which declared a section in the equality law to be by Harold Jacobs, Director and Dakalo Singo, Director On 22 September 2020, the Constitutional Court heard arguments in the case of Jonathan Dubula Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission & Another, the outcome of which is expected to redefine the landscape of hate speech complaints in South Africa. This case is of significance as in his defence, Mr Qwelane challenged the constitutionality of the provisions in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 4 of 2000 (Equality Act), which speak to hate *The ruling was passed down after this interview went to air and the court has ordered Qwelane The South African Litigation Centre described Qwelanes column as the gold standard of hate speech and far from being protected speech which should never have been allowed. He held, In Jonathan Dubula Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission, the Constitutional Court has to decide whether the hate speech provision is constitutional. The relevance of the case The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) declared the hate speech provision contained in section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (PEPUDA) to be The Hate Crimes Working Group (HCWG) has been eagerly awaiting judgment in the Jon Qwelane hate speech case that was recently heard before the Supreme Court of Appeal. It is critical that in making its determination, the court considers the nature and extent of the material harm caused by homophobic hate speech. The Constitutional Court is considering the decade-long case after the Supreme Court of Appeal in November last year overturned Qwelanes 2017 Johannesburg High Court hate speech conviction. Last Friday, the South Gauteng High Court delivered a long-awaited judgment in the hate speech case of journalist and political figure Jon Qwelane. 1.7. The judgment declared Qwelanes state Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not prohibit hate speech. The South African Litigation Centre described Qwelanes column as the gold standard of hate speech and far from being protected speech which should never have been allowed. Qwelane has been stalling ever since he was found guilty of hate speech, but last week he announced that he was challenging the constitutionality of the relevant PEPUDA provisions. Recent cases of racist hate speech, for example statements that likened black people to animals, have been dealt with far more swiftly by our courts, and rightfully so.