It was 1759 when French philosopher Voltaire penned his classic novel: Candide. In a town of Eldorado in Peru fortified against European invasion and the ultimate capture, a 172-year-old wiseman familiarizing Candide and his valet, Cacambo, told them of his location:
“My friends, we are all of us priests; the king, and the heads of each family, sing their songs of thanksgiving every morning, accompanied by five or six thousand musicians.“ Cocambo said, “What!” alarmed. The old man continued, “[w]e are all of us of the same opinion, here, and we don’t understand what do you mean by clerics.“
Candide, the illegitimate nephew of a German baron and journeyer in search of purpose and his sweetheart – the baron’s young daughter, he replied:
“This place is vastly different from Westphalia, and my lord the Baron’s castle If our friend Pangloss had seen Eldorado, he would never have maintained, that nothing upon earth could surpass the castle of Thunder-ten-tronckh. It is plain that everybody should travel.“
The defamation case brought by the Minister of Public Enterprises Pravin Gordhan against Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema, respondent, was “dismissed with costs” by the Johannesburg High Court Judge Roland Sunderland Thursday Oct. 31, 2019.
The verdict was crystal clear: Malema was absolved from hate or defamatory speech by the Equality Court in Johannesburg. It is a victory for his party and EFF supporters are already lapping it up while the sun still brightly shines.
Legally, he won the case. Gordhan lost the litigation with costs. The case was ignited by Malema in one of his no-holds-barred speeches in November 2018 a distance away from the “Zondo Commission” – an investigation on the architecture of state plunder chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Judge Raymond Zondo – where he had uttered among other things that Gordhan is a “dog of White monopoly Capital”.
The White monopoly Capital phrase is associated with dominant corporate SA unwilling to open up business opportunities in the economy, embrace transformation and share the business yields with the majority of the citizens [“Blacks”] but selfishly guard the interests of privileged minority whom judged Sunderland referred to as “Whites” and truly continue profiteering for these shareholders.
However, the contentious phrase was not the one that led the duo to court. It was the “dog” bit that got Gordhan hot under the collar. On that account, the minister set out for a legal dispute.
Judge Sunderland says Malema’s use of “dog” was “metaphorical”. On the words “there will be casualties” and “loss of life” the judge referred to these as “allusion” of:
“an extravagant juvenile rant stretching hyperbole to the extreme in the course of a demonstrably demagogic speech. Its function was to proclaim the speaker as brave and steadfast in the face of any foe however mighty and that the space to stand at his right hand is reserved only for the sturdiest of fellows.”
In informal settings metaphors are rife in this country. The word “dog” is associated with a paragon, hero, guru, a mastermind, if you like, of a particular course.
For this reason, to call someone a “dog” – not to be taken literally – is not demeaning in itself. It merely says the person referred to is a leader in a specified field. That is all.
The whole minister took offense nonetheless. Of course, his interpretation can also be understood from his previous ructions with the EFF firebrand. Therefore, he might have substituted rationale and went down emotional lane on this one.
Although (erudite and top) lawyers were involved, this lawsuit, on meritocracy grounds to precise, passes as a minor distraction.
In the dusty or tarred streets, walkways and corridors, stokvels and braai jamborees, in sports and all that jazz, striking therein is that South Africans are a diverse lot. Not only that but abuzz with culture, broad languages and attendant nuances, dialects and inflections. Street jargon does not follow the pedestrian rules and decorum of formal lexicon. But it can be confusing for an outsider, especially if taken at phase value.
That being so, as a result of this judgment and others in the same realm it is evident that colloquial speak is alive in South Africa. The court of law has affirmed its gravitas in society yesterday. As far as freedom of speech goes, citizens of this country will busk in its sanctuary curved on the Republic’s Constitution for generations henceforth.
What to say of the tit for tat in court around the use of colloquial language/s dominant in the colourful streets of South Africa? Well, Voltaire of 1759 has a stern and rich reminder: “It is plain that everybody should travel.”