Here we go...take a deep breath!
After almost 3 years, the original Commissioner who was so fired up about the issues, resigns; the new commissioner, after a personal interview & a suggestion to call in Mr Pretorius and resolve the matter directly (to which I had no objection), this is the email they sent me. I have replied to them. Suffice to say, 2 different interpretations and approaches altogether; also, some of the points made are incorrect.
I am not appealing the decision to waste everyone's time.
17 September 2009
MR HANIFF MANJOO
P.O. Box 1140
CROWN MINES
2025
Per Email: hola@telkomsa.net
Dear Sir
RE: YOUR COMPLAINT AGAINST MR CHARL PRETORIUS
We refer to the above matter and in particular to the consultation held between the writer, our Ms Danaline Franzman and yourself on 5 August 2009.
We confirm that the essence of your complaint is as follows:
1. The respondent had published a number of articles in the online newspaper, Sporting Post, as well as on africabettingclan.com, which articles you perceive to be hate speech promulgated against yourself.
2. You accordingly demanded that the respondent furnish you with an apology, and in this regard your complaint stipulated certain conditions to the formulation of the apology.
3. The respondent, with the assistance of his legal representatives, complied and accordingly acknowledged unconditionally that his comment had been hurtful and that it may have been perceived to perpetuate racial prejudices. For this the respondent unequivocally and sincerely apologised.
4. The public apology was posted on
www.freeracer.co.za
.
During the aforementioned meeting you informed the Commission that the respondent had allegedly, subsequent to the rendering of the apology, proceeded to make further statements online, against you, which statements included references to “barbarians” and “terrorist”.
We confirm further that you had, subsequent to the aforementioned consultation, furnished the Commission with the alleged further derogatory comments/statements made by respondent.
The litigation unit accordingly proceeded to peruse and consider the alleged further derogatory comments/statements, and wish to record our observations as follows:
1. We could find no reference, by the respondent, to the terms “barbarians” and/or “terrorist”.
2. The exchange of correspondence between yourself, the respondent and other users/readers appear to be a mere expression of opinions by different users/readers, to the article which appeared on sahorseracing.com.
3. There appears to be no direct or indirect reference to you, by the respondent, when the respondent comments, makes statements or expresses his opinion, which appears to be of a general nature, about the article in question.
4. As you are familiar with the identity of the respondent, you appear to have solely focused on the respondent’s comments, this despite the fact that other users/readers had also expressed their “un-favourable” opinions against said article.
5. By referring to the complaint which has been lodged with the Commission, by yourself, you in fact unequivocally identified yourself, and of your own accord inferred reference to yourself in respect of the comments/statements made by the respondent.
6. It appears to be common knowledge, from statements made online by another user/reader that other users/readers are aware of the complaint lodged with the Commission, and more specifically, are aware of the fact that you are seeking compensation, although not for yourself, from the respondent.
7. You had identified himself as the person to whom the respondent allegedly referred.
In the circumstances, and based on the aforementioned observations, it is our opinion that there has been no violation of your rights, specifically in light of the fact that the respondent had furnished the apology as per your request, and we can find no basis for your inference that further subsequent statements made by the respondent is with reference to you. It is our further opinion that should this matter proceed to the Equality Court, that you would have difficulty in proving that the respondent was in fact referring to you when making the statements/comments or expressing his opinion, as the respondent, even when the question was posed by “Adios Bookies”, namely, “could it be hanif manjoo?”, merely responded by saying “Not a bad guess Id say.”. This in itself does not prove confirmation or admission by the respondent of any reference to you. In order to therefore overcome said hurdle, you would have to furnish evidence which would substantiate your allegation that the statements/comments or expression of opinion by the respondent was directed at you, failing which your case will be dismissed by the Equality Court.
We are therefore of the further opinion that we are unable to proceed further in this matter, having concluded that there has been no violation of your rights, and that the file is therefore to be closed.
Should you however, wish to pursue the matter in the Equality Court, you are at liberty to do so on your own accord.
Should you, however, wish to appeal this decision, you may do so by noting an appeal, in writing, and by furnishing full reasons why your appeal should succeed, to the Chairperson of the Commission, at the under-mentioned address, within 45 (Forty Five) days of receipt of this letter.
The Chairperson
Corner St Andrews and York Streets
Parktown
Johannesburg
2198
Or
Private Bag X 2700
Houghton
2041
Tel No: (011) 484 8300
Fax No: (011) 484 0582 (for the attention of Mr PandelisGregorius)
Yours faithfully
Zena Nair (Mrs)
Legal Officer: Litigation
Topic Author
