CASE NUMBER: 13/2010

DATE OF HEARING: 10 JUNE 2010

VRYHEIDSFRONT PLUS AND OTHERS COMPLAINANTS

vs

e-tv RESPONDENT

TRIBUNAL: PROF HP VILJOEN (DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON) MS Z MBOMBO MS M NKWANE PROF G OLIVIER

Complainant: Adv A Alberts and Clr Franco de Lange of the Vryheidsfront Plus.

Respondent: Attorneys Dan Rosengarten and David Feinberg, presenter Debra Patta, Complaints Executive Bop Tshweu, Devon Koen, Jnr Producer, 3rd Degree ______

Complaints about programme investigating racial relations in , especially on the campus of the University- matter settled through negotiations between the parties- complaints withdrawn -Vryheidsfront Plus & Others vs e-tv, Case No: 13/2010(BCTSA). ______SUMMARY

This matter dealt with complaints about a “3rd Degree” programme investigating racial relations in South Africa, especially on the campus of the Free State 2

University. The matter was settled through negotiations between the parties and the complaints were withdrawn. ______

JUDGMENT

PROF HP VILJOEN

[1] Various complaints were received from the and others after the broadcasting of a “3rd Degree” programme during which the state of racial relations in South Africa and especially on the campus of the Free State University was investigated. The BCCSA received the following complaints.

[2] Vryheidsfront Plus: INSAKE: KLAGTE TEEN e.TV, die Vervaardigers van die aktualiteitsprogram ‘3rd Degree’ en me Deborah Patta, die joernalis en aanbieder van die Program

Die Vryheidsfront Plus van Suid Afrika wil hiermee ‘n formele klag teen bogenoemde partye (die “Verweerders”) lê, spesifiek soos hieronder uiteengesit.

1. Uitsaai Inligting:

1.1. Program: 3rd Degree 1.2. Kanaal: e.TV 1.3. Dag: Dinsdag 25 Mei 2010 1.4. Tyd: 21:30

2. Feite:

Die Program het gehandel oor rasse-verhoudinge in Suid-Afrika.

Die VF Plus se klag het spesifiek betrekking op die insetsel rakende die studente politiek op die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) kampus en in dié verband plaas ons ‘n spesifieke klem op die behandeling van die VF Plus studenteleier van die UV kampus en vise-president van die Studenteraad, me Chrisna De Kock (hierna die “Student”), deur die joernalis, me Deborah Patta (hierna die “Joernalis”).

Daar dien daarop gelet te word dat die Joernalis en haar span by die UV kampus opgedaag het met plakkate wat by verskeie plekke op die kampus ten toon gestel is. Hierdie plakkate was van twee tipes, naamlik 3

een wat gelees het “Proud to be Black” en ‘n ander wat gelees het “Proud to be White”. Hierdie plakkate se tentoonstelling het die onderhoude voorafgegaan.

Daar dien ook daarop gelet te word dat die UV kampus die afgelope twee jaar deur ‘n polities onstuimige tydperk gegaan het weens rassepolarisasie. Die situasie het egter heelwat verbeter tot en met die Joernalis en haar span die tersaaklike onderhoude kom voer het.

3. Klagte:

Die Uitsaaikode van toepassing in casu is die Gratis Lugtydkode. Daar dien daarop gelet te word dat hierdie dokument bloot die klagtes uiteensit en dat verdere argumente ter stawing voor die verhoor geliasseer sal word. Derhalwe, in terme van hierdie Kode word die volgende klagtes teen die Verweerders as volg gevestig:

3.1. Artikel 14 – Geweld

Ar tikel 14(ii) verbied, onder andere, dat geweld gesanksioneer en gepromoveer mag word. In dié verband is die grondslag van die klag as volg:

3.1.1. Die Joernalis het die UV kampus genader met vooropgestelde idees en met die bedoeling om ‘n sensitiewe omgewing te polariseer en rassegroepe teen mekaar af te speel wat blyk gemotiveer te wees uit ‘n behoefte om sensasionele TV-materiaal te skep;

3.1.2. Die Joernalis het die Student genader met verkeerde (wat sou dui op naltigheid) en/of vals inligting (wat sou dui op ‘n opsetsbewussyn) tot haar beskikking en met ‘n bevooroordeelde houding wat nie daarop gerig was om die waarheid te vind en weer te gee nie;

3.1.3. Die Joernalis het intimiderend, aggressief en neerbuigend teenoor die Student opgetree;

3.1.4. Die Joernalis het die Student geisoleer deur haar te omring met studente wat nie noodwendig haar standpunte deel nie;

3.1.5. Die Joernalis het nie die Student genoegsame geleentheid gegee om haar standpunt te verdedig nie deur haar kort- kort haar op ‘n aggressiewe wyse te onderbreek;

3.1.6. Sy het die student tot so ‘n mate geteister en geintimideer dat sy die Student tot trane gedwing het;

4

3.1.7. Die vervaardiger het die Program met bogenoemde inhoud saamgestel; en

3.1.8. e.TV het die intimiderende en dreigende onderhoud uitgesaai;derhalwe het die Verweerders by wyse van emosionele teistering, intimidasie en aggressie, vanaf ‘n bevooroordeelde ingesteldheid, emosionele geweld teenoor die Student gepleeg en sodoende ook geweld gesanksioneer en gepromoveer. Ons submiteer in die verband dat geweld nie fisies hoef te wees nie, net soos die strafregtelike misdryf van ‘aanranding’ nie fisies hoef te wees nie.

3.2. Artikel 15 – Geweld teen Vroue

Artikel 15(i) verbied, onder andere, die sanksionering en promovering van geweld teen vroue. Soos bo uiteengesit, het die Verweerders emosionele geweld toegepas op die vroulike Student en ook die Program so saamgestel en uitgesaai, en sodoende geweld teen vroue gesanksioneer en gepromoveer.

Die oortreding word nog verder beaam deur die vriendelike en rustige wyse waarop die ander manlike studenteleier deur die Joernalis behandel is.

3.3. Artikel 16 – Geweld en Haatspraak teen Spesifieke Groepe

Artikel 15(i) verbied, onder andere, die sanksionering en promovering van geweld gebaseer op, onder andere, ras, nasionaliteit, etniese oorsprong, kleur ens. Ons submiteer dat:

3.3.1. Die Joernalis se bevooroordeeldheid en feite-dwalings en/of opsetlike leuens ten aansien van rassisme teenoor die Student en die Vryheidsfront Plus as politieke party wat Afrikaners verteenwoordig;

3.3.2. Die Joernalis se intimiderende, aggressiewe en neerbuigende houding jeens die Student as ‘n lid van die Afrikanergemeenskap en as persoon wat stry vir die veilige en vreedsame voortbestaan van dié minderheidsgroep binne Suid-Afrika;

3.3.3. Deur die toepassing van emosionele geweld teenoor die Student as ‘n lid van die Afrikanergemeeskap; en

3.3.4. In die lig van die ander faktore bo vermeld, die Verweerders geweld en teen Afrikaners op grond van ras, 5

en etniese oorsprong gepleeg, gesanksioneer en gepromoveer het.

Verder, ingevolge Artikel 16.3(c) word uitsaaiers verbied om programme uit te saai wat haat promoveer op grond van ras, etnisiteit ens, en wat aanhitsing tot geweld daarstel. Ons submiteer dat weens die faktore vermeld in Artikels 14, 15 en 16, en die feit dat Afrikaners wat die VF Plus ondersteun getipeer word as rassisties en onverdraagsaam en hulle dus uitgesonder word vir intimiderende gedrag en aggressie, soos vergestalt deur die Joernalis, die Verweerders wel ook hierdie artikel verbeek. Die Verweerders skep die oorwegende indruk dat dit in orde sou wees om Afrikaners met minagting, sielkundige geweld en selfs uiteindelik fisieke geweld te straf.

3.4. Artikel 35 – Kommentaar

Artikel 35(ii) vereis dat kommentaar gebaseer sal word op ‘n eerlike uitdrukking van opinie, en dat dit duidelik as kommentaar getipeer word, en laastens dat dit gebaseer word op feite.

Gegewe die volgende:

3.4.1. Dat die Joernalis met ‘n voorafopgestelde plan van polarisasie ter wille van sensasie die onderhoude op die UV kampus kom voer het;

3.4.2. Dat die Joernalis die Student kort-kort onderbreek het sodat die ander kant van die saak nie aangehoor kon word nie;

3.4.3. Dat die Joernalis die Student sodanig geintimideer en emosioneel geteister het dat die Student begin huil het en die ander kant van die saak derhalwe nie aangehoor kon word nie;

3.4.4. Dat die Joernalis op onware inligting staatgemaak het soos, onder andere, dat die VF Plus ‘n rassistiese politieke party is en dus by implikasie ‘n party is wat contra die beginsels van die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika bestaan en funksioneer, asook dat al sy lede rassiste is;

3.4.5. Dat die Joernalis in die algemeen alle grense van behoorlike joernalistieke etiek oorskry het;submiteer ons dat die Joernalis se uitdrukking van opinie oneerlik was én dat dit gebaseer was op onware inligting.

6

3.5. Artikel 36 – Kontroversiele Kwessies van Publieke Belang

Artikel 36.1 stel dit dat in die bespreking van kontroversiele kwessies van publieke belang, dit belangrik is dat opponerende opinies verkry word. Voorts stel Artikel 36.2 dit dat wanneer iemand se sieninge in ‘n program gekritiseer word, daardie persoon ‘n reg tot repliek het om haar.sy kant van die saak te stel.

Gegewe die volgende:

3.5.1. Dat die Joernalis die Student kort-kort onderbreek het sodat die ander kant van die saak nie aangehoor kon word nie;

3.5.2. Dat die Joernalis die Student sodanig geintimideer en emosioneel geteister het dat die Student begin huil het en die ander kant van die saak derhalwe nie behoorlik aangehoor kon word nie;het die Verweerders Artikel 36.2 verbreek.

3.6. Artikel 38 – Privaatheid (Eer/Integriteit(Dignitas))

Artikel 38 bepaal dat insoverre dit nuus en kommentaar betref, daar besondere versigtigheid aan die dag gelê moet word in sake rakende die eer en privaatheid van individue.

Gegewe die volgende:

3.6.1. Dat die Joernalis, gebaseer op feite-dwalings en/of opsetlike leuens, die Student as ‘n rassis getipeer het;

3.6.2. Dat die Joernalis nie die Student ‘n behoorlike geleentheid gegee het om te reageer en haar saak te stel nie;

3.6.3. Dat die Joernalis haar posisie van mag misbruik het om die Student te intimideer en tot trane te dryf; het die Verweerders, sonder enige gronde, die eer en integriteit van die Student aangetas.

3.7. Algemeen

Ons wil dit ook duidelik stel dat, alhoewel die Kode nie spesifiek daarna verwys as ‘n klag-grondslag nie, dat ons die Joernalis se optrede en die vervaardiging van die Progam, asook die uitsaai daarvan, beskou as ‘n algehele oorskryding van joernalistieke etiek en ‘n growwe skending van me De Kock, Afrikaners en die VF Plus se regte soos beliggaam in Hoofstuk 2 van die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika.

7

Ons versoek derhalwe dat u hierdie klagtes sal vestig en vertrou dat hierdie saak u spoedige aandag sal geniet.

J Moulder: “Regarding the program 3rd degree presented on the 25th of May 2010 on issues. As a South African who is very concerned about the polarization that is occurring at a terrible rate in this country (it seems to be gathering momentum each day) I feel that it is my responsibility to speak out and view my opinion on this matter.It was very obvious that Deborah Patta was out to provoke the white student by calling her a racist, however the same question was not put to other students from other race groups, therefore the white student was depicted as a racist. That hardly seems fair. This tactic used by a supposedly professional journalist to boost ratings through sensationalism is both irresponsible and disgusting. I do not have a problem with journalists addressing these important issues, but I do have a problem with obvious racist actions by people with hidden agendas (reminds me of ) to propel careers. As a new South African trying my best to be a human being and not a colour I take offense at the way race and any other card is used to flare up emotions in South Africa between different cultural groups. I would like to request that Deborah Patta publicly apologize to a fellow South African (the lady called a racist in afore mentioned program) for her poor judgement and insulting behaviour, which she might believe is press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression or whatever she might call it to justify what she does. Every person in this country with half a brain and a semi descent upbringing knows that she suffers from a serious case of self inflated importance and bad taste, not to mention her obvious lack of manners. It is my opinion that Deborah Patta did not act in a professional, free and fair fashion whilst interviewing the student. It might be best if she attend a course in cultural diversity, mutual respect and common decency before she appears before her fellow South Africans again.”

T Coetzee: “I herewith submit a formal claim towards the broadcasting of Third Degree on 25 May 2010 where Debra Patta interviewed a young white lady at the University. What upsets me the most is the shit attitude that Patta had towards the lady accusing her of rassism and not giving her any chance to talk. The lady broke down in tears and only then Patta started to talk to her in a civilised matter. Patta has an unacceptable aggressive attitude. She accuses white people of rassism and when she interviewed the black people she was calmly talking to them. Patta needs to understand one thing...she does not help anybody by having such an attitude. She only upsets the nation even more by her accusations. She needs to show some respect because the lady she had an interview with was at no time funny towards Patta or had an attitude with regards to the questions Patta asked. I would gladly appreciate it if Patta goes back to this lady and apo logise for humiliating her on national TV. This matter should be raised as a concern and not be left unattended. You need to take this lady off from such discussions. We as a white nation already needs to stand under the accusations of racism even if we walk down the street and look at something or someone.”

A van der Plaats: I wish to complain about the attitude of reporter Debora Patta regarding racism in her programs 3rd Degree on the e-TV channel. 8

Whilst I appreciate the investigative nature of this 3rd Degree program I have serious concerns about, slanted, racism in this program.

Me Patta has a very definitive racial slant against any White and especially against Afrikaans speaking interviewees.

This came to the extreme fore during a recent reportage about i) the report regarding the issues around the murdering of Eugene Terre’ Blanche ii) racism at the University of the OFS (U OFS) and iii) a subsequent broadcast supposedly to be a follow-up on the report about the situation at the U OFS.

During the first program at the U OFS she portrayed the white students as being extreme racists and through her intrusive behavior drove one of her interviewees to tears. During the follow -up program that was supposed to show whether there was black racism this was portrayed in such a manner as to give the impression that there is little or no black racism at the U OFS. With black and white racism rampant in the RSA, this is quite unbelievable and essentially untruthful and therefore contradicts the requirements of being a signatory to the Code of Conduct with BCCSA regarding racism and programs that must be true.

Me Patta has the extremely annoying habit of asking question and then not allowing the interviewees enough time to respond before asking the next intrusive question. This is very, very rude in any society. This firing of questions (of a racist nature) and not allowing the interviewee to respond is especially prevalent when Me Patta is interviewing white interviewees and even more so when the interviewees are Afrikaans speaking.

Me Patta and e-TV needs to i) Apologize in public for Me Patta’s behavior and also on the program 3 rd Degree ii) Look at the content of their programs before broadcasting. iii) Be penalized in some way or another for transgressing the code of conduct that they are signatories to.

[3] At the start of the hearing, the chairperson encouraged Messrs Alberts and Rosengarten, the legal representatives of the complainants and the broadcaster, respectively, to engage in discussions with a view to try and settle the matter. The Tribunal then adjourned. After what appeared to be intense negotiations, we were requested to convene again and the representatives announced that they had reached a settlement. Part of the settlement, we were informed, was that the complainants would withdraw their complaints while the broadcaster undertook to 9

broadcast an apology at a later stage, the contents of which was not disclosed to us.

[4] As that part of the settlement agreement that was disclosed to us seemed reasonable, we decided that there was no further matter to be adjudicated by us regarding this complaint and the Tribunal adjourned.

In the result the matter was settled and the complaints were withdrawn.

PROF HP VILJOEN DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON