South African Sentenced To Two Years For Racist Comments

download-1We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).  Even the Home Secretary has been accused of hate speech for criticizing immigrant workers.  South Africa now appears to have crossed the Rubicon of speech criminalization with a two-year sentence for a white woman, Vicki Momberg, who espoused racist statements in a confrontation with a police officer. The prosecution is being heralded as the start of a new era for speech prosecutions.


This is the first time for such a sentencing and, if history is any guide, it will not likely be the last as the appetite for speech criminalization increases.

Deputy Justice Minister John Jeffery declared “For too long people have been able to say appalling things and get away effectively with a slap on the wrist.”  Jeffery and others are now able to imprison all those people saying “appalling things” until everyone with appalling views are safely locked away.


64 thoughts on “South African Sentenced To Two Years For Racist Comments”

  1. if a South African, who is white, emigrates to America, must I refer to him or her as a “South-African-African-American”? Or does African-American suffice?

  2. In theory, neo-nazis should welcome state oppression because it establishes the authority of the state to act against private expression of politically incorrect ideas. a German rock band that was declared illegal, found notoriety by virtue of being persecuted by the German antifreespeech authority.

    In Germany, they have no problem locking up heretics. Never have! Just the authority has changed, that’s all.

    I hear in Germany if you accuse the government of being an American puppet regime that will get you in trouble too. Imagine that! 70 some years after the war, how could such a thing be true?

    take a look at the two biggest dots on this map. These are the vanquished of WWII. I think. Maybe not? I mean it was 70 plus years ago! What kind of idiot would imagine the victorious Americans had used the war to establish a global empire? Sounds like some commie Russian fake news eh?

  3. Hmmmm, will this wonderful new law apply equally to its Caucasian and African citizens? At some point, the entire country will be incarcerated. Perhaps it will be an enormous pubic works program, building all of the new prisons…

    Racism is ugly. People will encounter rudeness, racism, chauvinism, political elitism, bias, bigotry, and all sorts of highly unpleasant things in their lives. Everyone is supposed to learn what to do when faced with bad behavior, and how to move on about your life.

    There is a difference between discriminatory practices that affect your employment, real estate, or otherwise interferes with your life. Otherwise, it’s just your everyday rudeness. How many times do police officers here in the US get called racist taunts if they are white, or are called pigs? For some, it’s a daily basis. Can you imagine how many people they would arrest if offense was criminal?

  4. Everyone should look up “George Carlin’s 7 Dirty Words” on Carlin shows how impossible and counter-productive censorship really is. It can’t be done successfully.

    1. It was done successfully for generations before George Carlin ever existed. You, Carlin, and Edward de Grazia bought into the notion that something is valueless if you can lampoon it. Well, you can lampoon your father. It would have been condign punishment for both de Grazia and Carlin if their children had taken their implicit argument to heart.

      What Robert Bork said: freedom of speech is a value that derives from democratic processes. Speech and the press traffick in words which implicate reason. The notion of ‘free speech’ has been degraded by identifying it with nude dancing at the Kitty Kat Lounge.

  5. ‘Scuse me, but who owns this situation? That’s right: the legal profession, educational apparatchiks, faculties, and HR functionaries. You go out of your way to be ‘collegial’ to two or three of these four segments, which makes you part of the problem.

  6. They love da racist talk round here. Sqekkky and CV get gold stars.

  7. Just what does the law state in South Africa, which has a more recent unhappy past than the USA?

  8. Thanks to the flux capicitor, I was able to retrieve an article that Jon Turley would write on April 9, 2027:

    We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the United States, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Serbia, Portugal, Greece, Romania, and Italy. See here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and . . .

    At this point, I noted that Mr. Turley’s article suddenly and inexplicably stopped in mid-sentence. I then reset the flux capicitor to April 10, 2027 to see if I could find out what happened. I found the following article as reported in the New York Times:

    Famed legal analyst and blogger Jonathan Turley, Esq. was arrested yesterday for discussing freedom of speech, which is now considered to be hate speech and oppressive to those who do not share Mr. Turley’s vision of what constitutes acceptable speech. Mr. Turley’s website will be shut down indefinitely, pending his trial.

    Mr. Truley has engaged Michael Avenutti as his attorney to defend against the hate speech charges. Mr. Avenutti, who, perhaps, is best known for his representation in 2018 and 2019 of Stephanie Clifford, an exotic actress who went by the name of Stormy Daniels, stated “We intend to vigorously defend against these baseless charges.”

    However, shortly after Mr. Avenutti made this statement during a press conference, he was also arrested and charged with hate speech. Both attorneys are now facing a maximum fine of $5,700, jail terms not to exceed two years, and temporary suspensions of their law licenses, as first time offenders.

    1. LOL

      postscript: Oddly — as inventor of the legal theory that if one doesn’t sue, the charges must be true — Mr. Turley has yet to file an action in defamation.

    1. As the head of a company I’m invested in north of SA told me, they wish to see Ruin just keep up this Racist type crap & white investors will all pull their capital Out of Africa and they will Stave!

      1. I knew a guy from South Africa — back in 1976. He was here in Cleveland, establishing citizenship and trying to help his apparently-very-wealthy family get their assets out of South Africa. The problem they were having was that there weren’t a lot of buyers out their wanting to purchase assets in South Africa.
        Seems like that would also be the situation now. People could pull out their liquid assets, but they’d likely have to leave everything else behind as a write off.

      1. The usual way but not from this band of racist land grabbers and not by this band of farmers. Shall we right every historical wrong through blood shed?

        1. That seems to be the usual way. I listened to some tapes of the white farmers having a pity party describing their persecution because they are white. Have they forgotten apartheid so quickly?
          There should be a peaceful solution and I’m sure there are details of which I’m unaware but their “right” to the land may be tenuous.

          1. It’s no more or less tenuous than anyone else’s right to a piece of real estate. The establishment of land titles is a social process and one crucial to economic development.

      2. Why didn’t you ask from whom? White farmers are thickest on the ground in the Western Cape and Northern Cape. All but a tiny minority of the black population of South Africa is Bantu. The Bantu are not indigenous to the Western and Northern Cape and were not present there when Dutch and French settlers began colonizing South Africa in 1652. Even today, Bantu are a minority in the Western Cape. The Africans there in 1652 were Khoi-San tribes who are the ancestors of South Africa’s Coloured population. By and large, South Africa’s Coloureds are part of the political opposition and don’t vote for the ANC.

          1. Stolen from whom? How far you wanna take this? Again, Bantu settled in the Transvaal, Natal, and the Eastern Cape and in so doing displaced….Khoi-san populations. So, what do we do? Take all the land and redistribute it to South Africa’s Coloureds, to the Reheboth Basters, to the Bushmen &c.?

              1. You need to read more carefully. It appears that whole area of land was not tightly controlled as property is now. Transient populations appeared to be the norm here. What’s the confusion?

              2. So your argument is basically, yes they stole it but it would be unfair to redistribute the land except to the original owners?

                Which ‘they’ do you have in mind? And what do you intend to accomplish with all this?

                1. I’m responding to a comment about the injustice being done to the poor white farmers in South Africa. My “goal” is to suggest another point of view that their property was only theirs because their predecessors did to others what they think so unjust now.

                  1. Well, yes. They buy land, they hire workers, they plant crops, they harvest crops and sell them. Rinse repeat. Now someone proposes to take their land and hand it over to Bantu who never occupied the area and who haven’t their skill set either. No clue why anyone would be irritated with that.

                    You haven’t told me what you expect to accomplish with this folderol.

                    1. I keep asking you if you’ve thought of applying this principle generally. It’s actually the negation of property rights. What do you attempt to accomplish with that?

                  2. Along those lines, I guess you’ve researched which nomadic native American population inhabited your area so you can hand over your property to them? Maybe they can hand it over to whatever pre-homo sapien occupier was there before them?

                    1. Well, you might ask what was the marginal increment by which aboriginal incomes were reduced by the presence of the white man and then reconceptualize that as a lump sum.

    2. Those are property rights. Making the case for property rights is status lowering on law faculties and only outre characters like Richard Epstein do it.

    1. In America, they just call it Eminent Domain. Not always a Republican tool, Trump wasn’t a Republican when he tried to use it to get rid of an elderly woman to make room to park limousines, It is a tool of the rich to take what they want, now used to support developers with political juice.

      1. The purpose of Eminent Domain is to assemble land parcels to construct public works. In recent decades, shizzy municipal governments have tried to make use of it to provide open space for ‘economic development’ payola projects. It’s not yet been used to simply redistribute assets from unfavored parties to favored parties.

        1. Google; Trump, eminent domain, limousine parking.
          Replace the word “assets” with votes and you’ve accurately described Republican redistricting and gerrymandering. (Not that Democrats haven’t done it as well but R’s have taken it to a whole new level).

          1. Google; Trump, eminent domain, limousine parking.

            I’m familiar with that situation. What of it? Trump once suggested eminent domain seizure to clear a blockage on an economic development project ergo mass seizures of agricultural property in South Africa are all good?

            Replace the word “assets” with votes and you’ve accurately described Republican redistricting and gerrymandering. (Not that Democrats haven’t done it as well but R’s have taken it to a whole new level).

            The notion that gerrymandering has been ‘taken to a whole new level’ has no reality outside of the space between your ears and you haven’t a clue as to what that even means.

                1. I see you dismissing the rightful claim that Republicans have taken gerrymandering and redistricting to a whole new level. You ignoring it does not make it untrue.

                  1. Excuse me, but the fact that you can use your computer to type the character string ‘taken to a whole new level’ establishes nothing at all. You can’t even define your terms.

                    1. Your screen name is apt, you indeed are insufferable. I can define the terms gerrymandering, redistricting and voter suppression and translate it to the millions of disenfranchised voters. That you claim not to understand is more a reflection on you.

                    2. There is no voter suppression and gerrymandering is an antique practice. You keep alluding to some sort of super-duper gerrymandering you never define (because it doesn’t exist).

        2. Hey, DSS. OT, but what HTML code are you using for strikethroughs?

          1. Between the brackets, you write ‘strike’ at the opening and ‘/strike’ at the close.

            1. Got it. Many thanks.
              And good luck getting our enigmatic friend to back up his statements. He just changes them around. Much luck a slippery fish – you just can’t get hold of it.

    2. Already here. Some black demo in Texas was sentenced to 5 years for voting illegally while da rich white affluent repub guy got 1 year for killin 4 people while driving drunk you.

      1. Texas was sentenced to 5 years for voting illegally

        She was on parole subsequent to a felony conviction for tax fraud.

        da rich white affluent repub guy got 1 year for killin 4 people while driving drunk you.

        If it was not the same judge, why is this of interest, David? And what gave you the idea he was registered to vote?

        1. I seriously doubt he was registered, or took any interest at all in politics. He was 16 when he killed those people while driving drunk, and EVERYONE considered his light sentence an outrage.
          Ken is either stupid or disingenuous.

          1. “. . .and EVERYONE considered his light sentence an outrage.”

            Except his mother, of course; so not everyone.

            Ken enjoys how few words are required to point out obtuseness.

            1. What’s obtuse? He’s comparing a federal parole violator sentenced by a real judge (who had a previous felony conviction) to a juvenile sentenced by a social worker manque who was retiring from state court and no longer had a regard for appearances. The comparison is stupid.

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: