Black First Land First slogan found to be hate speech

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,672
Disgraceful finding. On the face of it there's nothing hateful about the slogan. It can be said with equal vigor and conviction by landowners.
There is everything hateful about the slogan given the other utterings of the retard who "leads" the organisation. The intention of the slogan is clear as day.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
29,164
But the SAHRC.....!
The SAHRC will be happy, because now the 'Apartheid Flag' and 'Slaan terug' topics can be addressed in court within the public interest. Stepping Stones.

Land or Death, there is no repercussions in any case. All the BLF have to do is to remove the slogan and submit a apology to the public in general (and not to those with land directly), and issue a new slogan. Nothing changes, other than setting a case to address other similar hot topics in court.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,037
There is everything hateful about the slogan given the other utterings of the retard who "leads" the organisation. The intention of the slogan is clear as day.
You're reading that into the statement.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,742
But I thought these rulings are always against whites... Where are the bleating serial whiners...
They have just proved that their methodology is completely inconsistent.

Malema made a very similar threat when she said that he isn't calling for whites to be killed for now.

This is why the only speech that should be regulated should be incitement to violence.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,672
You're reading that into the statement.
No, I'm reading that into the slogan.... given what we know about the organisation and their standpoints, the message in the slogan is clear as day. To claim anything else is to be naive and ignorant in the extreme.
 

cr@zydude

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
6,961
1. Your land was never stolen. Doubt there are many people alive today that were even relocated during Apartheid.
2. I have never owned land.
3. ANC are singing Apartheid songs, perhaps they should be banned along with the apartheid flag? Seeing as the ANC are a part of the legacy of apartheid I guess they could, the BLF are not, at best they are South Africa's version of the Nazi party.
4. I will likely also struggle for land till the day I die...
You're dead wrong on point 1. There are still many people alive who were moved due to Apartheid, my parents included.

/ off topic
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,623
You're reading that into the statement.
It is very clear in the context. They are saying. Give us land or someone will have to die. It is incitement to violence(probably not hate speech, which isn't even a crime really). The only question here is do anyone including themselves even take them seriously.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,037
No, I'm reading that into the slogan.... given what we know about the organisation and their standpoints, the message in the slogan is clear as day. To claim anything else is to be naive and ignorant in the extreme.
Good to see you acknowledge it's not in the slogan itself and that you could only know that by reference to something outside the slogan. Which is exactly my point. You're reading stuff into the slogan, which isn't exegesis.

I'm a classic liberal: I might disagree profoundly with them, but I will defend their right to say it.

Furthermore, I don't acknowledge that there is even a category of crime called "hate speech".
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,672
Good to see you acknowledge it's not in the slogan itself and that you could only know that by reference to something outside the slogan. Which is exactly my point. You're reading stuff into the slogan, which isn't exegesis.

I'm a classic liberal: I might disagree profoundly with them, but I will defend their right to say it.

Furthermore, I don't acknowledge that there is even a category of crime called "hate speech".
So then we must never take context into account when deciding anything is what you're getting at?
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,037
So then we must never take context into account when deciding anything is what you're getting at?
I didn't say that. Nor do I suggest it. Again, you are reading things into statements. It's hard to progress a discussion when meanings are gratuitously imported into statements.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,672
I didn't say that. Nor do I suggest it. Again, you are reading things into statements. It's hard to progress a discussion when meanings are gratuitously imported into statements.
But it is what you are suggesting ultimately.

We know BLF, we know their stance... That context is vitally important to the reading of the slogan, but you don't want to apply that context to the slogan.
 

The_MAC

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
5,135
First thing first, please censor anything and everything by the party, you too DSTV..
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,037
A
But it is what you are suggesting ultimately.

We know BLF, we know their stance... That context is vitally important to the reading of the slogan, but you don't want to apply that context to the slogan.
As I said earlier, that slogan can equally be used by landowners who will resist to death the forceful taking of their land.

So the slogan itself is equivocal.

The meanings you ascribe to the slogan depend entirely on the person or organisation wielding it. Which means that the meaning lies not in the slogan itself but in the person/s using it. Which underscores my point that what is objectionable or laudable lies not in the slogan itself but in the intent of those using it.

Which is why I said that the Equality Court finding is disgraceful.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
81,672
A
As I said earlier, that slogan can equally be used by landowners who will resist to death the forceful taking of their land.

So the slogan itself is equivocal.

The meanings you ascribe to the slogan depend entirely on the person or organisation wielding it. Which means that the meaning lies not in the slogan itself but in the person/s using it. Which underscores my point that what is objectionable or laudable lies not in the slogan itself but in the intent of those using it.

Which is why I said that the Equality Court finding is disgraceful.
But the ruling is about the BLF and the Slogan. Not the Slogan itself.
 
Top