The Centre for Human Rights (CHR) and the Centre for Sexualities, AIDS, and Gender at the University Pretoria, with the Center for Gender Studies and Feminist Futures and the Center for Conflict Studies at the Philipps-University Marburg, launched the second edition of the Pretoria-Marburg Queer Conversations.
The conversations emanatefrom a convergence of interests in the work on LGBTIQ+ and queer identities among the centres. This year, the series is embedded in the Marburg Lecture series themed: 'De-and Reconstructing LGBTIQ+ Politics in a Postcolonial World', with lectures taking place in-person at the Philipps-Marburg University.
On May 25, 2023, at the first event of the series titled 'Hate speech targeting LGBTIQ+ persons' - Kerry Frizelle and Khanyisile Phillips led a conversation on the hate speech bill. Frizelle (they/them) is a qualified educator, a registered counselling psychologist and has a PhD in education. Frizelle is known for their lively and passionate approach to training. They weave their own personal narrative of being queer into their training, making it a relatable and personal lived experience.
Khanyisile Phillips is a transgender woman and the current education advocacy officer at Gender DynamiX - a public benefit organisation that focuses on trans and gender diverse communities. Phillips (she/her) is a passionate intersectional feminist who advocates for socioeconomic, racial and gender justice, committed to codified policies and legal frameworks in higher education institutions.
Frizelle started with an analysis of the hate speech bill.
"So we're looking at the hate speech bill and and drawing out how they've defined hate speech. And they argue that hate speech is any kind of expression and I would think it would be verbal, written, perhaps visuals as well, where that expression is problematic, hateful, discriminatory expression and is motivated by prejudice and intolerance for a range of identities regarded as other, and so it's very inclusive. It's very intersectional in its lens, and it recognises all the identity markers that people can be kind of prejudiced against and on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, language around issues such as xenophobia, it's very inclusive," says Frizelle.
Frizelle broke down the popular childhood saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". They think this is a myth and a lie of childhood because it does not recognise what words carry and what language actually carries. They argue that language is a productive cultural tool, it is not just a means of communicating information, content and facts. If it was, then that popular childhood saying would be entirely appropriate and correct that words are just used to communicate information. Language is far more powerful than that.
Frizelle argues that language informs our subjectivity, our identity, and the implications of it is, it informs how we navigate our way through the world and how we engage with others. "So there are very real psychosocial implications for language because it has this kind of productive element to it".
"Language cannot just be seen as just factual information with no real consequence and why we can't turn around and say it's just words, people must get over themselves is because our language systems are far from neutral. They are saturated with cultural and social norms. And so when children are born, they are born into these pre-existing systems of meaning, and the social norms and cultural norms.
"I say to my students, when I'm teaching - think of it like a tea cup, that a piece of bread drops into this tea cup full of tea and absorbs and it's become saturated by these cultural norms. So right from little, they are internalising the language and all the norms and kind of ideas and social and cultural norms that will enable them to respond appropriately in the world. So, this allows them to know how to behave when they go to school, or what they're supposed to do when they go to a birthday party, or as they get older, how to navigate the church, for example, or any kind of religious, spiritual side they might visit or how to behave at a funeral," says Frizelle.
Frizelle says if we think about language practices, and gender binary practices, when we engage in speech, we engage in language practices. If we think about gender in particular, how in just every day practices or utterances we are actually at the same time reinforcing a particular view on for example, gender and sexuality. For example, in the classroom when the teacher wants to get the little children to get ready to enter a classroom, in a school with boys and girls, children categorised in these categories or assigned to these categories. They are asked to line up as boys and girls and that's a language practice and utterance that has a very real effect on the children because what they do is they separate themselves according to the category they've been assigned to, both the sex and gender category.
"And that's just an example because what are they doing there, they're not just ordering the class or the way in which you enter the classroom. It's not just about classroom management. It's not just about an instruction on how to behave. It is also reinforcing the gender binary. It's reinforcing this problematic assumption that we are inherently different and that there is no variation and there is this binary and that binary if you think about it, is the basis of most patriarchy. And so, even in these what seemed like classroom management practices, quite innocent, We are reinforcing these ideas of gender. And so we pass them on," says Frizelle.
Frizelle says language is far from neutral as it informs our very identities, and therefore hate speech can never just be disregarded as just words that have no impact. "I think what's very important is my reading of the hate speech bill is that it does not take away the freedom of speech. What it does take away is utterances that are based in and driven by prejudice and problematic assumptions.
"And I always say to people, we need to be careful about when we asked to do something, or to stop doing something, or to consider what we are saying. It's often experienced as an infringement of our rights. But actually, this is a case of where giving people who haven't had rights rights and dignity is experienced as a loss of freedom. And I think that people need to really consider that".
"Think about how often that the the extent of transgender people being murdered is never adequately represented in the media. So normative violence normalises hate speech. Because if you have been brought up in a society where you have been socialised to see something as normal and anything outside of that as abnormal. Your hate speech seems legitimate to you. It seems legitimate that if you see something as bad as evil as pathological that you will feel that saying something about that or calling those people out or referring to them in derogatory ways will feel acceptable. What do you mean that's hate speech? That's an opinion, I'm allowed an opinion. And this is how people get away with it and have gotten away with it. Because If you ever hear a person tried to speak up for what they've experienced, and how they get shut down for being sensitive for not being able to take a joke, these these become the issues," says Frizelle.
Frizelle says the hate speech bill has been a necessity and is required to make such language practices strange, to make them unacceptable. And for people to start recognising the power of the spoken word. "We've had to get to this point where a hate speech bill has been required in order for us to demand that people discriminated against in the basis of, in this case, gender or sexuality are then given back their dues that they are rendered visible, grievable livable lives and that it will make that hate speech strange. It will not be something we can just normalise and see as acceptable and the right of someone".
Philips started off her presentation with defining harm. They say the definition of harm in the bill in the initial stages was inadequate. "We then propose the following definition which means any emotional psychological, physical social or economic harm that affects a group or individual".
"I'm going to bring in real life examples of being a South African, and of course, being queer in South Africa, but I'm going to bring in quite a few other examples. So I think we cannot talk about or have this conversation in a silo. I think for us it's really important to realise what is currently happening in Africa and then of course globally. So currently, we know that Uganda's parliament is on the verge of passing [it has since been passed] some of the world's cruelest most harshest anti LGBTQ legislations where the prison sentences range for up to 20 years for promoting homosexuality, and even the death penalty for so called aggravated homosexuality. The same thing happened in Burundi earlier this year where 24 people were arrested on charges of homosexual practices," says Philips.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The world is progressing to seek the erasure, the criminalisation, the demonisation of queer and trans bodies, she says. "I think it's really important to not have this conversation in silos and not having it, away from the broader question of the ethics of hate speech and of course, hate crimes that ultimately leads to hate crimes."
"I think it's important that we understand that hate speech is a big part of hate crimes where we end up either being stripped of our dignity even through death. Our families refuse to bury us as we are found naked on a field where we are found burned alive... I think it's really important that we that we that we understand the importance of hate crimes and hate speech bill and why we should also motivate that the current protections are not enough. The current protections really just provide civil remedies such as fines and public apologies. I think current protections has limitations in terms of how do we not only look at it through that now, I apologise and then everything will be wiped clean," says Phillips.
She believes that the important purpose of combating of hate crimes and hate speech is not only to criminalise hate speech, but to protect definitions of hate crimes. They also think we must all support the hate crimes and hate speech bill. "Hate speech dehumanises a target group and creates a belief that harming the target group is acceptable... for example, religious leaders who preach that LGBTQI community members should not be allowed to exist or should be removed from among us".
