Kill the s*ong: The cost of singing 'Kill the Boer'
In 1993, as anger simmered over the death of Chris Hani, Peter Mokaba, then president of the ANC Youth League, broke into the anti-apartheid chant "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" at a memorial for the SACP leader.
The song would remain popular until tensions died down, and a new democracy was born, which saw the song disappear into obscurity. That was until 2010, when Jullius Malema who was then leader of the ANCYL started singing it at public events.
Since then debate has raged around the controversial song, with liberation veterans and historians claiming it should not be taken literally. However, other organisations, such as AfriForum, disagreed and subjected the song to several court cases.
It was eventually declared hate speech and not protected by the right to freedom of speech enshrined in South Africa's Constitution.
In 2022, the Gauteng High Court's judgment changed that. It ruled the song did not constitute hate speech, saying AfriForum had failed to prove Malema was inciting harm against white people.
The Supreme Court of Appeals confirmed this view, with the Constitutional Court later saying it would not hear an appeal against the SCA's ruling.
Despite the court's ruling, political football over the song continued along with rising tensions between the US and South Africa. Elon Musk upheld that the song actively promoted white genocide. US President Donald Trump invited Afrikaners to take up refugee status in the US.
On Sunday, City Press columnist Mondli Makhanya wrote that while Malema has the right to sing the song, what is the point of continuing? Malema thinks the song paints him as a radical, but it has broader implications for national cohesion.
And as we celebrate 31 years of democracy on Sunday, isn't that a more important value to uphold than trying to irk the country's right.
In this week's Friday Briefing, advocate Ben Winks reflects on why the court ruled the way it did, and News24 columnist Qaanitah Hunter wades into Malema's politics and why he will most likely continue singing the song.
We also have a Q&A with DA chairperson Helen Zille on the suspension of the VAT increase.
Kill the Boer: What do the Courts' decisions mean for our political discourse?
Does the courts' recent rulings mean that "Shoot the Boer" can never be considered hate speech? Of course not, writes Ben Winks, who reflects on what the judgment means for our political discourse
Read the article here.
Shallow performance politics won't save the EFF
If there's any real benefit to Julius Malema in singing Dubul' ibhunu – "Kill the Boer". it's the global attention – not votes, writes Qaanitah Hunter.
Read the article here.
Kill the boer: Why it is time to sing a new song
While it may not be against the law to sing of "Dubul' ibhunu," it remains harmful to the nation-building project and undermines social cohesion, argues Bert Pretorius.
Storm Simpson/News24
Q&A with Helen Zille | ANC 'preferred negotiated settlement over a klap from the court '
Federal council chairperson Helen Zille explains why she thinks this is a victory for the DA.
Read the article here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
32 minutes ago
'These are Americans': Huntington Park mayor and veteran delivers plea to Marines deployed to protests
As anti-immigration raid protests continue for the sixth day in Los Angeles, a group of 30 regional mayors from Southern California came together to stand in support and solidarity with those peacefully protesting. During a press conference led by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Wednesday, Huntington Park Mayor Arturo Flores, who is a Marine veteran, spoke directly to servicemembers deployed to the protests by President Donald Trump's administration. His comments come as over 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines are set to be stationed in Los Angeles, despite fervent objections from some local leaders. Trump said deployment is necessary to "address the lawlessness" and has said that Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground" if he hadn't sent the servicemembers in. "I have a message for those Marines," Flores began, speaking of the oath that he and all servicemembers take to "defend the Constitution and to defend this country." "That oath was to the American people. It was not to a dictator, it was not to a tyrant, it was not to a president -- it was to the American people," Flores said. "The people that are here in these communities, in the city of LA and the cities that you'll hear from, are Americans, whether they have a document or they don't," Flores added. The protests -- which began Friday in Paramount, California, and have spread to nearby downtown Los Angeles -- were in part sparked by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid carried out in front of a local Home Depot in Huntington Park and in other locations in the area. Since Friday, there have been over 300 people detained by ICE in Los Angeles, according to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a local immigrant rights organization. On Tuesday, the official ICE account on X shared a photo of National Guardsmen on the scene of a detention being carried out by an ICE agent with the caption: "Photos from today's ICE Los Angeles immigration enforcement operation." Speaking of the "militarization of immigration enforcement," Flores said it "has no place in our neighborhoods, and the deployment of Marines on U.S. soil is an alarming escalation that undermines the values of democracy." "We stand against these fear-based tactics that target immigrant communities and erode public trust," he said, calling the Trump administration's actions to deploy over 4,000 servicemembers "political theater that is rooted in fear."
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hegseth wavers on Russia sanctions, says US should not use ‘every tool' to end Ukraine invasion
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth resisted senators' efforts to secure his support for a bipartisan bill that would sanction Russia for its war on Ukraine, telling an Appropriations subcommittee Wednesday that the US should not use 'every tool at our disposal' to pressure Moscow to stop its assault. Asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) whether Washington 'should use every tool it has at its disposal, including additional sanctions, to pressure Russia to come to the table to negotiate a just and lasting peace for the war in Ukraine,' Hegseth demurred. 'Senator, every tool at our disposal? No,' he said. 'We have a lot of tools in a lot of places.' 'We should be pursuing a cease-fire and a negotiated resolution to the war in Ukraine at any cost,' Coons responded. ''Peace through strength' means actually using our strength, continuing to support Ukraine, and securing a lasting peace. [Vladimir] Putin will only stop when we stop him.' 4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified Wednesday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. REUTERS Prior to questioning Hegseth, Coons had talked up Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal's (D-Conn.) pending bill to further sanction Russia for its continued resistance to peace in Ukraine. The legislation, backed by 80 senators, would impose sanctions on key Russian officials and economic sectors — and, critically, penalize foreign nations that do business with Moscow. Graham later followed up, urging Hegseth and the administration 'to use that tool to get the attention of China and India.' 'China buys — and India buys — 70% of Russia's oil … If they stop buying cheap Russian oil tomorrow, would that grind Putin's war machine to a halt?' Graham asked, later adding: 'We have an ability, through legislation, to get China and India's attention [and say] that if you keep buying cheap Russian oil to empower Putin to kill Ukrainian children, you're going to lose access to our markets. 'We're not going to evict every Russian from Ukraine, I'm a practical guy,' Graham added. 'But we got to end this war so we don't entice China to take Taiwan, and we don't encourage Iran to think we're just all talk [about] stopping their nuclear ambitions.' 4 Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) questions Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth during a Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee hearing to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of Defense. AP On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House was quietly pushing Graham to water down the bill by allowing waivers to exempt certain people and entities from sanctions and to 'remove the mandatory nature' of the legislation. A White House official told the outlet that the Constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations.' 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' they added. Hegseth did admit Wednesday that Russia is the 'aggressor' in Ukraine and that Chinese President Xi Jinping wants Moscow to 'win' the conflict. However, the secretary declined to answer Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) question about 'which side' he wanted to win the war. 'As we've said time and time again, this president is committed to peace in that conflict,' Hegseth said. 'Ultimately, peace serves our national interests, and we think the interests of both parties, even if that outcome will not be preferable to many in this room and many in our country.' 4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (R) greets Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine before testifying during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11. Getty Images McConnell pushed further, noting that the Russians 'don't seem to be too interested' in peace talks. The former Senate GOP leader also alleged that NATO partners increasing their defense spending at Trump's behest are now wondering 'whether we're in the midst of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory.' 'I think victory is defined by the people that have to live there, the Ukrainians,' he said. 'And I don't think they're going to ever conclude that victory means basically adopting the Russian views on all this. ' Hegseth responded that 'no one's adopting views,' but added that the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act does not include funding of weapons for Ukraine because 'the budget reflects the reality that Europe needs to step up more for the defense of its own continent, and President Trump deserves the credit for that.' 4 Ranking member Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) speaks with subcommittee Chairman Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during a hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 11, 2025. Getty Images McConnell agreed, noting that he had 'the same complaints' about the Biden administration not pushing hard enough for Europe to fund Ukraine's defense. Still, the Kentuckian insisted that by not standing foursquare behind the Kyiv government, 'it seems to me pretty obvious that America's reputation is on the line.' 'Will we defend democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?' McConnell asked. 'That's the international concern that I have about this, and I think a number of my fellow members share that view.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth Fumbles Basic Question on Trump Deploying Marines to L.A.
Donald Trump ordered 700 Marines to Los Angeles, and the defense secretary can't explain what authority enabled him to do so. In a terse exchange with Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin Wednesday, Pete Hegseth couldn't cite any portion of the Constitution that might allow the president to send troops to engage U.S. citizens. 'Just specifically, Mr. Secretary, what is the authority that the administration is using to deploy active-duty Marines to California neighborhoods? What authority?' Baldwin asked. 'Senator, the president has constitutional authority in order to support—' Hegseth began, before Baldwin interjected, asking for a specific 'provision of the Constitution' that gave Trump such power. But Hegseth wasn't able to, instead asking Congress to offer their blind faith that the administration had pre-verified the constitutionality of such an action. 'I'd have to pull up the specific provision, but our Office of General Counsel, alongside our leadership, has reviewed and ensured in the order that we set out that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement,' Hegseth said. 'I'd like to know the specific constitutional statutory authority,' Baldwin pressed. 'The president made it clear that he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 with regard to the National Guard troops. I need to know the authority that he is relying upon in terms of active-duty Marines being deployed to California neighborhoods.' Baldwin then asked Hegseth if he would follow up to provide the exact statute, to which he responded that there's 'plenty of precedent' in administering active duty troops to 'support law enforcement.' 'I'm not disputing that,' Baldwin said. 'I am just asking you to cite the authority under which the active duty Marines are being deployed to California.' Hegseth insisted that the appropriate statute was cited in the executive order, and then promised to follow up with Baldwin's office. Trump's decision to send hundreds of Marines to the City of Angels is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $134 million, defense officials revealed Tuesday. Their presence—per the White House—is intended to support ICE agents as they conduct mass deportation raids of the city while thousands of locals protest the president's agenda. But the order itself appears to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law dating back to 1878 that forbids the government from using the military for law enforcement purposes. The White House could have bypassed the military doctrine by invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to utilize the military during periods of rebellion or mass civil unrest, but had not done so by the time of the order. (Trump has openly discussed leveraging the nineteenth-century law to enact his agenda since his inauguration.)
