Can hate speech be defended as freedom of religion? Court to decide in LGBTQ discrimination case

Daily Maverick

a day ago

A Gqeberha shop owner who put up a sign banning LGBTQIA+ patrons and ran an anti-LGBTQ WhatsApp group is at the centre of a landmark hate speech case. While he claims religious freedom, the Human Rights Commission argues that his conduct incites violence and violates the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. The High Court has called for further submissions.
The court battle between the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and Gqeberha businessman Dawood Lagardien, accused of promoting hate speech by refusing to serve members of the LGBTQIA+ community, continues in the city's high court, where the presiding officer has called for supplementary submissions from both sides.
While the latest court appearance took place last week, the matter dates back to mid-2023 when photographs started circulating of a chalkboard outside La Gardi Catering Plastics in Parkside.
Shop owner Dawood Lagardien wrote: 'LGBTQ not welcome at La Gardi – Save our children'. Shortly thereafter it came to light that Lagardien was also the administrator of a WhatsApp chat group called Our rights – antiLGBTQ+.
The SAHRC took the matter to court, claiming that Lagardien was in violation of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda) and actively promoting hate speech and discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.
'The commission submits that the impugned conduct – the establishment of a WhatsApp group and putting up of the sign outside the shop – constitutes hate speech. In this regard it must be recalled that the respondent has admitted to putting up the sign and establishing the WhatsApp group, so it is common cause that impugned conduct is attributable to him,' the SAHRC's heads of argument read.
It further argued that Lagardien's sign offered no reasons for banning people from his shop and simply promoted discrimination.
The commission also quoted messages shared on Lagardien's WhatsApp group, claiming clear Pepuda violations, hate speech and incitement to violence. One message read: 'LGBTQ is a blatant attack on Islam. Force is the only option… If only I had a powerful group to crush these sodomists […] and crush these evil vermin from.'
As part of its claim, the SAHRC calls on Lagardien to issue a public apology to the LGBTQIA+ community and damages in the amount of R500,000 be paid to an NGO yet to be identified.
In his responding documents, Lagardien does not deny putting up the sign or starting the chat group, but argues that he did not violate Pepuda, and rather that he was exercising his right to religious freedom as a devout Muslim.
'As part of his beliefs regarding Islam, he believes that same-sex relationships are un-Islamic and amoral. He also holds the belief that, under his faith, he is obliged to take steps to prevent children from being exposed to what his faith and spiritual beliefs dictate is amoral behaviour,' his responding heads of argument read.
In addition to opposing the SAHRC application, Lagardien also brought a counter-application, alleging that the commission's investigation was defective and it failed to discharge its duties under the South African Human Rights Commissions Act.
He recounted an incident in June 2023 where two homosexual men allegedly entered his store and engaged in 'sexually inappropriate behaviour' by kissing and touching each other's genitals in front of Muslim customers and their young children.
When asked to leave the store, the men allegedly told Lagardien they could do as they pleased during Pride Month. He alleged that the following day his daughter was threatened by two men from the LGBTQ+ community inside the store, and further threats of violence followed when Lagardien requested that they leave the store.
This incident prompted him to post the disputed sign outside his store. Days later he found the sign had been destroyed. He stated that the WhatsApp group was created to 'alert members of his community to the threats and intimidation from the LGBTQ community'and to communicate Islamic teachings on homosexuality.
While he claimed no messages to incite violence were ever sent on the group, he also stated that none of the screenshots of messages contained in the SAHRC's documents were linked to his phone number or WhatsApp account.
The group has since been closed, and Lagardien reiterated that the sign outside his shop had been destroyed in response to claims that he refused to remove it.
Lagardien argues the SAHRC's claim against him violates his right to freedom of religion, while the SAHRC states that his conduct goes far beyond the Islamic stance against homosexuality.
The matter returned to the Gqeberha High Court last Monday, 28 July 2025. The court determined that SAHRC, represented by Advocate Siphelo Mbeki, and Lagardien, represented by Advocate Feroze Boda, must submit supplementary heads of argument in the next few weeks before a final judgment can be made. DM