A blog calling for white men to be disenfranchised‚ published by news website The Huffington Post SA‚ was discriminatory and constituted hate speech‚ press ombudsman Johan Retief found on Saturday.
The publication was ordered to publish an unreserved apology for its „serious misconduct“ – the most serious breach of the press code of ethics.
“Let me be short and sweet: If disenfranchisement of anybody (whether white males or black females for that matter) is not discriminatory‚ the meaning of discrimination should be redefined‚” Retief wrote in a hard-hitting 14-page finding.
“I do not believe for one moment that such discriminatory and denigratory opinions can be described as being in the public interest – especially given this country’s history of its struggle for liberation.
“To disenfranchise a section of the population once again would indeed represent a huge step backwards – one that may have some serious unforeseen consequences.”
Ach, so etwas würde mich ja durchaus auch für die deutsche Presselandschaft freuen. Beispielsweise zu diesem nunmehr auch bei der Zeit abgedruckten Artikel, der Männer mit sterbenden Tieren vergleicht und meint, dass man gegen sie eine Terrorgruppe gründen muss (dort sogar ohne (lacht)). Also bitte eifrig entsprechende Artikel an den Presserat melden.
Auch dieser Absatz ist Klasse:
Retief rebuked Huffington Post SA editor-in-chief Verashni Pillay for initially defending the blog following the public outcry. Pillay claimed the blog was „pretty standard for feminist theory“ and that there was „nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody“.
Pillay subsequently distanced herself from the blog‚ which was removed from the Huffington Post site: “We have immediately bolstered and strengthened our blogging procedures that‚ until now‚ have operated on the basis of open communication and good faith. From now on‚ bloggers will have to verify themselves‚” Pillay said.
Das „Pretty Standard“ bezog sich allerdings nicht auf die Entziehung des Wahlrechts, sondern auf “ the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world„.
Garland’s underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. In that sense, there was nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody (or so we thought.) It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article — or perhaps none at all. Dismantling the patriarchal systems that have brought us to where we are today, a world where power is wielded to dangerous and destructive ends by men, and in particular white men, necessarily means a loss of power to those who hold it. A loss of oppressive power. Those who have held undue power granted to them by patriarchy must lose it for us to be truly equal. This seems blindingly obvious to us.
Den Original-Artikel kann man hier noch im Archiv lesen