Double Standards of the South African Human Rights Commission: A Look at Racism and Inaction
Racism is a universal issue that transcends ethnicity, culture, or social group. The recent actions, or rather inactions, by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) demonstrate troubling inconsistencies in their approach to hate speech. A stark example of this is the contrast between the swift reaction to an incident in 2010 and the delayed response to a controversial podcast made available in 2025, where Nhlamulo ‘Nota’ Baloyi made offensive and racist statements about white people. The SAHRC’s double standards raise serious questions about their commitment to equality, fairness, and protecting human dignity.
Renaldo Gouws has drawn attention to the disturbing inconsistencies in the SAHRC’s actions when it comes to dealing with hate speech. The commission acted within hours in 2010 when a 15-second clip from a 15-year-old video was deemed to contain hate speech. Yet, it took over 72 hours for the commission to acknowledge the hate speech spread over a 90-minute podcast featuring Nhlamulo ‘Nota’ Baloyi. The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. When Andile Mngxitama, a Member of Parliament, made a controversial statement claiming that farm murders could be a means to remove white people from the land, the SAHRC remained silent for 12 days, only to later disregard the severity of the remarks. Similarly, after 54 days of racist comments by SABC employee Nobuntu “Nobs” Mkhize against the coloured community, the commission only acknowledged the issue without any further update.
Racism is Racism: Racism does not belong to any one ethnicity, and hate speech is just as harmful whether it targets black, white, or any other community. The discrimination faced by individuals or groups, regardless of their race, must be treated with the same severity and urgency. By failing to act decisively when the targets of hate speech are white people or members of a different group, the SAHRC perpetuates a dangerous narrative that racism against certain communities is less important.
The delay in addressing Baloyi’s inflammatory remarks highlights this bias. His comments were widely regarded as promoting hatred, yet the response from the SAHRC was lethargic compared to its immediate action in other cases. By not swiftly acting against harmful speech, the commission is failing to live up to its mandate of ensuring fairness and equality for all South Africans, regardless of their background.
The SAHRC’s Response to Baloyi’s Comments: Since Gouws made these critical observations, the SAHRC has taken a stand against the actions of Nhlamulo ‘Nota’ Baloyi. On February 20, 2025, the commission released a media statement acknowledging the situation, confirming that an investigation had been launched. Several complaints have been filed, and the SAHRC is now assessing whether it will pursue the matter further in the Equality Court, in line with the South African Human Rights Commission Act. However, this late response raises the question: why did the commission wait for such an extended period to address such serious remarks?
Despite their eventual intervention, it’s important to note that this situation mirrors a pattern of inconsistency when it comes to race-related hate speech. In some cases, swift action is taken, while in others, the SAHRC’s indifference is evident. This is unacceptable and undermines the credibility of the commission as a body that is supposed to advocate for equality and justice.
The actions of the SAHRC in recent years illustrate the dangerous consequences of selective justice. Racism is racism, no matter who the target is, and it is the SAHRC’s duty to treat all cases with the same urgency and seriousness. The delay in addressing incidents of hate speech involving prominent individuals such as Baloyi and Mngxitama sends a harmful message: that some forms of hate speech are less severe than others depending on who is the aggressor and who is the target.
The commission’s recent acknowledgement of Baloyi’s actions is a step in the right direction, but it should not overshadow the broader issue of its double standards. All instances of racism, irrespective of the racial or cultural identity involved, deserve equal scrutiny and intervention. It is high time that the SAHRC puts aside its biases and adopts a consistent, unwavering approach to combat hate speech in all its forms. South Africans are entitled to equality, and the SAHRC must rise to the occasion to protect that right for everyone.
