Malema should have apologised for 'rape comments'

Whether or not African National Congress Youth League President Julius Malema believed that the comments which he made at the Cape Peninsular Technikon concerning the complainant in the Zuma rape case were justified or not, there is an issue which transcends who was legally right or wrong.

The fact of the matter is that South Africa has horrendously high statistics for rape which is something that is well known among the international community. This has not been helped by a recent survey which showed that local men have an extremely high propensity to commit this egregious crime. In light thereof and with due consideration to the seniority of his position and attendant visibility he must as a matter of course be seen to be siding with those who are fighting against this scourge.

Unfortunately trying to put those inappropriate comments into context or somehow justify them does not support the view that the ANCYL president is a fierce opponent of rape but rather sends a signal that some women, through our interpretation of their behaviour, might be construed as having consented. That if women don’t carry on in a particular way after rape then they might have been willing participants after all.

In the past few days Malema has overseen the opening of a political school in Krugersdorp. As such his conduct will be monitored by those who attend the school as much if not more than it has been by the youth and media of this country.

In terms of this issue he should be able to step in front of those classes and confirm that while he did not agree with the case against him he unreservedly apologised because of the importance that, that message will send to both women and would-be rapists. Even if he did not mean any harm or hate speech accepting that those words could be interpreted the wrong way.

In terms of the monetary claim if he cannot reach settlement with the plaintiff then the trial need proceed only in respect thereof. His unreserved apology does not mean he is liable in terms of what is set out above. He can still argue whether he is legally obliged to pay and if those words constituted hate speech for the purpose of defending himself.

The apology would then stand firm and people would be aware that the argument relates to civil liability and not whether he believes he should have said the words in the first place.

Many a time I have written tongue in cheek regarding the ANCYL president while on others I have drawn back the curtain to see the reality behind the political figure. In response to Cosatu general-secretary Zwelinzima Vavi’s comparing Malema to Madiba I did a ton of research and gave a lot of thought to the matter before concluding that there is definitely a basis to make that comparison.

Trying circumstances and the way in which he responded thereto made Nelson Mandela the world icon he is today, will Julius Malema be able to follow suit?