Outrage over South African Politician Julius Malema's Racist Song Kill the Boer

originally posted by: Sahabi
When the indigenous people of a land are systemically displaced and disenfranchised by colonizers and their descendants, can we really judge or demonize those indigenous people for being less than loving to those occupiers?

Selective Outrage: Being upset by a Struggle Song, but ignoring and justifying the inequity and inhumanity of the history that led to the creation of said song.

COngrats, you actually made me a little sick to my stomach.

a reply to: ancientlight

I don't think this particular flavor of subculture cares about left or right politics. They will simply choose the side that allows them to live their best narcissistic life.

California can't deliver on their reparations which means they won't and that sets the stage for all kinds of "justified" outrage and more looting.

The culture clash will be addressed whether people want to be apathetic or proactive about it. It's going to be dealt with eventually. It's not a race war but a fight between the civil and uncivilized. This rotten culture isn't bound to one group, it crosses many lines; many lines that it shouldn't have crossed. It's become mainstream.

a reply to: Sahabi

Have you never heard of the expression "2 wrongs don't make a right"?

SA and Zimbabwe are now basket cases. The latter used to be the World's bread basket.

Not anymore.

a reply to: Sahabi

Are you conveniently ignoring the constant migration of tribes in Africa who displaced other indigenous tribes and committed atrocities on each other for centuries well before any European colonists arrived on the continent.

Tribal warfare and conflict is endemic in Africa.

I'm not trying to trivialise or dismiss some of the horrors that occurred in Africa and elsewhere during the European colonial period but many, many such horrors happened before their arrival and many have happened since the end of colonial rule.

But of course that doesn't play into the in vogue narrative that all of Africa's problems are down to those bastard White European colonist Empire builders.

Its as if 'they' are trying to promote the myth that Africa was some sort idyllic land of peace and harmony where Africans lived in balance with nature and with each other prior to the advent of the evil white man.
Its absolute bollocks.

What is your take on the Barbary Pirates? How does their slavery and oppression and murder of white people fit into your narrative?

a reply to: Sahabi

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Sahabi

Are you conveniently ignoring the constant migration of tribes in Africa who displaced other indigenous tribes and committed atrocities on each other for centuries well before any European colonists arrived on the continent.

Tribal warfare and conflict is endemic in Africa.

I'm not trying to trivialise or dismiss some of the horrors that occurred in Africa and elsewhere during the European colonial period but many, many such horrors happened before their arrival and many have happened since the end of colonial rule.

But of course that doesn't play into the in vogue narrative that all of Africa's problems are down to those bastard White European colonist Empire builders.

Its as if 'they' are trying to promote the myth that Africa was some sort idyllic land of peace and harmony where Africans lived in balance with nature and with each other prior to the advent of the evil white man.
Its absolute bollocks.

This ^

But the member is trying to shift the conversation and try to excuse those who sing the song. They have completely ignored the fact the High Court in South Africa has declared this song amounts to hate speech as it's discriminatory, hateful, and against the dignity of Afrikaners.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: ancientlight

I don't think this particular flavor of subculture cares about left or right politics. They will simply choose the side that allows them to live their best narcissistic life.

California can't deliver on their reparations which means they won't and that sets the stage for all kinds of "justified" outrage and more looting.

The culture clash will be addressed whether people want to be apathetic or proactive about it. It's going to be dealt with eventually. It's not a race war but a fight between the civil and uncivilized. This rotten culture isn't bound to one group, it crosses many lines; many lines that it shouldn't have crossed. It's become mainstream.

This. That's why I quote 'left' and 'right'. It's good vs evil at this point. In reality it's the 1% attacking the 99% so the 99% is divided and attack each other, but most (don't mean you) don't see this.

a reply to: Sahabi

I am with some others, your comments are kind of stomach turning... you think its ok to assault/injure/delete people that were born and raised in south africa after apartheid?

This would be like black people in the states born this century going on a killing spree against whites over slavery even though neither were ever oppressed or oppressors.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Sahabi

I am with some others, your comments are kind of stomach turning... you think its ok to assault/injure/delete people that were born and raised in south africa after apartheid?

This would be like black people in the states born this century going on a killing spree against whites over slavery even though neither were ever oppressed or oppressors.

Just as most of us said here.
There can be no excuse in supporting songs that promote racial segregation, violence, killings. In terms of free speech, I can't censor and I don't want to censor others, they can still try to sing this song even though it has been declared as hate speech by the High Court in SA. But at least I can criticise those who sing it and those who support the singers.

a reply to: AlienBorg

”I am sorry but you’ve got things wrong for once more.

Kill the Boer is a song that has been condemned and according to the High Court amounts to hate speech. The High Court decided the song is discriminatory, harmful, and against the dignity of Afrikaners.

Trying to defend the politician who has been forbidden by the court to sing the song back in 2011 by the High Court, is just a desperate attempt.

You've clearly confused your arguments.”

I am sorry but you’ve got things wrong and you've clearly confused your arguments.

Throughout the narrative of this entire thread, not once have you stepped away from the half-truths to tell the full story.

In 2022, the High Court of South Africa overturned the earlier rulings against Julius Malema, completely exonerating Malema from the hate-speech allegations related to his public singing of the song “Shoot the Boer” (Dubul' ibhunu); ruling that the singing of this song is constitutionally protected free speech.


Judge rules that “Kill the boer - Kill the farmer” is not hate speech

The singing of the song Dubul’ ibhunu - “Kill the Boer - Kill the Farmer” - was not hate speech, Judge Edwin Molahlehi, sitting as an Equality Court in the High Court in Johannesburg, ruled on Thursday.

“It does not constitute hate speech and deserves to be protected under the rubric of freedom of speech - it articulates the failure of the current government to address issues of economic empowerment and land division,” he said.

He said he was not bound by the previous judgment by Judge Lamont because the Constitutional Court had deemed the provision of the Act – which prohibited speech that was “harmful” – to be unconstitutional.

“The broad principle of freedom of expression is tolerance of different views. Society has a duty to allow and be tolerant of both popular and unpopular views of its members,” he said.

The judge said that while under a different inquiry, the chant may be found to be “offensive and undermining”, Afriforum had failed to make out a case that it was hate speech, as defined in the Act.

It appears as though you purposely ignored and failed to mention this, because the fact was stated in the linked article of your op:

What To Know About South Africa’s ‘Kill The Boer’ Chant—As Elon Musk Sounds Alarm

”Last year, South Africa’s Equality Court in Johannesburg ruled the song did not constitute hate speech or incitement, after a case was brought by AfriForum—which advocates for South Africa’s Afrikaners, the descendants of its Dutch colonizers—which argued the song incites violence and murder. The court ruled, however, the song was protected by freedom of speech and that its lyrics—“shoot to kill, kill the Boer, kill the farmer”—are not intended to be taken literally.”

It also clearly states all of this in the paragraph immediately following the paragraphs that you quoted from Wikipedia:

Malema, now leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), again appeared in court in 2022 for allegedly singing the song in a case brought by Afriforum where the issue of whether or not the song was hate speech was debated. Judge Edwin Molahlehi of the Johannesburg High Court ruled that the chant and song were not intended to be taken seriously; that Afriforium had failed to establish a causal link between the song and violence; that the reference to Boer did not literally refer to White or Afrikaans people; that the song did not incite hatred towards White people generally; and ruled the song was not hate speech. Afriforum said it would appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court.

The singing of this specific song has been most recently declared, by the High Court of South Africa, to be constitutionally protected free speech for about a year now.

Withholding this vital fact from the audience of this thread amounts to half-truth, and basing entire debates, arguments, talking points, and conclusions on half-truths, in my book, equates to the intentional spreading of misinformation and disinformation.

ATS, Deny Ignorance

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: AlienBorg




I am sorry but you’ve got things wrong and you've clearly confused your arguments.

Throughout the narrative of this entire thread, not once have you stepped away from the half-truths to tell the full story.

In 2022, the High Court of South Africa overturned the earlier rulings against Julius Malema, completely exonerating Malema from the hate-speech allegations related to his public singing of the song “Shoot the Boer” (Dubul' ibhunu); ruling that the singing of this song is constitutionally protected free speech.


Judge rules that “Kill the boer - Kill the farmer” is not hate speech

The singing of the song Dubul’ ibhunu - “Kill the Boer - Kill the Farmer” - was not hate speech, Judge Edwin Molahlehi, sitting as an Equality Court in the High Court in Johannesburg, ruled on Thursday.

“It does not constitute hate speech and deserves to be protected under the rubric of freedom of speech - it articulates the failure of the current government to address issues of economic empowerment and land division,” he said.

He said he was not bound by the previous judgment by Judge Lamont because the Constitutional Court had deemed the provision of the Act – which prohibited speech that was “harmful” – to be unconstitutional.

“The broad principle of freedom of expression is tolerance of different views. Society has a duty to allow and be tolerant of both popular and unpopular views of its members,” he said.

The judge said that while under a different inquiry, the chant may be found to be “offensive and undermining”, Afriforum had failed to make out a case that it was hate speech, as defined in the Act.

It appears as though you purposely ignored and failed to mention this, because the fact was stated in the linked article of your op:

What To Know About South Africa’s ‘Kill The Boer’ Chant—As Elon Musk Sounds Alarm

”Last year, South Africa’s Equality Court in Johannesburg ruled the song did not constitute hate speech or incitement, after a case was brought by AfriForum—which advocates for South Africa’s Afrikaners, the descendants of its Dutch colonizers—which argued the song incites violence and murder. The court ruled, however, the song was protected by freedom of speech and that its lyrics—“shoot to kill, kill the Boer, kill the farmer”—are not intended to be taken literally.”

It also clearly states all of this in the paragraph immediately following the paragraphs that you quoted from Wikipedia:

Malema, now leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), again appeared in court in 2022 for allegedly singing the song in a case brought by Afriforum where the issue of whether or not the song was hate speech was debated. Judge Edwin Molahlehi of the Johannesburg High Court ruled that the chant and song were not intended to be taken seriously; that Afriforium had failed to establish a causal link between the song and violence; that the reference to Boer did not literally refer to White or Afrikaans people; that the song did not incite hatred towards White people generally; and ruled the song was not hate speech. Afriforum said it would appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court.

The singing of this specific song has been most recently declared, by the High Court of South Africa, to be constitutionally protected free speech for about a year now.

Withholding this vital fact from the audience of this thread amounts to half-truth, and basing entire debates, arguments, talking points, and conclusions on half-truths, in my book, equates to the intentional spreading of misinformation and disinformation.

ATS, Deny Ignorance

So what if one judge has decided that the song is not hate speech? You seem to be ignoring the entire history of the song and how many times the singer has lost in the court who has forbidden him in the past to sing it.

I am sorry but it is you who has got things wrong for once more. The song clearly targets white people not just white farmers.

In March 2010 South Gauteng High Court found that the phrase, spoken or sung, dubul’ibhunu ('shoot the boer') amounted to hate speech and was therefore not protected free speech as outlined in section 16 of the South African constitution.

In September 2011, the Equality Court at the South Gauteng High Court ruled that the song was discriminatory, harmful, undermined the dignity of Afrikaners, and thereby constituted hate speech; and that it "prima facie satisfies the crime of incitement to murder." The court ruled that Julius Malema, who was brought before the court for previously singing the song at rallies, was forbidden from singing it in the future. Following the ruling Malema changed the wording of the song to "Kiss the Boer" and sang that instead—however, it can be argued to still have the same psychological influence as the original, due to the well-known context for the altered lyrics. The following year, the ANC stated that they would not sing the song any more.

You ve missed another important part of the court procedures:

Afriforum said it would appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court.

So it appears again that the recent judgement could be overturned in the near future given that for years the song was considered to be discriminatory, hateful, against the dignity of Afrikaners, therefore constituted hate speech from 2010 to 2022.

Something you completely failed to mention when you decided to show support for the song and singer by arguing there have been crimes against indigenous people by white Europeans.

Explain to me again on what basis one supports a song that calls for violence and killings. There can be no excuse in supporting songs promoting racial segregation, violence and killings.

Withholding this vital fact from the audience of this thread amounts to half-truth, and basing entire debates, arguments, talking points, and conclusions on half-truths, in my book, equates to the intentional spreading of misinformation and disinformation.

I didn't withhold information, just didn't see the latest ruling. But still this doesn't change the substance of this case. The song was considered hate speech from 2010 to 2022. A recent ruling in 2022 said it wasn't. But this decision is to be appealed by Afriforum.

The song is indeed discriminatory and targets white people just as everyone has argued on this thread. Kill the Boer literally means kill the white person. If you want to deny reality then it's up to you but your arguments so far have failed to convince anyone.

a reply to: Sahabi

Would you be equally supportive if white farmers - the few that are left - were singing Kill The Zulu/Xhosa/Ndebele?

Of course you wouldn't because that would quite clearly be promoting racist, divisionary hate speech.
So why is it different when Black people are promoting the same against White people?

Please, a simple explanation for the double standards will suffice or you can go into as much detail as you wish. I just want to try and understand why hypocrisy is deemed acceptable in these sort of circumstances?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Sahabi

Would you be equally supportive if white farmers - the few that are left - were singing Kill The Zulu/Xhosa/Ndebele?

Of course you wouldn't because that would quite clearly be promoting racist, divisionary hate speech.
So why is it different when Black people are promoting the same against White people?

Please, a simple explanation for the double standards will suffice or you can go into as much detail as you wish. I just want to try and understand why hypocrisy is deemed acceptable in these sort of circumstances?

Goof point.

I was about to ask the member the same thing. What about a song named 'Kill the Zulu'?

Surely that would have caused an outrage and rightfully so.

I am just baffled with the excuses and attempts to justify the song and the singer by the other member.

a reply to: AlienBorg

• The High Court of South Africa overturned earlier verdicts and ruled that the singing of “Shoot the Boer” is not hate speech.

• The High Court of South Africa ruled that the signing of “Shoot the Boer” is protected free speech.

• The High Court of South Africa fully acquitted Julius Malema of hate speech on this precise topic.

• The High Court of South Africa then ruled that Julius Malema’s accusers (AfriForum) are responsible for paying all of Malema’s court and legal costs related to the case.

• Dr. Bongani Ngqulunga, Director of Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study (JIAS) and former Deputy Director General and Head of the Private Office of the President, Chief of Staff, and Spokesperson for former President Jacob Zuma, recalled struggle songs from the apartheid days in which people proclaimed they were going to march to Pretoria, the capital city, or that Nelson Mandela would be released from prison the next morning. The people singing those songs were not actually planning to march to Pretoria, nor did they really think that Mr. Mandela was about to be released, he said. Similarly, he said, the phrase “kill the Boer” — the word means farmer in Dutch and Afrikaans — is not meant to promote violence against individual farmers. “It was a call to mobilize against an oppressive system,” Mr. Ngqulunga said.

• Naledi Nomalanga Mkhize, professor and historian at Nelson Mandela University, said of the chant: “Young people feel that it rouses them up when they sing it today. I don’t think that they intend it to mean any harm.”

Julius Malema maintains that singing the song in today’s context is not to be taken literally and only serves as a rallying song against racial inequity in general.

Honorable Judge Edwin Molahlehi (High Court of South Africa) is the most recent judge to rule on this topic and agrees with Julius Malema’s reasoning, interpretation, and freedom. Prestigious and well respected South Africans such as Dr. Bongani Ngqulunga and Naledi Nomalanga Mkhize also agree.

Is your experience, knowledge, or wisdom of South Africa beyond these three individuals? Are your South African judiciary, political, and educational credentials superior to these three individuals?

a reply to: Freeborn

First and foremost: NO!, I do not support violence or death upon any given people.

In all fairness, I must admit that I have a U.S.A. bias in the matter, because I fully support the freedom of speech in art and music.

In my opinion:

• N.W.A. is not responsible for violence against the police.

• Heavy metal is not to blame for violence.

• Emo music is not to blame for the rise in suicides.

• Marlyn Manson is not responsible for the Columbine Shootings.

• Rage Against The Machine is not responsible for terrorism, anarchy, or treason.

• The song “Pumped Up Kicks” is not responsible for the increase of school shootings.

• David Allen Coe, Morgan Wallens, and Jason Aldean should not be muzzled or banned.

• We can not indite former President Barak Obama over the lyrics of gangster rap and hip-hop music that he enjoys listening to.

I sing U.S.A. songs that mention all sorts of violence and sexual promiscuity, but they are not my moral compass nor do they dictate my actions. How guilty I would be if I were characteristically judged based upon the music that I have sung!!!

In the words of Snoop Dogg, ”Back to the lecture at hand”

Julius Malema, the High Court of South Africa, and very prestigious South Africans are affirming that singing the song today is culturally understood by indigenous South Africans to be a unifying rally song against systemic racial inequity within the country and is not to be taken as a literal call to arms. Who am I object to the symbolically understood cultural songs of a people of whom I do not belong?

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: AlienBorg

• The High Court of South Africa overturned earlier verdicts and ruled that the singing of “Shoot the Boer” is not hate speech.

• The High Court of South Africa ruled that the signing of “Shoot the Boer” is protected free speech.

• The High Court of South Africa fully acquitted Julius Malema of hate speech on this precise topic.

• The High Court of South Africa then ruled that Julius Malema’s accusers (AfriForum) are responsible for paying all of Malema’s court and legal costs related to the case.

• Dr. Bongani Ngqulunga, Director of Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study (JIAS) and former Deputy Director General and Head of the Private Office of the President, Chief of Staff, and Spokesperson for former President Jacob Zuma, recalled struggle songs from the apartheid days in which people proclaimed they were going to march to Pretoria, the capital city, or that Nelson Mandela would be released from prison the next morning. The people singing those songs were not actually planning to march to Pretoria, nor did they really think that Mr. Mandela was about to be released, he said. Similarly, he said, the phrase “kill the Boer” — the word means farmer in Dutch and Afrikaans — is not meant to promote violence against individual farmers. “It was a call to mobilize against an oppressive system,” Mr. Ngqulunga said.

• Naledi Nomalanga Mkhize, professor and historian at Nelson Mandela University, said of the chant: “Young people feel that it rouses them up when they sing it today. I don’t think that they intend it to mean any harm.”

Julius Malema maintains that singing the song in today’s context is not to be taken literally and only serves as a rallying song against racial inequity in general.

Honorable Judge Edwin Molahlehi (High Court of South Africa) is the most recent judge to rule on this topic and agrees with Julius Malema’s reasoning, interpretation, and freedom. Prestigious and well respected South Africans such as Dr. Bongani Ngqulunga and Naledi Nomalanga Mkhize also agree.

Is your experience, knowledge, or wisdom of South Africa beyond these three individuals? Are your South African judiciary, political, and educational credentials superior to these three individuals?

You forget that the song was considered hate speech between 2010-2022.

The High Court Ruling will be challenged and Afriforum said it would appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court. So that's not a final judgment.

Just because of a ruling in the last year, it doesn't make the song any less provocative, discriminatory, hateful. It says clearly and asks to kill the white man, despite some politically motivated individuals who argue the song must not be taken literally.

I see your desperate attempts to defend the song and the singer by arguing that many indigenous people where killed by white Europeans. Since when two wrongs make one right?

Imagine the opposite scenario where a white man sings kill the zulu?! That would have provoked an outrage and rightfully so.

I don't care what one or two 'honourable' judges say in this case. They're clearly politically motivated but their decision can be overturned in the near future as every sane person considers the songs to be discriminatory, hateful, against human dignity, and asking directly for the killing of a particular type of people.

It's an incitement to violence, hatred, and killings.

However I am not against freedom of speech in general terms. Even if this idiot keeps singing the song, at least the judges shouldn't encourage him, or argue there is nothing wrong with the content of the song.

a reply to: AlienBorg

In an apples-to-apples comparison of “Shoot the Boer” to your hypothetical and juxtaposed ”Kill the Zulu”, I would proceed as follows:

1. What is the background, inspiration, and/or historical context of the original creation of the song?
- “Shoot the Boer” is a historic struggle song of self-determination, enfranchisement, and the abolishment of apartheid.
- What is the background of your hypothetical ”Kill the Zulu”?

2. What is the reason that someone is singing the song today?
- “Shoot the Boer” is being sung by Julius Malema and indigenous South Africans today with the cultural understanding that it is a non-violent unifying song against the political corruption, wealth disparity, and racial inequality that still exists in South Africa today.
- Why is your hypothetical ”Kill the Zulu” song being sung today?

3. Is the song sung with the intention of producing violence?
- Julius Malema, the High Court of South Africa, and prestigious South Africans affirm that singing the song today is culturally symbolic and not to be taken literal.
- What of your hypothetical ”Kill the Zulu”

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Sahabi

Are you conveniently ignoring the constant migration of tribes in Africa who displaced other indigenous tribes and committed atrocities on each other for centuries well before any European colonists arrived on the continent.

Tribal warfare and conflict is endemic in Africa.

I'm not trying to trivialise or dismiss some of the horrors that occurred in Africa and elsewhere during the European colonial period but many, many such horrors happened before their arrival and many have happened since the end of colonial rule.

But of course that doesn't play into the in vogue narrative that all of Africa's problems are down to those bastard White European colonist Empire builders.

Its as if 'they' are trying to promote the myth that Africa was some sort idyllic land of peace and harmony where Africans lived in balance with nature and with each other prior to the advent of the evil white man.
Its absolute bollocks.

This is a similar rebuttal talking point used in the debate against Indigenous, Native, and First Nation Americans. It is even perpetuated in the drama “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee”



Purely for the sake of entertaining an idea, this debate point that you have introduced justifies me strong-arming the inheritance of your predecessors and forefathers if you should ever argue with your siblings or extended family about its dispersal and allocation.
”You guys were already fighting over it internally, so I as an outsider am justified to violently take it.”
We all know that this hypothetical scenario is not morally or ethically sound by any scale or gage!

But please, I am not here to debate indigenous peace or war prior to European colonialism. This is not a talking point of mine and will not serve as a straw man tangent argument.

•———•———•


Legal apartheid ended in the 1990’s, however, many South Africans still remain disenfranchised today, which is clearly illustrated by the monstrous social disparity in wealth, healthcare, education, employment opportunities, and standard of living.

As an outsider, who am I to judge the singing of the song “Shoot the Boer” (as mentioned in posts above) when Julius Malema, the High Court of South Africa, and prestigious South Africans are saying that it is sung today as a non-violent cultural rally cry of people hoping to resolve the daily struggles of disparity faced by the average people of the country.

It would be pretentious if I would dare to say that I know the cultural understandings and nuances of South Africans better than they themselves do.

The attendees of the E.F.F.’s 10 Year Anniversary celebrations did not perpetrate any acts of violence after singing that song nor in the days since. I have to take their word that it’s like when U.S.A. parents jokingly say about their own children, “F* those kids”, but it is culturally understood that such sentiments are not literally being alluded to.

Some guy in Idaho said similar things so the FBI went and killed him. Malema? Nah, he gets a pass. Again. and again. Why? Because world communism rules.

originally posted by: Sahabi
When the indigenous people of a land are systemically displaced and disenfranchised by colonizers and their descendants, can we really judge or demonize those indigenous people for being less than loving to those occupiers?

Selective Outrage: Being upset by a Struggle Song, but ignoring and justifying the inequity and inhumanity of the history that led to the creation of said song.

It could rightfully be claimed the Boers were indigenous to much of South Africa aside from the San or khoi khoi who were migratory and lived along the coast. There were huge stretches where nobody lived until the Boers settled it and developed agriculture (with irrigation). When the finally did meet tribes they made treaties with them or in the case of the Zulu who attacked them defended themselves until the Zulu relented. They didn't "conquer" South Africa, they developed dry, arid lands that couldn't support human life. They became so successful people from the North migrated by the millions looking for a better life. They are the "immigrants" more than the Voortrekkers who have a longer and better claim to those lands. During apartheid every tribe was free to develop their land as they saw fit but they couldn't do it like the Afrikaners could and became jealous wanting what they created. Well, they finally took it all and can't seem to run it very efficiently except as a piggy bank for grafting politicians and their families.