So, Renaldo Gouws has been fired by the DA.
In an extensive statement on social media that promised a full statement later in the week, Gouws blamed IOL for getting him fired.
As if using the K-word and N-word so regularly in his social media posts and videos, his conduct on social media, his antagonistic nature, had nothing to do with it.
“The terms used were NEVER meant to insult or belittle anyone and if hearing those words now is hurtful to you then I profusely apologise.”
It’s the “if” for me.
When there’s a flaccid apology like this, it puts the onus on the person who is offended, and evades the responsibility for causing offence.
Of course hearing the word “k*ffir” is offensive and hurtful. But more importantly, saying the word “k*ffir” is wrong. Gouws’ apology is about hurting feelings, not an apology for saying the words.
Oh, his post says he’s apologised before. Ok, fine.
But what really got to me was how many people came after IOL for ignoring the “context” under which he said the offensive words. If you look at his older posts, especially his videos, he’s clearly very comfortable using the K-word. And so many white people jumped on the band wagon using the context argument, because surely using the K-word in context is fine, right?
Let me share with you some excerpts of IOL’s submissions to the Press Council of South Africa’s Appeals Committee after we were ordered by the ombud to apologise to this racist:
“It is important to note that there can never be a justification to use such disgusting and racially aggressive terminology. The use of racial slurs, particularly words like ‘K*ffir’ and ‘N*gger’, has long been a contentious and deeply harmful issue in South Africa. These terms, rooted in the country’s dark history of apartheid and racial segregation, carry with them a legacy of oppression, hatred, and dehumanisation.
“Racial slurs like ‘K*ffir’ and ‘N*gger’ fall within the realm of hate speech as defined by Section 16(2)(c). These words, historically used to degrade and dehumanise black people, are considered to advocate hatred based on race and have the potential to incite harm, whether emotional, psychological, or physical. As such, the use of these slurs is not protected under the right to freedom of expression and can be subject to legal consequences.
“In Ngwenya v. Investec, Peter-Paul Ngwenya was fined R24,000 (suspended) for using the ‘k-word’ against the CEO of Investec. The court reinforced that such language is inherently racist and emphasised the need for accountability in cases involving hate speech, regardless of the context in which it is used.”
Considering the legacy of apartheid in this country and the long shadow it casts over our current legal and societal frameworks, it’s important to question the number of people who challenged IOL’s exposure of Gouws’ racism, making the same argument about context he used in his Press Council complaint against IOL.
We also were forced to question the Press Council even entertaining a complaint from a racist, especially considering that he has a matter pending at the South African Human Rights Commission, was at the time suspended by the DA pending the outcome of its investigation, and given South Africa’s sordid legacy of racial discrimination which continues to spread its tendrils ubiquitously. The Press Council seems to think that you can utter racial slurs if there is context and we disagree vehemently with that assertion.
The terms “k*ffir” and “n*gger” are used to oppress and dehumanise black South Africans. They are used to assert racial superiority, reinforce power dynamics, and perpetuate systemic discrimination. The use of these words is not merely offensive; it serves as a reminder of the historical oppression and violence experienced by black people. These slurs have evolved into verbal weapons that can inflict profound psychological harm and perpetuate feelings of inferiority, shame, and social exclusion among those targeted.
But the argument used to defend Gouws’ use of the abhorrent language was one of context, as if using those words in any context is ever excusable.
So why were so many White People so keen on backing Gouws? Does it speak to their own inherent racism? Their belief that words hold no power? Or was it yet another attempt to diminish the pain and suffering of millions of South Africans following systematic oppression and institutionalised racism, reducing that trauma to something that can simply be gotten over.
Thirty years into democracy that trauma is still fresh.
This is something White People will never understand, because they don’t recognise the power dynamics at play that underpin racism to begin with. These racial slurs still retain their power to oppress and discriminate in whatever context, worst of all where a white man is trying to make an unnecessary point to get an emotive response through clickbait.
They seek to draw moral equivalence between the challenges White People face today with the suffering and persecution Black People of this country endured for centuries.
Understand, White People, that fighting so hard for the right to say the K-word without recourse lays bare the lack of understanding you have for the pain your abuse has caused, the trauma your microaggressions reawaken, and the deep offence your performative displays of white supremacy incur.
If Renaldo Gouws is a different person now to the person he was ten years ago, as his social media post claims, I want him to point out to me the Damascus moment that made him overcome his racism.
Or was it simply that part of the process White People go through as they age — infancy, childhood, puberty, racism, adult racism, (caught out and exposed for racism), reformed racist.
If Renaldo Gouws is indeed a reformed racist, I need him to tell me when and how that reform happened, so that we may teach others.
* Lance Witten is the Editor of IOL.