A Fight with S.Africa’s biggest News outlet: NEWS24 over their phony fact check regarding RACE LAWS

(000228.79-:E-000157.73:N-:R-SU:C-30:V)   

Martin van Staden says Andrew Thompson relied upon flawed article by Anton Harber to casually dismiss index
Misleading the public on race law harms journalistic integrity

Note: News24 published an edited-down version of this response to Andrew Thompson’s report. This version, being the original version submitted to News24, is however to be regarded as my official reply.

When the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) and I set out to construct and publish the Index of Race Law in 2022, contention from race-apologists was perfectly foreseeable. What I did not expect, however, was for the press to so quickly and unceremoniously discredit itself under the guise of “fact-checking.”

In a News24 report – not an op-ed, it must be noted – Andrew Thompson questions my contributions to a recent documentary by civil rights group AfriForum on Donald Trump’s accusations against the South African government.

Simply linking to a Daily Maverick article by Anton Harber, Thompson writes that the Index of Race Law’s “claim” (in fact, its factual record) of extant race law on South Africa’s statute book “has been debunked and succinctly contextualised.”

Nothing of the sort is evident from Harber’s article – which is receiving a response of its own. Harber’s entire contribution comes down to acknowledging that the Index of Race Law is accurate in identifying racialised statutory provisions, but he feels uncomfortable with the designation of “race law” because he happens to agree with the vibes of the laws in question.

That is what Thompson’s “fact-check” similarly amounts to.

The Index of Race Law records Acts of Parliament that make or keep a legal subject’s race, skin-colour, or ethnicity relevant in law, or allows a minister, regulator, or other functionary to do so at their discretion. Notice how the vibes, auras, feelings, and intentions of the legislators who introduced the laws are no factor.

It does not matter that Hendrik Verwoerd and his colleagues thought they were swell, good guys with their Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act or Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act. That they felt they were doing something good is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion from the Index.

That also applies to Tito Mboweni’s Employment Equity Act and Alec Erwin’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act. That the laws were dressed in the garb of redress and empowerment is irrelevant.

The only question that warrants inclusion of a law in a (any!) race law index, is whether or not the law is a race law, viz. a law that directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, legally operationalises someone’s race, skin-colour, of ethnicity. That post-1994 laws are – obviously – less racially severe than their pre-1994 counterparts, does not render them non-racial.

For Thompson, then, in the process of a “fact-checking” exercise, to write that the IRR and I are “mischaracterising” post-1994 laws by including them in a public-interest database that purports exclusively to be a record of racial laws, or are “misleading” anyone, is irresponsibility of the highest order coming from a journalist.

That he, as a representative of the fourth estate – which is meant to cut through the rhetoric, exaggeration, and puffery of politicians, officials, and judges, and inform the public of the actual state of affairs – could defer entirely to political intentions (what the race laws “were implemented to” do) and window-dressing, amounts to an abdication of his duty.

Thompson, Harber, and the cheerleaders for the status quo are, of course, free to endorse and celebrate the ostensible necessity of this, that, or the other race law. That comes down to a difference of opinion between me and them.

But that they would, in their capacity as journalists, claim to be factually “debunking” something as quantifiable and discernible as race-in-law, is condemnable. This is an abuse of office and public trust.

The Race Law Project is committed to transparency and peer-review. Anyone who notices factual errors in or omissions from the Index of Race Law is encouraged to get in touch with us at contact.

Martin van Staden is the editor of the IRR’s Race Law Project and its Index of Race Law. He is additionally the Head of Policy at the Free Market Foundation and has an LL.M. (cum laude) from the University of Pretoria.

Source: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/misleading-the-public-on-race-law-harms-journalist?utm_source=Politicsweb+Daily+Headlines&utm_campaign=4dd894884b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_03_27_11_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-4dd894884b-140246843

jlamprecht