Stop die warmbekkige sotheid

 

Die Dros-Silverton verkragting het mense op sosiale media, en ene Mnr Malema hulle bekke warm aan die praat. Almal spoeg vuur en haat en vlymskerp venyn. Al die lawaai maak nie ‘n duit se verskil aan die aaklige ervaring van daardie kindjie en haar gesin nie.

Warmbekke loop op gevaar om in die sop met die gereg te beland. Julius Malema het veels te oorhaastig sy laakbare Kwets laat vlieg. Dis gevaarlike regsterrein, en die publiek moet versigtig wees om met hierdie vuur te speel. Daar is gevolge soos regsverydeling, naamskeniding en so meer.(Lees atrikel hieronder)

Eers ‘n bietjie  dinkgoed om aan te kou voor ek houe uitdeel.

• Byna vyf mense word elke uur in Suid-Afrika verkrag.
• In een skool net hier buite Polokwane is 27 dogters swanger, die meerderheid vanweë verkragting.

Hier waar jy nou sit en lees, word iemand se lewe met geweld verander. Beseer, verneder. Want daar is monsters daarbuite, in die restaurant, die gim, die straat. Binne in huise, kantore, die kerk, die skool. Elke uur word mense verkrag. Wat doen ek en jy om dit om te keer. Niks…..

Het die Dros Silverton dogtertjie geweet? Het haar mamma geweet? Het die personeel van die Dros geweet? Nee, hoe sou hulle? Ons weet nie eers van hierdie wrede statistiek nie.

My hart breek dat niemand kon keer voor die kind se onskuld gesteel is nie. Dank Vader die bliksem, wat ookal sy agtergrond is, dadelik arresteer is.

Wat skokkend is, is dat die on-agbare sosialemedia – selfaangestelde regters en laksmanne – geen brieke het nie. Bokker wat die reg en wetsprosesse in so ‘n geval vereis.

Ek stem nie maklik saam met Rian Radio nie, maar gistermiddag praat hy waar. Almal wat oor die verkragting van die dogtertjie in die Dros in Silverton aangaan. Die mense wat die gearresteerde se foto versprei, wat gil  die en daai en daai is sus en so. Julle fok die regsproses op.

Julle is nie die polisie nie, julle is nie die hof nie. Julle oortree die wet. Julle maak julle skuldig aan regsverydeling. Wat gaan julle doen as geregtigheid, danksy die verspreiding van die man se identiteit, nie geskied nie? Waar gaan geregtigheid vir die dogtertjie dan vandaan kom?

Julle is ‘n swak voorbeeld vir julle eie kinders. Ons land is stukkend genoeg. Meneer Malema – ja dis ‘n witman wat die vieslike misdaad gepleeg het.  Sies man, om die kind se trauma by jou raskaart-speletjie te betrek. En daai mense wat vertel hoe on-emisioneel die Dros opgetree het. Pfft. Julle soek na 5-minute van roem. Wat is julle organisasie se doelwitte, waar is julle baseer, wie is julle lede?  Skaam julle.

Plaas julle liewer dink aan maniere om te keer dat byna vyf mense elke uur in hierdie land verkrag word!

Die Dros se brief vertel vir  my dat die wet en regsproses respekteer word, en dat hulle midde-in ‘n skokkende situasie, probeer om ie prosesse te help nie hinder nie.

O, ja en wat warmbekke, het die man se vriendin, wie op foto’s wat versprei word, verskyn met die saak te make? Daar word vertel dat hy alleen in die restaurant was. Hoekom die jong vrou by die onsinnige veldtog betrek? Het sy nie regte nie? Of is sy nou skuldig omdat sy met ‘n vermeede toekomstige oortreder gefotografeer is? Almal wat die foto’s versprei en die persoon se identiteit bekend maak kan van naamskending aangekla word.

Die Dalai Llama het tereg opgemerk dat hierdie die dae van groot vensters met leë kamers en geen uitsig is nie. Bedoelende dat hol-binneste mense, met groot vertoon, geen waarde bied of verskil maak nie. Soos die warmbekkigheid op die Vuisboek en Kwetser (Twitter).

Lees hier en wees gewaarsku: “As always with cases like these, emotions run high. So when a photo of the alleged rapist circulated on Twitter on Thursday, social media users were quick to share the post, along with their name and age. Julius Malema was one of these users, retweeting a picture onto his timeline, to millions of followers. However, he should be aware that there have been multiple cases across the world where merely sharing a tweet can land you in serious legal trouble.

Why the Dros restaurant suspect cannot be named… yet

This could mean trouble for the EFF leader, and anyone who engages in retweeting the post. The technicalities around this issue are a dense forest, but one we can chop through. For a start, the accused is yet to enter a plea to the court. It was reported that he did make an appearance in the dock on Wednesday, but there has been no confirmation of whether he’s claiming to be guilty or innocent.

Speaking to Mail and Guardian last year, media law specialist Okyerebea Ampofo-Anti revealed that sharing the accused’s name and picture before they’ve made a plea is a huge breach of the rules:

“Once criminal charges have been laid, one has to be careful about the timing around naming the accused. The Criminal Procedure Act makes it illegal to publish any information relating to the charge before the accused has both appeared in court and pleaded to the charge.”

What media law says about identifying the defendant

Once they have made a plea, the media can then report on the charges being faced by an individual, using their name in the process. This doesn’t allow journalists to then label the suspect a “rapist”, but they can use terms like “alleged rapist” to add context to the situation.

Getting this wrong can be devastating for those behind the publication of the information. The state needs to be able to prove a defendant has been given a fair trial – being prematurely identified and classed as a criminal before being found guilty severely jeopardises this, as legal advisor Helene Eloffexplains:

“If the media paints someone as a suspect or criminal though he is never found guilty of committing a crime, he may claim remuneration from the media house involved. His right to human dignity will have been unfairly limited. A suspect’s right to a good name is protected by the law of defamation.”

If corroborating and credible judicial sources are able to verify the person in the picture, then media houses are usually allowed the freedom to share the suspect’s identity. However, it’s not so clear-cut in this case, as those which involve minors can sometimes conceal the accused’s identity until a verdict is reached.

Unfortunately, the picture shared by Julius Malema has sparked a huge debate about race and the media, with many claiming the suspect’s ethnicity is the reason his name has been kept secret. This is simply not true, and peddling that narrative also strays into the territory of defamation.

It’s not just the media who are bound by these laws, though. Twitter is a platform where information can spread rapidly, and if it turns out the party is innocent, the same defamation rules that apply to journalists also apply to social media users.

If you are exposed to these posts, don’t share them. Malema’s decision to jump the gun treads a very dangerous legal line, and it’s not one ordinary citizens should flirt with.

(Bron: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/dros-restaurant-alleged-rapist-tweet/)

NS. Dankie aan Viva, om my van warmbek te leer!)