An ugly incident occurred recently at an event hosted by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) which is emblematic of a style of “protest” that is intended to shut down debate.
The topic under discussion was “South Africa’s Standing in a Tumultuous World”. One of the speakers was Emma Louise Powell, the Democratic Alliance’s Spokesperson on International Relations. The online invitation asked, “How can South Africa position itself in this tumultuous world to best advance its goals within the G20, as well as in its bilateral relations with the US, the countries of the European Union, and its partners in the BRICS+?”
The event was organised by the Western Cape branch of SAIIA.
What happened
While addressing the topic, protesters disrupted the event to protest against Powell, Tim Flack in BizNews said that Powell “became the target of frenzied, extremist protesters determined not to debate her, but to intimidate her into silence.”
Flack described it as “political theatre turned violent, complete with effigies of dead babies thrown in front of diplomats’ vehicles”. He describes a bizarre ritual where a woman in a bright pink hijab swung a metallic lamp, ground herbs and then tossed them in a bowl of fire.
The protest was clearly intended to silence Powell. She was advised to leave the hall and sought refuge in a nearby toilet, while waiting for the police. Powell was escorted out through a back entrance.
A group of protesters attacked the car of a diplomat trying to leave the premises.
Fortunately, police did arrive to escort her off the premises.
A bog-standard attack on free speech
The Free Speech Union of South Africa condemns the incident which in its nature, is sadly emblematic of much of the protest over the Israel/Palestinian conflict worldwide. This very style of protest is intended to shut down debate.
I speculate that Powell’s address was likely to make or may have made reference to the conflict in her address. Powell, after all, had travelled to the US with a colleague to ascertain what could be done to repair the relationship. We all know how Donald Trump feels about our government’s actions in this arena.
Powell had also been on a trip for parliamentarians organised by South African Friends of Israel. This was the reason for the protest:
Powell may have said there was no apartheid in Israel. I do not know.
I don’t know whether the trip was offered to ANC and other like-minded parties, but I suspect if it had had been, the offer would have been refused.
What the issue is not about
Before the election, the DA’s leader, John Steenhuisen said: “The Democratic Alliance stands in solidarity with both Palestinians and Israelis who see a two-state solution. It stands against radicalism and violence. We reject any sentiment that seeks to annihilate either Israel or Palestine.”
Bear in mind that the DA is the governing party in the Western Cape, and regards its economic trajectory very differently from that of the ANC.
This is a pretty bland, uncontentious position which is intended to avoid antagonising any voter constituency. I’m not aware that this position has changed since Powell’s trip.
The protest was not spontaneous; it was planned. However, it’s not the protesters’ behaviour that is of concern to me. Nor am I concerned about the actions of the organisers at the event. It’s unlikely that an invasion of that nature, at that type of event, would have been anticipated by the organisers. Everyone was taken by surprise. Calling the police and cancelling the event was not the issue.
What the issue IS about
It was to be expected of SAIIA to issue a statement on the event, which they did.
SAIIA’s ABOUT page describes its goal as “to advance a well-governed, peaceful, economically sustainable and globally engaged Africa”.
To this end, it goes on to say: “By actively engaging with governments, civil society, the business community, media and academia, we explore impactful solutions and shape public debate. We regularly host high-profile speakers and diverse audiences for impactful dialogues on critical global issues.”
That appears to be what SAIIA in the Western Cape was doing. However, this is apparently not what SAIIA nationally said in its media statement of 8 May 2025:
“The topic of discussion was South Africa’s strategic goals within the G20 and its bilateral relations with the US, the European Union and BRICS+ partners. The presence of Ms Powell, given her and the DA’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, led to protests and a breakdown of the event due to security concerns.”
SAIIA is implying that the alleged “position” on the conflict is not a position that should have been canvassed at a SAIIA forum. Presumably SAIIA is afraid of blowback by a constituency that isn’t amenable to the sort of engagement that SAIIA promotes.
Powell’s presence goes to the topic at hand. Her position on the conflict and/or that of the DA is exactly the point, whether the protesters agreed with them or not,. Whatever opinion she did or did not express, it is entirely what SAIIA should have been prepared for. The protesters’ position could have been ventilated at another event.
“This particular event was organised and hosted by the Western Cape branch. The views expressed by speakers at SAIIA events do not necessarily represent the viewpoints or endorsement of the Institute and/or its National Council.”
If Powell was “thrown under the bus”, SAIIA’s Western Cape branch was thrown under the minibus following close behind. Given this lack of support for its colleagues as well as a lack of support for its trying to promote dialogue, I suspect that the employment tenure of those at the Western Cape branch may be in jeopardy.
“SAIIA supports a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, one which recognises the rights of both peoples living west of the Jordan River. The current ongoing war in Gaza is not only a humanitarian tragedy that has seen tens of thousands of civilians die, but also inimical to an enduring peace.”
First, how does that view differ fundamentally from the DA’s position? Second, stating it does nothing to mitigate SAIIA’s pusillanimous statement. Third, it’s irrelevant to the issue.
“We acknowledge that the speaker’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict – which is a historical and significant issue within South Africa’s broader international relations – is at odds with the deeply-held convictions of many in South Africa and the global community.”
First, what was the speaker’s position? And even if it contradicted SAIIA’s position and/or the protesters’ position/s, that should have been irrelevant. The topic should be addressed by anyone competent to do so.
Second, what evidence is SAIIA relying on that supports its statement that the alleged position is “at odds with the deeply held convictions of many in South Africa and the global community”?
View of the protesters
SAIIA is implying that the view of the protesters is the conviction of many. However, it can only be sure of the convictions of the ANC and its representatives in government, together with some small parties in government, and those whose views have appeared in the media.
“SAIIA is committed to fostering open and robust discussions on critical issues, recognising that diverse viewpoints are crucial to provide informed perspectives. In this instance, our Western Cape branch should have been sensitive to the context and ensured a diversity of viewpoints by including panelists across the political divide. We will be working with all our branches to ensure the inclusion of balanced perspectives in all future events.”
SAIIA deserves to be pilloried for this particular statement. It says it is “committed to fostering open and robust discussions”, but immediately charges its Western Cape branch for not being “sensitive to the context” and “ensur[ing] a diversity of viewpoints”. There is no reason why this particular forum should have had a diversity of viewpoints. It was an address; not a debate. Anyway, even had it been, it’s very likely that, given the modus operandi of the protesters, it would not have been allowed to proceed. Detractors can organise another presentation to express opposition to the alleged position.
The protesters made it clear that they had no intention of recognising “diverse viewpoints”.
“In organising public events, one of our priorities remains the safety and well-being of our attendees, staff and the wider community. We deeply regret the situation that unfolded and are reviewing our event-planning processes to ensure that future discussions are conducted in a manner that is both safe and inclusive of diverse viewpoints.”
Engaging via threatening, disruptive behaviour is just aggravated bullying. And the only response to bullies is to call them out and take an unflinching stand on bad behaviour.
In other words, blame the perpetrators, not the victims. SAIIA’s credibility is seriously at stake.
[Image: Gerd Altmann from Pixabay]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend