A recommendation that Advocate Mark Oppenheimer be expelled from the Council of the University of Cape Town for remarks made last year in an interview with prominent international commentator Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and that fellow council member and CEO of the Free Market Foundation David Ansara be suspended for having posted an endorsement of Oppenheimer’s stand on X, has been described by Oppenheimer as “an egregious attack on freedom of expression”.
In his post on the Hirsi Ali interview, Ansara described Oppenheimer as “one brave lawyer in South Africa who is brave enough to speak out to the world!”.
However, in the report on his enquiry into complaints against Oppenheimer and Ansara tabled before the UCT Council between March and October last year, Judge Mahomed Navsa found that the Hirsi Ali interview “did not present a balanced view. It gave vent to predispositions and bigotry”.
“Simply put,” the judge said, “this was a hatchet job on South Africa, and Advocate Oppenheimer used the opportunity to also denigrate UCT’s institutions, contrary to his obligations as a Council member.”
More recently, Oppenheimer, who is also president of the IRR council, and Ansara, also a member of the IRR council, have faced further flak from UCT’s Alumni for Palestine, which has written to the UCT Council urging that both be suspended for taking part in the Lex Libertas White Cross Project in the United States in September and so “lent their names to a campaign aligned with a racist, right-wing, white supremacist movement”.
In a statement to the Daily Friend yesterday, Oppenheimer said:
“The years I spent studying at UCT were some of the best of my life. It pains me to see how badly this once great institution has lost its way. A university should be a place where people can speak their minds freely. Instead, UCT has clamped down on academic freedom and pursued a ruinous boycott of Israeli academics.
“When Ayaan Hirsi Ali interviewed me last year, I described in detail the anti-Semitic incidents on campus. Jewish students holding posters of Israeli hostages then held in Hamas tunnels were attacked by people wearing Hamas T-shirts and waving Hezbollah flags. A Jewish student performing the religious ritual of laying tefillin had his yarmulke grabbed from his head and thrown to the ground. Israeli flags were covered in blood, and Jewish students had the words ‘We are Hamas’ screamed in their faces.
“I described what was happening as an Islamist takeover of the university. Shortly after those incidents, UCT adopted its anti-Israel boycott. These events raised serious questions about the university’s willingness to protect Jewish students and uphold freedom of expression.
“Over the past two years, repeated attempts have been made to remove me from UCT’s Council. Those attempts have failed. There is now a finding recommending my removal on the basis of that podcast interview. I regard this as an egregious attack on freedom of expression. Council must decide whether to accept or reject that recommendation. It remains to be seen how it will respond.
“I am heartened by the many people who have supported me, defended academic freedom and open inquiry, and spoken out against anti-Semitic hatred. My hope is that UCT will restore sanity and once again become an institution where people are free to question, disagree and speak openly, and where everyone is welcome, regardless of their identity.”
In a published extract of the report on his enquiry into complaints tabled before Council against Oppenheimer and Ansara, Judge Navsa concludes in part:
“I urge Council members not to merely accept my assessment of the interview, but to view it carefully, in its entirety. One further observation. The interview purports to be one in which the interviewer would seek first-hand knowledge of a citizen of the country. However, what is clearly apparent is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali puts leading question after leading question to Advocate Oppenheimer, from suggesting that the communist party has a bigger influence than it has, to questions of Islamist influence and the extent of government dysfunction. Advocate Oppenheimer fed into it. Simply put, this was a hatchet job on South Africa, and Advocate Oppenheimer used the opportunity to also denigrate UCT’s institutions, contrary to his obligations as a Council member.
“Most people recognise that we are a country with problems ranging from high levels of crime [to] corruption and maladministration. However, the ballot is available to effect change. We have a free press and a functioning judiciary. The interview did not present a balanced view. It gave vent to predispositions and bigotry. I hereby recommend that Council take a decision to recommend to the relevant Institutional governance structure that Advocate Oppenheimer be disqualified as a member of Council.”
On the conduct of Ansara, the judge concluded:
“The reasoning that I applied in holding Advocate Oppenheimer guilty of contravention of the Code, [applies] equally to Mr Ansara. In endorsing and promoting Advocate Oppenheimer’s statements and views, Mr Ansara is guilty in attributing to his Council colleagues and to members of the Senate, Islamist motivations. It does not matter that individuals were not identified. What matters is that there was an accusation that Islamist elements had taken control of the University and by necessary implication, its highest governing body, the Council.
“In endorsing the offensive statements, Mr Ansara, like Advocate Oppenheimer promoted his own views and prejudices to the detriment of UCT.”
A few lines later, Judge Navsa writes:
“This is not a question of free speech or the boundaries between free speech and hate speech. It is about acting honestly, in good faith, with proper purpose and with respect for, the institution and Council members. There can be no doubt that the reposting of statements damage [sic] and affect [sic] UCT’s reputation and impinge [sic] on the dignity of his Council colleagues.”
Last week, Yousuf Gabru, Chairperson of UCT Alumni for Palestine, wrote to Norman Arendse, Chair of the UCT Council, raising further objections against Oppenheimer and Ansara, and urging the Council to “suspend [both of them] pending a review of whether their conduct [in participating in the recent Lex Libertas White Cross Project initiative in Washington DC] is compatible with their obligations as members of Council”.
Gabru writes that, in taking part in the Lex Libertas initiative “Mr David Ansara and Advocate Mark Oppenheimer … publicly aligned themselves with an organization the stated positions of which stand in direct opposition to the values UCT has adopted”.
“The White Cross Project opposes post-apartheid redress, which seeks to reverse the legacy of centuries of colonialism and apartheid. It advocates minority rule and calls for sanctions against South Africa. It continues to claim, without basis, that ‘minority persecution’ (its recent rewording of “white genocide”) is taking place.”
Gabru adds: “Mr Ansara and Adv Oppenheimer could have engaged constructively within our own democracy. Instead, they have lent their names to a campaign aligned with a racist, right-wing, white supremacist movement that holds considerable influence in the current United States government.”
Gabru concludes that “[t]heir actions betray UCT’s commitment to transformation and South Africa’s long struggle towards justice and inclusion”.
[Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/barbourians/22867721059]