Appeal against a BCCSA Adjudication that a Kwaito song containing the word kaffir amounted to 
grossly offensive language that was broadcast during a time when large numbers of children are likely to be part of the audience (Clause 27 of the Broadcasting Code). The Appeal Tribunal of the opinion that when tested objectively according to normative standards, certain words remain taboo despite the context in which they were used and that the k-word has a history and connotation of offensiveness and oppression. Although much has been done after 1994 to destroy racism, instances of racism do still occur and the word is still being used by certain groups of people. As the country matures into the delivery stage of democracy, there is an increasing need to constructively address the scars of separate development and other inequalities. The Constitution, based on democratic principles, promotes a new value system for the country, but the said word is a derogatory term with racial undertones that amounts to stereotyping. It therefore has no place in the modern democratic South Africa where political correctness and sensitivity needs to be practised. When negative stereotypes are perpetuated, it has the potential to further divide the South African society and songs such as this one, unnecessarily evoke deep-lying emotions reminiscent of Apartheid. The song highlights the old attitudes of the past and playing it at a time when a large number of children is likely to be part of the audience, does not contribute to constructively working towards a common future for all.
Children should as far as possible be prevented from exposure to words such as kaffir, as they often emulate words without understanding their full meaning. They may not understand the intended message of the song, but would nevertheless be exposed to the elements of advocacy contained in the grossly offensive words.
It must also be borne in mind that a radio listener does not have the opportunity of re-listening to material in the same way as a reader of a newspaper article. The reasonable radio listener would understand a word at face value unless exceptional circumstances were present. Exceptional circumstances would include a drama for adults or essential information to audiences in a news insert about the use of the word. None of these circumstances was present in this case. No explanation was given, nor could a newsworthy meaning be inferred from the context.
The Appeal Tribunal accepts that no malice was intended by the presenter, but the airwaves reach listeners of a wide variety, and therefore exceptionally high standards must be adhered to by broadcasters.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The R10 000 fine imposed by Commissioner Viljoen in his adjudication is upheld.