South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku: The rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition.

South African Journal on Human Rights

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is routinely invoked to silence legitimate criticism of the State of Israel. According to the definition, comparisons of Israel to apartheid South Africa are antisemitic. Authoritative and compelling research and reports, which conclude that Israel is an apartheid state, are thus regularly disregarded as antisemitic hate speech. This has severely restricted principled pro-Palestine activism and a just resolution of the conflict. But, in South Africa, for no longer. In the 2022 case of SAHRC v Masuku, the South African Constitutional Court, the country’s apex court, considered whether comments accusing Israel of discriminatory apartheid practices constitute antisemitic hate speech. The Constitutional Court held that it does not. This essay discusses the judgment and its implications on the constitutional validity and political relevance of the Alliance definition.

Source: Published online

(Subscription required)

Share:

More Posts

High Court reaffirms the polluter pays principle

The polluter pays principle is a foundational concept of modern environmental law. At its core, it provides that those responsible for environmental harm must bear the costs of preventing, managing, and remedying that harm. The principle ensures that the financial burden of environmental degradation is not shifted to the public or the State but remains with the party whose activities caused the damage. In South Africa, this principle is given effect by section 2(4)(p) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), which provides that the costs of remedying, and preventing future pollution, environmental degradation and adverse health effects must be paid by those responsible for the harm. The principle seeks to ensure that the financial burden of environmental damage is not shifted onto the public or the State.

Breach of a Restraint Order: When it Is Not Contempt of Court

The Labour Court, in Rotunda Proprietary Limited v Sam, considered whether a former employee who breached a restraint of trade that had been made an order of court was guilty of contempt of court in circumstances where the underlying restraint of trade had, by effluxion of time, expired.

Cutting out the middle step in facilitated mass retrenchments disputes 

On 29 May 2026, the Constitutional Court in NUMSA and Others v Industrial Oleo Chemical Products [2026] ZACC [22] clarified that, in a facilitated largescale retrenchment, it is not necessary to first refer a dispute to conciliation before approaching the Labour Court to challenge the substantive fairness of the dismissal. The judgment brings certainty in relation to section 189A(7) of the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”), following a line of conflicting judgments in the Labour and Labour Appeal Courts.

Contact Us

How can we help?

Please fill in your details below and we will be in touch.