VZCZCXRO0327
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #2603 3521426
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181426Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0659
INFO RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 7450
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 1514
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 9805

UNCLAS PRETORIA 002603 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM SF
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE RESPONSE: "DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS" 
FORWARD THINKING 
 
REF: A. STATE 128320 
     ¶B. PRETORIA 488 
     ¶C. PRETORIA 561 
     ¶D. PRETORIA 1860 
     ¶E. PRETORIA 2038 
     ¶F. PRETORIA 2168 
     ¶G. PRETORIA 2207 
     ¶H. PRETORIA 2493 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Embassy Pretoria believes that success in reversing 
South Africa's support for the Defamation of Religion (DoR) 
resolution (reftel) will be highly improbable, and the effort 
may be counterproductive.  Post is open to elevating our 
dialogue on DoR to a higher level, such as a request for 
Ambassador Gips to meet with the Minister of International 
Relations and Cooperation Nkoana-Mashabane, if the Department 
feels this would be useful.  Such a meeting would be 
positioned as an occasion for the Ambassador to sound out the 
Minister on DoR, and to emphasize the priority placed on the 
issue by Secretary Clinton, without an expectation of 
changing the SAG's vote.  Given we have already approached 
them before on this issue we do not believe such a meeting 
will be productive. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Post appreciates the Department's redoubled efforts 
on DoR, but we reiterate that South Africa remains unwavering 
in its support of such resolutions.  The SAG was host -- 
geographically and ideologically -- to the 2001 Durban 
Conference Against Racism giving rise to the DoR motions, 
which the SAG continues to champion.  The SAG was offended by 
U.S. walkouts at Durban and in later rounds.  It has appealed 
to the U.S. to recognize its use of its good offices to 
excise from the DoR draft elements the USG and EU found most 
objectionable. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The SAG feels there is now nothing in the DoR text 
with which member states should take issue.  The SAG's take 
on the role of language and hate speech is fundamentally 
different from ours: prohibitions against discrimination go 
back as far as the liberation struggle's seminal Freedom 
Charter of 1955, and discrimination is a punishable crime in 
the South African Constitution.  It sees as hypothetical the 
U.S. claim that repressive states could distort DoR as 
grounds to deny free speech, saying the DoR as written does 
not lead to such an interpretation.  Per prior reporting 
(refs B-H), the SAG sees its stance as a deeply principled 
one, fighting racial and religious intolerance and harmful 
stereotyping.  It feels the U.S. and EU occupy an extreme 
liberal end of the spectrum on standards of free speech, 
whereas its own domestic context and apartheid history 
require the SAG to exercise more vigilant state oversight. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Specific responses to Department points: the SAG 
tries to align itself with other African countries whenever 
possible.  Bilateral leverage, in the form of a phone call by 
Secretary Clinton to Minister Nkoana-Mashabane, was used to 
positive effect to suspend a late SAG intervention on Freedom 
of Expression, but indirect feedback from the SAG suggests 
that this channel should not be overused.  The decision on 
DoR rests with DIRCO, but it has the endorsement of the South 
African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC).  Both DIRCO and the 
SAHRC have explained their positions on DoR to IO/DRL 
visitors.  Post is not aware of any pushback from local 
rights NGOs, for whom in the South African context the DoR 
resolution would likely be seen as combating the everpresent 
and real threats of racism and xenophobia rather than posing 
any distant and more abstract threat to free speech. 
 
GIPS