If 'boer' song did inspire killers, would Malema be culpable?

IF WE assume, purely for the sake of argument, that Eugene TerreBlanche’s alleged killers were inspired by the lyrics “kill the boer”, would that imply that Julius Malema has political blood on his hands? It is not so obvious that this question must be answered in the affirmative. Yet, many who debate the connection between the song and the murder (both those arguing for the connection and those arguing against it) implicitly assume that if a connection came to light, Malema would be politically responsible or blameworthy (at least in part) for the death of TerreBlanche. This assumption is hasty and, in my view, wrong.

First, it seems odd to impute moral or political guilt to someone based on how his or her rhetoric was recklessly misused by some other party. If we applied this principle consistently, we would place undue pressure on each other to take responsibility for other moral agents’ actions which were based on their own moral reasoning about what is right or wrong.

In fact, we would be asking Malema to assume that all black people are simpletons or automatons who should not be trusted as capable of distinguishing right from wrong. This assumption is deeply offensive (because it robs “ordinary” people of moral agency) and also patently false (no one needs a degree or money or power to be responsible for their actions, disaffected farmworkers included).

Consider this analogy. To hold Malema responsible, if it turns out the lyrics inspired the murder, would be about as fair as holding a film maker or artist responsible for the actions of a psychotic teenager who gets inspired by a film or heavy metal song and who then takes a sword to school and kills or assaults anyone crossing his mad path. Imputing direct moral blame to the film maker is misplaced. It is the teen whose agency should be indicted.

Further , the complex psychology he or she possesses is based on the accumulation of a set of life experiences, which cannot be reduced to the trigger of the murder, which may have been the watching of a film. After all, many things can trigger a madman’s madness. Can we really expect each other to know the sensibilities of all our fellow citizens that intimately? That is an unreasonable moral and political burden, surely.

And so, similarly, if it is true that the alleged killers had experienced a history of verbal and physical abuse by TerreBlanche, as they reportedly claim, and that this song triggered their gratuitous response to their own unhappiness, it is unfair to shoot a moral arrow Malema’s way. The farmworkers ought to have known better. They are the sole authors of their own immoral actions.

Perhaps, however, one might think that Malema is at least indirectly blameworthy. He ought to have foreseen the reasonable likelihood of such comments and lyrics leading to murder. Is this assumption correct? And, in such a case, would it follow that he does carry indirect political and moral blame for what happened? Maybe. Again, however, the moral calculus is more complex than seems to be the case at first glance. It depends fundamentally on one’s analysis of just how predictable the effect of a particular song on others may be.

But surely no one could reasonably predict that singing a dated liberation song could lead to death? If it was obvious that such a tragedy will likely result, why did the same proverbially unwashed and uneducated masses (or two of them) not grab an actual machine-gun and attack perceived enemies of President Jacob Zuma when Malema declared a willingness to kill for Zuma way back? This counterfactual speaks volumes. If equally inflammatory songs lead to different outcomes, one of nonviolence and one of murder, then the key moral difference must be in the reasoning and choices of the audience. It is they who should then be the object of moral scorn and not the karaoke singer.

This does not mean that singing the song is morally or politically acceptable. Malema would do us all a huge favour if he stopped the singing. It is creating needless angst. But to jump from these conclusions to the claim that Malema is morally and politically responsible for TerreBlanche’s murder is unjustified.

It is becoming a national hobby in SA to look for every opportunity to have our prejudices confirmed. As a caller to my talk show demanded, quite tellingly, two weeks ago, “Can’t we find Malema guilty of something?” Folks, we need to prepare for the possibility that Malema is not omnipotent.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=105377