Anton Harbor | March 19, 2025
The claim that South Africa has 142 positive racial laws in its statute book includes many laws that can be considered racially based through the eyes of serious ideology, and is highly misleading.
The allegations that South Africa has 142 aggressive racial laws on its statute books have been repeatedly cited in recent weeks.
Afriforum quotes 142 numbers to show that our government is “the most racial government in the world,” and as an example of discrimination against white people: “Racist laws have been wrong in the past, so they are wrong now,” they wrote on their website.
Right-wing media such as the website Vierkleur said these laws direct “people who have access to a variety of opportunities, resources and rights based on their skin color.” The number 142 “does not exceed the apartheid era, the surprising reality of the country that once vowed to move beyond racism.”
The Flea Market Foundation uses it to show that “racial law is alive and well in South Africa.”
Even independent researcher Ayanda Sakhile Zulu, who writes for Mail & Guardian, accepts that as a fact. “There are currently 142 race-based laws in South Africa, the fact that all South Africans who believe in a true society where everything is treated equally should be deeply concerned.”
The claim is undoubtedly behind the tweet from Democrat Alliance Helen Jill that “there are more racist laws under apartheid than today.” Elon Musk retweeted 142 race law claims with 220 million followers on X.
And perhaps motivated by President Donald Trump's “number of (South African) government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunities for employment, education and business” in his executive order.
Seriously misleading
The claim is due to an SA Institute of Race Relations Websitebased on research by right-wing commentator Martin Van Staden. But a quick look at his list reveals that it contains many laws that can be considered race-based through the eyes of serious ideology, which is seriously misleading.
Their way of defining racial law is “hauntingly broad,” William Shoki Written in the New York Times Early this year. It is even listed in laws that prohibit discrimination.
This list “does not pass on any judgment as to whether a particular law is desirable or whether it is relatively harmless,” Van Staden told me. “We ask whether the law is a legally relevant factor, or empower the Minister or regulatory authority or other function to maintain race as a legally relevant factor.”
The site itself labels these “racial laws,” and things like Zille have extended this to “racist laws.” And information is misleadingly used to suggest that South Africa is a more racial and racist society than it was under apartheid.
We selected eight laws listed as “surgery” and “racial” and investigated them in detail. I found the law for many years. Some do not mention race, some just to prohibit discrimination, others do not even record demographic details. There are a few things that can undoubtedly be labelled “racial,” including the economic empowerment laws for blacks, but the claim that there are 142 active racial laws is a serious distortion.
The list says more about its compiler than its country in that it reflects inclusiveness, expression, anti-discrimination, and the ideological rejection of South Africa's attempts to salvage racial and gender history.
1921 Bethelsdorp Settlement Act Probably the most inclusion of the Slice Dic on the list. The legal committee, which has no connection to long dormancy, recommended a formal withdrawal 10 years ago.
Then there Act Registration ActThe list states that it was “racialized” in the 2024 amendment, and Van Staden is currently labelled “Group Area Act 2024,” comparing it to one of the most harmful and discriminatory apartheid laws.
The only reference to race in the law is that the registrar records the demographic details of the land buyer, including race, gender, citizenship and nationality, “for statistical and land audit purposes only.” The government will be tolerant if it does not collect this information and does not suggest that the law is discriminatory in any way.
1997 SA Drug Free Sports Law Research Institute Although he does not mention race, he is on the list as he states that when appointing the board, the Minister will “take into consideration guidelines or policies to promote equity, representation and relief in sports.”
Given the country's long history of discrimination in sports and the continued inequality in sports opportunities, this appears to be a very mild attempt at rescue.
1997 Lottery Law It is on the list because “licensing applicants must demonstrate a clear and continuous commitment to the progress, uplifting and economic empowerment of those at a disadvantage due to discrimination.” It is not about race, it allows for all forms of discrimination – perhaps including Africans who consider themselves unfairly treated.
Marine Living Resources Act 1998 One of the objectives of “to address historical imbalances and achieve industry equity” is to create the Fisheries Transformation Council “to achieve fair and equitable access” to fisheries rights. Again, the person who made the list rejects even the most benign attempts to achieve fairness and the right imbalance.
1998 National Water Act They often say that “the consequences of past race and gender discrimination need to be corrected.” It is interesting that the list compiler ignores attempts to address other forms of discrimination, such as gender.
Reference to race
I had to search carefully 1998 National Library Act Find a reference to race. There is nothing, but Van Staden says the issue lies in the section “The principles of transparency and representation must be applied” when appointing the board.
How do you ask, race enter? SA Weather Services Act 2001? The problem is that the Minister must ensure that the Board is “widely representing South African society” and “set policies for the adoption, training and transformation of weather services.”
I was able to proceed with the list of laws, but it is clear that many of the so-called “racial laws” do not only promote inclusion and representation.
There is another significant difference between today's law and apartheid law. Under apartheid, racial classification was imposed by law and enforced by low-level bureaucrats. Current laws are based on self-identification. This is a very different treatment of race.
Additionally, today's laws are governed by our constitution and prohibit discrimination unless they are made for the purpose of relieving historical inequality. Anything beyond that will be subject to judicial scrutiny.
All of this becomes the fact that it is grossly dishonest to say there are more racial laws than ever before.
“Disclaimer – the views and opinions expressed in this article are the views of the author and are not necessarily those of the Bee Room.”
