Last week I read a News24 story about a “racial incident” that “rocked” the DA.

According to the report, Cape Town Councilor and chief whip Errol Anstey told fellow DA councilor Tandeka Gqada to go back to the Eastern Cape to get her lunch.

In an internal email to all council members after the incident, Gqada said that she had asked Anstey at an event they both attended whether it was time for lunch, to which he responded: “…your food is not here, it is in the Eastern Cape…”

I have to say, I actually gasped when I read this. I could honestly not believe that anyone – especially someone in such a high position- could say something like that. Surely, anyone understood how racist such a statement was.

Apparently not.

At the bottom of the News24 article, there were a string of angry responses. “What a load of nonsense. Such an over-sensitive person should go for counselling” said Guru. “Everyone (is) tired of ridiculous over-sensitive incomprehension of normal human chat – get over yourself please and get on with the job – it’s why you are there” ranted user433840.

“What has happened to the sense of jumour (sic!) of this ‘rainbow nation’? We have all become sooo sensitive that if you say good bye to someone in a tone of voice regarded as insensitive, you will be accused of racism. If our politicians have now also become ‘sensitive’, we have really lost it in this rainbow place,” wrote Kalafox.

(Just as an aside, I always wonder if people would write such hateful things if they were forced to reveal their identity and know that their children and friends could read it?)

Let there be no doubt:  Anstey’s statement was racist and offensive.

It is what academics call “othering”. Othering is when someone is treated as “the other” – in other words, when they are treated as if they are not part of the “in-group”. By telling Gqada to go back to the Eastern Cape, the message was that she was different and thus did not belong with her fellow councilors or the “in-group”. Of course, what makes her different from Anstey is her race and gender. So, by telling her go somewhere else to get her food, he was either doing so because she was a woman, or that she was black (or both). 

It was this sense of “othering” that Gqada referred to in her email when she said: “…your joke clearly tells me I don’t belong here.” 

In addition, the reference to the Eastern Cape brings up racial connotations. Not only is it a reminder of the old Apartheid homeland days, but it is particularly problematic given that the DA often refers to the “influx of people” (and of course they mean Black people) from the Eastern Cape, as a reason for a lack of service delivery in the Western Cape.

To pretend that this was just a neutral geographical reference is nonsense. We all know what he meant.

According to Gqada, Anstey apparently insisted that it was a joke and that he could not understand why she was upset.

Now one has to ask, what about it was supposed to be funny? I have tried to figure out where and under which circumstances “Go to the Eastern Cape for your food” could possibly be funny. I came up with nothing – because, of course, there is nothing humorous about it.

Even if it was (and we can accept that Anstey meant nothing by it), one needs to make a distinction between intent and impact.

Anstey might (and I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here) not have intended to hurt Gqada, but the point is that he did. He clearly realised that she was upset – thus the “it was only meant as a joke” comment shortly afterward. Instead of immediately apologising for the impact his words had, he added insult to injury by gaslighting her for not understanding that it was a joke and lacking a sense of humour. (The same is true for many commenting on the News24 article.) Thus Gqada (the one who was injured), got blamed for the situation.

By the way, “not having a sense of humour” is the retort of choice for men when women speak up when they are being subjected to hurts or insult.

None of us is free of prejudice and racism, and therefore all of us will at some stage say or do something that is hurtful to someone of another race or gender identity. When that person then takes the trouble to point it out to us, we should immediately and unconditionally apologise.

We should also take the opportunity to learn from it.

What we absolutely cannot do is deny the validity of the hurt experienced by the other person/s. 

The DA’s Chief whip in the council, Desiree Visagie, said in a press statement: “the matter between Councillors Anstey and Tandeka has been dealt with….. They are both experienced councillors and gave their full cooperation for the matter to be discussed, thus it has been resolved between the two of them”.

It should of course be welcomed that the matter has been resolved. However, I couldn’t help but notice that the press statement referred to Anstey by his surname and Tandeka by her first name. Why the difference? It seems to me like another micro-invalidation, which makes me wonder if the DA has learnt anything from this. Somehow, I doubt that they have.