The Health Professions Council of South Africa has censured Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng, a prominent physician and UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, for using what it deems inappropriate language on social media against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and activist Hillel Neuer. The decision, stemming from a complaint by the South African Zionist Federation, has sparked debate over linguistic context and professional ethics. Critics argue the sanction ignores the political backdrop of the Gaza conflict and stifles legitimate expression.
Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng, a distinguished South African physician and United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, recently faced sanction from the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) over social media posts criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hillel Neuer of UN Watch. The HPCSA deemed her language 'inappropriate' and unprofessional, issuing a penalising letter without detailed reasoning or justification.
The complaint originated from the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF), which accused Mofokeng of misconduct. Her posts included the phrase 'f**k Netanyahu' in response to his rejection of a ceasefire amid ongoing civilian deaths in Gaza, and descriptors like 'evil,' 'bastard,' and 'evil scum' for Neuer, whom she accused of anti-Palestinian propaganda and efforts to defund UNRWA. She also referred to Neuer as a 'white man' in the context of critiquing power dynamics and supremacy, not race itself.
The article argues that the HPCSA's action overlooks crucial context, treating the language as vulgarity rather than political resistance. It emphasizes that Mofokeng's words were 'punching up' against perceived complicity in Gaza's humanitarian crisis, including mass killings and starvation. Language, the piece contends, evolves with culture and history—examples include the South African pidgin Fanagalo from mining eras and modern digital slang— and 'vulgarity' is historically contingent.
Drawing on thinkers like Audre Lorde, who viewed anger as a tool against oppression, the critique highlights the HPCSA's selective enforcement, noting its past failure to sanction apartheid-era figures like Dr. Wouter Basson. The sanction is portrayed as part of broader 'lawfare' to silence pro-Palestinian voices, urging the HPCSA to rescind it and apologize to restore credibility.
This case raises questions about who polices professional speech, especially when it intersects with global injustices. The HPCSA's jurisdiction over non-patient-related posts is also questioned, as they fall outside its mandate on care and conduct.