Durban - Sodwana Bay former guest house owner Andre Slade says by refusing to accommodate “blacks or government,” he and his partner are “merely enforcing our law in our private home”.
Slade made the comment in court papers filed on Tuesday in response to an Equality Court case brought against him due to his refusal to provide accommodation for black people or government employees. In his reasoning on the matter, Slade said: “Very similar to men’s hairdresser versus women’s hairdresser or pet or not pet friendly accommodation.”
Last year, Slade - and the Sodwana Bay guest house which he ran at the time - came under fire after a Durban woman, Sizakele Msimang, received an email from Slade which said: “We do not accommodate blacks or government employees any longer.” Now the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority and the Department of Tourism are taking Slade to the Equality Court in Ubombo, in Zululand.
They want his remarks deemed unfair discrimination on the grounds of race, hate speech and an impairment of the human dignity of African people and government employees.
They also want the court to order Slade to make an unconditional apology and undertake “not to engage in similar conduct against African people and government employees or any other person, based on their race”
They also want him fined R50 000 to be paid to a non-profit organisation in Mtubatuba.
Slade, opposing the case, said in his affidavit that the guest house was a registered sole propriety. “As a result we were allowed to declare our right of association,” he said.
Slade said a week after he sent the email, “damaging false accusations” were made against himself and his partner, Katarina Krizaniova.
“Branding us ‘racist’ without objective judgment, not knowing the reasons for our statements.”
Slade said: “We decided to turn to the only real law there is: God’s law.
“As Hebrew, we decided to devote our house to our family members, the tribe of Israel, who have remained pure in breeding as per natural law,” he went on.
Slade maintained whites were superior and “God’s law” required segregation.
He asked for the case to be referred to the Constitutional Court as he believed the sheriff of the court and the court, among others, had contravened various laws.
The case continues.