By Kouthar Sambo

Following alleged threats made by allies of the LGBTQIA+ community against a Gqeberha shop owner, Dawood Lagardien, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has intervened on the matter.

Lagardien, the owner of La Gardi Plastics and Baking Requirements, received opposition from the public when a sign he put up outside the shop went viral on social media. This comes after the sign put a ban on members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

“While myself and my daughter were in the shop with customers and children, I heard a lady screaming Astaghfirullah (I seek forgiveness from Allah) loudly. When I got up from my chair to find out what was happening, I witnessed two colored males in their late 20s fondling each other and kissing while the other person’s hand was down the groin. A customer closed her child’s eyes, and that is when I told them to leave the shop,” said Lagardien.

The members then mumbled something about being Pride Month, explained Lagardien, which he later learned was “something about LGBTQIA+ rights.”

“At that time, I did not bl***y know what LGBTQIA+ was. But nevertheless, they left the shop. And one or two days later, since I was absent at the shop, my daughter was threatened by three colored males regarding the incident that happened in the shop, and she asked security to escort them out of the center,” explained Lagardien.

According to Lagardien, the sign was put up outside the shop after allies of the LGBTQIA+ community threatened his daughter.

The sign reads: LGBTQIA+ not welcome at Lagardi save our children!!! Rights admission reserved!!

He further speculated that someone took a picture of the sign, which led to it going viral.

“I got quite a few threatening phone calls from pastors and allies of the LGBTQIA+ community, but it did not really bother me. The one call was from a person who claims to be from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and he said he will come and shut down my shop. They never pitched,” said Lagardien.

He went on to say that the sign outside his shop was vandalized immediately and that the incident was captured on video footage.
Following this incident explained Lagardien, he received a call from the SAHRC requesting him to remove the sign.

“When I asked the gentleman if he knew why the sign was up? He said no. When I explained to him why the sign was up, he asked me why did I not put up any other sign other than that?” reiterated Lagardien.

“I said to him, an indecent crime was committed in my shop by two individuals, who are obviously homosexuals. Then he did not speak to me any further, and they did not investigate the case. Also, they have not, at any point, come to see me to find out the proper story or what had happened,” he added.

Furthermore, Lagardien was served with papers accompanying a fine, apology, and interdict. However, he claims to have the support of legal experts who are dealing with the matter adequately.

“I had until the 10 August to respond, and the attorneys and advocates reacted, and I took the necessary file to the high court. We can only wait and see how the matter plays out,” said Lagardien.

According to Lagardien, two allies of the LGBTQIA+ community entered his store and fondled each other in front of Muslim clientele and children, which also raises the question of public indecency.

LEGAL

“Public indecency consists of unlawfully, intentionally, and publicly committing an act which tends to deprave the morals of others or outrages the public sense of decency and propriety,” said Advocate Muhammad Abduroaf.

“In this situation, the public would consider two individuals engaging in public displays of sexual pleasure as indecent, regardless of their sexual orientation, as such acts are typically done in private,” reiterated Abduroaf.

Depending on the extent and nature of the indecent act and personal circumstances, explained Abduroaf, a person could be fined or imprisoned – this call will lie with the relevant Magistrate’s Court Prosecutor.

MJC SA

While the legal implications on the secular law of South African legislation have been conveyed, the Muslim Judicial Council’s (MJC) Sheikh Muneer Abduroaf further elaborated by saying Islam utterly condemns same-sex relationships and marriages.

“The primary sources of legislation in Islam are the Qur’an, Sunnah and Ijmā’ (scholarly consensus). All these sources unequivocally prohibit same-sex actions and, by extension, same-sex marriages. The one who contests the rulings belonging to this category has effectively rejected the categorical law of Allah. They have consequently taken themselves out of the fold of Islam,” asserted a Fatwah (legal ruling) from the MJC.

A person who desires the same sex explained the Fatwah, but who does not contest the law of Allah, remains Muslim. He or she is in the same category as one who desires to fornicate but does not contest the Sacred Law.

According to the Fatwah, such persons who are tested with such desire and who strive to uphold the law of Allah (SWT), will be commended for their struggle.

“Persons in these categories who protect themselves from that which Allah has prohibited, despite their desires, will be rewarded. The Muslim community should in no way ostracize them. By contrast, the Muslim community should strive to include them in their gatherings of worship and social activities. This stance of love and tolerance has always been the way of Muslims, especially in the Western Cape,” elaborated the Fatwah.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Every workplace has standard procedures in place that govern the behavior of employees and an employer, explained South African Human Rights Commissioner Chris Nissen.

“Any inappropriate behavior, regardless of race or sexual orientation zone, is not allowed and is not acceptable in a workplace, especially if it is in a place where you are engaged with the broader public,” said Nissen.

He added that an employer must execute the appropriate steps to ensure no inappropriate behavior is displayed. He went on to cite freedom of association enshrined in the Bill of Rights while exercising cognizance of gender rights and respecting differences.

Nissen advised that the employer should “regulate internally in terms of the Labor Relations Act and the National Action Plan Act.”

“But there cannot be a situation where you say people with different sexual orientations are not allowed in the shop,” reiterated Nissen.

“We must respect the constitution of this country. And so the Eastern Cape Human Rights Commission is investigating this because there is a complaint before them. But I still believe it is better to talk and for the employer to have appropriate rules, regulations, and conditions,” said Nissen.

“We must look at the basic condition of service as part of the answer to the challenge that the employer faces, especially if there is inappropriate behavior in front of his customers, particularly against children. That is a violation,” added Nissen.

Photo: Unsplash