EDITORIAL | Shopping for excuses and apologies after the fact doesn’t cut it

In the month that brings renewed focus to human rights, enshrining dignity, cultural respect, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, a loud and rude argument in a shopping centre over a man wearing traditional attire is a jarring sound.

Ndebele activist and author Thando Mahlangu, was recently instructed to leave the Boulders shopping centre in Midrand, Johannesburg. His sin? Wearing traditional Ndebele garb.

It reminds of the incident in 2018 when Mahlangu — again in traditional dress — was kicked off the Gautrain. At the time, then Gautrain CEO Jack van der Merwe described the incident as “unfortunate” and argued that “appropriate” dress meant commuters should be wearing shoes, for safety reasons.

In that same year Maj Fatima Isaacs was criminally charged by the SA National Defence Force for refusing to remove her headscarf. The army called it wilful defiance and failure to obey a lawful instruction, brushing aside her explanation that it was for religious reasons.

The Equality Court has since agreed with her, paving the way for all Muslim female soldiers to wear headscarves. She had to go this route after the military court withdrew the charges in 2020 but the army still failed to amend its dress code policy.

Yet three years down the line, tolerance for others is still a long way off.

In a video of the shopping centre argument circulated this week, a man who identifies himself as the mall manager tells Mahlangu he was not dressed decently enough for a public place. Mahlangu responds by saying he is dressed in African attire.

“You are telling me I’m not supposed to wear African [clothes] in Africa?” Mahlangu is heard saying.

“I’m saying this is a public place ... I’m not allowing that here, this is my mall ... right of admission is reserved,” the man responds.

The mall management was quick to respond with an apology, echoing the same kind of words heard too often.

The mall management was quick to respond with an apology, echoing the same kind of words heard too often: “The Boulders Shopping Centre would like to apologise unreservedly for the incident that took place at Clicks. The centre would like to clarify that it does not deny entry based on appearances and clothes. It is unfortunate that the incident that occurred inside Clicks is being viewed as intolerant towards other cultures and clothes.”

Then the justification: “We would like to state that based on various complaints received from shoppers, the person in question was asked to leave the store as his underwear indecently exposed him.”

And, of course, then the solemn conclusion: “The exchange in the video does not represent the core beliefs and values of the centre.”

Maybe the shopping centre management could start with a clear indication of the types of clothing deemed acceptable or unacceptable for those entering its space. When will a pair of hot pants ride up too high? Can someone give offence for exposing too much cleavage? Will a pair of too tight cycling shorts offend? The lines of offensiveness can become very blurry.

When Mahlangu donned his traditional attire that morning, it was no doubt with immense pride in his heritage, his culture, that which he holds dearest.

We live in a democracy where there can be no more excuse for tone-deafness to the societies where we live, work and intersect.

It has become too easy to apologise after the fact. An apology does not wash away the impaired dignity, the embarrassment, or the message that what your culture represents to you is not socially acceptable.

Clicks, who learnt a hard lesson with a hair product that labelled black hair as unkempt, this time round jumped to their customer’s defence by laying a formal complaint. They get the benefit of the doubt.

The shopping centre should be commended for swiftly suspending the manager and promising diversity training for their staff. But what really needs to change isn’t people’s clothes but many South Africans’ attitudes.