TROPHY TROUBLE

Holy man’s hunting selfie backfires

● A lay pastor who bragged online about getting an erection after shooting a buck in 2019 is determined to have the man who called him out for his “sick and disrespectful” post found guilty of defamation.

Mark le Roux, who serves on the Ethics Committee of the South African Medical Association, lost his first lawsuit against the Cape of Good Hope SPCA’s chief inspector, Jaco Pieterse, in the Palm Ridge magistrate’s court in September. He has now filed a late application to appeal the judgment.

In September 2019 Le Roux, who has more than 4,000 friends on Facebook, posted a photograph of the bloodied antelope he had shot propped up behind the steering wheel of his bakkie, while he lay on the roof with his tongue hanging out, mimicking the fresh kill.

The caption accompanying the image, translated from Afrikaans, read: “I killed my first buck on my late uncle’s farm, veld focus style. Am I now a real man? Am I embarrassed that it gave me an erection? Did I cry because it was my first time? Can I avoid the first-kill tradition of eating its balls? Can I wear the shirt again? The answer is no.”

Pieterse messaged Le Roux privately and told him he thought the image was “sick” and that it had upset many people. The post also attracted outrage from his followers.

Le Roux responded, saying that wasn’t his intention.

Pieterse stuck to his view the post was “sick, disrespectful and a mockery” of animal rights. Le Roux eventually conceded it was in bad taste and took it down.

The following day Pieterse posted publicly: “This post hit a nerve. Who in their right mind makes a mockery of a dead animal? There is nothing the SPCA can do about hunting as it is not illegal. The majority of people eat meat and animals are killed ... in abattoirs — this is not in dispute or an issue here.

“The issue is that a person will make a mockery of a dead animal he hunted by draping the carcass behind a steering wheel just for an added bit of fun and laughter. The only conclusion I can make is that a person that acts in this manner clearly has psychological issues and needs urgent intervention.”

However, Le Roux took offence to Pieterse’s response, demanded a public apology and sued Pieterse for R200,000 for defamation. He also blocked him on Facebook and told him to “vlieg in jou moer in”, meaning “go f**k yourself”.

“It came as a surprise... Mr le Roux had shared the post on Facebook and now wanted to take legal action over a scenario he created. He should have anticipated the negative response it would elicit from animal lovers,” Pieterse told the Sunday Times this week.

Adv Quinton Steyn, described by Pieterse as “a dedicated supporter of the SPCA and an enthusiastic advocate for animals”, agreed to represent Pieterse pro bono.

The case was heard in February 2023, and magistrate Katlego Mokoena ruled against Le Roux in September.

Le Roux told the court he had suffered reputational harm because of Pieterse’s comment. This included his church banning him from preaching any more

During the trial, Steyn said his erection (horing gekry) had not been intended as a sexual reference but rather to the animal’s horn.

When asked by Steyn what the biblical view of his post would be, Le Roux said the question was not relevant as he was not an expert in theology. Steyn countered that he had placed his CV on record, showing that he has a master’s in theology and his claims of being outcast by his church were part of the reputational harm he had suffered, which made it relevant.

Mokoena began her judgment by quoting from late rapper AKA’ s hit Run Jozi: “Next thing you know your career is over ntwana, over some characters, it’s the juxtaposition of choosing stupidity over intelligence.”

She noted that in cross-examination Le Roux had been unclear on exactly why he felt defamed — both in his professional capacity as part of a research council panel member and as a pastor.

Mokoena, who described the case as one of “bruised male egos”, found that Pieterse had not defamed Le Roux, and that Le Roux

should carry the costs.

But now, months after the decision, Le Roux has filed an appeal and has asked the court for condonation for the lateness, claiming that it is 72 days late due to difficulties in tracking down recordings of the trial proceedings and having them transcribed.

Le Roux’s counsel Vincent van Dyk of Van Dyk Oosthuizen Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.

Steyn said he believed the appeal was a strategy to delay the paying of legal costs because, though he had taken the case pro bono, the court had ordered Le Roux to pay the costs of the action. He said that Le Roux risked losing again, and could land up with even more legal costs.

Pieterse, who had been extremely relieved to have the case finalised, was disappointed by the appeal.

He said the opinion he had expressed had attracted attention because he is a respected figure in the animal welfare community. The opinion he had shared was factual, fair and not intended to defame, and he would continue to speak out on animal rights.