The mob, the effigies, and the cowardice of silence: In defence of Emma Louise Powell - Tim Flack

Key topics

• DA MP Powell targeted, forced to hide from violent mob at SAIIA event

• SAIIA accused of cowardice, failed to defend free speech and their guest

• Protest labelled political theatre aimed at silencing, not debate

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.

If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

By Tim Flack

On 7 May 2025, a Member of Parliament was forced into hiding in a bathroom at a public policy event in Cape Town, not because of anything she said, but because of what she represents. Emma Louise Powell, the DA's Spokesperson on International Relations, became the target of a frenzied, extremist mob determined not to debate her, but to intimidate her into silence. This story, while involving Powell, is not about one person. It is about a set of principles under siege: freedom of speech, intellectual honesty, and the basic right to participate in democratic dialogue without fear.

Protest or Political Theatre?

What unfolded at the South African Institute of International Affairs' (SAIIA) Western Cape branch event was not a protest. It was political theatre turned violent, complete with effigies of dead babies thrown in front of diplomats' vehicles. One woman in a bright pink hijab was seen swinging a metallic lamp, grinding herbs, and then tossing them into a bowl of fire, a bizarre, ritualistic display that no one could clearly explain. To many, seeing this, it looks less like activism and more like psychological warfare, a deliberate attempt to unsettle and intimidate. Law enforcement had to escort Powell out through a back exit while police dispersed the crowd.

Institutional Cowardice and the Failure to Condemn

The protestors' aim was not to be heard; they were all shouting over one another anyway. It was to shut her down. And they succeeded. SAIIA's national office, instead of standing by their invited guest and condemning the chaos that unfolded, issued a cowardly statement suggesting Powell's mere presence, her existence, was to blame. They absurdly claimed the DA's position on Israel "led to protests," as though she lit the fire herself. They tiptoed around the incitement, excused the mob, and left a parliamentarian to twist in the wind.

Institutional Cowardice Dressed as Neutrality

What is perhaps most disgraceful in this entire debacle is the conduct of SAIIA itself. An organisation that claims to foster global dialogue and intellectual exchange folded under pressure with astonishing speed. Their response, a limp and equivocal statement that threw Powell under the bus, reeks of institutional cowardice cloaked in the language of neutrality. SAIIA invited a guest speaker. That speaker was targeted, harassed, and ultimately forced to flee the venue under police protection, along with diplomats from other countries. Instead of condemning this, SAIIA insinuated that Powell's mere presence was provocative, as if she was the danger. They implied that the mob outside was reacting to her, as if the responsibility for the chaos somehow lay with the woman in the crosshairs rather than those who came to silence her.

This is not neutrality. It is complicity.

Read more:

When an institution provides a platform, it takes on a duty of care. That duty includes not only physical safety, but the basic decency of standing by its invited guests. SAIIA failed on both counts. They allowed diplomats and a Member of Parliament to be hounded off their premises and then issued a statement so spineless it could have been written by the protestors themselves. Their silence in the face of intimidation legitimises the very tactics that threaten open discourse. What they have done, is to send a message to every academic, speaker, or civil society figure in South Africa: if your views offend the tiny mob, we will not protect you. We will suggest you brought it on yourself. SAIIA's conduct is a warning sign. If even they cannot defend a basic principle like freedom of speech at their own event, then the rot runs deeper than anyone realised. They have set a precedent that will haunt them. Because if the only speakers allowed are those who satisfy the most radical elements of the minute crowd, then SAIIA is no longer a space for dialogue. It is a stage for intimidation. Their leadership must be held accountable. Not for what they said, but for what they failed to say. They failed to condemn. They failed to lead. And worst of all, they failed to uphold the very values they claim to represent.

Misrepresented and Targeted

Powell did not mention Israel or Palestine in her speech. Her focus was South Africa's G20 agenda and global alliances. But the radicalised operatives of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and the increasingly unhinged fringe group South African Jews for a Free Palestine (SAJFP) came looking for a fight anyway. They did not want dialogue. They wanted submission.

It's always the same revolving cast of agitators showing up at these PSC theatrics: Roshan Daddoo, Salim Valley, Usuf Chikte, and Megan Choritz, like a tired ensemble stuck in ideological reruns. Whether it's a picket, a protest, or a so-called "panel discussion," you can bet this small echo chamber will be there, staging outrage and reinforcing each other's talking points. It's not a movement, it's a "snoeppie groupie", recycling the same narratives, the same props, and the same anti-Israel vitriol under the guise of activism.

Among the crowd were several privileged older white women, who seemed well-heeled professionals more accustomed to boardrooms than barricades. The first one appeared animated, swearing and shouting slogans, draped in kaffiyehs, they likely could not contextualise beyond surface-level symbolism. The scene bordered on the absurd, as if a protest had been staged from the comfort of a university seminar room and exported into the street. Their activism seemed more like performance than principle, less about solidarity and more about spectacle. It was not the women themselves who deserve scrutiny, but the broader culture that turns protest into theatre and recruits outrage as a stand-in for informed engagement. SAJFP, claiming to act in the name of Jews while joining a screaming mob that physically endangered their fellow Jew's political ally is not solidarity. Their attendance of the grotesque theatrics outside the venue speaks volumes. There is nothing Jewish about weaponizing infant death imagery in a tantrum of performative outrage. There is nothing righteous about justifying threats to a representative's safety because they visited Israel.

PSC's Optics Game: Exploiting Women, Dodging Accountability

As for the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, their leadership figures, men like Salim Valley and Usuf Chikte, were conspicuously absent from the front lines, delegating the visible agitation to a cadre of women. The scene was reminiscent of the cynical tactic used by groups like Hamas, which place women at the forefront to shield their more strategic operatives from scrutiny. This is not a comment on the women themselves, many of whom no doubt acted out of genuine conviction. It is, however, a critique of the deliberate manipulation of optics, a strategy that instrumentalises female presence while male organisers pull strings from behind the scenes. Such exploitation is not empowerment; it deserves to be called out for what it is: a cowardly abdication of accountability cloaked in protest theatre.

Mob Rule and the Erosion of Debate

We are witnessing a broader pattern: the legitimisation of mob rule in South Africa's discourse on Israel, and the casual antisemitism that now cloaks itself in "activism." What happened to Emma Louise Powell was not just intimidation. It was a dress rehearsal for future silencing tactics, aimed at anyone who dares to question the dominant narrative.

This kind of political intimidation has already escalated to violence elsewhere. In the United Kingdom, Member of Parliament Mike Freer had his constituency office petrol bombed after years of harassment and threats over his pro-Israel stance. He has since stepped down, citing fears for his safety and the safety of his staff. This is what happens when violent rhetoric is left unchecked and protest is allowed to morph into menace. South Africa must not wait for tragedy before recognising the consequences of this imported culture of intimidation.

The Price of Institutional Silence

South Africa, beware. If institutions like SAIIA, once respected bastions of intellectual engagement, cannot even defend a speaker they invited, what message does that send to academics, diplomats or civil society actors who still believe in open debate? It tells them: sit down, shut up, or we will come for you next.

Emma Louise Powell deserves not only our support but our admiration. She stood firm in the face of hate, extended an open hand to those who screamed and swore at her, and defended her position with dignity. This story is a reminder that the fight is not over personalities, but principles. The real shame lies not with her, but with those who watched the mob descend and chose, instead of speaking up, to blame the victim. Let's hope the DA see this gem and members brave enough to stand up to bullies, for who they are: brave in the face of danger and intimidation.