A lesson for South Africans, perhaps?

The Vuvuzela: A cheap plastic trumpet that makes an ungodly noise and can be blown at any occasion. Also called South Africa’s secret weapon in the tournament. Not to be confused with Julius Malema (see below) as the Vuvuzela probably scored higher marks in woodwork.

Do say: I am a Mexican player,  please blow in my ear. Don’t say: Hope this was not made by child labour in China.

Jacob Zuma: The President of South Africa when Fifa is not in town, this affable and very musical politician has a complicated family life that includes several wives and a brood of children that could form its own soccer team. He loves discussing things, but really hates making any kind of decision. When asked a question he will chuckle and say: “Well, why are you asking me that, I am only the President?” Not to be confused with Sepp Blatter who is the President for the next month.

Do say: I believe the ANC will rule until Jesus returns to earth or Schabir Shaik goes back to prison. Don’t say: Whatever happened to that R500 000 from the arms company your friend Schabir scored for you under the table?

Julius Malema: The man white South Africans love to hate, this youngster obtained a G for Woodwork in High School but is nevertheless a sharp businessman who has invented a whole new way of making money: he pretends to build roads and bridges and most South Africans pretend we like him while giving him lots of our tax money so that he would not sing “Kill the Boer”.

Do say: What a lovely revolutionary and militant watch you are wearing. Don’t say: Can you help my son with his woodwork project – it will be good exercise and help you with your weight problem?

Greenpoint stadium: A magnificent football venue which was supposed to be built in Athlone until Sepp Blatter realized that it would look better if it was built in the rich suburb against the backdrop of table mountain, far away from Cape Town’s poor. Everybody was against the building of the stadium in Greenpoint. Now everybody believes it was a brilliant idea.

Do say: It looks like a traditional Xhosa woman’s hat. Don’t say: How many toilets could you have built with the money spent on the stadium?

Helen Zille: The leader of the official opposition in South Africa, this feisty and principled  journalists turned politician is an avid fan of conspiracy theories involving the ANC. No one does hurt and beleaguered the way she can. Just a pity her eyebrows can’t shoot up in alarm anymore, apparently because of a botched operation which was intended to make her look less white.

Do say: By building the stadium in Greenpoint you have brought Cape Town together and shown a principled commitment to the poor and to the Constitution. Don’t say: Do you know where I can have some Botox done (and by the way, where can I find a toilet?)

SABC: The official mouthpiece of the Soccer World Cup (and the ANC government) the South African Broadcasting Corporation pretends to be a public broadcaster by ensuring that its own management drama’s provide South Africans with a never ending soap opera worthy of “Days of our Lives”. They love reporting on events of world importance – like a Cabinet Minister opening the annual Biltong festival in Koekenaap – but are less succesful at paying their bills and reporting even-handedly about politics.

Do say: Feel it, it is here! Don’t say: When am I getting paid? The Minister called and you are in big trouble.

“The Constitution and the Equality Act surely prohibits such discrimination,” my friend continued. “Why is Afriforum not making a noise about this? Why does it not lodge a complaint with the Equality Court against the Church to challenge its policy of racial discrimination? Afriforum claims to be so worried about discrimination so it should do something about this!”

Maybe, I explained, it was because such an action – by Afriforum or anyone else – would have no chance of success. The Equality Court will reject the complaint because the right to freedom of religion will trump the right to equality. In equality matters one must weigh up the purpose of the discrimination against the effect that the discrimination would have on the human dignity of those who are being discriminated against.

Here the purpose of the discrimination is to protect the freedom of religion of the weirdo’s who belong to the APK. They believe that God had separated blacks and whites and should pray separately and the purpose of the discrimination is to give effect to that belief. (I am not sure whether they also believe there is one heaven for whites and one for blacks. How would that work in any case?)

On the other hand, it could be argued that the effect of the discrimination would not be particularly egregious as there are many churches where black and white can pray together and black people would probably not feel very welcome in a church that believes that God was really a big fan of apartheid. Banning blacks from the APK therefore does not present such a fundamental affront to the human dignity of black South Africans that it should trump the freedom of religion of the APK.

“But that does not make sense at all,” retorted my friend. “The Constitutional Court found that Rastafarians were not allowed to smoke dagga, despite the fact that this is a central tenet of their religion. To ban them from smoking dagga discriminates against them in the most fundamental way. Besides, the smoking of dagga is probably far less harmful than the effects of racial discrimination. We live in South Africa, after all, and one can buy dagga on every street corner in the city centre of Cape Town.”

I explained that he was confused. In the case of the APK discrimination the question is whether the APK can discriminate against black people. In the Rastafarian case the question was really whether the state can discriminate against Rastafarians. The Court in effect found that it could (although it decided the case on the basis of freedom of religion, not on the basis of equality) because the purpose of the discrimination was so important that it trumped the freedom of religion of Rastafarians. The ban on dagga keeps us all safe from the evils of drug abuse and thus trumps the right to freedom of religion. At least that is what a majority of the judges of the Constitutional Court believed.

My friend was not impressed. “The Equality Act bans discrimination on the basis of race in the same way that the law bans the use of dagga. Are you saying it is ok for the state to discriminate against a religion when the adherents of that religion are mostly black, but its not ok for the state to discriminate against a religion to enforce racial equality when the religion is exclusively for whites?”

Good question, I had to agree. But the use of dagga is a criminal offense and while racial discrimination is prohibited by the Equality Act, it is not a criminal offense to discriminate against anyone. Maybe that’s the difference between the two religions – the practices of the one religion is a criminal offense while the practices of the other is only illegal and enforced not in the criminal court but by the Equality Court. Or maybe both the state and our Courts just think that the use of dagga is far more dangerous and harmful for our society than the racial discrimination by a private institution who happens to be a church.

“Are you kidding?” my friend wanted to know, his voice rising a notch as it always does when he gets excited. “More people are addicted to alcohol than to dagga and far more people crash cars and kill people in accidents when they are drunk than when they are high, so dagga cannot be that dangerous. Given our apartheid past and given what I saw on TV of the Terreblanche funeral, racism and discrimination is far more of a problem in our society than the use of dagga.”

Well, I explained, maybe this also has something to do with the separation of powers doctrine. If the state explicitly banned religious groups from discriminating against anyone then maybe the courts will agree that such a ban was constitutional. But then I realized I was talking rubbish. The state will never force the catholic church to open up the priesthood to women. Neither would it ever pass a law that would force churches, mosques or synagogues to abandoned their homophobia and to marry same-sex couples.

“So,” said my friend gleefully, “what you are saying is that the state is too scared of the established religions and of people in the APK to ban their religious practices, but because the Rasta’s are such a small and powerless group the state has no problem with banning one of the central practices of their religion!”

Don’t ask me, I told my friend. Ask the Constitutional Court and the members of Parliament why they do not ban the APK from discriminating against black people or why they do not make an exception to allow Rastafarians to use dagga.

My friend laughed. “I wonder what the APK position is on men sleeping with young black men? They are probably not too keen on that.”

Luckily, I am not planning to visit my local APK anytime soon to find out, I told my friend.

During the interview Mr Mthembu passionately defended ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema for singing “shoot the boers, they are rapists” - before bursting into song himself. At this stage it is unclear whether Mthembu was really drunk at 7 in the morning and if he was, whether he had been partying the whole night or had started drinking very early in the morning.

Although I cannot claim that I have never been drunk at 7 am in the morning, I can confirm that I have never been arrested for drunken driving and I have definitely never given a media interview from a prison cell while allegedly under the influence of liquor. Respect bru!

Sadly, the said interview was not his best work as ANC spokesperson. Whether he slipped up because he was drunk or because he was in prison and did not have the Internet handy, is unclear. Malema obviously attacked Zille (she is apparently a Satanist) and De Lille (she is apparently not a fit wife) and sang the “kill a boer” song to detract attention from the fact that Julius has not been paying his taxes and has been lying about his business interests.

The media fell for this ploy hook, line and sinker. Malema is a genius at manipulating the media – a bit like Hitler, but without the mustache and without the scary uniforms and the homoerotic military parades. (Relax, I am not saying Malema is as evil as Hitler – just that he is very good at getting the media to play to his tune.)

Back to Mthembu, who explained to SAPA (while he was either sober or drunk, but definitely in police custody) that the “kill a boer” song did not constitute hate speech as it was an old struggle song:

This song was sung for many years even before Malema was born … Julius doesn’t even know who’s the writer of the song. He got it from us [the ANC]. You must blame the ANC, don’t blame Julius. But when you blame the ANC, then contextualise it.

The problem is that in 2003 the Human Rights Commission Appeal Committee found that chanting the “kill the boer, kill a farmer” did constitute hate speech. In an opinion written by Prof Karthy Govender, the appeal body, relying on the much narrower definition of hate speech in section 16(2) of the Constitution and not on the more expansive definition in section 10 of the Equality Act, rejected the line of reasoning offered by Mthembu from his prison cell.

The liberation effort, including the armed struggle, was directed against the policy of apartheid and against its supporters. One of the slogans used to mobilize people against Apartheid was ‘’Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer’’. It was a rallying call to resistance, defiance and acts of violence in furtherance of the objectives of defeating apartheid. In effect, it called for the ultimate harm to be visited upon persons deemed to be the enemy. It was a slogan created for a particular time and in a particular context. It reflected the intensity of the race based conflict that was raging in South Africa at the time….

There can be no doubt that the slogan, given its content, its history and the context in which it was chanted, would harm the sense of well being, contribute directly to a feeling of marginalisation, and adversely affect the dignity of Afrikaners. The slogan says to them that they are still the enemy of the majority of the people of this country. It contributes to the alienation of the target community and conveys a particularly divisive message to the majority community that the target community is less deserving of respect and dignity. This generalized slogan is directed against an entire community of people. Words convey meaning and do cause hurt and injury. There is a real likelihood that this slogan causes harm.

As apartheid had ended and the political situation had normalized it was not acceptable anymore to say “kill the boer” and if one does it constitutes hate speech on the basis of race.

I would therefore be surprised if an Equality Court, relying on the far wider definition of hate speech in the Equality Act, does not find Julius guilty of hate speech. Of course, it is not clear that the provision in the Equality Act is constitutional as it infringes on the right to freedom of expression and is far wider than the exclusion carved out by section 16(2) of the Constitution. It may be saved by the limitation clause but I am nots ure it will.

If I was Malema’s lawyer I would challenge the constitutionality of the relevant provision of the Act to try and escape responsibility and to appear to be a champion of the Constitution. That would be brilliant public relations and may even teach the media and ordinary South Africans a thing or two about freedom of expression. 

However, if the Equality Court finds Julius guilty of hate speech it has wide powers to impose the appropriate punishment. It could order Julius to pay an amount of money to Solidarity or the Freedom Front (or maybe to donate his watch to one of these organisations?), or to apologise to white South Africans, or to do community service in Orania.

As for Mr Mthembu, I hope the ANC does not fire him. We all make mistakes, but few of us would show his dedication in getting our message – no matter how misguided – out there. If he was drunk as alleged, he should plead guilty and apologise to the ANC and the nation. Then he could continue to act as spokesperson for the ANC, which would allow all of us to snigger at him and make fun of his dedication to the cause of spin-doctoring. As the add says, that would be priceless.

Gareth (I assume it was Gareth van Onselen, the Democratic Alliance Executive Director of Communications, but I might be wrong so don’t quote me on that) was particularly perturbed that I had mentioned there were allegations of sexual harassment made against Max. “Your entire article hinges on that point and no-one has made such an allegation!” he seethed.

I pointed out that I had read about the allegations in the newspaper (in Die Burger, I later recalled), had made it clear in my post that these were no more than allegations (at this stage at least), and besides, the article clearly did not hinge on this point – as anyone with basic reading skills and a bit of integrity would have been able to determine without too much effort. Clearly where a party claims that it opposes marital infidelity and it is then alleged that one of its leaders cheated on his wife, it will be a public matter finish en klaar (as Jackie Selebi once said about his relationship with Glen Agliotti).

(Such matters are public because the right to freedom of expression, the right to vote, the right of access to information, read with the requirements for an open, accessible and accountable government, require this kind of openness from public representatives. They cannot hide behind claims of privacy because, thank goodness, we do not live in North Korea.)

Gareth was not convinced. “Show me the proof!” he shouted.

He also argued that Premier Zille had not suggested that marital infidelity was frowned upon by the DA when she said: “This does not imply, in any way, that I or the DA condone marital infidelity.” It could also mean exactly the opposite, Gareth said. In other words, it could just as well mean that the DA does condone marital infidelity. For spin doctors, up is sometimes down and down up, it seems. The rest of us know better.

At this point I became slightly rude and called Gareth a “party hack” and questioned his intelligence. His loyalty was obviously not in question.

Self-righteousness is seldom an attractive quality in people. When a big dose of hypocrisy is also stirred into that pot, it can be toxic. Many irritatingly self-righteous people are so busy being self-righteous, telling everyone else how they ought and ought not to behave, that they are seldom able to reflect on their own actions and to be self-critical. Encounters with the toxically self-righteous are therefore seldom edifying: one feels a bit soiled afterwards.

My encounter with Gareth gave me that soiled feeling.

This morning the Cape Times reported that Max had said he had only been linked to two prior sexual harassment cases, not four as was reported. In both instances, the cases were made after Max had taken disciplinary action against the complainants, Max claimed. He said his former media spokesperson, Julian Jansen, would have to prove, during a legal process, his allegations that Max had made sexual advances to two women in his department.

So, Max himself has now admitted that his former spokesperson had made allegations of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is usually defined as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment”. In the workplace, when one’s boss makes sexual advances that are rebuffed, those advances are usually referred to as “sexual harassment” as they are unwelcome, can create a hostile environment and can lead to the victimisation of the women. (Hint: In a constitutional democracy based on human dignity, this is usually not seen as a good thing.)  

In any case, the larger issue is still one of gender equality and gender politics. Did Max use his position (as boss or as legal representative of Belinda Petersen) to obtain or to try and obtain sexual favours from women? If he did, he is a sexist pig. If he did not, many other people seem to be lying through their teeth. It would be a conspiracy – sort of like the one against President Jacob Zuma. Either way, finding out what happened would be in the public interest and very important for voters who had to decide which party to vote for in the next election.

Personally, I would not vote for a party who considered possible sexism a private matter. (A party housing a few philanderers would not really get me upset though.)

Zille’s argument about this being a private matter can therefore not stand. One can only maintain that view if one thought that possible sexism, gender oppression and discrimination against woman were only relevant when it happened in the public sphere. Feminism 101 teaches us that this distinction between the public and the private sphere is an oppressive one as it is maintained to shield men from exposure and to privatise sexism and discrimination against woman.

Once again, the allegations might be wrong. Lennit Max might be a feminist of note. But allegations that he used his position to obtain sexual favours from not one, not two, but three women cannot be a private matter – ever –  as it goes to the heart of his integrity. He is an important leader of the official opposition and if the DA believes that his treatment of women is a private matter it is shockingly backward in its gender views.

The fact that Zille has announced that the DA government in the Western Cape was reviving its defunct sexual harassment policy tells its own story. Questions one could ask are: why were the policy dormant? Why revive it now if – as Gareth claims – there have been no allegations of sexual harassment against Max? The fact that Zille had appointed an all-male cabinet and had not – until the recent allegations – ensured that a sexual harassment policy was in place in the Western Cape place a serious question mark over the DA’s commitment to gender equality.

I know Gareth will disagree with me – in his inimitable self-righteous manner. C’est la vie.

For 40 minutes, dozens trampled the bellowing, groaning bull, wrenched its head around by the horns to try to break its neck, pulled its tongue out, stuffed sand in its mouth and even tried to tie its penis in a knot. Gleaming with sweat, they raised their arms in triumph and sang when the bull finally succumbed.

ARA has lodged an urgent application in the Pietermaritzburg High Court in an attempt to prevent that hardworking and frugal monarch, King Goodwill Zwelithini, as well as the Provincial government from conducting this ritual. ARA’s lawyer refused to provide me with a copy of its court papers, saying that the matter was “too sensitive”, but according to news reports, ARA will challenge the legality of the ritual on the basis that it contravenes the Animals Protection Act (71 of 1962). ARA will also rely on the right to dignity, the right to freedom of conscience and the right to an environment that is not harmful to a person’s health or well-being.

It is difficult to judge the constitutional law arguments presented by ARA as I have not seen its papers, but I would be rather surprised if any of these arguments fly. Our Bill of Rights contains a set of human rights protecting, well, the rights of HUMANS. Tough luck for the animals: us humans often kill and sometimes also eat animals because it is part of our culture.

There are of course good reasons why animals are not protected by the Bill of Rights. It would be impossible to decide which animal’s are to be protected (Do we protect only cute dogs and penguins – thus soothing our conscience – or do we also extend protection to scary snakes and disgusting cockroaches?) 

Culturally, we also accept the torturing, killing and eating of animals but if animals have rights we will not be able to torture, eat and kill them. We will have to stop using Doom to get rid of flies, mosquitoes and ticks and flees, will have to allow cockroaches to roam freely in our houses and in restaurants, will have to close down abattoirs and stop wearing leather belts and shoes, and what would Archbishop Tutu do if we ban the quintessential South African pastime, the braai? 

I suspect ARA will claim that the mistreatment of animals infringes not on the rights of animals, but on the rights of humans, as the ill treatment of animals affronts our dignity, our conscience and our well-being. We are all demeaned every time one of us is allowed to pull out the tongue of a bull (unless, perhaps, if it is a Blue Bull) or when we are allowed to tie its penis in a knot. 

I find this argument hypocritical and culturally arrogant – to say the least. In our culture we accept the need to mistreat, kill and even eat animals – at least some of the time. Thus, we allow for the killing of cockroaches, say, because we think they are dirty (think District 9) and spread germs. Culturally we do not condone the killing of dogs though, because although dogs are also dirty and smelly, they can also be cute and friendly, wag their tales when we call them and bark at or even bite intruders. (Surely stomping on a cockroach can inflict severe pain on that cockroach but ARA will never object to that because its part of their culture to stomp on cockroaches.) 

What ARA does not see is that our African culture allows for the Ukweshwama ritual, just like European culture allows for the extermination of cockroaches in Restaurants. ARA’s argument that culture does not come into this is therefore wrong. What the good folks at ARA cannot see is that our culture always mediates our treatment of animals and that their view of what constitutes cruelty to animals is based on a particular Western cultural experience.

In a process of “othering” the culture of those who are not like them (rural Zulu traditionalists) are attacked as cruel, while their own cultural commitments about the treatment of various animals (informed by Western notions of what is appropriate) are viewed as normal and not part of culture at all. For them, white people do not have culture – they just ARE – while “others” have culture that can be studied, criticised and outlawed.

Seeing that our Constitution guarantees for every person the right to enjoy their culture, I would imagine the constitutional arguments, rather than favouring the ARA application, instead supports the defenders of Ukweshwama.  

It is of course true that the Animals Protection Act prohibits anyone from ill-treating, neglecting, infuriating, torturing, maiming or cruelly beating, kicking, goading or terrifying any animal. The Act also prohibits anyone from ”wantonly or unreasonably or negligently doing or omitting to do” anything that would cause “any unnecessary suffering to any animal”. But in as much as this Act fails to accommodate the cultural practices associated with Ukweshwama, the Act might very well be unconstitutional.

If I were King Goodwill and the KwaZulu-Natal government I would confront the ARA application with a claim that the sections of the Animals Protection Act are in contravention of section 31 of the Constitution and that far from supporting the ARA application, the Bill of Rights actually support the cultural p[practice now being attacked by a group of snooty, out of touch, hypocrites who cannot see how their own views on Ukweshwama is based on a disdain for the culture of others and an unquestioning and uncritical acceptance of their own culture.