Constitutional Hill

Humour

Gareth is very, very cross…

Feb 16th, 2010
by Pierre De Vos.
76 comments

The voice on the phone was a bit shrill and whiney. His name - so he informed me – was Gareth and he was phoning from the Democratic Alliance (DA) offices. Oh dear. He was very, very cross. How could I have written that his boss, Helen Zille, was a hypocrite for claiming the allegations of sexual infidelity and sexual harassment against Lennit Max was a private matter while she had insisted Jacob Zuma’s infidelities was a public matter?

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.

Kill the beasts – but only if they are not cute

Nov 25th, 2009
by Pierre De Vos.
91 comments

During the Ukweshwama ritual, a traditional Zulu ritual that usually takes place at the end of the harvest season, a group of young men kill a bull with their bare hands. According to Animal Rights Africa (ARA) the ritual is rather cruel. ARA provides an eye witness account which states that: 

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. 

Happy Easter (thanks to Monty Python)

Apr 12th, 2009
by Pierre De Vos.
12 comments

A scene from Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian”, the story of a man who cannot seem to convince the blind faithful that he is not Jesus Christ. Any resemblance to the current South African situation is purely coincidental…..Happy Easter.

Newer Posts →