Here in America, we see a Catholic hierarchy all but joining forces with the Republican party to insist on their right to control what is offered as healthcare to their employees in religiously-affiliated schools and hospitals and public services. In Britain, we see a furious campaign to prevent gay couples from having civil marriage licenses, a reform backed by the Conservative prime minister, and both opposition parties. And for much of the moment, this will be what the Church presents to the world: an attempt to control the medical care for women in its employ and its determination to keep homosexuals out of the word “marriage” and, thereby, “family.” – Andrew Sullivan on the Blog, the Dish.
Quote of the week
No, my anger is directed at the many followers who choose to remain silent in the face of such bigotry. Just because some old guy with flowing robes and a funny looking hat says some stuff, it doesn’t make it right. Nor does it make it wise or necessarily God’s will. By remaining silent, you condone this moronic and hateful stance of the church, which in turns makes you as bigoted and ignorant. By remaining silent, you prove you are nothing more than a sheep being fleeced for money and acting as agent of indoctrination. By remaining silent, you’re saying homosexuals do not deserve the civil liberties you enjoy. By being silent, you are acting against the very doctrine your supreme being in the heavens wants you to follow. – Styli Charalambous at Daily Maverick
Liberalism in general and its different South African shades has only been consistent on one and only one thing, political hypocrisy. Otherwise how does explain the fact that the DA has come out with guns blazing against e-tolling in Gauteng (which the SACP incidentally also has problems with) whilst at the same time imposing its own toll gates on Chapman`s peak in Cape Town. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the media completely ignored the SACP Central Committee statement over the weekend when it pointed this out, since, for all intents and purposes, mainstream and commercial media in South Africa, with few exceptions, has become the mouthpiece of especially post 1994 (white) liberalism. – Blade Nzimande
Could it be that the president’s supporters do not want the courts to review and possibly set aside the decision of former director of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe not to proceed with the prosecution of Zuma on charges of corruption? That appears not to be the kind of power they think courts should possess. Of course, they are free to criticise judgments they consider to be wrong, but that is a different matter to curtailing constitutional democracy, which rests on a principle of constitutional review. If that is not the reason for the recent moves, it is high time the country was told specifically what has motivated this call for a review. Without a clear explanation, the inference drawn in this column sadly becomes irresistible. Is it too much then to ask that the present chief justice enter the arena and defend the Constitution as it currently stands? -Serjeant at the Bar in the Mail & Guardian
Either Mr Zuma and his executive are being deliberately obtuse to obscure their real intentions and attitude towards the independence of the judiciary, the doctrine of the separation of powers and the supremacy of the constitution, or the Presidency is in desperate need of advice from an experienced constitutional lawyer. The latter possibility — that Mr Zuma simply does not “get” the constitutional democracy concept and has failed to surround himself with people who do — cannot be excluded, despite the fact that the political party he heads was the primary driver of the process that led to the writing of the constitution. That internationally acclaimed document’s main authors were, and remain, sympathetic towards the freedom struggle and the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) stated goal of transforming SA politically, economically and socially to shed the vestiges of apartheid. There is therefore no shortage of constitutional experts in the tripartite alliance who would be happy to provide guidance on such matters, yet senior party leaders keep making statements that appear to question the core principles on which our democracy is based, and the executive keeps acting in ways that leave the Constitutional Court no choice but to overturn its decisions. – Business Day editorial
If the ANC’s critique of liberal democracy was accompanied by attempts to deepen democracy by, for instance, decommodifiying electoral politics and access to the courts, enabling participatory budgeting, supporting independent community media and encouraging independent popular organisation, its position would be credible. But given that its critique of liberal democracy is being accompanied by a shift in power to securocrats rather than popular forces, and repression rather than opening, its opposition to liberal democracy can only be understood as anti-democratic. – Richard Pithouse on the The South African Civil Society Information Service website.
Mogalakwena municipality in Mokopane, Limpopo, is facing legal action over the re-instatement of a senior official who was dismissed after being found guilty on several charges. A report in the Sowetan says this follows allegations that the decision to re-instate the official was done on instruction of the ANC. The council has been dragged to the North Gauteng High Court over the reinstatement following allegations that the official was found guilty on 26 different charges. The papers filed with the court by Mahwelereng civic leader Piet Pale show that the ANC in the Waterberg region wrote to Mayor Esther Mothibi, instructing her to convene a special council meeting to reverse the disciplinary hearing’s findings and re-instate municipal director for corporate services, Henry Thobejane. Pale seeks an order to set aside the resolution by the council to re-instate Thobejane because ‘it fails to pass the test of rationality and reasonableness’. Thobejane was charged with, among others, fraud, theft, gross dishonesty, dereliction of duties, unofficial removal of official documents and destroying official information, financial misconduct and failure to carry out lawful instructions. The hearing, chaired by Advocate AP Laka, found him guilty on all 26 charges and recommended that he be dismissed with immediate effect. – Legalbriefs
Malema is no innocent victim. But he has been punished for his role in expressing opinion, not in preventing others from having their say. He is punished for saying that Mbeki cares more about Africans than Zuma — not for storming a stage in 2010 to try to bully Justice Minister Jeff Radebe. He is sanctioned for remarks on Botswana that were crass and embarrassing but no threat to democracy in the ANC — not for driving his opponents out of a hall in Limpopo or ignoring a court order in the Eastern Cape. The message is clear: ANC members can bully and bend the rules, as long as they don’t criticise leaders or deviate from policy. This insistence that the problem is not unfair contest but contest itself will worsen the problem. – Steven Friedman in Business Day
