“I fail to see how JZ’s comments re: Terror and the Free State can be said to be elevating the ANC above the Constitution.”

According to the article and some news reports JZ allegedly said this: “I said then that the ANC is more important than even the Constitution of the country.”

So he was alleged to have said it directly. Thus the burden moves to JZ’s defense to explain that what he said was not what he meant, because of context or mistranslation (from Zulu) or some other reasoning. So I don’t understand how you fail too see how this “can” be construed that way.

The article comparing Terror and JZ. I fail to see how JZ’s comments re: Terror and the Free State can be said to be elevating the ANC above the Constitution. The Constitution is deliberately silent on how parties conduct their own internal affairs. Whilst I agree that this central collectivist (anal) attitude of JZ’s is not one which would attract free-thinking managers, it is nevertheless a perfectly valid way for a party to conduct itself if central collectivism is the method by which it has set itself up.

If another party allows it’s elected Heads to hire and fire as they like, cool! But the ANC can hardly be said to be acting outwith the Constitution if they do not give such free reign to their Mayoral candidates.

You must tell it all not your selective argument bites about our – Zimbabwe.

Mbeki is a sophisticated intellectual who knows the real mouse and the IT instrument including its use.

We are prepared to learn and talk about your beloved mother or fatherland. Regurgitate facts of event and let us engage.

We hear that Zanu PF has resuscitated in the rural landscape from the lull occassioned by the loss of national and presidential elections. It that true?

We love the MDC but it seems the politicians climax when they see a TV Camera.

WHat is a fuss about allocation of power. This uncompromising quasi-leaders are punishing our people.

Mqo tell us more, I am provoking you. It sems it has been very invigorating!

As for for Mugabe for heaven sake what does he think he would contribute at his age ?

I find it very sad that Zimbabweans should lbame Mbeki instead of resolving their own problems in Zimbabwe.

All we are required is to give fellow africans refuge but to descent to zimbabwe to solve their political stalemate.

I gather during negotiations of the failed Deal they deadlocked on accomodation and booze. How true is this?

The answer tof Speaker to the unlively question of YL member was equally simplistic.

Mqo

The most entertaining comments he made were in reference to Thabo Mbeki, shocking the majority of South Africans in audience on his role in protecting Mugabe juxtaposing his policy of quiet diplomacy and his other African policies disgusted and dismayed the majority of South Africans in attendance on how they allowed such a person to be a President. I would have liked to relate to you his points of view, arguments and illustrations, but I realise that it’s inappropriate as the article above has more or less nothing to do with such. However I leave you with an example he gave when one ANC Youth member posed the question on why the MDC is perceived as a Western inspired party. He, inter alia, gave the example that they exists a generation gap and misunderstanding of the world of today and the world of yesterday in which various leaders, peoples and Africa academics view the world. If for instance you shout ‘mouse’ to Mugabe/Mbeki, their thoughts will be based on the kitchen ‘mouse’ that must be poisoned, on the other hand the later generation ( US! ) will think of a PC first.

My apologies Prof but I could not control myself.

Is real, an admitted young attorney. I can vouch for it, having contacted the appropriate legal fraternity.

Lindelani, as one example, if he is a real person, must be a Malema wannabe. I have not yet come across someone so eagerly competing to be more idiotic than the ANCYL president.

BTW Prof, I think you are spot on. Firstly in stating that both sides’ positions are out in the public domain, and secondly for being able to unequivocally enter into a discourse about the merits or lack thereof. I am astounded at the naivete of some to question the apparent ‘bias’. If an academic were to always hedge his bets in the discourse, how will it be possible a) to further the discourse and b) flesh out the issues and c) further our education and knowledge. Taking sides in the discourse is not the same as blind following a political leader. What we have in the comments of some of the bloggers is a BUSH Doctrine – ‘ you are with us or against us’. We know where that led a great nation like the USA.

So I hope that firstly, we can have robust debate without the CHILDISH RUBBISH that is being spewed out by the likes of Lindelani, and secondly agree to deal with ideas and opinions with better ideas and opinions.

In that regard, the comments as spoken by C Lewis must be seen in its context of furthering the debate on the preserving the integrity, honour and quality of the legal profession and especially the bench. Some of the comments may be politically incorrect in our race sensitive environment, but in the end the sentiment is an early warning to stop the rot before we regret it later.