David Bullard, that pretentious (and previously witty) old colonialist who used to be a columnist for the Sunday Times before he was sacked for writing a deeply insulting and racist column, has launched a scathing attack on fellow columnist and self-proclaimed public intellectual Xolela Mangcu.
Bullard, who is now a staunch defender of President Jacob Zuma, does not appear to see the irony in him calling Mangcu “immodest” while displaying the kind of immodesty that would make a self-obsessed Hollywood starlet blush. He also seems blissfully unaware of how obnoxious (and potentially racist) he is being by complaining about an “uppity” black man.
In any case, I was struck by the following paragraph in which Bullard displays an embarrasing ignorance of press freedom.
When I was sacked from the Sunday Times last year (a CV entry I am particularly proud of incidentally) both Zapiro and Max du Preez weighed in with the view that it was a good thing. Since they are both supposed to be staunch supporters of press freedom this rather surprised me until someone much wiser than I pointed out that people like them only support press freedom if it is exercised by those of whom they approve.
Bullard seems to believe that he was censored by the Sunday Times when he was fired and that this constituted an infringement of press freedom. He is not the first person – and will surely not be the last – to make the argument that where a private institution declines to provide a platform for an individual to express his or her views, it is infringing on that person’s freedom of expression.
I think this is wrong.
No one has prohibited Bullard from expressing his opinions. During the apartheid years those who expressed politically “undesirable” views were “banned”, newspapers prohibited from quoting certain individuals and other newspapers harassed or even closed. This has not happened in his case. He is free to say what he thinks and to try and convince any newspaper editor to publish his little missives, or to publish them himself on the Internet.
Press freedom does not mean that an editor can be forced to publish the views the newspaper does not like, find boring, offensive or stupid. If that were to be the case, government departments would be able to force newspapers to publish the often deathly boring press releases about this or that Deputy Minister visiting a toilet seat factory in Koekenaap or delivering a speech on the importance of goat farming in the Klein Karoo.
No one has a right to have a column in a newspaper – not even someone with the high selfesteem of Mr Bullard.
There will be those who disagree with the decision of the editor of the Sunday Times to fire Bullard, but they cannot claim that his right to press freedom has been infringed.
Similarly, if I organise a seminar and I decide not to invite Thabo Mbeki, John Hlophe, or dan Roodt, I have every right to do so. I do not have the right to stop these gentlemen from speaking at the Orania Koeksistervereniging or the Native Club, of course, but by denying them a platform I am merely expressing my own views about them and their views.
Newspaper editors make decisions every day about what to publish and what not. Some of these choices might be unwise and shortsighted, but forcing them to publish certain views would be in contravention of their press freedom.
One could have a profitable discussion about who is allowed to speak in our society and who not. Newspaper editors don’t always serve the interest of democracy and often publish columnists and news that serve their own interests or the interests of their capitalist bosses who pay their salaries. Why, for example, don’t most of us know the names of the leadership of the Landless People’s Movement or many of the other social movements that challenge the capitalist consesus in our society?
In a free society the way to deal with this is to try and find other ways for the dissemination of information and ideas that we might think important. Freedom can be a bugger and those with power will often deploy it to stay in charge, but with some hard work and ingenuity one can begin to break the hegemonic hold some think they have on the flow of information. One might not get paid as handsomely as Mr Bullard claimed to have been paid, but that is surely a small price to pay for standing up for your principles.
The more voices the better – but they really do not all have to be in the same publication.
Pierre, you are quite right about Bullard — the nonsensical notion that his firing violated press freedom illustrates the pitfalls of unreflective horizontalism.
But you are very, very, naughty to describe Bullard’s drivel as “potentially racist.”
Have we not learned that the casual flinging of the racism charge dangerously trivializes bigotry, and provides a fig leaf for all kinds of mischief?
Actually, Bullard was hired for expressing his own opinion. That’s entirely the point of having a columnist in the first place. Him being fired for expressing his own opinion does amount to censorship.
What’s more is that his supposedly racist piece went through all the channels without as much as a blink of an eye – meaning the editor saw it and approved of it, then came running back to Bullard when the piece caused a stir. The newspaper editor was not forced to publish that particular Bullard’s piece by anybody.
This is tantamount to inviting Mbeki to your seminar, reading his presentation beforehand and then complaining about it after the seminar.
Ah, I think you’re on thin ground with this one Prof. I’ve read Bullard for years and view him in the same light as Zapiro, quite a funny man actually. Really, not much different than Travolta. One thing I definitely love about South Africa is the press and the freedom of all the various views. And Bullard’s support of our Prez, well, what’s more satirical and mind bogglingly confusing than that. Makes one think, doesn’t it?
Garg – You make a valid point. If a paper does not want to run such rsiks, then it shouldn’t have any columnists in the first place. And, if the editor approved publishment of same, then at least he is willing to back it, albeit only in the name of freedon of expression (the usual disclaimer – ‘the views of the columnist does not necessarily reflect the views of the paper’ – should suffice in such cases). Whilst I did not particularly like the specific column by Bullard for which he was fired, he remains a journalist of principle that would utilize freedom of the press as far as possible – and that, in the very nature of things, has to lead to toes being trampled upon. many people felt offended by “Kill the boer, — the farmer!”; “With our matchboxes and our necklaces we will liberate this country!”; “Do not act like a kaffir”; “Umshini wami!”; and so we can go on, … but none of those who uttered those words have ever been fired from their respective positions (except Winnie who was to an extent marginalized by Thabo Mbeki). So why Bullard? I enjoyed most of his collumns, by the way, besides that one dreadful oe. But being side-lined by readers is one thing, … being side-lined by those in control, quite another.
I generally quite enjoyed David Bullard’s columns, and was quite disappointed when he got fired, because it seemed at the time that he was a bit of a scapegoat for some poor editorial decision-making – regardless of the merits of the column, he only wrote it, he didn’t decide to publish it himself. I was rather annoyed with the way the whole thing was handled by the paper to be honest – you can’t ask a man to write a column which is deliberately provocative, publish it, then fire him when people don’t like it.
Having said that, I’m getting a bit annoyed with the way Bullard seems to be playing the victim card here – although one never knows, this may all be one big social experiment to illuminate the general tendencies in SA politics. Still, presuming it isn’t, the whinging and whining, along with the sudden support for a man he lampooned many times, seems to be a bit pathetic in my opinion.
I think he should go after an apology from the Times for his being fired – he does not make editorial decisions, he simply writes material. However, this whole idea of going after other fantastic social commentators like Zapiro is detracting from his point, and eroding any high ground he may have here. I wish he would stick to the issue at hand – namely, it was not his decision to publish the column, but he still was the only one to pay the price for that decision. In addition, people like Julius Malema seem to be able to utter all sorts of racist bigotry and don’t get fired – it seems a bit rich that Bullard should be fired for doing the same (I’d even venture to say it was to a lesser extent).
Let the pretentious fools devour each other. We have much more pressing issues to concern ourselves with. For example, an economy in a tailspin.
You see, we were going along fine, then……
Sadly Pierre you have completely missed the point. The constitution allows me to write deeply insulting and racist coliumns if that is what my editor orders. The column ran for 14 years, has 1.7 million readers and was designed to raise the reader’s blood pressure. So don’t come running to me with your limp wristed liberal clap trap. Of course my right to freedom of expression has been violated and who said the Sunday Times could put posters all over town announcing that I have been sacked for a “racist” article? The HRC are still to respond to my defence sent in all of 11 months ago. Obviously they thought the complaints a complete waste of their time.
I couldn’t give a toss about not writing for the Sunday Times but all they had to do was to give me 30 days notice and come up with a retrenchment package.
Of course I’m immodest….I’ve made a living out of being flash and noisy for years and the column was pure showbiz. As for Mangcu….well the word “wanker” springs to mind.
Sorry….forgot to mention this. You seem to have a problem with my support of our President. In addition to press freedom I understood we also had political freedom in this country.
I agree with many of the sentiments in comments above. Bullard was unfiarly treated *only* because the editor allowed his article and *then* fired him when he got into hot water. Unfair, but not too much to do with freedom of speech.
Pierre, you didn’t go quite as far as to say that it is only government or state censorship that is a problem, but you came pretty close to implying it. I disagree. It would be wrong for Pick n Pay (just a hypothetical example) to stop stocking SA Golf magazine because they disagreed with the viewpoints expressed. PnP has such a huge reach that we should not allow their “freedom to act as a private corporation” to hold sway over the best interests of the public and inhibit freedoms. Corporate censorship can be damaging and dangerous.
Walmart (an actual real life example) has sufficient clout in the music CD business that some artists have CHANGED LYRICS in order to still be stocked by the bix box retailer. Some artists have a “Walmart friendly” version. If an artist was prevented from getting his or her message out because it clashed with the perspective of Walmart then we should intervene.
The difficult line is should PnP or Walmart be allowed to not sell Hustler magazines, because customers want a “family friendly store”? At what point do we intervene on a private corporation to protect the interests of some at a cost to both the corporation and other members of society?
As much as I often found Mr Bullard s columns quite insulting and utterly racist, I think that little Mondli Makhanya, or is it Mondli Ma’kaak’, was supposed to be held accountable for Mr Bullard stools( well, according to Pallo Jordan anyway). What I find irritating is this notion by Professor De Vos of labelling any person who says/writes anything sane about President Zuma as “now having become a staunch defender/supporter of Our President”-almost implying that there s nothing defendable, for a lack of a better word, about President of the ANC, sorry – President of All of Us South Africans!
“Newspaper editors don’t always serve the interest of democracy and often publish columnists and news that serve their own interests or the interests of their capitalist bosses who pay their salaries.”
It is interesting how they have chosen their favorite constitutional experts who grafted 24/7 to try and discredit Jacob Zuma and his “left-leaning” allies. Sadly all in vain.
“As for Mangcu….well the word “wanker” springs to mind.”
Well let’s hope that you have deep pockets, Mr Bullard. I think that you might have “defamed” old Mangu by making such a statement on a public forum.
Will let Mangcu know what you have written about him.
all I know is that on Xolela Mangcu, Bullard is spot on. Regarding the piece that got him fired, I think both he and Mondli were on crack.
It doesn’t really matter. PdV is generally known in academic circles as a media whore. He has even advocated on his blog that constitutional rights and the due process of the law should play second fiddle to the whims/interests of the media For him to now bite the hand that feeds him with these dishonest tidbits of pseudo anti-capitalist rhetoric that he injects in his posts now and then to try and fool those few who would be gullible enough to believe him is typical of his blog.
David Bullard, your “argument” does not hold water as you are conflating three different things: (i) your freedom of expression; (ii) possible defamation by the Sunday Times against you; (iii) possible illegal firing of you by the Sunday Times. It is unclear what you are really arguing (shouting in print does not make an argument) but perhaps you are suggesting that because you were paid to write a controversial column you had a right never to be fired no matter what you wrote. This is patently absurd. If I hire X to write a controversial column and X writes a column telling her readers that (a) Robert Mugabe should have killed more white people and Zuma should learn from him how to kill whites; or (b) HIV does not cause AIds and ARVs are poisonous; or (c) the Holocaust never happened and all Jews should be killed, your argument would be that I as editor will not be able to fire X because then I would be infringing on her freedom of expression. But it seems to me that I would have both an ethical and moral duty to fire such a columnist and I would have the legal right too – as long as I follow the required process. No one in South Africa has the right to keep a job no matter how badly they do it.
I never did find David Bullard interesting… Its probably because I was even younger then than I am now…
I would think that Bullard beind fired due to what he wrote, when he could simply have been told that it was not in keeping withe Sunday Times’ image really is a curtailment of freedom of expression and is in poor taste as it was his job to write things that get people fired up. Was it not unfair when the Beeld of Rapport writer was fired after the “Satanic” article? It was the editor who approved it but was too much of a whimp to accept public responsibility for his decision.
Newspapers have a duty to provide readers with various views and let readers judge for themselves. The “whims/ interests of the media” are most probably entertained by s16 of the Constitution so they do not necesarily rank higher than constitutional rights. If you look at American jurisprudence you’ll note that “freedom of speech” [association] ranks as a critical right in their society. In SA it is not an absolute right.
Mother Theresa – he could have said it in jest. There’s a defence.
PS. I loved what Travolta wrote in the Sunday Times the weekend of the NPA’s decision. It was the funniest thing I’ve read by him.
Prof, you’re right that no one has the right to keep their job no matter how badly they do it. One does, however, have the right not to be unfairly dismissed. What measures were taken against Bullard, short of dismissing him? Would other measures have been sufficient for the offence? I think that there were less harsh measures and that these would have been enough. If Bullard is told to rewrie or not be published that week then its enought incentive to rewrite. If he is further given a warning or disciplinary inquiry etc then that would be just fine.
Maybe Prof’s argument is pro-capitalist Ozone. If you’re a publisher and mostly black people but the paper and there’s a grossly racist article or column. One may expect readership to drop, the alternative, pro-ANC City Press would gain the readers. Its about the bottom line either way. The media industry is about money. I’d love them to always be entirely truthful but the economic motive must drive the angle from which the truth is told.
Interesting or not….good writer of not….gentlemen it’s all irrelevant. I was hired to write (amongst other things) a column which would draw readers through to the rarely visited Business Times. It worked and they loved me for it. It ran for 14 years and is now running just as successfully on Moneyweb every week, It was a commercial, if not an artistic success. Actually that’s not true…the last book sold 15000 copies so it’s a best seller. I had a TV show for over 4 years, regularly MC swanky events, had a radio show and have written for about 15 magazines (currently five of which I am the editor of one). Like me or not, I am very good at what I do. And I have enough FU money not to care. And the sun is shining in Jo’burg today and I am a guest at a lunch at Linger Longer. I have a terminal condition but life is good…..sorry it obviously isn’t for some of you.
The firing of David Bullard was not all in vain. He is now a supporter of the President!
What he wrote was deeply offensive. It was not intellectual stimulation, but real abuse against black people. For that he was fired. He deserved it. As Prof rightly points out, try telling us about freedom of expression as you deny the holocaust! Let him have his “package” if he deserves one, but we are happy never to read that abuse on our way to church ever again! Never!
Mondli made a mistake to publish it, but he was right to kick him out of touch.
Well, I am not inclined to defend Mangcu either. They seem to be having a bun fight over who should be the good boy!
Prof……your points are valid but I wasn’t legally fired. I was fired by phone 5 days after the article appeared and two days after my resignation was refused by my editor. The Sunday Times needed to make a splash. They then put the “article we should never have published” on The Times website and bragged about it. Is it any wonder I’m gunning for the bastards? Happily, the paper has so little credibility these days that business has returned and I am earning once again. But in the months following the sacking there was tremedous collateral damage and family trauma….I even had to smoke smaller cigars and drink Chivas 12 year old rather than the 18.
David, I don’t care if you’re wealthier than Oprah. We’re interested in other elements of your dismissal.
An editor cannot justify firing a columnist for what he wrote after he approved it for publishing. He is as racist as Bullard is said to be then. I maintain that Bullard should have been given a chance to correct what he wrote, several people say things which are racist yet their nonsense is still in our faces ecery day… (Malema) Racist should not be condoned simply bacause its racist and degrading and runs counter top the spirit of our Cosntitution. What happened here is that “racism” wasn’t condoned simply because of economic motive and not the Constitution.
Sorry Nkululeko but I find this racist staff all very tiresome. Of course some races are superior to others….that’s how England learnt about straight roads and irrigation. Am I about to sue the Romans for trauma? Calling people racist is just a cowardly cop out employed by people too stupid to debate. I don’t see colour….I only see “wankers” (see above).
One has to wonder what all the fuss about David Bullard is. Before this furore I had never heard of the bloke and when I read the infamous article I thought what a crock of shite. I was certainly not going to seek out any of his archived articles or look out for future ones. The guy has very little style and the article had absolutely no humour. It was purely racist drivel. Humorous? Clever? Witty? Satirical? More like bollocks. It was as subtle as a ton of bricks.
I would pretty much expect his writing to be entertaining to the average Sunday Times or Moneyweb reader. South African readers are so starved of decent writing. I would have fired Bullard years ago if that was a typical example of his writing.
The irony here is that Bullard’s ‘scathing attack’ amounts to sticking a neck out for Zapiro, Max du Preez and yes – freedom of the press. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Perhaps we should all go and read the piece:
http://www.richmarksentinel.com/rs_articles_formal.asp
Then flame on!
Bla bla yackity yack some opinionated , rich , pseudo-whatever-intellectual most people never even heard of got fired and now we ask questions about it. The real question is: WHO CARES?
By the way David Bullard. Abraham Lincoln once said: “It’s better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt.”
I note with interest how Bullard gauges his success. 1.7 million readers. Not 1.7m discerning readers or 1.7 intelligent readers. Simply the number. If that is what it takes, beat this Mr Bullard: Mao’s Little Red Book had a readership of a few billion.
And an article consisting of gratuitous insults and boasting. Ho hum. Give us some style and substance, David. I’m sure you can do it.
The comments on this post have been more entertaining than the article. First Michael Osborne with his “unreflective horizontalism” (wtf?) sent me unsuccessfully running to Google and Wikipedia. Then the back and forth of Messrs de Vos and Bullard. Then a lovely summary of it all by DJL.
‘He also seems blissfully unaware of how obnoxious (and
potentially racist) he is being by complaining about an “uppity” black man.’
This is pushing it, Pierre. He never accused the good Mangcu of being “uppity.” Or do you think that such belief is embedded every time a White person criticises a Black person? Hey?
Prof.,
I have to agree with this article of yours Prof. It is well written.
Garg,
Assuming that your argument is correct, as Mouse seems to accept, the views of David Bullard would still be subject to internal and external limitations on the right to freedom of speech. These limitations are an addition to the considerations of the private nature of the platform on which Mr. Bullard wanted to “express his opinion” (the newspaper) and of the commerce ( that the purpose of having the newspaper was not for charity purposes but for making profit and therefore anything which militates against profit-making should be avoided as long as that is legally possible and lastly to ensure that the sources of that profit are kept as happy as possible (the readers).
These four considerations, i.e.
1. internal limitations on the right to freedom of expression (susection (2))
2. external limitations (section 36)
3. private nature of platform on which the views were expressed (newspaper)
4. Profit-making and avoidance of loss of profit.
when taken together, clearly show that it was not an unjustified limitation of Mr. David Bullard’s right to freedom of expression to fire him!
PS: I believe people read something into the concerned article that the author (Mr. David Bullard) never intended. But then again, I have not read some of his article so maybe I am being gullible.
im sorry but this is a silly posting im in a greement with Garg and Mouse.
David Bullard, i think your firing was sadly unjustified. Your a columist, since when do people take columist seriously, its all fictional.
I believe the straw that broke the camels back was this article Uncolonised Africa wouldn’t know what it was missing. Um in a since think about it you guys if africa wasnt invaded or colonised by the Europeans, Africa would actually have stayed pretty much the same – is that so bad? Infact If I was God I would have made the whole of africa a national game reserve. Atleast black people understood how to care and look after nature. Instead of having rich Americans (time to take a swig at my country for a change) and Europeans coming here and pretending to hunt lions and shoot them in cages.
as for “Uppity black man” you guys are being to sensitive esp to some of the upitty white people on here.
Fuc it man David Bullard keep writing i swear people drop there lipsticks way to aften
Michael, freeboot et al, I would be the last person to argue that it would always be racist for a white person to criticise a black person. How could I, given what I have written on this Blog about Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma and others? Although a bit juvenile, calling Mangcu “a wanker” – as Bullard does – is his right. We often hide behind race to avoid responsibility for our actions and that is no good. But words acquire meaning within a certain context and, it seems to me, some criticism which asserts the superiority and dominance of the (white) critic and perpetuates the kind of racist stereotypes used through the ages to “put black people in their place” in an attempt to shut them up is very problematic. In a society permeated with racism, white people with a healthy self-regard is often viewed by other (white?) people as “confident”, as “leaders” as “entertaining” while black people with a high self-regard is branded as “immodest” because (unlike white people) they have nothing to brag about. When Bullard calls Mangcu “immodest” and clearly means this as an insult while himself displaying the kind of immodesty that would embarrass even those of us with a very healthy self-regard, he seems (perhaps unwittingly?) to perpetuate the notion that black people are fine as long as they are quiet, “well-behaved” and “modest” and “do not make trouble”.
Hey Sarah Palin…..who said anything about “intelligent” readers. This is showbiz you Alaskan hottie. If I was aiming at intellectuals like you I would have been broke long ago. Now go shoot a moose. And why do you think there have been so many responses on this page? a)David Bullard b)Prof de Vos c)none of the above.
Don’t f**k with superstars darling. The Sunday Times tried and look where it has got them.
David B, take the Sunday Times to the cleaners. Doesn’t matter what you said; fact is, you were unfairly dismissed; that is the case they have to answer to. Our labour laws is so simplistic that any ‘uppity’ person can understand it. The fact that you wrote horseshit (which I found very entertaining) has no relevance to your case.
Must say David, I miss Sunday quartet with yourself, Fred Khomalo, Ben Travato and Sis Beatrice. O, and by the way, Fred K. is certainly not shy on the line of racial insults; however, as a non HDI, I’ll just keep my complaints to myself and enjoy the infuriating column that I love to despise.
You’ve got to love David Bullard. He’s the bespectacled geek who used to appear in The Sunday Times for 14 years under the apt title of “Out to Lunch”. What Mr Bullard lacks in writing talent he more than makes up for in immodesty – as he himself is quick to point out. The poor man has still not got over being dismissed from the job, despite having more ‘FU’ money than is good for him. He is even desperate enough to feel it necessary to defend himself on blogs now. He suffers from a huge inferiority complex about his lack of intellectual capacities which he compensates for by calling intellectuals ‘wankers’ and boasting about his wealth and fabulously successful social life. And the man’s colour blind. Ag, shame man.
Sarah Palin,
I trust that the above was your last post aimed at Bullard himself. I trust your next one would be aimed at dealing with the substance of his (unfounded) allegations.
Lest you have not been noticing, he is trying to lure you into his name calling business whilst unsuccessfully running away from his rather embarrassing allegations which I have traversed above though responding to Garg as he was the one who provided something with substance that was worth responding to.
Sarah darling……only 6 out of 10 for the parody I’m afraid but you show promise. Almost good enough to work at The Times. Unfortunately you’re a little shaky on the psychoanalysis though…..I suffer from a superiority complex (that’s why I got sacked….remember? White is right and all that stuff). I’ve even had an egoectomy op but is wasn’t completely successful as you can see. Now, if you’ll excuse me….it’s been fun. Nice to know I haven’t lost my golden touch. No more postings on this subject. Wait until next week’s RichmarkSentinel article …..and Prof…..you can buy me a drink next time I’m in the Western Cape as a thank you for putting you on the map. Byeeeeee
Aw, honey, and just when I was having fun. I knew I still had it in me to stroke a man’s ego. But nice to have you visit on Pierre’s blog, David.
Oh, and (pace Sne) 6 out of 10 for my feeble parody. I’ve done far better and still wouldn’t expect to pass. But I forget – I’m being marked by the Bullard standard. I only write this because I know, David, that your overweening ego will ensure, despite your promise to leave, you’re still reading.
I’m presuming that (a) the David Bullard on this blog is the real deal, and (b)…no, I was only presuming one thing, I just like bullet points (it comes with the accountant package).
As much as I enjoy tongue in cheek humour, especially unashamed bigotry in the name of poking fun at others who often fail to spot the irony and start mounting high horses, there will come a point where you need to be serious about the issue at hand – taking aim at guys like Zapiro and Max du Preez just reinforces the notion that you’re just trying to stir the pot, and aren’t actually taking things seriously – which weakens what I would imagine is a good argument for unjustified dismissal and all that. Not that I’m a lawyer. But just a thought. And remember, I am a fan of the column.
Pierre, you have now forfeited your right to complain about being called a racist for attacking Zuma, Hlophe JP et al.
You may think Bullard a bigot for any number of reasons. But your suggestion it was racist to call our pre-eminent public intellectual “immodest” is just patently absurd.
That you fall into this trap after yourself having been the victim of similarly preposterous charges makes me despair for the possibility of rational discourse.
LOL. This little exchange between David Bullard and PdV reminds me of two bold men fighting over a comb.
btw Pierre – how much did those nasty “capitalist bosses” pay for your learned opinions that got splashed all over the tabloid pages during the stop Zuma campaign ?
Dammit Sarah…..I took a peek. And OZONEBLUE…..I don’t have any tonsorial deficiency. Check the photo. Now I really am going…….
Ozoneblue – Funny you should say that. Reminds me more of two “bold” men fighting over the balance of the hair gel, the means of production, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the inevitability of class struggle, the mobilization of the masses, the immodestly of the indigenous intellectual, the liberation of the id, and the beneficiation of the bourgeoisie. But thank you for your contribution. ((LOL)
Pierre, you truely are a real deal to have had Mr Bullard so defensive on your blog – I need to honestly congratulate you on that. Trust me, guys with his ego are never really interested on how ordinary peeps like us think of them, but hey what do you know? …What I find quite interesting is the fact that Mr Bullard actually thinks he is rich – I wonder how does he come to this rather inaccurate conclusion!….Anyway, I m glad that almost everybody on this blog realises that for as long as we have little white racists like Anglo David Bullard calling Our people “wankers”, We will never give up on the revolution- we will fight till the bitter end (…and only God knows how much of this Counter-Revolutioun can Our people sustain.)….all in the name of bloody Freedom of Expression! What do these little white racists know of freedom of expression? and since when?
Forget Bullard.
Pierre, is Vusi Pikoli wasting his (and our) time by challenging his dismissal in court?
What should happen if Vusi wins in court, but Zuma appoints another NDPP anyway?
“tonsorial deficiency”
I had to look that up.
So educational this blog.
And Pierre, now that you’ve drawn Bullard into the peanut gallery, so much more entertaining.
Michael Osborne // May 27, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Ja. I meant to say bald – no pun intended.
Tony in Virginia,
To answer your question, I think Vusi Pikoli will make an application for or has included in his remedies, the halting of the permanent appointment of an NDPP until his application challenging his dismissal has been settled in court.
I also wondered what will happen if the court declares his dismissal illicit and orders his reinstement by the President. Would that mean that the President’s appointment of the acting NDPP was also unlawful? If yes, what does that say about his decisions which he made while so acting, which decisions include dropping charges against the sitting President.
However, my little reasearch showed that Zuma is off the hook. The suspension of Pikoli might have been unlawful but the appointment of an acting NDPP is still lawful as it is mandated by the NPA act. Secondly, Administrative Law does not allow for such a court order as it would have outrageous consequences. Thirdly, it is possible that the decision to drop the charges was not an administrative decision in terms of PAJA though it may still be challengeable on other grounds which Prof has ably dismonstrated herein.
I find it interesting to learn that “immodest” and “wanker” have been elevated from mere insults to racist slurs.
Once again it appears that freedom of expression is a constitutional right only for as long as the expression is something with which you agree.
I support Nkululeko’s assertions that the firing of David Bullard was unfair. Furthermore, I believe that he was made a scapegoat for the profoundly poor editorial decisions taken by the newspaper. Final responsibility and accountability for the output of the newspaper lies with the editor. He should have been fired. But somehow I think this country was not ready for a “black” editor to take the fall for publishing a “racist” article.
Sne & Tony
Pikoli is trying to launch an application for an urgent interdict to stop Zuma from appointing a new NDPP.
As for Pikoli wasting our time, I dont think so….the is enough evidence to suggest there was a plot to get rid of pikoli and its slowly starting to seep out. Mbeki admitted to interfering by delaying the arrest of Selebi. The Ad hoc committee that was a joke – remember that one?
I dont think Zuma is off the hook just yet Sne Ill draw your attention to Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Act 3 of 2000).
Chris,
The PAJA 3 of 2000 does not apply to decisions whether to prosecute or not. This is specifically stated in the said legislation. I am lazy to go check out the relevant provision.
Hi Prof,
The COSATU v VODACOM decision is up on SAFLII.
See http://www.saflii.org
http://www.saflii.org/_za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2009/76.html
Enjoy
See the Vodacom decision on
http://www.saflii.org/_za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2009/76.html
Sne
The PAJA 3 of 2000 enables a review of a decision not to proceed or to proceed with a prosecution
Judicial review of administrative action
(2) A court or tribunal has the power to judicially review an administrative action if-
(a) the administrator who took it-
(i) was not authorised to do so by the empowering provision;
(ii) acted under a delegation of power which was not authorised by the empowering provision; or
(iii) was biased or reasonably suspected of bias;
(b) a mandatory and material procedure or condition prescribed by an empowering provision was not complied with;
(c) the action was procedurally unfair;
(d) the action was materially influenced by an error of law;
(e) the action was taken-
(i) for a reason not authorised by the empowering provision;
(ii) for an ulterior purpose or motive;
(iii) because irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations were not considered;
(iv) because of the unauthorised or unwarranted dictates of another person or body;
(v) in bad faith; or
(vi) arbitrarily or capriciously;
(f) the action itself-
(i) contravenes a law or is not authorised by the empowering provision; or
(ii) is not rationally connected to-
Mpshe is the administrator is he not?
‘administrator’ means an organ of state or any natural or juristic person taking administrative action;
administrative action: a decision to institute or continue a prosecution
NPA decision to drop charges should be based on sound principles of administrative law.
I had a debate about this “applying legal mind” and showed how Mpshe did not applying his mind did not act on sound principles of administrative law.
So the court is in full power and in the legal right to review the decision to prosecute or not and can order that the dropping was illegal thus regenerating the prosecution to still go ahead unless the court decides that Mpshe needs to come up with something abit better.
Chris,
PAJA 3 of 2000 does not apply. I refer you to the definition of “administrative action” in section 1(b)(ff) of the Act. It reads as follows;
“administrative action” means any decision taken, or any failure to take a decision, by-
a) an organ of state, when-
i) exercising a power in terms of the Constitution or a provincial constitution; or
ii) exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any legislation; or
b) a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state, when exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of an empowering provision,
which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct, external legal effect, but does not include-
…….
ff) a decision to institute or continue a prosecution;
Chris, note the use of “but does not include” in the section. I also refer you to Prof’s article in which he deals with this issue and how it can be challenged in court. One of the reasons could be that it is not in accordance with the prosecution policy which Mokoteki Mpshe was bound by when he took his decision not to prosecute. Hope this clears it for you bro.
Chris and Sne, subsection (ff) is ambiguous and can be read to mean that a decision to institute and not to drop charges are not reviewable under PAJA but that a decision to drop charges can. That is how Nicholson interpreted it. It can also be interpreted to mean that a decision to drop charges are not reviewable under PAJA. The CC has not ruled on this yet.
Thanks Prof. I bet you’d want the decisions to be subject to review;)
Sne ok bro home boy
Firstly
B) ) a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state…….bla bla bla
um NPA is an organ of state, its not a natural or juristic person
your definitions to section (b) does not belong to NPA hello?? NPA belongs to (a) organ of state i dont see
courts belong to organ of state, judges presiding belong to organ of state (b) does not apply, (a) applies
what does this mean to you? Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
what does this mean to you
6. (1) Any person may institute proceedings in a court or a tribunal for the judicial
review of an administrative action. DA
what was the administrative action????? dropping charges
“but does not include” well golly gum drops its seems to include it in Judicial review of administrative action argue round this one please (2) A court or tribunal has the power to judicially review an administrative action
well if it has the power to review an administrative action well then clearly a court has the power to give a judgement on the administrative action, thats what courts do they judge and give orders.
unless you feel Judicial review of administrative action is a waste of time and shouldnt be in there bro
Chris,
Well bro, do not expect me to disagree with what is written in a statute unless there is case law which has not been overturned on appeal or is currently under appeal, which states that a decision to prosecute or to continue with prosecution is subject to review in terms of PAJA 3 of 2000.
Let us wait for the CC to give its decision on this issue bro…
What an interesting change… I still maintain that firing Bullard at that time and for those reasons was unjustified. I don’t necessarily balieve that what he wrote was racist and should have been subject to the internal and external modifiers of s16. In fact, one of the justifications for expression which may be regarded as racially offensive may be that it maintains the balance between stability and change in society as full and free discussions, even if stemming from hatred and instilled prejudices, allows for a vibrant and tolerant society. Such societies realise that all its various groups are unique yet share a common thread that binds them as a state and one nation. I have not read what he wrote (I have respectable standards) and thus canot make any definite submission regarding that element of the debate.
Regarding all this PAJA etc debate. I still wish the court would have refused to endorse the decision to withdraw prosecution against Zuma. I hope that Pikoli does get re-instated. What he did shows a greater element of independancy than that shown by Adv. Mpshe.
Sne // May 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm
fair enough but until then im sticking to my guns
interesting read this update on the DA and Mpshe review of dropping charges
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20090529052938606C538197
Bullard is a bastard – vain, conceited, RICH, and full of BS (Bullardisms). Not the posterchild for promotion of Freedom of the Press, and expression. And he seems to be waging a war of vendetta against his former employers. Yet the principle remains true – if we agree on freedom of speech, less incitement to hate and violence or other crime, we should accept that it should be allowed, as our constitution does.
So the question is: Do we go with the constitution? Or emotion? Is there a convergence?
F**K Bullard. How are we dealing with it?
Icarus, not too close to the sun (ie hate speech). I believe that we should let this slide. I have not and will not read what Bullard wrote but unless it fails in the internal modifier contained in s16 and also the external modifier in s26 as well as in PEPUDA then there’s nothing to be done. In fact, Bullard should have a claim in terms of the Labour Relations Act.
I admit that whatever he wrote may have been distateful, deeply offensive and truly stretched the limits of freedom of expression. If it did, his editor was responsible for either saying “I refuse to accept this nonsense. I want something acceptable and in keeping with our standards by tomorrow morning”. He instead approved the piece, it got printed, people got offended and Bullard was fired because he had a lilly-livered editor.
I therefore say, SCREW Bullard. The Constitution, and not our grave dislike for him, should be our guide.
Now I agree with Shakespeare….the law is truly an ass or is it arse?
I love how David Bullard is having a field trip with everyone here.