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.
Ok Leigh, Michael, Dworky you win.
I am gonna vote DA!
p.s. just kidding :,)
p.p.s Michael – you smacked me for suggesting rather the devil I know ……
Clearly the DA leadership lives in a bubble. It doesn’t take matric HG mathematics to work out this “private matter” stance is doing the DA more harm than good. Especially since DA and Zille was so vocal on Zuma’s infidelity.
I mean surely there must be some mechanism of releasing a press statement along the lines of “suspension until further investigation” and “we do not condone sexual harassment under any circumstances” etc. etc.
When a politician assumes public office, there is not much privacy left and as such, all aspects of their lives should be open for scrutiny.
But on a lighter point, clearly these politicians (Zuma included) do not have enough work. If they can have the time for several sexual partners they are not taking governing South Africa seriously.
George Gildenhuys says:
February 16, 2010 at 12:15 pm
“When a politician assumes public office, there is not much privacy left and as such, all aspects of their lives should be open for scrutiny.”
Indeed.
Trite it may be, but I am gonna say that no one is forced into public office.
@ Pierre : “The voice on the phone was a bit shrill and whiney” – practice makes perfect.
Or it could be..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Morgan_%28politician%29
Mark says:
February 16, 2010 at 13:34 pm
“Or it could be..”
Unlikely.
Gareth Morgan is “South Africa’s first carbon neutral Member of Parliament”.
From Pierre’s comments, it sound like toxic fumes and hot air were billowing at a global warming rate!
Pierre,
You were being pranked on 5fm by Gareth Cliff. This doesn’t sound like the DA we always hear about …
Sorry Gareth – you wrote a bad statement for Zille and she okayed it. Not good and hypocrisy at its best. This simply reinforces the view that all politicians are the same. Think I wont vote in the next election
Gareth is cross and poor Pierre is having trouble grasping the situation. What’s so hard to understand about the difference between the Max and Zuma situation? Zuma admitted to having an adulterous, extramarital affair (again!) which produced a child through unprotected sex. This after lecturing the country about the merits of always sticking to protected sex and staying faithful to one’s partner. Lennit Max is accused of having an affair, three years after it was alleged to have happened. He denies it. He was previously accused of sexually harassing two other women. The charges were investigated by the police and dismissed. This really isn’t complicated: it’s a private situation until the facts are on the table. But don’t worry Pierre, everyone gets it. You have to take a swipe at the DA every now and again to establish your credentials as an independent thinker. Can’t be bashing the ANC all the time. After all, that might require that you get in the ring instead of continuing to sit on the sidelines, publishing your musings. And that would require more backbone than you have.
Jon, just some facts you have conveniently overlooked:
1. Max should be (in this province, anyway), just as much a moral exemplar as JZ.
2. JZ was acting in fidelity to a deep and heartfelt tradition; Mr Max has no such excuse.
3. And what of the scandalous conduct of the “Botox” Madam herself? Say what you like about JZ – at least he did not appoint an all-male Cabinet to use and abuse as concubines!
Jeez, Pierre, is this the best you can do for a comment – trying to apportion some sort of equivalence to Zuma and Max? The former, as the head of state, demonstrably guilty of behaving like a randy peasant, and the latter, a relatively minor functionary in the greater scheme of things accused of some questionable infraction. If this is the best you can come up with in order to try and impugn the DA, don’t you think that this seems to be bordering on desperation on your part? You have been chastised before for behaving like an ANC suck-up and seem not to have learned your lesson. South Africa has, for more than 100 years, been oversubscribed with hensoppers, joiners, impimpis, suck-ups, sellouts and verraaiers. Try and avoid joining that club.
By the way, feminism has not taught anybody anything. It it a blatantly sexist doctrine based on fiction and lie, usually about how beastly men are and how hard done-by women are by these self-same men. I think the only people who buy into such drek are feminists and, er … moffies?
Jon, interesting theory you have – PdV needing to conjure a tendentious moral equivalence every now and again, in order to maintain street cred.
But. if you really believe that, why not just leave him be … ?
“in order to maintain street cred” – in other words, political correctness.
Whilst the likes of Pierre de Vos and the media are often very willing to point out the various sleaze and corruption scandals of the ANC government like Carl Niehaus, Zuma Babygate etc. they never critisize the ANC for its policy/ideology and the damning effects that cadre deployment and “Transformation” has on our country’s economic wellbeing.
Jon: I agree with much that you wrote, with the exception of Prof not having backbone. Personally I think he has more public backbone than anyone I know, and I might add, others and I have great appreciation for that. Count your blessings as my gran always said, and in my view, Prof is one of them.
As for Gareth Morgan, I tend to trust Rhodes Scholars, especially if they completed the full course, the last year putting emphasis on ethics.
As for Helen, perhaps she’s burning out a little under the pressure and not thinking as clearly as she generally does. I’m still shell shocked at her recent and most obvious and confusing hypocrisy. I feel she needs to rethink and announce a new response, and with appropriate apology.
Criticize the DA all you want folks, but name me any other opposition party even close to being sincere politically.
The DA is obviously well intentioned and understandably desperate to have qualified, ethical, uncompromised black representatives, and well they should be. Is it possible?
Everyone knows what is going on here. Botha is helping along a sex scandal to discredit Max before the leadership election in early March. Max is supported by Helen’s lobby so she gets to look very stupid by defending him for ostensibly the same thing she was attacking Zuma on, perhaps worse as there ws no evidence of coercion in Zuma’s case. The only thing that appears unrealistic is Botha’s reported claims that he will get 80% of the upcoming vote, when he has to engage in such dirty politics.
I care very little about the presiden’t moral (mis)conduct or that of any other politician (may these be considered PUBLIC servants?) for that matter. There are far more ligitimate grounds than baby-daddy drama to criticise the president’s competence.
I have come to accept it as typical behaviour for opposing politicians to lay each other’s shit bear? Grabbing at constitutional protections to hide their shame just cheapens the spirit of the legislation upon which those protections are founded.
Be that as it may, if the Western Cape premier really thought that Mr. Max’s issue is private, why make an official and public hoo-ha about it? Why make a statement to the press, “I stand behind my colleague?” instead of just having no comment and deferring them to Mr. Max to answer the questions about his “private” issues?
Congratulations, Pierre–at least you now know some of the people who read this blog!
When will you start getting calls from the President’s office, i wonder?
Because she desperately needs a black man to lead the Province and he is her man.
Pierre, what Zille said is true. Perhaps some people see two sex scandals and see Zille responding in the same way that Zuma responded and think that counts as hypocrisy. But that is to paint two very different sets of circumstances with the same very broad brush.
The reason that Zille could safely and correctly condemn Zuma was that (1) the nature of his behaviour was confirmed, rather than simply being an allegation, and (2) it involved unprotected sex, which contradicts his own Aids message which Zuma is supposed to be conveying. On the other hand, the Max affair (1) remains an accusation, (2) there is no evidence of there being unprotected sex (and Max is, in any case, not a president or minister/MEC for Health – millions of South Africans do not take their cue on sexual behaviour from a Safety MEC).
Which makes all the difference in the world.
Zille never said she “opposes marital infidelity” either. She said, as you rightly point out, that her defence of Max doesn’t necessarily entail that she condones it either. But that doesn’t mean “up is sometimes down and down is sometimes up” – it just means that the party doesn’t take any particular view on it. It’s what agnosticism is to atheism and theism.
How is that so difficult to understand?
As an earlier commentator said, this is the typical sort of attack on the DA that you see from commentators who are desperate to underline their “independent” credentials. We have this weird phenomenon of “independent political analysts” in SA – people like de Vos, Habib, Friedman, etc, who are actually in no way either “indepedent” or “analysts”, but instead are professional “Middle Ground Panderers”, who exploit the fact that television executives are under pressure from the ANC not to fill their studios with people who will echo the sense being made from the DA and Cope, but instead will dish out criticism to all sides equally, no matter how warranted or unwarranted it is.
Methinks Gareth is learning the same lesson that generations of stand-up comedy audiences consistently fail to appreciate: don’t hassle the guy with the mic – they always get the last word, and usually at your expense.
Nicely rebutted professor.
It’s very sad to see the same loyalty that infects ANC supporters has been contracted by DA supporters.
In any case, Helen Zille is on SAFM on Siki’s show tomorrow morning so we can all listen in and hear what she has to say for herself.
Mpho: I wouldn’t say that “the same loyalty that infects ANC supporters has been contracted by DA supporters”. To the contrary, many of us who see a breath of fresh air in the DA, a needed breath of fresh air, are rather devastated.
And not just devastated by Zille’s response, but by Max.
I received this statement from Helen Zille’s office and am happy to post it here. Judge for yourself…..
Professor Pierre de Vos has accused me of “double standards and hypocrisy” because of the way I am dealing with allegations of marital infidelity and sexual harassment against MEC for Community Safety, Lennit Max. De Vos notes that I have been highly critical of revelations regarding President Jacob Zuma’s infidelity which led to the birth, outside of marriage, of his 20th child. Why have I not been equally critical of Max, de Vos asks.
Firstly, there is a difference between a fact and an allegation. The entire edifice of our law is based on separating the two. Allegations may be true. But they may also be vexatious, frivolous, driven by hidden agendas or part of a smear campaign. That is why our law assumes that people are innocent until proven guilty.
No-one is disputing the facts in the Jacob Zuma matter. Early in 2009, he impregnated his friend’s daughter. This means he had unprotected sex with her. The date of conception fell between two of Jacob Zuma’s marriages. The baby was born shortly before President Zuma announced his engagement to another woman who will be his sixth wife. All this is “common cause” as they say in law.
In contrast, the allegations surrounding Lennit Max are highly contested. The allegations were initiated by Max’s former media officer, Julian Jansen, who at the time faced a disciplinary hearing which resulted in his dismissal and whose case is now on appeal. Jansen alleged that Max harassed two women in his Ministry. Both women strenuously deny these allegations, as does Max. In the circumstances, it is impossible to treat them as if they are proven facts.
In the middle of this polemic, Ms Belinda Petersen, a former junior employee of the Police Services, emerged. She claimed to have had sex with Lennit Max while he was representing her in a disciplinary case on charges of insubordination. Again, Max strenuously denies this. His account is the direct opposite. He says that Petersen made sexual advances to him, after which he withdrew from her case. He has produced an affidavit from a colleague about previous cases in which Ms Petersen has apparently made unfounded allegations of sexual harassment against other police officers.
Until the allegations have been separated from the facts through a proper legal process, it is impossible to work out what happened, let alone take decisive action.
De Vos is correct when he says that an allegation of a senior official having sexual relations with an employee is an issue that would always merit public scrutiny.
It certainly merited my scrutiny. This is why I called in the two women who were alleged to have been harassed, and discussed the matter with them. If they deny it, how can I accept a third party’s version? In fact, the women told me they believe the allegations may be part of a smear campaign.
As for the alleged affair with Ms Petersen: Lennit Max was not an official in the police force during 2007. His term as commissioner came to an end in 2003 — four years before he represented Ms Petersen at the hearing. And Ms Petersen waited for another three years after that before she told her story to the Son newspaper. The timing, coming shortly before the Provincial Congress at which Max is a candidate for the provincial leadership, cannot automatically be discounted as a coincidence.
In this kind of context, is it fair to drive this issue in the public domain without establishing the facts? Because there is a difference between an allegation and a fact, the Max matter is profoundly different from the Zuma matter.
But even in cases where marital infidelity is indeed an established fact, some cases cause a greater public outcry than others. If one looks back over the past three decades, there are many revered leaders, from a range of political parties, who have acknowledged sexual relationships outside of their marriages. Some made waves. Others never caused a ripple. The question is: Why are some scandals more scandalous than others?
The answer is contextual.
Let’s take the Zuma matter. If an extra-marital relationship involves public hypocrisy, lies or broken promises, it registers higher on the scandal scale. We all know that President Zuma’s situation involved all three. After his rape trial in 2006, he apologized to the nation for having unprotected sex, and promised to mend his ways. Over 66% of South Africans subsequently elected him President, without knowing that he had broken his promise even before the election date.
On 1 December 2009 he addressed the nation on World Aids Day, stressing that personal responsibility and change in sexual behaviour were the only viable ways of stopping the HIV pandemic. It later emerged that the daughter from his extra-marital relationship was born shortly before he made that speech. When politicians do not practice what they preach, it also registers higher on the scandal scale.
When they resort to sophistry to justify their actions, the scandal only multiplies. This is what happened when President Zuma played the “culture card” and said that his culture justified his behaviour. Experts in Zulu culture immediately slated this claim, saying that no culture, polygamous or otherwise, justified such actions. Indeed, only weeks earlier, President Zuma had promoted polygamy saying it was better to have multiple legalized relationships than to cheat on your monogamous wife. As he was saying this, he knew he had been cheating on his wives.
Contextual factors either aggravate or mitigate any kind of scandal. Without in any way condoning marital infidelity, it is clear that contextual factors are the reason why some “affairs” make waves, and others remain below the surface. And if it turns out that Lennit Max has been lying to me, his context will change dramatically.
In conclusion the reason I have approached the Zuma and Max issues differently is because I recognize the difference between an allegation and a fact. And it is because I critically evaluate the context in each case. This is what they teach you to do in law school. It is not double standards and it is not hypocrisy.
Helen Zille. Premier of the Western Cape and Leader of the Democratic Alliance
Outstanding! I’m satisfied. And if Max has lied to her, she will act!
I note that Premier Helen Zille, in her reply to my objection about her comments around “privacy” raised on this Blog, never really addresses the main point I made, namely that saying that Max’s alleged affair was private while insisting that Zuma’s was not, was hypocritical. The closest she comes to addressing this is by saying: “In this kind of context, is it fair to drive this issue in the public domain without establishing the facts? Because there is a difference between an allegation and a fact, the Max matter is profoundly different from the Zuma matter.”
In other words, Zille is arguing that when allegations of wrongdoing or actions by a politician that contradicts the utterances of that politician or the policies of the party have been proven, it’s a public matter, but unless they are proven they remain private. This, however, is not what Zille has said and done in the past when ANC politicians have been accused of ostensibly “private” misdemeanors.
Remember Manto Tshabalala Msimang, whom the Sunday Times alleged to have been “a thief and a drunk”. These were mere allegations (just like the allegations about Max are nothing more than allegations), so if Zille was not a hypocrite she would have argued that this was a private matter between Manto, her husband and the church. Msimang called the allegations “false, speculative and bizarre” and President Thabo Mbeki issued a statement saying: “”Anyone who may have evidence which demonstrates that any minister or deputy minister has acted in dereliction of duty is welcome to forward such evidence to the presidency,” If Zille was following her “principles” as annunciated above, she would have argued that the Manto allegations were private as they were not proven – unlike the allegations about Zuma’s child. She would also have said as Manto was not the President it was not nearly as serious a matter as allegations about the President and thus deserved to be treated as private. But what did she say at the time when the allegations against Manto surfaced. Surely not that it was a private matter? The Cape Argus reported at the time as follows:
On Sunday afternoon, Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille called for Tshabalala-Msimang to go. “In any properly functioning democracy, Dr Tshabalala-Msimang would have been removed from her position a long time ago. “That she has not been, says more about our president than about the health minister,” said Zille.
So Manto had to go because of allegations of “private” wrongdoing, but Max has to stay because…… well, because he is in the DA and not the ANC and there is a different standard for ANC than for DA members. Gotcha Helen! Do I hear anyone saying hypocrite?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 16, 2010 at 15:34 pm
“at least he did not appoint an all-male Cabinet to use and abuse as concubines!”
You trying to start a war between our President and one Ambassador designate???
Pierre de Vos says:
February 16, 2010 at 19:58 pm
“I received this statement from Helen Zille’s office and am happy to post it here. Judge for yourself…..”
Here’s a question for you Pierre.
Just who writes Malema’s speeches?
[...] got herself into by claiming the Lennit Max sex scandal was a private matter. She responded to my criticism of her and I posted her response here. My short response, pointing out the similarities between the Max case and the Manto [...]
Michael Osborne says:
February 16, 2010 at 16:09 pm
Now, please remind me why I should not be supporting the ANC.
Prof: you are clutching at straws. I think Zille’s email to you was quite incredible actually. The Max issue is here and now. However, Zille is absolutely correct, allegations versus facts… lets see how it turns out, shall we? If Max is complicit (or guilty) then it will come out and you will see Zille act on that, I have no doubt.
I understand your scepticism of politicians. I also think Zille’s original comments were weak, thus I commented earlier that she is likely tired and burnt out. I can’t imagine the pressures on her. Politicians are however, in our face daily, and they know it.
The proof in the pudding is when the evidence arises… is Max lying, or is he not?
However, don’t underestimate the power or activity of smear campaigns. We have one of those political variables which only time will reveal.
Take for example all those mis-information, ANC, amateur spin posters that so many blog and news posts are cursed with.
What is the lesser of two evils? For myself, I’m going to give her leverage on this one, and not because I’m a DA supporter, but because I want sanity to prevail.
Thank you Helen Zille for confirming everything I said at 17:05 pm, plus a good deal of bluster to try and make it look as if you are drawing a principled distinction and not jus standing by your preferred man.
The problem is, everyone he works with knows Max is a womaniser. It is not a secret. The issue is why Theuns feels the need to discredit an opponent he feels confident of beating at the election? And once we have all agreed that the faction supporting the leader of the Province does act in such a calculating and dispicable way, what does that say about the state of the Western Cape? Has no party got its house in order?
And of course she is being a hypocrite. I can’t believe she even used the innocent until proven guilty line. I thought Zuma had registered a Trade Mark over that one. Seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Maggs, I don’t care what anyone does with their private lives. And I have never supported the ANC. But I do not understand is how any politician can credibly invoke the right to privacy to justify paying an entire cabinet of MEN, for the sole purpose of satisfying unquenchable personal lust.
[Maggs, if you still have good contacts within the party, would this not be a good time for Cd Malema to raise this issue again?]
“This (Sunday Times) story is relevant and important because at its heart it is about an incompetent and dishonest Minister who abused her power to obtain a new liver that could have saved the live of a more deserving patient.”
The words of one Pierre de Vos.
Doesn’t sound like you considered them much like “mere allegations” either, eh?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 16, 2010 at 21:40 pm
“if you still have good contacts within the party”
Sorry Dworky.
I no longer support the ANC as I declared yesterday – those guys just don’t have any principles.
I am going to go for a party with principles, moral values, integrity – all the nice sounding things.
I am gonna toss a coin for the next election to Stop Zuma
Heads it’s DA.
Tales it’s DA. Did I just say tales? Oops, I meant tails!
Maggs, take a deep breath.
You don’t tear up your party card because a few individuals disapppoint you in their personal behavior.
Think for a moment: If the DA ever came to power, the first thing they will do is re-instate the system of capitalism. The gap between rich and poor will grow wide again. And they will systematically under-fund black schools, and staff them with unqualified teachers, thus perpetuating apartheid into the future!
@ Sirjay
Your faith in Zille equals that of an Orlando Pirates fan. ‘Once a pirate always a pirate’.
My wish is for Cope to win a 1 or 2 municipalities, just like DA they will soon realise a difference between blowing hot air and responsible statements.
May be its time to wake up the old Seremane, he has been yawning for a while now.
Gwebecimele is right.
I have never been a member of the ANC.
But it seems that Sirjay and other DA supporters could learn something from the ANC voting base — about voting on the issues, eschewing blind loyalty, avoiding ethnically-based party alleigance, and making one’s support conditional upon delivery!
Pierre, is there a way to clarify your spat with Helen very simply, on this basis:
1. Both she and JZ were wrong to play the “privacy” card;
on the other hand …
2. She is right to say there is a distinction between the Max and JZ cases: in the Max case the facts are in dispute, whereas in the JZ case he has effectively admitted the core facts.
No, no, no…Professor, you’ve got it wrong again! In the Manto case, there were allegations made by people directly involved in the matter, and a charge was laid with the police. Moreover, Manto never even denied those allegations. In the Max case, there are allegations made by a third party, and a disgruntled party at that. And they have been strenuosuly denied by Max himself. Can you not see that those two cases are quite fundamentally different?
I think you were quite right De Vos. In one of my articles at my web site, I said:
“Both Zuma and Max hold high positions in government and surely their conduct as public servants and representatives should be the same. Or shouldn’t they because on the one hand Max is just an MEC who less is expected from while on the other hand Zuma as THE PRESIDENT, too much is expected?”
and wondered if there was any difference between the two.
Both the proof of the allegations, once made, and the “contextualisation” thereof belong in the public domain. It is not for the DA to cover up the allegations until they have decided what to do about them (which is what the privacy statement was all about), nor is not for Zille to inform the electorate of the weight they should attach to a politician’s behaviour. If the allegations against Max are proven, then his behaviour is morally worse than that of Zuma.
Rubbish response, just say sorry already.
Is there a legal duty to deny allegations in the media or in a court papers? Lawyers descend to the arena!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 17, 2010 at 7:03 am
“Think for a moment: If the DA ever came to power, the first thing they will do is re-instate the system of capitalism. The gap between rich and poor will grow wide again. And they will systematically under-fund black schools, and staff them with unqualified teachers, thus perpetuating apartheid into the future!”
Peace and friendship will suffer – otherwise not much else will change as you point out.
Michael Osborne says:
February 17, 2010 at 8:22 am
“She is right to say there is a distinction between the Max and JZ cases”
Indeed.
DA and ANC respectively!
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
February 17, 2010 at 11:37 am
As a lawyer, I must say that there is no legal duty on anyone to deny allegations in the papers in subsequent media statements. It might be wise to do so if the report is clearly wrong. There is also no duty for such persons to proceed with defamation actions to save face. There might be a moral duty to deny such allegations if one is the incumbent of high office (or if such a person is a politician), and once again, it might be wise to do so, but there is no legal duty to do so. However, when allegations are made in court papers, and they are relevant, then the opposition has a duty to deny those allegations if it wants to avoid judgment against it. Otherwise the oposition will have to face the music.
“Kohler-Barnard was heard saying “f**k” in the National Assembly during a walkout by the DA and COPE in support of Cope MP Mluleki George.”
It’s contagious
http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=nw20100217133523547C235819
Yes Maggs – and the DA slapped a five day suspension and an order to apollogise on her.
Anonymouse says:
February 17, 2010 at 15:43 pm
“Yes Maggs – and the DA slapped a five day suspension and an order to apollogise on her.”
I say the DA leadership was wrong.
She ought to be free to comfort Mluleki George in whatever way she desires.
What’s wrong with her having asked George politely?
Ok, maybe she ought to have been more discreet, but hey it’s free choice I say.
The suspension is a sexist thing!
Maggs is right.
Diane KB is entitled to say whatever she wants in the privacy of the House.
What a hypocrite this Botox Madam is!
gareth is well known by all news paper editors of western cape for calling them and instruct them not th publish negative statement on zille, anybody can do the research on this or atleast ask the editors themselves,it is pity for theofficial opposition which want so much to be the model of modern democracy but behindthe scene they are applying ZANU PF undemocratic strategies.
WTF kind of defence is “I was accused of sexual harassment twice! Not four times!”???
I vote Mpho wins the ‘Insight’ award. Hands down!
Kenneth is right.
The DA is just like ZANU PF!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 17, 2010 at 18:40 pm
I think you are just jealous that Mr George was invited and not you!
Michael, you might be on to something but you fail to understand that I never said that the Max and Zuma cases were identical. Obviously playing the privacy card (by both Zuma and Zille) was absurd. Whether something is proven or alleged against a politician cannot make an otherwise public matter private. If that were to be the case all allegations of private conduct of politicians that do not measure up to their public pronouncements or the policies espoused by their parties, would be private and out of bounds to report on or for parties to concern them with unless it had been proven and then we would hardly have anything like a free and independent media. (That would mean allegations that a politician had beaten his wife or said racist things in private would be considered private matters in which political parties and voters would have no interest UNTIL they are proven, presumably in a court of law. That would completely emasculate the media and undermine the working of our democracy.) Note, I never said the Max and Zuma matters were identical, so Zille’s “rebuttal” is rebutting something I never said. I merely pointed out that playing the privacy card is hypocritical. Zille now walks away from the privacy argument and in essence is playing the “innocence until proven guilty” argument – as I suggested she should have done at the end of the original post! She fails to address the privacy statement it in her “rebuttal” thus implicitly admitting that her initial comment (drafted for her by Gareth, perhaps?) was hypocritical.
“Think for a moment: If the DA ever came to power, the first thing they will do is re-instate the system of capitalism. The gap between rich and poor will grow wide again. And they will systematically under-fund black schools, and staff them with unqualified teachers, thus perpetuating apartheid into the future!”
Is this not what the ANC is doing anyway and then continuing to blame their lack of delivery to apartheid
Pierre writes
Zille now walks away from the privacy argument and in essence is playing the “innocence until proven guilty” argument – as I suggested she should have done at the end of the original post! She fails to address the privacy statement it in her “rebuttal” thus implicitly admitting that her initial comment (drafted for her by Gareth, perhaps?) was hypocritical.
Pierre you are absolutely correct here and I am sure most of us here will agree with this. The Zille “Privacy statement” is weak to say the least.
Brett Nortje says:
February 17, 2010 at 19:20 pm
“WTF kind of defence is ‘I was accused of sexual harassment twice! Not four times!’???”
@ Amused.
No.
The ANC has, true to the Freedom Charter, committed itself to abolish capitalism.
But that cannot be done overnight. Objective conditions preclude that.
But the NDR does culminate in Socialism.
And Peace and Friendship.
First, President Zuma’s sexual relationships are a matter of public interest to the extent that it affects public policy on gender equality, planned parenthood and sex without a condom in a time of HIV.
Second, Lennit Max is the MEC for Safety and Security. The sexual harassment allegations against him are also in the public interest given the sexism and gender-based violence including rape, intimate partner violence and other forms of harassment of women and girls.
The difference between the two men: Max is an old apartheid policeman who hops from political party to political party; the President is an ANC stalwart who hops from bed to bed.
What can I say? Gareth sounds like that buffoon Esop Pahad now “disappeared” by the ANC in the post-Polokwane haze. Premier Zille evinces the same intolerance for criticism that was the hallmark of the Mbeki-era.
Zackie
Zackie is SO right.
I was just thinking yesterday of how much the Madam’s absurd privacy defense of Max reminded me of Mbeki’s labelling of criticism of corruption, HIV-Aids policy, and the epidemic of rape in South Africa in South Africa as “racist.”
Zackie is SO NOT right.
I find it quite funny when people who are critical of others, expect others not to be critical of them. When the people they are critical of, retort, they accuse these people of having an ‘intolerance for criticism’. When all the poor guy has done is to assert his right to reply. And the so called ‘dissenting voice’ fails to understand that his/her opinion may not necessarily be the correct one. They also based the correctness of their opinion on the illusion of such opinion being the more prevalent one. I think it was Giordano Bruno who called such thinking a proof of ‘base and low mind’.
Many times, the so called ‘dissenting voices’ tend to throw punched standing on slippery canvas. For me, to be criticized for being critical, is par for the course.
“Political science students often describe politics as a field littered with dishonest and disingenuous individuals who masquerade as do-gooders on behalf of the electorate while beneath the facade they hunger for power.” Abbey Makoe
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100218063303906C333751
Pierre…I am probably one of many DA supporters who feel uncomfortable with the manner in which this has played out. I have a sense of deja vu dating back to Zille, Zillier, Zilliest only this time you are on firmer ground when you articulate your apparent dislike of HZ and the DA.
It is a great pity that HZ did not pause and think before making her “private matter” statement. Furthermore, the last thing she needs is people like Gareth having a go on her behalf because she is normally capable of fighting her own battles. The rebuttal by HZ is a tad more measured and deserves consideration because it does take the shrillness out of the debate.
As with the Erasmus Commission the final denouement in the Max saga may leave egg on some faces
Khosi do you do a Google Search every hour to see if anyone has said something even vaguey critical of your hero?
It’s incredible! Am I right in thinking Z cleared up any confusion we may have had a while ago that you are not actually TM?
Khosi do you do a Google Search every hour to see if anyone has said something even vaguely critical of your hero?
It’s incredible! Am I right in thinking Z cleared up any confusion we may have had a while ago that you are not actually TM?
Surely the more serious issue at hand, given that Max’s so-called victims have themselves denied accusing him of harassment, is the extraordinary attempts by some unknown individual/group to smear Max with what appears to be outright lies (after all, without any victims, these accusations cannot even be called ‘allegations’).
Gobsmacking that de Vos and other commentators, in their desperation to nail Zille on some minor inaccurate comment she made, completely overlook the outrageous situation of Max being accused of crimes against victims who deny the crimes happened at all.
Pierre, has it occurred to you that your blog is equally self-righteous? I too was left me with a soiled feeling after reading it.
@Mpho,
You had me at ‘Hello’ and furthermore, you…you…you complete me!
But I do not understand where Z fits in this. On o related note, what happened to Z?
o = a
Pierre – You’re spot-on:
1) The “privacy card” that Zille attempted to use for Max’s (& the DA’s benefit) and then against Zuma/Msimang (& the ANC) in the rape case/manto-gate and baby-gate is where you caught her out. She is being hypocritical
2) Her response is an attempt (typical of politicians) to gain the higher moral ground and divert the debate from the real (and only) point you made – her “privacy card” hypocrisy
3) It makes me wonder what else is really going on in the DA – I am still keen to hear the “story” behind Floyd Shivambu’s (ANCYL spokesperson) extra-ordinary statements regarding Zille and her “relations’ with some members of her cabinet. There’s been an awful silence in that regard.
@Kingdom Come
Rest assured, Kingdom Come, we will never heard the story behind Floyd Shivambu’s (ANCYL spokesperson) statements regarding Zille and her “relations’ with some members of her cabinet.
Why not? Because the hypocritical Madam and the liberal media have hushed it up behind a veil of “privacy.”
I don’t care about what Max or JZ do in their bedrooms. What does outrage me is the allegation that unquenchable lusts for multiple male partners is publicly funded under the pretext of a so-called Cabinet.
@Kingdom Come
Does JZ know you’re around already?
In the light of this debate nothing was really added or changed to anything that has happened, everyone seem to know what the facts are and will perceive it in their own ways, because we’re stubborn.
I just wonder if the newly appointed intellegence guy, Shaik’s brother, has to give to the President’s speech writer some info on the public’s views with regard to certain facts that may for instance cause people not to vote for him any longer or they need info for the peeps in the hoods to spin to them where would they find this info? It’s clear that old Gareth sometimes resorts to http://www.constitutionallyspeaking.co.za, he told the Zille and she told you back prof, now say for instance the peeps in the hoods don’t read good and somebody, who has the info, but declines to share it all, because of his affilliation, tells some of them with more influence then others that the DA stands for Devil’s Achildren, then what? Prints out pamphelets depicting DA as a shit party and tells people that should they vote DA they lose the grants, they say what grants? He says here’s a sandwich and a Tshirts. Morality is a difficult one here, if you philander while you’re married then you should think about who finds out unless being blatant about it doesn’t affect whatever it is that you do for a living, if being sexist, racist or any ist you can think of don’t register with those you depend on for votes then you could be more dangerous than most other, lesser individuals. The effects of Verwoerd’s education policies are being worsened by the Education departument.
[...] topic. People get very, very cross when one says the “wrong” thing about it. A bit like Gareth Van Onselen when one criticises Helen Zille. (Remember Gareth, that self-righteous guy from the DA who now writes a self-righteous column in [...]