Helen Zille is trying to dig herself out of the hole she 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 Tshabalala-Msimang cases is here. Judge for yourself whether she had dug herself deeper into a ditch or has shown principled and courageous leadership….
This blog deals with political and social issues in South Africa, mostly from the perspective of Constitutional Law. Written by Pierre de Vos
Quote of the week
May 20, 2012 | 11:21 amHow sweet it would be to live among us, if the exterior appearance was always an image of the heart’s tendencies; if decency was a virtue; if our maxims served us as rules; if true philosophy was inseparable from the title of philosopher! But so many qualities too rarely go together, and virtue hardly ever walks in so much pomp. Richness in dress can announce a man with money and elegance a man with taste. The healthy, robust man is recognized by other signs. It is under the rustic clothing of a labourer and not under the gilded frame of a courtesan that one will find physical strength and energy. Finery is no less a stranger to virtue, which is the power and vigour of the soul. The good man is an athlete who delights in fighting naked. He despises all those vile ornaments which hamper the use of his strength, the majority of which were invented only to conceal some deformity. Before art fashioned our manners and taught our passions to speak an affected language, our habits were rustic but natural, and differences in behaviour announced at first glance differences in character. Human nature was not fundamentally better, but men found their security in the ease with which they could see through each other, and this advantage, whose value we no longer feel, spared them many vices. – Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts
-
Archive for Quote of the week »
New from Seminar Room
- Zuma affidavit in the willygate case
- FUL’s founding affidavit on Mdluli case
- Pierre de Vos: Taking risks, taking responsibility: on whiteness and full citizenship under the South African Constitution
- Pierre de Vos: memo on SA Police Service Amendment Bill
- Justice Zac Yacoob on the “Dynamic Constitution”
- Oslo Declaration on HIV criminalisation
-
Archive for New from Seminar Room »
New from Updates
- Call for submissions to arms deal inquiry
- Podcast of DCJ Moseneke lecture at Georgetown University
- Internships at Human Rights Commission
- Shortlisted names for appointment to the Constitutional Court
- Chief Justice statement on death of Cabinet Minister
- ANC rejects Holomisa’s statement on gays and lesbians
-
Archive for New from Updates »
Does anyone remember what Zille’s position was at the time of the Zuma rape trial (before the verdict?)
I think you’re making too much of this, Pierre. Unless I’m wrong, there are vast differences between: a) The President, b) a random MEC; c) allegations, d) verified facts; e) drunkenness and theft (while on duty) and f) sexual escapades after hours.
What you have tried to do is mash them all up together and use this strangely constituted glob to prove that Zille is a hypocrite.
Meanwhile, the most unfortunate thing about this episode is that while Zille was perfectly correct and is handling the matter very well (Max is on leave, sexual harassment policies are being reviewed, the people involved were all spoken to and the matter discussed in detail), she managed to stick both feet in her mouth when she tried to explain herself. It is sad: it points to lack of political experience and a woeful (or worse – willful) ignorance of how people would react.
But hypocritical?
No. Sorry.
Better luck next time, Pierre.
Really Pierre, what are you trying to do?? Make yourself look like a complete idiot? Surely not?
What Zille said in her response is correct. I believe that she dug herself OUT! Not that she had to. I from the start knew that we couldnt compare the two cases. That’s exactly what Zille explained how and why you cannot compare the two.
The president did not practice what he preached. That’s why its not a “private matter”. If he didnt say he was going to mend his ways, then yea, maybe it would have been a private matter. But he did say it and he broke promises. And looking at the facts “about previous cases in which Ms Petersen has apparently made unfounded allegations of sexual harassment against other police officers” shows that Max is most likely innocent which (in my oppinion) it should then be a private matter. It is clear that President Zuma is not innocent, he has a child with his friend’s daughter.
I agree with Zille and she is not a hypocrite.
Andre writes “The president did not practice what he preached. That’s why its not a “private matter”. If he didnt say he was going to mend his ways, then yea, maybe it would have been a private matter.”
This misses the point of what Zille said in her initial release:
The last “and” is telling. She wants consistency, yes, but in addition leaders must lead by example. The reference to “social norms” refers to the mores surrounding infidelity and unprotected sex. I’ll help myself to the assumption that ethical labour relations (“don’t screw with the crew”) is also a social norm that DA leaders are held to. When we run that with the fact that Zuma and Max live in the same society we get that they’re bound by the same restrictions. Which raises the issue of double standard, more thoroughly canvassed by Pierre.
Andre says:
February 18, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“The president did not practice what he preached. That’s why its not a ‘private matter’. If he didnt say he was going to mend his ways, then yea, maybe it would have been a private matter. But he did say it and he broke promises”
Adultery, as I understand it, is a broken promise.
Are you suggesting that only if the “promise” is made to an entire country, then it’s unacceptable otherwise it’s a “private matter”?
Im sure what Andre meant was the fact that he made the promise to the whole of South Africa (and not only his family) made it a public matter.
Ben says:
February 18, 2010 at 16:42 pm
“Im sure what Andre meant was the fact that he made the promise to the whole of South Africa (and not only his family) made it a public matter.”
I have been trying to find the “promise”.
So far I have come across the apology but not the promise.
Any links?
While Ben is looking for the “promise”, is there anyone out there who can explain what this means.
“I’ve said that consensual sex between consenting adults in private is not a public matter unless it has public consequences. Public figures must expect their private lives to come under scrutiny.”
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-02-19-behind-him-to-the-max
What it means, Maggs, is that if you’re a private figure, then your life is your own. But if you’re a public figure, then (according to Zille) you are “not above the law or social norms” and “must lead by example.”
Since our publicly held morality decries adultery you must be held to the social norm (regardless of what you have or haven’t promised in public.) That’s part of the “public consequence.”
But of course, if you’re a leader of the DA, exceptions can be entertained.
Freeboot says:
February 19, 2010 at 17:29 pm
That, as I read it, translates to “adultery is fine, just don’t get caught. Public officials must be especially discreet”.
“But of course, if you’re a leader of the DA, exceptions can be entertained” –
. Indeed.
Maggs, you know very well that I admire your work.
What is, however, beginning to peeve me somewhat is that you go on and on about the so-called Max privacy scandal — while ignoring the Madam’s holding of an entire (all male) provincial executive body captive as a personal concubinage!
Or is that all “yesterday’s news”?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
February 19, 2010 at 21:16 pm
Hey Dworky – I admire your work too. Please may I join MAS?
On a serious note, I am less interested in Max and his “private matters” and more in the responses to that.
Either way, it’s not much more than a curiosity.
The timing though was almost perfect – he did, she did, they did, we all did – the decks have been cleared, now everyone can go back to work.
It may well have been serendipitous all round.
Especially that the opportunity arose to tell our President that it’s time for him to be seen to be doing what he was elected to do, otherwise it’s time to make space for someone who is determined and committed to creating a better life for all.
Hey Dworky,
I see the intent to make the WC “ungovernable”, by those who failed to make it governable, is working like clockwork.
“Even ANC members happy in Western Cape
“Even ANC members are 63 percent happy with the DA-led Western Cape provincial government, an Ipsos Markinor survey showed”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article317079.ece
That’s well done to the Premier and her team!
Hi, Freeboot, but what about the fact that Max’s little problem still hasn’t been confirmed, in other words he still needs to be found guilty of the disciplinary charges levelled against him and so far we don’t even know if he had sexual relations with that woman and b) whether it constitutes sexual harrasment and c) what the motives of the complainant are.
These factors must all be taken into consideration and while this is being investigated the person could be relieved of his duties, but wait there’s more. Max has in fact been relieved of his duties whilst the matter is being investigated and everything is done by the book.
So I see openess and transparency in the Western Cape and that is because Zille practices what she preaches, she said no one is above the social norms and must be held accountable, in my books that’s leading by example no matter how you manipulate the very obvious facts.