“Now the court has also agreed with us. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!”

Skhokho is right.

The neo-imperialist white-liberal racist bull-worshippers have been exposed for what they are: constitutional monkeys and colonial sentimentalists.

White racists must not forrget: Zulus have engaged in this tradition for more than 17 000 years now.

And where are the liberals when panicked bulls are harassed on the cobblestone streets of Pamplona every year?

I cant wait to read the relevant judgment…

I refer to my previous post (Sne @ December 1, 2009 at 8:52 am).

I withdraw my support of the Ukweshwema ritual. We, Xhosa do have a ritual which is designed to achieve a similar purpose but we do it by not killing the bull with our bare hands but by slaughtering it in a less cruel manner because we simply slit its throat.

it is about the human (and your ) unquestioning belief that everything not human is ‘other’ , you cannot consider the concept of ‘equal consideration’ for all living sentient beings. This application questions not only this cultural practice, but all cultural practices, western included , every convenient act , non-act of the human superiority complex.
Just because it is a Zulu cultural act being questioned (this time) does not make those doing the questioning snooty or racist. You should attack the argument , not the arguer.

Needless to say, I concur with Mzo and Skhokho Radebe.

Mayimele, I like your compromise.

It is interesting how less people know about cultural practices that they take issue with. A good example is this cultural practice called Ukushwema (Zulu). Xhosas practise it as well.

PS: I think the application to court is “dead in the water”. (Quoting Prof. on the Hlophe application about the Concourt judges having breached his Constitutional rights by releasing the statement prematurely)

“and had my member tied in a double knot”.

Liar!

Although humiliating, and causing great inconvenience, I accepted the incident as part of the “culture” of Camp Quatro at the time. And I can tell you this — no white liberal do-gooders raised their voices on my behalf!

You mention three related attributes which, by your reckoning, would disqualify people from being able to take issue with African practices: the first is intolerance, the second is unwillingness to try to understand African culture and the third is the arrogant tendency to impose their own practices and views.

It could be the case that other people share your views. If so, I would like to invite them (along with you) to consider the following when and of course if you can find the time: person A is, speaking very loosely, committed to Western culture. Person B subscribes to an indigenous African culture. Person A makes a sincere effort to tolerate other cultures and to understand cultural practices which are different from hers. But despite her earnest attempts at tolerance and understanding, she nonetheless believes that she has identified cogent grounds for taking exception to B’s cultural practice.

Leaving aside the fairly narrow constitutional law points raised in this discussion and thus expanding this discourse (as a few others and I have sought to do throughout this discussion) to the broader possibility that some people just will not countenance any criticism of their cultures regardless of how openly, sincerely and respectfully such reproach is made, my question is this: should B consider A’s concerns? (Bearing in mind that B would know full well that (i), A would be willing to entertain B’s concerns about the formers culture and (ii), even though different cultures may subscribe to different norms, it could be possible to identify a basis on which those different norms could be compared so that the most defensible norms could be identified.)