It is, to say the least, rather ironic that President Jacob Zuma has called for a national debate on the “issue of a national moral code” around the same time that it emerged that he himself was flouting the law, that his Minister of Arts and Culture holds hateful views about gay men and lesbians, and that Julius Malema has enriched himself at the expense of the poor and has failed to pay any taxes on his ill-gotten gains.
Now that is what I call chutzpah! Unfortunately, the President’s recent actions and utterances as well as his resolute silence about flagrant unethical behavior by members of his own party and his government, suggest that this chutzpah is born out of ignorance, bigotry and a lack of an own, constitutionally acceptable, ethical compass.
Making the proposal, our President said that using one’s own culture to judge others is unconstitutional. According to Zuma:
Each one of us must be respected. That’s what our Constitution says. No matter how you feel — some of us have very strong feelings about some of the things — we respect the Constitution, no matter how we feel…. We cannot be expected, all the time, to be respectful to others when others are not respectful to us and others.
The President is wrong on so many counts, spectacularly and ignorantly so.
It is nonsense to say that it is unconstitutional to use one’s own culture to judge others. What kind of fascist mind-set is that? The Constitution guarantees for everyone the right to freedom of thought and opinion. In our personal capacities we have a constitutional right to use our own cultural, religious or ethical beliefs to judge others, and we all do – all the time.
If one happens to be a Catholic, say, or an African traditionalist, and holds homophobic and bigoted views about gay men and lesbians, one is free to hold such opinions and to express them – as long as it does not amount to hate speech. If one is a feminist and one happens to believe polygamy is a sexist and patriarchal institution designed by lecherous and immoral old men to enforce the sexual and economic exploitation of women, one is equally free to hold and express such opinions within the limits of the hate speech laws.
For example, we have no constitutional duty to respect the values, beliefs and practices of pedophiles, rapists, murderers, racists, sexists or thieves.
Moreover, the President cannot hide behind the Constitution to avoid criticism of his own beliefs and actions which many people believe to be exploitative and immoral and lacking in honesty and integrity. Of course, depending on one’s own ideological, religious, moral or ethical views one may agree or disagree with this belief, but everyone has a constitutional right to hold and express their views on the moral probity of the President. A moral code that precludes us from either supporting or opposing the President’s private and public statements and actions will directly conflict with the rights in the Constitution and could therefore not be of any use to the President.
In a heterogenous society like ours with its many different cultures and beliefs, it would of course be prudent to strive to understand and respect the beliefs and cultural practices of others in as much as those beliefs and practices do not conflict with the values enshrined in our Constitution. But some beliefs and practices (like the President’s polygamous lifestyle based on sexism and patriarchy or Minister Lulu Xingwana homophobic hatred of black lesbians) would harm others and would perpetrate more hatred and prejudice against women and against gay men and lesbians and it would thus be unethical (but not unconstitutional) to harbor or express such prejudices in a personal capacity.
What our President does not seem to understand is that some beliefs and practices – whether inspired by our cultural and religious views or our own sense of morality - are themselves inimical to a constitutional state based on the values of human dignity, equality and freedom and as such we have an ethical duty to reject them. The government of the day also has a constitutional duty to protect people from such practices (although the beliefs on which they are based are usually beyond the reach of censure) through legislation and law reform by passing hate crimes laws and by outlawing cultural and religious practices that subjugate women, say, or endorse societal prejudice against gay men and lesbians.
The President and cabinet members – who have a duty to uphold the Constitution and the law – do not only have an ethical but also a legal obligation to reject such harmful beliefs and practices or at least not to endorse them in public. This is something dear Minister Lulu has failed to grasp. Thus she objected to works of art that portrayed black women in intimate situations because it “stereotyped black women” and refused to open an art exhibition where these works were displayed.
By saying this, the Minister revealed how immoral she herself is and how she has failed to uphold the values enshrined in the Constitution. If she believes that depictions of black women in intimate poses stereotype black women, she must obviously believe that it is a bad thing for black women to be intimate with one another. If she was not a homophobic bigot, she would have celebrated those works of art as affirming the life experiences, with all its complexities, of black lesbians. Instead, she revealed just how immoral she was by endorsing hatred and prejudice against black lesbians, the very attitudes which have led to the murdering of many black lesbians in South Africa over the past few years.
President Jacob Zuma’s moral code is a non-starter if it does not take the Constitution as its starting point. But as Zuma is not a great fan of the law or the Constitution – unless he can use it to escape prosecution for bribery and corruption – he has reportedly tapped a religious group headed by soon to be twice divorced Ray McCauly to lead the discussion. Heaven help us. That is like asking Schabir Shaik to lead a discussion on business ethics and anti-corruption measures.
Any discussion about a moral code will have to take as its starting point respect for the human dignity of all. It will have to assume that a shared constitutional morality is based on a REJECTION of cultural beliefs and practices which refuse to respect the human dignity of some members of society because they happen to be gay and lesbian, or because they happen to be women or because they happen to be white or black or colored or Indian or they happen to be poor.
Such a code would also have to embrace respect for values of integrity and honesty and will have to reject a value system which valorizes materialism and the bling culture above all else and endorses breaches of the law or stealing from the poor “because we have not struggled to be poor” or because the theft or criminality is perpetrated by persons of a particular race or political party. Such a code would therefore require a complete rethink of the moral values of a large section of the present leadership of the ANC – including that of the ANC Youth League Leader, the Minister of Arts and Culture and the President himself.
Nah, not going to happen. Let’s rather get rich quick by stealing from the poor and by oppressing gays and women while flouting the law. I am sure our President will support a moral code based on these “sound” values. After all, it would not require any change in behavior from many in the present government leadership.
I know Prof; I’ve commented on this before, the difference between ethics and morals. To me, morals are cultural, religious and generally narrow minded. Ethics on the other hand are universal. Don’t steal from, or injure others are the basics, I would suggest; that’s ethics. Morals are a morass (note the similar root of the words), highly opinionated and often irrational, patriarchal, and hateful with intolerance and ignorance, and designed to control, often to the point of genocide.
Our problems with the cultural differences so prevalent in South Africa are ethical, not moralistic. You can be a polygamist, gay, lesbian, boer, brit, indian, whatever, but are you ethical, honest, compassionately well intentioned; morals seem to encompass issues which are cultural and which are combined with opinionated intensity, lacking compassion, disapproved of, and generally antagonistic; however, ethics are clear cut, clean, pristine and under a strong Constitution such as SA’s, indisputable by all but the self interested.
To be a polygamist, gay, sex worker or monogamist, is a moral argument. To be a thief is an ethical issue. To criticize or be intolerant of gays, lesbians, blacks, whites, foreigners, is a cultural belief based on personal and often incorrect perceptions of personal beliefs in morality, as in all whites are colonial devils and thus immoral.
To refuse to honour the law, to refuse to allow freedom of thought and belief, to refuse criminal behaviour, these are all issues about ethics. They are not moral issues.
We really need to understand and agree on the differences between morals and ethics. Perhaps its a language matter in SA. The issues at stake today are not about morality (except in the view of bigots), its about ethics, right and wrong in accordance with the law, and its universal awareness, not cultural beliefs which are important in this understanding.
What society apart from mafia types believe it is correct and ethical to murder, steal and deceive?
Professsor de Vos, I am afraid that you are are wrong to say that the Honourable Minister Lulu Xingwana habours homophobic hatred of black lesbians.
Rather, her concern is that the depictions do not contribute to optimal “nation building.” We must build our nation by encouraging our people to bear numerous strong, healthy children. The fact is that the imperialistically inspired, highly liberal, practice of physical intimacy between women is not conducive to the stuctural integrity of our nation.
Thank you.
Mihkail. Irony or not: bullshit!
I think we are at a stage where those in the lower positions of actual power, whether in the judiciary, in SARS, in civic organizations or opposition parties, individuals who can now recognize there is enough public support for them to stand forth, can courageously feel safe to say ‘enough’!; and to use their individual standing and respective authority to save South Africa.
It takes the courage of a whistle blower, and then some, to follow this up. Otherwise, what can we expect in the coming years? What country do we want, what will we risk?
There is a ground swell of support which has arisen in opposition to the razing of our law and Constitution… time to take a deep breath and act! Make the decision and proceed accordingly in whatever venue you inhabit. Heroes and heroines, without fear or favor, ethically determined; our future depends on you. There is an old saying which speaks much wisdom: strike while the iron is hot. Right now it’s very hot indeed.
Opportunity arises, then dissipates. Lets not miss the window.
A moral code is hoping for too much. I dsagree that the right to freedom of thought is quite so clearly guarded. I would say that you are entitled to yuor thoughts and opinions provided that your expression, or outward manifestation, of such is in keeping with the values enshrined in the Constitution.
Art is a form of expression and since that is guaranteed and this case doesn’t seem to involve child pornography, I see no reason why the Minister should have behaved the way she did if she truly adheres to the values in the Constitution.
I feel that an important part of this debate (which appears to be completely lost on the likes of Zuma), is the difference between toleration and respect. Due to the constitution, I am compelled to tolerate Zuma’s polygamy. I do not have to respect it. I will tolerate the bigoted utterings of idiots like MaCauley but never respect him. I can therefore argue against these views whilst still tolerating them. We all know that Zuma & MaCauley would never respect a gay person or say a female boss. But they have to tolerate them.
However, the proposal from Zuma and his cronies is truly pathetic; how can anyone who has serious unanswered questions about his involvement in a major corruption case, someone who thinks that any woman wearing a skirt above the knee is “asking for it”, someone who admits that he would club a homosexual male, or force young people to be scared of a god and their ancestors, over hope to lead a debate on the moral code of the nation? If I had to draw up a list of the current most immoral South Africans then without a doubt Zuma, MaCauley & Xingwana would be close to the top of the list.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1121519
Malema is really testing this new democracy and raibow nation.
Judge for yourself!!!!!!!!!
Mr Fassbinder, are you on crack?
Of all the ideas that became the United States, there’s a line here that’s at the heart of all the others. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security.”
“If there’s something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action.”
While this may be from a movie (National Treasure) it is still a very powerful statement. It is fast becoming the time to take action.
Mr Pony, I reject you racist and insulting inquiry.
I still say patriotic nation building must be our first priority.
(On another topic, I am no defender of Cmd Malema. But why does the liberal media focus so intently on his sometimes challenging statements, while ignoring the inflammatory discourse of the DA’s Youth League?)
@ Mr Fassbinder: I would however like to thank you for one of the most cogent arguments for keeping women pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen I have seen in recent memory. With your permission I would like to use it as a pick up line in future: ‘Do you feel like coming to my place and attacking the structural integrity of our nation?’
Oh, and I believe that it is Madam Pony to you (sir).
While zuma has been waiting for clarification from his legal team, in response to the reasons for not or not to declare his financial interest, or whether or not he had violated section 5 of the Executive Ethics Code by not declaring his interests within 60 days of taking office in May last year,apparently such explanation to be given today? curious how Julius dilemma`s comments have consummed the country? bizarre organized attempt at deflection? perhaps the media is not as liberal as we are led to believe?
Am I being pessimistic when I worry about the longevity of constitutional democracy in South Africa? A consistent theme in South African politics is how the leaders of the ruling party – which will likely rule South Africa for a very long time – are either openly opposed to constitutional values, or are habitual flouters of the law. The actions of these leaders don’t seem to be the occasional slip ups of imperfect people. The better explanation is that there is a genuine lack of commitment to constitutional values among the people that are currently leading South Africa and determining its future.
Perhaps it is not too much of stretch then to think that in private conversations between those involved in politics – and even those who aren’t – people are beginning to question the value of constitutional values. The period of Constitutional democracy may have indeed have served its purpose of bringing a peaceful end to apartheid; but maybe when considering whether that beautiful document, Our Constitution, is to serve South Africa indefinitely, political leaders may have doubts. After all, it and the values it prescribes have done nothing but frustrate the ruling political elite. Soon, with enough political will, the whole thing might be scrapped. Certainly doesn’t sound too farfetched to me.
Eskom and government have approached the World Bank with a view to raising around R29 billion to help fund the new power stations. The ID has asked the World Bank to approve the loan – but with a condition.
the ID is saying that the World Bank should not give loan to South Africa if it is going to further conflict of interest in the country. The ANC, through Chancellor House, owns a large chunk of Hitachi Power Africa, and therefore stand to earn billions. the ID has asked the World Bank to make the loan conditional on Chancellor House divesting its shares in Hitachi Power Africa. This issue of the greatest of importance to democracy, if the ANC does earn these billions, no party will ever have the resources to compete against them in elections for the next 15 to 20 years.
chief whip – ID – Lance Greyling
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article346887.ece
This is very interesting a especially that Wifey later got a job with a bank and the Wedding hosted at a farm of a major bank shareholder.
How come our frontline media never pick up these things, perhaps it depens on who you are.
http://www.noseweek.co.za/article.php?current_article=2214
@dworky
Quote “you are are wrong to say that the Honourable Minister Lulu Xingwana habours homophobic hatred of black lesbians.
Rather, her concern is that the depictions do not contribute to optimal “nation building.” We must build our nation by encouraging our people to bear numerous strong, healthy children. The fact is that the imperialistically inspired, highly liberal, practice of physical intimacy between women is not conducive to the stuctural integrity of our nation.”
Dworky, there you go agains stating controversial *opinions* as facts.
Please explain to me and help me to understand how physical intimacy between women (*some* women – most probably a very small minority) is not conducive to the structural integrity of our nation?
Why not?
To my mind, intimacy is a very good thing – far better than violence, bigotry, hatred, aloofness etc.
Surely our society could do with MORE intimacy, not less – “love they neighbour” and all that?
As for the comment that We must build our nation by encouraging our people to bear numerous strong, healthy children, has the good Minister never read the works of Malthus or heard of the term overpopulation?
Gwebecimele says:
March 11, 2010 at 13:21 pm
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article346887.ece
This is very interesting a especially that Wifey later got a job with a bank and the Wedding hosted at a farm of a major bank shareholder.
—————————————————————————————————-
And lifestyle audit for Juju cos he’s an uncouth loudmouth!
“How come Transnet awarded an option to Trevor Manuel’s friend Fred Robertson to buy a prime piece of Cape Town real estate work at least R200m – for just R3.5m?
Frederick Robertson might have been the point man and the face of the deal back in 2000, but his Liesbeeck Leisure (Pty) Ltd was in partnership with Brimstone Investment Consortium – whose key figures were none other than Tshamano Phaswana, Professor Jakes Gerwel and Dr Patricia Gorvalla – all members at the time of the Transnet Board.”
And this.
“Government agency secretly wrote off a whopping R1.3 billion of civil servants’ retirement funds to prop up biggest ever BEE deal under the watchful eye of CEO Brian Molefe. There can be no way that the PIC saw value in buying its R4.3bn stake and advancing a further R1.7bn to AfriSam.
All that is serious, but not half as serious as the discovery that none of this is reflected in the published annual reports.”
http://www.noseweek.co.za/article.php?current_article=2209
@ Maggs
This is the stuff that should get Cosatu on the streets, their pensions are used to finance greedy deals and they share nothing on the upside eg. Telkom, MTN etc.
What happened to Khosi and Sine. I hope you were not visited by Cyber Hawks. Greetings!!!!!!
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page292681?oid=473617&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
Speaking of f.u. moral compasses, here is a perfect example of the f.u. moral compasses of gun prohibitionists. This, to them, is justice:
Willem Andrew duBuisson, 51, was sentenced to 15 years in prison in the Bronkhorstpruit Regional Court – for constitutionally protected conduct – making property in the privacy of his home!
Under S25 of the Bill of Rights duBuisson has the right to make property. Under S14 he has the right to privacy.
Instead, he is in custody right now and will be for the next 15 years.
There was only one charge on the charge sheet. The state alleges no further criminal nexus here.
The only crime he was accused of is making property.
According to information I got from the State duBuisson has no recent criminal record, nor charges against him nor investigations pending.
The investigating officer testified on the accused’s behalf in order that he not get the maximum sentence. The investigating officer told the Court that the accused had co-operated fully.
It looks like duBuisson was inadequately represented by the Legal Aid Board.
His legal representative
o admitted all allegations and the charge against him
o admitted that his conduct was unlawful
o laid no basis for Appeal to the High Court on the basis that his conduct was constitutionally protected.
Put simply, duBuisson was railroaded.
The Chief Magistrate of Bronkhorstspruit should urgently take this case under review.
Hey Brett – what does “making property” mean?
Here is an example of making property, Maggs: I go to the kettle and switch it on. I go to the cupboard and take out a mug and a cup (I like boiled milk with my coffee, see?) Then I go to the fridge (but you get the idea. Coffee is property. Laurie Ackermann made that clear in the FNB case.)
What duBuisson did was no more unethical (I am taken with Sirjay’s post), Maggs.
I think – remember, ‘think’, Maggs – I am speculating not stating as a fact. duBuisson was making trap-guns. Shotgun cartridge in a steel pipe triggered when Mr Jackal comes by to steal a chicken.
IMHO he deserves a knee in the nads for that, not 15 years.
Leigh, our resident law-student – remind us quickly which was the locus classicus that referred to a trap-gun?
If JZ wan’t to sow his wild oats – he can have as many women as he wants…
I however have a serious problem with his moral BIGOTRY; and WON’T stomach it…
http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/search.asp?search=moral+regeneration&submit=Search+%3E%3E&mode=allwords
too Lulu I say this : Er will mich zu seinem Kinde http://www.artthrob.co.za/08dec/images/hugo.jpg01a.jpg
and personally I think the Butcher boys in the national gallery show more skin… never mind Jane Alexander’s “OH YES” girl
http://www.artthrob.co.za/99july/artbio.htm
Brett Nortje says:
March 11, 2010 at 20:34 pm
Ok – now I get it.
He was making a gun or guns to shoot chicken thieves.
I am told that bombs can be made with ordinary detergents – surely that cannot be legal even if it is made in somebody’s own kitchen.
Maggs, have you ever tried to make a weapon of mass destruction in your kitchen? You might have a lot of fun! Tell us how you get along.
Brett Nortje says:
March 11, 2010 at 21:22 pm
“Maggs, have you ever tried to make a weapon of mass destruction in your kitchen? You might have a lot of fun! Tell us how you get along.”
Eish Brett.
Don’t believe the rumours about my cooking – I do some pretty good food!
Brett Nortje says:
March 11, 2010 at 20:34 pm
I’m not the resident law student, but I believe you are referring to the Van Wyk case.
Just teasing Leigh, Chris. What do you think of duBuisson?
Brett Nortje says:
March 11, 2010 at 20:34 pm
“I think – remember, ‘think’, Maggs – I am speculating not stating as a fact. duBuisson was making trap-guns.”
Hey Brett,
If you don’t know enough about the matter, on what basis are you suggesting that the sentence was too harsh or that duBuisson was railroaded?
Brilliant, Maggs. And it only took you ten hours to think this one up.
What does it matter whether he was making coffee or tea? It is still property.
The constitutional issues do not come more straightforward than this.
He was making property, in the privacy of his home. There is not even a suggestion that he was doing so maliciously. There is no suggestion that he victimised anyone or intended to (besides the fact that we do not punish people for what they think – yet! Gunowners, of course, are not people….)
In making property – with no further criminal nexus – he ran foul of the fascist law you are a proponent of.
Guess that makes his ordeal OK.
IMHO, it is a sign of f.u. moral compasses. But, hey, that is just me.
Brett Nortje says:
March 12, 2010 at 8:06 am
“Brilliant, Maggs. And it only took you ten hours to think this one up.”
hahahaha – I told you I am slow. It was also my famous cooking that kept me otherwise occupied.
I am as outraged as you are by the travesty of justice.
The guy was making tea and coffee and got 15 years in jail?
Scandalous!
While we are still on the topic of f.u. moral compasses, equality before the law and equal protection by it, could one of our Gun Free proponents please explain the disparity in sentences to me?
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article349115.ece
ANC ‘stalwart’ Uriel Abrahamse gets 10 months and four years correctional supervision for killing four-year-old Gwadiso Belang while trying to shoot a cellphone thief in the back.
Willem duBuisson gets 15 years (of a possible 25) for making jakkalskanonne.
Big joke, huh Maggs?
Brett Nortje says:
March 13, 2010 at 17:11 pm
Hooray we finally agree – the Abrahamse thing is bad.
Become a gun-free advocate Mr Brett!
Maggs, the motto I try live my life by is: ‘Lifes short! Laugh hard!’ I will make jokes of just about anything.
Not this, Maggs. Both are tragedies, damning indictments of the country we live in. How can you trivialise these peoples’ pain? What moral equivalency is there between making traps for predators and trying to shoot a thief in the back and killing a toddler, and the guy who killed the kid gets a slap on the wrist and the guy who made a predator trap’s life is virtually ended?
You gun prohibitionists have some f.u. values. Have you no shame?
Do not rationalise to yourself that these are unintended consequences. Everyone knows the FCA is aimed at the owners of registered guns not unlicensed guns.
Pray tell, in what socialist dictatorship do party apparatchiks not have access to firearms the proletariat are not allowed to have?
Brett Nortje says:
March 13, 2010 at 19:56 pm
Nonsense!
The innocent child was needlessly killed – stop pretending that it matters much to you, therein lies the shame.
Another reason for a gun free society as far as I am concerned.
You’re trying “to eat out the both sides of your mouth” as the saying goes.
If you truly believe that the innocent child (and many others) died needlessly from the mindless use of a gun then advocate for a gun free society.
As for the fellow who got a long time in jail for making guns – too bad for him that he did not think it sensible to follow the laws of our land.
Maggs, please stop the crocodile tears. They are at odds with your attitude mere hours ago. Once again, you deflect. It is apparently a trait of the dishonest, shameless ANC and its supporters – when trapped in your own inconsistencies, deflect.
There is a difference between right and wrong – most people can make the distinction and have a sense of justice. There is no moral equivalency between making traps for predators and trying to shoot a thief in the back and killing a toddler. Most reasonable, thinking people know it is a travesty of justice when the guy who killed the kid gets a slap on the wrist and the guy who made a predator trap’s life is over.
You helped contrive that outcome.
Brett Nortje says:
March 11, 2010 at 21:54 pm
I don’t know enough about the case to make an informed opinion. If he was indeed making trap guns to protect his chickens from jackals, 15 years is ridiculous. If he was making guns to sell to criminals to use when robbing banks and cash vans, then I’d say the sentence is lenient.
As for a defence that his conduct was constitutionally protected, he wouldn’t have had even a faint hope of success in any court.
Brett Nortje says:
March 13, 2010 at 21:13 pm
“You helped contrive that outcome.”
Hey Brett – this must be Kak Sunday.
By your own admission, you don’t know what it was that they guy was charged with – that hardly presents the opportunity to comment on the severity of the sentence.
Re the fellow who killed the child – he is one of your own!
Maggs, I do not run my mouth (or keyboard off) if I have no facts. I go to the source. My source could not be better. The state.
I have put the facts before you. Your problem is this: You have to rationalise the fact that you do not know if duBuisson was going to do anything wrong with those jakkalskanonne because he had done nothing wrong. But cut short pieces of pipe that would fit shotgun cartridges. That is how morally decrepid your side of this argument is. duBuisson is strictly liable merely for making property.
No doubt, you would see the constitutional issues immediately if he was busted rolling zolle on the kitchen table.
If you wanted information, rather than to deflect the consequences of your activism, you could have taken Schedule 4 to the Firearms Control Act and made a list of the offences with 25 years maximum sentence. The gun prohibitionists had a great deal of fun with that one.
You see, Maggs, Abrahamse perfectly illustrates your f.u. moral compass: You see no harm in infringing the liberties or punishing a whole class of innocents for the actions of one. You have no problem with finding collective guilt.
Yet, you are squeamish about dealing adequately with the one guilty party we have in hand. Explain that inherent contradiction.
You refuse to empathise with, identify with or even acknowledge a person whose world view you are challenged by’s claim to fair treatment.
You are inherently a fascist.
The rights culture certainly has not penetrated in some quarters.
Maggs’ response is the typical fascist response to anything which demands more than posturing and reiteration of tired old party slogans. The greatest feat such individuals are capable of, is a strident “There should be a LAW against it” – the universal retort of all fascists faced with having to make an ethical, as opposed to moral, judgement, and who find that their preconceived notions do NOT fit all cases.
Well done for exposing Maggs for the shallow, pseudo-intellectual poser (not thinker!) he really is, Brett!
Charles says:
September 13, 2010 at 9:19 am
Eish Charles,
You’re slow.
That (and more) has already been established.
There must be an additional point that you are making.
Please explain that for this shallow, pseudo-intellectual poser (not thinker!).
I totally agree with the prof on this one, how can someone tell us that we must discuss moral code when he himself has on a numerous occasations failed to shows as a leader that our morals are very important and should be respected at all times. I am not even going to go to the past to discuss what he did as you know it all.