I see Carl Neihaus, the smarmy and suspiciously pious new spokesperson of the ANC, is very upset about statements made by COPE leaders about the ANC and its Dear Leader. I can’t say I blame him, because some of these statements are clearly defamatory.
According to The Weekender newspaper, Shikota youth leader, Anele Mda, called ANC President, Jacob Zuma, “a rapist” and said that if the ANC was re-elected into government under President Zuma “rape would no longer be a criminal offence”. Willie Madisha then proceeded to call President Zuma “SA’s Stalin”, and claimed that when President Zuma visits the United Nations, people would say “here comes the rapist”.
Mr Zuma could obviously sue Mda for defamation for calling him a rapist because although he did have sex with an openly lesbian woman more than half his age while married to several other wives, although he did say at his rape trial that he took a shower after sex to prevent himself from contracting HIV, although he did say during his trial that a women wearing a Kanga cannnot be left sexually unattended, he was acquitted of rape and no one has the right to call him a rapist. One can call him a sexist, yes. A patriarch, yes. A reactionary bigot, yes. Maybe even a sexist pig. But not a rapist.
Of course, it’s too early to say whether he would have any claim for defamation based on the allegations that he is a Stalinist. We will only find out about that after the election.
But then Neihaus got a bit carried away. Understandable, perhaps, given the fact that the election is only a few months away and that Niehaus is a new broom trying to milk these defamatory statements for all its worth. But really, these spokespeople should at least try and understand the legal concepts before they bandy them about to score cheap political points – it would help to give at least the semblance of credibility to the Spin.
Thus Niehaus fulminates: “This is nothing else but hate speech of the worst kind” (as opposed to hate speech of the acceptable kind, I immediately wondered).
Problem is, if this is hate speech then I am the Pope and Britney Spears all rolled into one person.
Even in terms of the expanded definition of hate speech in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), these statements do not constitute hate speech. Every second year law student (well, at least those who passed) will be able to tell you this. Article 10 of PEPUDA prohibits any person from publishing, propagating, advocating or communicating words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds such as race, sex, gender and sexual orientation, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; or promote or propagate hatred.
The words of Mda fall at the first hurdle as they are not based on Mr Zuma’s race, sex, gender, sexual orientation or other status. They are based on him having been an accused and him being a politician, neither of which constitutes suspect categories in our law. So Mr Niehaus, there is no hate speech here. Please stop abusing this term because you are making a fool of yourself.
Speaking of making a fool of oneself, Mr Niehaus then continues:
These remarks come in the context of an atmosphere of disregard for basic legal procedures and respect that the NPA, and specifically the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions, Adv. Mokotedi Mpshe, have created with their insistence that despite the fact that there are no charges against President Zuma that he is “still the accused”, and in Mr. Mpshe’s words that Judge Chris Nicholson’s judgement was wrong, and he “will not change his mind about that”.
These remarks further intensify the persecution of President Zuma through abuse of the law for political expediency. This is totally unacceptable and very serious for the independence of the judiciary.
Luckily we know from the first part of the statement (which completely misconstrues hate speech) that this second part is not based on any legal reasoning or any informed understanding of our law or our Constitution, but is mere political bluster aimed at detracting attention from the rather difficult fact that Mr Zuma may very well lose the Nicholson appeal and may very well be charged again with corruption and bribery in the near future.
As others have stated so clearly, there is absolutely nothing, I repeat NOTHING, wrong with saying one disagrees with a judgment of any court in South Africa. We do not live in Stalin’s Russia (oh dear, Mr Neihaus, I promise you that is not hate speech either). There is something wrong with threatening judges because they make a decision one does not like – as the ANC has done in the Zuma case – or threatening not to obey a judgment – as Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has done in the past with the TAC judgment.
So comrade Niehaus, my advice (given free of charge) is that you advise your Dear Leader to sue those COPE slanderers for defamation, but that you stop trying to link every criticism of your Dear Leader to his so called persecution and to his treatment by the NPA, who might just be doing its job (for once) in charging a powerful politician with corruption and bribery.
After all, one has to remind every South African who will vote next year that Mr Schabir Shaik is serving a 15 year jail term for soliciting a bribe for Mr Zuma and for corrupting him. Whether Mr Zuma is ever found guilty of these crimes himself should really be irrelevant for the electorate when they make up their minds about whether the Dear Leader is Presidential material or not (although it might be relevant for Mr Zuma and his friends and family because if he is convicted he will have to spend 15 years in jail).
The question is: do we want a President whose best friend solicited a bribe on his behalf, a President who accepted R4 million from that friend and then did several favours for that friend in his official capacity? I know what my answer will be to that question, but perhaps I am just being an old fahsioned racist who believes leaders should have some ethical standards. But hey, who needs a leader with ethical standards or progressive, gender friendly values, if you already have a dancing and singing sexist patriarch.
I suspect all this thunder about the NPA and the persecution of your Dear Leader has very little to do with your real belief that there is a persecution of Mr Zuma (just as it has nothing to do with hate speech), and everything with an attempt to try and get people to forget what kind of leader is now in charge of the once mighty and noble ANC.
Ja, neh! Pierre De Vos, a law academic, nogal! From someone who always condemns lawlessness-I cant believe that in the whole of your article you indirectly (though explicitly) condone Mda and Madisha Highly Provocative statements. Trust me, dear Professor, with highly provoking statements like that, its very easy to see violent reactions to them. You see, to you these unfolding insensitive political developments might just be nice to comment on, but to us the followers of these leaders (…or sexist pigs in your opinion), these insults are deeply hurtful and provoking-Trust me! It is further more hurtful and highly provoking to hear intelectuals like yourself condoning ( since your Are NOT condemning) Mda and Madisha s lawlessness as you ought to-instead you turn on Niehaus minor legal errors. Our articles are viewed by many people, your hatred for Zuma is doing a disservice to our country Sir. I am deeply, very deeply hurt by your views on this issue Prof (not that you care-i mean, this is democracy right? Insult whoever you hate, who cares?…) I am deeply hurt. Despite what many of you unforgiving souls may think, Jacob Zuma is a Human Being, also loved by God!!! You people(Mda, Madisha and obviously yourself) are obviously taking this Way Too Far now. Let’s learn to draw the line guys-Asseblief.
…(Y)our articles are viewed by many people…I meant.
You may have noticed the Prof’s suggestion that the ANC sues Mda et al for defamation? Not really the way to condone a person’s behaviour…
Read the post again Spuy, it’s not condoning anything…merely pointing out that defamation is not hate speech, and that the ANC is once again using smoke and mirrors to try and divert attention away from the real issues as we head towards an election.
COPE’s leadership made some completely offside statements, but legally – not hate speech.
As a final note, this post wasn’t directed at you – it was (a) directed at Jacob Zuma and the ANC, and (b) based on fact. If it hurts, that may mean you should have a look at the leadership you profess to follow with such feeling, and contemplate if it hurts because you know it’s true, and your rose tinted glasses need to come off. Don’t bury your head in the sand – that mentality is killing democracy by keeping crooked politicians in power.
the once mighthy and noble ANC indeed…….those where the days…………!!!!!!!!
Spuy, i notice you haven’t addressed any of Prof’s substantial points against a Zuma presidency. Care to tell us how you can justify your support for Zuma in the face of the favours, the conviction of Shaik and the R4m?
The Big Slipper says: “…Don’t bury your head in the sand – that mentality is killing democracy by keeping crooked politicians in power. …”
I say: “Hear! Hear!”
Advising someone to sue for defamation is kak advice … unless you want to help them plot their own downfall.
(See The Five Hazardous Attitudes of Litigation.)
Spuy, I am shocked that you read my post as condoning the statements made by Mda. Please read again and note that section where I advise that a defamation claim was in order. I think the statement by Mda is shocking and stupid. It will tarnish COPE’s image. Once again: I do not hate JZ. I do hate the mindless adulation of a very conservative, sexists, and flawed man that you indulge in at your own peril. Can I ask you a question: what do you think of Mr Zuma’s view of women (seeing that we are now in the 16 days of activism)? Do you think it is ok for Zuma to say that babies should be forcibly removed from teenage mothers (in contravention of article 28 of the Constitution) and that the mothers should be taken away and forced to study? Do you think it is ok for Zuma to say that taking a shower after sex prevents HIV? Do you think it is ok for Zuma to say when a women wears a kanga it is the duty of a man not to leave her excited but to service her – even if that women is about a third of his age and he is already married to many other women? Do you think its ok for Zuma to take R4 million from Shaik and then to do favours for him? These questions are not born out of a hatred for Zuma but out of a love for my country. I am eagerly awaiting your answers.
Spuy, I forgot: another question: is it ok for Zuma to say approvingly that when he was young and he encountered a gay person he would knock that gay person down?
I know that we are not Gods guys,but we all have skeletons we are ashamed of from our past. Hell, some we ve learnt from. Till when will we keep hearing Zuma rape-trial self defence…(those were not ANC President policy statements-not that they should be condoned)…I m just asking? Untill when? TM once slapped Mama Winnie! People forgave him and put that behind them. Murderes of apartheid era are now almost forgotten. Is it that difficult to do the same on Zuma’s rape trial unwise statements?…He surely must have learned from especially the rape case, surely! Lets give it a rest, shall we?…He does have some strong points you know, i.e his views on Zimbabwe, violent crime, public servants salaries, education, poverty aliviation etc, surely he deserve some credit on these!
Spuy
“He does have some strong points you know, i.e his views on Zimbabwe, violent crime, public servants salaries, education, poverty aliviation etc, surely he deserve some credit on these!”
And don’t forget his dancing skills.
Yes, yes, ‘views’. Everyone has views on these things. So what? I have views on poverty alleviation and violent crime. Does that mean I’d make a good president? Surely the ANC can come up with a stronger candidate than Zuma? Give him the credit you think is his due, just not the presidency.
De Vos!
I guess you realise that things you say when your freedom is at stake may raise more questions than answers. I do not see how you can refer to some of the testimony of JZ in your arguments
For you and anyone who doubts a prospect of a good president in JZ denotes a disregard of a democratic process. His membership has decided that he must lead this country next year and that shows confidence in him.
It is interesting how you easily ommit to mention an assault by TM on Winnie but easily remember JZ situation on his accuser in his rape trial.
It is obvious that the challenges besetting our youth is the issue of illiteracy and for JZ to suggest forcefull education on our teens only means good and his concern about the status quo.. Is it the love you have for TM to overlook the good that JZ mean for this country?
Mel, you clearly lack understanding of democracy – especially a constitutional democracy. JZ was selected by 4000 delegates at the ANC conference as its Presidential candidate. Us voters have not had the chance to give our opinion of him. Even if those 4000 members or a majority of South Africans vote for him, he is not beyond criticism. If 80% of South Africans believe in the death penalty, I have every right to believe that 80% of South Africans are ignorant bigots. Duhhhh! It is my democratic right to say that and to argue about it, based on my view of what the Constitution says. Same goes for JZ. Just because 4000 ANC delegates voted for him, does not make him God. He is still a grubby politician with very right wing views. In fact, I sometimes wonder why he does not team up with the right wing elements of the DA and form a new party who is in favour of the death penalty, in favour of curtailing the rights of accused persons, in favour of discriminating against women. His views accord perfectly with those and as a progressive person who believes in human rights I find it appalling that such a right wing sexist might become my President. You might support him but that says a lot about your own views which seem to the right of the FF+
@ Pierre,
Where have the DA ever issued policy statements in support of the death penalty, the curtailment of accused’s rights or discrimination against women (considering their leader is a woman!!!)?
Personally, I believe that linking Zuma to the DA in any way is completely bizarre. Zille and co have pretty much nailed him on everything you have, so I am surprised to find that you are tarring them with the same brush as JZ!!
Spuy
It doesnt matter if we forgive JZ for his behaviour, we just dont think he is a suitable president for RSA. We can all forgive Eugene Tereblanche for being a racist bigot and promoting hate speech but that doesnt mean we want him as our president either. Pierre is merely amazed that people want this man to lead such a progressive country as the one we live when his views on many key issues are not progressive and in line with the ideals of the constitution. This being the same constitution which he will have to dedicate his term to upholding and respecting. If this doesnt worry you, well than what will?
I agree with your post Prof. A minor technical question: I note you refer to provisions of statutes as “articles” and sometimes as “artikle”, the latter being an equivalent of “section” in Afrikaans. I was trained to refer to provisions of bills as “clauses”, provisions of constitutional text as “articles” and provisions of ordinary statutes as “sections”. Is the forementioned approach in fact correct.
Hey what’s this nonsense about Mbeki assaulting Winnie? I watched that footage countless times, it seemed like Mbeki was literally trying to push her away and he knocked her cap off in the process. Ofcourse the tabloids had a field day with Sunday newspapers bearing “Mbeki slaps Winnie” on the cover, but that is not what in actual fact happens. Why are learned people like yourselves letting tabloids dictate the way you think??
Southern Cape advocxates form association. Advocate Rudolph Hiermstra SC was elected as chairman, with Eduard Bruwer as his deputy.
They strengthening their racist culture- good for them
I call this association, Advocates against transfornation hence Racist association of advocates.
White racist legal professinals will never win this game we will fight them till the end
lindelani maseko // Nov 25, 2008 at 11:02 am
“White racist legal professinals will never win this game we will fight them till the end”
How may we classify you, a black racist legal professional?
Vuyo // Nov 25, 2008 at 10:46 am
…………………………………………………..
Personally I use those terms synonymously. However, I tend to prefer to use sections for our Constitution and Parliamentary Acts, while using clauses and articles for international agreements. Paragraphs may also be used though used often in judgments.
I find it odd that people are arguing against the dissection of Jacob Zuma as a politician, leader, citizen, etc. and an enquiry into whether he could be a good president of the country.
I strongly believe that we have a right to enquire into each and every person who is holding any public post or who is responsible for any section of the public. This enquiry is generally intense and extremely important and necessary in case of politicians in general.
In the case of Jacob Zuma, not only is he a politician who holds a public office but he is also a very strong candidate for the President of this country. This makes the inquiry into him necessarily more robust. The fact that so many people are blindly following this man who is definately not a “proper and fit person” to be the President of this country is beyond my understanding.
Prof Pierre has merely pointed out his reasons why he says Jacob Zuma is not a ‘proper and fit person’ to be the President of this country and he has, as a firm believer in democratic principles, invited submissions from anyone who thinks otherwise. So far we have witnessed people beating about/around the bush and not telling us why he should be elected President next year. Instead of declaring the reasons why they support Zuma, they point out to the lack of objectivity of the person providing the reasons why Zuma is not fit to be the President.
This propensity of (un)skilfully running away from the substance of the arguments levelled against Jacob Zuma being a fit and proper person to be President is not doing any good but it merely proves that there is no reason of substance why there is so much support for a Zuma Presidency. This is indeed very scary when you consider that some of the staunch Zuma supporters are holders of various degrees including being admitted as practitioners into the honourable profession (legal profession).
I am yet to meet someone who will convince me as to why South Africa needs a Jacob Zuma Presidency regardless of the strong substantive arguments against such…
In fact, let me drop that standard as it may not be attainable; I am yet to meet someone who will provide, as Prof Pierre has done on numerous occasions, substantive and objective reasons why at this day and age South Africa needs a Jacob Zuma Presidency…
Sne,
Yet we remain unconvinced why we needed Thabo Mbeki’s presidency
Pierre. Aren’t we uncharacteristically desperate and clutching at straws these days? For the record, judge van der Merwe said in his JZ rape trial judgement that sometimes when he read the press coverage, he would wonder if he was presiding over the same trial. That answers all your question on JZ’s view of women. Just for interest sake, what is your view on women? I however wish to reassure you that the people JZ has been addressing around teen pregnancy firmly understood and appreciated JZ’s sentiments. How eurocentric bigots and others interprete the content is entirely immaterial. Secondly, if you are convinced that JZ did favours for Sheik because of a R4 M motivation, please avail yourself as a witness in court. Mouing on,.. where I grew up in the black community, a “sissy-boy” (known today as gay) was not tolerated. That is not a lie and my freedom to mention it is well observed. Why should JZ (like everyone of us) not tell the truth as he knows it. PS: Innuendo would never be substitute for a good argument. I hope you teach your students that much.
Tatera,
” How many we classify you, a black racist legal professional?”
Yes you right you can clasify me that way
I hate whites and I will dedicate my whole life in making them pay
They must hold and maintance what they got due to the injustices of the past like hell – and teach their children not to loose focus because we are here to make them pay for sins of their grandparents
lindelani maseko // Nov 25, 2008 at 11:51 am
“I hate whites and I will dedicate my whole life in making them pay
They must hold and maintance what they got due to the injustices of the past like hell – and teach their children not to loose focus because we are here to make them pay for sins of their grandparents”
Do you honestly think there is a future for this country with an attitude like that?
Tatera,
with an attitude like this there’s a great future for our fellow black people who continue to suffer (to date) due to the injustices of the past
lindelani maseko // Nov 25, 2008 at 11:46 am
……………………………………………………………………….
In order to avoid a proliferation or multiplicity of collateral issues, I will not entertain your submission masquerading as an answer to my call…
We are now dealing with the reasons why we need a Jacob Zuma Presidency and not why we needed a Thabo Mbeki Presidency. The latter, therefore, is completely irrelevant.
You are a typical Jacob Zuma supporter coming with arguments like; “Zuma should not be charged because his counterparts have committed similar actions and were not charged,” etc. This is not acceptable…
Sne,
Who are you to tell me that this is not acceptable! as if me (duly admitted attorney by the high court of South Africa) am accountable to you
lindelani maseko // Nov 25, 2008 at 1:37 pm
……………………………………………………………………..
Exactly what I mean… I rest my case…
Setumo Stone,
thanks you have just said it as i would like to say it to ths professor
thank you very much fellow
With educated people like Lindelani around we will all sink together.
@ Lindile:
“I hate whites and I will dedicate my whole life in making them pay
They must hold and maintance what they got due to the injustices of the past like hell – and teach their children not to loose focus because we are here to make them pay for sins of their grandparents”
Compare that with the definition of hate speech:
Article 10 of PEPUDA prohibits any person from publishing, propagating, advocating or communicating words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds such as race, sex, gender and sexual orientation, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; or promote or propagate hatred.
Lindile, that wasn’t very smart. Posting what could be interpreted as hate speech on a public discussion board that attacks hate speech. Not to mention confusing ‘loose’ with ‘lose’. And what exactly is maintance?
Please man. Nelson Mandela came out of prison and lead South Africa to a state of unity, giving us all hope and vision, and now you want to go and undo all of that?
We are trying to save the ship that Mbeki has already sank
Make that Lindelani, my bad.
Garg Unzola,
Hate speech or no hate speech I don’t care
Go file a complaint with them
Listen here and listen very much clear: I LINDELANI MASEKO HATE WHITE PEOPLE AND I WILL DIE FOR THAT
Whether you think this is what? I really don’t care
If you hate something you hate something and nothing can change that
I am reposting here as it may also be relevant in this discussion:
Dear Lindelani
I am not a lawyer. You are right (the first time this year). But here is what I know.
The judge did not find that sex between old man Zuma and the young girl was consensual. He ruled in favour of Zuma because there was NOT ENOUGH evidence according to him to rule otherwise. Remember that the onus of proof lies with the one who affirms and failure to do so in the eyes and ears of the court, the benefit of doubt goes to the defendant.
An American court ruled in favour of OJ Simpson. He was acquitted of gruesome double murder. But in a subsequent civil case, the court ruled that OJ Simpson was responsible for the murders of his ex-wife and her friend and OJ was required to pay for damages caused his actions.
Two courts, same settings, different outcomes. OJ is still presumed innocent of murdering his wife and her friend; yet liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and her friend. Go figure.
The court acquitted Zuma of rape; yet the young girl is adamant that Zuma raped her. I am no judge, I believe the young woman. (Even the judge did not pronounce that the sex between Zuma and the young woman was consensual).
Even though I believe the young woman, I still have not called Zuma a rapist. I don’t think anybody in this forum did. That is a figment of your imagination.
Regarding corruption, the Shaik case is available if your search the internet. As a lawyer, you can easily discern (as I, a layman in law did) that the evidence before the court points to a corrupt and very weak Zuma who have difficulties managing his finances.
The judgement is readily available, except in the FriendsOfJz website, for some ‘strange’ reason given that they have kept other judgements – including Hlophe’s – that seem favourable to Zuma.
As for the other issues, I wish I could be as eloquent as Sne (above).
ps. Lindelani writes: “…H’s never avoided any day in court-surely you not a lawyer. he’s exhuasting all the lawful-legal remedies available to him ..”
I ask you, why is he ‘exhuasting all the lawful-legal remedies available to him’? Why not go to court and get remedy there?
Now a white judge is about to give parole to the white murders(lewis-walus) who killed Chris Hani despite submissions from the Hani family requesting the court not to give such parole to these killers
We do have justice in this country – We want this matter to be heard by a black judge if not another miscourage of justice
Nothing will change in this country as long as our courts are packed with white- old- racist judges
Guys!
We can not ignore TM presidency when dealing with the suitability of JZ in holding the position of the president. The yardstick should be what is it that was different with TM to JZ.. The man was recalled for heaven sake for lack of confidence in him.
This was the man who insulted everyone’s intelligence about an issue of HIV. This was the man who was mum on issues of Zimbabwe when our brothers and sisters were subjected to crimes against humanity. JZ is saying something need to be done about ZIM and no one is giving him credit for that.
I invite people to suggest names of those people who would be fit and proper to be the president without any harsh scruitiny. I guess Prof deems himself suitable for this position,given his arguments.
Tony
I ask you, why is he ‘exhuasting all the lawful-legal remedies available to him’? Why not go to court and get remedy there? So asks Tony………..
I fail to understand why people simply ignore our democratic rights as enshrined in the constitution. What is wrong with exploring lawfull legal remedies available to you at a given time? If we are to speak about equality before the law, then JZ is not immuned from same.
A person is entitled to proceed in whatever way he feels comfortable to arrive at a destined legal solution. We certainly can not expect JZ to abandon his legal option and go straight to court to have his name cleared there.
The hate and borderline hate speech from the usual suspects on this blog just goes to show that you can take a horse to water but you sure as hell can’t get it to drink if it won’t.
We have a constitution held in awe by many other countries but the bent politicians at the helm of the Dear Leader’s movement, Cdes JZ, Duarte, Mantashe and Phosa et al don’t even understand it or the the concept of a constitutional democracy, their sycpphantic supporters on this blog even less.
Spoiler
”We have a constitution held in awe by many other countries but the bent politicians at the helm of the Dear Leader’s movement, Cdes JZ, Duarte, Mantashe and Phosa et al don’t even understand it or the the concept of a constitutional democracy, their sycpphantic supporters on this blog even less”
I dont think you understand yourself as well. By the way Phosa was one of those people to coin our constitution.
Care to explain why people you mentioned above dont understand constitutional democracy?
mel // Nov 25, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“We certainly can not expect JZ to abandon his legal option and go straight to court to have his name cleared there.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
…Yet we certainly must expect him to “be fit and proper to be the president without any harsh scruitiny.” Definately not possible…
Your submissions on the Presidency of Thabo Mbeki have no bearing on the Presidency of Jacob Zuma! Or at least you have not provided any cogent basis for that. It is not necessary for someone who foresees a disaster, in fact, catastrophe, in the much-fancied Jacob Zuma Presidency to tell of the successes of the Thabo Mbeki Presidency. We do not want a President who will become same merely by pointing out the failures of his predecessor, as the Zuma supporters are fond of, but in addition to that the President of our country must be a “fit and proper person” and Zuma dismally fails to meet this requirement. Let us now look at this requirement of a fit and proper person to be the President of South Africa:
A fit and proper person to be the President of this country is not an exceptionally gifted, careful or developed person; neither is he underdeveloped, nor someone who recklessly takes chances or who has no prudence. The qualities of a fit and proper person to be the President of this country is found between these two extremes. To this we must, of necessity, add that a fit and proper person to be the President of this country must also be a person of integrity and good morals.
I now want us to ask oourselves as to how Mr. Jacob Zuma will perform against this standard…
@ Mel – Ah, so Phosa has chosen to forget what our constitution contains. Vide his complaint to Mushwana our lilly livered PP about Mpshe’s comments on the Nicholson judgment as already disected on an another thread on this very blog. have a read and come back and tell us these power hungry fools are not willing to sacrifice our democracy for a place at the feeding trough?
Lindelani
I only hate ignorance. If your hatred really made a difference, I’d consider legal action. I do however feel you should consider getting sterilised so we can nip this ignorance problem in the bud.
The only relevance of TM’s appalling record to JZ’s impending presidency is that the same organisation (the ANC) is responsible for championing both. Those in the ANC who constantly vilify TM in an attempt to detract attention from JZ’s failings seem conveniently to forget that it was the ANC who backed TM for nine years (longer if one takes into account his deputy presidency under Nelson Mandela). JZ served quite happily as TM’s right hand man, and supported and implemented his policies with an apparently clear conscience until it no longer suited his personal interests. Ditto for all the JZ supporters, who were all TM yes-men long before the JZ shuffle became fashionable. Out of the frying pan and into the fire for the South African public it seems.
Ahhh, finally people started debating the real issues. Great! I will write a separate post on Mr Zuma and the Shaik conviction to discuss some of the interesting issues raised here.
I am tired of those people who believe that Lindelani is black (wrongly so, in my humble opinion), accusing him of racism.
For the reasons that Pierre has articulated, if Lindelani really were black, he would not be capable of racism.
Hope that clarifies the position.
Michael Osborne // Nov 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I am tired of those people who believe that Lindelani is black (wrongly so, in my humble opinion), accusing him of racism.
For the reasons that Pierre has articulated, if Lindelani really were black, he would not be capable of racism.
Hope that clarifies the position.
NO, IT DOES NOT!
will everybody please do their best to find out if there is an attorney by the name of lindelani maseko in south africa. An inquiry into this might provide us with the information that proves Lindelani is a spoof blogger and doesnt deserve an ounce of intellect wasted on his/her/that’s provoking remarks.
Or lets just ignore the idiot
Actually I think Lindelani is the third force. You know the one the ANC trots out every time ANC supporters do something so appalling that even our esteemed leaders cringe and have no irrational answer for?
Either that or he is actually a right wing Afrikaans speaking tannie (no offence to the non-right wing Afrikaans speaking tannies out there) who is doing her level best to scare the white folk.
Did someone say he works for a bank? With these kinds of comments in the public domain I cannot see him achieving any success in the business sector.
Lindy – perhaps you ought to consider a position with the government, your public comments will be welcome, I suggest you start with the ANC Youth League you sound like you will fit right in.
Apparently, COPE has apologized for insulting Msholozi. Is that apology good for COPE or good for the ANC?
Lindelani…ai ai ai, if you really are a lawyer (a) I’m going to do a law degree part time, it must be really easy, and (b) suddenly our dysfunctional justice system makes sense.
Please do post more, it makes for good light-hearted slapstick…and if you do post more, explain what miscourage is?
Ignorance FTW!!!
Mel wrote: “We can not ignore TM presidency when dealing with the suitability of JZ in holding the position of the president. The yardstick should be what is it that was different with TM to JZ.. The man was recalled for heaven sake for lack of confidence in him. …”
Mel, I think you are aware that when Jacob Zuma was the Deputy President of South Africa, he agreed with the then President Thabo Mbeki on everything from AIDS to Zimbabwe. So by using your yardstick, we will find that there is no difference.
But when you consider Zuma’s buffoonery, lack of vision, flip-flopping on issues, homophobic and patriarchic nature, shady deals and other things – Zuma does not come even close to Thabo Mbeki.
If we are to use your standard to decide what is best for the country, South Africa under Zuma would retrogress terribly.
(Sigh) … it sure took some willpower to read some of the comments on this post. Conclusion: the gene pool could do with a little chlorine.
Dear Lindelani Maseko
Why are there White lawyers in Zuma’s legal team? Does this imply a lack of confidence in Black lawyers?
Just asking.
Regarding Lindelani
I have said it before, I investigated him a couple of months ago from information he volunteered on this blog:
- He is registered at the Law Society of the Northern Provinces (you can’t see him on the website yet, but I phoned them)
- They confirmed the place he did his articles as claimed by him.
- They confirmed where he studied to be as he said.
- I phoned the place where he did his articles, they confirmed.
- I invited him to a blog I especially created to get hold of his email address and the source of his internet connection. His email address checks out to be from the company he said as well as the internet address from which he was connecting, which is registered to that company.
- The law society was even willing to give me his phone number (as you could get from searching for members on the website), but I declined.
In order to completely fake all of the above, he’d have to be the Systems Administrator for that company, to usurp or fake the email address, it is literally impossible to fake. And he must have known that he could get this person’s details from the law society themselves, since it is not available on the internet. This is extremely unlikely as he would have to have dabbled in two divergent fields of expertise.
He is real as far as I am concerned. I suspect he has fallen for some social ills as he has mentioned at some point before, but I decline to elaborate on that.
Khosi
I think its good for COPE. They have taught the ANC a lesson on how to deal with wayward comments from their leaders. This is what the ANC should have done this with the Malema comments even before the Human Rights Commission became involved. Kgalema tried to but he was not supported by the rest of the ANC.
Woweee! Someone else who should read the prof’s blog:
Jason Mkhwane. Guess which para-military group he is from? Yes, the ANCYL. They want to do a lot of killing, so it follows they can’t be merely a youth group. With all their calls for violence doing the rounds, they have to be stashing some guns or assegaai somewhere. Or a lot of Doom, for all the cockroaches.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20081126052021398C358019
Clara – “Sigh) … it sure took some willpower to read some of the comments on this post. Conclusion: the gene pool could do with a little chlorine.”
Or, mustard gas?
lindelani – “We do have justice in this country – We want this matter to be heard by a black judge if not another miscourage of justice” … Exactly how black you want this judge to be, like Van der Merwe, like Nicholson, or bl[e]acker? Haven’t you learnt my dear Zulu brother, one cannot judge a book by its cover (or rather, colour).
Garg Unzola:
What do cockroaches do? They clean people’s dirty houses. For that, they have to be killed? Could there be an allegory in this?
BTW, that’s quite a hectic blog you have there.
Thanks, Clara. Thanks for checking out my blog!
The ANCYL is finding it increasingly difficult to claim that their kill for zuma claims are not inciting violence. The cockroach claim in particular was deliberately chosen to echo the claims made during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
During propaganda for this genocide, Hutus claimed the Tutsis were cockroaches and needed to be killed (“Which weapons are we going to use to beat the cockroaches for good?”). Well, they did end up getting killed.
I fail to see how making such a reference on purpose is merely using revolutionary rhetoric that should not be taken literally. It amounts to intimidating voters in my mind.
The ANCYL has never sactioned any person to incite violence or will it ever propose such a move. This democracy was through our toil and blood and we will never sacrifice.
Let peace rain !!!!!
Oh yes?
Why then the ‘kill for Zuma’ comments?
Why then the ‘kill the cockroaches’ comments?
Why then does ANCYL leader Malema have a reputation as a trouble maker, who at 21(?!?!) was still part of a pupil organisation called COSAS?
Read more about the revolutionary Malema here:
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=760127
I’m sorry, but this is no peaceful organisation. This is a bunch of young revolutionary militants who missed their relevance by about 30 years.