Ken Owen, the sharp-tongued commentator who used to edit the Sunday Times, has been having a fascinating argument about the Hlophe debacle with various other white commentators in the pages of Business Day. His argument is essentially that white people should shut up about the raping of the Rule of Law by the JSC, because if they do not, their self-important bleating will provide cover for the charlatans and self-serving crooks who will use “racial solidarity” to whip black lawyers and politicians into “line”.
In the latest salvo he takes on Jonny Steinberg and George Devenish, who previously argued that whites should not act like second class citizens and that whites therefore have a right and a duty to speak out about injustice and the abuse of power. When white people say nothing and do nothing we might well end up like Zimbabwe. Owen responds:
Mr Steinberg attributes the implosion of Zimbabwe to the “arrangement” by which whites kept clear of politics. Prof Devenish similarly assumes that the battle for the constitution must be lost if no white bwana comes to the rescue. Both cast their arguments in a macho idiom that reminds me of the ambassador in Andre Brink’s early novel: “Ek is ’n boere-diplomaat, ek neuk my pad oop”.
Perhaps we should open the debate on racism that so many people are demanding. I start with Malcolm X and Steve Biko, both of whom said in slightly different words: Black man, get on your feet! Certainly it is time to shed the idea that black people can only be successful (or prosperous, or happy, or free, or brave) if whites do something, or refrain from doing something. If we are to make progress, we must put responsibility where it belongs: Zimbabwe is not a failed state because whites avoided involvement in politics, but because President Robert Mugabe and the ruling Zanu (PF) ruined it.
SA’s judiciary will not be rescued if Judge Johann Kriegler pursues his case, nor will it be doomed if he abandons it. The threat to the rule of law comes from black lawyers who are hustling for jobs, status and power in the name of “transformation”, and they can best be stopped if other black lawyers force them to face up to their responsibility and to the consequences of their rampant ambition. Given our history, whites are wise to avoid preaching to them.
The apartheid mindset, which casts blacks as forever victims and whites as forever missionaries is as pernicious as it is tiresome. I recently heard a man blaming baby rapes on “colonialism”, which makes as much sense as blaming a tiny white minority for the rape of Zimbabwe, or making Judge Kriegler responsible for the current rape of the rule of law.
Judge Kriegler tells me there are many excellent black lawyers who share his concerns. If so, where the hell are they? They don’t need Judge Kriegler to nanny them. At most, Judge Kriegler should listen to them carefully, follow their lead, and discreetly give what support they want. Instead, by prominently seizing the issue, he has made them vulnerable to the charge of being Uncle Toms, and they have all scuttled off into the underbrush. Racial solidarity has trumped all else.
Nobody doubts Judge Kriegler’s courage but whether he is wise to go charging at windmills is another matter, even if he has a couple of Sancho Panzas like Mr Steinberg and Prof Devenish bringing up his rear. The only useful question to ask is whether black lawyers want the rule of law and are prepared to fight for it; if not, there is nothing Judge Kriegler can do about it.
Some of Owen’s views are confirmed by the remarkable piece published by Ngoako Ramatlhodi in the Sunday Times on Sunday, where he writes with a certain (unwitting?) candour about why the Hlophe scandal is being swept under the carpet:
In this matter Judge Kriegler seeks to compel the JSC to conduct a public interrogation of all the judges involved, including the outgoing chief justice. All of them were appointed to the bench post-1994. In that eventuality, there is bound to be public wrestling among the most senior black jurists in the country, as each side will seek to prove the other to be less forthcoming with the truth. The opponents of transformation will then bask in glory as the self prophecy of “untrustworthiness” is fulfilled. Some will then say: “We told you that blacks cannot be trusted with the judiciary.”
What Ramatlhodi seems to say is that cross examination of the complainants cannot be allowed because it might well expose one or more (black) judges as liars and this will confirm the racial prejudices of some whites about black people. This statement is remarkable – especially in the week that we commemorate the death of Steve Biko – because it amounts to an admission by Ramatlhodi that his beliefs and actions are wholly determined by whites. There is no agency there. Only actions determined by a fear of what some white people might think and say. One always acts in response to white racism – never in an independent, proud, strong, or principled way, but always shackled to fears about what whites may say and do and thus imprisoned by white racism.
This is a terribly depressing and defeatist admission to make. It seems to me like the admission of someone who has internalised the racist bigotry of white South Africa, someone whose mind is not free, someone who should read more Biko and less Mbeki. But it also reminds us of where we come from and how apartheid prejudices and race hatred have been internalised by people like Ramathlodi.
In this context, Owen is obviously correct when he says whites should not act as if they and they alone can save our society. That would be terribly arrogant and, yes, racist. I agree with him that some whites act as if black people can only be successful if whites do something or refrain from doing something. Clearly that attitude, which is rife in our society, is deeply insulting and racist.
Where I depart ways with Owen is where he says that his view means whites must shut up completely about what happens politically and legally in South Africa. That seems to me just as patronising as the actions of Kriegler, because if one does that and say, well let black people either save us or ruin us on their own, one in effect holds black people to a lower standard than whites. If one is prepared to speak out about the stupidities, corruption and greed of whites, why let black people off the hook?
The trick, I think, is to speak out boldly and fearlessly about the injustice, abuse of power and general stupidity and arrogance of South Africans of all races (not selectively only of black South Africans!), without acting as if one thinks one is the saviour of (black) South Africans. If one speaks out one must remember that one is just one small voice among many voices of all races trying to make a small difference in an honest, non-patronising way.
If I speak out, it is decidedly not because I believe only whites have a monopoly on what is right and principled and that only whites can save our judiciary and our country from the greedy crooks of all races sitting in (often untransformed) board rooms, parastatals and in government. It is because I think it is profoundly patronising and deeply insulting to hold black people to a lower standard than whites (like Ramatlhodhi wants to do) merely because some white people might mistake criticism of black people for a confirmation of their racist views.
Stuff those racist whites, I say. Why should my or anyone else’s actions be determined by such racist bastards? Why give them all the power?
It is also because I believe in the Constitution and the values and rights enshrined in it, which confirms that I am not a second class citizen because of my race, gender, sexual orientation, health or other status. Why would I shut up just because self-hating black people like Ramatlhodi and Paul Ngobeni say I should because they have not themselves freed their minds of white racism?
Prof you put your point across, very well but all of a sudden Ngobeni pops out, you diss Ramathlodi for being a self-hating black person as to be expected of you, but how did you then arrive at Ngobeni, or are we all blacks who disagree with you on Hlophe matter to regard ourselves as self-hating, your innuendo is thinly disguised.
Pierre, this is an excellent riposte to Ken Owen.
My only issue: You employ the phrase “just as patronising as the actions of Kriegler.”
May we assume you are paraphrasing Owen, not endorsing him on this point?
Pierre, I think you’ve demonstrated Ken’s point by taking it upon yourself to instruct black people on how to behave. South African whites don’t seem to get it that as a collective we don’t have much moral authority given our track record. Obviously there are very many individual white people who can’t be held personally responsible for the past, and who are committed to the country and have only the best intentions. The idea is not that they should be excluded from the national discourse, but simply exercise a bit of humility in their contributions – the hectoring white madam tone that Helen Zille does so well can only be counter-productive.
I think that it also needs to be mentioned that some black politicians deliberately engineer this response. Leonard Chuene, currently in the spotlight, is an absolute pro at playing the simple native when it suits him. Nobody would take a white person seriously if they advanced the kind of arguments that Chuene has used – they would assume guilt, not stupidity. But the DA swallows it hook line and sinker and immediately screams “ANC incompetence”, and message boards all over the country clog up with racist remarks from white South Africans about how useless black politicians and officals are. Black South Africans, justifiably annoyed by all this, line up behind the official in question.
Time to change the script people!
“SA’s judiciary will not be rescued if Judge Johann Kriegler pursues his case, nor will it be doomed if he abandons it. The threat to the rule of law comes from black lawyers who are hustling for jobs, status and power in the name of “transformation”, and they can best be stopped if other black lawyers force them to face up to their responsibility and to the consequences of their rampant ambition.”
Wise comments indeed Pierre. I am an avid student of history, particularly of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, Franco’s Spain, Stalinist Russia, etc. One of the things that seem facilitate the establishment of a totalitarian state is the co-option legal profession by the state. It happened particularly effectively in Germany, and even closer to home, in Zimbabwe (not to mention our own country during apartheid). The indefensible becomes couched in the language of legality and lawyers all nod in collective agreement (notwithstanding any dissenting thought) because to do otherwise is to relegate oneself to poverty (as so eloquently stated by Malema, it is indeed cold outside the ANC, at least from a material perspective). My observation, at least in my circles, is that there is very little appetite to practice law, preference being given to corporate or government posts, preferably sinecures. There’s a valid reason for this, after many years of studying law, articles, etc, the average black lawyer (owing to our past) is so indebted or in need for money that only a high paying sinecure will suffice, but these require good contacts. There is a knock on effect in that we will not publicly make any politically controversial remarks (“controversial” being defined as negative towards the ANC or government or in disagreement therewith) as this constitutes a professional kiss of death. It is only when the legal profession is transformed sufficiently to enable black lawyers to live/thrive independently of government or big business will political and other mechanizations (not in keeping with our constitutional values) be vocally countered.
Gwen. Instruct? Where? Your definition of “instruct” must be rather broad. You seem to equate criticism with instruction, which is not something any dictionary would agree with.
No need to take offence. The two paragraphs that refer to Steve Biko (just as a reference point), in particular strike me as being not just critical but admonitory. Possibly it’s just the prof in you
.
Gwen, I can’t help thinking that on your view, white people should indeed withdraw from the national discourse.
Leon was critiqued for his angry tone. Now, you say, Zille has become a hectoring white Madam. But what exactly should a leader of the opposition then be saying, and. more to the point, in what tone? South Africa’s political discourse is very robust. Do you expect the opposition to quietly bleat from the sidelines? Issue cordial requests? Provide cool academic-style critique in arcane policy papers?
I cannot help thinking that, if the DA is ever to really make it politically, they will not do so except by joining the rough and tumble. Many South Africans of all races very angry at the ANC. Must not the opposition somehow give vent to that?
As for Chuene, you are right that he is deliberately provocative. But how exactly do you deal with such nonsense from an opposition perspective? If you take him on, this spurs the populist rubbish you describe. (A game the DA can never win.) But if you ignore Chuene, you are patronising him. You let him get away with nonsense that, as you point out, one should and would not tolerate from a “white” politician.
So, what to do? Shut and focus on making money in crony BEE deals? Pack for Perth?
Michael Osborne ” Many South Africans OF ALL RACES VERY ANGRY AT THE ANC!”?
You must be joking or nuts, because then the obvious question is why they overwhemingly just voted for ANC this April, and for Zuma in particular , who the minority of SA’ns hate to lead us?
Mdu, in this instance at least, I am neither joking nor nuts.
I said “MANY SA’s of all races are very angry that the ANC.”
I did not say “MOST.”
[Also, Mdu, I challenge you to tell me: What percentage of South Africans overall actually voted for the ANC in April.?
Not that I agree with its sentiments, but this is a very good post Prof.
Michael Osborne, I give up, as to whether, per semantics or otherwise, I cannot make a distinction between “many” and “most” to me they are synonymous, and I think the percentage was 65.9%
But I maintain it’s a distinction without a difference!
The Chuene example is meant to illustrate that he should be called out for what he is – a manipulating liar (and cheat). Instead we allow ourselves to be diverted by faked ignorance. White commentators find it easy to assume that he’s simply too stupid and incompetent to understand the science and the ethics, and the debate dilutes into a bunfight about BEE, ANC incompetence, “look at what happened in the rest of Africa”, blah blah, and people line up behind their own racial group. But this is just one of countless examples where white people deride the apparent stupidity of a black newsmaker in blissful ignorance of the fact that the person in question is very skilfully manipulating that precise response to achieve a particular outcome.
As for the right tone, it is possible to contribute positively to a political discourse without being prescriptive or “bleating quietly from the sidelines”, as you put it. There are many degrees in between, and politicians and commentators alike need to look for the right balance in any given situation. The Leon/Zille approach doesn’t seem to acknowledge this, whether from naivete or arrogance I couldn’t say. I suspect that most black South Africans perceive it as arrogance, and I think they might be right.
Mdu,
Just over 50% of those South Africans eligible to vote voted for the ANC. And there is MASSIVE difference between ‘many’ and ‘most’.
e.g. Most South Africans joined Pres Zuma to welcome back the Bokke at OR Tambo today.
Umm, no I think not. But ‘many’ would be fine in that sentence.
Good postings, Guys. We are tired of being spectators in the making of our country and history. Kriegler and his supporters must be cut to size. Gone are the days when those who shout the loudest had monopoly over the shaping of our country.
Owen is right, some amongst us must learn to keep quiet and accept will of the majority. In the past we were tricked and bulldozed into agreeing to unfair arrangements. NO MORE!!!
On different note. The media is busy attacking Maroga( he can’t approve it for himself) at Eskom for getting a 27% salary increase but silent on the Chairman who provided it , Bobby Godsell. This is the nonsense we do not need. We will deal with it in whatever shape or form it presents itself.
it is becomig vacuous, to be discussing what ‘most’ and ‘many’, actually mean. lets not derogate from the substance of what Mdu is averring.
Very good article Pierre.
Would you mind if I take a deep rout through this?
“It is also because I believe in the Constitution and the values and rights enshrined in it, which confirms that I am not a second class citizen because of my race, gender, sexual orientation, health or other status. Why would I shut up just because self-hating black people like Ramatlhodi and Paul Ngobeni say I should because they have not themselves freed their minds of white racism?”
We were taught in school that the Civil War resolved the issue of slavery in the states. We learned that the Dred Scott case was a milestone in the sequence of events which led to that war. We also learned that history judged the decision to be wrong. However, our teachers never told us that a bogus Supreme Court decision caused the Civil War. You are not supposed to learn that a fraudulent Supreme Court decision caused a million casualties.
Its against this back drop I wish to tackle what I see as a coming of “Judicial Civil War”
. Dred scott case we can substitute it for Hlophe case
. The supreme court decision we will substitute it for the JSC decision
In Dred scott Vs Standford
The surpreme court first picked the outcome it wanted, then found a few scraps of evidence to support that outcome, ignoring or distorting a larger volume of evidence to the contrary. It then issued a decision claiming that its desired outcome was demanded by the clear voice of the Constitution. Clearly what we witnessed with the JSC and a clear voice by south africans Constitution “transformation”
Scott’s lawyer claimed that living in Wisconsin had made him free by virtue of the Missouri Compromise
Mr. Sandford’s lawyer needed a way to deal with that claim.So he asked the Court to suddenly discover that the thirty-seven-year-old Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court went along with that
The record shows that Roger Taney (chief justice) and the other judges who voted with Sandford’s lawyer were hopelessly biased in favor of Southern slave owners.
Mr Hlophe had to deal with claims of interfering in Mr Zuma’s case. The tactic was a political conspiracy as well as biased actions from the then JSC which it landed up in court and the clear shout for africanization of law and a clear champion of victimization of Racism in the Judiciary and getting the support of the BLA (Political) “movement” which so happened to be appointed to the new JSC and were hopelessly biased in favor of your Zulu Black Judge.
The justices at the time just before the civil war were looking for a way to put their thumbs on the scale of justice and tip the political balance back in favor of the slave owners. In searching for an excuse to justify what they wanted to do, they focused on the idea of slaves as property. The Fifth Amendment said that nobody could be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
This is the exactly what you are seeing now the so called champions of black transformation is putting there thumps on the scale of justice and tip the poltical balance back into there favor of crying out racism (if you happen to be white) against anyone who dares to stand up or counter revolutionary (if you so happen to be black) against the outcome of the majority of the JSC.
The common people had a lot of respect for the Supreme Court. They didn’t know much history. And they didn’t have a clue what “due process” was supposed to mean. All they knew was that it sounded important.
Here we can find again the common person has no clue what Africanization is supposed to mean. Its sounds important.
Senator Henry Wilson, also of Massachusetts, said that Taney had done more to plunge the nation into “this bloody revolution” than any other person, and that the Dred Scott decision was “the greatest crime in the judicial annals of the Republic”
Three years later “We the People” adopted the 14th Amendment, at least in part to consign the Dred Scott opinion to the junk bin of history. But we neglected to punish “the men who would pervert the Constitution.”
Kriegler is correct in his actions Truth and Justice is on his side against fraudulent actions that is taking place in the sheeps clothing of “transformation” from the Justice Minister in handling Hlophe, from Hlophe himself and to the JSC newly appointed members.
Your battle lines have been drawn and it is only inevitable you about to see a judicial civil war.
After all this all leads to newly appointed CC judges and where Zuma is in a position incase Pikoli gets his job back and re opens the case against Zuma. Proof of this is through the Justice Ministers actions during this whole hlophe saga, he is a partisan.
Fair enough, Mphahlele, but (not that I ought to speak for the lawyers/legal scholars who visit this site, as I’m a mere layperson) I thought that law was all about precise language and the niceties of interpretation. Surely the reason that Zuma is no longer facing charges and the JSC no longer wants to investigate Hlophe vs Concourt is all about words, words, words.
But I stand corrected.
White people murdered and tortured Many black people in the past,during their reign.There were no groups like FUL.Their emergence was as a result of a hard fought democracy by Black people.l am certain that Kriegler served as a judge during the regime of Master and slave. The burning question then is why did he not refuse to serve under that ugly regime. That is if he is principled as he proclaims. On Maroga and Eskom, the white regime is to be fully blamed for we currently have these high electricity demand. Had they realised as they should have that we blacks need amenities they would not be complaining about Maroga’s salary.So whomever is complaining go hang.
Gwen, you appear to make out that the Professor proffers instruction in his piece and thus, that he is playing the role of the white saviour. You seem to denote also that by doing so, the Professor is really just allowing his own conduct to substantiate Owen’s position.
The Professor retorts by alleging that he ventures criticism and not instruction.
It seems to me Gwen, with all respect, that you have not drawn an intelligible distinction between substantiated reproach on the one hand, and on the other hand an attempt at asserting white ethical and organisational pre-eminance. That is, can we not say that a criticism, even one levelled by a white person against a black person, can be just that: a criticism? I tend to think so.
That is not to say that we should be insensitive to how sentiments are most likely to be construed given the prevailing political climate. But the possibility of misconstruction ought to inspire us to couch our criticsm a bit more carefully. What it should not do is be allowed to serve as a basis for the view the well-conceived and demonstrable reproach is impermissible. That cannot be squared with the right to freedom of expression.
In addition, it also seems to allow for the view that if black people are unwilling to take issue with the objectionable behaviour of other black people, then the objectionable behaviour is rendered invulnerable. That cannot wash. Objectionable behaviour should not mystically be rendered excusable just because black people will not except to it. That smacks of discrimantion against other races premised on race which is, as you will know, constitutionally objectionable.
You also seem to hold to a curious notion of what constitutes political opposition. Although I shall say – as I have intimated elsewhere – that the DA should look at making some meaningful additions to its brand. That is, I think that the basic question which the DA ought to ask of itself at this juncture is: what might the DA do that could see it gain further supporters but without running the risk of alienating people who presently support it?
Mabitsela at 14.23.
Ah, a hanging judge, I see.
Mabitsela
lol this is comical once again its all the white mans fault?
the issue is this Mabitsela…. in the five years before the blackouts started Eskom made a profit of R33.5 billion
due you know how much money that is??, so where did that money go? becuase its reported Eskom is in 9 billion rand debt
most of that money went to the government in taxes and dividends instead of being used to improve maintenance, train staff and preserve coal stocks.
so get your head out the gutter and lets look at how R33.5 billion in profit in 2003 let me repeat R33.5 billion just one more time incase this isnt sinking in R33.5 billion to R9 Billion Rand in debt?? can you explain that?
Leigh
You did not understand my point. In paraphrasing it, you have bastardised it.
Please read it again and refrain from straw man arguments.
Gwebecimele, you say that some among us must learn to keep quiet and accept the will of the majority. Does it not occur to you that in a constitutional democracy, even the majority must hold its peace and accept constitutional dictates?
Your position, with respect, seems to reflect three core shortcomings. For a start, it suggests that your thinking is governed not by reason, but rather by anger. I will leave it to you to determine whether anger tends to promote considered conclusions or misguided rationalisation.
Secondly, your position actually seems presumptuous. It seems to suppose that the Constitution has no bearing on what people can do.
And thirdly, your stance seems markedly near sighted. It is as I think the Professor pointed out recently: people who believe themselves to be protected by their association with the majority of the day may someday find themselves in a minority. How much are you prepared to wager that should you find yourself in a minority someday, that you will seek to avail yourself of whatever rights you can think of?
Yes white people, like all people in this country, enjoy the full compliment of constitutionally protected basic rights. And with respect, you may want to consider that a deeply unfortunate and objectional implication of your views here is that some South Africans, on the basis of race only, do not enjoy that compliment.
Chistopher MacDaniel
You seem to me to be oblivious of what a government that ruled prior to this democratic dispensation tanked to proffer to the vast majority of this country.I demand from you to provide me with the details, at the exclusion of any estimation, of how that alleged monies were utilised.Your allegations thereof are palpably absurd,should you not be able to provide pellucid details. Please also find out on my behalf if part of that money was not used to provide Blacks with electricity or anything relevant thereof. I think Kriegler is craving to go back or reverse to the then regime that disregarded our existence and needs. PROVIDE ME WITH THE DETAIKS
Leigh, there you have it, how can the DA get, especially black support without losing it’s erstwhile nationalist party supporters?
It is impossible, ask the former national party, you just get coopted to the ANC because you then believe in to the new system, you get to be like Kortbroek!
So for DA to remain itsself it must continue “to fight b(l)ack!
White people are not interested in justice( or freedom under law, for that matter), if they were issues like land restitution would have long ago disappeared as socio-legal issues. They see every matter of discourse as an opportunity to consolidate its intolerant class hegemony on the terrain of a tolerant constitutional, multi-party democracy.
The historical truth is that black people are the champions of legal egalitarianism.
Alas, liberals can only be expected to be liberal, and nothing else.
Gwen, I apologise: your position does allow for the view that white people should not be excluded from national discussion. That is a point which is properly conceded.
However, I find two of your points unconvincing. The first is that you think the piece amounts to instruction. But really, the Professor offers his own criticisms and does not seem to suggest that others should follow suit. So perhaps you will explain how you conclude that the Professor has ‘demonstrated Ken’s point by taking it upon (himself) to instruct black people on how to behave’. The Professor spoke for himself and did not purport to instruct others.
The second is your view about Zille. You claim that her so- called hectoring tone can only be counter productive. Perhaps before you lazily tendered a blanket rejection of my last post to you, you should have asked whether I was the only other blogger to take issue with your post on this score. If I was not, it seems the question would be: have you investigated your own claim thoroughly enough? I do not think that you have. I will say that Zille also seeks to preserve the support which the DA presently enjoys and a modertation in terms of tone may prejudice that object. So it seems quite clear that a fairly hard tone cannot ‘only be counterproductive’ and may actually promote desirable ends.
So if we can reduce my first post to you to three points, it seems I only have to concede as to one of them. As to the other two so-called straw man arguments, I remain largely unconvinced by both your response and your initial post. The reasoning appears quite shallow.
Mdu, with respect, your view seems to presuppose that all black people think the way that you do. They do not. The DA,I think, should seek to add to its brand incrementally.
Think about advertising. For arguments sake, let us say that Adidas seems to be the most conservative of the major sportswear brands. It cannot get away with what Nike does. But it may be able to add a small difference that would not seem like a betrayal of the brand but which may attract new consumers. For instance, it may try different arrangements and more daring colour schemes in a yoga line. First, yoga – at least conceptually – is not so far away from sport. So Adidas loyalists may well be able to deal with that. But secondly, yoga is not mainstream in the way football and tennis are. So Adidas could use yoga as a way to intitiate an incremental expansion of the brand.
The DA could do something of the same. It could aim at certain markets if you will and thereby seek to attract new supporters but in such a way that it does not imperial its brand.
As a lawyer I am sure you will agree that problems are only solved if people dare to ask questions.
Mabitsela, I was wondering: if serving on the judiciary during the apartheid era makes one necessarily persona non grata as you suggests (an interesting and important ethical question much debated at the time by progressive lawyers!), I would imagine you would also think that being a judge widely considered to be a slavish apologist for the apartheid regime, a judge who often convicted black people and sentenced them to death only to have his racist rulings overturned by the (then very much untransformed) Appeal Court would make that judge (now retired) doubly persona non grata. Someone beyond the pale, surely. Someone whom one would not want to be associated with in ANY way. Where does that leave Judge President Hlophe then, who co-owns a wine warm with exactly such a retired judge? Should the Judge President give back his shares in the farm?
Mabitsela
September 15, 2009 at 14:23 pm
“White people murdered and tortured Many black people in the past,during their reign.”
This is they type of shit that Blacks believe today. Absolute rubbish. We all agree there was state violence but to suggest that the average white doctor, lawyer, chemist, engineer, housewife, artisan, manager,grocer, dentist, nurse,municipal worker etc etc ran around torturing and killing blacks is not only pure fantasy and rubbish but borders on hate speech.
Yet you are all silent on the FACT that your own Black Thabo Mbeki killed 400 000 innocent people in 4 years by willfully denying them ARV’s.
That’s about 395 000 more than “the whites” killed in 40 years of apartheid.
Please enlighten us all as to who these whites were ? Jerk.
Leigh i don’t think Mdu “presupposes” what other Black People think, it is the naivety of Whites like us who want it so badly believe that they don’t. They merely not in a position to express it so openly as Mdu is able to.
The sole aim of our existence as whites is to maintain th the status quo and if it requires us to create a band wagon where we can dish out a platter of equality for all and the fight for human rights then those are the concessions that have to be made to achieve our main objective.
Just another query: What was the Freedom under Law’s other calls to fame before their media rise in the Hlophe Matter? Conventional sources seem to be somewhat slim except having meetings at Kelvin Grove in Newlands.
Mabitsela says:
September 15, 2009 at 14:51 pm
PROVIDE ME WITH THE DETAIKS??
I have no clue what detaiks are?
“I demand from you to provide me with the details, at the exclusion of any estimation, of how that alleged monies were utilised”
Firstly calm down, “i Demand” lol im not ur employee, i demand lol
ok get a clear head this is about mismanagement.
For starters huge bonus were paid out for Financial results in other words the new management during that time were actually doing a good job, eskom was highly profitable. There is now debating this the problem it seems they were not getting rewarded for how well they were caring for the electricity infrastructure.
but since you in demand mood then why dont you join in the support in demanding what happend with that cash?
“Your allegations thereof are palpably absurd,should you not be able to provide pellucid details”
I think you need to stop being lazy and go onto eskoms website and have alook at there financial reports over the past years.
” I think Kriegler is craving to go back or reverse to the then regime that disregarded our existence and needs”
Really?? I DEmaND evidence of this, Your allegations thereof are palpably absurd,should you not be able to provide pellucid details!
I must say, Prof, your blogs always include a broad range of subjects and comments, even within a fairly limited main stock of topics, but I think Leigh has taken this blog to new heights, depths and breadths in his recent comment. I would never have thought to have been given basic marketing lessons nor seen the word ‘yoga’ linked to the DA on Constitutionally Speaking. Perhaps yoga’s the preferred means of limbering up in legal circles before the rigours of a day in court.
Thank you, Leigh. Your comments are always among the very finest on this blog – please don’t disappear – and this one might just take the biscuit. By the way, I’ve been meaning to ask you for sometime now if you’d please explain the expression ‘screwing the pooch’. (In your own time.)
Pierre, l am not going to hide behind a stick and claim a united country whilst not. I must also emphasise that l do not in any way condone the unethical conduct by Hlophe,to whom l refer with reverence for the astute judge he is. You must not think that l will ignore your sometimes misguided and misplaced views,albeit respect them. Kriegler is a pessimist only concerned about Hlophe’s impeachment. He must go jump in the lake,the nearest one.
Harold, will you concede that black people do not think with one collective brain?
Will you concede also that different black people may just want different things?
And if you are willing to make these concessions, will you concede that at least a body of black people may be very dissatisfied with the ANC?
Yes Mabitsela, the killing of the spirit doesn’t count.
But he is quite correct that the ordinary white person didn’t torture and kill black people but in some instances did kill their own.
Heard about the true story where a father’s two sons were seriously injured and an ambulance was called to the scene. However the message was relayed that “two Boys” were in need of immediate medical care. When a “black only” ambulance arrived the father refused to allow his sons to be transported in it. in the ensuing time delay the “boys” tragically died. I wonder if that would be considered as casualties of Apartheid, and if yes, shouldn’t a recount be done on the figures everyone seems to throwing around?
I am not going to address you individually. We must realise, ALL RACES, that the more we make comments that are dressed racially, there will continue to be such ugly interactions. I am not racist but would not let a racist get loose.
Sarah, how could I possibly disappear? You have yet to instruct me in the finer points of the Hockey Cokey
And ‘screwing the pooch’ means to make a huge blunder that will probably result in the maker thereof suffering some sort of undesirable consequence. Some of the uncouth members of our community may even rephrase it and say ‘shag the dog’
But I don’t like that one
Just remind me again from where Chris Mcdaniel is corresponding from?
@Mabitsela
September 15, 2009 at 15:52 pm
“He must go jump in the lake,the nearest one.”
You forgot to add “He must shut up”.
Those two sentences seem to be the sum of black discourse today. Is that really the sum of your intellectual argument ? No insight or analytical critique ?
How do you expect to solve issues via dialogue or ever be taken seriously if all you can muster is Go jump in the lake and shut up ?
Eish.
Eskom leaked memo
http://www.da.org.za/docs/8493/eskom.pdf
Mabitsela says:
September 15, 2009 at 15:59 pm
so whos the racist then you claiming kriegler is a racist, provide proof please
Harold Ferwood says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:01 pm
Just remind me again from where Chris Mcdaniel is corresponding from?
Im corresponding in south africa, why?
Mabitsela perhaps you could enlighten me with your definition or understanding of a racist.
I ask only because I think that Blacks and Whites have different views on what a racist is.
Show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
@ Chris
What sort of evidence are you looking for that actually proves that Kriegler is a racist?
Leigh says:
September 15, 2009 at 15:55 pm
Of course I would concede those two questions. I would want to depict black people as an alien species.
But have no doubt that all races have inherent feelings.
e.g. the recent racial hoohaa involving Professor Gates and that White cop, which required a President to resolve is indicative of what i am saying. even the Obama revealed his true colours before having to retract. Just because it would seem that black people might express certain views at times that they have let go of the pressing concern that is of the utmost importance.
Mabitsela, do you think that you are a racist? If not, why not?
Just asking … You seem to have extensive knowledge of American Jurisprudence and was wondering if you are practicing there.
Thank you for replying
In addition, it also seems to allow for the view that if black people are unwilling to take issue with the objectionable behaviour of other black people, then the objectionable behaviour is rendered invulnerable. That cannot wash. Objectionable behaviour should not mystically be rendered excusable just because black people will not except to it. That smacks of discrimination against other races premised on race which is, as you will know, constitutionally objectionable.
—————————————————————————————————
To me Prof this is the most fundamental and truthful statement I have ever heard. Unfortunately the author seems to isolate it to blacks. The problem in South Africa is that no one is willing to take issue with objectionable behaviour. A white boy kills a few blacks because he does not like blacks. Black people say it s racism but some in the white community feel it is just another instance of violence and rally behind the boy. A farmer throws out people who have lived on his farm for a century and he is regarded as a hero to some because he is practising his rights as a land owner. Companies go out of their way not to employ black graduates. More than 250 000 black graduates are unemployed and without proof whatsoever these graduates are called incompetent. A white sprinkler salesman uses lies and deceit to convince Canadian immigration authorities to give him refugee status and many in the white community regard him as a hero. A board consisting of a white chairman and members consisting of different races give a CEO a 27% increase and the CEO is attacked as being greedy. The same has happened to white CEOs with no complains. The list goes on and very little or no condemnation from the perfect white community. Instead these things are accepted and justified while if a black man makes a mistake it is evidence of black failure and the end of the world. There are many cases which also show how blacks condone bad behaviour by other blacks. it is still unacceptable.
Let us all start rejecting objectionable behaviour amongst our own before we point the finger at others.
Harold, given the two concessions which you have made, is it possible that some black people may believe (or at least come to believe) that the DA has more to offer than the ANC?
Mabitsela
whatever you can find? i would be interested
John Robert says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:14 pm
His might be “bigger” to explain
Leigh
On your first point, I have already replied to Prof and if you are still not convinced we must agree to differ. I find it interesting that your own description of the text in question is “substantiated reproach”. The very word “reproach” puts me in mind of a parent admonishing a naughty child. Be that as it may, if you consider the sweeping and damning conclusion that that Ramathlodi’s statement “amounts to an admission by Ramatlhodi that his beliefs and actions are wholly determined by whites. There is no agency there. Only actions determined by a fear of what some white people might think and say. One always acts in response to white racism – never in an independent, proud, strong, or principled way, but always shackled to fears about what whites may say and do and thus imprisoned by white racism” beliefs and actions are wholly determined by whites” to be substantiated by the text, then I consider it unlikely we will find common ground on this point. Even if such substantiation could be found, it strikes me as crass for a white person to lecture a black person on what to think and do to escape the shackles of white racism.
On your second point, our disagreement seems to lie in our starting assumptions, rather than our conclusions (although once we align our assumptions we may find that we still can’t reach consensus). I feel that the approach of the DA, as usually represented by Helen Zille, and in common with many white South Africans, is counter-productive if the intention is to curb the behaviour that it purports to criticise. If the intention is rather to maintain a rapidly emigrating fanbase of NIMBYs, then you are probably correct in applauding the DA’s approach.
If declining to re-formulate your erroneous arguments for you is lazy, then I plead guilty.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:22 pm
I studied law in the states. specialise in Mining law, hence why i decided to come to africa.
I was hoping someone would comment on my view that caused our nation to enter into a bloody civil war funny enough due to the judiciary once agian the same theme about race.
I just cant help see a similar pattern evolving in your judiciary, tho I dont think you will end up in a bloddy civil war but I do see a “judicial civil war approaching, you better pick a side
@ Chris
since, you specialise in mining law, whats your view on nationalasation of mines? Do you think the looting of our mineral wealth is justified, at the expense of the so-called free market system, etc?
Mabitsela is right.
No white lawyer ever said a thing about apartheid.
Mabitsela, you clearly know a lot about the relevant history.
Have you considered writing a book about it?
Chris McDaniel says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:29 pm
I have already considered this “war” you speak of … In fact I’ve highlighted it under one of the previous blog topics and History, of course, has a way of repeating itself.
Mphalhele is right.
The Freedom Charter clearly anticipated nationalisation of the mines.
And there is every indication that the ANC is soon going to hand over the mines to the miners. (I very much doubt that Tokyo or Cyril will get anything.)
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:37 pm
I think they did, only when it became fashionable though.
Mphahlele says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:35 pm
lol depends who you want it to be looted by, your government or the free markets. Im afriad im a capitialist im in favour of competation, having something that is soley owned by government, to me does not hold people to account.
The discourses on race on this site are almost always identical. There are those on the “black” side who make unsubstantiated and racist comments about white people (see Black Star Liner’s “White people are not interested in justice( or freedom under law, for that matter)”) and then there are the white apologists who believe that whites should just “shut up and put up” because of what “we” did during Apartheid. In the middle somewhere, are the voices who attempt to reconcile the two factions with logical and reasoned arguments.
I believe that a large problem in this country is that we support stereotypes.
Before anyone gets upset, please understand that this post is about generalisations.
Whites are seen as the oppressors and “colonialists” and are either merely categorised as such by black people, or they work extremely hard to apologise for that with which many of them had nothing to do, by being patronising and defensive.
Black people are perceived as victims. This perception precludes any constructive criticism because there is always someone or something else to blame. Blacks and whites who uphold these stereotypes buy into the “blame” mindset.
Judge Hlophe and the CC must be judged on their actions. Judge Motata must be judged on his actions. The yardstick for this is what is laid down in our law. The right to hold our leaders to accountability is a right that belongs to everyone in our country. As citizens, we should demand that our leaders uphold the sanctity of the office in which we have placed them, irrespective of their colour, political affiliation or any other irrelevant attribute that is used to defend the indefensible.
When will we grow up and become a country that defines our moral values on what is right and what is wrong, and not allow these definitions to be “coloured” by our personal issues? A person who steals is a criminal. It makes no difference whether they are white or black or christian or jewish. They have broken the law and should be punished. A person who hates other people on the basis of their race is a racist. The reasons for this are irrelevant. They are still racists. A person who discriminates against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation is a bigot, whether they are Christian Fundamentalists or Muslims. We are defined by our actions, our thoughts and our words. Not by where they come from.
@ Chris
the recent discovery by the competition authority, of price fixing,collusive tendering,excessive pricing, is an indicia that even your corporates are corrupt and the poor people continue suffer as a result.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 14, 2009 at 10:09 am
Seems like the expression “DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE” is the new catch phrase …
Some were too slow to secure its use and harness its power ….
Mphahlele says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:50 pm
These practices were established long before during Apartheid. But then it was called the Wheat Board, the this Board etc. The entity that is business was left relatively unchanged when entering the New Dispensation, except for a couple window dressing amendments. And I have always considered Business as Politics by other means …
As much as Mbeki tried to prevent the country from getting deep into the Pharmaceutical companies’ pockets, all know how unsuccessful that was.
Gwen, as to your response to my first point: you say that the Professor’s paragraphs involving Biko struck you as admonitory. One of those paragraphs reflects the following: ‘It seems to me like the admission of someone…who should read more Biko and less Mbeki. ‘ This is not instructive but critical of the view to which the Professor (and I) believe Ramatlhodi holds. In a nutshell: critical, yes. Instructive, no. So it seems that you have yet to explain how you can cleave to the conclusion that the Professor’s piece is instructive. The Professor tenders his view of what he believes is wrong with Ramatlhodi’s stance. That is criticism and not instruction. You merely proffer a personal sense but not an argument.
Regarding your response to my second point: it seems you were the one who made a starting assumption and you are unable to accept the view that a contrary stance has undermined it.
You will of course recall that you initially tender a blanket submission to the effect that Zille’s approach could ‘only be counterproductive’. But it seems your blanket assumption does not pass muster. Or will you attempt to refute the view that the fact that your stance did not account for the contrary view to which I refered suggests that it has been undermined?
@Chris: Your blurred fathoming of clear racist statements impede you from articulating astute contributions.I shall opt not to engage you,in particular, any further.l hope shall opt the same.
Samantha says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:42 pm
“I believe that a large problem in this country is that we support stereotypes.”
Do you blame us?
Gwen, you say ‘it strikes (you) as crass for a white person to lecture a black person on what to think and do to escape the shackles of white racism’.
I think you have completely missed the mark here.
The core message which the Professor makes out is that one’s thought is shackled if it is governed by what one thinks that others will percieve. For instance, a gay person may repress her homosexuality because of what she thinks he friends may say. Common factor between her and Ramatlhodi: both of their actions are reactions and they render themselves unable to reach their own active conclusions.
So it seems that even white people may identify with black people if they have had to endure analogous experiences.
Or do you reject the view that some people(maybe even the Professor) can take analogous experiences, look at them, make findings and then criticise someone elses conduct on the basis of those findings?
Catch 22 folks, being white we’re damned if we say, and damned if we don’t. I’ve often thought when in a catch 22, if I can’t go forward and I can’t go back, just breathe, center and be still. As Harrison sang, ‘all things must pass’.
I recall a blog by Trapps some 18 months ago when he strongly suggested that the whole Zuma things be dropped, let be. His reasoning was that the turmoil was and would continue to tear the country apart.
What think we in hind site?
Another thought: why not just let it be. In AA (as in Alcoholics Annonymous) to constantly be drawn into the alcoholic’s emotive and addictive drama and continue to support him, is called enabling. How does one learn without creating a disaster of various proportions for themselves. Seems to me that’s what is happening. And yes, there are always victims.
“if I can’t go forward and I can’t go back, just breathe, center and be still. As Harrison sang, ‘all things must pass’”
I’m glad some South Africans didn’t decide to take that advice during Apartheid. Oh Wait, Nelson Mandela must applied that during his years in prison.
There’s a commonly known animal that does a similar thing in Nature – An Ostrich!
Thomas, you say: “The list goes on and very little or no condemnation from the perfect white community. Instead these things are accepted and justified while if a black man makes a mistake it is evidence of black failure and the end of the world. There are many cases which also show how blacks condone bad behaviour by other blacks. it is still unacceptable. Let us all start rejecting objectionable behaviour amongst our own before we point the finger at others.”
I agree wholeheartedly that people of all races in South Africa are far too quick to excuse the shocking behaviour of members of their own race and far too quick to find fault with the behaviour of those who belong to a different race. Long ago on this Blog I called this “The Hansie Cronje effect”. Cronje confessed everything on TV and some people still wanted to excuse him. Ridiculous.
Sadly your point is sometimes taken one step further when people by implication say: “Well because some of YOU have double standards, WE are entitled to our own double standards towards OUR own.” The better conclusion to mind mind would be to say: “Well, let us expose and ridicule double standards wherever we find them, while trying our bloody damnest never to emulate the bad example set by others because we have pride, we have intelligence, we have honour and we want our country to prosper and to transform, to be fundamentally DIFFERENT from the evil and corrupt system that was in place during apartheid.” Double standards of others do not excuse appalling behaviour, so surely one can BOTH expose the double standards so rife in our society AND confront the appalling behaviour we sometimes see around us – regardless of who indulges in the bad behaviour.
Harold: I appreciate what you’re saying, however nothing is going to be resolved quickly, two many skeletons in the closet. Right now a growing conflict is surging on words, anger and insults; there’s a long walk to freedom, right?
I note that it actually worked for Madiba.
The jury still out on Madiba … talk about skeletons in the closet??
…. and the conflict was always there, its just that now the other side can actually start opening its mouth. But the rules have changed and the new format requires everyone must win – but the “ball’ still belongs to who?
Gwen, I have a challenge for you.
Pretend for a moment you are Zille’s speechwriter. Assume that Zille is outraged at the JSC’s decision re Hlophe JP, and considers (rightly or wrongly), that it may threaten the rule of law.
Draft a one paragraph statement that:
(a) expresses outrage.
(b) does not sound arrogant.
(c) makes the point that the JSC’s decision is utterly indefensible.
(d) does not come across as negative.
Bet you can’t.
Leigh
You have not addressed my point one, other than to sneer at my “personal sense” of the word you elected to use. The point is in fact irrelevant, it relates to my interpretation of your writing and not of Prof’s. You then select a different text to argue instead. Slippery….
You have also not even attempted to refute my point two. Do you know the meaning of the term “bare denial”? It remains bare, no matter how constipated the prose in which it is couched.
Surprisingly enough, I do in fact understand the point regarding shackles. It amounts to a personal philosophy rather factual “findings” and as such is not a rational basis for criticism.
You then go on to say “Or do you reject the view that some people(maybe even the Professor) can take analogous experiences, look at them, make findings and then criticise someone elses conduct on the basis of those findings?” Once again, you set up a straw man argument. Your efforts would be better employed in explaining your own point of view, rather than trying to predict mine.
For the record, my views on the matter are that analogous experiences can and do assist one to empathise with another’s situation but analogy is a blunt tool upon which to form an understanding of another. It is logically insupportable to prescribe to a person on the basis of a personal response to an arguably analogous situation, all the more so when the analogy is not a close one. After all, points of similarity can be found between every conceivable pair of human beings on the planet, but that doesn’t mean that each of them has an intrinsic understanding of the other. The crux of the matter is that it is simply arrogant for a person to assume that views that are based on a weakly analogous set of circumstances should be superior to the views of the person with first hand experience.
I’ll throw my two cents in…
To start with the premise that whites should be quiet, because of South Africa’s history, is abhorrent to me. If that is the case, then somebody lied during the early 1990s when the new SA was touted as a rainbow nation. If this idea is accepted then it means that blacks want their 400 years too, and after that whoever is left can pick up the pieces and move on together.
The ANC itself keeps sprouting forth notions that SA should be non-racial – this means that white people, along with everybody else, gets to have their say. If we’re expected to cower in the corner covering ourselves with collective shame and apologies for who knows how long because of a system instituted by a bunch of people long dead and gone, then SA is nothing more than an implicit Apartheid state in reverse.
People need to be responsible for their beliefs, and stand up for what they believe is right. There is no racial notion of right and wrong – societal norms are universal. Even those SA men who admit to rape and think there’s nothing wrong with it – wait until they have a daughter who is raped, and see how they feel about rape then. Unfortunately, when somebody like Kriegler stands up for what he believes in, using the legal tools he has available, he is branded a racist. When somebody like Desmond Tutu supports him, he is branded a sell-out, and admonished for not supporting the liberation movement which allowed him to be free, as if the fact that the ANC (et al) fought for freedom should entitle them to carte blanche.
The notion that any one race in SA should be quiet and suck it up because of the past flies completely against the principles enshrined in the Constitution, and I for one would rigourously contest that. I don’t care how many times I’m called a racist, colonialist, or whatever else the ANC comes up with, I will always demand good governance from the elected servants of the people. That is everybody’s right, and if black people or white people or whoever don’t want to stand up for it, that’s fine – I’m an individual and I’ll make my own decisions, and people can join me if they want. That is democracy – not this idea that whites don’t have room to say anything because they’re white. That’s REAL racist ideology.
@ Sne,
Having seen a number of your posts on this blog over the last year or so, I certainly would never describe you as a victim!! Some time back you and I had a mini-discussion on your upbringing and how you came to be the astute and erudite individual who always expresses such logical and interesting viewpoints on this site.
And never once have I read anything from you where you have been racist or intolerant or apportioned blame. Therefore, you are the last person I would ever label a victim. Your actions, your thoughts and your words convey an individual who has chosen to define himself outside of the construct of stereotypes.
As I mentioned, my post was about generalisations which certainly do not encompass you.
And, to answer your question, I do blame people who allow themselves to conform to stereotype or being victims. I believe that they do so because they are too lazy to do the inner, personal work that allows us to grow as people.
The Big Slipper says:
September 15, 2009 at 18:39 pm
Nice post, with which I agree fully.
@ Big Slipper
Wow!! You said what I wanted to say, but so much better.
Gwen, one issue here which I raised repeatedly is whether you have successfully defended the view that the piece is at all instructive and not just critical. I say that you have not. And I have said that right the way through our exchange – which apparently you have not read especially closely.
Are you going to concede or argue? If you are prepared to argue on this which is a straightforawrd and narrow issue which I have now put forward repeatedly, then please, do so.
And Gwen, it seems that you are guilty of yet another untested assumption. It is this: you assume that the analogous circumstance to which I refer is not close enough for the person who endured it to be able to recognise and criticise sufficiently similar thought patterns in another’s thinking.
Yes shackled thought can suffer the chains of various different perceptions. A black person can allow her thinking and conduct to be governed by white perceptions. A gay white woman can let the perceptions of her friends govern what she thinks and does. But the overarching factor here is that shackled tought is, regardless of the governing perception, just shackled thought. So it seems that these circumstances could very well be close enough.
Gwen, in future, would you (a)try to retain an accurate recollection of that which is actually at issue and (b), take the time to test your assumptions?
For the record, that makes two untested assumptions from you and also a tacit refusal to defend a point which you made (that being the point that there is something instructive about the Professor’s piece).
@Vuyo and Samantha – thank you.
I truly believe that when South Africans stop worrying about what is expected or permitted of them based on their race, upbringing, location, or education, and start standing up for principle and not party, only then will we ever move towards a non-racial society.
Mdu, you are wrong.
As Samantha pointed out, about 50% of the blacks cast a ballot for the ANC in April – not the 65% you cite.
And, I stand by my statement: “Many South Africans of all races are very angry with the ANC.”
Or …perhaps the service delivery protests are the dreaded “third force”?
Michael Osborne,you ask me for you were ignorant of the figures and now you just believe Samantha’s thumbsucking, let me just give up whether “many’ or “most’, you just hopelessly clutching at straws.
Thomas is right.
Three points to bear in mind:
1. There is no shortage of skilled labour in South Africa
2. Apartheid education and the Bush Colleges could not have been nearly as bad as people said they were.
3. Reports one hears about that many black matrics are functionally illiterate & innumerate, and therefore unemployable — rubbish designed to put blacks down. (Let us forever rue the day Biko’s widow was seduced by white racists.)
Mdu, no, we do not have to rely on Samantha’s thumbsuck.
Lucky for us all, the IEC keeps figures — which tell us that 77% of the electorate voted, and that 66% of this subset voted ANC.
From there onwards, you just have to do the math. Not difficult
I ask you again: Are the service delivery protesters all third force? Or what?
Oi, you lot!! I didn’t provide the figure that you are all debating.
I concur with Michael on the issue of service delivery. A large number (I will stay away from many and most) of the ANC-voters I encounter daily are angry with the ANC for their lack of service delivery. As we well know, this does not alter their voting habits, so I don’t expect any surprises during 2011. However, the people of this country are starting to make their voices heard and perhaps, for once, the ANC will actually listen. We can only hope.
Michael the service delivery protests are not in my opinion of third force making, but are real because now our democratic government as opposed to the white minority government attempts to the best of its capacity and within available resources to cater for even the majority blacks, who wouldnt dare protest about lack of service delivery under the white minority rule.Even Kriegler was quiet.
The Big Slipper says:
September 15, 2009 at 18:39 pm
Better make that one cent.
What are you on about?
p.s. Mikhail is right!
Mdu, sidetrack, but could you offer any insight as to how a R1.1m BMW for our very communist education minister caters to the poor? Just one example among many, but I’m anticipating that your response will be applicable to most of the other examples of our wonderfully pro-poor government’s “catering” to the masses.
Big Slipper, you need to understand that our Education Minister must visit schools in remote areas. Your BMW 7 Series offers a facility not inconsequential to such access.
Also, Blade is a role model. An aspirational ideal, if you will.
Many young rural children, upon viewing a 7 Series, are inspired to study more diligently, knowing they too may one day travel in comfort.
Over to you, Mdu.
Mmmm, this is true Mikhail, I had forgotten that BMW is one of the better known off-road super-luxury sedans which can tackle those off-the-beaten-track sort of areas where such schools are. I’m humbled by your wisdom – I’m going to write to the education ministry and implore the honourable minister to purchase himself a private helicopter as well, in case there are schools which he must visit with no road access.
Mdu is right.
There were never service delivery protests before 1994.
It is wonderful to contributors to this blog manifesting such a great sense of history.
I can only Thank God that we as a nation have begun to understand the maxim: “He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.”
And thank you, Mdu.
To expect a certain sector of our population to refrain from expressing any views would be gross. However we cannot escape the fact that we are from different cultures.
Most black people would react with shock to see a black brother suing a sibling or parent. It would be seen as a structural failure in the family unit. Those things (suing a member of the family) are foreign. A white thing.
What Ramotlhodi tries to express, and most people can’t grasp. is the pain. on our psyche , of seeing black people gunning after each other. An elder, say Judge Langa, being pursued by a young SC, in an effort to prove him as a liar. Its sad.
The JSC decision was an in-elegant solution to a potentially sordid matter.
From thereon, precisely because of the remedies available in law, Kriegler should have rather sought, together with his then board, to influence the decision makers regarding Hlophe. Wise counsel should then have prevailed on Hlophe to take a breather. Right now he (Kriegler) is coming across as a zealot. A crusader. And precisely because Black commentary is thin on this matter, it is being increasingly seen as white people out to save blacks from themselves.
Ultimately I don’t see how the JSC will emerge unscathed. If a court orders that the majority deciscion of the JSC was wrong, should we then trust any further decision from the JSC without being skeptical!?
What happens if that decision is then challenged? How are those courts hearing the matter going to be composed racially? If the JP of that court decides upon three white judges to hear the case, wouldn’t the decision be seen as a fait accomplii?
Kreigler suggests we “should throw a dice’. I wonder even if he himself is fully cognisant of the damage he want to visit upon all of us. Maybe he has started his dice throwing. Who knows.
Mphahlele says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:50 pm
Sorry for late reply here, its much easier to take the private citizen to court than a government official
.
“is an indicia that even your corporates are corrupt and the poor people continue suffer as a result”
This is more reason why not to nationalise institutions. I would like to see anyone take a government official to court in africa and actually get him sentenced. The chances of that are slim. If these corporations are corrupt in private hands justice for the poor is much easier to obtain.
Mabitsela says:
September 15, 2009 at 17:03 pm
Thank god for that
@Samantha
thanks for the compliment…
@The Big Slipper
You’re slipping in the right direction…
Just to add one thing; it is well and good for people of all races to voice out their opinions about anything and everything that is happening in our country as per our Constitututionally enshrined rights. However, in doing so we need to be aware of where we come from as a nation, where we are and where we are heading. If in order to make points we will continue to use words like “kaffirs”, etc. then we are more than likely to cause trouble than to take our country forward. Secondly, we need to avoid, especially our white compatriots, sounding arrogant when voicing our opinions. This does not deprive our white compatriots of their Constitutionally entrenched rights or making them sub-human in their own country but it is desined to strike a balance between once belligerent races. We may be a rainbow nation but we need to work hard before we can become a trully rainbow nation.
What a see currently is our white compatriots having the idea that they are subjugated in their own country by being deprived of their right to freedom of expression while on the other hand I see my black compatriots being defensive each time a white person has an opinion that does not sit well with us.
@Michael Osborne
Yes I concur with your statement that “(M)any South Africans of all races are very angry with the ANC.” I am angry with the ANC as well. That does not make me a coconut but it makes me someone who is concerned about the direction that our country is heading for at the moment. It makes me concerned that people on the ground are starting to realise that it is each man for himself in our country and that the only way to get out of poverty is to engage in corruption. It makes me angry to see people failing their driving licences left, right and centre not because they cannot drive but because they are not prepared to bribe. That is not the country I want for myself and for children to grow up in one day. We need to start looking at the bigger picture here…
Harold Ferwood says:
September 15, 2009 at 16:39 pm
bureaucratic coup d’état gotta love it
I believe the JSC is currently dealing with a complaint against Griesel now
@ Dumisani: “The JSC decision was an in-elegant solution to a potentially sordid matter.”
But Dumisani, it would have been possible to achieve the same result much less inelegantly — if the JSC had given the matter a little more thought, they could, I think, have crafted a reasoned decision to let the JP off the hook.
What is painful is that the JSC majority did not even try to make their decision look anything other than political. They made a mockery of the process with reasoning of the following quality: the JP need not be cross-examined because we know he would not change his story. This is the kind of reasoning that is so irrational that it begs for review. It is almost as if the JSC majority was daring the Krieglers of this world to challenge it
No doubt the JSC’s decision will preclude a painful period of recrimination for the reasons you mentioned. Likewise, the decision to drop charges against Zuma calmed troubled waters.
But what does it do to the rule of law when powerful people escape sanction where, by virtue precisely because of their prominence, the case cannot be pursued?
Think of a destitute man on trial for car theft. How much chance is there that the charges against him will not be dropped by virtue of the fact that his trial would be too disruptive to the body politic?
Remember to focus on Ken Owen’s main proposition, namely:
“we must put responsibility where it belongs.”; and
“If so, where the hell are they?”.
So actually he is not simply gunning for Kriegler and FUL.
He is blaming the unprincipled Black lawyers. But does so subtly.
Another way to view what Owen was suggesting
“[Liberty] lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”
- Judge Learned Hand.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 16, 2009 at 7:25 am
Mikhail is right.
Damn, I like saying that – it sounds so in.
I am nearly convinced now that those of you (Leigh, Michael, Mikhail at least) who suggested that the law is a seriously sophisticated discipline have some pretty convincing support.
This is a darn impressive way of doing things http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-09-16-heavy-bargaining-behind-judges-selection. I think the layperson would wrongly conclude that this is equivalent to horse trading.
Let’s not forget those brave souls within the JSC, the ultimate defenders of our constitution democracy, who have taken on their shoulders the pain of generations to come. Heaven forbid if we should have our judges bashing each other in public or even worse having to answer for their actions in open forums. These guys are so next century we should consider them for even more important roles for all of humanity –
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-09-16-fly-me-to-mars-oneway
And while we’re at it, we need to consider the epiphany of our Minister of Higher Education that Kriegler is a conservative liberal seeking to undermine the rather inspiring members of the JSC. Who knows maybe Kriegler even advised our President into conservative thinking – maybe it’s best for our Higher Education Minister not to read this http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-08-06-zuma-ministers-cars-no-longer-an-issue.
Eish!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 16, 2009 at 7:25 am
“Mdu is right. There were never service delivery protests before 1994.”
I doubt that this is a factual statement. The struggle against apartheid was inclusive of the struggle for equitable and better service delivery, to argue otherwise is to distort history. The rent boycotts were in part motivated by concerns about service delivery. Indeed, I recall at the time that many black people (at least where I grew up, Soweto) were indifferent of the political struggle and were rather motivated by concerns about the lack of delivery (vis-à-vis education, health care, etc). This was particularly prevalent within the middle classes, many of whom could not countenance the lifestyle options that they were limited to by virtue solely of their race. This notion that all black people supported the political struggle is a falsehood, and I know most of my relatives rejected and were embarrassed by the fact that my father was an activist and was imprisoned for it (to the extent of their refusal to assist us). Notwithstanding, the majority of black Africans did support the political struggle. Similarly, I recall that many whites (but not the majority) were involved in the struggle. Of those, arguably the majority were not necessarily motivated by political considerations (such as the need emancipation of blacks) but in fact were motivated by the deplorable living conditions and service delivery levels in black areas. This was particularly so in liberal circles, such as the black sash movement, etc (where even after the unbanning of the liberation movements some were still arguing for a “limited franchise” and such other nonsense).
Henri says:
September 16, 2009 at 9:08 am
I do not think the Black lawyers will come out in support of Kriegler J. I believe by now it is a public secret that Hlophe JP will only get out of the hot water due to political as opposed to legal reasons. Black lawyers know this and even those people who support JP openly cannot even try to conjure a legal argument as Prof. has ably observed. I think it is more of an “its them against us” attitude. This is also astutely used by Hlophe JP and his team to gain support of the unsuspecting public. Even if we were to grant that Kriegler J is ostensibly gunning for JP in order to vindicate the rule of law whilst being propelled racist hate for JP, we will still be left with the issue of justifying the consistent misconduct or at least departure from the normal or expected behaviour from a reasonable judge president such as the Oasis “issue” (I am trying to be as polite as I can here) wherein the JP granted an order for suing a fellow judge whilst getting money from the suing party, etc.
“then somebody lied during the early 1990s when the new SA was touted as a rainbow nation.”
That someone you referring to is of course Madiba. Its sad to say it but the so-called negotiations between himself and the Apartheid Government were actually brainwashing sessions. When he stepped out of that prison it didn’t even take his wife Winnie long to recognize that this wasn’t the man she married.
Prof. et al
Someone needs to remind Nathi Mthethwa about the Concourt decision in S v Walters in which s49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act which authorised deadly force was declared unconstitutional.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-09-15-new-legislation-aims-to-give-police-more-power
” … his notion that all black people supported the political struggle is a falsehood, and I know most of my relatives rejected and were embarrassed by the fact that my father was an activist and was imprisoned for it (to the extent of their refusal to assist us).”
of course they would reject you! To take up the vocation to liberate our country would mean a sacrifice of a life or in some cases lives. Very few had the inclination to make this sort of commitment or even the confidence to be seen supporting such behaviour …
But nevertheless its always heartbreaking to experience this sort of rejection. Many whites endured it as well during Apartheid.
Sne says:
September 16, 2009 at 9:55 am
This is a direct result of the abolition of the death penalty. Our country/society is clearly not ready to advocate the idealistic human rights everyone wishes for. I however prefer this advancement …. it cuts out the unnecessary legal and paper work, which can only lead to environmental conservation in the long run.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 10:02 am
LOL! Speaking of our law being too advanced for us, its subjects. Our Constitution, and its interpretation by the Concourt, has betrayed a huge gap between what is happening on the ground and what our judges hopes (think?) our country is or will be. Giving lethal force to the police will not solve our crime problem which is far more deep than our government is willing to admit but it will create a mistrust of the police force by the ordinary man on the street which is of course reminiscent of the Apartheid regime. Shame…
Nathi Mthethwa et al come across to me as people who are willing to cure the symptoms of the illness and not the illness itself. They are beating around the bush!
Sne says:
September 16, 2009 at 10:16 am
In your opinion, what is the “illness”?
Because certain illnesses such as viruses are almost impossible to cure and all we have is to attempt and subdue the symptoms and make it bearable to live with. To take away even this as some is suggesting is to take for example ARV treatment away from AHIV/AIDS sufferers and make them rely on beetroot!!
@ Sne … I hope my analogy comes across ….
No-one is immune!!! Hlophe and the US President should meet ….
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jveZTgR9hNlmXqlFkzIC95Yol_nw
Sne says: September 16, 2009 at 10:16 am
“Nathi Mthethwa et al come across to me as people who are willing to cure the symptoms of the illness and not the illness itself. They are beating around the bush!”
But this is what some of us have been arguing in regard to all levels of public policy in this country. Curing the illness itself requires hard work, much of thankless. In most instances when the subject is cured few can easily attribute it to any one person, hence the tendency of politicians to seek quick and visible solutions of a superficial and ani-symptomatic nature.
This applies to the matter of the transformation of the judiciary. The solution is simple, universities must encourage as many black students as is possible to study the law, the legal profession must train as many black people as possible and retain them within the professions (if needs be government must provide subsidies to firms or bars to ensure that salaries are augmented). Those who are unable to complete their legal education due to financial pressures must be assisted to complete their degrees, notwithstanding their academic performance (I personally know of seven of a group of ten friends with whom I started studying law with who have stopped their studies at final year because of financial issues and have been lost to the business world), and must be forced to complete their legal training in legal aid services or the prosecution services (failing which they must pay for their education). Post-graduate specialist legal studies must be encouraged and paid for and law firms and the bar must contribute to a fund for this. International exchange programs must be introduced. Government must actively ensure that firms that do work for government include in their legal teams conducting such work black candidates. A judicial school must be opened for members of the judiciary and those who have an interest in entering the judiciary. The clerking system for judges must be used as a tool for introducing black legal graduates to the profession. Basic education MUST introduce a basic legal curriculum at least from STD 5 (or whatever it’s now called).
These measures are necessary if the judiciary must remain relevant and independent. This phenomenon of black lawyers being forced to leave the profession because of lack of opportunities and financial considerations must be reversed. It amazes me that these measures exist for accountants and engineers, because society views them as critical to economic growth, yet are ignored for lawyers who are the FUTURE of the judiciary. In fact, I am still amazed that the legal profession is not even viewed as a priority profession in South Africa despite international evidence to the effect that a weak cadre of practitioners leads to a weakened judiciary and the demise of the rule of law.
Vuyo says:
September 16, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Similarly, I recall that many whites (but not the majority) were involved in the struggle.”
Indeed. I remember Peter Kerchoff who at around 1979, was in a very senior position, gave it all up to talk about the ills of the then society to white people who he believed had very little idea of all that was happening in the face of the massive propaganda machinery of that evil regime.
Peter succumbed some while back to cancer, but was truly a mensch.
Oh if only we could trade him for some of our judges!
Maggs Naidu says:
September 16, 2009 at 10:50 am
“Oh if only we could trade him for some of our judges!”
Would of traded him for Chaskalson and Kriegler in a heartbeat!!!
@ Harold
Yes your analogy came across as it was quite eloquently done.
Well, the causes of crime have been debated here for quite a number of times and I would rightfully presume that you merely want me to restate them. However, I do not consider such an exercise as a necessary requirement for you to comprehend the gist of my post.
To answer your question, the illness is what is causing the crime and not the crime itself. The crime is a result of the illness, being the causes of crime.
@ Mdu
A very good post bro. I am also considering leaving the legal fraternity and joining the business world. The mental picture that I had when I wanted to study law has been shattered and what I see in front of me does not seem attractive anymore. To add to your very good post, it is not only finance to pay for one’s studies that are problem resulting in people not finishing their degrees but also subsistence whilst a person is not earning any income but is draining the limited resources from his home or other support base. Once these resources get exhausted or become more limited, other students cannot take it and just give up. Therefore, add to your list the eradication of poverty as one of the factors affecting the production of law graduates.
Debate must be encouraged from all quarters.
The crises you are guys are speaking about will possibly deepen as their seems to be a campaign soon to materialize in advocating that law graduates partake in more public interest work (in form of sacrificing a year of articles in this regard). we all have no doubt that this would certainly do something in the “access to justice” department but not be of any assistance to those graduates who have serious financial concerns due to several years of studying and thus need to join the labour force and cut these debts to size and still establish a livelihood for themselves.
The success of this campaign looks very likely, as much of its propaganda is based on that the state subsidizes much and its only right that graduates repay this contribution with a bit of “pro bono” work of sorts.
The legal fraternity needs to be transformed…..If you take a peak at racial representation of all races in law firms, black people are not there. The big white law firms recruit black candidate attorneys to use them, so as to satisfy their quota and they never get to retain them after 2 years of articles, instead they get another group of blacks.
@ Harold and Mdu
The “pro bono” aspects thereof can even be encapsulated in the contracts that the recepients of the bursaries or financial assistance will acquire. The other thing that can be done to minimise expenditure of the financial assistance from the government for purposes other than the one provided for is for an independent firm or body to monitor the entire process and for prospective recepients to not have direct contact with the financier but with that independent body.
However, stringent measures need to be adopted to ensure that only the deserving students (both financially and academically) actually acquire the funds. Tertiary education in our country is a privilege and not a right and must be treated as such. What I witnessed at varsity whilst I was still doing my LLB degree was a high number of Black students who did not know why they were there at varsity. They appeared like they were forced to study in varsity. Moreover, such funding such also be cut should it appear that its recepient has lost that urge to do something about his or her life. It hurts to see people who have opportunities to study and they play with them whilst an average student in our country will not attend varsity.
@ Big Slipper.
Good contribution but I suspect you did not understand the suggestion that whites must learn to listen more and say less at times. The intention is not to eliminate the white voice from the debate but to sensitize them about buggage they bring into discussion especially when they come with foreign standards that they want to impose on everyone else. Without promoting a winner takes it all scenario, the lossers(minority) have a responsibility to accept the loss and move on with their lives. Ask yourself, Why is it painful for some to accept that Zuma is the president and he will not go to court for the charges that were dropped? For how long must we listen to these voices without telling them to jump into the nearest pit latrine. Rights comes with responsibility and we should not be held into ransom by a few that shout the loudest. It is wthin that context that we suggest whites must keep quiet. They are free to have their views on this matter but they must find a away of dealing with it without holding all of us into ransom. In this Hlophe saga, there will be no winners and it is precisely for the same reasons that it must be laid to rest. Kriegler move is not value add in this instance and may actually do the opposite of its intention. He can write a book about it, deliver public lectures and so forth but he must leave the courts, JSC,CC out of this.
This idea of standing up to what is right and wrong is not as simple as you put it. There are extremes that we can all easily agree on but most of the contested issues are in the centre that tends to be influenced political ideology , race, class, sexual orientation, gender etc. It is in that space that we have a fierce battle and this is complicated by the different standards that we bring to the fore. Previously, most of these were generated amongst whites and blacks were merely participants. The changing power and race relations are grappling to form an acceptable measure for all.
The anger at the ANC and challenges of leadership are exaggerated and must pe properly understood as strengthening the organisation. The majority is holding the political elite responsible and making sure that they do not divert on the promises. What can be better than a memembership that makes its wishes know. Race for leadership must be open and people must excercise their choices. ANC is transforming while other parties live in the past. I am not a member but I like what is happening in the organisation. There are minimal unintended consequences but those can be managed better.
Sne says:
September 16, 2009 at 11:09 am
I think I think a serious re-evaluation must then be done to separate the notion that murder be characterized with the rest of crime ….
Murder (particularly for gain) is an abomination which far outweighs its cynical linking to its “cousins” like theft, assault, etc.
The empowering of the police force with more lethal force is to counter the senseless murdering of people for the purposes of financial gain – in the cash-in-transit crime situation, and can be extended to hi-jacking, bank robberies, mall infiltrations, house burglaries …..)
The implementation of the death penalty as a deterrent for murder occurring in these above-mentioned crimes will be immensely successful. It might do very little to diminish your causes for crime but certainly eradicate the senseless killing that is common place in our country when these crimes occur!!!
The longer we procrastinate and more and more south africans are going to die for the false notions held by certain liberals.
It is a dilemma!! imagine the have to concede that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent in the scenarios I gave above and hold that on to the ideal of the sanctity of life … they would thus be responsible for the killing 1000′s of innocent people!! funny how the same ones like to throw stones at Mbeki for his HIV/AIDS Stance and his guilt concerning the deaths of HIV/AIDS sufferers, yet are guilty of the same “crime”!
Sne says:
September 16, 2009 at 11:09 am
I think a serious re-evaluation must then be done to separate the notion that murder be characterized with the rest of crime ….
Murder (particularly for gain) is an abomination which far outweighs its cynical linking to its “cousins” like theft, assault, etc.
The empowering of the police force with more lethal force is to counter the senseless murdering of people for the purposes of financial gain – in the cash-in-transit crime situation, and can be extended to hi-jacking, bank robberies, mall infiltrations, house burglaries …..)
The implementation of the death penalty as a deterrent for murder occurring in these above-mentioned crimes will be immensely successful. It might do very little to diminish your causes for crime but certainly eradicate the senseless killing that is common place in our country when these crimes occur!!!
The longer we procrastinate, more and more South Africans are going to die for the false notions held by certain liberals.
It is a dilemma!! Imagine they have to concede that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent in the scenarios I gave above and still hold on to the ideal of the sanctity of life … they would thus be responsible for the killing 1000′s of innocent people!! funny how the same ones like to throw stones at Mbeki for his HIV/AIDS Stance and his guilt concerning the deaths of HIV/AIDS sufferers, yet are guilty of the same “crime”!
Mphahlele says:
September 16, 2009 at 11:37 am
You also need to consider the high number of Black lawyers who are working for these big law firms (or used for purposes of window-dressing to get government legal work?) who enjoy big salaries each month instead of getting enough experience from the firms and go out and establish their own law firms and employ Black candidate attorneys.
This failure by the Black lawyers to do that is one of the major reasons why the government uses BEE quota system to force the white-dominant law firms to employ more Black people. This would be rendered unnecessary had the Black man decided to wake up and do something about the state of affairs instead of complaining about it. There are of course some Black lawyers who do so but that is not enough as the most prominent Black lawyers are quickly absorbed by the big white-dominated law firms as directors who will have no power at all to make decisions about who gets appointed into the firm whether as a candidate attorney or an associate thereafter.
Of course we cannot run away from the lack of experience especially in the corporate law but it must be remembered that those with experience get snapped up by the big law firms and they choose to become (salaried) directors instead of being employers themselves by establishing their own law firms. It is pathetic really.
Apologies for the double post … corrected some errors
It is deplorable how white law firms do to black graduates. Most of those l graduated with quit their articles in their first six months,the why question persists indefinately. Some of them who continued their slavery articles appear to me to have lost their minds. It is if they do not think straight. I was dismayed at how and where their university zest went to. One of them told me that he is going to government after completing, WHY. They allege to be handed meagre tasks such as photocopying, buying lunch, washing cars etc meanwhile they get paid as per their employment contract. At the end of their tenure they expectedly do not get retained. The next thing we do not have competent black lawyers. And as Mphahlele put it, it is a routine.
Mabitsela says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:08 pm
It all started with Kriegler and his supposed transformation works during the 80′s. I so badly want to know who these illustrious black lawyers were who must then be stalwarts of the legal fraternity today!
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 11:50 am
Your argument may sound like its is very feasible but it betrays your lack of or failure to appreciate our development as a nation, the Constitutional duty to respect human rights and lastly your failure to realise the sensitivity around death sentence and the arguments in favour of and against it. I can do no more than to refer you to the Concourt decision in S v Makwanyane, delivered in 1995 and conclude by saying that as a country, we are way past the stage of an institution of a death sentence and moving forward whilst looking backwards will cause all of us to trip and fall…
Mabitsela, I must say that what you report has shaken me to the very core.
Never have I heard of white articled clerks being asked to perform menial tasks, like photocopying.
And never have I heard a white clerk complaining that articles was a miserable experience that made them want to abandon law altogether.
I demand that government do something about the atrocious treatment of black clerks – and NOW!
@ Mabitsela
I refer you to “Sne says: September 16, 2009 at 11:50 am”. In addition to that I will ask;
Assuming that you are legally qualified to be a lawyer, what are you doing about the future of your fellow Black graduates who have not been able to get articles like you did?
We do no think about that instead we use our contacts like uncles and aunts to go join the local government and the RAF, etc. as legal advisors and claims handlers respectively and that is the end of the matter.
This brings me to the question; what about our brothers and sisters who will want to follow in our footsteps? Have we left them with enough armour to survive the harsh legal environment? The answer of course is a resounding no!
We need to dispel this ‘scapegoat mentality’ and do something about our lives and the future of those who will come after us. These so-called big (white-dominated) law firms are not big by luck but by hard work. By joining and remaining on their (fat) payrolls we are incapacitating ourselves as Black lawyers and those who will come after us because we are not decision-makers in those firms and therefore we cannot determine any policy towards employment and retention of young Black lawyers.
Sne says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:17 pm
” … past the stage of an institution of a death sentence”
what do you suppose the whole recent debate about the “shoot to kill” policy being adopted by the police is really about?
The slaying of the those 6 criminals recently when the police were tipped off about an ensuing cash-in-transit robbery was without a doubt premeditated! And rightfully so – those criminals were intent on murder, having fully automatic weapons as well as a canister of fuel in case the guards need to be burnt out of the van!!! what possible reason, other than to circumvent the absence of a deterrent to these type of murders, would lead the police to take such drastic actions???
if we are moving forward as you say, then why the necessity of the professor’s blog? just a quick perusal through some of his posts would lead one to believe the contrary.
and I have already looked at the Makwanyane case and it was just a political motivated judgment which was thought to be necessary at the time with the whole TRC coming up!
Mphahlele is right.
Partners at law firms must be appointed by the Department of Justice.
The Managing Partner must be appointed by the President, acting in consultation with the ANC NEC.
Thank you.
@ Sne
We must perish the thought of wanting to work for these big white law firms, as we have seen it not sustainable in the long run. Those who have legal qualifications should strive to open their own practices. And once they do so, they should dispel any form of amalgamation with a white firm. We have seen over the years, small and medium sized black firms being engulfed by the big white firms, this in essence reverses the gains already made.
Gwebecimele is right.
The “loud voices” of liberal racists like Kriegler must no longer calls the shots.
Softer and more subtle messages, like those emanating from Judge Hlophe, Paul Ngobeni , et al, are what we should attend to at this point in our history.
Otherwise transformation will remain stalled.
P.S. So far as I recall, neither Kriegler nor any other white lawyer ever said a peep during apartheid!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Government will not be able to penetrate this “laager”! Government and contemporary society will merely be “brave savages” running around it while inside they are still well-armed and having the guns quickly loaded by compatriots who just so grateful for the opportunity to carry the bullets!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I think Kriegler will take extensive time out to do some serious soul searching after the past weekend where his racist and bigotry was so openly exposed!
I’ll put my head on a block that you won’t hear of him in several days … just enough time for him to shrug off his conscience!!!
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:35 pm
The shoot-to-kill policy you are referring to may be a result of the political quick-fix solution which will backfire spectacularly. It is a public secret that crime is a huge problem in our country. However, circumventing procedure and killing suspects (to whom you and President Zuma wrongfully refer as criminals) will be visited with more problems than solutions.
A death sentence, whether carried on by the police without due process or by the state under the guise of due process or otherwise will be much easier to subject to abuse as it has happened in the past. We must not be unmindful of the fact that death sentence is not a matter of novelty to our country. It has been tried and tested and has spectacularly failed due to its abuse and misuse.
What measures do you suggest will be put in place to guarantee that history will not repeat itself and that it will indeed serve as a deterrent for prospective convicts? Given the current climate within our judiciary, it would in any case be wise to postpone any decision to re-instate the death penalty whether by our courts or by the police.
@ Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
Your use of irony is starting to make your posts cheaper than you can imagine. However, the bal is in your court.
Mphahlele says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Regarding you input, I am still amazed that 15 years into democracy there is no single large or medium sized law firm that has a head office in (or even a branch) in Soweto! All the commercial work relating to the majority of developments in Soweto were conducted primarily by white firms in sandton. I recall, when I was a clerk, that a white firm (15 white partners and only one black legal practitioner amongst a team of approximately 45 lawyers!) in the same office complex dealt with a lot of criminal law, personal injury and family law issues, with a primarily black client base from primarily Soweto and Kagiso. These clients, many of them old, would take taxis all the way to Sandton for sub-standard legal services! I doubt that this firm ever considered establishing their primary office in Soweto, and, frankly, don’t blame them. Black lawyers are too busy downing Johnny Walkers in the company of white colleagues (who have little respect for us) to consider opening a first class firm in Soweto (population 3 Million) or alternatively defending Hlophe et alle! It’s time we exerted our efforts to agenda’s that have a relevance to the contemporary black lawyer (average age 28 to 35) rather than defending the engendered interests of people who have very little interest for us, for our people or even the rule of law.
@ Harold Ferwood.
I thought that the abolition of death penalty had to do with not being seen to treating or punishing people “in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way”.
It’s ok to have them thrown into the most degrading conditions where they can be brutalised by the conditions and each other “in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way”, just as long as the law does not demand that their heads are offed!
After all why should our judges be expected to do the dirty work?
Mphahlele says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Now I am glad to announce that I agree with your post. However, the love of money, being the root of all evil, sometimes play havoc with even the best of intentions…
Sne says:
Im enjoying ur post, if you are in the legal proffession ur a great asset.
Gwebecimele says:
September 16, 2009 at 11:47 am
“It is wthin that context that we suggest whites must keep quiet. They are free to have their views on this matter but they must find a away of dealing with it without holding all of us into ransom.”
this is a typical stragedy
to have a heavy chip on your shoulder, that it is perfectly acceptable for whites to criticise blacks or anyone for that matter when they falter. It is our and everyone else’s constitutional right to freely express their dissatisfaction with the order of things and for those in charge to address their concerns without unfairly labelling whites only because they are white. No one is holding anyone to Ransom who is Kreigler holding to ransom?? You need to take Sne example
Mabitsela says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I got a question for you, “At the end of their tenure they expectedly do not get retained”
Um how about they look at opening uo there own legal practice?? blacks are for better off getting much more clients in rural areas and in shanty areas, getting clients wont really be a problem so who on earth white or black do you wanna stay with a law firm,.
here is for aspiring black lawyers
who want there own practice
1) let everyone know know
Be Prepared to Work Hard
2) Get Involved in the communittee find out what the problems are
3) Get a good website. get listed
4) Advertise Wisely
5) Join Bona Fide Referral Services
6) Be Ready for a Rough Start ( this is what being a lawyer is all about working in the trenches if you become rich great but ur a lawyer becuase u love law)
7) What you Know: Experience, Models and Reality
9) Be a salesman
10) Get Help When you Need It
11) Be Good to Your Clients
Honestly there is no reason to bitch becuase of a white law practice wont retain your friends….com on, get capitalistic
@Harold
“The implementation of the death penalty as a deterrent for murder occurring in these above-mentioned crimes will be immensely successful”
No it wont im afriad….im all for the changing of the bill to give police more fire power. I like the approach and it needs the support.
@ Sne
I just do not see how you can charge Fassbinder with “cheap” irony. He goes no further than re-stating or confirming, sometimes with emphasis, what bloggers before him have written. Indeed, this may be tedious. But why call it “irony”?
P.S. You may have noticed that Fassbinder does waste his time mocking the sentiments of contributors like yourself, who actually take the trouble to think before they write.
@ Sne
Sorry, I meant to observe that Fassbinder does NOT “waste his time mocking the sentiments of contributors like [Sne] who actually take the trouble to think before they write.”
The very amalgamations are the ingredient with which Black law firms never see a reputation and credibility gained by the likes of BG,WWB etc.Indeed the love for money is the calamity to which we must address the sad reality. What happened to the guys(NalaneManaka Attorneys) that merged with Werksmans. One of them went for pupillage and l wonder why. Can somebody please save the black soul.
@ Mabitsela
I think BG, WWB, to which you refer, took many, many decades to achieve their reputation and credibility.
Please explain how you expect “black” law firms to achieve such reputation and credibility is a few years.
I sometimes read posts without first checking who the contributor is. In this way, I have been caught out several times by Mikhail. I have read his post and felt my blood pressure rise, only to be forced to laugh at myself for being “bust”. I enjoy his comments only because they make us laugh at ourselves.
@ Sne,
As usual, your posts make an inordinate amount of sense and you provide a pragmatic solution for what is obviously a big problem.
If I might take the liberty, I believe that Michael was saying that Fassbinder does NOT waste his time.
@ Vuyo
I find your proposed means of transformation of the judiciary to be a very interesting proposition and there is a great deal of merit in your ideas. If only someone would listen…
Sne says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm
First of all its mere semantics when we speak about the words criminals, gunmen and robbers in the circUmstances I was referring to. Standing outside a cash-transit van with semi-automatic weapons when the police arrive doesn’t give the ‘presumption of innocence” must leverage.
Your stance that it will “spectacularly fail” will be hindered in that I do not see anyone taking up the call to defend these slain citizens and the rights that are supposedly have been infringed by the police. The allegations, for example, that the men were shot on from the helicopter whilst fleeing the scene were simply denied and I am sure that is as far as it will go. Mere commentary of the ‘blatant injustice” will be posted on forums such as these! A NGO that wishes to pursue the matter further will feel the true indignation of our society and whimper back under the impractical ‘liberal” rock they came from.
The death penalty process I advocate has no similarities to one you refer to as “tried and tested’. The notion of “a cruel, inhuman or degrading way” can almost be eliminated from the the refreshingly new stance which does not look at the death penalty as a punishment but its mere existence as a deterrent to specifically defined crimes. Please have a look at the policy of the death penalty applied in Singapore for drug trafficking. Before entering that country no-one can plead ignorance about the law and is so far reaching that if you asked anyone for a characteristic of Singapore, they would most likely refer to that.
I have already stressed the arbitrariness of the debate, which simply results in the continued slaughtering of innocent South Africans everyday and doesn’t take into account that should the police have not arrived at the scene those security guards would of been treated in “a cruel, inhuman and degrading way” by the gunmen … but this is important for the forward-thinking goal of our country!
Security Guards family member: “screw forward thinking, I’m just so happy his alive!!!
Harold
“specifically defined crimes. Please have a look at the policy of the death penalty applied in Singapore for drug trafficking”
yes but you still getting executions on a yearly basis regardless…how is it a deterrent? have they stoped the drug trafficking trade in singapore?? no they havnt.
Chris McDaniel says:
September 16, 2009 at 13:06 pm
@Harold
“The implementation of the death penalty as a deterrent for murder occurring in these above-mentioned crimes will be immensely successful”
No it wont im afriad….im all for the changing of the bill to give police more fire power. I like the approach and it needs the support.
The deterrent effect cannot be accurately dETERmined when it is researched from the position where the death penalty is administered as a punishment!
of course it will reflect negatively because the deterrent factor is merely a secondary consideration.
Harold and Mabitsela, I agree with you guys regarding BiG Law firms snatching best performing black law students at varsities supposedly to train them but render them messengers at the end of the day, I was one such victim and had to appear before court for a trial for the first time after I was admitted.But fortunately for me I have recovered, tried many cases before I decided to specialise on contractual law.I am saddened if this trend by big firms still obtains, but I have warned many of those not to be happy when offered articles by these law firms, and to rather go for a small firm to get proper training.
Chris McDaniel says:
September 16, 2009 at 13:45 pm
yes but you still getting executions on a yearly basis regardless…how is it a deterrent? have they stoped the drug trafficking trade in singapore?? no they havnt.
Chris, I know for sure that you are not naive but of course it wouldn’t result in the eradication of those specifically defined crimes … but you can fathom the extent of the damage of if the didn’t adopt that legal policy!!
The same can be said for our own country … bare a sympathetic thought for a few home-owners and their families who would survive a house-intrusion because the robbers thought it unwise to murder them when their initial intention was to steal.
I’m at pains to say it but it fundamentally comes down to what you truly think a life is worth … the longer you dabble with this, the more Lucky Dube’s will be taken from us ….
Chris McDaniel says:
September 16, 2009 at 13:45 pm
yes but you still getting executions on a yearly basis regardless…how is it a deterrent? have they stoped the drug trafficking trade in singapore?? no they havnt.
Chris, I know for sure that you are not naive but of course it wouldn’t result in the eradication of those specifically defined crimes … but you can fathom the extent of the damage of if they didn’t adopt that legal policy!!
The same can be said for our own country … bare a sympathetic thought for a few home-owners and their families who would survive a house-intrusion because the robbers thought it unwise to murder them when their initial intention was to steal.
I’m at pains to say it but it fundamentally comes down to what you truly think a life is worth … the longer you dabble with this, the more Lucky Dube’s will be taken from us ….
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 13:47 pm
how must it then be determind?
the fact is human nature will always try to overcome some system due to greed. The fact is they still executing people and they will keep executing and executing many more.
If you are for the death penelty, think of the shoot to kill a sort of death penelty, in essence it is, its just more direct now cos its on the streets now.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:01 pm
As I explained last time we touched on this, it sure is a waste to distroy a perfect working human machine…..i love slave fields, government should look at sending harden criminals to slave labour, its free labour its not a net drain on the economy infact it could help the economy.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:01 pm
“I’m at pains to say it but it fundamentally comes down to what you truly think a life is worth”
Sheesh Harold.
Think about the bigger picture.
How many lawyers will be needed to defend a dead criminal?
Insurance companies would have to lower their premiums and profits.
Security companies will start to retrench.
There’s going to be serious economic consequences if the police do what police are supposed to be doing i.e. making us all a lot safer than we are now.
p.s. Mikhail is right!
“Softer and more subtle messages are what we should attend to at this point in our history”.
Mdu says:
September 16, 2009 at 13:57 pm
The Professor has many time before spoken about the standards with govern how judged in the workplace and it is no different in the legal fraternity.
I have expressed a true life experience in a previous post in how the inner workings of the system works … mine was in a military slash officer (management) context.
I still have young people approaching me on how to pursue a career in the navy and it pains me not to be truthful and squelch their dreams merely because of an inherent racist system which transcends every aspect of our lives … I dare not be the bearer of bad tidings as they will inevitably cross the racist bridge!
@ Chris
Kriegler is holding all of us to ransom by challenging a public institution via our courts for something that we( majority)are not interested in. Let him go and play in his farm.
All professional services firms such as law firms, Accountants, Engineering, Doctors etc are running on the same model of patnership/Directorship with basic salary and profit sharing. These firms are built on fees charged on huge projects that procured by big business and government. Large contracts such as MTN/Bharti, World Cup, Arms Deal etc should be the vehicle used to promote participation of black firms. In the private sector, majority of clients and decision makers are white hence white partners in professional firms will be the one’ s getting the deals. In government blacks are in charge but are scared to give these contracts to black firms for fear of the white noise that we even see in this blog. The whites have coopted the black elite using BEE and AA that they continue to sabotage. Why the Auditor General will not set aside 50% of its work for (100%)black firms until that industry reflects the demographics of the country.
Lastly as black people we nee to pick our own role models that meet the criteria of Steve Biko, Chris Hani, Luthuli and others and not these rented darkies who serve on boards of opportunistic companies. These individuals are always willing and ready to sell their souls for a salary.
Why would a black man with assets of more R15 million continue to say yes baas in the morning, in a company where they do not have an influence. Peter Moyo walked out of Alexander Forbes and that shoulb be celebrated. Nedbank appointed a black CFO and made her report to the COO. She has no responsibility over the balance sheet +- 550 bn , cannot be trusted. Ruel Khoza as chairman is sent around to explain the embarassment.
@ Chris, Samantha and Michael
Thanks very much guys and yes Chris I am in the legal profession.
@ Vuyo
“I recall, when I was a clerk, that a white firm… with a primarily black client base from primarily Soweto and Kagiso…”
Exactly my point. You decided not to go back to Soweto to open a law firm even if it is small to cater for the legal needs of those who are within the purview of the areas of law that you are good at or like. Someone else who is good at other areas of law and who was maybe not brave enough to open his own law firm would have decided to join forces with you and so on. However, your failure to do so has not only turned you into someone who is merely pointing fingers at what others should be doing or have done but it has cost those poor people with the burden of having to travel long distances in order to access basic human right to legal representation and to have their disputes heard and resolved by a court of law. Basically, you are violating their rights by that failure. Pity they cannot enforce those rights against you just like I cannot force the government to build a house for me.
@ Harold
It is not semantics to differentiate between accused, detained, arrested and convicted individuals. The rights that they are entitled to may overlap but they are not necessarily identical. A failure to distinguish between for instance a suspect and a convict betrays our failure to comprehend our justice system. You must remember that though you may know and undertake never to commit a crime and be a “criminal” as you and President Zuma refer thereto, you can still be accused of a crime.
Take an example of yourself being in a bank and expecting a call from your sister’s doctor who will give you a progress about your sister who is ill. You take the call and unfortunately immediately after you hang up the phone a “criminal” enters the bank and robs a person in the bank who had just withdrawn a huge sum of money. Needless to say, you have no link whatsoever to the “criminal”. In this instance, believe me, the difference between a suspect and a convict will work in your favour and you will cry “innocent until proven guilty”.
On death penalty, our justice system is subject to failure and that is why we have avenues of appeals and reviews but upper courts. Needless to say, as Samaita (I believe) one said; the final courts of appeal are not final because they are infallible but they are infallible because they are final. This means they can get it wrong as well. Read this in view of what Denzel Washington said in his movie, Training Day (2002) that ‘Its not what you know, its what you can prove’. A death penalty, as opposed to life sentence, is not reversible. In our country where the justice system is not flawless, how would you feel if evidence later proves that your brother who was executed five years ago was actually framed by a now confessing friend of his. Contrast that with a life sentence.
A re-instatement of a death sentence will not reduce crime but it will alter the people who commit crime. Instead of having crime commited by citizens against the State, we will have the State committing crime against its citizens. That is when we all will know that we have descended into the Apartheid slope again.
@Gwebecimele says:
September 16, 2009 at 11:47 am
With respect to your suggestion that whites need to be sensitive, I agree. A white ex-vlokplaas commander should not suddenly be standing up and mouthing off about black racism willy-nilly. BUT by the same token I think black South Africans also need to be sensitive, and not drive home the point that South Africa is now ruled by “the blacks” and therefore white people have nothing to contribute. While white people would do well to try and remember the pain of Apartheid, black people would also do well to try and remember that us wit ou’s in general were maybe apprehensive, but still willing to give this non-racism thing a go…there needs to be a sensitivity about the way black people talk about race to white people too. It’s a respect thing – and respect must go both ways.
I agree with you the rights do come with responsibility. However, this for me is the very reason we SHOULD shout loudly. With the right to equal opportunities comes the responsibility to live up to the fiduciary duties that those bring about (whether white or black). So Hlophe has every right to be the CJ – he is intelligent and qualified, and, I believe, orginally a meritorious appointment – but he has the responsibility to uphold the judicial code of ethics and conduct, which he has clearly failed to do. To suggest that white people such as Kriegler should be quiet about it because of the past is beyond my comprehension. The fact of the matter is that there should be MORE people from ALL races making a stink, not just some people from the FUL.
Another point I disagree with is that these (in this instance) white voices that you consider are “holding us to ransom” should be quiet. If the use and application fo fair legal means and methods, such as a court challenge to the JSC decision, is “holding us to ransom”, then the same could have been argued for JZ’s defence team, the Motata defence team, and others. A smear campaign based on factually incorrect statements and fabricated evidence – this is something along the lines of blackmail through manipulation of public opinion. But somebody exercising a legal right through the appropriate channels is not “holding us to ransom” – rather, he or she is helping to strenthen our democracy, even if their individual case is unsuccessful.
You admit this yourself when you state that the dissatisfaction with the ANC and protests are helping the organisation strengthen. How do illegally violent and destructive protests help strengthen the ANC, but legal protests through court action (against very flimsy legal decisions by the JSC, for example) result in negative harm for South Africa? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – the principle must be applied consistently.
To me this is symptomatic of a crucial problem in SA – the ANC, through it’s lack of service delivery, has brought sectors of this country to its knees, but the looting rioting protestors are heroes of democracy and helping the ANC, whereas Kriegler is a racist. Lets turn the tables – if it were a bunch of white people in Orania burning municipal offices, would they be helping the ANC to strenthen and fulfill its mandate to serve ALL South Africans? I’d stake my reputation on them being labelled racists, boers, and other unpleasantries by the Malema brigade. Similarly, if a group of black lawyers were to mount a challenge against the JSC decision, there would be much more engagement and talking from the ANC and JSC than simply dismissal as racists, or whatever you would call them (since they would be black).
Sensitivity is fine – but it must come from both sides, and we need to stop responding to arguments and debate primarily on the basis of race. This method of dismissing complaints and arguments is simply a cover up for not having anything cogent to say.
But thank you for your response Gwebi, it was rational and well thought out – I enjoy debating race issues with my black, coloured and indian brothers and sisters when they are not littered with unfounded accusations and insults and stupidity. I enjoyed reading your post and responding to it with my views on the matter
Chris McDaniel says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:05 pm
Thats exactly my point! I’m advocating a way that the SENSELESS taking of lives can be tremendously reduced!
You know that there is an distinction between criminals .. in fact they themselves give this consideration must emphasis … try being a convicted paedophile in the general prison population …
We speak of the sancity of life but don’t differentiate between a harden criminal and a cold blooded murderer!
Bruises heal, property can be returned but please tell me how you “restitutio in integrum” an innocent life!!??!!
Gwebecimele says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:14 pm
and thats why your not a lawyer, I think your biased and im afriad ur racist attitude would damage the legal farternity hence why we have such a mess with the jsc and the judiciary, becuase simply childish atitutdes. all you doing is whites this whites that…bitch bitch bitch, thats all you doing. I dont see how you offering any help to black lawyers or to any institutions just shotting someone who actually has the balls to stand up to something that is wrong. your just a coward but you to dull in life to see that.
Maggs Naidu says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:13 pm
No im sorry , softer isnt going to work, Im all for the shoot to kill. The more demanding a presence an officer has on the street the better and more presence of them even better.
So dont stress harold the death penalty has taking a new direction, more direct and more in the trenches where it belongs
@ Chris.
“No im sorry , softer isnt going to work” – Mikhail is not right???
Sorry Mikhail, I tried!
Harold
Lol I never disagreed about a form of “death penalty” however introducing it back to its former glory wont work. Im against the judiciary to make such a calling as I said such a waste, put that person in the cane fields.
However evolving the death penalty onto the streets, well now…:) i like the sound of that, that to me is more terrifying.
Me and 3 of my friends were once told by a white lecturer that as black people we have no prospect succeeding in a career in law, and she advised us to consider becoming paralegals as mainstream law was for whites.
Harold
You know what else i like…. in states youve heard of the vietnam memorial war wall?
South africa needs to have a crime victims wall, list all the names of people who were murdered senselessly and treat them as heros becuase whatever those people went through is heroic. This Wall will add a sense of patriotism but will also serve as a pyschological tool against crime.
Sne says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:20 pm
I am certain you are aware that we were speaking in the context of the gunmen in the cash-in-transit scenario …
The question I wish to ask is whether the 3 who are alleged to have gotten away, had escaped apprehension and arrest or summary executions.
To give your example some regard, should the police arrive on the scene my right to be presumed innocent will swiftly change should I be thought to have a weapon instead of simply a cellphone. Should they assume the former I have no doubt that I will not leave that place having an opportunity to cry about anything … in the current climate its act first and an deal with the questions later …
I have only given sporadic inference of how i would go about implementing the “death penalty for specifically defined crimes’ policy into practice …
But it would require the creation of a completely separate court to the current system and be significantly legislatively controlled – as for example the bail section of the CPA – this would take the legal reasoning requirement out of the hands of the presiding officer and merely perform a comprehensive check-off list of sorts in coming to a correct conclusion – should one of the provisions on be met then it would be put back into the other system and dealt with according to what we currently have. This would almost streamline this process and chip away at the notion of the prolong suffering that is said to inflict death penalty waiting accused …
I will in time submit a well written and constitutionally correct plan for what I briefly explained above – which won’t be easy given my disadvantaged background and intellectual limits.
Chris McDaniel says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:51 pm
Don’t think the Chinese will take kindly to that suggestion, it will certainly rival their Great Wall!!
Liberal
Noun: a person who is so open-minded they brains have fallen out …
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:57 pm
lol well in that case south africa’s government wouldnt want to upset the chinese now would they…..couldnt have another episode like the dali lama
@ Big Slipper
I agree with you.
Recent posts on this blog nicely demonstrate one of big stumbling blocks to “white” participation in political discourse. It is this: many young black South Africans who came of age post 1994, really, truly, genuinely believe that not a single white voice was ever raised against apartheid.
If people neither lived nor have since read the relevant history, one can understand that they sincerely believe some of the nonsense that has appeared on this blog.
Suppose one really does believe that no whites ever protested apartheid. It makes perfect sense that one would demand to know what possible standing whites have to criticize the JSC, Motata J, or the ANC government itself.
[P.S. I am aware, of course, that young whites are, if anything, more ignorant of what happened under apartheid; hence their bottomless indignation about affirmative action etc.]
@Big Slipper
Unfortunately, some whites need to be reminded every now and then that the black man is in charge. Ours is a sad reality story of the majority still living under the oppression of the minority. There is no doubt that black people have given up more than their counterparts for this country to move forward. Whites are yet to come to the table with an equal commitment and that leaves a small room for the sensitivity you are suggesting. I am one of those people who believe in saying things exactly the way they are, without sugarcoating.
Let me compare Kriegler and the rioting communities you are mentioned. He has a choice of doing nothing and he will suffer no harm, loss or convenience. On the other hand a community that is without water,sanitation, clinics, food etc cannot live another day with these kind of environment. The two are not comparable at all. Actuall he would do a better job if he take up the plight of these communities against the authorities. If he is not using enough energy during his retirement, let him find another hobby.
This use of fair legal means is costing us money and the communities I mentioned above ranked among the priorities we should have. I suggested that he can write a book, deliver public lectures and do all sorts of things but please he must not put burden on our institutions that are not coping to deliver justice to the majority of the people. That is how, he is holding all of us into ransom.
I do not condone illegal, violent and destructive protests but I support communities that make their leaders to account for their promises. I mentioned earlier on that these people live in pathetic conditions and must be attended to before we listen to Kriegler’s yawning.
I am not responding to this based on race but on reality. We have far more important issues to deal with and let us prioritise. After 7 yrs of pursuing Zuma what did we get? We must not be intimidated by noisemakers and loose focus of what has to be delivered. Rule of law alone will not cure all our ills.
Yes we need more voices that make the right noises.
If race differentiates the type of noises we make then it will be a factor.
I do not believe that courts are the best place to resolve every aspect of our lives. We must stop abusing our courts.
Strangely the ConCourt has a pending decision on type of sanitation to be used in squatter camps. That is nonsense.
Chris McDaniel says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:06 pm
HAHA! Certainly not, and would probably donate a shipment of firing squad pistols in support of our police services in their fight against “crime”.
Michael Osborne says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:07 pm
“Suppose one really does believe that no whites ever protested apartheid.”
These type of comments are similarly used in the Holocaust denialism agenda …
Do check out the hectic comments though ….
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20090916035520425C464119
@ Chris
Me, dull life, no ways. I am enjoying the new dispensation that is causing you stress. I am not a coward either but there is one way of finding that out.
Yes I am not a lawyer and I am happy about that. Unfortunaly I am not responsible for the “mess” at the JSC may be my appointment letter from Zuma is on its way.
I am a member of Black Professionals organisations and we do offer assistance to Lawyers as well.
Truth hurts but I will continue REMINDING YOU AND OTHERS.
Gwebecimele says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:12 pm
“Strangely the ConCourt has a pending decision on type of sanitation to be used in squatter camps.”
Please do elaborate … If it is what I think, then these great minds will be giving those gerbils in their heads lots of exercise for the purposes of the type of latrines the poor in our society deserves??????
Gwebecimele says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:28 pm
Please don’t resort to “appendage measuring”. It is beneath you and frankly you you would win hands down anyway …
Sne says: September 16, 2009 at 14:20 pm
“You decided not to go back to Soweto to open a law firm even if it is small to cater for the legal needs of those who are within the purview of the areas of law that you are good at or like, etc, etc.
Actually Sne, there’s no pointing of fingers. In order to resolve a mischief, you must first identify it and assess it. I for one am close to achieving the objective that I’ve alluded to, in a small vibrant firm, with like minded black and white colleagues .
Gwebecimele says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:28 pm
Truth hurts??? Gwebby…im a yanky, im here cos i really like ur country, however people like you are actually very dull I mean to shout out whites must be reminded that the black man is in charge?? well is rather racist. You are very dull.
Since you not a lawyer then clearly you have no understanding of the situation of the JSC and what really has been done in the manipulation of what Hlophe has achieved.
Since you also need to be blanketed by being a member of a Black Professionals organisations further cements your clouded judgement on an equal society
How does saying the black man is now in charge reflect an equal society?
Doesnt quit reflect an equal society? so really your man mession about being on this blog is to spew propaganda, when must of us on here wetn to bop ideas around on law and how it effects society.
Im really lost becuase I see a muti -racial government. but yet you and others can not find a single shred of evidence of Kriegler being racist? blows my mind really
I am afriad you are a coward, i think you to scared to embrass an equal society hence why you need to shout out the black man is in charge.
I think your a coward to fix the racial problems in your country
I think your a coward to not help fix the judiciary, becuase we are sitting with fraudulent people but you seem ok with that.
I think your a coward to fix the crime in this country
I think you scared.
Gwebecimele says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:28 pm
“Truth hurts”
That explains why we are such a painless society – there’s not much around.
@ Gwebecimele
You are fooling yourself if you really believe that “black people are in charge.”
Capital is in still in charge. It is composed of an old guard of white local and multinational corporates, eagerly assisted by a co-opted elite of black capitalists. The latter are only too eager to earn big cash in exchange for selling their skin colour to justify exploitation. And they maintain their legitimacy by spouting African nationalist rubbish in which they actually have no interest,
The Freedom Charter’s Socialist ideals: conveniently postponed in perpetuity.
@ michael
In my opinion, I think it less about what the average white did during apartheid but more about what they are doing now in the workplace, hospitals, schools, courts etc .
Chris McDaniel says:
September 16, 2009 at 14:51 pm
Harold
You know what else i like…. in states youve heard of the vietnam memorial war wall?
Just a quick revisit to your suggestion and some further commentary …
The wall was only officially accept by the POTUS on November 10, 1984 (almost an entire decade since the end of the war).
While in the interim those veterans who returned were vilified for their role in the war and those who died equally scorned… should a similar type of wall go up here it would just remind us of how the use of the Constitution resulted in the mass extermination of fellow South Africans. You once alluded to this in your commentary about the US Civil War and how the US Constitution was distorted.
@ Michael
Yes Capital is in charge for now but not for long.
Michael Osborne says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:50 pm
Michael is right. During the time of slavery, the majority of those sold were captured by their own ethnic groups.
The Race debate in the US is growing and will son rival our little spat.
Can expect the Prof to draw comparisons anytime soon … This heading is getting far too personal. Need to turn a page and start afresh.
Harold
“While in the interim those veterans who returned were vilified for their role in the war and those who died equally scorned”
Im afriad that is a sad chapter in our history, alot of emotions were carried, they the wall was erected only in 1984 it does illustrate the need to forgive and the need to remember.
The US civil war, was due to manupilation of the constitution through the supreme court, it is a hell of a long story what I just mention was a small snippet. The constitution wasnt the result in mass extermination it come from a result of the Supreme Court. This i was relating to signs that can be seeing in the JSC.
To have such a wall here in south africa might or might not show the Constitution resulted in the mass extermination of fellow south africans, maybe it might if it does can only be a good thing as this will show never again will men use the constitution to evil means or to dis-empower citizens.
A Wall can help with healing and can make people face the issue that south africa is at war with itself and it effects everyone. People will be reminded of that people will start to stand up and take account ask why so many people are being killed in there homes in there cars on the streets.
A wall is very powerful, it seperates people and when its brought down it represents freedom eg germany. A Wall can honour people tell a story eg Egypt. A wall can honour the brave
Michael Osborne says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:50 pm
Spot On! Spot On! Hence my insistence that the likes of the BLA, Hlophe, BMF, etc, serve to do nothing but limit the scope of development of blacks in general and black professionals in particular. They are merely being reactive to variables and realities created by primarily white big business and their black lackeys. I expect nothing less than continued exploitation from capital and so will not bother condemning it. My problem is with blacks who are far removed from the daily lives of black Africans and whose only commonality with me and my many struggling fellow black South Africans is skin colour. They use their perceived knowledge of black Africans as a tool to access the largesse of big capital and when faced with a legitimacy crisis spew black nationalist nonsense. The only solution to transformation in this country is supply and the maintenance thereof. Produce so many skilled black people that they must sip through every crevice. The rules of the market will have no choice but to use those skilled multitudes in order to meet their demand for skilled labour. Simple.
This notion that whites will, out of the generosity of their spirit share, is absolute poppycock. History has shown that white society is a quid pro quo society (preferably to their advantage). This chimera of transformation by BEE’s 25%+1, etc. is an illusion fabricated by whites and co-opted blacks for their own self interest. Bid-business knows with certainty that their needs are protected by renowned black leaders and these black leaders know that they will be protected by the threat of restless natives when gig-business tries to shaft them.
Michael Osborne says:
September 16, 2009 at 15:50 pm
Spot On! Spot On! Hence my insistence that the likes of the BLA, Hlophe, BMF, etc, serve to do nothing but limit the scope of development of blacks in general and black professionals in particular. They are merely being reactive to variables and realities created by primarily white big business and their black lackeys. I expect nothing less than continued exploitation from capital and so will not bother condemning it. My problem is with blacks who are far removed from the daily lives of black Africans and whose only commonality with me and my many struggling fellow black South Africans is skin colour. They use their perceived knowledge of black Africans as a tool to access the largesse of big capital and when faced with a legitimacy crisis spew black nationalist nonsense. The only solution to transformation in this country is supply and the maintenance thereof. Produce so many skilled black people that they must sip through every crevice. The rules of the market will have no choice but to use those skilled multitudes in order to meet their demand for skilled labour. Simple.
This notion that whites will, out of the generosity of their spirit share, is absolute poppycock. History has shown that white society is a quid pro quo society (preferably to their advantage). This chimera of transformation by BEE’s 25%+1, etc. is an illusion fabricated by whites and co-opted blacks for their own self interest. Bid-business knows with certainty that their needs are protected by renowned black leaders and these black leaders know that they will be protected by the threat of restless natives when big-business tries to shaft them.
@ Gwebecimele: “Yes Capital is in charge for now but not for long.”
Gwebecimele is right.
I too have heard (through the grapevine), that members of the BEE elite are only PRETENDING to be crass consumers of fine Scotch and late-model cars from Germany. Being dedicated and disciplined Marxist-Leninists, they secretly despise luxury products.
Their plot is a simple but brilliant Trojan Horse approach – Infitrate capital, then destroy it from within!
Bravo!
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 16:12 pm
“This heading is getting far too personal. Need to turn a page and start afresh”.
Party pooper!
@ Gwebecimele……the simple truth is that when capital leaves then so does everything else. Recent years has seen marked recovery in countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, Angola and Mocambique all of which were in a terrible state as a result of capital flight. Western and Asian capital has been returning with excellent results. Take care what you wish for
@Gwebicemele
“Whites have yet to come to the table with an equal committment”
I’m a bit astounded by this statement. “Equal committment” seems to be construed by the ANC to mean something along the lines of simply accepted what we are told we should do. This is rubbish. I will guarantee you that most white employers would happily employ anybody with the right qualifications and attitude. Blame the ANC for the fact that our education system has got worse over the last 14 years, while they were busy strong-arming their loyal cadres into lucrative positions which they did not deserve, all in the name of AA.
The notion that white people aren’t as committed is ridiculous, and is sadly indicative of how successful the ANC and it’s various organs have been in indoctrinating the masses that it’s still “us vs them”. If we had the chance to prove we were committed, without getting told we were racist, anti-transformationist and liberal neo-colonialists at every turn, you might find that we were actually pretty nice people in general, and more than willing to play our part, given a fair chance.
As for Kriegler, your premise is incorrect to start with. You seem to argue from the point of view that he is in this to gain something for himself, and if he didn’t go through with it he would lose nothing, so he shouldn’t bother, because he is white and therefore should rather leave things be. Again, I take issue – the FUL (who is actually the body bringing the action, with the support of white and black directors, including people like Desmond Tutu) is doing this because it (a) believes it is in the best interests of South Africa as a whole, and (b) the legal avenue is open to them to utilise. This is not about personal gain for an individual. The rule of law is important for those people who protest too, because if they were to go about things legally one day, instead of burning down property, they would also want to know that the judge in front of them was trustworthy. I’m not sure they would want somebody like Hlophe, who is a skelm at best and seems more interested in his own pocket if it conflicts with the law when he is deciding a case (eg Oasis).
If bringing an action by the FUL puts our already oeverburdened judicial institutions in a position where they cannot cope, this is a problem with the ANC government, not the FUL. To suggest that bringing a case like this is wrong because our judiciary doesn’t have the capacity to deal with it is absurd – we could then take that a step further and say that people should stop reporting so many rape cases. I note that this logic was never under consideration when Hlophe, Motata, Zuma and Shaik et al brought all their very technical and numerous legal actions to defend themselves. Why apply a different standard to an organisation lead by a retired judge?
I too support communities that demand accountability from their leaders – wholeheartedly – provided it is legally done. However, I do not believe that leaders should only be responsible for service delivery in terms of water and sanitation – they are required to uphold the rule of law, provide a stable macroeconomic environment for business and investment, and so forth – this is also part of “delivery”. In this case the JSC made a decision which has as of today no proper defense presented by anybody in terms of the law. Factor in the appointments that Zuma stacked the JSC with before it decided the case, the split of the 5-4 decision along those lines, and the conflicts of interest of some of those on the JSC, and it seems very apparent that there may be a case made that the JSC failed to do a proper job – therefore damaging the integrity of our judiciary, and failing to serve South African interests. This is not Kriegler, the FUL, whites or anybody “holding us to ransom”. It is simply concerned civil society requesting that, within the parameters of the law, the case is re-examined for any legal shortcomings and appropriate action be taken.
I don’t understand how this is a bad thing, unless you are Hlophe JP.
I think the courts will be reluctant to substitute their value judgment of the JSC for its own particularly that the JSC is a constitutional structure to effect discipline in the judiciary and the apex constitutional court will not prevail as all are embroiled in the matter.
I have always expressed a view that this matter is going nowhere. Hlope in on the bench as we reflect I suppose. Kriegler is perfectly entitled to approach the courts, but i think it is a futile exercise in so far as achieving anything beyond jurisprudential cultivation or nourishment.
Thanks
The Big Slipper says:
September 16, 2009 at 19:06 pm
Why is the ANC responsible for your spat with Gwebicemele?
As for Kriegler, if he cannot stand the heat, maybe the kitchen is not the place to be. Zuma took a lot of flak from many quarters, he did not cry like a baby. It’s not entirely clear what you mean by trustworthy, but I recall that in the second general election, Kriegler abandoned ship when he did not get his way. I will grant him though the many positives about him which is well recorded, including his contribution to our democracy.
How do you arrive at “(i)n this case the JSC made a decision which has as of today no proper defense presented by anybody in terms of the law “, when for now all it is, is a public spat between the different parties?
I don’t understand why people are opposed to this matter going into open court and people on all sides that are involved having to explain themselves. On the other hand it is bringing to the surface a lot of aspects that have been below the surface – like for example your hatred for the ANC.
@ Maggs
1. Where did you see or hear Kriegler “cry like a baby”? It seems so unlike him. He actually seems quite in his element in a hot kitchen.
2. You are right, Zuma himself was remarkably dignified under fire. But some fear he may at least tacitly have approved some perhaps less than dignified responses from his supporters — like the howling mobs that taunted his accuser at the Jhb Court. I am not sure that Kriegler’s fans have sunk quite that low.
3 I will let the Big Slipper (whomever he may be), speak for himself on this. But I think that when he speaks of no proper defense of the JSC’s exoneration, he means that the JSC’s supporters have not actually tried to justify the decision in substantive terms.
4. Several of us have begged a normally very articulate Wits Professor, Kevin Malunga, to tell us why he defends the decision. So far, he has refused our cordial invitation. The Chair of the Portfolio committee, in his ST article, could do no better than to suggest that the case had to be dropped, basically because black people could not stand to see their esteemed leaders squabbling. Now that may be pragmatically sensible. But is not exactly the legal defense one would have hoped to hear from a distinguished lawyer …
Michael says:
September 16, 2009 at 20:55 pm
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I think Kriegler will take extensive time out to do some serious soul searching after the past weekend where his racist and bigotry was so openly exposed!
I’ll put my head on a block that you won’t hear of him in several days … just enough time for him to shrug off his conscience!!!
I don’t see a need for a legal defence when the decision by the JSC hasn’t even been seen to require one as yet …
Should one then arrange an alibi before hand when you about to commit an offence?
All Kriegler has done is what Bulelani Ngcuka did … shout that there is a case to be made, when in actual fact none exists.
Harold is right.
Kriegler has now been decisively exposed as a racist bigot. Obviously, he can’t stand the heat of the kitchen. No wonder the poor man skulks, sobbing, in a far corner of the pantry!
I say Harold is also right in condemning those who naively expect people to address the merits of the JSC’s decision. Everyone knows this a matter or resisting bigoted racism; to actually analyze the text of the JSC’s majority decision is besides the point!
Thank you, Harold.
Michael says:
September 16, 2009 at 20:55 pm
Yeah. Kriegler is ok, but some of those defending his cause are throwing their toys out the cot.
I don’t think that the taunting by the crowds were approved of by Zuma. In any event, I think the judge’s rounding up comments in that matter were far worse.
I dunno about Kevin Malunga, but interaction, often heated, with my close comrades on both sides of this debate has not yielded any intelligible responses yet.
I am fascinated with the comment by our Minister of Higher Education that Kriegler is a conservative, liberal intent on undermining the JSC (or thereabouts). Heck the JSC has done a great job all by themselves, who needs Kriegler for that.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 16, 2009 at 21:07 pm
“All Kriegler has done is what Bulelani Ngcuka did … shout that there is a case to be made, when in actual fact none exists”.
I have been trying to understand that – so far it’s not making any sense.
If the JSC was not established as set out in the constitution, in respect of 178.1(k), then surely its findings whether or not rational, reasonable or the opposite, is irrelevant.
@ Maggs
1. Whom, exactly, do you have in mind as Kriegler’s “toy-throwers”?
2. Yes, it is hard to say that the crowd of taunters were actually approved by Zuma. But did he not have the power — and responsibility — to expressly repudiate a group of his supporters who chased the woman down Pritchard Street?
Michael Osborne says:
September 16, 2009 at 22:45 pm
1. read The Big Slipper says: September 16, 2009 at 14:22 pm.
2. Re Zuma’s supporters behaviour – I am sure he could have done things differently, but given that in addition to the rape trial he had to contend with the corruption allegations, the leadership power struggles, the use of some state organs against him, I’m not sure how much differently he could have behaved. Now of course that circumstances have changed, there’s hardly a step wrong from his side.
Let me add that I think some of the people around him and those whom he has entrusted with some pretty important roles are less than impressive.
Maggs is right.
Kriegler and cronies: a vicious breed indeed.
Attempted lynching of rape complainant: Child’s play next to Kriegler’s racist sneer.
Yes!
Maggs Naidu says:
September 16, 2009 at 21:54 pm
What I meant was that when Bulelani Ngcuka made the Media announcement that there was prima facie case against jacob Zuma, but he doubted that they (State/NPA) could win it. And we have all scene the outcome of that debacle …
Same now with Kriegler ranting that he has a case for taking on appeal the decision of the JSC, before even getting as far as the registrar!!
Harold, you must be an established scholar in the field of Constitutional Law. Am I wrong?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 0:12 am
“Attempted lynching of rape complainant”.
Nice to make up stories eh.
Send that to Huntley, it can strengthen his case.
Eish!
Mikhail says:
September 17, 2009 at 0:29 am
Is your take that only “an established scholar in the field of Constitutional Law” should comment on topical issues?
@ Maggs
No, not at all.
My question re Harold’s status was prompted only by the sheer brilliance of his recent contributions to this blog, and in particular his courageous diatribes about Judge Kriegler.
I am but a humble tradesman. Nonetheless, I will continue to challenge the so-called “legal eagles” on this blog to support my campaign to add Judge Motata as last minute candidate to be interviewed in Kliptown next week. May I count at least upon your support, Maggs?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 9:04 am
I am reminded of one former Minister of Police who famously said that those who complain of crime should leave the country and a former president who decided that he knew best.
I dunno about supporting you on Judge Motata – I read somewhere that tea can be addictive and we don’t want that now do we?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 9:04 am
I must decline the praise, for it is you (Mikhail and Maggs) who are the leading lights in both the intellectual and wise temperament departments.
It can only be the most stubborn of personalities that would not concede that your comments are insightful and cuts to the sheer core of the matter at hand.
You are urged by myself and the voiceless others to continue in this vain. The very soul of our Country potentially depends on it.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 17, 2009 at 9:34 am
I was referring to Mikhail, not Harold.
That however does not mean my comments should not get attacked by those in the rather illustrious legal profession, after all Mikhail thinks that only opinions from “an established scholar in the field of Constitutional Law” are worthy.
Maggs Naidu says:
September 17, 2009 at 9:40 am
of course not! And I am certain he doesn’t think that! In my opinion some of the most decisive commentators in our country has what many would consider as mediocre schooling and even less constitutional law knowledge, yet has the ability to captivate an audience and cause stirring national debate … Julius Malema is a case in point!
Harold Ferwood says:
September 17, 2009 at 9:47 am
I just needed the moment to jibe Mikhail.
I don’t give a toss as to who thinks what of my opinions – if I am wrong, someone will correct me (as many have done since I have started commenting here), that I will appreciate and value.
For those who just want to toss their toys out the cot cos they don’t like or agree with my views, I got the middle finger in the air.
Ouch! I guess I wrong … I expected Kriegler to only come back once he had a chance of getting his confidence by pushing some of his farm workers around …
I guess he got “quickly back onto the horse after falling off it this past weekend” … But then again so did Eugene Terreblanche!!
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=nw20090917072713131C581490
Harold Ferwood says:
September 17, 2009 at 10:01 am
He seems to be starting up “Judges in Crises” support group as well! Probably handing out business cards right outside the JSC’s offices!!
Maggs is right.
To call the treatment of the rape complainant outside the Court in Johannesburg an “attempted lynching” is crazy.
Admittedly, it was reported that the pro-Zuma mob chanted “burn the bitch,” stoned her, and that she was reported to have fled the country for her own safety.
But this is just the kind of reporting you would expect from the M&G, a paper that had a long record of supporting the apartheid regime.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 10:47 am
LOL!
And nice try Mr AliG.
Since when is a silly mob chanting “burn the bitch” equal to “attempted lynching”?
@ Maggs
Dunno, maybe the stoning and burning of her photographs also made her feel a little edgy.
Whatever you want to call it, any reasonable person would agree that with your essential points:
1. There was really nothing Zuma could have said to tame the enthusiasm of his more fervent supporters. That being so, it is ridiculous to hold him even indirectly responsible.
2. Kriegler’s racist sneers and Big Slipper’s comments in support thereof are, in a very subtle fashion, much nastier than the harmless pranks of a high-spirited group of Zuma-ites in Pritchard streeet that day.
Need I say more?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 11:23 am
“Need I say more?” – please do.
I am interested in your contention that some silly people in a in a large group screaming terrible things translates to “attempted lynching”.
@ Maggs
I think I already mentioned the burning of her photographs, and the stonings.
But she is probably just an oversensitive women. Takes everything the wrong way. Typical.
[I just saw a report on News 24 you may be interested in: something about screaming mobs of Kriegler fans picketing the Dept of Justice this morning,yelling racist slogans and burning pictures of Hlophe J!
Seems to vindicate your comparison between Zuma and Kriegler: both fundamentally honourable men whose supporters sometimes go a little over the top...]
Respek.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 11:48 am
It was indeed bad behaviour from whoever in the crowd made those terrible remarks.
That however still does not explain how that was “attempted lynching”.
Humour me, I’m very slow. Please explain it to me in a way that I can understand this.
@ Maggs
No problem, Maggs. I am also not too quick off the mark!
You keep mentioning the “terrible remarks” emanating from the Zuma enthusiasts. But you do not seem to take account of the overall context: the stonings, burning of her photographs, the fact that she was too fearful to enter the building at the front entrance.
Some at the scene may have fantasised that, were it not for the police presence and the barricades, the complainant would have been in physical danger.
But I say for the zillionth time: she seems by all accounts to have been a weak and overly sensitive young lady. So I doubt we should attach much weight to her pathetic cringing. (Also, her supporters were, so I am told, largely crazed feminists who delight in colonial mythologies about black men as sexual predators.) (See. e.g., Charlene Smith.)
Hence my agreement with you that Kriegler’s supporters have done their man much more discredit. Big Slipper’s vehemence of yesterday, for example, shook me to the very core, as I am sure it did you too.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Without going into the merits or otherwise of all the other things you say, let’s start again.
You wrote “attempted lynching”.
For now that’s all I am trying to get to understand.
Not who said ugly things, not what Zuma did or did not do, not what Kriegler said or did not say, not about how supporters gathered. Not about any of those thing.
Just about the “attempted lynching” – I gather that you are a legal professional, not a politician – therefore you will be able to give me a straight answer.
@ Maggs
Your persistence mystifies me. Let us rather join forces against our common foe: the racist anti-tranformationists fronted by so-called Justice Kriegler.
@ Maggs
There seems to have been a lot of lynching going on.
A Jhb advocate depicted the anti-Hlophe mob as engaging in the
“undignified public lynching” of the JP.
(http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-06-13-dont-let-them-lynch-hlophe)
So, forget the so-called “attempted” lynching of that sensitive woman by the Zuma acolytes.
What about the ACTUAL lynching of Judge Hlophe?
Then again, maybe the advocate was using the word figuratively.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I am convinced now that you are a politician.
Do you :
a) stand for the poor
b) have security concerns
c) have staff that don’t consult you about the state car you are about to get
d) drive a fancy BMW?
e) all of the above.
Damn I am soooooooo disappointed.
I was about to go to the Rhema Church to have the distinguished pastor to pray for me, have all my sins forgiven, so that in my next life I could be just like you.
To make matters worse I kept saying “Mikhail is right” even when you did not say anything – now I have to retract.
Damn!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Thanks for that. I got stuck on “the basis for whose notoriety seems more imagined than factual”.
And this :
“This is no time for sycophancy, masquerading as professional discretion, and a feigned indignation against an ostensibly errant judge with a view to currying favour with the masses in a popularity contest before a public that is so starved of principled leaders that any pretence of a principled stand will do”.
Since it’s from the pen of legal professional, I will accept that as true.
If it was from a politician, well then I would have to consider it carefully.
You two having been fun all by yourselves hey!
What I want to know is who bankrolled the rape complainant’s “overseas relocation”? For someone who is alleged to have ask for taxi fare home, I can’t possibly see how she could of afforded the immense cost involved with going abroad. A secret benefactor perhaps?
Harold is right to raise this question.
I have every reason to suspect a conspiracy, the same conspiracy determined to drag down Judge Motata and our “golden girl.”
Time will tell.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 17, 2009 at 9:47 am
Maggs Naidu says:
September 17, 2009 at 9:40 am
of course not! And I am certain he doesn’t think that! In my opinion some of the most decisive commentators in our country has what many would consider as mediocre schooling and even less constitutional law knowledge, yet has the ability to captivate an audience and cause stirring national debate … Julius Malema is a case in point!
http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=nw20090917103946909C423151
Am I on fire or what???
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Let us rather join forces against our common foe: the racist anti-tranformationists fronted by so-called Justice Kriegler.”
I dunno Mikhail.
You may just use the floor crossing thing and jump to the other side when I am all steamed up and ready to go. Politicians do that.
Up to this morning I was ready to follow you anywhere. I was ready to die for Mikhail. Kill for Mikhail. (Ok maybe not me, I would have asked Harold to make the supreme sacrifices as I am not too good at the dying or killing things).
I will think about it carefully, maybe get a lawyer’s advice.
@ Maggs
When you may “kill” for Mikhail, I assume you mean it metaphorically, much as the ANCYL’s analogous loyalty to Zuma was not intended literally.
Another question – would you be prepared to engage in a wholly figurative lynching on Harold’s behalf?
Maggs Naidu says:
September 17, 2009 at 13:41 pm
True Maggs, too often we have seen our brethren fall or brought down by the wiles of minority groups who selfishly want to hold on to their privilege but giving little whiffs of the pleasures of the other side …
I, for one, will stay the course and not be swayed … I have looked right into the Devil’s face and laughed.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 17, 2009 at 14:23 pm
“I, for one, will stay the course and not be swayed … I have looked right into the Devil’s face and laughed.”
You actually met George Dubiya Bush?
George who?
I actually meant an ex Con Court Justice …
Harold Ferwood says:
September 17, 2009 at 15:49 pm
On a less serious note, do you prefer the matter to be closed or thrown wide open?
Personalities aside that is.
This time zone difference makes it difficult to keep up
@Michael yesterday – you are correct in your understanding of my point. When a legal decision is reached, it is supported by the law, precedent set by case law, and so forth. In coming to their decision, the JSC doesn’t seem to have managed to come up with a position that stands up to scrutiny. I have yet to hear somebody stand up and say that the JSC was right, because in terms of Section X of this Act, and Cases A, B and C…etc etc. So far the only argument I’ve heard advanced in support of the JSC is that anybody who sides with the minority judgement is racist. Very convincing.
And it was mentioned (satirically, I presume) by Mikhail that I support Kriegler…I support any person or body who defends our democracy. Therefore, in this case, I support the FUL. I don’t support individuals. Similarly, I have no hatred for the ANC, as was suggested in earlier posts. Several of its members are personal heroes of mine, for various reasons. However, I will disagree with them when they make mistakes, especially when it is self-serving – there’s nothing I loathe more than watching servants of the people plunder the country they’re supposed to be serving, which is what has happened over the last few years. I would take just as much issue with any other party who did the same, I assure you.
I am South African, and I love my country, so I will always argue for the side which represents SA’s best interests. The ANC has for a long time shown that SA’s interests come second to party-political and individual interests.
The Big Slipper says:
September 17, 2009 at 18:24 pm
“I support any person or body who defends our democracy. Therefore, in this case, I support the FUL.”
JSC, F-O-H, Paul Ngobeni, BLA, Nadel, AFT at least also claim to be defending democracy.
How did you decide on FUL?
The only organisation I support without reservation is JFM (“Justice for Motata.”)
Frankly, I am disgusted that Motata J has been thrown to the racist wolves while everyone flocks to support the JP.
Maggs and Harold, as the two most obviously progressive bloggers, I call upon you to donate R125 each to JFM! (Bank details to follow.)
Thanks.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 21:30 pm
Hey Dwork, may I call you Dwork? It sounds so smooth.
Yesterday I would have readily donated to any cause that you suggested.
Now that I discovered that you’re a politician, no ways dude. I don’t trust politicians. You may end up having a tea party with my money.
Lawyers I trust implicitly, especially after reading what many have to say on these pages. But politicians, no ways.
p.s. Maybe Harold will donate R250, after all he agreed to die for Mikhail, or was that kill for Mikhail. He’s a lawyer so he will be very reliable and trustworthy.
Maggs Naidu says:
September 17, 2009 at 21:39 pm
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 21:30 pm
I think R250 is very harsh when the only price the opposing side is paying is is to show they are secure middle class members, and a considerable amount of embarrassment standing by a cause that is meant to perpetuate the oppression of black people well into the 21st century …
And to slander me by even thinking that I am a lawyer! I would never allow myself to get in range of the clutches of the likes of Kriegler and some Con Court Justices – I would rather be the first black guy to be abducted by aliens!
A man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friend ….
These words is a personal maxim which I have never been called to perform ……. but time will tell!
Who would not support an organization that has meetings at Kelvin Grove in Newlands, CT – just a stone throw away from prestigious and leafy UCT?
Harold Ferwood says:
September 17, 2009 at 22:07 pm
Eish!
You’re being harsh on Dwork – he’s only after truth and justice.
Er well maybe not entirely. A bit of truth and a bit justice is better than none.
It turns out that he’s a politician. Now I reckon that he’s part of the third force – you know the one third that did not do so well in the last elections.
Hey, maybe he is after Truth and Justice after all – those are code names for Hlophe and Motata.
BTW Harold – you have not responded to me earlier.
Maggs Naidu says:
September 17, 2009 at 16:48 pm
Maggs, your corrosive sarcasm bothers me not a whit.
My struggle to get Motata J onto the list of candidates to be interviewed next week continues.
Perhaps he can take Meer J’s slot.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 17, 2009 at 22:49 pm
Nice try.
It bothers you.
I will stop.
Well done to Meer – it would be wonderful if more people would take principled stands.
Maggs Naidu says:
September 17, 2009 at 22:32 pm
It might have seemed that I took a while to answer you but don’t worry my answer is exactly the same as when I read your question the first time.
I’m all for openness. I have previously acknowledged that I consider TRUTH far more than the values of Justice and Fairness.
But most would concede that the pursuit of TRUTH comes with a huge price, as it will overshadow the benefits associated with Justice and Fairness.
The sooner we have this matter thrown wide open, the sooner we can have those power-abusing hacks at the Con Court removed.
Harold Ferwood says:
September 18, 2009 at 10:09 am
Thanks.
I agree that it should be thrown wide open.
Every person and/or institution touched by this is tainted some way or the other – none are credible.
Let’s get to the bottom of this and figure out a way to prevent recurrence of this mess.
@ Maggs …
In saying that …. when in our country’s history have we had anything thrown wide open?
Harold Ferwood says:
September 18, 2009 at 10:27 am
“In saying that …. when in our country’s history have we had anything thrown wide open?”
I was gonna suggest the Hefer Commission, then I remembered that part II was dependent on part I.
Bongs: the JSC recals that Nkabinde had said to them: “I think it is improper for a Judge to interfere in that manner on a matter that he had not sat on. He was clearly influencing the way in which we were going to decide the matter.” Factually your assertions therefore seems to be incorrect.
Congratulations Pierre, the most depressing post yet.
And the comments have become as dire.
The funny thing is Pierre your position on these matters have shifted significantly over the last two years.
In 1997 you would have taken Mr. Owen’s line.
Sorry that should have read 2007.
Are Dworkin, Naidu & Ferwood a spamming-robot, like what’s hit the zim-newsgroup;
or is it the weather that’s brought out the typical SA childish sparring ?
} Zimbabwe is not a failed state because whites avoided
} involvement in politics, but because President Robert Mugabe
} and the ruling Zanu (PF) ruined it.
The 2 aren’t mutually exclusive.
Zim’s transformation was somewhat facilitated by the settlers
dropping out; but like death, the inevitable can only be delayed
a bit. Interestingly though, the knowlege of the pain of Zim’s
“transformation” will somewhat delay Zanzi’s similar “transformation”.
The markets show us that people take about 7 years to forget.
@ Alibama
I categorically deny that Naidu and Fernwood and I are “spanning robots.”
It would be more accurate to say that we are unflagging strugglers against all forms of HLOPHEPHOBIA and MOTAPHOBIA!
This forced-to-be pro se greatly appreciates Kgrie.ler’exposure that WLD’s
non-functioning has forced commercial litigants to seek arbitration.
IMO that’s why Kebble HAD to be shot.
When the law becomes non-functional, the market finds other means.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
September 18, 2009 at 22:47 pm
I categorically deny that Naidu and Fernwood and I are “spanning robots.”
——————————————————————————————————-
Speak for yourself Dwork and maybe Fernwood.
I am a spamming robot soon to be reprogrammed to spam “Viva Rhodesia”.