A reader of this Blog posed an interesting question today about language discrimination by Pretoria Bars during the World Cup. He wants to know whether it would be unconstitutional for:
the bars in Hatfield, Pretoria/Tshwane, who during the world cup are selling drinks to Afrikaans speakers for R18 and to other persons for R55, however with the option for non-Afrikaans speaking South Africans to buy a loyalty card for R50 and get the same benefit. Would this not be in contravention of section 9 (4), cf. (3), of the Constitution according to which “No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3)” Subsection (3) mentions language.
Well, when an individual or private concern like a Bar is alleged to have discriminated against anyone else, then the easiest and most direct way to deal with the matter is to apply the provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) – the same Act that prohibits hate speech.
Section 6 of that Act prohibits the state or any person (including a Bar) from unfairly discriminating against anyone on the basis of any prohibited ground, including race, sex, gender, disability, sexual orientation, language, social origin or culture. Any discrimination inquiry in terms of PEPUDA has two steps. First, one must determine whether there was discrimination on a prohibited (or related) ground, then, second, one must determine whether the discrimination was fair or unfair. Only unfair discrimination is unlawful.
The Act makes clear that if a non-Afrikaans speaking patron at the Bar in question can show that the Bar had imposed any rule or practice which resulted in the withholding of a “benefit, opportunity or advantage” from any person on the basis of his or her language, that Bar would indeed have discriminated against those who were not given the benefit.
Here it is pretty obvious that the Bar charges different prices based on the language spoken by a patron. Even though non-Afrikaans speakers can buy a membership card to get the same benefits, they are still treated differently and the Bar is thus withholding some benefits or advantages from them based on their language. Given the fact that most black South Africans are not Afrikaans speakers and the rule would therefore disproportionately affect black people, the discrimination may also be found to have occurred on the basis of race. Such a Bar is thus clearly discriminating against non-Afrikaans speakers.
But not all kinds of discrimination are unfair and hence unlawful. A standard example of “fair” discrimination would be the rule that blind South Africans or South Africans younger than 18 cannot obtain a drivers license. They are clearly being discriminated against on the basis of age or disability as the law withholds the benefit of driving a car from them, but because there is a legitimate and rather important reason (namely road safety) for this discrimination, it is not considered unfair and hence is not unlawful.
Once one has shown that one has been discriminated against by the Bar – as was clearly the case here – then the Bar has the onus of proving that its discrimination was fair. Factors that can be taken into account to prove the fairness of the discrimination are:
(a) Whether the discrimination impairs or is likely to impair human dignity;
(b) the impact or likely impact of the discrimination on the complainant;
(c) the position of the complainant in society and whether he or she suffers from patterns of disadvantage or belongs to a group that suffers from such patterns of disadvantage;
(d) nature and extent of the discrimination;
(e) whether the discrimination is systemic in nature
(f) whether the discrimination has a legitimate purpose;
(g) whether and to what extent the discrimination achieves its purpose;
(h) whether there are less restrictive and less disadvantageous means to achieve the purpose;
(i) whether and to what extent the respondent has taken such steps as being reasonable in the circumstances to address the disadvantage which arises from or is related to one or more of the prohibited grounds; or accommodate diversity.
The heart of the matter is an inquiry into whether the discrimination has a legitimate and important purpose and if it has, whether this can justify the unfair discrimination, given the seriousness of the discrimination and the impact it has on those discriminated against. Is the discrimination perpetuating past patterns of discrimination or addressing such patterns of discrimination? In this case, there can be no legitimate purpose for discriminating against non-Afrikaans speakers for the following reasons.
The Bar is open to the public. It is not a cultural club where speaking Afrikaans would be a prerequisite for membership. Afrikaners is not a group that has previously been discriminated against and Afrikaners would be hard pressed to argue that because of the overwhelming animosity and hatred towards Afrikaners in Hatfield they have a right to a safe space where they will not be vilified and intimidated by a prejudiced and hateful majority.
The only reason for the rule would be to provide a benefit to one group because of either prejudice or a desire to exclude others based on their language or race (as it is rather probable that the “others” the Bar wishes to exclude would be black South Africans). The purpose of the discrimination is therefore to discriminate, and that can never be a legitimate purpose to justify discrimination.
The position might be different in a gay Bar as gays and lesbians have been previously discriminated against, form a small and vulnerable minority and have a legitimate interest to congregate in a safe space where they will feel protected from the homophobia and hatred of the majority.
So, if this is indeed happening, I am pretty sure that the Bars are unfairly discriminating against non-Afrikaners on the basis of language (and perhaps race). If one were to take any of these Bars to the equality court one will easily win one’s case. In my opinion this is not a close call at all. The discrimination is so obvious and blatant that it is clearly unlawful.
Give them hell.
I’m up for a little cheekiness for the Friday; What if white people where persecuted out of Africa 100,000′s of years ago, would it then be legitimate?
On a separate (slightly more serious) note, as a marketeer we segment and target daily, that’s part of our job.
What if the bar’s position is that they were promoting to a specific target? And they can support that with sound business and market-research related data, how could/would the equality court tackle that argument?
I’m a little surprised by the statement ‘The Bar is open to the public.’ if they have that often abused ‘reserve the right to entry’, then surely it’s not open the ‘public’? Am I missing something here?
The bar can target an audience but generally NOT based on one of the listed grounds like race, sex, gender, language or sexual orientation. Neither can the targeting have the effect disproportionately to exclude a group on any of these grounds. If it wants to target lawyers, say, or Bafana supporters that would probably be fine.
“Right to entry” signs means little. PEPUDA overrides such a sign. While a Bar can throw out a patron because he or she is obnoxiously drunk, it cannot exclude people on vague grounds (dress code etc) which are applied in such a way that it discriminates.
Thanks Pierre.
About the targeting;
Bars; Lady’s nights or such similar promotional activities which specifically are based on gender, would also fall foul?
What about insurance for women only, or lower premiums based on lower claims stats based on gender or age?
Hmmm, good questions. Ladies nights? I suspect it would be ok. Reason is that bars are more frequented by men than women and ladies nights is a way of attracting women, not of excluding men. The impact on men would therefore be negligible. The measures would not be reinforcing patterns of exclusion and discrimination but would be aimed at addressing it. The effect would not be to impugn the human dignity of men. That would be my argument, at least.
Lower premiums would be easy to justify because one is rewarding women or older people who are statistically safer drivers. Once again, those excluded from the benefit are not part of a group viewed as being previously marginalized and oppressed as a group and the measures are not aimed at perpetuating marginalisation and exclusion. If statistics showed black men were worst drivers than white men I suspect lower premiums for white men would fall foul of the law because of the history of racial discrimination and the lingering racism and racial discrimination in society.
In Canada where the laws are rigorous regarding discriminatory action, especially commercial, ladies nights are for their pleasure of male strippers and non stripping males are not permitted to attend. Ironically women are allowed to visit regular strip venues where the women perform, with or without a male escort.
I rather suspect that the Hatfield bar is, rather, exploiting the world cup’s overseas visitors. I’m not suspicious about the non afrikaans speaking blacks being the reason, although the seed has now been sown if this issue is not dealt with.
Die uiteensetting van wat diskriminasie is en watter diskriminasie onregverdigbaar is het ek baie geniet, maar toe dit by motiewe kom….Wat ‘n klomp bollies. Die motief vir die diskriminasie is net plein gierigheid.
Drank is die Afrikaner se ondergang (dit en sport op TV). Almal weet dit – om allerhande ander bybedoelings te sien in hierdie geldmaakfoefie….Alles behalwe behulpsaam. Demotiveer die dronkgatte deur dit vir hulle moeiliker te maak om dieselfde hoeveelheid te suip eerder as om hulle te se lekker, vandag score julle! Kyk hoeveel betaal die ander!
Pierre De Vos says:
June 18, 2010 at 16:26 pm
‘The impact on men would therefore be negligible.’ Straight men agreed, but gay men?
Prof: I’m surprised you used this Quote of the week by Steven Friedman, and am not sure what your purpose is, or what you expect we the readers to take from it.
“…an exclusive club. It assumes that all wisdom was born in Europe and North America and that the truth is kept alive here by the mainly white suburban middle classes, who alone know what is best for the rest.”.
Imagine for a moment if there was no international activity or influence in South Africa, if there were no European or western influenced people here. What would SA be like I wonder?
“…the right of people of property to hold on to what they believe to be rightfully theirs — than in building a free and just society.”
Whether it is the squatters living on illegally occupied land in shacks, people living in RDP homes, or prosperous suburban enclaves, which of these would like to lose their property, whether legally owned or not. Do you know that RDP dwellers consider their rates ‘rent’ and refer to it as such.
As for building a free society I would suggest that it is those of European descent and western influence who are the most ardent in promoting just society. The majority seem to be concerned only with themselves and to hell with the rest.
“This strain of liberalism is intolerant of all views but its own and its adherents, ironically, share many of the attitudes of Stalinist Marxists.”
This statement is patently absurd, so I’ve no further comment.
“This strain is destined, for obvious reasons, to wield little influence over our future — a prospect that perversely pleases those who espouse it as it confirms their belief that they are surrounded by Philistines.”
One, I think the word ‘strain’ was a typo, he meant ‘stain’, as I’m sure he feels it is. Why wouldn’t this so called liberal community and other liberal individuals not want to wield influence over the future, and considering the corruption, graft and sterilization of much of our law, why would they consider abstaining from such a difficult task.
The man, Friedman, is an ass, spouting bullshit. I’m sure you can come up with better quotes, quotes that promote unity and the recognition we are all one people, even world wide Most of us want a prosperous, peaceful country to live in, all equal under the law, and we want our governments to serve the people and give us opportunity. The principle of Education should prove my point.
Dit is plain robbery !!! Erina
I assume the reverse would then be ok, i.e. if a shebeen in soweto overcharged Afrikaans speakers only (or undercharged Sotho speakers)? Would subsection (c) of the list above apply?
Thanks, Prof. de Vos, for a very complete answer to my question. I would also believe that there can be no legitimate reason for this discrimination. According to the bar keeper, the idea is for foreigners to pay more and then use the extra money to pay for the extra security needed when foreigners visits the bar.
Based on my general knowledge of (human rights) law and not on specific SA law, I guess you could argue that if a customer frequenting a commercial establishment is more costly to host than other customers, the commercial establishment will be allowed to charge such customer (unless this person is entitled to some special protection due to vulnerability etc – something that would not be the case for overseas tourists, I would think). But if charging foreigners in this case is considered reasonable, then you could also demand that the means to achieve this goal must be suitable to achieve the goal and proportionate – and using one of the SA’s 11 official languages is clearly not a good means. A reasonable means would be simply to ask patrons to prove their SA nationality to get the low price.
Really, Ricky? Is this Nazi Germany where we have to produce ID documents on demand? Stalinist Russia?
Ever heard of the dompas?
Say, my vet charges black customers a flat fee of R80! Outrageous!
Ag, please stop your pathetic discrimination crap! When I go go camping in Namibia I pay more just because I do not have an Namibian passport, so if people have to pay more for booze in pubs in SA now it is because they are foreigners and they can afford to, not because some secret force are against all who are not speaking Afrikaans. Get real, wake up!
Although I am english speaking, ek praat ook ordentlikke afrikaans, so presumably they would be obliged sell me cut priced drinks. If I was accompanied but a group of british friends but did all the ordering then they would also be obliged to sell to me a cut prices. Maybe.
If they are discriminating against non afrikaaners al la apartheid then I would avoid the place like the plague. I would also hope to see them hammered.
If they are merely cashing in on the rather common practice of charging foreigners more, then good luck to them because this is done all over africa. I dislike this practice but it is widely accepted.
@ Brett.
I am sorry, Brett, but your comment is both stupid and somewhat offensive. At the SANparks (which I assume you have heard of) there is one price for South African residents and one (much higher) for people not residing in South Africa. To get the lower price, you have to proof that you are a South African resident, normally by showing some kind of ID. Does that make SANparks stalinist or nazi? People like you who apparently are very afraid of this can choose to either pay the higher price or not venture into SANparks. Similar, I find it very strange, even bizarre, to call it stalinist or nazi if a bar that chooses to offer discounts to South African citizens asks people to proof their citizenship, especially as you always have the choice either to go somewhere else or to pay the higher price.
And your reference to the “dompas” is also really stupid – unless, of course, the bar or SANparks or other similar institutions had the right to throw you in jail for NOT carrying your ID on you.
@ Pieter
I am very aware of the practice of charging non-residents or non-citizens higher prices for the enjoyment of various national attractions. In Rwanda, for example, foreigners pay something like 50 times more than Rwandans for visiting the mountain gorillas. In these cases you can argue that locals are already supporting the up-keep by their taxes etc which is not the case for foreigners. In any event, it did not bother me one bit to pay more than my Rwandan friends for this unique experience – and I would similar have no problems paying more for a Namibian camping ground. On the other hand, I am a bit less happy being charged more by a private company, like a bar (or once in Russia for a trip on private river boat), where you can make no similar argument.
But, Pieter, notice that the discussion (which I started) was NOT about discrimination of foreigners but about the constitutionality of treating South Africans differently based on language. So your comparison with Namibia etc. is not really relevant.
Ricky, the problem you face in trying to justify trying to desensetize us to the encroaching surveillance society is that the example you picked is unfortunately – for you – an excellent one for the open society. The rights culture triumphed. Aggrieved patrons ran to the Beeld and, for their sins, the proprietors of these bars made the front page. Bad press in spades. The system worked. The media watchdog bit. Why would further interventions like prosecution or the equality court be justified? Seems like an overreaction.
@ Brett,
I am sorry, Brett, but I have no idea at all what you mean by “the problem you face in trying to justify trying to desensetize us to the encroaching surveillance society is that the example you picked is unfortunately – for you – an excellent one for the open society.” What has giving discount or not to bar patrons – or asking for proof of nationality to give discount for that matter – to do with “the encroaching surveillance society”?
And who talked about prosecution or equality court? I did not. I simply raised the question if the practice of the bar would not be against the constitution. I would imagine that the equality court and the prosecuting authoritities have other and more important cases to consider.
Brett, you show a rather naive trust in the Bar owners by confidently dismissing the notion that the rule was aimed at keeping black people out of the Bar. I have no idea what the real reason for this rule was but from personal experience I know that owners of businesses (especially bars and clubs) often use “neutral” rules to try and keep black people out. Those who are not used to be discriminated against in this way often question whether the rule” is discriminatory or not. In any case, whether the Bar owners had the intention to discriminate is not relevant from a legal perspective. One must focus on the effect of the rule and ask whether any important reason could be given for the discrimination. In this case, I could hardly see such a reason being forwarded.
Ricky, we are all aware of the context in which you asked that question. It seems to me you were soliciting an appropriate statist/collectivist response and Pierre took the bait.
You expressed a clear preference for having to produce ID’s on demand.
Since you clearly do not think it is unreasonable that people should produce ID’s on demand from private individuals – employees of a bar (not much different from sex-work IMHO) – it is highly probable that you believe there is nothing unreasonable about having to produce indentification at the ‘request’ of an employee of the state.
The question that remains is whether you have properly thought through that opening of the door to the intrusions of the command society.
I say almost 5000 people voted on Beeld (3 out of every 4) ‘dit is net gierigheid en ‘n skande’. I question the need for having a legislative tools for an intervention by the state in cases like this. It is inconsistent with an open, free society.
Don’t you object to being stopped in a roadblock which is ostensibly to check your driver’s licence which turns into a search of your car? Have you ever seen a permit issued by the Commissioner of the SAPS to hold that roadblock? Do stop-and-searches not remind you of dompas checks?
It is a characteristic of authoritarian regimes that they have little respect for the privacy rights of their subjects, whether informational privacy or physical searches. There is little freedom of movement. There are always ID checks.
Pierre, I have not seen a suggestions anywhere that this price-gouging is not ad hoc and for the duratiion of the World Cup only.
Sorry. Interrupted. Coffee with boiled milk is an important part of my life.
I do take your point that one should look at the effect of the discrimination, Pierre.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Tourists-pay-up-to-3x-more-20100618
Tourists pay up to 3x more
2010-06-18 08:50
Mia Willemse, Beeld
Pretoria – If you order a drink with a foreign accent in Hatfield Square, Pretoria, you could pay as much as three times more for your drink than locals do.
Martin White, organiser of the “month-long party” during the Soccer World Cup at this popular spot admitted that foreigners paid more. This is apparently to compensate for the R1.6m that he claims they had to pay for additional security guards, among other things.
White reacted to the findings of a Beeld investigation, which showed that foreign soccer fans at this local watering hole paid a lot more for their drinks – due to their accents and the fact that they didn’t have a so-called “loyalty card”.
If you ordered in Afrikaans, a double brandy and Coke cost R18. But if you ordered with a foreign accent, you paid R55 for the same drink at the same bar (Herr Gunters). More expensive prices were also in place at Cheeky Monkey, Oxford, Chillies, OppiSquare, Dropzone, Flair and Aandklas.
“If I can ensure the guy’s (tourist’s) security and he pays more for his beer, then I have done my job,” said White. According to him, the money was also used to pay for paramedics, cleaners and entertainment.
Loyalty card
White said “regular clients” could show their South African IDs and buy a loyalty card, which ensured they paid normal prices for drinks and gained free access to the square. The card costs R50.
Four Dutch supporters were on Tuesday stunned by their apparently exorbitant bill in Herr Gunters.
They had to pay R140 for a Savanna Light, a Hunters Dry, a double Wellington and Coke and a Hansa Pilsner. When Beeld later during the day bought the same drinks at the same place, ordering in Afrikaans and without a loyalty card, the bill was R69.
When one of the Dutch tourists, Jeroen van der Klaauw, asked the barman for a price list, he was told there were no price lists.
He paid R55 for a double brandy and Coke, while Beeld paid R18.
Jaco van Wyk, manager of Herr Gunters, said they had World Cup and local prices.
“We don’t want to scare off our regular clients, who are our bread and butter, with beers that cost R30. The foreigners pay the same for a beer in their country anyway,” he said.
He said all the watering holes on the square worked with the same system. It did, however, exclude the two franchise restaurants, Spur and News Café.
Alan van der Westhuizen, head manager of the restaurant section of News Café, said he didn’t know about the card system at the square. “We in any case have a very strict franchise policy and would’ve said no if we had been approached to be a part of it,” he said.
Short-sighted
Beeld on Thursday visited Cheeky Monkey, Oxford and OppiSquare. Beeld was offered a loyalty card for R100 at Cheeky Monkey and then later for R50 at Oxford.
But even without a card, Beeld was able to buy drinks at the normal price at OppiSquare.
While a tourist would pay R90 for a Redds, Brutal Fruit and Smirnoff Spin, Beeld paid R49. No receipts were available.
Mmatsatsi Marobe, CEO of the Tourism Business Council of SA, said this kind of trading was illegal. “It is not at all common that foreigners have to pay more than local consumers. I am surprised to hear this.”
Brett Dungan, CEO of the Hospitality Association of South Africa said this was not illegal but disappointing. “They have to watch out against discriminating against people. It is a short-sighted approach.”
- Beeld
@ Brett,
I did not “express a clear preference for having to produce ID’s on demand.” My point was that if you are entitled to or are offered a benefit, e.g. cheaper entrance to the Kruger Park or to buy a drink, based on your nationality, there is nothing wrong about being asked to proof your nationality. Of course, the easiest way to do this is to show your ID, passport or similar. It is the same when you get discount for being a student or a pensioner – surely even you can see nothing wrong in students of pensioners being asked to proof their identity to get such discount?
As I already wrote, persons who do not want to show ID do not have to do so – but then they cannot expect to get the benefit of discount based on being a student, being a pensioner, being South African etc.
You seem to confuse “on demand” with “choosing to do something to obtain a benefit”.
So, your diatribe about road blocks, dompas, etc has NOTHING to do with what I wrote – or with the issue at hand.
And, for the record, I have no idea what you mean by “soliciting an appropriate statist/collectivist response”.
Ricky, you’re clearly not a big picture person.
There is a world of difference between demanding means of identification from students on the premises of a university and members of the public moving in public.
Remind us quickly what kind of property universities are classified as under our law of things?
Implicit in your argument that benefits may accrue to those producing ID ‘voluntarily’ is that carrying and producing ID become practise. Routine. Habit. In case.
Hence ‘trying to desensetize us to the encroaching surveillance society’.
For as long as there are bars like that one, aluta contunua! We will persue the NDR (National Democratic Revolution) till its logical conclusion and the bitter end. Remember the NDR seeks to address three contradictions: RACE,CLASS AND GENDER. And we seem to be making little gains if any on all three. We still have hardcore white racists (now of late – emerging Black racists), Classism, Corruption, Nepotism and Tendepreneurism have made South Africa to become the leading unequal society in the whole world. Women are still viewed as second class citizens (consciously and mostly subconciously)in mostly rural areas and hardcore racist white communities.
Brett, I did not talk about being asked to show student id when entering a university but about places, e.g. book shops, that give discounts for students buying books. So your question as to the classifiction of universities is irrelevant. But, for a “big picture person” like yourself, surely the classification of universities must in any event be irrelevant as asking for id to enter universities (or even to vote) is also “desensetize us to the encroaching surveillance society”.
We seem to be misunderstanding each other – maybe you could humour a “small picture person” like me in answering a simple question that I will be able to understand:
1) A hairdresser close to where I live offers discounts to old age pensioners. Do you think that it is ok for the hairdresser to demand some form of proof for persons saying they are pensioners before giving the discount? And, if so, what wouldbe acceptable form of proof?
Well done, Spuy. You’re also ‘not yet competent’ as far as reading comprehension is concerned.
BTW, that is ‘aluta continua’.
Ricky, I think that hairdresser will never see that customer again. I have seen old-timers get pensioners’ discounts while having my hair cut and they got the discount without even a word being spoken. So, I think you are in a minority with regards to demanding ID before giving a pensioners’ discount. It seems appropriate under the circumstances to tell you to stick your hairsalon up your behind.
Your response is nothing but an elaborate deflection.
Is there legislation compelling one to carry ID 24/7?
Situations where one can be pressurized to provide ID should be kept to a minimum and handled with the awareness that constitutional rights are at play – not least the right to privacy – when a situation arises where because, e.g. of an epidemic of card-fraud one of the parties feels a need for added protection by enquiring about the personal details of the other.
Spuy
You mention all the cancers dividing our country, i.e. RACE, CLASS AND GENDER. You go further to mention hardcore Racism (White and Black), Classism, Corruption, Nepotism and Tendepreneurism. However, I fail to see the relevance of your NDR if (and you blind loyalty towards it), when most of the above problems is a direct result of the ANC government. Hell, the ANC is solely responsible for the creation of the ‘tenderpreneur’. Furthermore, your NDR is hardly a place for woman’s rights (well, she can of course buy rights… one goat).
I’ll leave race out of my argument because I feel this story of Afrikaans speaking patrons receiving privilege is a small scale version of BEE which, lets be honest, is a contradiction of our constitution. By the way, and I might be mistaken) is the Black Lawyers Association, Black Management Forum and Forum of Black Journalists (just to name a few) not prime examples of unfair discrimination by excluding South African citizens based on race alone?
Why do we stoop so low as to debate the constitutional rights of a lowly bar owner when in our upper echelons of government and big business South African citizens are being marginalised in terms of race?
Ricky, I’m delighted you brought up the example of haircuts under this topic, though. How about the situation where a hairsalon refuses to cut a person’s hair because of their race? Do you think it is necessary to bring all the authority of the state to bear on such a hairsalon?
“Mr Kollapen, what was the highlight of your tenure as head of the Human Rights Commission? Do you have any regrets? What with service delivery riots every week, a massive ineffective and unresponsive bureaucracy, a lack of meaningful delivery on the ground, waiting years for a license or pention with other services in a shamboli…..”
“Well, you see, there was this vicious hard core racist old lady in Pretoria. I went into her hairsalon. She refused to cut my hair because I was coloured, see? Man, did I show her!”
Equals Barney Pityana’s subliminal racism inquiry in gravitas?
Brett, thanks for your email. I am happy to admit that my example was poorly chosen – a hairdresser will, of course, often have some kind of personal relationship to his customers, meaning that proof is unnecessary. When that is said, I imagine that I would be flattered to ask to proof my age if I was in that situation…
But let’s use a better example: Do you think the same about a train company asking pensioners and students for ID to give discounted train fares? Or a book shop asking students to proof they are students to give discount?
I am sometimes asked to show ID when using my credit card. I am actually happy to do so as it minimizes the risk of fraud. Wonder what think of that?
But, again, you continue to misconstruct what I said. My point about ID was ONLY that if you want to distinguish based on nationality (like the bar in question allegedly wanted to do), you should choose a proof of identity that actually PROOFS identity, not the ability to speak one of the 11 official languages.
I challenge you to find ONE place in my postings where I advocate for the obligation to carry ID 24/7. It is like you want to have this big disagreement that does not exist. For the record, I do not believe that there should be such an obligation. But, on the other hand, when I know I might be in a situation where I will have to proof who I am, like going to a FIFA word cup game (in the end nobody asked) or getting access to a national park, I happily bring my ID.
@ Brett,
As answer to your question, let me quote what I wrote yesterday: “And who talked about prosecution or equality court? I did not. I simply raised the question if the practice of the bar would not be against the constitution. I would imagine that the equality court and the prosecuting authoritities have other and more important cases to consider.”
Brett
I hate pulling the race card but with people like you its difficult not to because you are just an indication of how far we have to go to fight ‘WHITE SUPREMACY’. To you my not so European English literally means “not yet competent” to comprehend. Gues what, this is Pierre De Vos blog open to the public to write what they like (even in broken English bcos some of us are not bloody Europeans and we did not have English as a first language for that matter. Besides – We dont care anyway, as long as we get our point across)
mili
The “lowly” bar owner behaviour just goes to show how much we still have to go to fight white racism, in fact, I am almost tempted to say these very (by the way, many)isolated events
are what brings about the new black racists. The NDR is a programme of the ANC and the mere fact that some (even if it is most) in the movement have decided to abandon some tenets of the NDR as a result of crass materialism, does not mean that we say the programme and what it seeks to achieve had failed. BEE, if and when correctly implemented, remains round about the only solution in affirming people suffered economic injustice in the past. I mean, as it is, about 70% of our economy is still in the hands of the white people – that is a fact and to paraphrase Julius Malema, if I am being racist, it means the statistics are racist. I am on record both here and within the movement as saying we cant allow the new black racist tendencies, but the stubborness of white racism is not particularly helping honestly speaking. Which is why I ll always call upon white people whom I can say for sure that they are not racist, e.g Pierre De vos, to continue condemning fellow white racists (which unfortunately – awarely or otherwise – there is still many ) while we do the same to fairly few black racists.
Spuy
I appreciate your honest reply.
They crux of your argument (and I might just read selectively) is ‘if and when correctly implemented’. Then please explain to me why your NDR currently appoints the very same tenderpreneurs and cronies you despise to implement BEE. The fact is BEE is required although I believe it should not be based on the assumption that all blacks are disadvantaged. Secondly, BEE, because of the elected implementers, are not helping your NDR in uplifting the poor. But from your comment I have some hope that there are good people in the ANC that can learn something from our current example of leadership void. Hopefully your ‘new member’ will surface in the near future to realign your party’s deeds with its vision. All the best in this regard.
I fully agree with your call to exterminate racism but I take exception with your comment that there are ‘many’ white racists and ‘few’ black racists. ‘Many’ and ‘few’ are both relative and deflects from the fact that racism is racism and should not be part of society.
Ricky and Brett
I think you guys are at cross purposes.
Brett is talking State ID demands and thus referring to the dompas whereas Ricky is concerned with private citizen on private citizen.
We need protection from the State and Brett is right about that, but as far as private citizens are concerned I think the standards should be lower so that people can manage their lives with the freedom they choose.
If the service provider on a large scale demands ID of students or pensioners then fair enough, it needs both proof of client and market research so it knows how many of those tickets it is selling to keep its accounts going. If it cannot do otherwise then it will be forced to have a uniform fee structure and price those persons out of the market.
If the bar is charging foreigners 3X more then it will lose custom from them as the bar next door just advertises equal pricing. It will sort itself out naturally. I don’t see harm done except to the reputation of the establishment now that the story is out there. Bad management by the establishment!
Zookeeper, You are totally right – as I have been trying write before (but maybe not elegantly or precise enough), I have not once discussed the issue of the state’s right to demand ID. Which in my view is something totally different from the unenforcible request by private service provider (with the lack of right to enforce being the operative difference).
And, Zookeeper, I agree that many issues will sort themselves out by the market.
Spuy, you crybaby, you set yourself up for ridicule by political opponents by repeating a well known militant slogan and then spelling it incorrectly. That is objectively patently….well, ridiculous. Man up.
You are either intellectually lazy or have impaired reading comprehension because you base your understanding of the price-gouging incidents on the interpretation of the one a.k.a. De Vos, which is not supported by one shred of evidence. It is also at odds with the sources of the brouhaha, which I have posted. I do not read Pierre’s explanation as a deliberate deception, it is a hypothetical to a scenario set up by Ricky, but the conclusions he draws do indicate a rush to judgement.
Do the homework.
Clear enough?
Zookeeper, not really at cross purposes. I set Ricky up as a bit of a straw man because he set up a factual question expecting Pierre to rush in and provide a model answer for big government to obliterate the white tendencies of Pretoria’s dens of iniquity. Swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. He got what he deserved. For the first time Ricky has thought through the logical progression of the card-carrying society he proposed. I accept that there are occasions where one can qualify for concessions providing one qualifies and that one may need to ‘prove’ (Ricky!) that one qualifies.
The problem is this: Increasingly authoritarian tendencies by all spheres of government. Shoot to kill orders. A fractional conviction rate for murder. Police helicopters overhead 3 times a week looking for home-invaders. Illegal roadblocks where one’s drivers’ license is supposedly checked but which, more often, turn out to be a unique form of credit control by local authorities where the power to arrest is inevitably abused. A surveillance society where government proposes legislation that safeguards the clandestine activities of the kleptocrats but does nothing to safeguard your privacy. All the acronym laws which are there solely to erode your informational privacy, in which your bank and your cellphone provider are willing accomplices…
Police with enormous powers but not an inkling of what constitutes appropriate use of those powers. A warlord society.
Want to add to the list?
Make sure anyone who asks you for ID has a damn good reason.
Dear Brett,
I have no problem at all with your fear of a surveillance society (all though the way you present makes me wonder if you are not just being a tiny bit paranoid). I am certainly not in favour of shoot to kll orders, I do not favour illegal roadblocks etc.
But I still think it is slightly ridiculous that all this anger etc. surfaces simply because I raise the question as to whether discrimination non-Afrikaans speakers is not a against the Constitution.
I never advocated for a card-carrying society (please, Brett, show me where I proposed that) . About cards I simply stated exactly what you are stating now, namely that there are case where one need to prove that one qualifies to get a concession – so happy to see, by the way, that you agree with me.
And for all strawman, fly, sledgehammer etc. nonsense, well, I will not even dignify that with an answer.
Brett
I agree with you on resisting the increasing “Big Brother” tendencies of the State. I just think that the Constitution must be applied with greater leniency between private persons. One right that seems to be virtually deleted in all this PC “outrage” is the right to freedom of association. Not only can the indivdual associate with whom he/she pleases, but also choose not to associate and devise means to prevent non-welcome persons from entering their sphere.
I too view road blocks as simply till points for the local municipality or the individual cop.
Actually, on that note the US State of Arizona is facing great difficulty on implementing speed traps because most of their politicians and judiciary view it as an unconstitutional means of generating tax revenue. So what’s happened there is they set up traps and nobody paid a fine, the citizens financially destroyed the system!
I would really love to debate that because I think they are right.
mili
I am on record on this very blog and indeed in the movement that it would seem there ll have to be a revolution from within the very movement. All and sundry agree that our policies are progressive on paper but as the cliche goes ” the problem is implementation”. That can only mean we must wage some kind of a struggle within.As for the other things.
Brett
I ve crossed sords with De Vos many times on this blog. ONE THING IS FOR SURE: PIERRE IS NOT A RACIST, HIS TRACK RECORD SPEAKS ITSELF. As for gramma, spelling, English, whatever – I simply dont take that seriously. You ll notice most of the nations which are now in our country dont SPEAK ENGLISH, if anything, they are proud of that.
@ Zookeeper,
Like most other persons, I prefer not be stopped by speed trap – but when I see how fast and reckless many people drive in South Africa (and read the statistics, more than 100 were killed this year just as part of the Easter traffic), I am actually happy when I pass policemen with speed cameras. To my knowledge, pictures are only taken of cars that actually do speed. So I fail to see how this should trample my human rights. (And I do not think that Arizona is a very good state to model policies and respect for human rights on, cf. the recent anti-immigration act).
It is good that some people and organisations really put focus on the question of surveillance etc – but I think that speed traps is very bad example.
Ricky
If the purpose of a speed trap is to enforce speed limits then why do you only find out about it when it is too late? Why are speed traps painted matt olive green, covered in camo nets and sometimes disguised as rocks.
Once someone has broken the speed limit – if speed really is the problem, which is a very controversial subject – the danger is then immediate. The speed trap must be highly visible and the offender stopped from speeding further down the road. If this happens then the speed trap has done its job as a tool to control speed. If not, then it is done as a means of collecting tax revenue for the municipality in an arbitrary fashion. This is what I have a problem with.
Arizona ain’t no model state, but we can cherry pick what we like and what works and leave the rest – like their immigration act!
Very well put, Zookeeper!
And, are those Metro cops (I do not want to get started on my favourite bugbear – the Metrocops involved in a shootout with the SAPS…Not one conviction! Not one Metrocop found unfit to possess a firearm!) hiding under camouflage nets not beautifully symbolic of the attitude of the governors towards those who consented to being governed by them? Is that not at the heart of the nepotism and fraud and corruption and mismanagement that is racking this country?
That, quite apart from the constitutional issues with camera traps that are inconsistent with the right to a speedy and fair trial where one has the right to confront the evidence against one.
I’ve just had to renew my license for the third time (Zurich forced me). WHat is the object of having to renew my drivers’ license? To put more IGG in the Shaiks’ pockets?
Its all bullocks – the foreigners are just too lazy to bargain down the price they pay for their drinks. That is their only effective bargaining position since they are unlikely to return to SA and/or favour that particular bar in future. The bargaining position of locals is different – they can refuse to go back to the bar and/or spread bad news about that bar. In such a competitive environment as Hatfield bars, the bars cannot afford to lose local customers to other bars. And as someone mentioned: a competing bar can gain a competitive edge (e.g. NewsCafe) by not placing the “surcharge” on foreigner’s purchases.
Besides, anyone one to take a bet on whether on not the shebeen owners around the Orlando Stadium charged higher prices for the Whiteys from Pretoria during the Super14 games??
@ ZooKeeper – you make a very valid argument. If I remember correctly, that was the law in SA a few years ago, i.e. that speed traps must be visible for road users. & as far as I know that is also the law in the UK.
Could this be a legal argument in court against paying a speeding fine, i.e. the purpose of the speed trap was not to force me, the driver, to slow down, but to collect a tax?
brett,
i have no qualms about showing my ID to anyone who wants to see it
(metro cops, librarians, hair-dressers, bar-tenders, veterinarians etc)
why?
well, i’m not a paranoid schizophrenic
oooh hooo, something BAD gonna happen to me now ?
(like it did with timothy mc veigh)
p.s. ok, i admit, i do hide my ID from plain view whenever i notice the silent, black helicopters overhead at night
Very droll, Etienne, I’m sure. Perhaps you have also not had the security police open a file on you because you wrote a letter to a newspaper.
Well, if you do not guard your liberties jealously against a power-hungry state perhaps you will live in that kind of society again.
A de facto card-carrying state is good way to get there.
Want to be Etienne-the-frog-boiled-slowly?
Etienne? Ricky?
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=112600
Zookeeper, I do see your point about hidden vs. clearly marked speed tickets. But there is another argument for hidden speed traps other than the taxing argument: If speed traps are hidden, you never know if there is a speed trap around, meaning that you have an incentive to drive according to the speed limits. On the other hand, when speed traps are clearly marked, you know that you can speed as much as you like when you do not see a speed trap. Frankly, I find this argument fairly convincing.
And Oupoot, with respect to the drinks, the issue was not so much the foreigners but the criteria used to distinguish (the ability to speak Afrikaans). But with respect to you argument. I agree that many things can be solved by the market (e.g. by negotiating, putting your business elsewhere) – but (and now I am talking about access to more important benefits and rights than cheap drinks in Hatfield) the whole system of Human Rights Commission, Public Protector, Equality Court etc. is – I would imagine – set up mainly to protect those without resources (of any kind) to obtain their rights by their own actions.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=112602
It is interesting how many great South Africans have been scorned, outcast from their tribe. They did not start hating on it or their language. They maintained their compassion, and served their people, regardless. Warts and all.
Jan Smuts.
Bram Fischer.
Nico Smit.
Beyers Naude.
van Zyl Slabbert.
This could be a very long list….
brett,
you might be interested to know that the “put frog in cold water, slowly bring water to boil, frog will not exit water, thus frog cooks slowly” is an anecdotal myth; much like some of your other paranoic assertions
p.s. the black helicopters were hovering again early this morning, i saw them disappear over the horizon just before dawn…ok, maybe those were crows
Thank you, Etienne. What would we do without you?
Perhaps the helicopters you saw were police, looking for home invaders?