Dear President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma
The media is reporting that you may appoint Jon Qwelane as South Africa’s ambassador to Uganda. I trust these reports are wrong and that the rumours about the imminent appointment of Qwelane were started by your enemies. Surely such damaging rumours have been spread by those who wish to re-enforce racist and Afro-pessimistic stereotypes about our leaders. Such rumours will obviously tarnish your name and will re-enforce widely held perceptions about your alleged lack of commitment to our Constitution and the values enshrined in it.
In terms of section 84(2)(i) of the South African Constitution you are empowered to make ambassadorial appointments. In exercising this power, you have a wide discretion to appoint fit and proper individuals of any political persuasion – as long as you act rationally and do not make appointments in bad faith. (You obviously have a sense of humour in this regard as you even appointed the former leader of the official opposition, Tony Leon as South Africa’s ambassador to Argentina.)
As a constitutional law scholar I have to point out that your power is not unlimited. You may not appoint someone as an ambassador if such a person had paid a bribe or if he or she is fundamentally opposed to the values and rights enshrined in our Constitution as this would be irrational, arbitrary or capricious – given the fact that you have a duty to uphold the Constitution and promote the values enshrined in it. You have, I need to point out, a duty – when appointing ambassadors – to act in terms of the law and the Constitution.
When you took office you swore an oath of office (contained in Schedule 2 to the Constitution) and you promised on that glorious day that you would “obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other law of the Republic”. You also promised to “protect and promote the rights of all South Africans and to do justice to all”.
The appointment of Jon Qwelane as ambassador to Uganda will not promote the rights of gay men and lesbians living in South Africa or elsewhere in Africa or the world. In fact, such an act would present a fundamental breach of your solemn promise to uphold and maintain the Constitution and the law as it will encourage hatred, bigotry and even violence against a vulnerable minority of South Africans – something prohibited by section 9 of our Constitution and the provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
Qwelane has written that he agrees with the sentiments expressed by President Robert Mugabe that homosexuality:
Degrades human dignity. It’s unnatural and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings… What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behaviour and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as lesbians and gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!
He also wrote that “something is rotten in this country, seriously stinking”, referring to the Civil Union Act – which you promised to uphold – as the “stabani Act”. He also slammed the Constitutional Court for wanting “to make this country the “trahssie” capital of Africa.” In addition to his bigoted opinions, the use of the words “stabani” (a derogatory term for gay) and “trahssie” (derogatory term for an inter-sexed person) are particularly repulsive.
He has also equated homosexuality with bestiality and claimed that he prayed “that some day a bunch of politicians with their heads affixed firmly to their necks will muster the balls to rewrite the Constitution of this country, to excise those sections which give licence to men ‘marrying’ other men, and ditto women”. Qwelane therefore believes that many South Africans like myself are no better than animals and that we have no right to have our dignity and equality protected.
He is a bigot who hates a group of fellow South Africans who cause no one any harm – for no other reason than the fact that they are emotionally and sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Mr Qwelane hates us because we happen to love differently than he does (assuming that he is capable of love at all).
As you might know, the Ugandan Parliament is presently debating a Bill that would impose the death penalty (which was outlawed in South Africa many years ago) on “repeat offenders” guilty of the “crime” of homosexuality. The appointment of Qwelane as South Africa’s ambassador to Uganda would send a signal to all gay men and lesbians in South Africa, Uganda and the rest of the world that our government does not object to this Bill and that people like myself are deserving of the death penalty.
Worse, it will send a signal to bigoted and homophobic South Africans that our President and the government he leads, at best, turns a blind eye to the humiliation, degradation, assault and killing of gay men and lesbians and, at worse, endorses such behaviour. This would encourage more hatred and violence against gay men and lesbians in South Africa, who are often targeted for attack by hateful bigots who do not believe that every human being has the inherent human dignity that guarantees them equal concern and respect – regardless of their differences from the majority.
The appointment would also constitute a grave affront to the family of women like Eudy Simelane, former star of the Banyana Banyana national female football squad. Simelane was found dead in a creek in a park in Kwa Thema, on the outskirts of Johannesburg after being gang-raped and brutally beaten before being stabbed 25 times in the face, chest and legs - all because she was a lesbian. Many other lesbians have been attacked and killed over the years because of the attitudes propagated by people like Qwelane. In that regard, he has the blood of fellow South Africans – many of them women – on his hands. If you appoint him, you will similarly have blood on your hands.
It is unthinkable that you would appoint as an ambassador a racist man or woman who has written extensively about his or her hatred of black South Africans. This would be rightly unthinkable, given our traumatic past in which so many human beings were oppressed, humiliated and attacked, not because of what they did but merely because of the way they were born. Surely then, it must be equally unthinkable that you would appoint Qwelane as an ambassador to Uganda as he believes that those of us who happen to have been born gay or lesbian are worthy of vilification, hatred and discrimination.
Given the constitutional prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination and the fact that you had sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and to promote the rights of all South Africans, the appointment of Qwelane will signal a profound disrespect for the Constitution, the law and for a small but vulnerable section of our society. It would also confirm what some pessimists have been fearing, namely that you are not a man of your word and that you do not adhere to promises made – even when those promises were made under oath in front of the whole nation.
I still hope that the rumours about the appointment of Qwelane are no more than an ugly smear-campaign launched by political opponents to discredit you and tarnish your name and the name of the ANC which you lead. Please Mr President, do not besmirch your name and do not besmirch the name of the ANC, who fought for our liberation and ensured that the rights of gay men and lesbians are protected by our Constitution.
Kind Regards
Pierre de Vos
Pierre,
Tony Leon is an advocate for the death penalty, even contrary to his party’s policy position and he seems to be properly representing our country in faraway Argentina.
Jon Qwelane, if he is appointed as you suggest is contemplated, then he will be obliged to tow the official position of our country, as disgusting and degrading as his personal views may be. He may well be forced to rethink (or is it think) his views.
Even President Zuma, who would have “struck down a gay person who dared to come in front of him” as a young man, has embraced that which is enshrined in the our constitution as well as in the ANC constitution.
Hopefully the “Open letter to President Jacob Zuma” will help to modernise thinking about what human rights actually means.
C’mon, Maggs!
Qwelane? Ambassador to Uganda? The country ‘tightening’ laws against homosexuality?
Coincidence?
Puhlease!
Its called populism….
I won’t be surprised if the rumours turns out to be true. This prez of ours is full of surprises. Look what happened to the Simelane saga? One thing for sure, who ever JZ’s Constitutional advisor is, s/he enjoys selective reading of the Constitution or is it a matter of misinterpretation? Lets wait and see.
Excellent post Pierre, but of course it won’t change a thing. You can be certain that that old dinosaur will be heading off to Uganda.
Brett Nortje says:
January 19, 2010 at 14:50 pm
“Qwelane? Ambassador to Uganda? The country ‘tightening’ laws against homosexuality?”
The issue is not what Uganda is doing, but how our policy positions are presented.
Jon Qwelane may well harbour backward thinking, as does Tony Leon, but he will have to bite his tongue, officially that is. I listened to a radion Interview with Leon who spoke of the intensive preparatory training before the posting – no doubt the bigoted and homophobic Mr Qwelane, will be be brought into the 21st century as well before deployment.
p.s. The Ugandan President has reportedly rejected that bill, under pressure from many of the worlds’ nations and the UN.
Maggs, are you aware that since JZ became President there have been other International anti-homosexual stances by this government?
Mpho says:
January 19, 2010 at 16:23 pm
“Maggs, are you aware that since JZ became President there have been other International anti-homosexual stances by this government?”
No – please update me.
Our UN representative was told not to sign a UN document calling for an end to the criminalisation of homosexuality.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-13-sa-ducks-un-gay-rights-call
And where did you hear that the Ugandan President had scrapped the Bill? The information I had was that the President had merely asked for the content to be toned down.
Maggs is right.
It is ironic that white liberals are making a fuss about Mr Qwelane when they were silent upon the appointment of Mr Tony Leon to Argentina, Ms Botha to Prague and Ms Camerer to Sophia.
Remember, the latter three were part of the racist (“Fight Black”) DA, a party which, if it came to power, would re-introduce the capitalism and increase inequality!
Maggs, suppose a known misogynist or racist were appointed as ambassador.
Would you so: Np problem, he will be give a good talking-to before he departs, and probably will not manifest his misogyny/racism over there?
Np = No
Mpho says:
January 19, 2010 at 16:40 pm
Oops – you’re right – he just wants it toned down.
The ghost of Idi Amin looms large – maybe it’s a genetic thing in that part of the world.
Maybe spreading to :
“Asked why South Africa had not endorsed the declaration, South Africa’s ambassador to the UN, Dumisani Khumalo, said: ‘Everyone wants us to be at the forefront of everything and we can’t do that’”.
Eish!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 19, 2010 at 17:02 pm
Hey Dworky – took more “talk nonsense” tablets I see.
Skip the alcohol!
Michael Osborne says:
January 19, 2010 at 17:11 pm
“suppose a known misogynist or racist were appointed as ambassador”.
We had one, maybe not – that was a sex pest to all but then Min of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Zuma. That oke thought Foreign Affairs meant molesting the women in the overseas office.
I don’t at all like the idea of Qwelane being appointed ambassador, but if he is ……
Ok Michael – admit it, people can change!
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-15-emissary-for-diversity
No, Maggs. The issue is whether someone in the ANC deliberately chose Qwelane for Uganda (or Uganda for Qwelane) knowing their (Uganda and Qwelane’s) views on homosexuality were complimentary.
Someone high-up in Foreign Affairs (and/or his bosses in central government) disapproves strongly of homosexuality and is confident he is not about to get his wrist slapped for it.
Populism. Like Cele’s “shoot to kill” comments and his comments about guns last week.
Some people actually thought – when we told them the Firearms Control Act was a Zimbabwe-style property-grab – that they could cherry-pick which parts of the Constitution and the rule of law get raped.
I think many were too busy laughing at all the DA politicians desperate to flee the country rather than be ruled by Helen Zille to be able to pick up a keyboard and complain. But complaints were made over those appointments. Simply because they were not reversed does not mean that firstly, no one complained and that secondly, the standard by which such appointments must constitutionally have been made has now shifted.
Good post Pierre.
Maggs I see your dancing around probing questions again?
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 19, 2010 at 18:54 pm
“Maggs I see your dancing around probing questions again?”
Hey Wessels,
Since God descended and appointed you the external invigilator of responses to probing questions, do you have a template for correct answers?
Please share.
@ Maggs
“I don’t at all like the idea of Qwelane being appointed ambassador, but if he is …”
Maggs, please complete the sentence …
And are you saying that it is not a great thing, but PdV is over-reacting, because, after all, JQ will be properly briefed?
Michael Osborne says:
January 19, 2010 at 19:32 pm
… let’s hope that he conducts himself in a way that is consistent with the letter and the spirit of our Constitution.
Maggs, just for clarity, would your response to JQ’s (apparent) appointment be any different if he were a known misogynist or racist?
(And I do not mean a presumed racist, as Dworky says Leon is, but a very open, unequivocal, racist.)
Michael Osborne says:
January 19, 2010 at 21:40 pm
“Maggs, just for clarity, would your response to JQ’s (apparent) appointment be any different if he were a known misogynist or racist?”
No – my response would be the same. I would be equally disappointed, annoyed, irritated – but I would hope that he or she conducts him/herself “in a way that is consistent with the letter and the spirit of our Constitution”.
My response would be the same if Zackie Achmat were to be appointed ambassador to any country with progressive views and laws around gay rights (if what George says is accurate September 23, 2009 at 2:53 am http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/no-place-for-judge-who-has-contempt-for-gay-men-lesbians-and-hiv-positive-south-africans-zackie-achmat/).
@ Maggs
OK, I take it then you agree fully with what PdV says in his piece; I had thought you were in some sense disagreeing with him.
Michael – in my concluding line at the outset :
“Hopefully the ‘Open letter to President Jacob Zuma’ will help to modernise thinking about what human rights actually means.”
Yeah – I agree with Pierre.
Let me add that I find it downright disgusting that people of the caliber of Leon, Qwelane and Achmat could hold their respective despicable views.
But then I accept that we are a country of wide diversity which perhaps underlies our strength.
Maggs is right.
Leon and Achmat are just as bad as Qwelane.
No, Leon is worse — because he is less frank than Qwelane. We “infer” from Leon’ sly suggestions that, in his heart, he is a genuine, full-fledged bigot!
Michael Osborne says:
January 20, 2010 at 7:22 am
Leon wants the death penalty.
Did you read George’s comments re Achmat (http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/no-place-for-judge-who-has-contempt-for-gay-men-lesbians-and-hiv-positive-south-africans-zackie-achmat/)?
Or are you just saying something for the sake of saying it?
What in your view makes that less vile than Qwelane?????
@ Maggs
Apologies for the Dwokinian sarcasm.
But seriously, I do not think one can equate supporting the death penalty with open bigotry. As to the former, reasonable minds can differ; as to the latter, not.
I am not in principle opposed to the death penalty. I oppose as it is practiced in the U.S. and PRC (and certainly pre-1994 SA), largely on the utilitarian grounds that there is no proof that it does anything to deter crime.
For the dp to be an effective deterrent, one would need to execute not just a 100-200 a year (as the U.S. and SA did), but tens of thousands a year. Even in apartheid SA, any killer would know that he has statistically low chance of being executed.
Also, I would not consider supporting the dp unless I was satisfied that every defendant had the benefit of full due process and the best legal defense possible.
Michael Osborne says:
January 20, 2010 at 8:11 am
If I recall correctly it was established that penalties are less of a deterrent than the prospect of being caught and successfully prosecuted, something that we are not doing too well at.
Back to this matter – my concern is that opposition is based on personalities rather than principles. I had the same concern around the Hlophe/CC matter.
While I hope that President Zuma does not deploy Qwelane to Uganda in particular, it’s wrong to to say that people who hold values that are contrary to our culture of human rights should be accommodated if they are likeable, while those who are not likeable should be disregarded.
Let me speedily add that I am as guilty too – I like President Zuma so I am far more willing to be patient and curb my expectations than I would have been in the case of President Mbeki, even if Zuma makes decisions with more profound adverse consequences.
Maggs, I am very surprised that you are equating Jon Qwelane with Tony Leon or – even more perplexing – Zackie Achmat. Qwelane has called gay men and lesbians names (it would be the equivalent of Tony Leon writing articles using the “K” word and arguing that black South Africans are no better than animals) and has argued that we have no rights. Leon has never said black South Africans – because they are black – deserve no protection from even the most basic discrimination or that they should not be allowed to marry because they are degenerate. Achmat is a champoin of human rights. You seem to be offended by the fact that he has criticised John Hlophe but he criticised Hlophe on the basis of Hlophe’s written judgments – a perfectly legitimate and even noble pursuit.
I would appoint Qwelane over Leon anytime. Leon might be more capable than Qwelane but he is more inclined to pull in the opposite of what this government stands for as he has done in the past.
@ Pierre,
On Leon vs Qwelane – I think killing people is worse than calling people names. Leon is a death penalty advocate and that is contrary to “Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way” in our Bill of rights.
On “You seem to be offended by the fact that he has criticised John Hlophe but he criticised Hlophe on the basis of Hlophe’s written judgments – a perfectly legitimate and even noble pursuit”.
You are wrong on that.
My view on Achmat is informed by the comment by George September 23, 2009 at 2:53 am http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/no-place-for-judge-who-has-contempt-for-gay-men-lesbians-and-hiv-positive-south-africans-zackie-achmat/ and not his position on Hlophe.
What in your view makes Qwelane more despicable than Achmat if George’s comments are true?
I was opposed to (and still am) the appointment of Hlophe to the CC – I don’t think he should even be a judge, but I am opposed to the ganging up against him just because he is such an unlikeable person for all the reasons that were put forward.
I see we have decended into that usual situation whereby something utterly unrelated (a prior bad appointment of the Presidents) has now become the debated issue.
The point people, I conclude we all agree on then, is that President Zuma must NOT send a homophobe to Uganda as our Abassador?
Simple yes or no answers will suffice.
If we are all in agreement, what do people suggest we do to protest?
@ Maggs
I have some questions for you:
1. Are you in favour of imprisonment as criminal punishment? If so, does that not also violate a literal reading of the Bill of Rights guarantee you quoted, viz “freedom of the person”?
2. Suppose it could be demonstrated that, by imposing the death penalty in a very limited fashion, one could half the murder rate, e.e. save 30,000 lives a year? Would that make any difference?
3. Suppose Cele was appointed ambassador. Would you vigorously oppose that, say he was worse than JQ, because of his “shoot to kill” statements?
4 JZ is on record as saying we should reconsider the dp. If indeed you think supporting the dp is worse than racism, you should surely think very badly of JZ for this, no?
Nice appointment by the President, if true that is.
@ Pierre again.
“(it would be the equivalent of Tony Leon writing articles using the “K” word and arguing that black South Africans are no better than animals)”.
I seem to recall that Leon was opposed to the Equalisation of Rates and took that all the way to the CC – if that is true, I would find it more offensive that someone would stoop to the gross exploitation of the poor than name calling.
I cannot find the references now – so I stand to be corrected.
Pierre, it is a pity you chose to dilute your message and weaken an otherwise pretty good article by making snide comments about Mr Tony Leon. Slagging him or the Democratic Alliance off has gained currency with political commentators as it gives the impression of “balance”. To me, it simply looks like a puny attempt to suck up to the existing political order, a tendency you seem to manifest periodically. I hardly think it is appropriate for you to be making such ill-founded utterances if you yourself in the very same article are sensitive to derogatory comments about homosexuals or their behaviour.
Mr. Leon has an exemplary record of fighting for social justice and a distinguished record of public service, unlike the vast majority of opportunists, racists and parasites sitting in our parliament today. He is probably one of the finest orators we have had in parliament and history will in time show him to have been one of our better politicians. It is amazing how much fiction and smear is directed at him by the likes of dworky and others.
Probably Mr. Leon’s worst political error of judgement was naively to accept Kortbroek van Schalkwyk’s bona fides and allow him into the DA, only to discover he was a scheming snake-in-the-grass. Most other politicians can only dream about such an untainted record.
South Africa is lucky to have had at least one man of honour and principle in its parliament since 1994.
Michael Osborne says:
January 20, 2010 at 9:45 am
I am amused that people are avoiding the atrocious comments attributed to Achmat by George.
.
You questions as numbered.
1. Yes I am in favour of imprisonment – but I have an issue in the way prisoners are treated at some of the prisons which to my mind is also cruel and inhuman. As you well know, not all rights are absolute.
2. No – either the death sentence is consistent with our constitution or it is not – the CC says it is not.
3. I agree with Cele when he said that if criminals are set to kill civilians and police then police must resort fully. If that means “kill the bastards”, in the circumstances, then so be it. That is entirely different to a judge sentencing a grossly evil criminal to hang by his neck until he is dead or similar.
4. JZ said “If people want to talk about the death penalty then we should talk about it”. He did not say we should reconsider it. But in any case if if reconsidering it is within the scope of our constitution then if the circumstances arose under which it has to be reconsidered then we must do so. I don’t have an issue with that. But until our position is that the dp is cruel and inhuman punishment – the state does not kill people, as evil as those people may be, as much as society needs revenge for gruesome acts.
Prof
I know that some people get irritated when a good counter argument is put forward but I would like to beg them not to do so in this instance as I am not trying to counter the gist of your argument (hopefully) but some minor issues around your argument.
You have of course raised in your articles various reasons in persuading Jacob Zuma from appointing Mr Qwelane as an ambassador. One of your reasons is that Zuma’s name will be tarnished if ever he appoints Mr Qwelane “I still hope that the rumours about the appointment of Mr Qwelane are no more than an ugly smear-campaign launched by political opponents to discredit you and tarnish your name and the name of the ANC which you lead.” But Prof, Zuma’s name has already been tarnished; it was tarnished long time ago – proof being the so many articles you have written vilifying him. To say his name will be tarnished if he appoints this guy, to me is like a lousy argument.
In your articles you have highlighted the controversial views raised by Mr Qwelane which may turn out to be unconstitutional and based on these views alone you have reached a conclusion that such appointment would be unconstitutional should it occur. For the sake of this argument let me agree with you wholeheartedly that the views of Mr Qwelane as you have quoted them are indeed unconstitutional. But to determine the constitutionality of his appointment we need to go beyond the unconstitutionality of his views and determine whether Mr Qwelane, if appointed, will seek to apply his views or the constitution. And this can only be determined through an interview (formal or informal).
The context in which Mr Qwelane’s views were raised was never in connection with his appointment as an ambassador. This is why it is important that we go beyond the unconstitutionality of his views and determine whether he will apply his unconstitutional views or the constitution of the country in carrying out his official duties. Your argument is like that of saying those people who have posted at FJZ should be denied employment opportunities because they have been making comments favourable to the ‘national democratic revolution’ but the employment opportunities have nothing to do with the said ‘revolution’ and the existence of such ‘revolution’ has never been confirmed.
If Mr Qwelane were to be denied appointment based on what he had written before, his non appointment may turn out to be unconstitutional as well. Section (9) (3) states inter alia that the state may not discriminate one on the grounds of one’s belief, “The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”
Prof, I am not saying your argument is not valid (or correct) or completely nullifying your argument; I was just raising a different perspective in this whole argument. I therefore hope those who may be irritated by this response of mine will constrain themselves. What should have been however the essence of your argument, I believe, is to prove that Mr Qwelane will not apply the constitution but his unconstitutional views should he get appointed.
If your view that manifests itself from your article is also held by corporate executives and investors then South Africa is on a brink of a constitutional disaster.
Ironically, Graham, Qwelane started the trend: If you are going to criticise the ANC you have to be establish your bona fides (not least as not-a-racist or an-uncle-Tom) first by running down all whites or taking a shot at the DA. Then came Max Du Preez, then came etc….
Pierre is hardly the first.
I wonder if Ugandan border guards are sticklers on criminal records?
Very good argument King Zwakala.
There was another gentlemen herein (Mpho I think) who said that Mr. Qwelane does not deserve employment by virtue of his views. I asked him if that would not amount to discrimination and he replied by asking if that was the best retort I could come up with. It is amazing that we can deny employment opportunities to people based purely on their views as opposed to their practice or their behaviour and actions in the relevant employment. People have merely focused on his views and not his qualifications as an ambassador and have determined that it would not be constitutional of Pres Zuma to appoint him.
Mr. Qwelani is better than the racists who hide their views since he has made his public. This puts him within the purview of those who can be “modernised and civilized” like former Pres Mandela (I think), Archbishop Tutu (how did he justify his support of gays and lesbians?), and Pres Zuma on gays and lesbians.
Ambassadorship, in my view, is not about the constitution of the country of origin of the ambassador. It has more to do with trade relations and foreign capital. If we must not send someone to Uganda who is more likely to “get along” with his counterparts there, partly due to his views on homosexuality, whilst his main task is trade and economic relations between our country and Uganda AND NOT interference in the domestic affairs of Uganda, who exactly must we send, gay activists?
@ Maggs
1. I leave it to others to deal with Achmat; I know little of that debate.
2. Your points 1 and 2 are in tension with another. You say correctly (in 2) that all rights are limited. But then you say in 2 that either the dp is unconst. or not.
Not quite as simple as that. If you read Makwanyane, you will see that part of the CC’s reasoning why the dp could not be saved by s. 36 (the limitations clause), was because there was no showing that it was an effective deterrent. The clear implication is that, if the dp could be shown to be an effective deterrent, s. 35 might indeed be invoked to allow the dp after all.
Hence my hypothetical about it being shown that 30,000 lives could be saved.
3. Re shoot to kill, it might be argued that for the police to shoot someone in the street is in fact a greater incursion on rights than to execute someone after they have had a fair trial with all possible defenses.
Great and touching plea, that was Prof. Let’s see if the President has a heart. (We know about principles).
Michael Osborne says:
January 20, 2010 at 10:38 am
Read George’s comment and share your views. Maybe I am wrong in equating Qwelane and Achmat – a considered view will help.
There’s all kinds of views over what are deterrents to crime. I have had exchanges with people who, for example, think Shariah law will reduce crime – like chopping hands, stoning adulterous women to death, public shooting of murderers and the like.
For now I will stand on the view that says the most effective deterrent to crime is the the rate at which they are apprehended and sentenced – our record in that regard is dismal.
I don’t think that the police should just go around shooting people randomly in the street. I don’t even think that they should shoot armed criminals. The only time that they ought to shoot at criminals is when lives of civilians and/or police officers are under immediate threat – and if shooting “the bastards” means that they (the criminals) will die, tough titties for the criminals. But a three year old child holding a stick (or even a gun) is hardly that kind of threat!
Maggs, I also believe the most effective deterrent to crime is the knowledge that criminals are speedily apprehended, tried and sentenced. Throwing out all our liberties with the bathwater is lunacy.
You have to concede that the extrajudicial executions in the Brazilian slums seem to be working, though.
@ Maggs
The problem is that Cele specifically called for the revision of s. 49 of the CPA, which ALREADY, as interpreted by the courts, allows police to “shoot to kill” where their lives or the lives of others are endangered.
So, Cele is calling for somewhat more than what you seem to think is acceptable to you.
What do you say to that?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20090801063917664C207408
Perhaps we are going just a bit off topic here, but remember taht there is an inverse relationship between severity of punishment and certainty of punishment.
couldn’t agree more with Zwakala (King)!
To properly understand your argument on punishment, can you please classify it in terms of the following categories (and sub categories): absolute theory, relative theory or the combination theory?
Zwakala (King) says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Serious?
This letter is, particularly, pointless. Nothing will come of it. The author dared to call the president a ‘gangster’, just a few weeks ago.
What makes the author think that the president will even read a letter that might insult him (the president) once more?
Zwakala (King) says:
January 20, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Hahahahahah…. man, you are funny!
@ Zwakala
There is merit in your debate.
@Graham
I also wonder when is the cabinet seat reward for Kortbroek expiring. If we wanted a white face in that cabinet we can do better.
There is a lot of ANC politicians who are disappointing and some do not deserve to be in parliament but you are definately elevating Leon way above his record. He might have never accepted a bribe as a public official but he has no record of being on the side of the voiceless poor majority.
It’s my style!!!
Zwakala, I am not familiar with these terms.
@ Michael Osborne
” Zwakala, I am not familiar with these terms.”
Yet you delve into arguments about punishment and its potential effects; How nice…
@ Sine
You are obviously better informed than I am. Please refer me to literature on the theory of punishment that uses the terms “absolute theory”, etc.
@ Michael Osborne
I refer you to Snyman’s Criminal Law from 3rd edition upwards. If you want to full citation you may just google it…
Who in the ANC has a track record of being on the side of the voiceless poor majority rather than their own?
Osborne road
Basically there are quite a number of theories on punishment. Broadly speaking they can be classified as indicated in my earlier posts: absolute theory, relative theory and combination theory.
The absolute theory you are querying only has one theory which is called retributive theory whilst the relative theory has three sub theories and further two sub-sub theories. This is what I have learned from the learned and those who know better. What is your take?
PDV are you gay?
Pierre.. Do you think Zuma would even understand your letter? Words longer than 5 letters should be avoided in future I think…
Zwakala (King) the problem I think with your perspective is that it fails to consider the emotional and physical effect of the appointment of Qwelane on gay men and lesbians. It would be like Tony Leon becoming President and then appointing one of the Reitz four as ambassador to Germany: the negative emotional effect on black people would be severe. It would also send a message to people who hold the same views as the Reitz Four or the Skierlik murderer that hatred of black people is directly or indirectly endorsed by the government led by Leon. I am sure as a black person you would find such an appointment abhorrent (I know I will). I am asking that you place yourself in the shoes of fellow South Africans who happen to be gay and lesbian and ask yourself: if Qwelane had said this about a group you belonged to not out of choice but because of birth would I have shouted from the rooftops about the fundamental and profound disregard for my human dignity or would I have tried to find clever arguments to see the other side of the case?
@ Pierre,
You have not yet responded to my question to you (January 20, 2010 at 9:23 am) :
“What in your view makes Qwelane more despicable than Achmat if George’s comments are true?”
Here’s the relevant excerpt from George’s comment which “equates “Achmat with Qwelane, just in case you have not got around to reading it :
“Mr. Achmat, I still have old copies of ‘Die Suid-Afrikaan’, (dating back to the late 80’s and early 90’s), in which you spell-out – in no uncertain terms – exactly how deeply you are repulsed by the conventional sexual parameters of family and society. You regale the reader, at length, with your subversion of sexual norms and the pleasure you derive from contributing to random acts of promiscuity at every conceivable opportunity. Do the words – ” If gay men means the death of your society, so be it. I would be very happy to contribute to the death of heterosexuality”- ring a bell? Or ” …warped morality… from closeted doctors try to legislate child and adult sexuality. The question… should be: if the child wants to enter into a relationship with an adult” ?? Or what about “…straight mans is die lekkerste om te naai” ??? Maybe you can recall this little gem of Achmat-insight: “…the identification of heterosexual men with power is what should be undermined”??? And these sentiments, as you possibly recall, represent only a fraction of a two-page article where you celebrate your status as “…snow queen. Ek verkies wit mans’”.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/no-place-for-judge-who-has-contempt-for-gay-men-lesbians-and-hiv-positive-south-africans-zackie-achmat/
Again I ask : what in your view makes Qwelane more despicable than Achmat if George’s comments are true?
Prof,
Well said.
I really do hope President Zuma reads this blog and do not appoint that man as ambassador to Uganda.
Then again, I do not for a second doubt that President Zuma shares Jon Qwelane’s views. Being friends with Christians like Ray McCauley et al does send a very clear message.
There’s a crack, a crack in everything….
That’s how the light gets in…
Leonard
I really cannot fathom the insensitivity to the blatantly gross violation of human rights and persecution of homosexuals; especially by my own people who should know better about the evils of prejudice and hatred.
I also fail to understand why the point is missed that appointing an ambassador whose actions intrinsically support the proposed Ugandan Bill, implies that our country countenances an edict that will systematically hunt homosexuals and murder them; when our own Constitution is clearly at odds with such values.
Qwelane should at the very least be made to confirm publicly that he was a bit pissed when he wrote the stuff he did, and that he really didn’t mean it. Even Zuma had to grovel a bit after his uitlatings…
If you can’t see the obvious equivalence with naked racism then you are dof beyond help.
Here a parole case I’m sure will get the juices flowing, can anyone provide more background?
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/eed8d5e6e3fc4f7aa411732795f9dbfc/20-01-2010-10-12/Parole_for_Pta_double_killer
Dumisani, it is a stamp of approval on that Bill.
It sure is, Brett. It sure is a stamp of approval.
Sigh!
Peter says:
January 20, 2010 at 21:13 pm
“Qwelane should at the very least be made to confirm publicly that he was a bit pissed when he wrote the stuff he did, and that he really didn’t mean it”.
That’s rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
History will judge President Zuma in part by some of the unsavoury choices he has made, in the vast sea of exemplary South Africans who represent the very best of what it means to be South African.
Qwelane, against his stated views on homosexuality, represents the very worst in that regard – even a public “cleansing ceremony” is not going to mitigate that.
It’s disappointing but not unsurprising that we are considering sending a known homophobe to Uganda given that “South Africa refused to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day, December 18, calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality”.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-13-sa-ducks-un-gay-rights-call.
Even considering this is, in my view, more than bad taste – it would be akin to considering Dr Mathias Rath to direct policy/strategy formulation around AIDS.
Oops, we did that already – bad example.
Er, let’s see – Trevor Manuel as special envoy to Tibet?
@ Maggs
On the failure of RSA to back the UN declaration;
RSA is a sovereign state and has all the rights in international law to decide against backing, succeeding to, signing, etc. any treaty, declaration, resolution, etc. that the UN proposes to its member states. Moreover, in international relations it is important who you back or do not back and there are considerations which a Constitutional Law lecturer or another person might not know. These considerations are the glue that is keeping international relations stable between RSA and other countries. Being “friends” with the USA and China at the same time is not an easy job but our country has to manage to do so in order to keep its trading ties in tact. Our constitution has given this mandate to the executive branch of our govt since not all of us understand the intricacies in international relations. Ask yourself why Britain signed a naval pact with Hitler’s Germany which resulted in breaking one of the Shackles of Versailles which had put a restriction on the strength of the German Navy and you will know that in international law, things are not as black and white as we would all like it.
@ Peter
Thanks for the link to that parole story. Lets wait and see if the anti-parole movement will be as vocal as they have been the past few weeks.
Meanwhile, Sne, on other ‘important’ issues we will be guided by Brother Leader.
Prof,
I’m disappointed… it’s almost two days now and I’ve been waiting for your response re Maggs’s postings concerning Achmat’s views. So far, you haven’t even made an effort to address the issue. Can I then assume that you’re guilty of double standards?
Sine says:
January 21, 2010 at 7:58 am
Hey Sne,
While I understand and accept that there are conflicting and contradictory considerations, there are some basic human rights issues which we ought not to shy away from, as controversial as those may be.
There are trading partners who continue to build their economy on child labour or use child soldiers in their wars for example – do we look past that in order to continue good trade?
We took a stand on not extraditing criminals where the death penalty awaits them in their home countries, despite the impact on international relations. We harbour really corrupt politicians and shield them from the consequences of their actions.
Recall that then President Mandela told the west to bugger off when they tried to intervene in our country’s relationships with Cuba and Libya in his famous “Don’t tell us who our friends should be” statement.
Saying to the world (and endorsing) our position on equality cannot be that bad.
@ Brett
“Meanwhile, Sne, on other ‘important’ issues we will be guided by Brother Leader.”
“Sine says:
January 12, 2010 at 6:23 am
“… (We know Sne’s views on this subject – fairly representative?)”
It is not a good idea to discuss anything other than guns with Brett so contain yourself Sine.”
Sine says:
January 21, 2010 at 7:58 am
“Our constitution has given this mandate to the executive branch of our govt since not all of us understand the intricacies in international relations”.
If we allow ourselves to be in awe of the intricacies vs reasonable expectations we may well get overwhelmed by disingenuous reasons.
Like Mayor Plato on why toilets were built without walls or “How can a virus cause a syndrome” or why it was vital to shut down and sell of teacher training colleges. Even “there’s no crisis in Zimbabwe”.
George Bush refused to sign that particular declaration, Obama did – the intricacies of international trade notwithstanding.
The mandate that we give to government has to be in the context of our constitution. If in executing the mandate government actions appear to conflict with our country’s fundamental values, then as citizens we have to ask them to explain at the very least (even though we may be ignored).
@ Maggs
It is one thing to comply with our Constitutional provisions by affording minority equal rights to the minority, case in point, gays and lesbians. However, it is another to be part and parcel to every international instrument which gives rights, without any extension, to the very people who enjoy the same rights under our world-class Constitution.
This is especially unnecessary when it has the huge potential to sour relations between us and other countries. These very same countries have not severed their ties with us after the Constitutional Court judgment extending rights of marriage to same sex partners because that was an entirely domestic matter and I personally do not consider it necessary to make it into international law an aspect which could be better regulated by each member state domestically. Once the UN Declaration is adopted, acceded to, signed, etc. by all UN member states then it becomes International Law and all the member states and other “civilized” countries will be expected to comply with same. This basically means the Muslin countries will be forced to extend the same rights to their gay and lesbian minority. This, in my opinion, amounts to interference in the domestic affairs of each member state and the souring of international relations will be the end result thereof. With RSA being a third world country, I do no think that we will be better served by making more enemies but by making more friends which could lead to better trade.
The Mbeki Path (path that RSA was taking under former Pres Mbeki) was consistent with RSA being a first world country that needed merely to make friends with and appease the West. This is unrealistic as we need to be friends with as many countries as possible and have economic ties with these countries. We are not in the position of USA or UK yet which decides which countries it can or cannot have relations with based purely on human rights considerations and invades those countries with poor human rights record to fulfil its trade deficiencies (such as invading Iraq for its oil).
Moreover, the highest decision making body of the UN comprises the very same countries which once saw the rest of the world as a huge piece of cake which they must share amongst themselves. When did they change minds and saw us as people who are entitled to life much like them?
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/tinyikosammaluleke/2010/01/20/an-open-letter-to-the-president-on-possible-presidential-pardons/
Another open letter and lesson on pardons.
I thought Achmat’s statements to ‘that magazine’ were hilarious. Silly little gender terrorist!
Why are they relevant, Maggs?
Sine says:
January 21, 2010 at 8:57 am
“Once the UN Declaration is adopted, acceded to, signed, etc. by all UN member states then it becomes International Law and all the member states and other ‘civilized’ countries will be expected to comply with same”.
I am not sufficiently informed on International Law to be able to respond to that, but what I do know is that Israel for example simply ignores every UN resolution that it considers unacceptable to them.
I cannot see how countries can be forced (excluding Iraq under Saddam and a few others where regime change was an international “imperative”).
It did not affect us when we officially declared one of the elections in Zimbabwe as “Not free and fair, but valid”, apart from making us look downright stupid.
I think it is hypocritical for us, the country that is recognised the world over for our stance on human rights, to say we are for human rights only if it does not impact adversely on our trade position.
If we allow that door to open we are setting ourselves up for endorsing all kinds of horrible situations – like human trafficking, child slavery, cluster bombs and landmines – who knows where that will all end.
I say we have to take a stance, put our pen where our mouths are and let countries decide whether or not they want to engage us on the basis of who we really are, not who we pretend we are to appease them.
Brett Nortje says:
January 21, 2010 at 9:02 am
“I thought Achmat’s statements to ‘that magazine’ were hilarious. Silly little gender terrorist!
“Why are they relevant, Maggs?”
I am going to skip past Sne’s good advice this time and engage.
The relevance will manifest once Pierre responds, if he does that is!
@ Maggs
I am not suggesting that we should stare in awe whilst the executive carry out their duties in relation to international relations in an unacceptable manner. I am merely suggesting that we allow them enough space to work without unnecessary disturbances with the understanding that international relations are more than just about provisions in our Constitution which find no force of application against other sovereign states.
Once again you mention the USA and RSA in the same line as though these countries are economically comparable. This is a huge mistake as a point of departure since USA is a first world country which declared its independence from Britain on 04 July 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. RSA was declared a Republic on 21 May 1961 and therefore that is the official date of independence from Britain despite the practical independence acquired through the efforts of people like Hertzog. Basically, these countries cannot be comparable at this stage. Maybe they will in future but not now.
You mention that the mandate given to the govt in respect of international relations has to be in accordance with our local laws. I agree with this. However, I do not see how the govt has breached the mandate you are talking about by making the relevant appointment. I do not believe that the noise around the appointment is justified when you take into account the intricacies and sensitivities of international relations. This is the best place for us to give more freedom to the govt and this was confirmed by the Concourt since this false squarely into the executive branch of govr.
Sine says:
January 21, 2010 at 9:39 am
We stood against major powers on numerous occasions. I cannot embrace the notion that we are unable to stand on our own on the equality issue.
We stood tall on Iraq, if I recall we even initiated the change in the way the security council operated.
You may recall that around 1994 Trevor Manuel effectively told the World Bank and IMF to take a hike over their offers to loan us money in exchange for policy development in a way that they approved – ok I concede that we may have allowed those conditions to slip in by the back door
.
At the very least it is immoral for us, and contrary to our approach to human rights, to endorse overtly or covertly the death penalty of homosexuals in Uganda, simply because we want them to buy our sugar.
The ANC squandered all that emotional capital and abandoned the moral high ground as it was quagmired in AIDS denialism, corruption and mismanagement.
Now it is left with Realpolitik.
@ Maggs
LOL! It was a matter of time before you conceded many of my points because you know exactly what I am arguing here.
You say that “…it is immoral for us…”. This part of your sentence is very instructive and betrays the standpoints that we have taken on this issue. You have taken a moral route and I a legal route. Legally, RSA is allowed to send Mr. Qwelane to Uganda to be the ambassador. Morally, this may be reprehensible to the gay and lesbian minority of our beautiful country. I honestly feel for them but I cannot support an uncalled for interference in the executive function of building and carrying on international relations and which function is respected even by our Concourt. It is one thing to not support the appointment since our democracy allows us to have divergent views but it is another to argue that our views have a force of law and our President, as the head of the state, is bound by those views. It actually amounts to curtailing his Constitutional powers. I am not saying our Pres should have absolute powers but I am saying we must give him space to exercise his powers and only intervene when he oversteps the mark. This is especially necessitated by the fact that the powers he is exercising in this case are in respect of international relations and therefore fall squarely within the executive branch of govt. They can be reviewed of course but even our Concourt will be very slow to do so…
Sine says:
January 21, 2010 at 10:15 am
It seems that we were talking past each other – I agree with the spirit of your views, but not all of the content
I am in no way suggesting curtailing our government’s powers but I am in disagreement with “I do not believe that the noise around the appointment is justified when you take into account the intricacies and sensitivities of international relations”.
Perhaps it’s best for me to say why I feel free, maybe obliged, to publicly voice my concerns during the Zuma administration in particular compared with keeping zipped during the previous ten years.
During the latter part of his tenure (around 1997/8 I think) as MEC in KZN a friend and I had been able to spend some time with JZ under fairly relaxed conditions. We raised a particular concern that was within the scope of his responsibility which we told him we were reluctant to express publicly.
His response was very refreshing and inspiring. In effect he said (not verbatim)
“For concerns to get attention it has to be raised. Anything that does not get raised does not get attention especially given the pressure under which leaders and governments operate. The more pressure surrounding and issue, the more likely it is to get attention.
“As activists, you have a duty to the people of the country, the government, the ANC and to me to highlight raise important issues. You are not ‘protecting’ me by not raising the issues, rather the opposite – I will finally be judged by how well important issues are handled, not by silence on important matters. Don’t worry about protecting me, I chose to be a politician and I have big shoulders, I will carry the consequences as it arises. Being a politician is voluntary, I can quit anytime the pressure gets more than I can manage.
“As government we cannot know everything and we cannot do everything – it’s up to particularly the activist community to highlight and put government and me under pressure in respect of those things that are most important and need the most attention”.
I am gonna hold him to that, even if he does not recall it!
@ Maggs
A very refreshing and inspiring response indeed.
In fact, his tenure both as the President of the ANC and of the country has been characterized by his being amenable to a discussion of any issue. We have certainly exercised more freedom of speech during his tenure as President than under the previous administrations. This, unfortunately, has also been accompanied by being ignored or our concerns being ignored when decisions are taken. The kinds of decisions that have been taken by the new administration despite the public outcry have been incredible. They proved to us as the citizenry that whatever issues we raise with the decisions by the executive, they are not even considered.
As an aside, I am wondering if your affection for Pres Zuma is not affected or fuelled by these interactions that you and your friend had with him as MEC in KZN…
Sine says:
January 21, 2010 at 11:06 am
“As an aside, I am wondering if your affection for Pres Zuma is not affected or fuelled by these interactions that you and your friend had with him as MEC in KZN…”
That and more – will add some detail later.
@ Maggs
“I am not sufficiently informed on International Law to be able to respond to that, but what I do know is that Israel for example simply ignores every UN resolution that it considers unacceptable to them.”
Maggs, the issue of international law and when international instruments (UN resolutions, communiqués, UN declarations, UN treaties, etc.) and customs become international law and international customary law, respectively, is a rather very thorny and dicey issue.
Except in very limited instances, all countries are independent of each other and their sovereignty and right of self-determination of their nationals has to be respected by all other countries especially those countries which form part of the civilised nations (I believe we use ‘citizens’ in domestic law and we use ‘nationals’ in international law to refer to inhabitants of a country or state).
The issue of Israel is on its own very complicated. The simple version is that Israel cannot, except in very limited circumstances, be bound by international instruments to which it is not a signatory. UN Resolutions are some of those international instruments. The others are treaties and declarations. It also cannot be bound by international customary law unless such customs are generally observed and have been in practice for a long time. This is the main reason why arguments that Apartheid was contrary to international customary law failed since no-one could point out an instance in international customary law in which a state that practised Apartheid was held to be acting unlawfully.
The complicated version is that Israel is practically a protectorate of the USA as it serves as a buffer between the USA and the Muslim or Arab countries in the Middle East (or should I say Israel serves as a military base?). Israelites have no land in the Middle East. They are there through the use of force and the backing of the USA which happens to be a member of the Security Council of the UN. That is why there will always be conflicts there and that is also why Israel can ignore anything that comes from the UN without any consequences. It is virtually untouchable. Ask yourself why Israel never runs out of money or ammunition despite the constant fighting with its Arab neighbours and USA will be there in your answer.
Maggs Naidu says: January 21, 2010 at 10:52 am
“For concerns to get attention it has to be raised. Anything that does not get raised does not get attention especially given the pressure under which leaders and governments operate. The more pressure surrounding and issue, the more likely it is to get attention.”
I’ve always used an argument along these lines to “defend” the former President on his alleged unwillingness to listen to people, particularly within the ANC.
As I understood his point (in most of his responses on this issue), he said (not verbatim): I go to a meeting of the NEC of the ANC (JZ and a whole lot of the current crowd would presumably have been present); I raise my view on a particular issue; no one objects and some people (presumably his so-called “yes-(wo)men”) endorse my view; we leave the meeting having “agreed” as per my suggestion but the next thing I’m told I’m suppressing debate. How is that possible”?
Seems to me that JZ et al may not have taken the advice JZ gave to you during that discussion you had with him.
@ Maggs
“We stood tall on Iraq.”
Ah yes, what a special moment when Aziz Pahad stood with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad! Who will ever forget this moment of pride?
But no less sweet were the times when we “stood tall” with Mugabe, and the democratically selected leaders of Burma, North Korea, Beijing and Teheran!
Bravo!
@ Sine
“Israelites have no land in the Middle East.”
Was there not some kind of GA resolution some time in the 1940′s?
@ Sine
Thanks you so much for the Snyman reference on the “absolute” theory of punishment.
Just goes to show how theoretically unsophisticated even our most exalted courts can be. Look at the hundreds of pages of the Makwanyane decision. Lots of references to retributive imperatives, and deterrence, etc.
Yet nothing said on “absolute” or “relative” theories of punishment.
@ Michael Osborne
Its my pleasure bro.
“Was there not some kind of GA resolution some time in the 1940’s?”
What’s a GA resolution?
“General Assembly.”
mzo says:
January 21, 2010 at 13:01 pm
“Seems to me that JZ et al may not have taken the advice JZ gave to you during that discussion you had with him”.
You seem to have missed a small and insignificant part.
JZ and others who disagreed were “gently” reminded what the rules of engagement were at the time at broad national level.
Pallo Jordan, Cyril Ramaposa, Tokyo Sexwale, Matthews Phosa. Winnie Mandela got smacked, in public at that, Tony Yengeni went to jail, Zuma got the NPA after his butt. The SACP and COSATU got sidelined. I guess you get my drift.
That which JZ told us was related to aspects of his leadership and areas under his jurisdiction.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 21, 2010 at 14:39 pm
Hey Dworky,
Nice to see you to.
But if you continue like that, the will be no peace and friendship.
Luv you too, Maggs.
Do you have a condom?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 21, 2010 at 16:42 pm
“Do you have a condom?”
Of course I have, silly.
I always have it handy, exactly how I was shown to use I too – on the broomstick.
You’re welcome to it!
Hey Pierre, you gays are becoming as bad as the whitey’s nowadays – nothing but whine and complain! Why don’t you all just take the ANC’s invitation to leave the country if you don’t like their view of matters?
Prof
I do not want to appear as if I am trying to nail you but it is well documented that emotions distort reasoning. You probably know that if our objective is to thrive for a correct conclusion, we need to put aside emotions.
Secondly, I have to tell you that the word “hatred” is not in my vocabulary. Instead of deploring people, I deplore their actions. Although what the Rietz 4 allegedly did is deplorable and criminal I will never go out of my way to prevent them from earning income; as I believe what they allegedly did has nothing to do with their efforts of earning income.
Once we begin to plot and connive against people, even if they did something wrong, we then begin to defecate on the constitution, and as a result the rule of law becomes absent. Our country then becomes a banana republic. I leave it up to you to figure out the multiplier effect.
What if Mr Qwelane subscribed to the same view as those who have been posting at FJZ- the view of influencing and to be influenced in the same breathe? This means the views that one expresses are not rigid as they can change at any time due to influence. Therefore we may not know the current views of Mr Qwelane until we ask him of his current views.
If you do not like the views of a person why do you wash your hands off him instead of influencing him to change his or her views?
Having said that, I have noted your subtle message that we ought to respect the rights of individuals (especially gays and lesbians) and the constitution itself.
I thank you
@ Michael Osborne
Thanks bro.
I am not aware of any GA Resolution to the effect that Israel has or got land in the Middle East. If there was then I would like to know, inter alia, the following;
1. Which states passed the Resolution (what were the represented states when the Resolution was passed)?
2. Which states dissented (abstentions do not count)?
3. What exactly did the Resolution say?
Obviously more questions will follow as more information in this regard becomes available. If you can, kindly post a link to the relevant Resolution and I will do the rest.
Ever since they send Piet Promises to Washington DC I thought an ambassador was apointed to get him as far away from the RSA as possible.
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100121101309115
Is SA joining US as exporter of homophobia?
Published in: Legalbrief Today
Date: Thu 21 January 2010
Category: General
Issue No:
By CARMEL RICKARD
WHY is it that as gay people in the United States, men and women, step confidently from the closet, those opposed to gay equality seek refuge in their own kind of closet? It’s an intriguing question, asked this week by leading US legal commentator, Linda Greenhouse, as she reflected on current developments in her country.
The new kind of closet she has in mind is one in which the instruments of democracy are used to shield anti-gay prejudice from scrutiny and bigots enroll the help of the courts to hide their behaviour from the public, claiming privacy protection. Two examples illustrate her point.
An organisation called “Protect Marriage Washington” recently ran a petition to ensure that during state elections held two months ago, a referendum would be included on the ballot paper. “Protect Marriage Washington” said this referendum would give voters a chance to repudiate a new state law granting certain benefits to couples who registered themselves as domestic partners.
As it turned out however voters supported the bill and it has now come into law.
What the organisation forgot is that under Washington’s Public Records Act, petitions for a referendum become public records to which anyone may have access. Now “Protect Marriage Washington” has gone to court to prevent disclosure of the 138 000 names on its petition.
The second example concerns a case being argued in California at the moment, brought to test the validity of an amendment to the state constitution. This amendment (known as Proposition
says that only a marriage between a man and woman will be recognised in California.
When the presiding judge agreed that the trial could be televised to other parts of the court building where the matter is being heard and to courthouses in four other cities, opponents of gay marriage challenged the decision.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority intervened as a matter of urgency, and has now stopped the planned televising. Backers of Proposition 8 (those who want gay couples excluded from marriage), said their witnesses would face harassment if their evidence was broadcast, an argument that Supreme Court’s justices gave as part of the reason for their decision.
With our constitution in South Africa, and its clear guarantee of equal rights for gay people, the development she discusses should be of academic interest only. But that’s not the case: there’s still plenty of homophobic bigotry, hate speech and other crimes, even murder, in South Africa, and, like the US, we are now in the business of exporting it.
Current recipient of this vile product is Uganda, where a private bill with horrific penalties has been introduced into parliament by a member of the government party.
The draft gay-hate law included a proposal punishing “serial offenders” with death. It would also make Uganda a nation of informers, creating a duty to report anyone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered – or go to jail for between three and seven years.
According to The Observer, the bill was drawn up within weeks of a conference in Uganda early last year attended by a group of far-right Christian extremists from the US.
Now South Africa seems about to add its own contribution, with the export of Jon Qwelane, journalist, who specialises in homophobia – and, allegedly as thanks for loyal service to President Jacob Zuma during his time of trial, ambassador-in-waiting to Uganda.
Landing in Kampala, Qwelane will obviously feel as though he has reached his own form of heaven, a land where the dominant view echoes his prejudice and where his hate speech finds its logical conclusion in threats of execution.
But the fact that he will feel at home is not the point. Ambassadors are sent to other countries to make known the view of their governments and to speak on their behalf.
I wonder exactly what Qwelane will convey to his hosts? Will the man who has refused to retract his outrageous words or back down in any way whatsoever, bring himself to say that Uganda’s draft law is anathema, and that Pretoria strongly supports the privacy, dignity and equality of all persons regardless of sexual orientation?
Or will he tell it like he sees it, as he does in his column? Will he say that South Africa is wrong; that the constitutional provisions that give equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, must be urgently scrapped so that gay sex can be criminalised?
Does he even need to say any of these things? His mere appointment as ambassador tells the story clearer than anything he needs to say, and as far as I am concerned, justifies concluding that these are not his views only, but those of the President who appointed him.
I have just received the Lexix Nexis Stop Press email with the following:
“Columnist fined for anti-gay stance
Reported on 22 Jan 2010
Columnist Jon Qwelane, whose reported appointment as ambassador to Uganda has been criticised because of his anti-gay stance, is being sued for R100 000 by the Human Rights Commission. The commission claims that Qwelane and his former employer, Media 24, must pay the 777 Campaign Against Hate Crimes the money in reparation for the “pain and suffering” caused by a 2008 column in which Qwelane criticised homosexuality.
Full report available at: Times Live”
Lexix Nexis =LexisNexis
Why does it fall upon the South African taxpayer to provide Qwelane with employment?
@sine
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) Future Government of Palestine
In favor, (33 countries, 59%):
30 countries (54%) initially in favour:
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United States of America, Soviet Union, Uruguay, Venezuela.
An additional 3 (5%) switched to in favor:
Haiti, Liberia, Philippines.
Against, (13 countries, 23%):
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstentions, (10 countries, 18%):
Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
Absent, (1 countries, 0%):
Thailand
To place the resolution in context I would suggest reading this article (mainly from the discussion of the British mandate -1917- until the end of the 1948 war). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
@ Chris
Bro, thanks for the info.
If it is true, it is amazing how the Human Rights Commission (or is it Gay Rights Commission) would sue someone for airing his views on homosexuality. It is amazing how often the minority’s rights are allowed to trample upon the majority rights. So now we must be scared of having opinions on gays and lesbians whilst they air their views whenever they want to. Nice, very nice…
I support the demand by ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu that professional gay activists slandering Cmd Qwelane provide “scientific proof” that he is a homophobe.
Let us not be fooled by Pierre and others taking a few statements of Cmd Qwelane out of of context!
Indeed, I suspect that we are dealing here not with a case of HOMOPHOBIA but rather QWELANEPHOBIA!
@ Sine
UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), established the state of Israel.
I am not sure what the voting was.
The Soviet Union was the first major state to recognise the state of Israel.
@ Michael Osborne
Thanks bro I have accessed the relevant Resolution. Below are answers to some of the questions I posed to you. I will comment later on the Resolution and its legality.
“Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting:
In favour: 33
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: 13
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: 10
Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.”
Maggs, I am finally getting to your rather weird question in which you suggest Qwelane and Achmat are no different because Achmat (now married to his weetheart Dali) once said things which challenged heteronormativity. In my view Qwelane’s views are abominable while Achmat’s are at worst amusing and at best rather encouraging. First Qwelane has written extensively about his hatred and disgust for a vulnerable minority. Achmat has made an intelectual argument about the pervasive heteronoremative power system in our society which oppreses everyone. He has never said heterosexul individuals are like animals. He has never said that heterosexuals should be discriminated against. He has expressed concern about how heteronormativity oppresses us all because it makes assumption about what is normal, ascribe power and prestige to those who are considered normal while vilifying and oppressing those who are considered not normal. You sound like the worst kind of DA supporter who claims that any critique of white hegemonic power and white superiority and racism is itself racist and then equate those who critique it with white racists. There is absolutely no comparison.
I am a gay South African diplomat and therefore I cannot divulge my identity. I am outraged at the possible appointment of Qwelane as our High Commissioner to Uganda, especially at a time when that country is considering hateful and criminal legislation directed at the LGBTI community. The wave of homophobia sweeping across this beautiful continent that I call HOME is disheartening and sad. The now infamous Anti-Homosexuality Bill under discussion in the Ugandan Parliament is one such homophobic incident that need special mention as it goes against every tenant enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, that guarantees us all the fundamental right to human dignity and respect based on the notion that despite our ethnic, religious or national backgrounds, we are human beings first and foremost.
What this Bill aims to do is to strip an already oppressed and stigmatized community of their last sense of-worth, their human dignity. Through vilification and propaganda, the sponsor of the Bill, David Bahati has been quite successful in convincing the Ugandan populace that gay people are indeed sub-human and should therefore not be accorded any rights. If memory serves me right, the same propaganda tactics were employed by the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide, who through the notion of the “expandable other” and through the use of terms such as “cockroach” created a scenario where violence against the Tutsis was popularly accepted, justified and even encouraged within the context of public propaganda. Similar tactics was employed by Nazi-Germany against Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, and in both the Rwandan and German experience, the aftermath of this was genocide on mass scale and the world resolved that extreme forms of discrimination should never be allowed to flourish amongst the international community of nations.
However, millions of gay people across the African continent and indeed the whole world are on a daily basis subjected to this very form of extreme discrimination that calls for the extermination of another human being; that person’s only crime being that of being attracted to a member of the same sex. In addition, the fallacy that says that being gay is unAfrican should also be dispelled as fallacy in light of documented evidence of homosexual activity before colonial times:
The Mongo people of what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo is such an example. Their tradition of homosexuality among men included the requirement that the younger men assume the top position. That tradition had died out by the time it was reported, but had been replaced by several others. One replacement was a game called yembankongo wherein younger boys pretend to be monkeys. Another replacement was the game of “playing parents,” which is very commonly reported.
Among the youngest children the game is merely imitative of adult sexual positions, but as the young people mature the game becomes perfectly conscious sex. And in the game not much attention is paid to whether the partners are of the same or opposite sexes. Among the older boys, when they lay together, one would say to the other, “This is what I do to your sister.” The missionary who made this report then suggests that the boys are not really doing anything homosexual because they say that stuff about each other’s sisters. Female homosexuality was well known and was called ya¡kya bons ngo which can be translated very roughly as “bumping pussies.” The missionary writes, “Homosexuality has been known among the Nkund¢ since time immemorial, among men as well as women.” But then he tries to explain it away, saying it is difficult for the young people to get married (Hulstaert).
This kind of doublethink is found over and over in the literature whether the writers are missionaries, colonialists, historians, or anthropologists. A tradition is something that the average person in society knows about and reports. Since the average person in any society is non-gay, traditions of homosexuality are filtered through non-gay perceptions. Then when the traditions are reported, they are filtered again through the prejudices of the anthropologist or the colonial civil servant or whoever) similiarly research among the Gikuyu people of Murang’a district in central Kenya by Wairimu Ngaruiya Njambi and William O’Brien “ found traditional acceptance of “woman-woman marriage” when such relationships brought children into households or eased disputes over inheritance of land and other property.
In one case, they reported in 2000 in a scholarly article in the US National Women Studies Association Journal, a childless woman married a younger woman with the expectation that the new wife would bear children by a male partner and create heirs. In the relationships examined in the study, the complexities of gender roles were more a source of amusement than tension in the community, and, at least within Gikuyu tradition, acceptable.
Other researchers have found traditional homosexual and bisexual practices among men in some African cultures as well, and words for homosexuality, gay men and lesbians in a large number of indigenous languages.
Some Gikuyu women in same-sex relationships have expressed a sense of liberation from male domination and of equality within the marriage. One female “husband” told researchers: “I don’t have a man, but I have a woman who cares for me. I belong to her and she belongs to me. And I tell you I don’t have to worry about a man telling me what to do.”
In the view of many such researchers, the traditional African family was quite adaptable, and sometimes encompassed a range of same-sex relationships, entered into for economic, romantic and emotional reasons in Africa “.
In the same breath, various Native American tribes were also believed to have practiced homosexuality before European settlers arrived in North America.
When English and French-Canadian fur trappers first grew acquainted with the cultures of the Native Americans among whom they found themselves, they were surprised to find that there were significant numbers of men dressed as women among the tribes of the region. What intrigued them the most, however, was the esteem with which these men were held by their fellow tribesmen. These men were considered to be spiritually gifted, a special gift to the tribe by God, men with a particular insight into spiritual matters. As they were encountered in most tribes, the trappers chose a French word to describe them all: “berdache.”
There were exceptions, of course, to the celebration of Two-Spirits, such as the Pimas of Arizona, but in most cases, Native American tribes, particularly the tribes of the Great Plains and the Southwest, were greatly admiring of their Two-Spirits. Among the Hopi and the Zuni of Arizona and New Mexico, these Two-Spirits held a special status. They were keepers of the ancient traditional stories of creation, healing and growth. But more than that, they were the keepers of the spiritual traditions, recognized for their special gift of being “between genders.” Indeed, some tribes considered their Two-Spirits as being in the middle of a continuum of gender, not an aberration between two opposite genders as the western European model would have it. In this way, they were prescient of the view of many modern psychologists, who themselves are uncomfortable with the black/white, either/or gender identification of the European model By rejecting the dichotomous approach of the Europeans, the Native Americans who celebrated this diversity among themselves largely avoided the stigmatization of the members of their tribes that results when someone does not neatly fit within a dichotomous”) as well as Maori tribes condoned same sex relations, albeit not strictly correlated to homosexuality ( Same-sex relationships and activities appear to have been acceptable amongst pre-European Māori.
Some stories, for example that of Tutanekei and Tiki, seem to be about same-sex couples. A British missionary, Richard Davis, found homosexual relationships between men to be a familiar part of Maori life, and although homosexual relationships between women have not been well documented, they were certainly not condemned.[2] In modern New Zealand, a common label adopted by LGBT Māori is Takatāpui, a term that has been revived from pre-European times and popularised since Homosexual Law Reform in 1986. The term roughly translates into English as intimate partner of the same sex).
Secondly, I have met numerous rural young gay people who have been attracted to people from the same sex from a very young age, without having come into contact with any white people, I myself am from a rural village and have always felt attracted to people from my own sex. I should also mention that my family was too poor to buy a television set, so I didn’t even get to learn about being gay from the television, in any case the National Party was in power then and any reference to homosexuality would have been taboo. The assertion that whites brought homosexuality to Africa and are active recruiters for the homosexual cause is thus unfounded and ignorant.
The ignorance that allows right-wing American Christian fundamentalists to sow their hateful and unchristian doctrine across East Africa, acting like God’s personal messengers to Dark Africa who after a couple of big stadium shows leave these countries with millions of dollars given to them by the poor and marginalized. These fundamentalists are solely responsible for aiding people like David Bahati, by proposing the death of gays and more subdued role for women; a call they would never be able to make in the US.
What makes this homophobic wave even more saddening is that it has permeated the very continent that for centuries suffered under the yoke of discrimination as a result of slavery and colonialism. Discrimination that gave birth to notions that black people and black men in particular are unhygienic, lazy, thieves, promiscuous, rapists and weapons of death as only they are the carriers of AIDS. I am quite aware that many people have argued that racism cannot be equated to homophobia, but how then do you explain the attitude towards gay people, an attitude that carries so much hate as its built on the assumption that gay people are inhuman, AIDS carriers, pedophiles and thus worthy of degradation. How is the horrific murder of Eudy Simelane, a black lesbian woman at the hands of a homophobic lynch mob any different than the brutal gun attack on a black township by a racist young white man? There is NO DIFFERENCE as both these incidences were born out of extreme hate and deep-seated discriminatory views.
Across South Africa many gay people live in terror of being outed as gay, as the very act could cost them their lives or family and friends. Black lesbians living in fear of being “corrected” by young men believing that through raping a lesbian you can “correct” her to heterosexuality. How can you correct something that was never wrong in the first place? Being gay is not and was never a choice. Who would in their right minds take a conscious decision to be gay, if there is the possibility that you might lose your family, friends and everything that is dear to you? Who would want to make a conscious decision to be gay, if you a citizen of a country like Uganda, Malawi, South Africa, Iran, Zimbabwe, Egypt or Senegal to name but a few , if you know that your very being is seen as a threat to the patriarchal norms and values governing humanity. It also virtually impossible to “recruit” heterosexuals or to convert them to homosexuals, nor can one understand the basis for homosexuals being a threat to the nuclear family.
Associate Professor Christopher N Kendall from the Murdoch University School of Law notes that “ There are numerous examples of the extent to which heterosexual male privilege relies upon and ultimately insists upon the preservation of gender inequality. Perhaps the most obvious example of the role of homophobia in preserving gender, hence social inequality, however, is the extent to which it is used to preserve “that bastion of patriarchal power, the nuclear family.”Patriarchy is the “manifestation and institutionalisation of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general.”Lesbian and gay male relationships have the potential to reject hierarchical concepts of gender. They therefore challenge the notion that social traits, such as dominance and subordination, masculinity and femininity, equal and unequal are needed. Because they do so, they are seen as challenging patriarchy and the male supremacy derived from it and is consequently punished for “not participating fully in [the] daily maintenance of women’s oppression”:
when homosexual people build relationships of caring and commitment, they deny the traditional belief and prescription that stable relations require the hierarchy and reciprocity of male/female polarity. In homosexual relationships authority cannot be premised on the traditional criteria of gender.
Lesbian and gay male relationships, because they can undermine that male/female split necessary for socially imposed gender inequality, are thus targeted for abuse. By subverting gender roles, and by choosing instead to build communities and relationships (monogamous or otherwise) premised on equality, reciprocity and caring, lesbians and gay men have considerable potential to undermine the notion that relationships, and by extension society, must be divided hierarchically in order to function. As Marc Fajer explains, “one of the biggest contributions that gay people can make to society is to demonstrate the weakness of the bipolar model of gender and to attempt to rectify some of the harms it creates.” Thus the ignorance displayed by Bahati and his ilk once again emphasizes the lack of understanding of what it means to be homosexual and the threat that homosexuality poses to patriarchal society.
As a gay South African, how does one react to the total disregard that the South African Government has shown for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and intersex rights, not only in South Africa, but also internationally by keeping mum on the homophobic developments on the continent? They go around basking in the glory of our so-called progressive Constitution, when they have done nothing to advance or protect our rights internationally. The Bill of Rights as enshrined in the Constitution notes that :
This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.
The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.
The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill”.
There is thus an obligation on the State to at all time act in accordance with the Constitution and to advance our constitutional prerogatives in government policy. However, the South African Government has largely failed to advance gay rights, which is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights through its absolute silence on the spread of homophobic attacks in the country; the refusal of the government to endorse a French sponsored United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for the Decrimininalisation of Homosexuality and our government’s silence on the draconian, hateful and criminal legislation currently under discussion in the Ugandan parliament.
T
hese decisions should be condemned as many gay people dedicated themselves to the liberation struggle; ANC struggle heroes such as Simon Nkoli, whose name today adorns a street in Amsterdam, a gay man that fought the evil system of Apartheid side by side with the likes of Mosioua Lekota. The late Dr Ivan Thoms, former Director of Health for the City of Cape Town, who refused to serve in the Apartheid army and was sent to jail for it. This gallant gay man who went on a hunger strike to protest against the injustice that was South Africa at the time. A gay man who received a National Order, The Order of the Boabab in 2005 as recognition for his contribution to democracy in the country. And today we have gay men like Zachie Achmat who has become the champion of HIV/AIDS people in South Africa, a gay man that challenged a State and said you will provide ARVs to HIV suffers. A gay man that has the respect of the most famous statesman in the world, former President Nelson Mandela.
It is time for a reality shift on this continent of ours, as failure to do so might have dire consequences for generations to come. A call is made to the South African Government to follow the principles enshrined in the Constitution and to not shy away from their responsibilities in the name of “African Solidarity”. The onus is on them to engage their African counterparts on the need to ensure fundamental human rights for all Africans, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, nationality, race, class and religion. Cognizance is also taken of the right of all sovereign states to formulate and implement their own laws, but when these laws are against fundamental human rights principles, such as the right to dignity and expression then the UN Declaration on Human Rights and African human rights instruments are not worth the paper they written on. It seems the continent has forgotten about the many socio-economic challenges facing our people. Why not enact laws that will give people access to houses, basic services, the right to vote and to not be oppressed, rather than focusing on a vulnerable group of people who have no constitutional rights protecting their human dignity in almost all of the African states.
CD says: January 21, 2010 at 17:58 pm “Hey Pierre, you gays are becoming as bad as the whitey’s nowadays – nothing but whine and complain!”
CD, please reflect: What would you have said if I had told you the above but instead of “gays” have said “blacks”. You would rightly have said I am a racist. So, mate, you are a bigot and a homophobe. Look into your heart and try and stop yourself from exposing yourself as a bigot.
@ Nirvana Hollstein
Wow, what a load of rubbish, especially this part that says; “Being gay is not and was never a choice.” If this rubbish is accepted, then being gay is a mental illness.
I do not for a second think that being gay is something that derives straight from nature and which leaves a person devoid of any choices. It is a choice! Being gay is a way of life. People choose to be gay and choose to remain gay regardless of the social un-acceptance of being gay.
@ Sine
OK, we can discuss the legalities, but I think you need to take back what you are said about “Israelites” having no land in the Middle East.
You may rightly point out that most Arab states voted against Res. 181. But then again, many states voted against various GA resolutions condemning Israel. You cannot pick and choose among which UN resolutions you take seriously — as Israel itself does.
Maggs
I find it interesting that you say:
“My view on Achmat is informed by the comment by George September 23, 2009 at 2:53 am http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/no-place-for-judge-who-has-contempt-for-gay-men-lesbians-and-hiv-positive-south-africans-zackie-achmat/ and not his position on Hlophe.”
Now first, thanks for pointing me to that article. I would love to read the full text.
But I have to say, I find your use of it a bit perplexing.
“Jy sal deur jou dade geken word. ”
You will be known by your deeds, is a good expression.
Zachie Achmat will stand tall in South African history for what he did. Not what he said. In the left – you might know there is a libetarian intellectual streak – which often would shock. See Foucault for instance. See the Red Brigades, see the Bader Meinhoff Gang, etc…
Now I do not want to defend what Foucault has said about sexuality or what Achmat has said, as claimed in that article. But it has to be viewed through the prism of that time and the age of Achmat when he said it, and the publication in which it was published – An Afrikaans intellectual magazine published by Giliomee.
Obama has admitted to using cocaine when he was young. José Manuel Barroso is currently the president of the EU, and in his youth was one of the leaders of the underground Maoist MRPP.
Who of us has not made mistakes. For me Zachie Achmat remains one of the heros of the new South Africa, because of what he has *done*.
I would also caution to form an opinion about somebody based on a comment by someone that does not have the guts to put their full name. Who is this George?
OK – so you may counter. How is this different from our friend John Q? John is a repeat offender and is disseminated widely. And unlike the words attributed to Achmat – which, especially at the time only be regarded as a curiosity – Mr. Q’s comments could costs lives.
Are the parallels that are being revealed not amazing?
Between the failure of the South African state and the state of Zimbabwe, I mean.
As the shameless warlords in the liberation movements shed their labour allies the populist utterances become more strident, as they feverishly try to defend their hegemony. Setting up a straw man/common enemy for their supporters to rally around, to build unity. This time it is gay-bashing. During the service delivery/xenophobia riots, it was foreigners from other African states.
Two problems with the appointment of JQ as Ambassador to Uganda, if these rumours are true, and considering the profession many of you practice, we are all doing an enormous amount of speculation based on conjecture:
1) Somebody high-up in Foreign Affairs knew of the pending hate-legislation
in Uganda, knew JQ’s feelings about homsexuality, knew he would not face any comebacks for synergising. He thought someone up the ladder was going to have a good giggle at his little attempt at humour.
2) Once again, (IF TRUE) the godless, shameless ANC appears to be thinking of (and we all know how the ANC operates, selective leaks being one of its favourite tricks) appointing – as a representative of our country – someone whose personal views or personal life or personal history or personal behaviour is an embarrassment to all of us. As it usually does. Godless, shameless ANC!
p.s. The rights culture has not penetrated very far at all, now has it?
@ Michael Osborne
Ok Michael I withdraw my initial statement that Israelites have no land in the Middle East. My shallow browsing and perusal of sources online seem to indicate that Israelites did have land in the Middle East and existed peacefully alongside their Arab neighbours until the GA Resolution that you have referred me to and for which I am truly appreciative. In “allocating” land as part of the State of Israel after the Second World War, the GA Resolution gave to Israel land that was mostly inhabited by Arabs. This is what caused the hatred and belligerence that we witness today. One of the sources of this info is (http://www.gotquestions.org/jews-arabs.html) However, this info dovetails with my understanding of the relevant GA Resolution.
The question now that comes to mind is whether the world powers that voted in favour of and against the allocation of the relevant land and the establishment of the two states of Israel and Palestine were empowered in terms of international law to do so and how. At the relevant time Palestine was under British rule, as can easily be discerned from the GA Resolution, and my understanding of the principles of international law is that the British illicitly occupied the relevant land at the time especially when you consider that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was already signed aboard a ship off the coast of the USA and the British were duly represented by Winston Churchill and duly signed that Declaration. In my view this “allocation” of land was clearly unlawful and Palestine, as a state illicitly under British colonial rule, did not have a say in that Resolution which affected its borders. The same goes for the South African presence in Namibia, then South West African Republic, after the Second World War.
Therefore, we cannot argue that Israel, as it is, is a lawfully existing state in international law since its establishment was in breach of international law.
Sine says: “Wow, what a load of rubbish, especially this part that says; “Being gay is not and was never a choice.” If this rubbish is accepted, then being gay is a mental illness. I do not for a second think that being gay is something that derives straight from nature and which leaves a person devoid of any choices. It is a choice! Being gay is a way of life. People choose to be gay and choose to remain gay regardless of the social un-acceptance of being gay.”
Response: (1) Your logic is faulty, to say the least. If saying being gay is not a choice means that it is a mental illness then, by your logic being black (which is also not a choice) is also a mental illness.
(2) The “way of life” argument is often used by bigots (who refer to the gay “lifestyle”) to try and argue that heterosexuality is normal but that some people “choose” to be abnormal (like doing crime, shouting for the Blue Bulls or having sex with little children). Implicit in this argument is an assumption that gay men and lesbian should be blamed for the hate and discrimination they suffer because they can “choose” to be heterosexual but don’t. Whether one’s sexual orientation is genetically determined or determined by socialization or by a combination of factors, my personal experience is that – like heterosexuality – it is not a choice. Or are you saying that you are also very much attracted to members of the same sex but have “chosen to only have sex with members of a different sex? Because that is what you imply. If sexual orientation is always chosen it would mean all heterosexuals are also attracted to members of the same sex but choose to sleep only with the opposite sex, a notion that would surprise many a heterosexual I suspect.
In response to my comment “Hey Pierre, you gays are becoming as bad as the whitey’s nowadays – nothing but whine and complain!” Pierre said “CD, please reflect: What would you have said if I had told you the above but instead of “gays” have said “blacks”. You would rightly have said I am a racist. So, mate, you are a bigot and a homophobe. Look into your heart and try and stop yourself from exposing yourself as a bigot.”
Pierre, lighten up mate! It was said (written) with heavy irony and black humour! Sheesh…..
@ Prof
1. I admit that my logic is faulty and was not submitted as a serious contention.
2. LOL. To be honest, what I said lends itself to a reasonable interpretation that I am attracted to members of the same sex as me. Well, let me take this opportunity to say that this interpretation is far away from reality; I am only attracted to ladies (as in natural females). When I say natural females I exclude those who are females through sex change like Ciara, the American singer (so my youngest sister told me).
3. I believe it may happen that as a boy growing up you may be exposed to mostly members of the same sex as you and you may have “feelings” or “attraction” of brotherhood towards them. However, as you get exposed to and become curious of the opposite sex, those “feelings” that you harboured towards the same sex will be phased out. The time for these “feelings” or “attraction” to fade away depends on how curious of, and how much interaction that boy has with, the opposite sex. That is exactly where, in my view, the element of choice begins. It is up to that boy to choose to endorse and tolerate his “feelings” for or “attraction” to the same sex or to nurture his “newfound” feelings for or attraction to the opposite sex. Social pressure (such as the family structure of the boy concerned, his peers dating the opposite sex and being uncomfortable when touched by members of the same sex like before, adolescence stage taking over with the noticeable differences in the boy, etc. procured by the pumping of testosterone in the boy’s body etc) usually facilitates the process of choosing the feelings for or attraction to the opposite sex over those of yesteryears. In the end, the fact remains that the boy has a choice.
@ Sine
“my understanding of the principles of international law is that the British illicitly occupied the relevant land at the time”
No, this is not correct. This British ruled Palestine from 1922 onwards under a mandate from the League of Nations that I do not believe anyone has argued is illegal.
It was the Ottoman Empire that held Palestine as a colony, until it was defeated in WWI.
The history of the ME is much more complicated than most people, Israel and Arab supporters, realise. Crucially, what is not understood is a Muslim Empire ruled the entire area for nearly 1000 years. There never was a “Palestinian State,” not was there a Jewish state for 2000 years.
Was the Ottoman rule over the entire area for 1000 years illegal? I do not know. How should the UN have drawn the borders in 1948. I do not know that either.
Pierre De Vos says:
January 22, 2010 at 9:45 am
Pierre,
Those are not my views. I was referring to a comment posted in public space which has till today not bee refuted.
To quote George : “exactly how deeply you are repulsed by the conventional sexual parameters of family and society”.
What, if George reflects accurately on the article, is different about Achmat and Qwelane?
Maybe someone will be able to track down the original article and we can all get to understand what George meant by “Or ‘ …warped morality… from closeted doctors try to legislate child and adult sexuality. The question… should be: if the child wants to enter into a relationship with an adult’ ??”.
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 22, 2010 at 11:07 am
Wessels,
Sure Achmat’s fight (and successes) with government over HIV AIDS and ARVs has contributed immensely to our country – does that condone his views, if George is correct?
Qwelane’s stand for the aspirations of Black people has also made an immense contribution.
Both of them have some serious soul searching to do over what can only be described as repulsive attitudes, if George is to be believed.
As I said elsewhere, President Zuma is making a poor choice, if the reports are accurate, but appointing Qwelane to Uganda, but if he does let’s hope that Qwelane is able to properly advance the country’s position rather than his own on homosexuality.
Sine says:
January 22, 2010 at 14:07 pm
“In the end, the fact remains that the boy has a choice”.
Hey Sne – what are you smoking?
Share some!
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 22, 2010 at 11:07 am
“Who is this George?” – well I am not revealing my sources, not even by application of Section 205!
“Who of us has not made mistakes” – why do you think that Achmat considers those views a “mistake”?
“I would also caution to form an opinion about somebody based on a comment by someone that does not have the guts to put their full name” – it’s in public space – either it’s accurate or it’s not. I really don’t care if people prefer not to reveal their identities. See Nirvana Hollstein says:January 22, 2010 at 9:51 am.
“Mr. Q’s comments could costs lives” – how so? He was not the one who said “Shoot the bastards” or “we will kill for Zuma” – methinks it’s a case of mistaken identity!
“the age of Achmat when he said it” – let’s not discriminate on the basis of age!
The thing that stands out the most is that the depth of your comments/rationalisation/justification is seriously disproportional with “the words attributed to Achmat – which, especially at the time only be regarded as a curiosity”
@ Maggs
“Qwelane’s stand for the aspirations of Black people has also made an immense contribution”
So true …
Why should anyone living in a ‘free’ country have to justify whether their homosexuality is an accident of birth, the way God made them or their choice?
Why should they have to pay with their lives for it?
Surely it is between them and God?
Frankly, I would rather not hear about it all day. Maggs, you’re misdirecting again and you know it.
We all have our own demons. My perception on homosexuality is formed by a girl I used to work with when I left university. Natalie was a couple years younger than me. Ugly little girl. She used to keep ‘Exit’ on her desk. She often used to steer the conversation that way but deny that she was a lesbian as if I really wanted to know. She tried to kill herself 3 times during the 6-9 months we worked together.
Turns out her father raped her from the age of 7.
Can you imagine you are 7 years old, every night, you lie there, fighting against sleep, perhaps pinching or biting yourself so that you do not drop off because you know you might wake up with the person all natural laws meant to be your protector’s hand over your mouth whispering to you to be quiet?
Somehow, I hope Natalie does not burn if she has not turned.
I’ll bet that pig disapproved of homosexuality as well.
The issue is not whether Achmat is suitable for an ambassadorial post or whether JQ is but to what extent the ANC warlords are shrugging off the rights culture and the modus vivendi in favour of populist appeals to try and shore up the shattered sky-high expectations; and the hegemony fragmented by their incompetence, mismanagement, greed, corruption; and when the whole farce ends in another Zimbabwe!!!
p.s. The rights culture has not penetrated very far at all, now has it?
On reflection, Maggs is right.
Suppose Cmd Zuma were to appoint Eugene Terreblache as ambassador to Zambia.
Sure, I personally would not be very happy at all. But In would bear in mind a few simple facts:
1. We can assume ET would follow our Constitution.
2. He will be fully briefed in Pretoria.
3. Ahmad is no better that ET.
4. ET has done a lot for his people.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 23, 2010 at 6:30 am
If that were to happen then whoever is making the appointment would be promptly dispatched to an appropriate institution – I was gonna say nuthouse, but that term may be offensive – but you get my drift!
Brett Nortje says:
January 22, 2010 at 20:25 pm
Hey Brett – I am gonna ignore Sne’s sage advice again and engage.
I think you are very confused, again.
Let me clarify.
1. My raising of Achmat is directly related to a question posed by Michael Osborne see Maggs Naidu says:January 20, 2010 at 4:25 am.
2. If you have the slightest doubt over my views on homosexuality let me set your mind at peace – from a moral perspective, I have no views on other peoples sexual orientation. Not only is it none of my business, I don’t really care if someone is heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, gender neutral or whatever. Pierre quaintly pointed out that Achmat is now married to his sweetheart Dali – while it’s wonderful for both of them, that too, is of no material interest to me.
3. I think Qwelane’s views on homosexuality are outrageous and inconsistent with the values that we hold as a country. Qwelane’s impending appointment to Uganda sends out the wrong signals – I think our President has not thought that through thoroughly enough – it’s like Obama sending George Bush as special envoy to Iran. But then his gopher, Tony Blair, was appointed UKs special envoy to the ME – so maybe a bad example.
4. If George as quoted is correct, then Achmat being “repulsed” by “the conventional sexual parameters of family and society” is equally outrageous, which btw Pierre regards as “at worst amusing and at best rather encouraging”. Pierre being amused and encouraged by that is more worrying than whether or not it was accurately reflected.
So far I have heard a lot of hooha about my referencing George’s comments on Achmat , but interestingly no one has refuted it.
5. I dunno what people are smoking but it must be some serious ly hectic stuff – “Do you have any scientific evidence that [Qwelane] is a homophobe?” ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu asked the Mail & Guardian this week. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-22-anc-prove-qwelane-is-homophobic
The most serious thing that has emerged, in my view, from this thread is the double standards that are being applied.
@ PdV
“[Maggs] sound[s] like the worst kind of DA supporter”
Pierre, this is a very, very low blow.
You know very well that Maggs would rather be called a Nazi than a “DA supporter.”
You may wish to consider withdrawing this grievous insult.
Michael Osborne says:
January 23, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Thanks for trying to defend my impugned dignity Michael.
Being called names or insulted does not bother me.
The core issue which brought on that, not being addressed, does.
Looks Maggs you have a point.
PDV is a master of double standards. He complains about the flaunting of the human rights of Egyptian gays, but does not extend the same courtesy to South African farmers.
But in the case of Achmat I feel your labouring and stretching the point. We have not even established is said article is true.
If it was I think it matters what Achmat will say if it was put to him. Zachie, what do you think of this now?
I don’t hear John Qwelane distancing him from his views – do you?
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 23, 2010 at 15:56 pm
Wessels,
I don’t think Qwelane will distance himself from his views, neither is that the relevant.
The issue is whether or not our bill of rights is the standard against which we assess people, whether or not we apply that consistently and whether or not the determination is based on personality rather than principle.
Qwelane is homophobic by his own publicly stated views.
Tony Leon is pro death penalty by his own publicly stated views.
Achmat is, according to George, “repulsed” by “the conventional sexual parameters of family and society”.
Pierre being amused and encouraged by that – I am struggling to understand what about it is amusing or encouraging.
None of the above is, to my mind, consistent with the spirit of our bill of rights.
Maggs I, too, am “repulsed” by “the conventional sexual parameters of family and society.” And so should you be.
We should be repulsed by the right-wing fundamentalists’ insistence that the Christian model of the nuclear family is the only acceptable way “normal” people may live.
We should be repulsed by the hypocrisy of conventional middle class values that mandate lifelong monogamy is mandatory, even while serial adultery and multiple divorce is the norm.
We should be repulsed by the moral idiocy of Christian activists who demand restrictions of cinematic and other depicts of sexuality, but have no problem with a media culture that celebrates graphic violence.
We should be repulsed by conventional restraints on female sexuality.
We should be repulsed by the odious homophobia of many in the Christian (and Islamic) mainstream.
Most of all, we should be repulsed by the odious bigotry of John Qwelane.
Michael Osborne says:
January 24, 2010 at 8:03 am
hahahaha – funny man.
@ Maggs says:
“hahhahaha – funny man.”
Maggs is right.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
January 24, 2010 at 11:21 am
Hey Dworky,
Since you don’t want peace and friendship – you can go to er, Thembuland!
“AbaThembu Tribe have seceded from South Africa. The sooner the Nation -aligns with this reality and start preparing to form the State of Thembuland the better,”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20100124135508700C738458
p.s. @ Sne – you will be sorely missed!
Michael Osborne says:
January 24, 2010 at 8:03 am
Hey Michael,
Luckily for me I was born a Hindu – so I don;t have to worry about all those very complicated things.
And lucky to be born Black too :
“White, who says he has received visions from God for 33 years, interprets the Bible to say only whites can be Christians.
“‘The churches have lied to the other races to tell them that they can be part of the Christian faith,’ he says. ‘I appreciate many people will not agree with me, but I have the right to express my beliefs.’”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article274690.ece
Good luck with your “repulsive” campaign.
@ Maggs
Respek on being borna Hindu — and being black to boot!
Speaking for myself, I was born in a dog-fearing Eastern Orthodox community; it was there that I learned the importance, precisely, of respek.
Hey Dworky – I don’t believe that you have any respect for my religion or my colour, nor do I have an issue with that.
But denying your Thembuland heritage is gonna incur the wrath of King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo – you better make amends quick or else you will end up like the dinosaur (or is it ether?).
Maggs Naidu, I have to say I’ve been disappointed with your convoluted, evasive and weak arguments of late.
Latest example is where you say: “I don’t think Qwelane will distance himself from his views, neither is that the relevant.
The issue is whether or not our bill of rights is the standard against which we assess people, whether or not we apply that consistently and whether or not the determination is based on personality rather than principle.”
What exactly are you saying? Personality vs Principle??
Are you saying that regardless of Achmat’s views today and what he has demonstrably done in South Africa since then, he would fail a test against the values in the constitution because of something he said (allegedly) in his past? Is this supposed to relate in anyway to his personality? That’s really weird points your making, and I’m struggling to understand them.
If principle is your guide Zackie Achmat must be ‘voor in die koor’ in this country of ours.
Said article – if true – was written in a time when the Nationalists still ruled the country. In a time when none of us could imagine the depths of depravity some of the struggle heros would fall into.
I also find it odd that you expend so much time and effort on making a point which you have not bothered to verify. Why don’t you run to your local university library and go and check. I know you probably don’t understand a word of Afrikaans, but send it to Pierre, he’ll translate it for you.
The impression your weak arguments leave is that you have ulterior motives.
As an side. If you insist calling me on my first name, would you mind doing it correctly? Thanks.
Kameraad Mhambi says:
January 24, 2010 at 15:59 pm
“If you insist calling me on my first name, would you mind doing it correctly?”
Ok, Mr van Rensburg – that must be better! (Reminds me of the good old days when it was offensive to call the baas by his first name – got me in a lot of trouble then too).
Which part of what I said is not clear?
We have Qwelane who finds homosexuality repulsive and he correctly gets roasted. We have Achmat, who according to George, finds heterosexuality repulsive.
Qwelane has terrible views of homosexuals, but he has contributed to raising the bar in respect of transformation of our society.
Achmat has, according to George, terrible views of heterosexuals, but he has contributed materially to the provision of ARVs to people living with AIDS.
Qwelane (according to Pierre) “prays that politicians will some day have ‘the balls’ to rewrite the constitution “to excise those sections which give license to men ‘marrying’ other men, and ditto women.”” http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/john-qwelane-homophobe-at-it-again/#comment-24409
Achmat (according to George) ”If gay men means the death of your society, so be it. I would be very happy to contribute to the death of heterosexuality”
It’s what informed my comment “My response would be the same if Zackie Achmat were to be appointed ambassador to any country with progressive views and laws around gay rights”.
Read my comment Maggs Naidu says:January 20, 2010 at 4:25 am for the proper context.
Why should we be more rigourous when heterosexuals expressive negative views on homosexuality than when homosexuals express negative views on heterosexuality?
I hope it’s clearer to you now, Mr van Rensburg.
Would you be ok with Qwelane being appointed (and support his appointment) as Ambassador to Uganda if he apologised for stating his views on homosexuality in public?
I would not!
p.s. [I have no intention of verifying that - it is in public space and it has not been disputed, until it is disputed I have no reason to disbelieve George.]
@ Maggs asks”
“Why should we be more rigorous when heterosexuals expressive negative views on homosexuality than when homosexuals express negative views on heterosexuality?”
Many would say that the perpetuation of bigotry against a group that has long been marginalised, repressed and persecuted is viewed as more offensive and destructive than the same directed at powerful groups.
I believe this is the basis of Pierre’s oft-repeated claim that black people are incapable of being racist. I have grave doubts myself; but I would have thought, Maggs, that you would have supported moral asymmetry.
Maggs, when they represent South Africa to the world only the best should do.
P.S. Your Achmat analogy is strained and irrelevant!
Hah! Michael. Your post-Christian vent does not consider the unqualified success that Christian world-view has been in uplifting and educating the nations who have held it compared to those who have not! Why do you not compare the two against every developmental index you wish?
Where would everybody following this blog have been was it not for that Christian world view with its emphasis on education, the nuclear Christian family, social order and social justice?
Still in the early iron age?
Christelike Nasionale Onderwys – that much-maligned feat of social engineering – is responsible for every one of us’ brothers sisters cousins being able to walk into good jobs right across the world as they were displaced from the country of their birth by raidng parties that invaded their peaceful, orderly suburbs, poisoned their pets and attacked them in their homes.
Maggs, sadly you are only able to indetify oppression when you are one of the oppressed and not when you are part of the oppressor. In a heteronormative world in which gay men and lesbians are relentlesly marginliased and their dignity disrespected because of assumptions about the normality of heterosexuality, statements about the repulsiveness of a system of heterosexual oppression seems to me entirely unproblematic. (This is the same way as making statements about white racist and how repulsive that is.) You seem unable to fathom (perhaps because you are part of the system of heterosexual oppression) that traditional heterosexual institutions (such as heterosexual marriage and family) limit the life choices (and hence dignity) of all because it requires us all to confirm to an impossible ideal. President Zuma for one has rebelled against this tyrrany and has taken more than one wife. Others do not have the financial, emotional power or ability to resist the structural oppression which precludes them of living full lives in which they can achieve their full potential. The last time I checked homosexuality is not the problem as there is no all-encompassing system which forces one to become homosexual, to act in a specific way and enter only into certain restricted relationships because of one’s presumed homosexuality. That is why one cannot conflate Qwelane and Achmat. It is like conflating Eugene Terreblanche and Mahmood Mamdani and sayin both have said bad things about a specific group of people (Eugene about blacks, mamdani about some whites) and hence are equally despicable. That view endorses the structural racism and the inherent power differences between the white Western world and the “other” and is deeply reactionary. In the same way your view on Achmat’s statements can be seen as deeply recationarey from a sexual orientation perspective because it endorses the all encompassing hegeomionic oppression by all the hetreonormative institutions which drives people to misrey and even suicide and perpetuates thatred and violence against homosexuals.
Pierre De Vos says:
January 25, 2010 at 6:52 am
Hurling insults, name calling, outrageous comments does not help. Neither do those advance arguments in support of a particular view.
Attempting to cast what I said as in any way being anti-homosexuality is disingenuous at best. If you or others are in any doubt, let me say it again. I am not!
The essence of what I said is that those opposed to homosexuality are the same as those opposed to heterosexuality.
It is as inappropriate to undermine the “conventional sexual parameters of family and society” as “I do pray that some day a bunch of politicians with their heads affixed firmly to their necks will muster the balls to rewrite the constitution of this country, to excise those sections which give licence to men “marrying” other men, and ditto women”.
The “conventional sexual parameters of family and society” is entirely the business of the “conventional family” – nobody has the right to undermine that in any way whatsoever.
“(M)en ‘marrying’ other men, and ditto women” is entirely the business of the people concerned – nobody has the right to undermine that in any way whatsoever.
—————————————————————————————————–
To again set the context of my comments which started with an exchange with Michael Osborne :
Maggs Naidu says:
January 20, 2010 at 4:25 am
Michael Osborne says:
January 19, 2010 at 21:40 pm
“Maggs, just for clarity, would your response to JQ’s (apparent) appointment be any different if he were a known misogynist or racist?”
No – my response would be the same. I would be equally disappointed, annoyed, irritated – but I would hope that he or she conducts him/herself “in a way that is consistent with the letter and the spirit of our Constitution”.
My response would be the same if Zackie Achmat were to be appointed ambassador to any country with progressive views and laws around gay rights (if what George says is accurate September 23, 2009 at 2:53 am http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/no-place-for-judge-who-has-contempt-for-gay-men-lesbians-and-hiv-positive-south-africans-zackie-achmat/).
@ Maggs says:
“(M)en ‘marrying’ other men, and ditto women” is entirely the business of the people concerned”
This is where I think you are precisely wrong, Maggs.
For one thing, marriage is a public institution. Every society must decide the parameters of marriage, who can marry whom, etc. Thus, it cannot be “entirely the business” of the individuals concerned.
For another thing, discrimination, as we know from the racial context, is not just a matter of the state’s action. “Private” discrimination abounds. The private sector cannot remain neutral on questions like these.
It is interesting that politics in the UK are getting back to basics such as family, parenting, marriage etc. The individual choices we make must be accompanied by responsibility and must not be in conflict with the collective vision. Just think about the following
What if all or majority of SA men were to be gay or women become lesbians?
What if majority if not all of our children were born out of wedlock?
Why are the first world countries volunteering to adopt Haiti children? It is not because they want to help.
Fertlity rates are dropping all over the world and individuals are becoming less interested in reproductive relationships. Is that the kind of future we want?
Why are we worried about global warming, sustainable development and future generations if we want to live for the moment?
Who must promote and act on these if none of us are responsible?
In my opinion we are putting too much emphasis on the individual rather than the collective interest. Individual choices are key in a free society but these must be tested against a collective interest and accompanied by responsibility.
The figures might be negligible foe now but at what point do we start to manage these contradictions?
There is no country in the world that has managed to reverse falling fertility rates hence some have negative growth rates.
The Haiti, China, Madonna stories are showing a trend where the poor will in the future reproduce for the rich.
Oh, Sine, I would like to know where you got your information from. In my line of work we deal facts and not untested theories like your own. I would therefore appreciate it if you could provide me with the necessary empirical data to support your argument, as well as hypothesis used to test this theory.
Homosexuality was classed as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APS) in 1952, when it published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The problem with this was that not all of the mental health practitioners in the United States agreed with this classification, an action that prompted the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to embark on a research study of their own to determine the scientific basis for this. The empirical and scientific findings produced by the NHIM refuted the findings by the AP; and instead noted that “homosexuality was a normal and healthy sexual orientation”.
The study by the NHIM sparked a debate amongst medical and mental health practitioners, behavioural scientist as well as social scientists that after some time had to concede that in light of empirical and scientific data, the ASP was wrong to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. The NIHM concluded that the rationale for classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder was built upon “once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system”
As a result of the research conducted by the NHIM, the APS decided to omit homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973 and stated the following “ homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” The American Psychological Association, after careful consideration of the empirical data produced, decided to follow the example set by the APS in 1975 and declared that all mental health practitioners should “take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.”
The very same Associations declared the following:
“Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual — including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents’ sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual”
In addition, the Royal College of Psychiatry notes : “Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice”.
I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE.
@ Gwebe
“Fertlity rates are dropping all over the world and individuals are becoming less interested in reproductive relationships. Is that the kind of future we want?”
Actually, Yes.
The greatest contribution anyone can make to address global warming is not to have children.
On this basis, the “collective interest” of which you speak would be best served if 50% of this generation becomes gay/lesbian.
@ Michael
Firstly, I believe the earth has been cooling in the last five years and scientists are at pains trying to explain global warming.
Secondly,I hope you do not believe on the population explosion or overpopulation theory because it is a myth.
Wise and progressive countries such as Japan and UK have realised the impact of changing population structures (fewer kids, labour force, etc coupled with long life expectancy) can reverse their sustainable economic gains.
Let us assume you are right.
If the basic responsibility of a human being on this earth is not to reproduce then what should it be? Why are we wasting time looking after plants and animals when we cant look after ourselves?
Who must be gay & lesbian( Dlamini family from Nkandla or yours)? Put differently, who must reproduce on behalf of others when they are able but choose not to for whatever reason. By the way this includes those who are straight but choose not to have children. At the individual level they are excercising their choice but at what cost to all of us and the generations to come. When we talk of sustainability we must include population in the model and a shrinking population size does not represent sustainability.
Majority of the world citizens have chosen not to be gay and lesbians and I hope your 50% prediction or wish never comes.
Michael Osborne says:
January 25, 2010 at 8:08 am
“This is where I think you are precisely wrong, Maggs.
“For one thing, marriage is a public institution. Every society must decide the parameters of marriage, who can marry whom, etc.”
Our society has decided – people can marry or not marry.
Beyond that it’s nobody’s business except those who are involved.
Re discrimination, I agree that the “private sector cannot remain neutral on questions like these”.
I don’t agree with your proposition “Pierre’s oft-repeated claim that black people are incapable of being racist”. Nor do I agree that people who are discriminated against have any right to discriminate against others.
“I would have thought, Maggs, that you would have supported moral asymmetry” – to the extent that it is necessary to correct entrenched injustices and is the most suitable remedy, it may be necessary. Otherwise not.
For example, I thought that then chairperson of the HRC, Pityana, was wrong in his racist attack on Dennis Davis about a decade or so ago. At the time Davis may well have been overzealous and unhelpful (maybe insensitive) in the way he raised his concerns, but his criticisms were not in the least racist. Pityana was, in my view, terribly racist – most of that tirade was not against the thrust of what Davis said but against Davis’ whiteness, in effect that white people had not right to engage.
Gwebecimele says:
January 25, 2010 at 8:55 am
“What if all or majority of SA men were to be gay or women become lesbians?”
According to one view (http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html) this may happen.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
In diplomatic practise there is a term called ” Agrement”. Agrement refers to the official confirmation by a Host State that they accept an ambassador from a Sending State. Agrement is only granted once the Host State has satisfied that the ambassador they are receiving is a person of good standing and has no criminal record amongst others. In the case of Uganda, I see no reason why they would not grant Agrement as Qwelane’s views fits right in with theirs.
Had Qwelane been posted to a country like the Netherlands or Sweden for instance, then civil society groups could have lodged a complaint and urged the Swedes not to grant Agrement, based on his homophobic statements.
Just a thought from a gay man currently in the South African Foreign Service …
@ Maggs
“Nor do I agree that people who are discriminated against have any right to discriminate against others.”
So may I take it, then, that you are against affirmative action?
Gwebe rights:
“Firstly, I believe the earth has been cooling in the last five years and scientists are at pains trying to explain global warming.”
I understand that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that global warming is a reality.
That being so, global warming denial is on a part with HIV/AIDS denialism and evolution denialism.
Michael – I think you missed that part of my comment which is relevant – January 25, 2010 at 10:09 am
“to the extent that it is necessary to correct entrenched injustices and is the most suitable remedy, it may be necessary. Otherwise not.”
@ Maggs
Yes, I did notice this sentence in what you wrote.
The point I suppose is this: The moral/ethical imperative that supports affirmative action remedies involved a rejection of “formal” equality, with its model of symmetry.
Part of that imperative is that discrimination by a privileged group against the less privileged is more pernicious than the reverse.
If you agree with that principle in general, why does it not apply to the gay/lesbian context, not at the level of remedy, but in our moral evaluation of relative perniciousness?
This is, I think, part of Pierre’s point. (He will surely correct me if I am wrong.)
Michael Osborne says:
January 25, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“If you agree with that principle in general, why does it not apply to the gay/lesbian context, not at the level of remedy, but in our moral evaluation of relative perniciousness?”
Of course I agree with that.
Where did I imply even at the slightest that it does “not apply to the gay/lesbian context”?
Killing of heterosexuality, even in part, is not the remedy.
Nor is destroying “the conventional sexual parameters of family and society”.
It does not advance the interests of equality to be amused and encouraged by that either.
Recall that Peter Mokaba was almost immediately brought in line when he infamously sang “Kill the farmer …”. It may have been disastrous (and completely unjustified) if political leaders and other high profile people dismissed that as simply funny and non-consequential given the extreme, racially skewed, imbalances.
Maggs, I fear you are confused. Achmat did not say we should kill heterosexuals. He said we should attack the heteronormative value system that oppresses not only homosexuals but also all those who are not part of the patriarchal power complex. His views (whether you might agree with him or not) is about an attack on oppression (as opposed to Qwelane’es views who are unashamedly about the endorsement of bigotry and the oppression of a marginalised and vulnerable minority). The distinction is so stark that I cannot understand how you can equate the two things – unless you are arguing that heterosexuality as a construct and an ideological force is a fundamental good thing per se that must be protected from questioning by anyone at any cost (which is what I suspect you believe) AND that heterosexuals as a class are usually marginalised and oppressed by homosexuals AND that Achmat’s words actually perpetuate bigoted and stereotypical views held by a powerful majority against a minority group (which group is all heterosexuals). None of these three requirements are met so why you would equate the two is beyond me. You seem to base your argument on a rather quiant view that calling for a review of the system which many people (including Achmat, myself and about every social science academic in America) believe oppress a range of marginalised and disempowered individuals on the basis of their gender and sexual orientation is the same as making statements in which one endorses and perpetuates deeply ingrained, hurtful and dangerous stereotypes about a vulnerable minority. Some understanding of power, structural oppression and at least a small ability to look critically at heterosexuality as an ideology and a construct is required to move away from your view.
Pierre De Vos says:
January 25, 2010 at 13:36 pm
“I fear you are confused”.
Indeed I am.
Why is heterosexuality problematic?
I was of the view that the oppression of homosexuality/homophobia is the problem.
I was also of the view that it is bigots who are problem.
You seems to be saying that heterosexuality equates to homophobia.
And that “the conventional sexual parameters of family and society” is at the heart of the bigotry.
“(H)eterosexuality as an ideology” sounds to me as way out and far fetched as “(p)eople choose to be gay and choose to remain gay regardless of the social un-acceptance of being gay” (c/o Sne).
p.s. “unless you are arguing that heterosexuality as a construct and an ideological force is a good thing per se that must be protected from questioning by anyone (which is what I suspect you believe)” – I am not arguing that.
p.p.s “(which is what I suspect you believe)” – Dworky is usually the one who knows what I believe despite my views that are exactly the opposite, it must be catching!
@ Maggs
I think our debate has run out of steam.
Either that, or we agree that, in general, it is appropriate to afford more leeway to statements that may be offensive to a powerful majority (in this case, heterosexuals), than to statements that may be offensive to a relatively less empowered minority (in this case, gays/lesbians.)
If you accept that, I think you understand why I do not concur with your equating of the offensive statements of JQ with those of ZA,
Michael Osborne says:
January 25, 2010 at 14:21 pm
I fully agree that offensive statements by a powerful group or individual is far more impacting than that of an oppressed group or individuals and that the powerful should be far more sensitive about what they say and how they say it.
I also agree that Qwelane’s comments are likely to have far more, as they say, force and effect than Achmat’s.
That is the reason why I was not perturbed, even encouraged, by the appointment of Tony Leon as ambassador even though he’s after execution of evil criminals – his cry to bring back the dp is like a “f ..t against thunder”, so meaningless.
Which brings me back to your original question introduced by “Maggs, suppose a known misogynist or racist were appointed as ambassador”.
My replied (lest it got lost in all this) :
“No – my response would be the same. I would be equally disappointed, annoyed, irritated – but I would hope that he or she conducts him/herself “in a way that is consistent with the letter and the spirit of our Constitution”.
“My response would be the same if Zackie Achmat were to be appointed ambassador to any country with progressive views and laws around gay rights” – take that in the context of what I consider anti-heterosexual utterances.
@ Maggs
” I was not perturbed, even encouraged, by the appointment of Tony Leon as ambassador even though he’s after execution of evil criminals”
Maggs, please explain why you were “encouraged” by the appointment of TL. If you really think he is a racist, I do not see how his appointment could in an sense be “encouraging.”
Also, I am not sure I agree with you that his cry to bring back the dp is meaningless.
I find it hard to describe it as “meaningless” to push any cause when:
1. Three out of four South Africans support it.
2. The President has said the matter should be considered.
Michael Osborne says:
January 25, 2010 at 15:55 pm
Re TL his position over the dp, not racism, was the context. I am encouraged because of the reaching out from all sides.
1. Re the dp – so what if 3/4 people support the dp? I was of the view that the majority is not necessarily correct, that ultimately the interpretation of the bill of rights by the CC is final.
2. http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/a1de68e0bddb471d9364a0f2e704be77/13-03-2008-07-19/ANCs_no_for_death_penalty and http://www.africanews.com/site/list_messages/14149
Stop wriggling now, Maggs!
I am sure I recall you also being convinced that Tony “Fight Black” Leon was a racist.
Why on earth then be “encouraged” by his appointment?
@ Maggs, no the interpretation by the CC of the Const. is not final. First, the Const can be amended. Second, the CC can overrule itself. And an issue on which a huge majority of the country is against a past decision of the CC would be a prime candidate for revision in one of these two ways.
Michael Osborne says:
January 26, 2010 at 6:45 am
All of us are racist – nobody has escaped the impact of the evil empire.
I am encouraged that we are able to transcend that and “working together we can do more” towards creating a better life for all.
Damn – I sound so much like an ANC supporter now!
Michael Osborne says:
January 26, 2010 at 6:51 am
I am aware of those exceptions and that until either happens the CC rulings stand.
Re the dp – I reckon that it is nigh impossible in the foreseeable future.
The ANC, DA, ID at least are opposed to it – does amending the constitution require 2/3 or 3/4 for such an amendment?
On what basis would the CC overrule itself?
OK, Maggs, now we know that your fulminations about TL being a racist was rhetorical crap (except in the sense that everyone in the universe is a racist).
A two/thirds majority is needed to amend the Const in the ordinary course.
I suppose that, if the CC were to re-visit Makwanyane, it would re-examine the s. 36 justifications cited back in 1995, consider newer stats, etc.
Pierre wrote: “sadly you are only able to indetify oppression when you are one of the oppressed and not when you are part of the oppressor”.
Pierre, that is not entirely true. I agree with you that the oppressed will undoubtedly be more sensitive to the nuances and subtle forms which oppression takes (and which may well often escape the unoppressed) but at a clearer more expressed level all of us are able to identify oppression even where we support or are in favour of the oppression in question. To take the extreme example to prove the point: do you really think slave owners did not know that their chattels were oppressed?
Michael Osborne says:
January 26, 2010 at 7:26 am
I would imagine that revisiting the dp would hinge around stats in the main.
There are, to the best of my knowledge, no clear correlations between the capital punishment and the levels of related crimes.
If capital punishment was a real deterrent then the stoning of mainly “adulterous” women, chopping off of limbs and other horrific punishments would not be experienced – just the mere existence of the possibility would be sufficient to reduce the “crimes” to near zero
We know that these things are regularly practiced in those countries – so it cannot be a real deterrent to crimes – I read, for example, that more Chinese business executives have been caught this month selling products deliberately tainted with melamin despite several executions in the past year or so for that crime and apparently there’s more arrests to be made soon. There are South Africans who were caught trafficking drugs in Singapore e.g. where the death sentence is mandatory or nearly so.
I think it would be hard to convince the CC that we are effectively catching and sentencing the bad guys and still failing to reduce the levels of violent crime – our success rate in that regard has to be deplorable.
Our system has to work better (maybe even work) before we think of offing horrible criminals’ heads – in any event the death sentence will require far more of the criminal justice system than it is presently capable of.
@ Michael – the innovative policing solution emerges.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100126042514797C854709&page_number=1
@ Michael
Earth is cooling off see below.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34479085
Africa has just hit 1 billion mark in popupulation but unlike China, US and India we are not taking advantage of our numbers. Our economy is predicted to grow at 4 % and population at 1.7 % which means life should be getting better for us.
I cant believe that after the consequences of China’s one child policy and flooding of contraceptives in the world that we still have people who believe in population explosion myth.
Gwebe, please read the whole of the article you kindly posted.
It makes clear that the cooling of the upper atmosphere is completely consistent with global warming:
“While that may seem to contradict the idea of global warming, it has long been known that carbon dioxide causes warming in the lowest part of the atmosphere and cooling in the upper layers of the atmosphere.”
@ MAayimele and others
I hope you have seen the report of the Auditor General exposing that our government is unable to account for its finances including assets.
Repeat offenders such as Correctional Services ,Health, Land Affairs, SALGA, etc. I hope this is evidence of the poor performance of the past and it was specifically mentioned that lack of support from the political heads.
Just read also below how we spend R241 BILLION RAND on parastatals that we have little to show for it and add arms deal, World Cup TO THAT and just imagine what we could have done with all this money.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page326289?oid=342546&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
@ Michael
My intention was to highlight that there are different of opinions around global warming and I do not have an expert opinion on the matter.
On population matters including determinants of fertlity such marriage, sexual orientation etc I have asked questions to make us think beyond a simple personal choice.
@ Mayimele
Proof of underperformance of the last 14 yrs.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=92172
It looks like Mangena has a solution for our corruption.
Picking up the theme, the ANC’s Sarah Mangena said the Treasury should help in the selection of chief financial officers: “You find that we take a person just because this person was good at arithmetic, but this person really can only run a spaza shop. This person cannot run a department’s budget.”
Mangena took a tough line on corruption, too: “If a person has taken R104-million, why can’t this person bring that money back. If he can’t, let him sell his wife and children so we can recover this money.”
Gwebecimele says:
January 27, 2010 at 10:24 am
Sure looks like, from the AGs reports, that MPs were in sleep mode rather than exercising their oversight role.
In any event with so many in parliament themselves guilty of sticking their fingers into the cookie jar, it is not unsurprising that the raiding of the public purse has gone on unabated for so long with hardly a blink from those responsible.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article280006.ece
It looks like we owe the Maroga’s and Ndebele’s our hard earned money so that they can live in luxury. As if the S600 mercedes and keeping us in the dark were not enough.
This is embarassment and humilation of all those efforts and sacrifices of fallen heroes of the struggle.
Gwebecimele says:
January 27, 2010 at 13:19 pm
It does not stop with that.
Every parastatal pays managers ridiculously high packages.
Whatever justifies the Transnet CEO earning over R11 m pa (which is reportedly the highest salary among all the parastatals)?
“A woman minister in the Methodist church has been discharged for marrying her life partner, a report said on Friday.”
“Reverend Ecclesia de Lange, minister of the Brackenfell and Windsor Park congregations in Cape Town, married her partner, Amanda, in December.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20100219083711424C239853
@ Maggs
I am Methodist and I support this move.
Gwebecimele says:
February 19, 2010 at 9:10 am
The “move” seems to suggest that “it’s ok to be gay, just don’t marry”!
Maggs – No, I think the “move” supported by Gwebecimele says that gay people should not be ministers in a church of a religion advocating that it is wrong to be gay. Then therre is something wrong with the teaching. It is like that guy in the Netherlands I read about the other day, a minister in a Reform Church advocating from the pulpit that he is an atheist. The Council of the church suspended him – he appealed – in higher forum it was then decided that he has a right to be an atheist and, therefore, the church cannot suspend him as minister – and, therefore, he is allowed to preach atheism from the pulpit of a church that professes that it does not believe in atheism. … Absurd, I think! While a person has a right to sexual (or religious) orienetation of his/her choice, such a person clearly does not have the right to force his/her belief unto others who choose not to so believe. … Am I making sense here? Don’t get me wrong – I’m not homophobic or something – I just think that everyone is entitled to their respective views and, when conflict arises, that the right to have one’s view should be balanced against the others’ rights to hold contrary views.
“In addition to his bigoted opinions, the use of the words “stabani” (a derogatory term for gay) and “trahssie” (derogatory term for an inter-sexed person) are particularly repulsive.” Prof. if ‘stabani’ is a derogatory name for gay people, would you kindly inform us of a zulu/xhosa name for the latter which is rather respectful. Please Prof.
Anonymouse says:
February 19, 2010 at 9:54 am
“While a person has a right to sexual (or religious) orienetation of his/her choice, such a person clearly does not have the right to force his/her belief unto others who choose not to so believe.”
Indeed it’s a choice to belong or not belong to a church – those who the churches reject can start their own.
As is it for marriage, monogamy, philandering and and and.
Churches do, however, try to impose their “values” on the rest of society.
p.s. I like this atheist priest – my kinda person. As I said elsewhere I am Hindu and atheist, so I don’t feel lonely
.
@ Mouse
http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/category/atheism-and-agnosticism/
The clip is hilarious!
Maggs – I agree, the clip is hilarious. I also agree with the bloggist, the particular church has committed suicide to say the least.
However, isn’t it rather impossible to be both Hindu and atheist?
Further, whilst I do agree that some churches (and religions) try to “impose” their “values” (or rather “beliefs”) on the rest of society (that was what the three “Susterskerke” did during apartheid), not all of them do. The church (and religion) I belong to (out of own choice, mind you) doesn’t. I do not believe that Christianity (in its purest form) allows for its views to be “imposed” unto others (THE CRUSADES WERE WRONG!), it only allows for preaching the Gospel and, if someone (through own free will – or driven by divine spiritual intervention over which man has no control) chooses to convert to Christianity, it allows for the “decipling” of such a person, who then is required to adhere to the basic tenets and principles of the religion. If he does not, then his conversion was fake.
Anonymouse says:
February 19, 2010 at 11:10 am
“However, isn’t it rather impossible to be both Hindu and atheist?”
Some say that – their views are irrelevant.
I’ll skip the boring details but here’s a snap shot.
“The Vedas are the most ancient record of human experience and knowledge, passed down orally for generations and written down about 5,000 years ago. Medicine, architecture, astronomy and many other branches of knowledge, including maths, are dealt with in the texts.”
http://www.hinduism.co.za/vedic.htm
The late physicist, Carl Sagan, played a significant role for me.
Maggs – Quoted from the site you linked:
“Question: Is there a separate being Iswara (personal God) who is the rewarder of virtue and punisher of sins? Is there a God?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.”
I guess that spells Hinduism does not equal atheism, right?
Anonymouse says:
February 19, 2010 at 14:37 pm
“Question: Is there a separate being Iswara (personal God) who is the rewarder of virtue and punisher of sins? Is there a God?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.”
I guess that spells Hinduism does not equal atheism, right?
——————————————————————————————————–
There are many views and interpretations, compounded by the way the original texts have been interpreted, firstly in the translation from the sanskrit texts then in the actual interpretation of the meaning.
Vedic maths for example until relatively recently was chanted as spiritual mantras, until a yogi mathematician understood the full import of those.
Rich culture, traditions and customs intertwined with religious rituals has meaning for many in the God context which works for them.
I, and some like me, have a different view – I don’t say that my view is the right one, but it is mine.
Ohhhhhhhh!
Elton John is gonna get it!
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/celebrity/article316941.ece
Kan iemand my reg help ek wil n brief aan mnr jacob yuma stuur hoe doen ek dit en daar moet soveel mense as moötlik dit kan leesg asb help
Dear President Zuma
Can someone please tell me what is happening with the Construction Industry in South Africa. My expertise lies in construction and it seems that the whole Construction Industry as far as Developments has come to a total stand still.
No vacancies are being advertsed for the development of new buildings and upgrade of existing structures.
All the developments taking place is happening outside the Country.
Can the Goverment afford to loose the revenue out South African Construction Companies generate.
I do not expect to get a reply but will wait neverless.
Nic vd Westhuizen
RICHARDS BAY
@ Nic
The Construction companies are busy confessing their sins to the Competition Commission after colluding on huge infrastructure projects around the preparation of the world cup.
I suspect govt has learnt a lesson out of this era and coupled with the latest demands of service delivery it is unlikely that we will see more “feel good” projects(Speed trains, Disneyland, PBMR, Coega, Prime Golf Estates etc) but rather low cost houses, schools ,clinics and mantainace of existing infrastructure(potholes).
We need to move the money around but we are still debating.
LOL!!
May be u will get a better response.
Gwebecimele, have you been following the saga around the Gauteng Highway Improvement Programme? Partly built by a company owned by an ANC leader, I believe?
Mike Shussler says building costs for the new roads are 106% to 208% higher than comparable international costs.