The Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, Rapport, is not on my list of must-read publications. Ever since it paid Wit Wolf Barend Strydom R25 000 for a post-prison interview in the early nineties and then treated the mass murderer as if he was a hero of the Volk, I have struggled to regain any respect for the paper. It is not the stories of dominees caught with their pants down that turn me away but the terribly parochial attention to Rugby and all matters Afrikaans. Every time I read it I want to scream: Red nou ‘n Volk!
However, the editor’s decision this week to fire columnist, Deon Maas, because of a column he wrote on Sanatism have lowered my even low estimation of the paper. Don’t these people have any backbone? And who are these readers who still get upset about mild schoolboy statements aiming to shock? Don’t these people have better things to do?
Maas, who used to write a mildly amusing column for the Saturday supplement to Die Burger and Beeld before moving to Rapport two weeks ago, apparently offended some serious religious nuts by writing that Satanism was a religion like any other and was therefore constitutionally entitled to the same kind of protection as any other religion. In tongue in cheek style he wrote that he was not a big fan of Satanism because it was rather a lot of effort.
Die slag van vreedsame huisdiere, die skeur van Bybels, die algemene beswaardheid waarmee jy moet saamleef, swart geverfde vingernaels en die feit dat jy gewoonlik ná middernag moet wakker wees om jou geloof te beoefen, is alles faktore wat Anton LaVey se filosofie effe onaanvaarbaar vir my maak. (The slaughtering of peaceful pers, the tearing up of Bibles, the general moodiness you have to keep up, painted blck nails and the fact that one usually had to practice one’s religion after midnight, are all factors that makes Anton LaVey’s phlosophy somewhat unacceptable to me.)
Probably anticipating some of the histrionic reactions of some Rapport readers, some of them who seem to be caught in a time warp and still seem to believe that dancing on Sunday is a mortal sins and that having sex with one’s wife is only barely torelable in the eyes of God, Maas tries to cover his back by writing:
Propageer hierdie rubriek Satanisme? Nee. Maar as ons wil hê ander mense moet ons punt insien en ons idees respekteer, moet ons hul punt insien en hul idees respekteer. Om iemand anders se idee te verstaan, beteken nie dat jy daarmee hoef saam te stem nie. (Do I propagate Satanism in this column. No. But if we want others to see our point of view or respect our ideas, we have to also try and see their point of view and respect their ideas. To understand anothers idea does not necessarily mean to agree with it.)
Eight days after this column appeared, an sms campaign was launched by faceless readers to boycott the paper. According to its editor Tim Du Plessis, the campaign which also targeted the distributors of the paper, started affecting the commercial interest of the paper. Freedom of expression is one thing, but the bottom line is clearly another, hence Maas was dismissed unceremoniously.
The saga is depressing on several levels. It suggests that a sizable chunk of Rapport readers and therefore South Africans have not yet internalized the values of tolerance and respect for diversity enshrined in our Constitution and, in fact, may be actively opposed to such a value system. Maas was of course perfectly correct: the Constitution protects our freedom of religion and conscience, which includes the right to practices one’s religion as long as one does not break the law. If I want to open a Satanist Church in Putsonderwater next to the NG Kerk (or the massage parlour for that matter) I am constitutionally entitled to do so. Religious fanatics do not have a constitutional right to stop me form practicing my beliefs – no matter how peculiar or boring they may appear. In fact, Priests in the Catholic Church are allowed to prance around in their dresses and wave around smoke while making funny noises while the sinister Afrikaner Protestantse Kerk can conduct sermons where black people are not allowed. This is called freedom of religion.
Now this is Rapport we are talking about, so one must assume their readers are not all the brightest and that many of them do not rejoice and praise the Lord every Sunday for delivering us from the evil apartheid system and allowing us to live in a free country now. But there seems to be a difference between people who has a silent, simmering, hatred and distrust for the values of the “new South Africa” and people who are actively prepared to fight against these values.
It is quite disturbing that there are enough such people to launch a successful boycott campaign against a newspaper merely because someone published an article in it pleading for tolerance of Satanism and extolling the virtues of freedom of religion. It suggests these people are very, very cross: they probably believe that Satanism is up there with eating baby livers for dinner or catching a black man having sex with your blond daughter in the marital bed (I am not equating these things, of course, but mocking the values of those who started this campaign).
To me these views are absurd and ridiculous and I can hardly imagine that there are still people who get upset about Satanism. But then again I do not believe in Satanism or baby Jesus, so maybe I am not the right person to get to grips with this. But looking around me I wonder: if they are so concerned with evil, should they not rather campaign against the Catholic Church for condoning child molestation or start a campaign against child hunger? Is it really worse that Deon Maas writes about Satanism than that people still die of hunger in the world?
Of course, the fact that these views are out there, suggest that no matter what the Constitutional Court says about respect for diversity, many South Africans have hatred in their blood and will not be deterred by mooipraatjies about respect for the views of others.
It is also sad and a bit frightening that the newspaper caved in so easily while piously claiming it supported the notion of freedom of speech. (Strangely it did not endorse the equally important protected freedom of religion, belief and conscience – maybe because its readers do not endorse it either?) Can freedom of the press be undermined so easily by citizen activism?
Whatwould happen if ANC activists started a similar campaign against Mondli Makanya from the Sunday Times? Will they have the same clout to convince its owners to fire him for “commercial reasons”? Or will the proprietors of the Sunday Times have a bit more of a backbone than those at Rapport? Troubling thought indeed.
Hi, Pierre I was just wondering, have any of the courts ruled what a religion actually is? I mean, what does one need to prove that what one believes is actually a religion, and failing that does it really matter, will s 15 (freedom of religion) protect any belief system held by anyone?
“Now this is Rapport we are talking about, so one must assume their readers are not all the brightest and that many of them do not rejoice and praise the Lord every Sunday for delivering us from the evil apartheid system and allowing us to live in a free country now.”
Oh come on Pierre, get off your high horse. Terrible things are published in the Kaapse Son, and the Sowetan, but you won’t react like this. In parts of the country women are burned because they are perceived to be witches. Women are raped because they are Lesbians.
It seems you have one rule for Afrikaners and another for the rest of the country?
What community in South Africa is as enligthened as our constitution? You wont even find such a group in pampered Rhondebosch.
What is exceptional about this story in an African context is that a group of people can mobilize themselves around a specific issue and force a powerful paper to make a u-turn. If only more Africans could do this we might live in a better place.
Nick, the Constitutional Court has expressed great reluctance at getting involved in any debate about what constitutes a religious belief. They feel it is not for judges to second-guess the beliefs of individuals. As long as it is a deep and sincerely held belief they would accept the bona fides of the person claiming religious protection. In any case, the Constitution also protects freedom of conscience and opinion, so Satanists should be covered. Of course. if a religious practice constituted a crime the Court might well find that this limit of freedom of religion is justified.
Wessel, terrible things are indeed published by the papers you mention and some of their readers would probably agree with those who launched the campaign against Rapport. I doubt if many of their readers would have the same deep hatred of the new South Africa displayed by those who write letters to Rapport. To allude to that fact does not imply a double standard, merely reflects a historical selfconscioussness singularly lacking in the readers I am upset with. It is that turning away form the past and the refusal to acknowledge that apartheid was an evil and the self righteous whining about the new South Africa that I find deeply offensive. It is also this certainty that makes them so intolerant of others as reflected in this campaign. I take offense at such bigoted intolerance. Whether they speak Afrikaans or Urdu has nothing to do with it.
It is sad and a tragic pity that many Afrikaners don’t see the evil of apartheid. But part of the fault is that the debate about what constitutes the crimes of apartheid is completely misconceived.
Don’t underesitmate them. Of course they think that what happened in the past is wrong, but they don’t recognise the amount of approbrium as appropriate to the crime.
Your average Afrikaner wonders, if we were so bad, why is our country the only one with a proper infrastructure? I mean if you judge them by African standards, and surely you must, then which government has invested more in public infrastructure?
If it was not for General Hertzog’s industrial substitution policies (to make sure we are not beholden to colonial Britten), would we have industries and a powerful Cosatu?
They look at talk of ubuntu and it pales against the efforts of Afrikaners to helpmekaar.
They might wonder, yes, we spent less on black education in for instance the 70′s and 80′s than on white education, but we spent a higher percentage of the GDP on black education than many other African states did.
They wonder if we were that bad, why was Hillbrow, at the hight of apartheid a place of independent music, hippy culture and libetarianism, and where white and black could mix, while none of those things happen their now. (And no Mellville is avery poor substitute today). The only places where white and black SA mixes today is in corporate boardrooms bearing fake smiles.
They might wonder if we were such rightwing boneheads, how come most of the gay literature in the country is in Afrikaans.
They look at the French War in Algeria, the British War on the Mau Mau in Kenya, (lets not mention the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda (on several occasions, Darfur, Biafra) and take note that the political violence in terms of murder, torture was far greater than during 40 years of apartheid, and wonder why they are the winners of such exceptional baddy status?
All these things that are used to indicate the evil of apartheid misses the point. What is not communicated is that the colossal institutional racism built into our town planning, architecture, transport and social fabric that was and is so damaging and is so difficult to repair and change now. I mean whole parts of our cities need to be pulled down and rebuilt.
But others bark up these other trees and Afrikaners hear them and cant see their logic, to them it seems like a complete exageration and they think its a witchunt based on a deep seated racism and hatred.
Afrikaners love South Africa, but they feel and are excluded from public life, and their contributions not valued. And neither have they had any leadership, which is a massive blot on the likes of FW de Klerk’s name.
If you expect them to act much differently you have little insight into humanity.
Whoever criticises according to what the GOD almighty, creator of heaven and did in his own image is a sign of segregation meaning no unity in the body CHRIST…kb d boer@ndaki.MOTHO OA MODIMO
I’d just like to say, as a Satanist, that we do not advocate, support or encourage the committing of crimes in any manner or form. Satanists do not harm children or animals in the performance of their rituals. We also do not vandalise churches.
These vandalisms are usually performed by teens rebelling against the system and using symbols they know will be the most offensive in the situation.
I would be equally offended if a christian spray painted: “God loves you” on my walls. But respect is very important to Satanist and we show respect when in anothers lair (home or church) or else we do not go there. Simple really.
I also fail to see how it is a crime to destroy a bible in your own home. If I go and buy a bible I can, and will, do whatever I like with it. This applies to any book I purchase.
I can also smear my own blood over any item in my house if I so desire. It’s my home, and my blood. I don’t choose to do this though for obvious reasons, and I don’t know of any Satanist who does, which leads me to believe that either the women they arrested was a bit mentally ill or the stories have been embelished to make them a little more newsworthy and exciting. Wouldn’t be the first time would it now?
Why smear blood on a bible? It’s far easier and probably more effective as blasphemy just to urinate on it or use it as toilet paper.
(Oh, and last time i checked, blasphemy is not a criminal offense either.)
I personally prefer to use really soft two ply on my sensitive behind – but each to their own.
ceyton, when you die one day, where will your soul go? Is hell a
reality for you and other satanists?
[...] few months ago I got rather hot under the collar on this Blog about the firing of Rapport columnist, Deon Maas, for writing a column in which he wrote that [...]