Listening to TAU’s Advocate Roelof du Plessis as he cross-examines Mr Julius Malema in his hate speech case is a bit like sitting on a stage in front of a crowd of people and having one’s tooth extracted without any anaesthetic while having to listen to Steve Hofmeyer songs being played backward. It is painful. It is embarrassing. It is dehumanising. It is stupid.
Du Plessis sounds like Adriaan Vlok or PW Botha giving a speech in 1986 about the dangers of communism and the evils of ANC “terrorism” and the swartgevaar. It is like the baas telling the bloody k*@ffirs how lazy, stupid and evil they are. Talking about Lenin, Marx, communism and the evils of land distribution, is really not the way to win the argument — either inside court or outside court. The fact that adv. Du Plessis thinks this is all relevant, suggests that he does not get out enough and that he has no idea that he lives in a South Africa that is now a constitutional democracy.
Du Plessis’s approach is so tone-deaf and so obnoxious that it manages to do exactly the opposite of what it is intended to do: it creates sympathy for Julius Malema and for the singing of the Kill the Boer song. Instead of dealing with the legal issue — whether the singing of the Kill the Boer song by Julius Malema at a politically charged event constituted hate speech – Du Plessis is seemingly trying to put Julius Malema’s political views on trial, caricaturing these views in the process. But because his own views are so extreme, it is adv Du PLessis’ views that one ends up judging as being unreasonable, paranoid and bordering on racist.
In any case, the court is not the place to deal with such issues. These are political disagreements that run deep. This once again reminds me that it is inappropriate to deal with the singing of the song in a court of law. What is needed is to engage the ANC leadership on this issue so that it could return to its former position that the singing of this song in certain contexts is not helpful and that it should be avoided.
But Du Plessis, alas, is so clueless that he natters on in defence of the old South African flag and other obsessions of AWB types. He seems to suggest that Afrikaners are in danger of becoming victims of genocide. This kind of view is so ignorant of our history and the nature of the democratic transition, that it cannot but alienate any right-thinking or reasonable South African. By performing in the manner that he has, adv. Du Plessis has managed something of a miracle — he has managed to make Mr Malema sound reasonable, level-headed and dignified.
The cross-examination serves as a timely reminder (if any reminder is needed) that some South Africans still do not see the ANC as the legitimate government of South Africa. Seething with anger and suffering from a historic amnesia, he seems unaware that South Africa has emerged from a deeply evil system and that we now live in a democracy in which a legitimately elected government is implementing the policies of the ruling party.
In a constitutional democracy one has a right and a duty to argue about whether the policies of the governing party are wise or not and whether it is good for all of us (by which I do not mean only white South Africans) or bad for all of us. But even if one does not agree with the ANC government’s policies or even if one is critical of the corruption and arrogance of some ANC leaders, this does not make the ANC government illegitimate.
I must say, watching adv. Du Plessis’s performance today is almost enough to make me want to burst out singing: “dubul’ibhunu / dubula dubula”.
“the court is not the place to deal with such issues”.
My point exactly. I really do think that our judges are being placed in a very invidious position where they have to pronounce on POLITICAL issues. Whilst it is true that they have to do their job (deciding on cases brought before them) I think this tendency (to steal from Juju’s vocab) may just have the unintended consequences wherein it becomes harder and harder to respect Court’s decisions.
Thanks Prof, I agree in the main with what you are raising, especially that a Court of Law is no place to win a social or societal debate. And that there are many (although not the majority) in the country who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the democratically elected government. Some of them even provide input on this blog, and at times even agree with you or use your views to spew their vitriol towards the new SA and its elected leadership.
But there is one aspect that I must take issue with you. I think you are a victim of the media, even though we can also characterise you as a media participant. You are a victim of the media’s campaign to villify Malema, and make it seem that he is an idiot of profound proportions. Its not only our media that does this, the international media also like to put preposterous positions like that the late Kim Jung Ill, the former leader of North Korea, was mad and insane, without any evidence or proof they enjoyed caricaturing him like that. Or that Chernobyl created deformed babies and radioactive waste that was the worst disaster ever. Today, even George Monbiot, is admitting that the anti-nuclear crowd gave these views without a scientific basis, and they are wrong.
You, Prof, are a victim of Malemaphobia, infected by a weak and shallow media industry. That is why you can’t concede that Malema may be intelligent, he may be rational, he may even have a worthwhile point. It would have to be somebody else’s stupidity or backwardness that makes Malema shine. It canniot be because of Malema. To quote you: “By performing in the manner that he has, adv. Du Plessis has managed something of a miracle — he has managed to make Mr Malema sound reasonable, level-headed and dignified.”
Take your medicine, Prof, to counter your infection, and give Malema credit where it is due, so that you get on the road to recovery.
Malema is level-headed and intelligent. Thinking of him as made or stupid is rubbish.
The man is playing his audience and getting where he wants in life. He, like Mugabe, is a crafty politician who will stop at nothing to get and remain in power.
Calling these types idiots only blinds one to the overall tactic. No doubt Malema enjoys people calling him an idiot because it distracts them from his purpose.
As for the Adv, well, those views he puts across are real ones. If, when held up the light, the adherents of those views realise that perhaps they’ll a little silly, then maybe somehting good could come of this episode?
But don’t dismiss Malema as a fool. He’s as clever as a fox with a degree in craftiness from Oxford University.
Dovovan, Malema says idiotic things but I have NEVER said he is not intelligent. My problem with Malema is not what he says for the crowds. I have no doubt that he is highly intelligent and that much of what he does is very shrewd and sometimes even politically brilliant. His singing of the song was a brilliant mechanism to change the subject after revelations about his lifestyle and his tenderpreneurial connections. He knows what he is doing. My problem with him is that he is a tenderpreneur who takes positions on behalf of other tenderpreneurs and that his revolutionary image is nothing more than an image. He is a fat cat capitalist who has made millions by using his political connections to get tenders that were badly executed – to the detriment of poor South Africans – but he covers himself in a thin blanket of revolutionary zeal. What he does and what he says is not the same.
Prof, I couldn’t have put it better!!
I was so looking forward to adv. du Plessis’ cross-examination of Malema that I even stayed home today. Especially after the adv. had suggested, on Tuesday afternoon, that he (adv) would not have brought in Malema as a witness if he was arguing the ANC’s case. I’m really disappointed in adv. du Plessis! He is bringing in his own political views into the case. I even doubt he’s still arguing TAU-SA’s case.
He has really managed quite the opposite of what he sought to achieve, and made Malema a more attractive politician than I personnally thought he was. So much is du Plessis’ cross-examination been useless that Malema’s legal team have not even seen the need to re-examine him (at least thus far).
everyone seems to think that only white people can be racist… Malema deserves to be out of the anc, he is a complete imbisile who makes us look like a joke… He is extremely racist and any song with the words kill anything is primitive and savage… What if white people where going around singing shoot the blacks? Would there need to be a trial then? Democracy my ass, more like silent oppression
Have to agree with Donovan. Malema has been portrayed as an idiot by the media so incessantly that many have started to believe the lie. The constant “Malema jokes” that are emailed to me from time to time are evidence of this. When someone has radical views I guess society finds it easier to write them off as stupid or insane.
I am NO FAN of Julius Malema. I believe that he shows political (and personal) immaturity at times and that many of his utterances have been divisive. I also don’t necessarily agree with his economic policies (nationalisation of mines, land reform policies, etc). I am also not a fan of his tenerpreneurial “tendencies”.
But the guy is not stupid, neither is he “evil personified” as he is portrayed to be. Let’s face it, many people expected (and hoped for) him to be completely humiliated in the stand during the hate speech case and so far they have been disappointed. And it’s not just because of adv Du Plessis. It’s because he is actually an intelligent man. Misguided (my opinion), but more intelligent that many people give him credit for.
Prof, do not play to the gallery. Its not about you saying that Malema is not intelligent, you are trying to narrow the debate so as to wriggle out.
I quote you again:“By performing in the manner that he has, adv. Du Plessis has managed something of a miracle — he has managed to make Mr Malema sound reasonable, level-headed and dignified.”
So Malema is not reasonable, Malema is not level-headed, and Malema is not dignified (I’m not sure what you mean by this). Nothing about his intelligence, tenderpreneurship (which is actually just plain nepotism, which is illegal), or Gucci revolutionary zeal.
Malema can be reasonable, and has been reasonable. Malema can be level-headed and has been level-headed. As stated about I do not know what you mean by dignified.
Point is Prof, you cannot give any credit to Malema, you rather call Adv. Du Plessis stupid and politically backward.
You are pulling a Malema Prof.
Shame on these racist, condescending lawyers! I am no Malema fan but it has become clear that the entire case is rooted in paranoia and senselessness from Afriforum. We are not fools and if you think black people are ever going to lie back and watch you denigrate us you can think again. One only had to witness how the Minister in the Chabane was treated by these bhunus during his cross-examinathon to see that this is all driven by the sick belief that white people are a supreme race. I concur with your views on the Profs attitude regarding Malema’s thinking@Donovan.
@ Pierre,
“I must say, watching adv. Du Plessis’s performance today is almost enough to make me want to burst out singing: ‘dubul’ibhunu / dubula dubula’.”
Please record and post on YouTube.
Listening to this, particularly Serote, Mantashe and Chababe has reinvigorated my views on the ANC.
As Michael Osborne said (March 18, 2011 at 9:57 am) : “The values of the ANC are deeply imbued in its institutional fibres. Bad leaders will come and go, but the eternal spirit, the mighty but ineffable soul of the party, endures. The movement is sanctified by a history of struggle, and is ultimately to be vindicated by the achievement of the goals of the Freedom Charter.”
Thanks Maggs, these bright days are quite a rare sight nowadays.
@ Pierre
@ Pierre
“He is a fat cat capitalist who has made millions by using his political connections to get tenders that were badly executed”
I am no fan of Mr Malema, but this is an outrageous allegation, Pierre. Where is your proof? (And remember, he is innocent until proven guilty) Mr Malema did not struggle to stay poor. Anyway, are you aware that his modest house, car and Breitling are all owned by Investec? He is young.
Thanks.
Malema was right, the “Revolution” is on trial and it might just come back to deliver on the wishes of the Freedom Charter.
Where is our resident IQ expert to dish out scores to Malema, Brassey, Du Plessis??
Pierre, good argument.
I agree on Adv Du Plessis – perhaps he wouldn’t need the bodyguard if he were living where he should be – 1948.
Shows you how a prejudiced lawyer can prejudice your case.
I was seething with anger at watching him. It is an important case, but to miss the point completely by lingering on his apartheid tendencies was sad. Very sad.
Someone remind him this is 2011 please.
Thank goodness I’m not a member of Afriforum or TAU.
I think there might be a misunderstanding about what TAU’s case is going to be.
Its going to be argued that Malema is or is perceived to be a communist, rabble rouser, militant, powerful person who can influence his followers.
And if as a farmer you believe these things about Malema (or they are indeed true) and he sings “kill the boer”, you as the farmer will be scared and fear for your possessions/life/life of your family.
The communist thing goes to the taking of the farmer’s land without compensation. So its relevant to the argument that du Plessis is going to put forward.
Malema’s legal team on the other hand will argue that the case has nothing to do with the perception of the farmers, but everything to do with the intention of Malema (remember/honour the past etc)
@ David
I like the way you’re viewing this. But at some stage during the proceedings, Derek Hanekom testified that there are more black than white farmers. I don’t know how true that is, but I also don’t recall TAU-SA refuting that. I also understand that Afriforum has conceded that the song does not say “kill the boer”. Could that play a role?
@ Luyt
I made a mistake (like the lawyers often did) by saying kill instead of shoot.
To answer your question, I will be surprised if the judge differentiates that much between kill and shoot. The question will rather be if shoot/kill/beat/rape the boer means destroy the apartheid system or it means shoot/kill/beat/rape the white, afrikaans person/farmer.
And then its important to decide if hate speech is hate speech even if the person saying/singing it means something different, or rather if its hate speech if its reasonable to perceive it as hate speech.
As an aside I asked my maid what shoot the boer means and she said kill the white man. She has never been involved in the ANC, other than voting for them I’m sure.
Also just to put it on record, I believe it was a big mistake to bring this issue to trial and should have just been left alone. It has actually just polarised society even more than the singing of the song ever did.
David
April 21, 2011 at 15:07 pm
Hey David,
“As an aside I asked my maid what shoot the boer means and she said kill the white man.”
As you point out “(s)he has never been involved in the ANC, other than voting for them I’m sure”.
I do hope you have now enlightened her!
Prof Pierre
Did you just call blacks ‘bloody k***rs”? I think that statement was just carefully crafted just to avoid saying it yourself but likening it with someone else saying it. However I think your intention was to just call blacks with the K-word and get away with it……
@ Maggs Naidu
Yes I enlightened her. In fact when she comes to work for me she spends most of the time watching the trial with me!
I think we all know that Mr Malema was a shrewd politician and a successful businessman. What we did not appreciate was that he is also an intellectual powerhouse. I am now convinced that, as he grows up, this youthful prodigy will emerge as a first-class genius on the world stage.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 21, 2011 at 15:17 pm
Hey Dworky,
“I am now convinced that, as he grows up, this youthful prodigy will emerge as a first-class genius on the world stage.”
What say you about Brassey and du Plessis – what will they be like when they grow up, eh?
p.s. Please apologise for enticing me to waste my money.
@ MDF/Maggs/Gwebe etc.
I think you are over-praising Malema’s performance. In fact, I thought his performance on the stand was nothing extraordinary. He benefits from the bigotry of low expections. Admit it: We were all so convinced that Malema was a blithering idiot that the mere fact that he could speak in coherent sentences came as a big surprise.
[Rock-bottom expectations similarly worked in George Dubya Bush's favour. We were all so convinced of his stupidity that any public appearance in which he did not drool and cackle insanely astonished us. At the end of the day, though, he remained what we had always known he was: a half-brained cretin.]
hmmm…you may have a point there Azania!
@ Azania
Azania is right.
An insidious tone of RACISM has crept into this blog. I find Magg’s constant disparagement of Dr Malema as a mere “JuJu” especially offensive.
Thanks.
Bravo Michael: I was beginning to think a virus of mass hypnosis had infected this site. Such foggy memories of who and what he is, and isn’t, who he admires and the energy he surrounds himself with, anger, hatred, blatant racism designed to incite. Do you actually think his hectic influence on the black youth of South Africa will produce good.
How convenient to forget the big men of Africa and how they arose. And what they made of their countries. Personally, I’m disgusted.
@ MO
Malema’s only fault is contradictions other than that he is a smart politician. He chooses his battles carefully and he takes his losses very well.
Are you also not down sizing his opponents just to deny him the praises. As a lawyer you should know the pressure of the witness box and just think of the recent performances of people with big titles at the witness box.
Michael Osborne
April 21, 2011 at 15:33 pm
Hey MO,
I am impressed with Juju – not many people have the ability to withstand such determined cross examination by formidable SCs.
Despite all the planning and stage setting, Juju did not trip over himself.
I thought that the performance of the advocates was dismal. Brassey (Dworky’s Incredible Hulk) at the very least scored an own goal with the dialogue debate.
duP forgot why he was there. I kept expecting him to pick up at the very least that the Freedom Charter says that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people
Instead he was bragging over who had more security or bigger guns!
@ Gweb/Maggs
We have got so used to Malema saying ridiculous things that no-one even remarks on it anymore. Things like: “I am not Brenda Fassie.” Does he really think that such a childish truism has any relevance to the trial? Or is he just playing the clown? Or talking down to his constituency?
Consider, the political claims Malema made from the stand. Like “the press is abusing the freedom we gave them.” At so many levels this is an absurd statement. And is he even aware how this echoes the absurd bluster of people like Jimmy Kruger? I doubt it.
Michael Osborne
April 21, 2011 at 17:03 pm
MO,
“Things like: ‘I am not Brenda Fassie.’”
I thought it was an apt response to “Did you compose the song?”.
This case was about Afriforum/TAU wanting to stop that song being sung at political rallies by Juju.
I thought he was able to handle that extremely well.
The advocates on the other hand … eish!
A question like “In which democracy was land taken away without compensation”!
Haiybo – the oke has no clue on what is going on around him. It lends weight to the position that people are objecting not because the song is problematic but because they are ignorant. duP certainly stuck me as ignorant (and ill prepared).
p.s. I have no doubt that he seized with alacrity every opportunity to mock, cajole, insult, offend, demean even denigrate – it’s what politicians do with their opposition in a constitutional democracy.
Shocking behavior by a SILK. I couldn’t believe the manner of questioning from a jurist of such experience as du Plessis is. He allowed emotions to get the better of him which he better than me knows that when presenting your case or during cross you never use emotions because you are bound to loss the plot.
Du Plessis completely lost the plot. He really should take a leaf of Adv Brassey’s book.
@ Maggs
“I have no doubt that he seized with alacrity every opportunity to mock, cajole, insult, offend, demean even denigrate – it’s what politicians do with their opposition in a constitutional democracy.”
Maggs, your holding of Malema to the lowest possible standard betrays your astonishingly low expectations of him. Sarah Palin says very foolish things. George Bush pretends to be even more stupid than he is (by affecting a folksy style and dropping consonants), to pander to his know-nothing evangelical base. But we do not (or should not), let them off the hook by saying “that is just how politicians talk.”
Can we not rather hold politicians to the standards of an Obama or a Mandela, and expect some degree of dignity, restraint and thoughtfulness? Or is this a quaint, outdated sense of decorum?
Michael Osborne
April 21, 2011 at 18:13 pm
Hey MO,
“Maggs, your holding of Malema to the lowest possible standard betrays your astonishingly low expectations of him.”
It’s not a novel conclusion that I had a very low regard of Juju.
It’s no longer the case.
I think he did extremely well, holding his own against those who ought to have been considered intellectual heavy weights, taking the fight to them, conceding very little, changing the terrain in which the fight was fought and sending a distinct message to South Africa that this brouhaha is ‘much ado about nothing’.
I’ll put it to you that your expectations of the silks seems to be very low – you’re almost resigned to their blistering, blundering style as expected.
Do share!
Maggs,
Can you please tell me what are the characteristics that you look for in the president of the ANC youth league and do you think that Mr Malema posesses these characteristics?
Maggs, isn’t it a massive bonus that so many ANC leaders are veterans in the dock – as their rap sheets will confirm?
Michael Osborne says:
April 21, 2011 at 15:33 pm
Yes, sure, Michael – a cretin with an MBA from an Ivy-league university!
Can I take it all the commentators above will join me in calling for the immediate reapeal of Pepuda?
Pierre. would you like to sketch a model under which you could have showered praise on Roelof du Plessis?
The ANC HAS BECOME IRRELEVANT ; at this trail the ANC went out of its way to buy favor from the Youth League; Malema gets more coverage than any of the top ANC cadres and Zuma the least. It is clear that the ANC has realized who runs the show.
And if that is not enough COSATO is flexing their muscle; they are demanding that the provinces be abolished( one of an endless list of demand); telling SARS employees that is not their qualifications that gave them their jobs but the effort by the trade unions. And now the ANC is begging them not to strike in the lead up to the elections. A party without teeth.
We are in for a rough ride!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carine
April 21, 2011 at 20:05 pm
Hey Carine,
“Can you please tell me what are the characteristics that you look for in the president of the ANC youth league and do you think that Mr Malema posesses these characteristics?”
I don’t look for any characteristics in the president of the ANC.
This kinda reminds me of the Hefer Commission where Part B needn’t be considered cos Part A failed.
Brett Nortje
April 21, 2011 at 20:09 pm
Hey Goofy,
“Maggs, isn’t it a massive bonus that so many ANC leaders are veterans in the dock – as their rap sheets will confirm?”
Not really.
The bonus is that these are all very capable people.
Your evil regime had them arrested and charged for precisely for that reason – anyway because they are super smart, they managed to reduce your regime to, er, nothing. Another bonus.
p.s. I see you have not found the antidote for the pesticide yet. Keep looking.
@MO
Brett beat me to the punch, but to compare Juju to Dubya is a bit wide of the mark.
The key similarity is that the local media lampooned both of them and portrayed them both as blithering idiots who only appear level headed when they drool equally from each side of their respective mouths.
Neither George Bush nor Malema are stupid. The key difference is that Dubya is quite well educated – you don’t get a Harvard MBA without a a level of intelligence and a lot of hard work.(*health warning – I have an MBA and may be biased!)
Malema is very poorly educated, which, when coupled to reasonable intelligence makes him potentially very dangerous.
Picking some international leaders from our past at , ahem, random, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and a guy whose christian name was Adolf were all highly intelligent but poorly educated.
Winston Churchill, Franklin D Rooseveld (spelling) and John F Kennedy were also highly intelligent, but relatively well educated.
Look at it this way – this is the best reality TV we have seen for a while…….
Peter L
April 21, 2011 at 20:55 pm
Hey PL,
I don’t get the impression that MO was in the least concerned with education.
My take on MOs comments, is that he’s too close to the woods to see the trees – reflecting on this as an astute advocate rather than stepping back and viewing the whole picture.
The whole picture as I see it is both counsel lost the plot; and Afriforum has come out worse for wear.
Maggs,
“I don’t look for any characteristics in the president of the ANC.”
None, Maggs? You don’t care do you?
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 21, 2011 at 20:52 pm
Indeed.
Murder, kidnapping, fraud. Political crimes.
Malema is not a good politician. If he was he would not be so controversial. He is a committed activist, who is definitely misdirected. There is hope for him, like anybody else for that matter. It all depends how much he wants to learn and importantly, unlear. But there is hope for him.
Rememberb he was the first to attack Kgalema, but also the first to give him credit. It does not show contradication, but relearning and unlearning.
Carine
April 21, 2011 at 21:04 pm
Carine,
“None, Maggs? You don’t care do you?”
No and no.
Brett Nortje
April 21, 2011 at 21:04 pm
Hey Goofy
“Murder, kidnapping, fraud. Political crimes.”
hehehehe.
Not only did the pesticides reduce your IQ it also made you delusional.
And idiotic too.
Carine, Maggs could care less about character, or integrity, or…
Lets just say Maggs finds your preoccupation with morality (which is why you insist on judging the ANC on their viva voce instead of their good intentions) boring and prefers to focus on the misdemeanours white South Africans commit every day on a massive scale; and is firmly committed to the struggle to overthrow the illegitimate unrepresentative white minority regime.
Maggs,
to be honest I’m kind of sad to hear that.
Enjoy your weekend
Brett: You will find that Bush’s Yale and Harvard pedigree owe more to the white-boy affirmative action program that the Ivy league runs for the dullard spawn of WASP aristocracy than any academic prowess of his own.
Peter L: OK, perhaps I overstated my case a little my comparing Mr Malema with Mr Bush. But perhaps the latter has fewer excuses than the former.
Maggs, like you, I misunderestimated Mr Malema. His capacity for witty self-depracation came out in little gems like this:
“If people had to see what we do when we are alone, they would be scared. We crawl around and pretend that we have machine guns.”
Do you have a favourite quote from the testimony Maggs?
Carine
April 21, 2011 at 22:00 pm
Hey Carine,
You have a great weekend too.
Your sadness may well stem from views that are not appropriately informed – I say that with caution but based on out brief exchanges. I will try to outline why my responses are what they are.
Firstly the election of leaders in a democratic process is a matter of the will of the majority – in simple terms the 50% + 1. It’s the WYSIWYG thing. ‘Characteristics’ are irrelevant.
Issues that an organisation embrace are important rather than the individuals. Engaging issues rather than individuals is what is required. Conflating a dislike for issues with a dislike for individuals is unwise and unproductive – the cliched “play the ball, not the man” is relevant.
In short, it does not matter what are desired characteristics for the president of the ANCYL; and matters less if Juju has those characteristics. It’s better to focus on what current thinking emanates wrt policy, strategy and tactics.
No sensible South African will deny that we are faced with enormous challenges that have been structurally and systemically entrenched. Transformation is a massive task and is beyond our institutional and operation capacity and resources; but this cannot be abandoned because the requirements are daunting and onerous.
Add to the conflicting and contradictory political, social and economic quagmire of realities, needs, demands and agendas. It’s taking its toll, sometimes testing the very foundations of our democracy.
This will not be solved in our lifetimes, maybe not even in the life time of our succeeding generation. But it cannot be left to solve itself. Ideally all of us should be ready to give an bit more and take a bit less – but as we know that will not happen. Navel-gazing is not helpful but it’s a reality.
So my response to your question is that I don’t have a view on what characteristics the president of the ANCYL should be.
What’s important for me is how do I contribute to creating a better life for all!
And you contribute to a better life for all by delegitimising Afrikaners at every opportunity you get including maligning this cry from the heart – using the safety valves built into the system – for the safety of their families?
Nice way to try protect the modus vivendi between black and white – by arguing away the ordinary meaning of ‘kill’ and ‘shoot’ and laughing off any attempts to ensure a fair hearing.
I hope Afrikaners learn from this that the protections of the constitutional framework is not for them and become more directly confrontational in protecting their rights.
This is a good time to cast those memories back to when the National Party tried to have the Education Bill overturned in the ConCourt
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 21, 2011 at 22:47 pm
Hey Dworky,
“Do you have a favourite quote from the testimony Maggs?”
There are many – when (if) we get access to transcripts we can have our popcorn and Coke moments.
But here’s one.
duP : “You regard South Africa as a democracy?”
Juju : “Yes”
duP : “Which democracy has taken away without compensation?”
Juju : “Zimbabwe”
duP : “You regard Zimbabwe as a democracy?”
Juju : “Yes. They have a constitution. They have elections every five years. Why don’t you say Zimbabwe is a not a democracy?”
duP : “I can think of many democracies. Ghana, Zambia, Mozambique, Angola, Namibia … And that is just in Africa. Spain, France, Germany, UK, USA. And you think of Zimbabwe”.
Juju : “You asked for a democracy where land was taken away without compensation. I gave you one.”
duP : “I won’t press you further”.
Brett Nortje
April 21, 2011 at 23:08 pm
Hey Goofy,
If that was directed at me, I think you have me mistaken for someone else.
It’s not my role in life or intention to protect or not protect the interests of Afrikaaners or any other group – there are many organisations and institutions better placed, able and willing to do that.
Contributing to a better life for all does not equate to improving the lot of Afrikaaners (which is the last thing in my mind anyway). I am pretty confident that Afrikaaners are able to take care of themselves without my intervention.
If and when people become ‘confrontational’ the appropriate response will be effected, whatever that appropriate response may be at the time.
But I suspect that you’re just talking nonsense. As usual.
Pierre you sound a bit jealous that du Plessis is actually in the real world and not cloistered in the safehouse of academia.
Anyway, I think the point he was making was that communism does not belong in a democracy. Have you ever seen a communistic democracy ? Malema is trying to fool the world by referring to the democratic revolution when in fact it’s the communist revolution. And if you think the commies are not in control, think again. Since when does a democracy have communists in government that were not elected by the people ? Land grabs do not belong in a democracy. Killing others to get you point across does not belong in a democracy. If Malema is unhappy with the pace of change he should cast his vote for another party.
He didn’t defend the old flag. He merely used it as an example of how symbols are associated by the masses with their perceptions rather than the intention. Du Plessis is not stupid. He knows this will be played around the world to the REAL powers …. and poof will go investment. No South African can stop Malema. But if he ever comes into power the Illuminati will shut his bloody trap up fast with his talks of communism.
South Africa is NOT A DEMOCRACY. The ANC must stop their lies. We will only be a democracy when the ANC lose power in an election and peacefully accepts it. The government is using Malema for mass communistic propaganda whilst pretending to be a western style democracy.
But I guess you’ll only get your head out your ass when Malema starts calling for the white academia to be thrown out of institutions of learning to make way for more progressive professors. (i.e black only thank you)
That was his point.
@ JR
“if [Malema] ever comes into power the Illuminati will shut his bloody trap up:”
JR is right.
We must never misunderestimate the decisive role of the ILLUMINATI in world history!
Thanks.
Mr Malema (as quoted by Maggs)
“Why don’t you say Zimbabwe is a not a democracy?”
Yes, Maggs, this is another fine example of Mr Malema’s extraordinary political savvy. Many thanks for pointing it out!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 22, 2011 at 0:45 am
Oops – sorry Dworky.
It should read “Why do you say Zimbabwe is a not a democracy?”
John Roberts
April 21, 2011 at 23:33 pm
Hey JR,
“Have you ever seen a communistic democracy ?”
There’s two states in India West Bengal and Kerala which are communist democracies.
Both are very interesting and generally perform very well relative to other areas in the region.
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 21, 2011 at 23:28 pm
Maggs, you are in serious need of a reality check.
No-one is putting you forward as a saviour of the Afrikaner nation.
You are a perennial attention-seeker posting silly comments on a constitutional law blog that gets 1500 hits a day, mostly from you and Dworky, checking out the other’s witty repartee.
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 8:56 am
Hey Goofy,
Perhaps then this was not intended for me – in which case I withdraw that comment (although it’s still valid).
Brett Nortje April 21, 2011 at 23:08 pm
“And you contribute to a better life for all by delegitimising Afrikaners at every opportunity you get including maligning this cry from the heart – using the safety valves built into the system – for the safety of their families?
Nice way to try protect the modus vivendi between black and white – by arguing away the ordinary meaning of ‘kill’ and ’shoot’ and laughing off any attempts to ensure a fair hearing. “
Maggs, while we all admire West Bengal and Kerala, it is somewhat disappointing that the best you could up with in answering Brett’s question are two non-sovereign regions within a decidedly capitalist state. Why did you not cite PRC, Cuba and (the ANCYL’s favourite), the People’s Republic of Korea. In these states, the Communist Party is a vehicle for the aspirations of the masses as a whole. And there is more space within the ambit of the CP formations for democratic debate as exists across the entire political spectrum of many western “democracies.” We reject the “liberal” model, the ideology of free-market fundamentalism. Nearly-homogenous political parties represent the ruling class, while true hegemony is exercised by rapacious corporates that really call the shots!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 22, 2011 at 9:37 am
Hey Dworky,
I did not think that Brett asked that question. Brett’s issue is more profound. “Guns don’t kill people. Songs kill people”.
I’ll assume you’re referring to JRs comment where he asked “Have you ever seen a communistic democracy ?”
Your reasoning, though is pretty much the same as duP (unless you are duP in which case you’re forgiven) – if you don’t like the valid answer, change the question.
I’m sick of you. I’m going to kill YOU Maggs!
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 10:23 am
Hey Goofy,
“I’m going to kill YOU Maggs!”
Eish, you had me really troubled for a moment – I though you wrote ‘kiss’.
You sound much like Achmet the dead terrorist.
http://www.hark.com/clips/jtztjgqmxx-achmed-the-dead-terrorist
He he he he!!!!@Prof, I agree. You forgot Adv Brassey, he lost his cool during the cross-examination of Mr Hanekom. One has to question yet again, the manner in which people are elevated to the status of silk. The system is deeply flawed if we get silks that cannot even cross-examine or identify the main issues in a particular case. What you saw there was just the tip of the iceberg, you should have heard Adv Gauntlett addressing the Constitutional Court in the Bothma case in 2009.
Don’t know where my comment disappeared to, so I’ll post it again:
Maggs,
I know what a democracy is and I can promise you it is not about maths. A true democratic society demands of that 50+1+the other 49 to have a brain and not just go with the majority. In my grandma’s words: if those 50+1 jumped off a cliff would you do it too? In a true democracy minorities are protected and not just stamped on by the majority.
“In short, it does not matter what are desired characteristics for the president of the ANCYL; and matters less if Juju has those characteristics. It’s better to focus on what current thinking emanates wrt policy, strategy and tactics.”
I too love those policies of the ANC. Only problem, and I know you know this, Maggs, they are not implemented. If they were, we would not have to have this discussion.
“What’s important for me is how do I contribute to creating a better life for all!”
I’ll tell you what I’m going to do to contribute to a better life for all: I am going to demand a high standard of my leaders. I will stick a list of preferred characteristics on them and demand that they possess those before I vote for them. I will not make excuses for their failures and allow them to ride rough shot over our democracy, changing the rules around every corner to fit into their skewed cognition of it. And yes, I demand that for myself, but also for the genuinely poor people out there who are neglected and getting poorer while politicians are getting richer. The previously disadvantaged have gone through hell. Don’t you think they deserve something better in this lifetime? Yes, we face challenges, but making excuses for our leaders when they clearly engage in corrupt and undemocratic schemes, does this not delay our rehabilitation?
I don’t know if you are serious, one can never tell, but you seriously have to up your standards, (You too, Donovan! You deserve better!) for your own sake and for the sake of your fellow South Africans.
Over and out.
Happy Easter, All!
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 22, 2011 at 10:32 am
OK, so you know me too well for that to work…(I’ve pointed out before you’ve more guts than brains – you’re what is sometimes referred to in criminal law and delict as ‘a thick-skulled case’.)
But your reply does bring up the all important matter of context. I wish my people had laughed in Juju’s fat face and given him the finger. At the same time, I am proud they are claiming ownership of our rights-framework. Hopefully, they will progress to the next logical step and disclaim this Constitution and an unrepresentative ‘democracy’ as the vehicle to bring about a true rights framework.
If there had been dead Naidus lying around and they had all been commentators on a constitutional law blog your reply would have been different.
I am ashamed that people who share my genetic material are such pissies, but here is the true measure of the abnormal society we live in and the context within which Afriforum laid that complaint:
How many Afriforum protesters do you see at the Court taunting Juju and his supporters and giving the fat fucker the finger?
Carine
April 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Hey Carine,
Happy Easter to you.
A true democracy functions in accordance with the constitution of the country – contrary to Prof Shadrack Gutto’s view that “democracy is generic”, it’s not. The US model is different to the UK model is different to the SA model – all have their strengths and drawbacks.
Ours is probably one of few that genuinely weights all votes equally. And it’s after all is said and done 50% + 1 nevermind what grandma had or has to say. Consider that in the UK for example the Lib Dems won 25% of the popular vote but ended up with 10% of the seats – ouch.
Many of your views are ill-informed at best.
Why do you say that ‘minorities’ are not protected?
Why do you suggest that your expectations of leaders should be mine?
And on what basis do you think that my ‘standards’ are up for your approval?
Only our constitution is important – as Eunice Gundwana and Hugh Glenister (among others) have convincingly shown us, our rights as individuals and capacity to engage, is pretty solid.
Emotions are pretty irrelevant.
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Hey Goofy,
“If there had been dead Naidus lying around and they had all been commentators on a constitutional law blog your reply would have been different.”
Eish!
I expected more of you than pulling an ‘unknown’ who is an idiot of note and certainly not someone that you should aspire towards.
But I will nonetheless respond.
There were many dead Naidu’s lying around during the 1949 ‘race riots’ and we all know who the architects of that were. It took Nehru and his warships that were a week away from Durban to bring that to an end.
That aside there are many Naidu’s dying violently in South Africa killed by criminals.
Only stupid people would relate that to Mbongeni Ngema’s Ama-Ndiya in which he says “(t)his song represents the way many African people feel about the behaviour of the Indian people in this country” and “(w)e are poor because all things have been taken by Indians, they are oppressing us.”. And he encourages his listeners to “to face/confront Indians”.
It was political and social engagement with level heads that abruptly brought that to an end.
In any event, I don’t feel part of any political or social minority. Our constitution affords me adequate protections.
Interesting! Give us some sources?
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm
There were many dead Naidu’s lying around during the 1949 ‘race riots’ and we all know who the architects of that were. It took Nehru and his warships that were a week away from Durban to bring that to an end.
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 13:08 pm
Hey Goofy,
“Interesting! Give us some sources?”
Google 1949 race riots – there’s lots of interesting reading about that.
Here’s one http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/library-resources/onlinebooks/bhana/part02-B-70.htm
Maggs, the robot
I confess and it is probably plain to see that I am not as informed as you are. I promise to read up a bit.
Just a question, why, if emotion is so irrelavent, don’t we just move on and get over apartheid already and stop singing revolutionary songs that scare people?
Carine
April 22, 2011 at 14:01 pm
Hey Carine,
“Just a question, why, if emotion is so irrelavent, don’t we just move on and get over apartheid already and stop singing revolutionary songs that scare people?”
We will get over apartheid. In time. With effort.
There’s therapy for people who have phobias. It’s easier if they just chill.
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 13:08 pm
Here’s another one Goofy.
I’ll try and get the full paper.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4400894
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 22, 2011 at 13:18 pm
Wow! Is this country stuck in a time-warp?
There’s even an Indian who blames “everything” on the whites, Maggs!
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 15:05 pm
Hey Goofy,
I know that’s your way of being appalled at the iniquity of the regime of the bygone era.
It must feel rotten having been a supporter and beneficiary of that, eh?
@ Maggs
“There’s therapy for people who have phobias.”
Maggs, what therapy are you using to deal with your acute MALEMAPHOBIA, from which I, until yesterday, also suffered?
Maggs Naiduu,out of intrest, r u a lawyer? U r brilliant,i lyk ur reasoning and u seem so well informed!
Boitumelo,
Maggs is a demagogue. He left the legal profession in disgust some while back for more prophet-able pastures.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 22, 2011 at 17:27 pm
Hey Dworky,
“Maggs, what therapy are you using to deal with your acute MALEMAPHOBIA”
That was deeply troubling. I tried many things. Consulted from sharman to yogis. Meditation high on the mountains to hypnotherapy. Nothing helped.
Salvation came when I prayed and prayed and prayed for an answer. Then in the wee hours of one morning god spoke to me. He asked “Who do you want as future president of South Africa – Juju or http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/incoming/article707735.ece/RESIZED/Small/HelenZille.jpg ?”
I have been cured ever since!
Boitumelo Mabaso
April 22, 2011 at 17:57 pm
Hey Boitumelo,
“Maggs Naiduu,out of intrest, r u a lawyer?”
Haiybo!
You could have asked if I was a drug pusher, car hijacker, pimp, money launderer or the like.
You really know how to insult a guy, eh!
Lawyer. Hmmfff!
p.s. I am according to Michael Osborne, just an occasional lunatic.
I lyk ur humour Maggs! It fascinates me! U remind me of Hogarth of the Sunday Times! “occasional lunatic”
Maggs is that Ous Helen Zille dancing! WOW!
Maggs is that Ous Helen Zille dancing! WOW! It reminds me of Malema’s comments on that aspect,im tempted to say i share the same sentiments!
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 22, 2011 at 16:10 pm
Indeed. Oh brilliant, well-informed one. Your Magnificence.
Having been born in 1966 I distinctly recall egging on the Zulu people to rid these fair shores of amaIndia in 1949.
I want to teach everyone a new word today. The thought that I should struck yesterday while listening to ‘certain’ warped ‘interpretations’ of the 1913 Land Act.
To make it easy for you I have even googled it…
The word is: F-A-C-I-L-E
Dictionary.com
fac·ile/ˈfasəl/Adjective
1. (esp. of a theory or argument) Appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial.
2. (of a person) Having a superficial or simplistic knowledge or approach.
merriam-webster.com
Facile
(1) : easily accomplished or attained
(2) : shallow, simplistic
Did du plessis say he “belonged” to TAU? I can’t be sure but I thought I heard that, in which case one must question his independence and objectivity in this case. He certainly didn’t adopt the arms-length approach!
Boitumelo Mabaso
April 22, 2011 at 18:44 pm
Hey Boitumelo,
A plan is developing.
Cde Gwede should give Afriforum a choice – Juju’s singing or this, er, ‘dancing’!
An instant cure to Malemaphobia!
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 19:05 pm
Hey Goofy,
“Having been born in 1966 I distinctly recall egging on the Zulu people to rid these fair shores of amaIndia in 1949.”
Nobody alive today benefited from or supported apartheid as we all know.
And the last remnants of that iniquity was eradicated by the TRC.
Eish!
p.s. Oh, and thank you for ‘giving’ us the vote – it was a great gesture of altruism and magnanimity.
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 19:15 pm
Hey Dufus,
“The thought that I should struck yesterday while listening to ‘certain’ warped ‘interpretations’ of the 1913 Land Act.”
The thought that you should have struck is that you’re really a twit.
Hidden in that seems to be a defence of the evil crime against humanity!
Intervention from Above: The 1913 Native Land Act
“Awaking on Friday morning, June 20, 1913, the South African Native found himself, not actually a slave, but a pariah in the land of his birth”
(Plaatjie, S.T. (1916). Native Life in South Africa, London: PS King, p.21.)
With the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, the South Africa Party came to power. The key challenge for the new government was to define a single land and labour dispensation for South Africa. This challenge was resolved through the promulgation of the Land Acts (1913 & 1936).
The forerunner to the 1913 Land Act was the Glen Grey Act, introduced in 1894 to do away with communal land rights. By introducing limited individual tenure it was hoped that Africans could be forced to become less independent in relation to their participation in the colonial cash economy. The result was that thousands of poorer African peasants were forced off the land. In addition to pushing Africans off the land, much was done to undermine the chieftain system of traditional African society as these tribal authorities acted as an independent political pole, which resisted these changes.
The promulgation, in 1913, of the Native Land Act therefore must be viewed as the next step in a continuum of measures aimed at destroying independent African existence in the interest of White settlers. The Act set out to facilitate the formal establishment of African reserves. 7% of South Africa’s land area was set aside for this purpose and it was from these reserves that the mines and urban employers were to draw migrant labour. In addition to addressing the labour needs of the mines, the Act also set out to eliminate independent rent-paying African tenants and cash croppers residing on White-owned land. This was done through restricting African residence on White land to labour tenancy or wage labour, and through prohibiting African land ownership outside of the reserves. It is through these tenancy regulations that the Act proposed to address the labour needs of White farmers.
…
The impact of the 1913 Act was nonetheless devastating, particularly in the Free State. The cruelty and suffering imposed on African tenants is vividly described in Sol Plaaitje’s book Native Life in South Africa:
“The baas has exacted from him the services of himself, his wife and his oxen, for wages of 30 shilling a month, whereas Kgobadi had been making over £100 a year, besides retaining the services of his wife and of his cattle for himself. When he refused the extortionate terms, the baas retaliated with a Dutch note, dated the 30th day of June 1913, which ordered him to ‘betake himself from the farm’ of the undersigned, by sunset of the same day, failing which his stock would be seized and impounded, and himself handed over to the authorities for trespassing on the farm.”
(Plaatjie, S.T. (1916). Native Life in South Africa, London: PS King, p.87.)
…
The struggle to resist land dispossession and the systematic subjugation of indigenous people has been a long and bitter one. Africans fought fiercely to protect their land and defend their livelihoods and their way of life. Resistance took many forms, from outright war to events such as the cattle-killings. Stories of the heroic struggles of Makana, Sirhili, Mhlontlo, Sigcawu, Cetywayo and Bambata have been handed down from generation to generation. Many of these leaders were captured and imprisoned on Robben Island or in the dungeons of the Cape Town Castle, others died in battle.
http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/governence-projects/land-disposession/04_control.htm
You see, you’re passing off commentery on the Land Act as the Act itself…
There is a difference between ‘opinion’ and ‘fact’, Maggs!
Maggs, I see the making of a deal here. If you say thanks nicely to Brett for giving you the vote, should the rest of us be grateful to Mr Malema to giving us press freedom?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 22, 2011 at 19:56 pm
Hey Dworky,
“should the rest of us be grateful to Mr Malema to giving us press freedom?”
No. The press (and you) have abused the press freedom which you were given.
So Juju will take it back when he’s president.
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 19:44 pm
Goofy,
“There is a difference between ‘opinion’ and ‘fact’, Maggs!”
What of the ‘opinion’ do you find inaccurate?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
April 22, 2011 at 19:56 pm
I clearly did not think that one through! I should have given Maggs a qualified franchise!
(Something like a sobriety test – Maggs, count backwards from 10 if you want this ballot….LOL!)
Maggs, convince me (using facts – not quoting self-serving ‘commentary’ and ‘opinion’ which is little more than myth) that the 1913 Land Act ‘s purpose was NOT to prevent the sale of more land at that time in black hands to white buyers?
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 20:43 pm
Hey Goofy,
Your response is typical of the challenges you (and other like you) face with in contemporary South Africa.
It goes to the heart of the question Carine asked “Just a question, why, if emotion is so irrelavent, don’t we just move on and get over apartheid already and stop singing revolutionary songs that scare people?”
Deny it never happened using every means (dishonest, devious and anywhichway).
It is in my view precisely what Juju (and others) sing about when they sing dubula ibhunu.
oops.
Deny it happened.
Yada Yada Yada
Blah Blah blah
You ought to ‘Oops.’ the entire post…
Argue THE FACTS! Start by looking at the Act.
That reminds me: You still have not ventured an opinion why only one side’s protesters are at the Court, seeing that you state one only needs the protection of the Constitution.
Normal society my pink ass!
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 22:19 pm
Hey Goofy,
“Argue THE FACTS!”
I’ll wait to hear from you or anyone else who deny that which I have pasted above.
The ANC supporters who were at the court in their numbers were there because they believe in their right to sing dubula ibhunu and were courageous enough to show it in public and protest at the attempt to limit their rights.
On the other side – it seems that not many believe in that case (for good reason too). It’s a dead duck case – somebody dubula-ed the duck, eh?
When the court rules in Juju’s favour get ear muffs, it’s gonna be sung everywhere. Even the traffic lights are gonna flash to the tune of dubula ibhunu and mshini wam.
@ Maggs
“ANC supporters who were at the court in their numbers were there because they believe in their right to sing dubula ibhunu and were courageous enough to show it in public”
Maggs is right. It must have taken enormous COURAGE to stand (and dance) in public for the terribly unpopular cause of singing a purely METAPHORIC anthem of STRUGGLE!
Thanks.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 22, 2011 at 23:05 pm
Hey Dworky,
“It must have taken enormous COURAGE to stand (and dance) in public for the terribly unpopular cause of singing a purely METAPHORIC anthem of STRUGGLE!”
Indeed it does!
It certainly takes a lot more courage to express views in public than to hide behind the internet with anti-transformational and racist views.
I’ll give Brett credit for the courage of his convictions (as stupid as those may be).
Maggs:
You have said you believe that police should not ordinarily carry guns. And we know that Mr Malema, addressing the courageous masses outside court, pretended he had a gun in his hand and made shooting noises with his mouth (“pow! pow!”). So: do you believe SAPS should be permitted at least to carry such “imaginary side-arms” — which they would use only as a last resort?
Thanks
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 22, 2011 at 23:15 pm
Dworky,
“pretended he had a gun in his hand and made shooting noises with his mouth (”pow! pow!”)”
You clearly misinterpreted.
The hand went up because he was constipated (eight days in court listening to the duP and Brassey does that).
The “pow! pow!” was preparing the courageous masses for the, er, explosive event!
Talking about this, that and the other is besides the point. If “skiet die f@ffir” constitutes hate speach then surely the phrase before the court does too. I, for one, would like to hear the court make that pronouncement. And if this judge is too poep-scared to say so, put the question to the Constitutional court before the JSC has their way with it.
Brett Nortje
April 22, 2011 at 13:08 pm
Hey Goofy (and others who have an interest),
“Give us some sources?”
The full freely downloadable article “Ramamurthi, T G: Lessons of Durban Riots” is available here.
http://www.pdfbe.com/9a/9a4eae2a33d273c4-download.pdf
In context, it puts (or ought to) an end to the so called ‘minority fears’ based on the flawed assumption of spontaneous hostility towards any minority in South Africa which is likely to lead to death, destruction and mayhem, which assumption some have hysterically found themselves caught up in.
These ‘fears’ are being agitated by people with nefarious agendas.
@ Maggs
“[We need to put ] an end to the so called ‘minority fears’ based on the flawed assumption of spontaneous hostility towards any minority in South Africa which is likely to lead to death”
It is lovely that you are so optimistic, Maggs. But perhaps the fate of Eudy Simelane, and other like her, might cause some gays and lesbians to raise a note of caution. (You might also benefit by talking to some Somalian shopkeepers.) What is it, Maggs, that makes you so confident that SA is immune from the kind of mob pyschology that always lurkes in societies with well defined “others,” especially during time of economic stress?
I found this quote in a Japanese book I’m reading about the stock market called “The Geometry of Price Action”. To me it perfectly sums up the ANC and the ANCYL :
A crowd-mind emerges when formation of a crowd causes fusion of individual minds into one collective mind. Members of the crowd lose their individuality. The deindividuation leads to derationalization: emotional, impulsive, and irrational behavior, self-catalytic activities, memory impairment, perceptual distortion, hyperresponsiveness, and distortion of traditional forms and structures.
Michael Osborne
April 23, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Hey MO,
In the context I was referring to racial minorities.
“You might also benefit by talking to some Somalian shopkeepers” – I have been lucky enough to talk to some Somalian shopkeepers. Like Afriforum, many have to review their mindsets. Some years ago, I argued with one very prominent Somalian who was adamant that the solution to SAs high crime rate is Sharia Law – it was the very violence which forced him to run away from Somalia to the safety of our constitutional democracy which he was advocating for us.
But we can associate the extreme violence and volatility in our country with all kinds of convenient categories to feed what I consider nefarious agendas. In KZN in the 80s and 90s numerous businesses were devastated by violence to the extent that under then MEC for Economic Affairs (Zuma) a fund was set up for the rehabilitation of businesses devastated by violence. I am not sure what happened with the fund (Zuma met Shaik and the rest is history
).
Many in the taxi operators sector are killed. Business people are killed. It may be convenient to compartmentalise into ‘minority’ groups and present the illusion of “the kind of mob pyschology that always lurkes in societies”.
But there’s no evidence to support that. There’s criminality and criminals, thugs, opportunists and other weasels (+ angry people) which has to be dealt with.
It’s a fake notion (i.e. a big fat lie) that Black people (African people in particular) are mobilising covertly or otherwise, to exterminate farmers or Afrikaaners or any other racial group.
It’s also a big fat lie that Juju’s singing has any correlation to any violence let alone murder.
Michael Osborne
April 23, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Hey MO,
Maybe this is the mob psychology which you are concerned about (from the piece in the link I posted above) :
This policy was restated in the Indian constituent assembly which also functioned as the legislature, where prime minister Nehru declared:
“The government of India’s general policy, not only in South Africa but all over the continent of Africa has been to promote close friendship and co-operation between Indians and Africans. While earnestly desiring the security and well-being of Indians abroad, the government do not look with sympathy on the establishment of any vested interests which might retard the advance of the African people in their own homeland. This view has been frequently communicated to our representatives in the continent of Africa.”
The change in Gol attitude towards Indian-African relations was taken adverse note of by the Natal English press. The Sunday Tribune of Durban commented:
“This attitude (of advising South African Indians not to have any special interests at the cost of Africans but to help the latter ‘to gain freedom’) marks a change in the foreign policy of India which coincides with the independence of that great country. In the past, the government of India wisely chose to distinguish between the interests of Natives and the interests of local Indians. Interference on behalf of the latter, acknowledged as diplomatically correct, in no way excuses interference on behalf of the former …. Until the war intervened to give new impetus and direction to South African Indian political bodies, no local Indian could be found to subscribe to the views Pandit Nehru now expresses. If Hindustan’s foreign policy is to include the encouragement of the new leaders of the Indian community in South Africa in their bid for a non European front, we can be certain that South Africa will react accordingly.”
The inspiration for this threatening comment was revealed in the advice to “Indian moderates to inform Pandit Nehru of the dangers his policy was likely to create for them in this country”.
@ Maggs
“It’s a fake notion (i.e. a big fat lie) that Black people (African people in particular) are mobilising covertly or otherwise, to exterminate farmers or Afrikaaners or any other racial group.”
Of course you are right — and you rightly mock Brett and others for their endless recycling of the paranoid GENOCIDE motif.
But then you go to the opposite extreme of suggesting that we are so fortunate as to be utterly immune to the kind of populist victimisation of minorities that is a universal of human history. In fact, it would be astonishing if local demagogues were not at some point able to mobilise the desparately poor against minorities who are, economically speaking, better off. There is a great deal of literature on the sublimation of class struggle into reactionary politics. (Lenin supposedly said: “Anti-Semiticism is the Socialism of the idiot.”)
Michael Osborne
April 23, 2011 at 14:14 pm
MO,
“In fact, it would be astonishing if local demagogues were not at some point able to mobilise the desparately poor against minorities who are, economically speaking, better off.”
Agreed.
I have no doubt that there are such people – across the race and class divides in our country.
I referred to Mbongeni Ngema earlier who tried. Then there’s Manyi. And Qwelane. All neutralised.
If they gain momentum, it’s because we allow them.
The vast majority of people in our country subscribe to progressive views.
There are the small, albeit dangerous, fringe elements whom we must be mindful of.
We should not and must not allow the shape and character of our powerful democracy to be determined by lunatics.
@ Maggs
” …Manyi. And Qwelane. All neutralised.”
Maggs you may be one of the most doggedly sanguine people I have ever encountered.
Last I heard about Manyi, he was being endorsed by Mantashe. As for Qwelane, if you deem being imposed on the long-suffering people of Uganda as being neutralised then, yes, I suppose, he has been indeed neutralised.
@ Maggs
“The vast majority of people in our country subscribe to progressive views.”
Maggs is right.
Yes, apart from the fact that most of them enthusiastically support the death penalty and are horrible homophobes, I am sure that most our people are sooooooo progressive!
Thanks.
Michael Osborne
April 23, 2011 at 18:30 pm
Hey MO,
Mantashe and Uganda may be true.
But what is the consequence of their silliness?
Zilch. Zero. Nada.
I was not my suggestion that neutralising means dumping them in a dungeon.
In this case it meant that the effect of their rhetoric went to ground before there were any serious takers.
I think this government did extremely well in containing the morbidity of those two in particular and without allowing them to be turned into heroes.
The space exists now, created by political leadership, to reclaim our space.
We can also just hang around and moan about how sad those okes are.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 23, 2011 at 18:37 pm
Hey Boiled Head,
“Yes, apart from the fact that most of them enthusiastically support the death penalty and are horrible homophobes, I am sure that most our people are sooooooo progressive!”
Interesting take.
You say that most of our people support the death penalty and are horrible homophobes.
Yet you do not acknowledge that those very people support the democratic process that recognises probably the best human rights charter in the world with probably the best ‘strategic state institutions’ to guarantee those rights.
With the massive support that the ANC has it could quite easily have the constitution changed to introduce the death penalty and outlaw homosexuality – it remains steadfastly opposed to both.
Yet you say the people who support the ANC are largely opposed to those basic human rights.
So which should I believe – the 65.9% from IEC or your off the cuff stats?
If yours are correct, isn’t it wonderful that we live in a country where people say “I want the death penalty and I want the banning of homosexuals, but I am prepared to accept that it is contrary to a sound human rights regime and I will support the ANC ensures that neither is implemented in South Africa”???
The ANC, despite of being a broad church of thoughts on both these, remains steadfastly loyal to our Bill of Rights. Isn’t that wonderful?
p.s. If you like I can let you know which political parties are in support of the death penalty and/or opposed to homosexuality and which ‘speak with both sides of their mouths’.
jerrym says:
April 22, 2011 at 19:20 pm
Are legal representatives EVER independently objective?! Don’t they ‘belong’ to the clients that paid them?
I think Brassey made a better show for his money.
Michael Osborne
April 23, 2011 at 14:14 pm
Hey MO,
“In fact, it would be astonishing if local demagogues were not at some point able to mobilise the desparately poor against minorities who are, economically speaking, better off.”
I find this an extraordinary comment. It’s been tossing and turning about in my head since I read it a while ago. When you have the time and the patience to unpack that, please do.
Of particular interest are :
Who are these local demagogues? Do you think that they would amass their capacity to mobilise through top level leadership? Would the security apparatus (the police, the army, the courts) support them? I assume that you implied that they are Black, particularly African, people.
By mobilise do you mean kill/injure and/or steal their possessions?
Would the desperately poor also be Black, particularly African, people living in awfully squalid conditions, presumably in informal settlements?
Are the ‘minorities who are, economically speaking, better off’ White people or would they be foreigners living in or near desperately poor areas?
I think De Vos is overlooking something. Malema has never potrayed himself as a socialist nor a communist. However, whether he is a capitalist or not I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.
But Malema has always advocated the ideal that it IS NOT WRONG FOR A BLACK PERSON TO BE RICH AND LIVE THEEE LIFE, and he has been consistent in that line of thought.
He has ensured that he appeared in public as the person who lives that kind of life, in order to inspire young black people to believe that they ewere not meant to be peasants………THIS IS WHAT HE BELIEVES IN AND HE IS STICKING TO IT…………………He truly believe in economic emancipation….and he cannot preach same and appear as a POOR person……..HE IS NOT ADVOCATING POVERTY…………….HE MAY BE A “TENDERPRENEAR” Is that wrong?…………….economic enancipation in our life time………………….DU PLESSIS WAS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION and the less said about him the better……….If he truly believed that MALEMA was stupit and that he will expose his stupidity then…he is not even worth being discussed herein…………………….IF PEOPLE CAN START PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT MALEMA IS SAYING, they will realise the BRILLIANCE OF THIS BOY……..Yes at times he goes over board but that can be attributted to his youth, and he will mature with time………………….POLITICALLY MALEMA IS SHARP and he can just became better!
” …realise the BRILLIANCE OF THIS BOY……..Yes at times he goes over board but that can be attributted to his youth, and he will mature with time”
Clement is right!
@ Maggs, every study I have seen shows very strong support for the death penalty (75% and up), amongst all “race” groups.
See e.g. http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db//theses/available/etd-07272006-134853/unrestricted/AmbrosioCV.pdf
Michael Osborne
April 24, 2011 at 10:47 am
MO,
I am aware that 75% + support the death penalty. You may recall that Zuma suggested that people must talk about it. The ANC is unambiguously committed to the BoR including the abolishment of the death penalty. That another matter.
Please clarify what you meant by “In fact, it would be astonishing if local demagogues were not at some point able to mobilise the desparately poor against minorities who are, economically speaking, better off” as I asked earlier.
“HE MAY BE A “TENDERPRENEAR” Is that wrong?”
Nah, CLEMENT!
“CORRUPTION” is not wrong.
“STEALING FROM THE PEOPLE” is not wrong.
That IS what you’re saying, no?
Maggs, you said that “the vast majority of our people subscribe to progressive views.” Now, you acknowledge that 75% + support the death penalty. Also, I take it, you agree that a large % of “our people” are homophobes.
So, do you wish to modify your earlier claim?
Will get back to you re demagogues.
>Michael Osborne:
It all depends on how you define “progressive”.
“Progressive – adjective
Favouring or advocating change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters”
Clara, you are being naughty in enabling Maggs in his evasiveness.
You (and Maggs), know perfectly well that, as the term is used in SA political discourse, one would never call a person who favours the DP and is a homophobe “progressive.”
Michael Osborne
April 24, 2011 at 16:15 pm
Hey MO,
“So, do you wish to modify your earlier claim?”
I see you’re evading the question by asking other questions.
Nonetheless – no I don’t think the majority of people are homophobes.
I don’t think also that it’s appropriate to contemplate violent and/or ghastly crimes in the same context as homosexuality.
Perhaps we should discuss those separately – just to avoid the perception that we think that homosexuality is a crime/abnormality/evil … in the same way that we consider brutal crimes of violence.
Maybe Malema had a personal coach!someone who prepared him for the trial9surely he could afford it
) – lawyers most often coach/prepare their clients for trial; maybe they taught him some impulse control – breathing exercises, and even anticipated questions and taught him the best responses to give;
I’m not very optimistic about our future!
No, Maggs, I am not avoiding you question re demagogues etc. I solemnly promise to answer you.
In the meantime, are you seriously denying that a majority of South Africans are homophobes? What would you make of 80% of any given population saying that sex between persons of same sex is “always wrong”?
And why do you insist of projecting a fantasy that South Africans are open minded, tolerant people?
Michael Osborne
April 24, 2011 at 17:40 pm
Hey MO,
You are avoiding that.
I am neither denying nor accepting that the majority of South Africans are homophobic – I have not seen any convincing evidence either way.
I think ‘homophobic’ is used far too broadly and easily – you may recall that PdV suggested that I may be homophobic cos he did not approve of a particular comment I made which had nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia.
My view may be a direct result of the social and political circles I engage in which fairly neutral on homosexuality.
There’s the interesting debate around the term ‘homosexuality’ with some preferring to talk of homonegativity – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonegativity
But that aside – where do you get the “80% of any given population saying that sex between persons of same sex is ‘always wrong’”?
Even if that is true, my comment to Dworky (April 23, 2011 at 18:37 pm) perhaps will clear up my perspective.
>Maggs:
“I think ‘homophobic’ is used far too broadly and easily -”
When, say, a person of the hetero persuasion – on spotting a good-looking gay person of the opposite sex – snarls “What a waste!” – does this make him/her homophobic?
Clara
April 24, 2011 at 18:16 pm
Hey Claraty,
“When, say, a person of the hetero persuasion – on spotting a good-looking gay person of the opposite sex – snarls ‘What a waste!’ – does this make him/her homophobic?”
Have you got your eye on Pierre?
>Maggs:
“Have you got your eye on Pierre?”
Uh, no. Yes. Well, maybe. He does have that certain je-ne-sais-quoi. But, alas, I’m pretty sure I’m not his type (sigh).
Maggs, see url for HSRC study below (82% of South Africans as of 2007 said homosexuality was “always wrong.”)
Maggs, do you perhaps live in Canada, Denmark, or Tasmania? If you actually live in South Africa, I fail to understand why you are unaware that most South Africans, of all “races”, are deeply conservative people.
***********************
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC_Review_Article-121.phtml
Michael Osborne
April 24, 2011 at 21:26 pm
Hey MO,
“Maggs, see url for HSRC study below (82% of South Africans as of 2007 said homosexuality was “always wrong.”)”
Perhaps you did not read up on homonegativity from the link I posted above. Here it is FYI.
I reckon that saying homosexuality is always wrong is closer to ‘homonegativity’ than homophobic if the experts are to be believed.
Homonegativity is a term, proposed for use by Hudson and Ricketts in 1980, for description of a negative attitude towards homosexuality or homosexual people, instead of the term homophobia.[1] The term “homophobia” has a strongly negative political meaning and is perceived as pejorative and loaded.
The exact meaning of the term “homonegativity” is a subject of scientific discussion and disagreement.[2] Hudson and Ricketts propose to use this term as descriptive for any negative attitude towards homosexuality (be it emotional, moral or intellectual disapproval), regardless of the sources of this attitude (be it based on religious, moral, ideological or other beliefs). They also propose to stop using “homophobia” in scientific context as it is a scientifically incorrect term.
Russian sexologist M.Beilkin proposes to use the term “homonegativity” only for intellectual disapproval of homosexuality, leaving the term “homophobia” for description of emotions and feelings towards homosexuality, such as fear, hatred, aversion.[citation needed] He does not consider the term “homophobia” wholly inaccurate, and says that homophobia really exists as a distinct phenomenon. In this view, homonegativity and homophobia are distinct terms, describing different things.
Michael Osborne
April 24, 2011 at 21:26 pm
MO,
I think you’re struggling with your comment that on cursory reading is deeply bigoted – and to defend the indefensible you’re digressing.
But until you deal with that, I probe your ‘always wrong’ = phobia reasoning.
I am opposed to religion which I think is always wrong. My family especially my parents are (or have been) deeply religious. I don’t hate/fear/dislike/disapprove of my family for that – that’s just the way they are (and I don’t try and impose my thinking on them).
Similarly I think it’s stretching imagination to suggest that a dislike of homosexuality equates to a phobia.
If there’s any merit in your inference then I would imagine that PdV who meets many, many South Africans who know that he is gay, would be able to report that 82% of those are hostile towards him because of his sexual orientation. I would be surprised if it’s even .5% or 0.1% or 0.01%. I strongly doubt that PdV has met more than 10 or 20 people in his lifetime who on a one-to-one basis has expressed any sign of a phobia. Perhaps he will tell us.
Maggs, I too will be interested to hear what Pierre says on whether the claim that homosexual acts are “always wrong” amounts to homophobia. I think it does — in the sense that the term “homophobia” is used in contemporary discourse.
But this need not be a debate about semantics. Let us leave the term “homophobia” aside. I say that a belief that a homosexuality is “always wrong” is deeply conservative, indeed, reactionary.
That, together with the fact that one of the few things that all races have in common is a firm belief in the death penalty, simply makes nonsense of your claim that South Africans are generally “progressive.”
Michael Osborne
April 24, 2011 at 22:28 pm
MO,
I think that most people in our country are deeply conservative in more ways than covering sexual orientation and the death penalty.
But I stand on my position that we are a very progressive society – people abandon their individual and collective power through which they could entrench their conservative views in favour of progressive policy positions which must be the envy of every right thinking person across the world.
Our people (ANC supporters in particular) have demonstrated that they are ready, willing and able to abandon their own conservativeness for the greater good – that’s about as progressive as it gets.
We have for example, President Zuma who would have, as a young man, knocked down a gay man who stood in front of him. And he appointed a known homophobe as his ambassador. Yet he will support and defend the rights of homosexuals and (I will be willing to bet my life on it) will use the full extent of his executive power and the power of all the ‘strategic state institutions’ to protect and advance the rights of homosexuals in South Africa.
Let me see if I understand this, Maggs:
1. “The vast majority of people in our country subscribe to progressive views.” (April 23, 14h14.)
2. “Most people in our country are deeply conservative” (April 24, 22h28.)
3. “I stand on my position that we are a very progressive society.” (April 24, 22h28)
Are you saying that our people collectively speaking are “progressive,” viz. that their progressivism an “emergent property,” in the sense that water is a liquid at room temperature, even though neither of its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen are liquid?
Or, that conciousness is a property of the brain, even though no individual neuron could ever be said to be “concious” in and of itself.
Michael Osborne
April 25, 2011 at 9:36 am
Hey MO,
It will be easy to get sidetracked with the water/hydrogen/oxygen discussion – like whether matter, as is one current theory, is ultimately made of strings of time and space – the tiniest of tiny (kinda like Brett’s brain) warps (also like Brett’s brain). But let’s set that aside for later.
My starting point, based on our actual constitution and formal policy and legislative positions and subjectively from my life’s experiences, is that we are a very, very progressive society – possibly the most progressive in the world.
I accept that research, at those times those were conducted, indicates that South Africans are overwhelmingly conservative with respect to their personal views on specific socio-political issues. However research happens in a context – all kinds of things influence the outcomes of the research.
It is very likely, for example, that during the treason trial of Mandela and others that most Black people would have opposed the death penalty. In the aftermath of the Chris Hani murder, my instinct suggests, it would probably have went the other way.
Our arch homophobe having been deployed to Uganda (with it’s particularly abhorrent stance on homosexuality) is in the very, very interesting position of having to convey our national policy on homosexuality. hehehe – he would surely have preferred to have been thrown in a pit full of vicious snakes rather than having to do what he has been deployed (‘ordered’) to do – i.e. push a pro-homosexual line in Uganda.
How did a discussion about bum legal representatives become a discourse about homosexuality and homophobia. As it did let me lay it out for you.
Most South Africans see homosexuality as always wrong because of their belief in dieties, sons and spooks. The majority of those probably never concern themselves about the issue in real time. No thought went into their beliefs because the preacher said it was wrong, thus it must be.
Referring to these people as homophobic is a tad arbitrary as most of them wouldn’t know what to do with a gay person if they saw one. I am unashamedly atheist and this same demographic has equated my lack of faith as satan worship.
The only thing that really concerns me is that they are allowed to vote.
Prof, well done! I couldn’t have put it any better myself. I dont think Adv Du Plessis has waken up to release that apatheid is gone and are leaving in a democracy. I like it when you say he sounds like ‘baas’ barking orders to his black workers.
Beign a senior consel, Du Plessis should have known better. His urguements were poor and emotionally. He struggled to put his case across resorting to unfounded assumptions. Maybe he could have done well pre ’94 not now. It is fair enough as you suggest he helped ‘win’ the case for the opposition.
Themba Gumbi
April 25, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Hey Themba,
“Beign a senior consel, Du Plessis should have known better.”
Is it possible that the TAU members have spent the long weekend singing “dubul’ibhunu, dubula dubula” while pointing to duP’s photo?
It was rather comical when the only opportunity to blow this matter wide open came, duP’s brain was having an out-of-body experience.
I refer particularly when Juju was asked about whether he thinks there is space in democratic South Africa for people who uphold apartheid or thereabouts. When Malema scowled that there is no place for such people the SC choked, got confused, eat his scarf or was thinking of lunch. Malema’s response was contrary to our constitution and the Freedom Charter.
It would have been interesting to hear what Malema, who claimed to be pushing both the ANCYL and ANC views, would have wanted to happen (and how that should happen) to those whose political views are contrary to all that we are supposed to stand for as a nation i.e. those he described as ‘the system’ aka ibhunu.
Maggs, you’re a moron.
Themba is just ignorant.
I trust du Plessis and Brassey are working on the perjury charges as I type for Juju’s flight of fantasy that black South Africans were not paid compensation for land expropriated by the state.
You are freshly spanked by MO (who, for a change, appears to have done his homework) and here you are, begging for another spanking. (That old no-such-thing-as-an-objective-reality thingy again, which is why you fit into the ANC so well…)
Well, I’ll happily oblige.
Kuku’s oh so eloquent testimony which so invigorated you towards the ANC was
a) the so-called eloquence we saw often during the 80s of youngsters with little insight into what they were repeating who memorised an article from Work in Progress or the New Nation or Sechaba and then used it to practice their English on their friends (but then you probably think Mugabe is eloquent as well)
b) contained a large measure of perjury.
If you nuts want an example of the state taking peoples’ property without compensation look somewhere other than under NP government – I do not think you’ll find an example in Hansard where the Minister and Commissioner of Police told an NP assembly they would simply refuse to comply with provisions of an Act requiring the payment of compensation like Charkles Nqakula and Jackie Selebi did!
Maggs, I am still waiting for sources for your historical posturing about Nehru’s alleged (by you) gun-boat diplomacy. I have a list of the vessels that constituted India’s Navy – I do not care what myths you imbibed with NIC mothers’ milk. Lets have the facts.
I’m afraid I must insist!
Michael, Mbeki mocked people people who called for government to provide ARVs to prevent mother-to-child transmition of HIV as well. At least he did a bit of homework. Denial is far from rebuttal – all the sources I provided you are uncontroverted, and frankly, I feel a bit as if I have been casting pearls.
Genocide can only be proven with 100% certainty retrospectively – if you like I can quote Maddy Albright at you again?
“… those whose political views are contrary to all that we are supposed to stand for as a nation i.e. those he described as ‘the system’ aka ibhunu”
But, Maggs! With the greatest respect, all political views must be accommodated in a democracy. Just look at all those brand-new rightwing parties springing up all over Europe, which worries a lot of people; yet, space has to be made in government even for the most extreme rightwingers, provided they get the required number of votes. It’s a nonsense to talk about “what we are supposed to stand for as a nation”, when nobody knows quite what that might be.
“… ‘the system’ aka ibhunu”
Hahaha! The Boere/Afrikaners/whites/whatever will be fascinated to hear that they are now ‘a system’. Well, it does have a nicer ring to it than, say, ‘rockspiders’, ‘cockroaches’ or ‘racists’.
Brett Nortje
April 25, 2011 at 14:40 pm
Hey Goofy,
I made a mistake.
I said your brain was really, really small.
It’s smaller than that.
p.s. the source for Nehru’s intervention is above – from me.
“I have a list of the vessels that constituted India’s Navy” – right!. You also have a vacuum in your head.
Clara
April 25, 2011 at 14:43 pm
Hey Claraty,
“But, Maggs! With the greatest respect, all political views must be accommodated in a democracy.”
That’s the same thing I said.
Re-read my comment.
I pointed out the duP, who is as smart as Brett, missed that opportunity.
Clara – I like being part of a system of ‘rockspiders’ and ‘souties’ (however, the latter term is gender insensitive, because only males qualify for being called ‘souties’) – IF we can all be called ‘boere’. Problem, however, is that the so-called ‘system’ (aka ‘ibhunu’) must be KILLED according to the lyrics of this song / chant. It appears that the ANC (using ANCYL and that buffoon leading that organization) is just sooooo scared of the past, that they must keep on singing this song (chanting this chant), do or die, even if they have to teach their children (who have never felt how it felt to be part of the struggle – yes you too Julius you fool!) to sing / chant it – all that while they haven’t the foggiest about what is happening at the moment and what will happen in future if they keep on stealing from the poor. The ANC must watch out, ‘flogging a dead horse’ might just have the effect of ressurecting it some time in future (we can already sense the stance of the rest of the world against Africa in the UNSC and in the strategies employed in Libyia and Cote D’ivoire), and if the beast rears its head again, guess who’ll cry – ‘ibhunu’ or, ‘imunthu’? The ANC (and, therefore, ANCYL) should rather see how they can get ‘ibhunu’ to side with them but this is being counter-productive and even counter-revolutionary.
Clara
April 25, 2011 at 14:43 pm
Hey Claraty,
“It’s a nonsense to talk about “what we are supposed to stand for as a nation”, when nobody knows quite what that might be.”
I missed that. It seems that nobody told you about this – here’s the link to what we stand for as a nation.
http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/index.htm
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 25, 2011 at 15:03 pm
Maggs, India had 2 frigates and a corvette that could possibly have reached South Africa as part of an ‘expeditionary force’.
No capital ships, no support/replenishment vessels.
Inshore stuff for the rest. Minesweepers and motor launches.
You spake shit again!
Brett Nortje
April 25, 2011 at 15:30 pm
Hey Goofy,
“Maggs, India had 2 frigates and a corvette that could possibly have reached South Africa as part of an ‘expeditionary force’.”
Right!
You sure that the Royal Navy of Hindustan had more than a few canoes?
Maggs has been caught out – AGAIN!!!
WIll this shut Maggs up? Will this teach Maggs the difference between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’?
For the next exiting episode….
Brett Nortje
April 25, 2011 at 15:39 pm
hehehehe!
You are such an idiot.
In the words of our infamous advocate ‘jou doberman se caught out, man!’
Oh, I get it!
Nehru was pointing his finger, cocking his thumb and saying “Kah-Pow! Kah-Pow!”
Hands up everyone who thinks Maggs is now going to do the usual ANC thing when caught bullshitting/hands in the cookie jar/fucking up? Any bets?
Deny. Deny hysterically. Pretend it never happened. Misdirect.
@ Brett
“Genocide can only be proven with 100% certainty retrospectively”
Then used language more carefully, Brett. Rather than saying that there is a GENOCIDE being perpetrated against whites (which makes you sound, with respect, like a lunatic), why not allege that genocide is being planned? Or that, if current trends are projected outwards, all whites will have been murdered by 2295, or such other date as you may calculate.
Of course, it would remain for you to demonstrate such claims, but that is a different matter.
Brett Nortje
April 25, 2011 at 15:53 pm
Hey Goofy,
Let me remind you of where this discussion came. You, in typical hereditary fashion of divide and rule tactics, said :
Brett Nortje April 22, 2011 at 12:22 pm
“If there had been dead Naidus lying around and they had all been commentators on a constitutional law blog your reply would have been different.”
I responded with :
“There were many dead Naidu’s lying around during the 1949 ‘race riots’ and we all know who the architects of that were. It took Nehru and his warships that were a week away from Durban to bring that to an end.”
You tried denying that your forebears were the instigators of that horrific experience. Now read the link I posted again and look at the references if you want any more facts.
For all their evil attempts, the then apartheid state failed to divide the Black unification through it’s iniquitous strategy of low intensity warfare. Admittedly your attempt to repeat that, albeit on a relatively much smaller scale, will go nowhere.
‘Dabula ibhunu’ will not incite people to violence. You and people like you are more dangerous and harmful than any amount of singing that Juju could dish out.
Maggs, my forebears never lived in Durban,nor even Natal.
My brother rented briefly in Durban 2 or 3 years ago for the duration of a project but for the rest both my mom and dad’s family are from the Cape and settled north of the Vaal in the 20th century.
Stay militant, Maggs! Forward to the National Dumboucratic Revolution!
Now, to the compensation issue!
Do you think the Equality Court is modeled on the Compensation Courts?
@ Maggs
“we are a very, very progressive society – possibly the most progressive in the world.”
Maggs, it makes no sense to me that a society composed of a large majority of people who — as you are admit — are deeply conservative, can be said to be as intensely progressive as you claim.
Where I would agree with you is that we have:
(a) A progressive Constitution interpreted and applied by a generally progressive judiciary.
(b) A remarkably progressive ruling elite, comprising a coalition of principled left-wingers and old-style liberals.
Within the ANC, I think this coalition is in danger of displaced by reactionary African nationalism, which, because its ultra-conservativism appeals to many South Africans, carries a dangerous populist appeal. (See my earlier comments re the perils of demagoguery in an economically stratified society, to which I will return, pursuant to your questions, in another post.)
Meantime, it is to the great credit of the ANC leadership that it has since 1994 adopted a principled stance, contrary to the preferences of much of its constituency, against the death penalty, in favour of gender equality, and against homophobia. But I suspect that many of those who vote ANC do so despite, not because of, these genuinely progressive positions
Michael Osborne
April 25, 2011 at 16:44 pm
Hey MO,
You can take comfort in the processes of the ANC. Policy is not, contrary to populist rhetoric, determined on the fly. It’s a long, arduous journey.
There’s more chance, for example, of getting the CC to review the stance on the death penalty/equality than to get the ANC to do so.
Any policy change starts with deliberations at branch level, progressing to regional level to provincial level and then onto the national policy conference and finally onto the national general council.
At each level there are ‘filters’ to ensure that whatever policy changes are advocated are consistent with the shape and character of the ANC.
I have been fortunate to have attended conferences/meetings at various levels – it would be unthinkable that a revision to the ANC’s stance on human rights would be changed because 98% of it’s members deem it so.
If the proposal was made to put on the national agenda a change to its position on the death penalty or equality that would more than likely be dismissed outright. If someone stood up at a national policy conference of general council to make such a proposal he or she would probably be sent to see a shrink.
Of course people have a choice to vote/support political parties other than the ANC which have the space to put forward such policies. Parties other than predominantly white or white led parties (I say that in anticipation of someone suggesting that voter support is largely racially structured)- there’s 15 parties represented in parliament, 64 not represented and 24 defunct (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_South_Africa)
People are not spoilt for choice.
Maggs. putting ones faith in the processes of the ANC appears to me to belong in the genus of putting ones faith in legal advice obtained from a monkey.
Kindly confine yourself to explaining the inherent contradictions in your various positions which Michael brought to the fore.
Anonymouse
April 25, 2011 at 15.07 pm
“… souties (however, the latter term is gender insensitive, because only males qualify for being called ‘souties’)”
Tu, rattus turpis! “Soutie” is the sanitised version of “soutpiel”. Well, that lets me off the hook. But male white non-Afrikaans Saffers will never forgive the Afrikaners for that! Not in a million years!
Maggs, I understand your impatience.
But remember: Brett is young.
He has a lot to learn.
Brett Nortje
April 25, 2011 at 18:01 pm
Hey Goofy,
You are no doubt aware that Juju missed the cue when asked by duP to name a democratic country where property is confiscated without compensation.
Instead of Zimbabwe he could have said South Africa and given the confiscation of guns by the SAPS as the example, eh?
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
April 25, 2011 at 20:37 pm
Are you seriously advocating honesty in the dock from an ANC leader? What do you think the rogue’s gallery was there for if not to ensure that witnesses remained loyal and disciplined (and dishonest) members of the ANC?
What if respecting oaths on the stand led to a general upgrade in integrity like respecting oaths of office? And even ANC supporters commenting on constitutional law blogs were required to be honest and truthful?
Huh?
Have you thought through the ramifications of what you’re suggesting?
What if ANC members of government in all spheres were required to be honest? Officebearers?
You’re kidding, right?
Michael Osborne says:
April 25, 2011 at 15:58 pm
@ Brett
Michael? Is that it? Your refinement of the issues in dispute as you see it?
Do you expect me to go ahead and rebut by regurgetating all the same arguments again?
Clara says:
April 25, 2011 at 20:08 pm
Glad you could read between the lines!
Brett Nortje
April 25, 2011 at 21:02 pm
Hey Goofy,
I think this has serious ramifications for our country – i.e if property can be confiscated without compensation.
It’s unfortunate that your SILK did not use the opportunity to talk about the right to property as enshrined in our constitution.
One South African even got jailed for having property in his garage.
Why did you not prepare him before hand?
Do you still have to pay for his services?
Clara – But I like being called a ‘rockspaaider’. Note the difference in spelling? Well, at that specific event every year, we (Afrikaners) teach non-afrikaners to ROCK!
Brett Nortje
April 25, 2011 at 21:13 pm
Hey Goofy
It’s understandable that you are irritated by MO’s comment.
Does he really think that you will fall into the trap of alleging that “allege that genocide is being planned”? You’re too smart for that – MO want you to look like a raving lunatic.
Does he think that you are foolish enough to believe that “all whites will have been murdered by 2295″? Really now – even children born today will be 294 years old then. Who lives to 294 years?
We need to ask ourselves, was the original meaning of the song ‘shoot the boer’ a call to action, to kill? I refer to pre-1994 now. Put another way, were those people who sang, fair and impartial singers, and, were the listeners fair and impartial listeners then? Now, in the current context, given the large number of boer killings, does fair and impartial still apply? Also, if fair and impartial are just silly notions, then perhaps ‘kill the boer’ and ‘kiss the boer’ are not just songs after all.
Brett, for God’s sake stop fretting about GENOCIDE all day and all night long. You are young. Have some fun. Read a book — you have a lot to learn
(Besides, do you really think the most progressive society our galaxy has seen in its 14 billion years of existence would countenance GENOCIDE. I don’t THINK so!)
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 26, 2011 at 1:37 am
Hey Dworky,
“Besides, do you really think the most progressive society our galaxy has seen in its 14 billion years of existence would countenance GENOCIDE.”
There may be merit in your assertion that GENOCIDE is being planned here.
Matilda has whispered that there are plans afoot to change our national anthem to Mshini Wam with dabula ibhunu as the chorus.
Is that the first sign?
p.s. It is also rumoured that s 11 is to be amended “Everyone has the right to life except when GENOCIDE is carried out.“
“From a legal perspective we are sure of our case and of the argument put before court.
We prefer a court ruling, rather than to settle out of court, but we are not closed for dialogue either,” he said.
Roets said that a settlement was on the table for both parties concerned.
It was reported that Transvaal Agricultural Union (Tau), advocate, Roelof du Plesis, said he didn’t believe a settlement was possible.
http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=190094&sn=Detail&pid=40&Hate-speech-case-enters-week-3-
Maggs, by now you should have learned that I enjoy giving you plenty of rope to hang yourself with.
More on genocide later, then.
Instead of cloaking yourself with a circus-like atmosphere again (like a smokescreen to cover your escape – ‘laying smoke’ – in naval parlance…Hehehe! ) don’t you think you ought to try recover some lost ground by trying to indict the information I provided about Nehru’s fleet and compensation for land expropriated for forced removals?
I must say – that gets my goat. There must have been lawyers following this blog who have personal experience getting compensation for people removed from their property and you let Maggs (and Kuku) get away with lying about compensation as part of the ideology they are fabricating about the evil lesser ‘other’ by busting these myths and explaining all the nuances of these unpleasant historical realities.
Brett Nortje
April 26, 2011 at 10:17 am
Hey Goofy,
Everything I needed to have said about the evil apartheid government in regard to the 1949 riots has been said. I stand by all of that.
I quite enjoy reading the Prof’s blogs and the amusing, cynical, sarcastic and disparaging comments that follow. However in the Juju case I have a disquieting picture of similar little dialogues etc taking place in Germany circa 1936, Rwanda around 1994 and Bosnia before 1996.
@ Paul
“I have a disquieting picture of similar little dialogues etc taking place in Germany circa 1936, Rwanda around 1994 and Bosnia before 1996.”
With respect, your historical resonances ring hollow. None of the countries you mentioned were blessed with PROGRESSIVE constitutions. Moreover our society (although, admittedly, not the individuals themselves), is arguably the most PROGRESSIVE since the Athens of Pericles!
Thanks.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 26, 2011 at 11:02 am
Hey Boiled head
“Moreover our society (although, admittedly, not the individuals themselves), is arguably the most PROGRESSIVE since the Athens of Pericles!”
If I recall correctly, you ran away from some country where Montenegran thugs beat you up to avoid further beatings (and to save Matilda).
Remind me why you chose South Africa rather than say, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, USA, Libya.
Dworky, did you read the JPFO material I prescribed for you?
Well, here is some more:
http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/GSSW/schram/harff.pdf
http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/Countries_at_Risk_May_2010.doc
http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html
http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html
The American Political Science Review article is THE source on the subject matter.
@ Maggs
You are right.
Together with Matilda, I was indeed menaced by Montenegran thugs. (Racists.) I came to South Africa because I had heard through the Balkan grapevine that it was blessed with the most PROGRESSIVE men and women since the heyday of Helen Suzman’s PROGRESSIVE party.
Thanks.
Who agrees TAU should have tried to get someone from Genocide Watch to testify for them?
Stage 5 or Stage 6?
http://news.thezimbabwemail.com/general/4955-anc-youth-leader-urges-south-african-white-farmers-to-leave.html
ANC Youth leader urges South African white farmers to leave
By editor 05/04/2010 20:35:00
Font size:
HARARE – Controversial South African youth leader for the African National Congress has said ANC will follow the example of Zimbabwe’s Zanu PF and start to take over white-owned farms by the end of the year.
The comments were made by Julius Malema at a mine 160 kilometers outside Harare in Zimbabwe.
The ANC Youth Wing leader, enthused by rented Zanu PF crowd, said Zimbabwe had led the way in fighting over land and promised to unleash Zimbabwean tactics on South African white farmers.
He encouraged Zimbabweans to also take over white and foreign-owned companies. Malema said the people must embrace liberation and continue to fight against what he called Western imperialism.
He said: “You are not alone. Your struggle is our struggle.”
Malema also said he would continue to sing the song: “Kill the Boer,” a former ANC chant against the apartheid regime. The song was last week banned in a South African court.
The ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, shot to fame by expressing his undying support for the South African President, Jacob Zuma, by saying: “We are prepared to take up arms and kill for Zuma.”
As The Zimbabwe Mail reported elsewhere, South Africa’s ruling party, ANC is said to be planning Zimbabwean style land invasions after the FIFA 2010 World Cup, with the assistance of Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF and War Veterans Association.
On Monday last week, a member of the Zanu PF security department told our reporter that Malema’s visit to Harare was a follow up to a secret high-level discussion between Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his South African counterpart Jacob Zuma.
Robert Mugabe has already convinced Zuma and promised him an unwavering support in the South African land reform and indigenisation process.
Last week, a high-level delegation in the South African security forces, intelligence and media, with close links to the ruling party ANC, arrived in Harare, the Capital of Zimbabwe and they will spend sometime training at the Zimbabwe National Army’s Staff College.
South African government’s Rural Development and Land Reform, Gugule Nkwinti, has accused white farmers of scuttling the land reform programme by frustrating government’s willing buyer willing seller policy through inflating prices.
He warned South Africa risks sinking into chaos as the patience of new black farmers is running thin as evidenced by sporadic farm invasions.
“If South Africans who own land don’t recognise the reality on the ground and can no walk the mind with government in terms of what is proposed right now then in fact they are the ones who will be responsible for creating conditions of chaos which can be worse than what has been witnessed in Zimbabwe,” said Nkwinti.
Africa’s economic giant needs R75 billion to acquire 80 million hectares of land by 2014 but this target will not be reached as national coffers are running dry as a result of a litany of service delivery issues that needs to be addressed such as a long housing back log, water and electricity deliveries to millions of households.
Nkwinti said the South African government is working on a policy aimed at addressing the land inequalities urging farm owners to be more flexible in land redistribution negotiations.
He said the new policy is about preventing going the disastrous way of distributing land like the one witnessed in Zimbabwe where President Robert Mugabe’s government forcibly took land from previous white owners in chaotic scenes that left many dead since the inception of the programme in 2000.
“This about preventing Zimbabwe,” said Nkwinti.
He did not elaborate on whether his government will consider amending the constitution to enable it to forcibly take land like what happened in their northern neighbours where the government had to pass legislation to change the constitution allowing it to compulsorily acquire land from white farmers.
Nkwinti said just like in Zimbabwe where about 4000 white farmers owned most of the country’s arable land, land in South Africa is concentrated in the hands of a few land owners, most of whom are foreigners.
“We have a major monopoly of land ownership in South Africa and we must break that monopoly,” said Nkwinti.
Nkwinti earlier this month told parliament that the government was adopting a “use it or lose it” policy to encourage increased production capacity but his weekend comments appear to be a shift towards a more radical policy.
Thousands of poor black South Africans, most of whom still live in abject poverty because of the apartheid era system are waiting for land promised at independence in 1994 and often repeated in campaign speeches by current President Jacob Zuma in his quest for political office last year.
Just like Zimbabwe, South Africa inherited an unjust land ownership system from the apartheid governments which parceled out all the best farm land to white farmers, leaving blacks to arid land not fit for agricultural purposes.
The South African government has in the past said it will not go it the Zimbabwe way and often move quickly to crush land related protests and attempts at invading farms owned by white farmers though it has largely been unable to stop farm murders but this time it appears it is starting to feel the people power.
Farm seizures are blamed for plunging Zimbabwe – once a net exporter of the staple maize grain – into severe food shortages since 2001 after black peasant farmers resettled on former white farms failed to maintain production because the government failed to support them with financial resources, inputs and skills training.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 26, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Dworky,
Now I know who you are : “he had chosen South Africa because it had the “best Constitution in the world”
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-04-01-the-meaning-of-radovan-krejcir
I am much too late into this and did not see the cross examination.
But the suggestion in the headline that the c/e – ‘(made) the case for the opponent’ – seems at least worth a second thought. From several of his statements, Mr Malema might well be taken by many to have confirmed he is every bit as bad as they say he is. That is now indelibly on the record. The question is rather how many opponents Mr Malema has lost and how many supporters gained by the c/e, and the headline above begs it.
Along with the point about people supposing Mr Malema is intellectually a nullity and then being taken aback when he shows he can put his thoughts together, I feel there is another to be made.
Many liberal democrats, especially those in the centre, can never bring themselves to believe that radicals really are radicals and mean what they say.
Better to know they are and they do.
Brett, there is no longer a need to send me any more documentation. You have already convinced me of an effective GENOCIDE!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 26, 2011 sy 11:02 am
“Moreover our society (although, admittedly, not the individuals themselves), is arguably the most PROGRESSIVE since the Athens of Pericles!”
While I realise you’re usually in bullshitting mode, you nevertheless raise an interesting point, viz. genocide and progress, which are very much connected.
For George Bernard Shaw, Nazi Germany was not a reactionary dictatorship but a legitimate heir to the European Enlightenment. Shaw viewed both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as progressive regimes. As such, he held, they were entitled to kill off obstructive or superfluous people. Throughout his life, the great playwright argued in favour of mass extermination as an alternative to imprisonment. It was better to kill the socially useless, he urged, than to waste public money locking them up.
Most Western observers lacked Shaw’s clear-sightedness. They could not admit that the largest mass murder in modern times – perhaps in all of human history – was occurring a progressive regime. Between 1917 and 1959 over 60 million people were killed in the Soviet Union. These mass murders were not concealed: they were public policy.
It is sometimes asked why Western observers were so slow in recognising the truth about the Soviet Union. The reason is not that it was hard to come by. It was clear from hundreds of books by emigre survivors, and from statements by the Soviets themselves. But the facts were too uncomfortable for Western observers to admit. For the sake of their peace of mind they had to deny what they knew or suspected to be true.
‘The scale of man-made death is the central moral and material fact of our time,’ writes Gil Elliot. What makes the twentieth century special is not the fact that they were premeditated for the sake of vast projects of world improvement.
Progress and mass murder run in tandem. As the numbers killed by famine and plague have waned, so death by violence has increased. As science and technology have advanced, so has proficiency in killing. As the hope for a better world has grown, so has mass murder.
(I’ve borrowed heavily from Straw Dogs by Prof. John Gray.)
Correction:
‘The scale of man-made death is the central moral and material fact of our time,’ writes Gil Elliot. What makes the twentieth century special is not the fact that it is littered with massacres. It is the scale of its killings and the fact that they were premeditated for the sake of vast projects of world improvement.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
April 27, 2011 at 13:49 pm
So Radovan,
Do you think you made the right decision by coming to South Africa?
p.s. I saw lots of African people today on the road, some driving minibusses all showing the Dabula Ibhunu signal.
Got some pics too.
http://www.durban.gov.za/durban/discover/events/images-1/Taxi.jpg
and
http://www.belowthelion.co.za/when-will-someone-do-something-about-these-minibus-taxis/
I think the revolution is here.
Scary, eh?
Clara
April 27, 2011 at 15:44 pm
Hey Claraty,
“For George Bernard Shaw, Nazi Germany was not a reactionary dictatorship but a legitimate heir to the European Enlightenment.”
Interesting.
Charles Dickens was not much different.
India’s secret history: ‘A holocaust, one where millions disappeared…’
Author says British reprisals involved the killing of 10m, spread over 10 years
….
Charles Dickens: “I wish I were commander-in-chief in India … I should proclaim to them that I considered my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh
Hey Maggs, well done. You held off a concerted attack from liberals and conservative Afrikaners.
But alas, you may be smart but MO is much more smarter. Remember you pushed him to unpack his following statement:“In fact, it would be astonishing if local demagogues were not at some point able to mobilise the desparately poor against minorities who are, economically speaking, better off.”
He then stated the following Obama-like promise:
Michael Osborne says:
April 24, 2011 at 17:40 pm
No, Maggs, I am not avoiding you question re demagogues etc. I solemnly promise to answer you.”
Osborne is as smart as Helen Suzman who got so many to believe that she truly wanted universal suffrage in South Africa.
Nevertheless, well done Maggs.
Donovan, are you barking mad? ‘Held off’?
With his integrity so comprehensively indicted?
Define ‘held off’?
Hands up anyone who finds Maggs’ credibilty intact?
Donovan
April 28, 2011 at 10:11 am
Hey Donovan,
We should not take MO (who as I said elsewhere is extremely erudite)at face value – my sense is that he will shake the trees until something falls out.
Sometimes his Freudian slips falls out
Brett,
in plain language, the conclusion I have come to regarding Maggs is that eventhough he has the power of super knowledge, he has little emotion and doesn’t care. I quote: “Maggs, you don’t care, do you?” “Carine, no” He wants to bully people who are scared and justify it with his 50+1.
If this were the movies he’d be the super villain.
Yes, I diagnosed Maggs long ago with some kind of malfunction to the cerebellum.
Many sociopaths have that impairment.
@ Brett
“I diagnosed Maggs long ago with some kind of malfunction to the cerebellum.”
This kind of informal neurological diagnosis, while useful, may fit better in an on-line forum for brain specialists than on a blog whose subject matter is constitutional law. But seriously, folks, could you and Maggs not set up your own, separate “discussion” board, in which you would endlessly swop amusing insults, cracks, assorted put-downs and other ad hominem delights — just among yourselves?
Thanks.
Okay, so far we have 202 comments here. Well done! Tomorrow you may have the day off, to watch the royal wedding. No, not the one with 12 Lamborghinis, the other one, with no Lamborghinis and only four horses, or will that be eight.
Seriously? No.
What say you of the Star front-page report yesterday according to which Jabulani Mall and Maponya Mall reverberated to the sound of this mindless chant, Michael?
Shades of Radio Rwanda?
Michael Osborne says:
April 28, 2011 at 20:27 pm
Hey MO,
It sure sound like you’ve taken Justice Mogoeng’s world far too literally.
As PdV surmised :
In this world [which is premised on the assumption that we have a constitutional duty not to vilify others and that our freedom of expression must be exercised “responsibly” to protect the human dignity of others], robust, bitter and acrimonious exchanges and the hurling of clever political insults and witty but cutting asides are not allowedhttp:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/on-lady-da-da-and-the-shower-head-man/
Do we really want to live in a world where Malema “expresses disquiet at the quality of Helen Zille’s less than graceful dancing” and I express the opinion that Julius Malema “might be faced by unfortunate etiquette challenges”? Once again, I think not.
As you are aware, I offered a hand of friendship to Brett. I requested that he tell me what he find offensive and I undertake to be considerate about those things. He refused, abruptly going on the offensive. I was and still am hurt by the rejection desire for ‘peace and friendship’.
Will you mediate please? Try and get Brett to see sense – it’s a tall order, maybe a nearly impossible task, to try and get Brett to see sense, but I know you can do it.
What say you?
All misdirection from M&M. Getting people to see sense does not entail confronting facts with blanket denials and silly attempts to trivialise.
What are the facts relevant to this blog?
1) No government of a civilised nation – across the globe – leads chants like the one complained off above. Red light.
2) In every genocide since Ottoman Turks tried to wipe out Armenians the ethnic majority has first tried to disarm the ethnic minority. Red light.
3) Judge Goldstone (before the fall) observed several preconditions that enables genocide. One is the weaving of an justifying ideology – in this case an ideology of blame of the other for every failure in governance by this government.
4) The ANCYL has sought ‘military’ (LOLOL) training for its leadership, and, according to the article I posted above, some kind of training has taken place in Zimbabwe – a serial and massive abuser of fundamental human rights, where genocide has actually taken place.
5) Because of its many failures in governance this government goes to its constituency at election time with its tail between its legs, in the words of Zwelinzima Vavi. Its default position – as usual – is racial mobilisation.
6) This government’s defence against hate speech and racial mobilisation when hauled before the courts is that its hate speech is symbolic. Unfortunately, the people ‘running’ the hate speech trial have led very little expert evidence of the place of this kind of ideation in the preparation for the main event.
7) The ANC has a history in the last decade of politicide and infanticide which might be viewed as a kind of politicide because of the political objective of the infanticide.
The list is long. Despite the denials of the ANC’s self-appointed change agents on this blog I prefer to take the ANC at its viva voce.
Brett, does “policide” involve a cruel massacre of parrots? Where did this happen? DRC?
Brett, your last post is what I consider hate-speech, vile racist-based rantings founded on a staple diet of ‘gevaar’ as supplied by apartheid propaganda. You are way more dangerous than a idiotic sounding Julius Malema.
Please, Donovan. Confront me on the facts if you can. You cannot.
So you boot to silly mode.
What that I posted constitutes hate-speech? What is racist?
Dworky, put your glasses on!
FACT: Apartheid was a crime against humanity.
FACT: Apartheid mythology was premised on a laager-mentality, of everybody being against the Afrikaner in particular, and white people in general. Everybody, especially the Blacks in the ANC, who were being manipulated (open to manipulation because of their small brains) by Commie-loving whites (especially of the Jewish persuasion). They wanted to take over the country so they could kill all the whites, rape their women and throw them into the sea (where no boats of Nehru would be waiting to save them).
Brett, in another posting I think you refer to yourself as a rockspaaider, please go and crawl under whichever rcok you came out from.
Is that how you confront the facts?
“7) The ANC has a history in the last decade of politicide and infanticide which might be viewed as a kind of politicide because of the political objective of the infanticide”
This sounds a little woolly to me. Can you give details?
“Does ‘policide’ involve a cruel massacre of parrots?”
Mikhail: no. There is no such word as ‘policide’. Pollycide, yes; policide, no. There has indeed recently been a case of pollycide, where a large number of dead parrots were found stuffed into too-small cages while being transported illegally.
You do Brett an injustice. He never mentioned the word ‘policide’, and you know it. The word he used was ‘politicide’, which has three related but distinct meanings. It can mean a gradual but systematic attempt to cause the annihilation of an independent political and social entity, e.g. the destruction of apartheid in South Africa. Others have used the term to mean the deliberate physical destruction of a group who share the main characteristics of belonging to a political movement. This definition has been used because such groups are not covered under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). CPPCG only covers the deliberate physical destruction of national, ethnic, racial and religious groups.
A third use (my favourite, actually) is noted by the Oxford English Dictionary and describes political suicide by an action which irreparably damages a person’s political career. I can think of a few candidates here; what is problematic that these people’s actions damage their careers only reparably, if at all.
I trust the above will be helpful.
Thanks!
Brett Nortje says:
April 29, 2011 at 10:48 am
Hey Goofy,
“What is racist?”
MO has pleaded that we be kind to you.
So I will tell you kindly that you’re an idiot.
It sure sounds to me like you were struck by one of Claraty’s scud missiles.
Clara says:
April 29, 2011 at 15:12 pm
Hey Claraty,
“This sounds a little woolly to me.”
Is ‘little wooly’ a euphemism for ‘idiotic’?
Use code if you’re worried about what MO may say.
Clara, Dworky is trying to be clever.
There is such a word as ‘Policide’. It is the intentional destruction of a nation, and it is usually used in the context of Israel. (‘The Illegal [or Illegitimate] Zionist Entity’ a.k.a ‘THE IZE’ coined by Maggs…)
I like R.J. Rummel’s definitions of genocide and politicide in ‘DEATH BY GOVERNMENT’ (Chapter 2 – Definition of Democide)
Genocide: the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership
Politicide: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes.
I know I expressed myself inelegantly: “The ANC has a history in the last decade of politicide and infanticide which might be viewed as a kind of politicide because of the political objective of the infanticide”…
There were a couple of point to be made here but one does not want to waste too much time on Maggs and Donovan.
o One of the most accurate, powerful predictors of genocide is a history of mass killing in a country. This country delights in it, whether it is Dingane’s wiping out Piet Retief’s Voortrekkers or everyone trying to wipe out the San people. Our history is a history of racial conflict which translates into race-based massacres and it predisposes this country to genocide.
o Purely out of ego Mbeki allowed 330000 infants to be condemned to an unnecessary death. To make a political point. That conforms to Rummel’s definition of politicide.
Jy sien?
Brett Nortje says:
April 29, 2011 at 22:53 pm
Hey Goofy,
“I like R.J. Rummel’s definitions of genocide and politicide in ‘DEATH BY GOVERNMENT’”.
Interesting word you introduced.
I can see why you like Rummel’s def.
Wikipedia has more interesting defs.
Politicide … . It can mean a gradual but systematic attempt to cause the annihilation of an independent political and social entity.[1] For example the destruction of the apartheid system in South Africa.
Hey Goofy,
It seems that not even Superman can escape POLITICIDE.
The All-American hero Superman has dealt a devastating blow to the country that adopted him when he arrived as a feeble alien immigrant from the planet Krypton in 1938: He has renounced his US citizenship.
Superman proclaimed the news in the latest issue of Action Comics released on Wednesday. The background story to the controversial decision involved Superman’s decision to fly to Iran to show support for anti-government demonstrators there – an action the Iranian regime interprets as an act of war by the US.
“I’m tired of having my actions construed as instruments of US policy,” Superman tells the president’s national security advisor. “Which is why I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my US citizenship.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/article1044246.ece/Superman-renounces-US-citizenship
“There is such a word as ‘Policide’.”
Sorry, Brett, but no. ‘Policide’ is a neologism, i.e. a word that was invented while I wasn’t looking.
@ Brett
“One of the most accurate, powerful predictors of genocide is a history of mass killing in a country.”
Brett is right.
That is why I am confidently predicting a terrible GENOCIDE soon in the U.S., Canada, Australia AND Tasmania.
Yet I forsee nothing horrible in Denmark, Andorra or Reunion!
Thanks.
Clara says:
May 1, 2011 at 18:40 pm
Hey Claraty,
“a word that was invented while I wasn’t looking.”
Brett invents a lot of stuff while you are not looking, and more while you are looking.
But then lots of stuff gets invented here. Like ‘logic’.
MO invented ‘peace on Earth’ which translated equals ‘play nicely or else I am not going to play with you any more’.
The DA invented open toilets, dancing, angryists and “we’re the party of Mandela”.
The ANC on the other hand has far more powerful stuff like ‘water shortage is less important than AMD and fracking. After all there’s bottled water for all’.
My own invention is top of the pops – vote ANC for a better life for all. Ok some, maybe a few – after all we have to start somewhere but not in education, health, safety, housing, services, jobs, environment, social welfare … . In the long run it’s better to do arms deals, selling off state assets, train lines, computers and internet for teachers, new buildings for police headquarters and other stuff critical for the foundations of a developmental state.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 1, 2011 at 23:01 pm
Hey Boiled Head,
Brett may be right, but should I stock up on popcorn and soda again?
Is Brassey and duP II promising to be bigger and better (it is coming our way soon)?
Closing argument for ANC Youth League president Julius Malema’s hate speech trial will begin on May 19, Willie Spies, lawyer for lobby group AfriForum, said on Tuesday.
It will be held over two days at the High Court in Johannesburg, where the Equality Court case is being heard.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article1048179.ece/Date-set-for-closing-argument-in-Malema-trial
And Dworky,
Check out the pic – are those bodyguards or undertakers? Perhaps they are multi-skilled, just in case.
There’s also Mark-Antony-with-technology, messaging, “Friends, bloggers, tweeters, Brassey and duP have come to praise Julius, not bury him”.
http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Nie-alle-wittes-is-boewe-20110509-2
‘Nie alle wittes is boewe’
2011-05-09 10:35
Johannesburg – Pres. Jacob Zuma was tjoepstil op ’n vergadering waar sy jeugleier rassistiese aanmerkings gemaak het. Sy adjunk moes gister namens hom vure doodslaan.
Adj.pres. Kgalema Motlanthe het op ’n ANC-vergadering aan die Oos-Rand gesê ’n mens kan nie veralgemeen en sê alle wit mense is misdadigers nie.
Dit kom nadat mnr. Julius Malema, ANC-jeugleier, Saterdag in Kimberley ten aanhore van Zuma gesê het wit mense moet soos misdadigers behandel word omdat hulle grond van swart mense gesteel het.
Motlanthe het gesê Malema se uitlating volg ’n “verkeerde logika”. “Dit kan nie korrek wees om so te veralgemeen nie. Dit is nie wetenskaplik of genesend nie.”
Die ANC is nie-rassig, het hy gesê.
Malema het in sy toespraak in Kimberley gesê: “Ons moet die grond sonder betaling vat, want die wittes het ons land gevat sonder om te betaal en dit in wildplase omskep. Die stelsel van gewillige verkoper, gewillige koper het misluk.
“Wanneer ons saamstem hulle het ons land gesteel, kan ons saamstem hulle is misdadigers en moet só behandel word.”
Zuma, in sy hoedanigheid as ANC-leier, het die skare op ’n meer besadigde geskiedenisles oor die ANC se verlede vergas. Hy het die verrigtinge opgewek afgesluit met die versoek om sy masjiengeweer te bring. Die omstrede mnr. John Block, leier van die ANC in die Noord-Kaap, wat die seremoniemeester was, het gesê: “Ons is nie meer bantoes, k–rs of slawe nie.”
Malema het gesê: “Ons het net 13% van die land. Hulle het die grond vir wildplase gevat. Ons stem saam hulle het die grond gesteel.” Malema het onder luide toejuiging gesê die tempo waarteen grond aan swart mense oorgedra word, is te stadig.
Oor ekonomiese bevryding het hy verduidelik: “Die geld is in die hande van slegs 10% van die bevolking wat 90% van die rykdom in die land hanteer.
“Die geld is in die hande van die Oppenheimers. Die Oppenheimers het ons minerale gevat. Galeshewe het nie in die diamantmyne se opbrengs gedeel nie.”
Armoede is ’n krisis. Werk moet geskep word. Malema het gesê die “Madam” sal nooit die land se president word solank hulle lewe nie. Sy was nie ’n vryheidsvegter nie.
Malema het gesê die IVP is ’n kulturele groep en nie ’n politieke party nie.
“Dan is daar ’n Cope 1 en ’n Cope 2. Die party is dood, want sy organisasie het in duie gestort.”
- Die Burger