The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) is currently interviewing candidates to fill the post of Justice Tholie Madala on the Constitutional Court. Business Day reports this morning that two of the six judges who are candidates for appointment to the Constitutional Court — Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Chris Jafta and Grahamstown High Court Judge Frank Kroon — withdrew their applications at the last minute yesterday.
The judges are entangled in the controversy surrounding Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe and the Constitutional Court as theyw ere both acting judges on the Constitutional Court when Judge President Hlophe allegedly approached judges of the Constitutional Court about the Zuma matter.
It is difficult to know why these judges withdrew but I would guess the JSC decided that it would be inaprpriate for them to consider the application by these two judges before the complaints against and by Judge President Hlophe have been dealt with.
Had the JSC considered the applications of these two judges and had they recommended any of these judges for appointment, Judge President Hlophe’s legal advisers could easily have argued that the JSC had pre-judged the case. It would then have been possible to say that the JSC had created the impression that it believed the allegations made by Jaftha against the Judge President. Justice would then not have been seen to be done. The Constitutional Court judges could have argued the same thing if the judges were not recommended for appointment.
Although unfortunate, it was therefore probably a wise move for the judges to withdraw their applications at this stage in order to ensure that the JSC deal with the Hlophe matter without exposing themselves to charges of bias.
The withdrawals leave just four candidates for the post — the exact number required by the constitution to be submitted to the president to choose from. These are Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) Judge Edwin Cameron, high court judges Shehnaz Meer and Nigel Willis, and Northern Cape Judge President Frans Kgomo.
Obviously the name of Justice Edwin Cameron stands out among these candidates. As I had argued before, a candidate should qualify for a position on the Constitutional Court if he or she has the requisite legal skills and knowledge as well as the commitment to social justice required by the Bill of Rights. Cameron clearly has both. Although he was recommended for appointment before, then President Thabo Mbeki did not appoint him, probably because of Cameron’s harsh (but courageous and true) criticism of Mbeki’s stance on HIV/AIDS.
In his interview yesterday Cameron acknowledged that he might have “overstepped the line” with his outspoken public criticism of Mbeki and then-Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang’s poor leadership on HIV/AIDS but said that his own 22-year battle with the syndrome had left him feeling ‘that I could not keep quiet’. According to a Cape Times report, he told the JSC:
“I thought I was going to die at the end of 1997 … I was desperately sick, but my life was given back to me (through anti-retroviral treatment) …and I felt that I had to speak up.’ Cameron was then asked by Marumo Moerane SC, if his own HIV-positive status would stop him from hearing HIV-related cases brought before the Constitutional Court. The judge responded that he would not hear cases related to HIV treatment. Justice Minister Enver Surty, who attended the commission’s sitting, told Cameron that he ‘empathised’ with his struggle.
One may argue that judge Shehnaz Meer – who also displayed a strong commitment to social justice in her interview yesterday – might also get the nod from the Presaident despite the fact that she does not have the same technical knowledge of the law that Cameron has, seeing that there are currently only three women on the Constitutional Court.
But I would argue that given his vast knowledge of the law, his technical brilliance, and the fact that 5 million South Africans are living with HIV, the selection of Cameron would be the wise and correct choice. It would also be a bold affirmation of the rights of people living with HIV and would send a strong signal countering the prejudice and hate still experienced by people living with HIV.
Although the JSC can indicate their preferences when they forward the names to President Motlanthe, the President has the final say in this matter. If he chooses Cameron it will signal a move away from the vindictive attitude of Thabo Mbeki and will say much about Motlanthe’s integirty and wisdom. If it is not Cameron, it will be a sign that Motlanthe might not always be in a position to do the right thing and might be taking instructions from Luthuli house.
I am waiting with bated breath for the outcome because not only will it tell us something about our new President, it will also decisively influence the quality of the members serving on the Constitutional Court.
I wish Frans Kgomo should step in but it looks like some white guy will step in!
That would be catastrophic we dont need white judges at this stage, transformation, transformation and more transformation is needed.
White judges hate black people with passion, if you black appearing before the white judge who guaranteed of the adverse verdit no matter what.
Even if you not gulity the white judge will make sure and try by all means to make you (black) guilty.
So a black man appearing before a white judge is just waisting his time by trying to defend himself. If I were to appear before the white judge i wouldn’t bother presenting my case whether i am guilty or not I would ask the white judge to pass the sentence.
I would request to be sentenced without making any presentation because it would be a waist of time. I would be guaranteed the adverse verdict.
A black man appearing before the white judge is not only facing the defence but he’s also facing the judge.
Look at the Hlope matter, judgemant passed along racial lines if the majority of the judges were whites Hlope’s application would have been dismissed.
White judges discuss legal matters in bars (especially if the black is involved) and make their dicisions in there.
Prof,
“If it is not Cameron, it will be a sign that Motlanthe might not always be in a position to do the right thing and might be taking instructions from Luthuli house.”
……………………………………………………………………………………
You sound like you are forcing the President to choose Judge Edwin Cameron. Can you really say the President has a choice then in view of your article?
Lindelani
Is Nicholson a white-speaking Zulu or a zulu-speaking white? And who acquitted Zuma in the rape trial? Maybe you have generalised too much! The concourt I understand does not much “guilty/innocent” business, or does it?
Samaita,
99,99% of the cases before white judges are guaranteed to be bias against blacks. Perhaps the Zuma matter falls within the 1%, also that it was on the spotlight and was of huge public interest, thus they tried to be objective.
Sne for the first time, I am glad I am in agreement with you, you’ re spot on the Prof. is pre-empting our President’s prerogative to go for any choice he likes.
I would like the Prof. to also elaborate as why he says Meer J lacks technical skills and experience otherwise I will conclude that he wants us to mistake his preference for his rational choice.
I however am with the Prof. in preferring Cameron J to be elected to the CC.
I however have a question as to when will Nichholson J be appointed to the Chief Justice chair of the CC which he so justly and fairly deserves as in my opinion he, contrary to black judges who get easily influenced by political developments and a penchant to be seen as competent to whites, dispenses justice without fear of the imposing minority or favour of powers that be!
Lindelani
You will be famous beyond measure if you do a study and arrive at the conclusion that your assumption is accurate. Do not forget that the law requires:
Police arrest where there is reasonable suspicion of commission of an offence; that only those against whom there is a prima facie case should be prosecuted; and that there be proof beyond reasonable doubt before conviction;
That is intended to considerably reduce the risk of innocent people being convicted. I will not be worried by a system which convicts 99% of prosecuted people if all the legal safeguards are observed. The margin of error is quite slim. When you consider the high crime rate in SA, low arrest record I think your guesstimate is quite wild!
But again, do research and write the book!
Once again I have great difficulty with Prof’s justifications for the views he holds. First he makes bold to say Judge Meer “does not have the same technical knowledge of the law that Cameron has” without offering any basis for this rather bold assessment of the two Judges competencies. I have no knowledge of the respective judges’ “technical knowledge” (whatever that means) of the law but I have not been able to find any reason (on the judgments I’ve read so far) to doubt any of these judges’ “technical knowledge of the law”. I think they are both competent judges. Maybe Prof knows something I do not know. Surely Cameron’s HIV status and activism cannot be elevated to “technical knowledge of the law”, if that was the subtle suggestion!!
I also agree with Sne that it appears (to me at least) that Prof is forcing the President to choose Cameron at all costs. More like “I WILL “KILL” FOR CAMERON”!!
I have always had problems with people labelling Ex-President Mbeki with all names and second guessing his reasons for appointed Ngcobo instead of Cameron. Firstly, it was the President’s prerogative to choose any of the candidates recommended to him. Secondly, I do not understand anyone to be saying the CC is any less richer by Ngcobo’s presence therein instead of Cameron. So, for me, unless people are actually going to tell me that Cameron would have been a better judge than Ngcobo (and back that up with some tangible facts) I cannot accept what I consider to be unwarranted attacks on Mbeki. Let’s attack the man whenever there is justification to do so but not when he is simply doing his job, as he should!!
The way I see it, President Kgalema must make his decision as per his mandate and must not be swayed by the likes of Prof who clearly have their own agendas. If Cameron is deemed a better candidate, then he must be appointed and if not, someone else must be appointed. In my view, the fact that Cameron is an AIDS “activist” should have no bearing on who gets appointed. We need judges who are going to administer justice without fear, favour or prejudice. That should be the main determining factor, not the judge’s HIV status!!
Just when I thought there was no good news today I saw this;
“Spoiler // Oct 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I see UCT are busy with a disciplinary against dear Mr Ngobeni. The sooner he and the learned JP disappear form our legal landscape the better. Problem is Judge John has no shame and wants to take the ship down with him. Scum!”
Prof,
On another reading of your article I realised that you are elevating advantages to be gained by making certain appointments to be the requirements of being appointed to the bench. Despite the inescapable provisions of s174(2) of the Constitution which requires that the need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa must be considered when judicial officers are appointed, we must also be sensitive to the fact that at the end of the day we must appoint to the bench people who will be able to apply the law impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.
We cannot “promote” less competent judges through appointments which “would also be a bold affirmation of the rights of people living with HIV and would send a strong signal countering the prejudice and hate still experienced by people living with HIV…” The same applies to appointments made just because “there are currently only three women on the Constitutional Court…” These must be considered alongside competence.
Lindela
wow. your factual reasoning is sublime. I have an idea that might impress you.Maby 99.99% of the white people should be shipped off to the Chatham islands where they can live together and do all sorts of fun racist things( like not being impressed when government and judiciary dont perform their duties properly) without bothering the 0.01 remaining white people and the rest of the nation.
Lindelani, I dont think that you are a very good ambassador for the black people of south africa. You might just be the black version of Eugene Terblanche.
It appears that Mr Ngobeni may be a wanted man.
A website called “BailCo Bail Bonds” in the United States have Mr Paul Ngobeni listed as a “wanted” man.
Amongs others, the charges to which this relates, are forgery and larceny. Furthermore, Mr Ngobeni has been disbarred in 3 US states and from the Federal Justice System. The site concludes by saying that he “refuses to take care of his legal obligations in the United States.”
The website address is: http://www.bailcobailbonds.com/fugitives/14
And we all spent time debating the merits of his opinions?
Samantha // Oct 14, 2008 at 3:30 pm
…………………………………………………………
Samantha I refer you to the link below for a somewhat meticulously put list of his controversies; NO! let me be bold and say his crimes…
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=625
Sne, Mdu, Mzo: I am amused that you seem to think my humble opinion will or can have any influence on the President of South Africa who – as I point out in my article – has the final say in this matter. I am not wanting to force him to do anything, but merely giving my opinion – which is why you read this Blog. I do not think somebody should be selected for the CC (or any other court) merely because of their race, sex or HIV status or whatever. But where more than one suitably qualified candidate applies, the question of whether that candidate has a commitment to the social transformation of our society is important, as is the requirement to make our judiciary more representative of the population.
Lindelani,
I can understand the possibility of prejudice by a white judge to a black advocate, and even more to a black accused. In the case of an advocate, a black female advocate could have it harder than a black male advocate because of that intersection between race and gender in this hell-of-a-racially-and-genderly-messed-up country. I would never say 99.99%. That’s just not based on fact. Maybe you need some therapy for all the racism you have experienced (and sexism too). In fact i think everything in SA needs of dose of that.
Peace,
k.
Dang,
I would be pleased if they can go live in that island, what do they want in our country and continent anyway?
On your embassador story, well i am not an embassodor for any black person, in fact, i am my own embassador.
What I stated above is nothing but facts!
The first metro police officer to arrive at the scene where Pretoria High Court Judge Nkola Motata had crashed his car into a wall, testified this morning that the owner of the house Richard Baird referred to judge Nkola Motata as “a drunken kaffir”.
how nice?
Thanks metro officer, we weren’t gonna know this if it wasn’t for you because the media wasn’t going to tell us this.
We were only told of Motata saying he wont allow a white man to undermine him. Now it is clear that he was responding to this.
Surprising enough and how stupid? the D.A immediately called for Motata’s impeachment on the strength of hearsay by the media- how crazy?
Now I expect the perfect D.A and it racist allies to publicly condemn these remarks by Baird, how amazing? They wont – I thought they champions of democracy? may they will run to the human right commission to lay a complain on behalf of the Judge against Baird?- guess what they wont.
I thought they concerned about the intergrity of the judiciary? surely they must do something about these remarks directed to one of the members of the judiciary! guess what they wont say a word i bet a million. The question is why? why they not going to make any noise about it?
I hope the brilliant non-racist commentators in this blog (especially you Pierre) we help me get an answwer to my question. Or you no longer champions of democracy and human rights as you pose to be?
HOW NICE?
I am with Lindelani on this one. White people with all good intentions could never be sensitive to a background that is alien to them.
Is Judge Cameron an HIV positive gay person?
Prof
Whilst I have no illusions about your influence (or lack thereof) on the President of SA, I was simply responding to the contents of your posts and trying to make a point that you clearly have a preferred candidate (nothig wrong with that) and you were pushing a view that unless such candidate was appointed, the President would have failed in his duty to do all the nice and politically correct things you talk about. This is where I think you are very wrong. I just think you are wrong in suggesting that the appointment or non-appointment of Judge Cameron will have a bearing on the President’s integrity, one way or the other.
It is also telling for me that you do not comment on our comments relating to your suggestion that Judge Meer does not have as much “technical knowledge of the law” as Judge Cameron. Could it be that you realise that you have been “caught” making baseless statements?
Prof you note that, “ In his interview yesterday Cameron acknowledged that he might have “overstepped the line” with his outspoken public criticism of Mbeki and then-Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang’s poor leadership on HIV/AIDS but said that his own 22-year battle with the syndrome had left him feeling ‘that I could not keep quiet.”
From the above statement the implication is that a judge should remove any personal views when adjucating a case. I am curious to know whether this is the right in which sitting judges should conduct themselves?
@ Lindelani
>“99,99% of the cases before white judges are guaranteed to be bias against blacks.
Can you kindly provide statistically evidence for such an allegation? Kindly provide some basis for your bold declaration. Imagine f tommorow happen to post that, ‘Lindelani is a racist’ ( not that you are as they exists no proff whatsoever).
@ Khosi
1. HIV positive=yes.
2. Gay=?
Khosi – to be with lindelani on this one the Metro police official’s evidence will, (1) have to have stood through cross examination and, if the testimony differs from the statement given to the police on the docket, she would have had to explain that; and, (2) the evidence must have been accepted by the court. Unfortunately, the experience that I have had thus far of Mc Bride’s Cowboy Buffoons, is that they are rarely if ever trustwothy witnesses. Thing is, other Metro police officials and other witnesses, not all white, mind you, testified differently, and this one tries to get out of the witness statement by saying she was threatened by the state! Such witnesses are rarely if ever believed. But lets have the trial be finalized, listen to the court’s judgment, and then we speak again.
On you second question – the answer is yes on both sub-questions. Edwin Cameron said it all during a few TV sessions after he was nominated for the SCA bench and had to face similar questions from the JSC.
Mouse,
Thanks for the clarification.
Now, given the well documented contribution of, gay men, to the spread of HIV and the fact that he himself is 22 yrs (at least) HIV positive which puts him at the epicenter of such a contribution. Is it then not possible that he was not speaking out of frustration at a stubborn government but, instead, speaking out in search of self absolution. The very same can be asked of Zackie Achmat. Remember both their infections are almost as old as HIV discovery, itself.
My main problem though, is that according to Pierre, Judge Cameron’s gay HIV status qualifies him as an affirmative action applicant. He then implies that Cameron has long deserved a CC appointment but was unjustly blocked because of his outspokenness against Mbeki. That is like saying people who spoke up against Mbeki deserve their just and due rewards.
That cannot be entertained, hence I am on Lindelani’s side.
I guess there will always be one or two comments by people like Lindelani Maseko that spoil these good quality blogs. Such a pity.
Khosi, your contribution is regrettable as it suggests that gay men like Cameron and Achmat contributed (deliberately? negligently?) to the spread of HIV. This is deeply ignorant and displays a breathtaking prejudice. You are blaming people affected by HIV for a medical problem – this is called blaming the victim, like blaming black people for racism they suffer. I really thought you would do better and I feel quite let down and upset that you would think that it could think that this was an acceptable view to hold.
Although I have not always agreed with Cameron’s views expressed as an academic or a judge, he has written widely and often brilliantly as an academic and many of his judgments have been reported in the law journals. No other candidate (including Meer) has even remotely this impressive written record displaying a thoughtful engagement with the transformative nature of our constitution and the law. That is why I am of the opinion that he would be the best qualified candidate. This does not mean I do not think Justice Sandile Ncgobo was a good appointment – his judgment in the Bhe case for instance was extremely thought provoking and thoughtful – merely that Cameron was denied an appointment by Mbeki (who had the constitutional right, of course, to deny the appointment) for reasons that has nothing to do with his abilities as a lawyer and a judge.
khosi – the problem is linking your line of thought to that of lindelani, which is a ‘no, no’, simply because lindelani’s thing about racism and the (well, at least, two) impugned judges don’t make sense at all. … Right, now, … your line of thinking requires more thought and consideration. To say that people like Edwin Cameron and Zachie Achmat have been at the epicentre for the duration of their having been infected with HIV is very presumptious, … well, presuming that they knew from the very outset that they were HIV positive; that they, knowingly (or even unwittingly) had different sex partners after that; that they never used condoms; etc; etc. You cannot say (or even presume) that, unles, of course, you have first hand knowledge. … Thing is, though, both of them have had this extended life (longevity, if you want to call it that), because of their having used anti-retroviral-medication. The very thing that Thabo Mbeki (and Beetroot/Garlic Mantho [and her predecessor]) did not want to give to the people, who, so wittingly or unwittingly (willingly, or unwillingly), have become infected with HIV during the past 10 years. I think one can make out a case for genocide, given the circumstances, don’t you?!
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not gay. Neither am I homophobic. I’m not black. Neither am I a racist. I’m not HIV. Neither am I against socializing or working with people with HIV. I don’t like Thabo Mbeki. Neither do I like Jacob Zuma. ( I might like a new movement under Terror Lekota and his ilk, though.) But, your defence of Thabo Mbeki and his (well, … what shal we call them? ‘Cadres’, ‘comrades’, ‘ilk’?) has proven to be somewhat irrational, don’t you think?!
Why don’t you go boating again – and leave the serious politics and legal matters for the people that know. How’s things back in Zim? Thabo has taken a serious knock here as well, no?
Prof – I agree with you as far as your reasoning of suitability of appointment to the CC Bench is concerned. Well said in your last response.
RE Motata – must agree with Mouse – appears to me that the prosecution has threatened the witness with perjury charges for producing transparently dishonest testimony.
What is it with Motata and Hlope that they think they can just cheat, bullshit and bluster their way through life with no regard for the fact that they have a huge responsibilities as role models in our young democracy. Have they no shame? Some twisted sense of entitlement?
I don’t care if they are Black or Purple with spots, their behaviour is revolting!
Kudos to judge Kgomo for admitting he had erred –
____________________________________________
“Quizzed on the issue on Tuesday, Kgomo said while individual remarks he made during the trial might have been innocuous, the cumulative effect was otherwise.
“And for that I must apologise,” he said. “I’m sorry. I thought I’m serving justice and here I did not… mea culpa.”
——————————————————————————
Hlope and Motata could take a good long look at that last sentence…….
AHAHAHAHA ! lindelani maseko, you make me laugh ! You don’t even attempt to tone down your racial slurs ! You behaving as badly as luke Watson !
lindelani, What is it abot white JUDGES that in stills in them this hate ? Does this hatred extend to coloured and indians ? Does the amount of hatred differ if the judge is a english white or afrikaans, or are they both equally over flowing with this vile hate!!!
Your general knowledge of the white man is astounding? Do you have any white friends lindelani ??
I attended all four interviews – Willis, Meer, Cameron and Kgomo.
Cameron’s interview was on a whole different plane to the rest. Meritwise you can’t compare.
He was questioned widely and deeply on specific points of law, and it appeared that the commissioners were genuinely interested in his views, greedy to hear his answers.
I could not always keep up as the interview became more of a discussion of specific cases than broad discussions of principles as characterised much of the rest.
Meer was lovely and would be a likely choice for the prez, because actually, soon, there will only be one lady left on the concourt bench.
No doubt she is experienced and respected, but the questioning was not as incisive on the law as with Cameron.
As with Willis, much less demanding than the questioning of Cameron.
I am not into AA for the sake of AA, but eish, only one woman on Concourt? I am pretty sure they’ll have to attend to that, all things considered.
She’s also got the Land Claims Court background.
Willis was passionate, too passionate for some.
He made a good point I (and Meer later) agreed with – that it’s bullshit that court orders get ignored the way they do, especially by government, and that a monitoring mechanism needs to be put in place which will see to the prosecution of those who disregarded.
(No more Irene Grootbooms and Metrorails).
However he did not endear himself by dissecting about 10% of Concourt judgments he would’ve done differently. Nothing wrong with that, but the raised backs didn’t suggest he was going to get very far by just being him.
(I felt quite sorry for him for his lack of AA credentials – Meer=female + black, Kgomo = black, Cameron = one who might actually make it without. But Willis’s pointing out that he’s not your regular boer and that he’s been married to a black woman for more than two decades with three black kiddies from the union didn’t seem like it was going to help him much).
Kgomo. Well. It was equal parts embarrassing and equal parts incredible.
The law did not feature in the questioning, except where it pertained to his own transgressions, which last month saw the SCA declare a mistrial because his behaviour had been super-unjudicial. He waffled. This way and that. About how he was sorry. Meaning sorry that the SCA didn’t actually understand he did nothing wrong. Oh. Don’t judge me because I behaved like a petulant teenager demanding to be called “U” and not “jy”. And threatening counsel. And then being caught with my pants down when the recording reflects that actually counsel had been calling me “U”. And then storming out of the room instead of apologising for acting out in a manner most unbefitting of a judicial officer.
The jury was not convinced. ‘Nuff said.
Jafta and Kroon – collateral damage in the Hlophe war. Wonder how big an area ground zero will cover when it’s all said and done.
lindelani, this is as BAD AS WHEN YOU WERE SWEARING AT AND VERBALLY ATTACKING KHOSA PEOPLE THE OTHER DAY !
ITS AMAZING HOW CONFIDENT U ARE TO WRITE A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE OFF BASED ON RACE!
THEN STILL REFER TO PEOPLE AS RACISTS!!
ANYWAY DONT STOP WRITTING, YOU LIKE THE COURT JESTER AROUND HERE. WE NEED YOU FOR COMIC RELIEF
Mouse, Pierre
The fact is that many people live with HIV for as long as Cameron and Achmat, without Arv’s. I know many of these people personally and I also know people who are on Arv’s and living. However, that is not an argument of my interest at this point.
You see, just as much as I cannot prove the culpability of the said gentlemen, at their personal level, no one on this blog can dispute the culpability of their group in the spread of HIV. Just as no one can dispute that crimes in this country are overwhelmingly committed by black persons. Remember the ‘car door’ blog.
On the claim that these guys are ‘victims’; a person who gets drunk, drives a car and then causes an accident that kills 5 school children is also a ‘victim’ of the accident. But this ‘victim’ is then charged with culpable homicide and lives remorsefully until the end of his life. Hell, some even start anti-alcohol abuse groups. That is self absolution. Calling people victims, in a blanket manner, also absolves them from the responsibility of facing the consequences of their actions. My question remains, can we without doubt, rule that out when it comes to Judge Cameron. I do not think anyone but him can in honesty answer this question. I am also not saying he was wrong for speaking out, even in self absolution, I am saying the true nature of his speaking out should be looked at.
To dispute that gay men contributed immensely to the early spread of HIV would equal disputing modern science on the AIDS issue, which will make anyone who does that no different really to any so called AIDS dissident. And Pierre, I am not being prejudicial and it is not an attack on gay people. I absolutely adore gay people, especially their taste. That adoration is partly the reason I am on this blog. Some facts are just painful to bear but we need to accept and deal with them.
It is magistrates like the Rat who give people like Lindelani traction for their arguments!!!
Khosi,
I am afraid that your argument regarding the spread of HIV is chronically flawed and extremely prejudiced. I find it absolutely horrifying that you can draw a comparison between a drunk driver who kills 5 children and a person who has contracted the HIV virus. Furthermore, to blame gay people for the spread of HIV, especially within an African context is ludicrous.
One of the largest factors contributing to the spread of HIV in Africa, was the heterosexual truck drivers on long-distance hauls, and not homosexuals in the urban context.
Recent studies have shown that 80% of new cases of HIV infection have been as a result of medical practises and not of sexually transmitted infection. See: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-20-2003-35909.asp
Furthermore, homosexual transmission of HIV was more prevalent in Western cultures than in Africa. In Africa, the heterosexual infection rate is far greater than the homosexual rate and this is, to a large extent, linked to promiscuity and infidelity.
And, as for your comments regarding why you like gay people : “I absolutely adore gay people, especially their taste”, would be as patronising (and stereotypical) as me saying that I adore black people, especially their rhythm!!!
Finally, magistrates like “Rat” have nothing to do with Lindelani’s arguments. Lindelani is incapable of arguing with any sort of logical competence whatsoever. He is a vicious racist who does nothing more than write hate speech with no basis for any of the statements he puts forward. There is no justification for his rantings whatsoever.
Sam, you must admit that moffies are indeed fabulous! And darkies can dance! I don’t think there is much wrong with a bit of stereotypical adoration – its the stereotypical hatred that is the problem.
Your “medical practices” study is a bolt from left field – I don’t think the study makes much sense or demonstrates much evidence in support of its findings. I completely disregard it in the absence of further supporting research.
@Samantha,
“I adore black people, especially their rhythm!!!”. I see nothing patronizing here, in fact, tourist flock to Africa just to witness this rhythm just as most stylist and the best designers are gay people. It is a fact black people have better rhythm than white people and gay people have better taste than straight people. Do not assume you know me, I ABSOLUTELY ADORE GAY PEOPLE, period.
The problem is that you liberals try to be too politically correct and you fail to compensate for what is real. It is a known fact, the people who won the Nobel prize last week, discovered HIV in gay community and not truckers in Africa. It may very well have existed before that, but the gay community was pivotal in its(HIV) outbreak and its current shape. Before the discovery in the gay community, people in Africa were not dying ‘because’ of HIV even while they were eating the very same monkeys that are blamed for HIV and that is a fact. Lets stick to the bitter truth and for one moment shelve political correctness.
As for Lindelani, take time to listen to what he is writing and do not dismiss him merely because he shouts.
Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. People with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their racial groups. In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment. Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic (Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification) differences between different groups of people, even though anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.
As an ideology, racism existed during the 19th century as “scientific racism”, which attempted to provide a racial classification of humanity. Although such racist ideologies have been widely discredited after World War II and the Holocaust, the phenomena of racism and of racial discrimination have remained widespread all over the world.
Racism is probably one of the most normal natural observable facts in the world, throughout history and since the start of the Creation. It will never go away, no matter how hard many intellectuals try and argue it away or imply that it is the lesser intelligent who are more prone to being racist.
In my opinion, a person who is easily offended by a “racist” remark realizes deep in themselves that they are in actual fact inferior. As an example I’d like to drop a line in the water to see if I get a nibble from a person like lindelani or any willing blogger. Let me suggest (please tolerate this): a guy like lindelani is stinking, black, dumb, fugly (I love this word), stupid and has really yucci hair and a funny nose. I am waiting ….anyone offended ? No matter with how much racial venom lindelani responds now, it wouldn’t offend me in any way. My attitude is “hey that’s your opinion”. I do not feel racially inferior and nobody should, but lindelani does.
I have a couple of black associates/friends (male and female) and have suggested the following scenario. You are in your prime, unattached and at a social gathering. You meet attractive, intelligent, stimulating and exciting persons of the opposite sex, all of them beautiful. At the end of the evening, you realise all of them are eager and willing to spend the rest of the night with you. The choice is yours. Only One Rule: you may only take one. Who will you take? There is a Black African , White European descendent, Red Apache Indian, Light Brown Middle Eastern Indian, Blue-Black India Indian, Yellow Chinese, Dark-brown Abbo etc., using colour to generalise race here. What has struck me is that most answers where : I’ll take the white (remember I asked both sexes). Also interesting was that the white associates/friends also answered white. (except some have this fantasy for Haiti, Pochohontus or Bruce Lee). This brings me to another natural fact. Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier, stronger and/or more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
In the greater scheme of things, there is a reason why there are different races. Racism is normal and natural, accept it, appreciate it, understand it and live at peace with it.
Retsrov – whats with the Wiki eugenics cut and paste. Not very original or bright are you? You are a stinky little small minded racist with delusions of adequacy. Not offended? – who cares, you are what you are.
Restrov,
When you read and study further like most eminent biological scholars have done, you will also reach a disappointing conclusion that race does not exist.
Anonymouse,
“But lets have the trial be finalised, listen to the court’s judgement, and then we speak again”
I like this one!
When Motata’s remarks were made public the bloggers here, D.A immediately called for his impeachment as the judge. They suggested that an enquiry be held purely to scrutinise Motata’s remarks.
They never adopted the quoted remarks by anonymouse.
Now the court heard that the white men has called Motata “a drunk kaffir” no one is making any noise about it even you Pierre, the bloggers and the D.A, instead your senses come back. You suggest that we should comment we rather wait for the final court’s judgement! how “interesting”?
Why the D.A and most of you bloggers would not say anything about this? can someone answer my question?
Lekota’s party is a 702 party!
lindelani maseko // Oct 15, 2008 at 10:43 am
“Why the D.A and most of you bloggers would not say anything about this? can someone answer my question?”
……………………………………………………………………………………
Now this post of yours warrants my response:
The answer is simple; they are caught with their pants down. So they would rather bank on the court declaring the witness untrustworthy or his evidence not reasonably possible so that they may escape the racist remarks made by Richard Baird. The melancholy truth is that by so doing they have adopted double standards as you have correctly argued…
Sne,
for the first time we agree on something!
Can we then say they objective?
Two issues, unrelated.
1. I’d be sorry to see Cameron leave the SCA. I worry about that Court, honestly I do!
2. re: Judge Motata and the householder. Compare this to the hot headed actions of the white guy against Mbweni. There seems to be a trend emerging where some white people seem to have not realised that as the “kaffirs” take up the top jobs, they’ll have to stop talking down to the boss. I think that is all that Lindelani was saying.
I am not too up-to-date on the intricacies on the statement made by Richard Baird, so forgive me if my input is a little factually weak.
From what I understand, the statement ascribed to Mr Baird was made by a metro police officer who, in the course of her testimony has denied certain statements attributed to her while professing that she had not read the document in which the said statements were detailed. Furthermore, is not her statement regarding Mr Baird’s racial slur not hearsay? Has Mr Baird been asked to testify in this regard yet?
Of further interest to me is that there appears to be a tape recording of much of what was said on the night in question. The witness was asked if she could identify the voice of Mr Baird on the tape recording, to which she replied that she was “uncertain”. No problem there. The funny thing is that the tape recording does not have the alleged racial slur on it.
Perhaps the reasons above are why nobody at this stage has responded to it.
lindelani maseko // Oct 15, 2008 at 11:27 am
………………………………………………………………………
Objective yes they are, but the only snag with their “objectivity” is that it is not applicable across the board, i.e. it does not cover or include Judge Motata. They use different standards to judge what Judge Motata said from those which they are now using to determine what Richard Baird said.
In principle, therefore, it is being objective to say that we must wait for the court to confirm the veracity or otherwise of the testimony of the witness. Be that as it may, I have a problem with the “selectiveness” of this objective approach; it was not applied to Judge Motata and also to Judge Hlophe. In the premises, it is apparent that they have acted with emotions in respect of judges Motata and Hlophe and they have employed a very unemotional, in fact, tactically objective approach in respect of Richard Baird. It is this difference that is worrysome to me; the application of double standards…
Mrs Smith,
Thank you for providing your input with regard to the selections for CC justice. It made for fascinating reading and a wonderful insight into the process.
Based on your interpretation of the interviewing process and the performance of the judges, it will certainly be interesting to see who actually gets the nod.
“Furthermore, is not her statement regarding Mr Baird’s racial slur not hearsay?”
How can it be hearsay if she says she heard it?
I am glad am more and more agreeing with Sne Lindelani, it is quite refreshing. I was elsewhere referred to a racist when I stated that judges’ decision and bloggers’ opinions here depends much on what they had for breakfast and I say it again, and that is why you have people like the Prof. against Justices Hlophe and Motata and people like me, Lindelani and perhaps realistically speaking on the opposite end.
incidentally,I saw you Prof. on eTV , quite soft spoken on live TV heh, quite the opposite of what I expected I thought you to be the bold and assertive type.
Samantha // Oct 15, 2008 at 11:48 am
“Furthermore, is not her statement regarding Mr Baird’s racial slur not hearsay?”
…………………………………………………………………………..
I refer you to section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 which deals with Hearsay evidence, particularly 3(1)(b) which deals with instances in which hearsay vidence may be admitted in both civil and criminal trails. As a matter of professional courtesy section 3(4) provides thus;
“(4) For the purposes of this section -
‘hearsay evidence’ means evidence, whether oral or in writing, the probative value of which depends upon the credibility of any person other than the person giving such evidence;”
Sne,
In fact, nothing has been said about Baird’s statement (alleged), nothing at all. But something was said about Motata’s statement (alleged).
There hasn’t been any double-standard application at all. We have single standard approach.
Double standard approach is applicable where you’re weighing or applying two different assessment tests. In this case there’s nothing said to Baird.
lindelani
Stop threatening and leave us to be and go drown your racial hatred for the Xhosa somewhere else
lindelani maseko // Oct 15, 2008 at 12:08 pm
………………………………………………………………………
My point is that they are applying double standards because, as you put it, “…nothing has been said about Baird’s statement (alleged), nothing at all. But something was said about Motata’s statement (alleged)….”
On the contrary, Mouse said; ““But lets have the trial be finalised, listen to the court’s judgement, and then we speak again…” and you have quoted him in your post earlier posted at 10:43 today.
That is why I am saying they are applying double standards; for judges Motata and Hlophe they did wait for “trial (to) be finalised” before attacking but for Richard Baird they will wait for “the trial (to) be finalised”.
It is quite interesting that those who dig a grave for others quite often get buried in the selfsame grave, I am referring here to Zaais van Zyl who wanted to nail Justice Motata but as it now appears his job and profession are on the line as he must in all fairness testify that he did not coach a witness, as an officer of the court, to lie to it in a trial he was conducting. He has now become a witness in a trial he was conducting!
Honourable Justice Motata will be acquitted, please do not disagree with me ’cause my predictions are learned and based on experience and not theory and not based on emotions and the race I belong to!
Mdu // Oct 15, 2008 at 12:44 pm
…………………………………………………
Well, it is heading for that direction now…
Mdu,
Should he be acquited because the complainant used a racial slur ? (he probably did)
What difference does it make to the judge’s innocence or guilt if the magistrate should find that the complainant did use the k word?
Does that necessarily mean that the magistrate must make a credibility finding against the complainant and ignore all the evidence that the State has led in respect of the Judge’s sobriety?
shakira // Oct 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm
…………………………………………………….
Taking all the circumstances into account, including the fact that the state has a legal duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt and not on a preponderance or balance of probabilities the accused person’s guilt, scales are slowly but surely tilting in favour Judge Motata. The allegation against Zaais van Zyl has not done the state’s case any favours also. It may be a very important consideration in deciding that the conviction of Judge Motata will bring the administration of justice into disrepute and therefore a judgment of not guilty will suffice. Technical but very effective indeed…
Shakira,
From what I gleaned earlier on from a news report on the radio, is that the effect of the racial slur allegedly infuriated the Judge to such an extent that he became angry and abusive – not to the police attempting to arrest him, but to the witnesses of the event. According to Mashilela’s testimony, the Judge was co-operative with the police throughout the whole process (contrary to what was reported at the time).
Accordingly, the effect of the racial slur and the Judge’s ensuing behaviour go to the charge of “defeating the ends of justice”, not on the drunk driven element of the case.
So, based on Mashilela’s testimony, the charge of defeating the ends of justice is looking more and more tenuous.
Sne,
If the allegations against Zaais van Zyl are proven to be correct, it will be yet another blow to our justice system. If he did try and coach the witness and ask her to make false statements, it will definitely erode the confidence of people in the “right to a fair trial”!!
Surely he should have realised that this would be a high profile case, covered extensively by the media and that were he to attempt in any way to subvert the ends of justice, this would be revealed. Somehow, if that is the case, it will certainly, in my humble opinion, be a shocking reflection of his intelligence (or lack thereof)!!
Shakira, I think he will be acquitted because it is evident for now, albeit subject to cross-examination, that evidence the defence attacked which was controversially admitted, even though it was clear the original source was nowhere to be see, was tempered with to eliminate the part where Mr Baird referred to a Judge as a kaffir.Indeed the judge was then entitled to retailate with a racial slur, I argue that that is what a reasonable person would do.
Furthermore the defence argued and the State’s expert witness conceded,under cross examination, that the instrument used to test the judges alcohol level was flawed as its inventor warned but which warning was conveniently forgotten by the state’s expert witness when giving evidence in chief, so Shakira given all of the above submissions Honourable Justice Motata is a free man as Sne has correctly pointed out burden of proof bbeyong a reasonable doubt must be discharged by the state, which clearly here it has failed! I rest my case, by the way i AM NOT mOTATA ATTORNEY, I am just predicting what will happen.
Samantha // Oct 15, 2008 at 1:25 pm
“Surely he should have realised that this would be a high profile case, covered extensively by the media”
………………………………………………………………………………….
Exactly… What I have quoted above is exactly what tempted him to mess around with the witnesses. He thought to himself that this is a chance for him to be promoted so he had to make sure that he catches this ‘big fish’. Instead of taking the long, winding, tedious, etc. route to the top he decided to take the easy way up… Unfortunately it seems to have blown up in his face… Uqhele amaqaba ukufana!
On a different note:
Does anyone know what tonight’s interview on SABC 1 (18h30-19h30) with Zuma is about? I am battling to find any information on it.
I am also wondering about why he gets an hour of tv time. This obviously depends on why it is being held, and who initiated it, but as far as I can tell this is not normal programming.
Anyone knows what’s going on?
Z,
Why you so concerned, aren’t suppose to be worried about interviews scheduled with Mbeki – your leader?
Last time I checked your hate for Zuma was overwhelming!
z,
where did you hear that?
lindelani maseko // Oct 15, 2008 at 2:19 pm
…………………………………………………………………….
SABC channels 1,2 and 3, including the relevant radio stations, are public broadcasters and not state broadcasters. This means that public funds are used to finince these institutions. Being a member of the public, Z has more than an interest in what gets broadcast by these channels. Therefore, your argument against him knowing what will be broadcast by SABC 1 is fundamentally flawed.
Secondly, I find it alarming, if true, that ANC President, and not RSA President, will have such airtime on a public broadcaster so it becomes everyone’s business, especially taxpayers like Z, to know why an hour can be dedicated to an interview with Zuma.
Z and Sne,
If you are worried about his interview lasting for an our that’s because the majority of our people voted for him to be the ANC president and the majority wants hims to be the next state president.
Last time I checked majority rules. We are the unstoppable Tsunami!
Or you guys wanted Lekota to be interviewed for an hour, how funny? who is he?
Khosi
Go to http://www.sabc.co.za click on TV Guide on the top menu bar.
Scroll down to SABC 1: 18:30.
Khosi
Sorry didn’t answer your question:
The only place I heard about it, was a brief mention in last night’s news on SABC.
lindelani maseko // Oct 15, 2008 at 3:16 pm
…………………………………………………………………….
Once again you are answering fugitively… and therefore, impertinantly… I rest my case… Andifuni ukupheka ilitye lenyengane!
Sne
Ditto. You implicitly made this point as well, but I just want to reiterate for some that this hour seems to be a special live broadcast, not part of some magazine program, or normal programming as far as I can tell, and that is where the core to my question lies.
The same question would have been asked whether it was Buthelezi, Holomisa, Benni McCarthy, or anyone else for that matter, even Mandela (though less eyebrows might be raised, principle remains the same).
But I will not make any assertive value judgment until I know more. It remains something I have questions about.
lindelani maseko // Oct 15, 2008 at 3:16 pm
………………………………………………………………………………………
Umm, actually he was elected by 60% of 4000 ANC delegates. Hardly the majority of the country’s population….
Oh, and he was elected president of the ANC, not God, or even the president of South Africa. He doesn’t have an automatic right to an hour of the state broadcaster, any more than Helen Zille or Bantu Holomisa do….
z // Oct 15, 2008 at 3:36 pm
………………………………………….
Thanks for making us take cognisance of this anomality (interview). I just checked the sabc website and I am even more alarmed to discover that not only will this interview be an hour long but it will also be a live interview!!! How can SABC 1 do this to us after dismally failing to broadcast the Bafana v Guinea match live, or even later for that matter!?
I certainly hope this live broadcast which will use the taxpayers money will be in the interest of the public and be worth the amount involved… I would hate it if state funds were to be used to convass support for the majority party in Government and thereby turn our public broascaster into a state broadcaster.
I hope the questioning will be shaped in such a way that the ANC president takes us into the circumference of light as to how the ANC as the majority party will deal with the apparently imminent break away and not utilise state funds to finance a robust election campaign to expiate the effect of such a break away. Secondly, I hope the ANC president can shed light as to how the ruling party will obviate the imminently threatening economic crisis and what measures they have put in place should such a crisis threaten to cripple our economy.
Sne
The problem is that by the nature of things the only capacity he will be speaking in, is as president of the ANC. Whatever he says at that interview will reflect on the ANC as their representative (not government).
So whether he talks about dealing with a breakaway or ANC policy influencing government policy, he’d still be only representing the ANC.
This is how things look to me, but I am no legal fundi.
Sorry to go back to Judge Motata, but what are all the charges against him?
Has he also been charged with reckless or negligent driving in the alternative? And if not, is it a competent verdict?
What is the possibility that the magistrate might find that the witness that gave evidence of the coaching is not a credible witness?
Are you guys all relying on the reports in the press for your information or is there somebody who has attended some of the court proceedings?
z // Oct 15, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“Whatever he says at that interview will reflect on the ANC as their representative (not government).”
………………………………………………………………………………….
That is exactly my fear. SABC 1 has taken quite a brave decision to invite him to a LIVE interview of an HOUR long! This may be tantamount to helping the ANC to get a chance to canvass for more votes or for restoring confidence in the ANC after the recent developments. I am deeply and trully concerned by this apparent abuse of public funds. Why was he at least not invited to Asikhulume?
Dear Prof,
I would imagine that the only reason you have not done so yet is because you would like to afford everyone who visits your blog the freedom to express themselves, but I think the time has come to ban lindelani maseko from commenting on the blog. His comments are no more, and no less, than straight forward hate speech, which would easily be declared as such in any challenge under the provisions of the Equality Act. I do not, in these circumstances, believe that you should allow him to use this platform for this purpose any longer. His comments should either be cut during the moderation process to remove any hate speech, or he should be banned altogether.
I would expect you to do nothing less to me if I strated making dispariging remarks about black people, and said I would be very happy if they went and lived on an Island – IT IS HATE SPEECH, and it is disgusting, and I cannot believe anyone on this blog can stand it.
Z + sne: Maybe the SABC, by giving Jacob Zuma this hour-long interview, is trying to atone for the amazing amount of coverage they have given so far to Zuma’s least favourite people, i.e. Terror Lekota, Mbhazima Shilowa et al., and making Pallo Jordan look pathetic.
Well I wasted some time on the interview. The man says even less than Mbeki ever did in interviews, a feat of nature!
I could just as well be the ANC pres, you simply need to state endlessly that the ANC will decide and that you have no utterable personal opinion on absolutely anything.
Uninspiring stuff.
The only useful thing he said was that Tutu should rather have advised us to vote for the DA rather than not at all.
Imagine if this were to be a popular opinion about Obama’s live interview. Would he still be running for the Presidency? Most importantly, would anyone have voted for him?
To those people who think Peter (and me) hate Zuma; I shall welcome your opinions and the substance of the interview
Peter – it seems you did not understand the meaning of the word eugenics – wiki’d it – saw its a cut n paste, had to make it personal – sorry you missed the other cutties and pasties – the hook I dropped was hidden in it and you bit into “un-original” fake bait – not very clever. I still think your probably a nice person, but won’t become a big fish.
Dumisani Mkhize – “race does not exist” – whoa – I need to become an eminent biological scholar to realize that ?
You guys who bit into the bait (and i warned you it was there) have racial self-esteem issues.
To my fellow South Africans : anyone who believes they can argue or reason racism away is naive – racism is here now, has always been here, there and everywhere and will continue into the future. I am not saying I think racism is great, I am just saying it is natural. Accept it, adapt to it, flow with it, make peace with it, laugh about it, learn to find it amusing not hurtful. DO NOT FIGHT racism – you give it power that way. You sharpen its blade by fighting or responding to it.
Clara // Oct 15, 2008 at 7:53 pm
…………………………………………………
That is not a valid reason for using my tax money.
Clara
See my post on Pierre’s post in this regard. I contend that Lekota is not getting special airtime, neither a disproportionate amount.
John // Oct 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm
………………………………………………..
It would be better if Lindelani were to be ignored instead of being banned. It will make the Prof work overtime to moderate all comments for hate speech. It will cause this blog to be slow in the sense that we would have to wait for the comments to be moderated before we can see them. If Prof were to ban Lindelani then he would simply register under another name and continue with his ranting. He is not worth the trouble believe me. If you feel that you are hurt by what he says then you ought to ignore it or respond; choice being yours.
Dear John
I am glad that your initial comment was ignored and you realise your folly and have now corrected, who are you to tell us that people with different opoinion to yours should be banned, and why do you want to stifle debate?
Mdu – on the one hand, you equate hate speech with debate, and on the other, you beleive I have erred by speaking out against someone who discriminates against people based on race?
Imagine if everyone in this country took racial discrimination as lightly – where do you think we would be as a nation right now if that was the case? I am shocked and saddened that more people on this blog are not shocked and saddened by his comments.
Please help me “see my folly” – what does saying you wish all white people would go live on an island,and what are they doing here anyway, add to the debate? Please enlighten me.
John,
Believe me, I understand exactly what you are saying. My very first comment on this blog was with regard to Lindelani and his rantings. Needless to say, I got nailed and eventually just moved on from it.
Everyone, for the most part, ignores Lindelani. You are correct in your assertion that he does nothing to contribute to the debate and the majority of his entries (rants?) are pro-Zuma and his acolytes or anti-everyone who is not pro-Zuma or Zulu.
As irritating and frustrating as it is, nothing you say will have any effect on him so the best course of action is to just ignore him. By giving any attention to him, you merely give him more of an opportunity to deliver his bile and hate.
As Sne said above, even if he were blocked, he’d probably find another means of getting on here. He comments all over the web anyway and does the same thing as he does here. He honestly isn’t worth the effort!!!
“I wish someone should step in but it looks like some black guy will step in!
That would be catastrophic we don’t need black judges at this stage.
Black judges hate white people with passion, if you white appearing before the black judge you guaranteed of the adverse verdict no matter what.
Even if you not guilty the black judge will make sure and try by all means to make you (white) guilty.
So a white man appearing before a black judge is just wasting his time by trying to defend himself. If I were to appear before the black judge I wouldn’t bother presenting my case whether I am guilty or not I would ask the black judge to pass the sentence.
I would request to be sentenced without making any presentation because it would be a waist of time. I would be guaranteed the adverse verdict.
A white man appearing before the black judge is not only facing the defense but he’s also facing the judge.
Look at the Hlope matter, judgment passed along racial lines if the majority of the judges were blacks Hlope’s application would have been dismissed.
Black judges discuss legal matters in bars (especially if the white is involved) and make their decisions in there.”
When one race slams another race they will be slammed back. The term “racism” lost its punch. That’s a pity, because it would have been nice to be able to have done something about racism. South Africa’s opportunity lost.
For those that haven’t followed the comments, refer back to the first comment by lindelani maseko to understand the context of my statement.
The comments section on this Blog is very diverse and extremely lively: sometimes very well informed and sometimes clueless, sometimes reasoned and sometimes hot-headed. When I started this Blog I decided that as a believer in freedom of expression I will not censor the views of participants – no matter how extreme – unless I believe the views are so incendiary that they would incite actual harm. So I have only banned one person from the Blog in the two years it has been running. When I don’t like views or think they are hateful I sometimes just ignore them.
Pierre
Was that one person Andrea?
Z – No, I think it must’ve been the person who called himself ‘Africannabis’, since he mysteriously disappeared more than a year ago.
Pierre De Vos // Oct 16, 2008 at 1:39 pm
……………………………………………………………….
Thank you Prof. That sums it all up nicely…
Z – But, Andrea will also fit the charge.
Sne – I agree.
lindelani (and all the others opining on the racial slurr thing):
“In fact, nothing has been said about Baird’s statement (alleged), nothing at all. But something was said about Motata’s statement (alleged).
There hasn’t been any double-standard application at all. We have single standard approach.
Double standard approach is applicable where you’re weighing or applying two different assessment tests. In this case there’s nothing said to Baird.”
I must confess, I haven’t read further than this remark by lindelani, but I do think some comment is called for.
Remember, the witnesses tell their story to court, they are cross examined, and so the whole story unfolds until the end, when it is the presiding officer that has to hand down judgment. This is much different than what is the case where you have an affidavit (or complaint) and pleadings or a judgment to comment on – such as the Hlophe saga. To choose the one side or the other and to accuse and counter accuse of ‘double standards’ just because some witness said in court that another witness made racial remarks towards the accused while the trial is still in progress is wholly inappropriate. First of all, one should remember that, even had Baird uttered those words, that would not detract from the evidence that Motata J was in fact stoned (intoxicating tea?) when he caused the accident. (In fact, the video material, which was first found admissible by the trial court and, on appeal, by the Hhigh Court, strongly suggests that Motata J was as drunk as a skunk when the video recording was made.) Secondly, one should remember that this witness has apparently not mentioned the fact (fact or fiction?) that Baird used those words in her witness statement (-s) to the police. Baird has not yet testified in the main trial, only during the ‘trial within a trial’ to determine the admissibility of the video material. He has therefore not had any chance to respond to this witness’ allegations. Quite interesting though, the defence have never suggested during the trial within a trial that Baird was racially biased and tha there ies a witness that could testify to that effect. Instead, I think it was quite commpon cause that baird, when he greeted Mopotata J (when he opened his eyes) said: “Good evening Judge”
The imminent vacancy on the Constitutional Court bench will be advertised for a third time, after last week’s interviews failed to produce the constitutionally mandated number of candidates for the president’s consideration.