Constitutional Hill

Why I won’t join the chorus of voices protesting against rape

My twitter feed is being flooded by well-meaning people expressing outrage at the rape epidemic in South Africa. Some demand life imprisonment (or the death penalty) for rapists. Others suggest castration. Men seem to be falling over their feet to demonstrate that they abhor rape and want nothing to do with it. I won’t be joining this sanctimonious chorus of voices protesting against rape. This is why.

The statistics are stark. In 2010, more than 56 000 rapes were recorded in South Africa, an average of 154 a day. As rape is notoriously under-reported, the number of rapes actually taking place in South Africa every day is probably much higher. Around 18000 murders were also reported in the same period. This brutal violence disproportionately affects those who are not rich or middle class. If you are an upper middle class heterosexual man spending time expressing your outrage about rape on twitter, the power of your money, your class, your sex, and your sexual orientation provides relative protection against the kind of violence faced by many South Africans.

Expressing your outrage about this shocking state of affairs may make you feel better. For a few weeks, such expressions of outrage might even help to highlight the prevalence of sexual violence in our society. But ultimately it is probably not going to change anything. In fact, it might do more harm than good.

The expression of outrage is a distancing device and ultimately self-serving. I fear the smell of self-congratulatory self-indulgence clinging to the enterprise. Expressions of outrage position us in opposition to the evil that we rush to condemn. Rapists are evil but unknown people “out there”. They are not our friends, our brothers, our fathers, our teachers, our sporting heroes.

When we express our outrage about the prevalence of rape in society, I fear that we seek to affirm that we are not complicit in the (often violent) subjugation of women. Our expressions of outrage – well-meaning as such expressions might be – absolve us of our responsibilities.

“We are not like that. We are different. We are innocent. Unlike the monsters who rape and murder women. Those brutes must be hanged.”

This allows us to continue with our lives without having to change what we think and how we live. We can express sentimental support for the survivors of rape, without having to problematize masculinity. We do not need to confront sexism. We do not need to become feminists. We do not need to confront the destructive power and dominance of patriarchy and how we continue to benefit from it. We do not need to give up anything.

We live in a patriarchal society, a society dominated by men and largely structured to serve the interests of men. We live in a society in which men are often elevated in the social structure because of their presumed “natural” gender roles as strong, decisive providers. It is often assumed that men (the more senior the more powerful) have a right to exert control over women – whether through their cultural dominance or through violence or the threat of violence. Women are often devalued and assumed to need men’s supervision, protection, or control.

Society is structured to reinforce the dominance of men and the subjugation or marginalisation of women. Deeply embedded cultural practices force many women to take the major responsibility for child rearing and cooking and cleaning – time consuming jobs mostly done without financial reward. It is not a coincidence that most domestic workers are women. Most men see this work as “beneath” them, not befitting their status as men.

Of course, we are a society in flux. Women are increasingly resisting the ideology that underpins patriarchal culture and attitudes. Some men, acknowledging the fact that the cultural assumptions about gender roles and male dominance (and the practices that mirror these assumptions) oppress women and are unjust, embark on their own journey to challenge their unearned male privilege and the dominance and power that accrue to them because they happen to be men.

Many more resist change. Societies in flux, in which patriarchal assumptions and the gendered assumptions about women and men are destabilized, are often violent and dangerous societies – especially to those who resist the dominant power of men or threaten male, heterosexual hegemony. In response to threats to their power and dominance, patriarchs often try to increase their level of control over women.

Rape is ultimately about power and domination. Men who feel threatened by the changing world in which they cannot automatically assume that they will be respected merely because they are men, will often take steps to try and re-assert their dominance and power over women and over other threatening groups like gay men. Some will do so by raping a woman. Others will do so by assaulting a girlfriend or a wife. Others will do so by sexually harassing women or denigrating them.

Expressing outrage about rape is not going to change the structures of power, privilege and domination from which all men benefit. A campaign to address rape therefore needs to go beyond pledges by men that they will respect women and treat them better than in the past. Such a campaign needs to challenge male power and domination. In the absence of a complete change in power relations between men and women in society, pledges by men that they oppose rape and respect women run the risk of once again turning women into helpless and vulnerable victims in need of the protection of men, thus reinforcing the gender hierarchy that lies at the root of violence against women.

  • themba

    I think you just joined the chorus by writing this article. Silence would have been a far better stance.

  • Gwebecimele

    All of a sudden we are reminded how bad rape is in our society despite the fact that it happens every four minutes. No once off march, petition or noise will change our current social, moral, economic, family arrangements which are the core of our problems. Next year this we will still have corruption, rape, underperfoming bafana, good banking system, good weather, good rugby team etc. Every now and then our courts and judges will continue to postpone and fail the victims.

  • benjaminsa

    This. Thank you. If we don’t understand the causes and root of this problem we are not going to solve it. I hope the enquiry that has been called for takes a deeper reflective look.

  • Johan

    It’s a real pity that you did not read up much about rape before you wrote this. It might have changed something about your inherent prejudice which makes you assume that rape is an act of violence committed by men upon women.

    Please go and read up, and re-write this. If, after reading up a bit more, you feel that you got it spot on the first time, it will be because you missed that a rapist, as well as a victim, can be a man, a woman or a child.

    Or maybe it’s because you think male rape doesn’t happen often – wrong again – and so is somehow less heinous.

    Not for the first time I’ve said this of late: Shame on you!

  • Gwebecimele

    Add to that, the unique SA requirement of having to be someone’s girlfriend, wife, daughter or sister to access opportunities. At one stage we had more couples in cabinet than any other country.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (


  • Gwebecimele

    With this kind of response from the courts, we are going nowhere slowly.

  • Gwebecimele

    If it is true that th 17 yr old (UNDER AGE DRINKING) was drinking in a tavern until 4 in the morning and she is already working as a cleaner that says a lot about US. This is one of those MISSING MATRIC STUDENTS of 2013. Connect the dots.

  • Michael Henning

    Please use the I word when talking …. your use of the all inclusive we statements where you presume to talk for all us negates any valid points youre trying to make and really just serves to piss off people ( men )who are doing something about changing themselves….

  • Super Environmentalist

    Your blog hints that men only express their outrage to assuage their guilt and continue on their lives of dominance. Here you are stereotyping all males. What about the manyen who stand side by side women in terms of equality and respect?

  • Michelle Solomon

    I have to say, Pierre, you have some truly incredible idiots commenting on your work. To the trolls: Pierre and no other feminist activist that I have known has argued that men are not the victims of violence or rape. We all know that, and abhor violence against anyone and stand in solidarity with male rape victims and survivors.

    But sexual violence is gendered. This is fact backed up research here and globally. This is a global problem that is not limited to South Africa. Men are overwhelmingly the perpatrators of violence, and are largely women are the victims of male violence. If you, Johan, have proof to the contrary then produce it. Otherwise, stop with your “what about the men!” nonsense. It only serves to derail the dialogue, and is wholly unproductive since none of us ever argued otherwise.

    Pierre: This. Your piece. Yes. Violent masculinity is the root cause of sexual violence in this country, in many countries. In the States it takes the form of mass shootings by young white men. In Pakistan it was the attempted murder of Malala Yousafzai. Here it is through domestic violence, gang rape, and many other forms of violence expressing the brutalisation of women.

    I don’t think the best response is to withdraw from the protests, though. We need more voices arguing exactly the point you have made here. Many feminists have been arguing for years (decades!) about the destructive effect patriarchy has on women, as well the men that challenge it. Honestly, I’m tired of saying these things over and over again. Exhausted. So anyone else that can help us in driving this point home is crucial and necessary. I realise this post was your way of doing this, but I am going to go out on a limb and ask you not to stop here.

  • Richard

    I don’t buy this logic, i’m afraid. If being vocal/outraged is to reinforce patriarchy, then what is the alternative? Acquiescence? Silence? None of those seem like particularly transformative or revolutionary alternatives.

    Much as I respect some of your other perspectives, I suspect that you are conflating all forms of active outrage/resistance/action with over-emotional in-group/out-group protest where nobody inside the group is complicit/compromised, and no specific individuals outside are.

    I tend to agree that this particular form of narrow action is – in some respects – unhelpful. But it isn’t the full gamut of what it means to protest, to be active, or to speak out.

    It’s an unusually reductive position for a usually nuanced blog to take.

  • Super Environmentalist

    Yes Pierre. Rather than stopping here as silence might be seen to be complicit, call men to action! How you do that I don’t know yet, but a good starting point would be your blog.

  • Pierre De Vos

    MIchelle Solomon, I agree with you. Withdrawing is not an option. My post is an attempt at thinking about how we engage and what we protest about. I support loud protest, but then it has to be far more nuanced and address the root causes and not skirt around it to keep the men happy. Merely professing outrage at rape – in the absence of the larger discussion – can however be counterproductive as it allows us to go on as before while;e feeling better about ourselves. I could have been more clear on this distinction.

  • Jenna

    I agree with Themba (first comment), you have just joined the chorus.

    Also, from what I’ve been reading on my Twitter timeline, people are not only talking about their outrage, they are asking what can be done. What can we do to stop this violence.

    I don’t think being silent and allowing this brutal kind of behavior helps the situation. We need to figure out a way to change this. The best way to do this is to talk, to share our ideas, to become passionate together about making a change.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Only unprogressive, un-enlightened men should withhold their protest. The other kind of men (meaning most of us on this blog), must certainly raise our voices.

  • Pierre

    A nuanced piece, Pierre, homing in well, I feel, on the idea that it is too easy to “other” the men who can do terrible things (to women and men and girls and boys and in fact anyone who is perceived as a vulnerable prop to their attempt at recapturing a failed masculinity) as monsters who are not like “us”. The truth is they are not created in a vacuum but are shaped by personal, social and structural forces which we all co-create with varying degrees of complicity. Like you I feel reluctant to send my “outrage” into the social media space and get on with my life. Partly, this is because I feel helpless – I hope you article does spur us to some kind of meaningful collective action (partly instigated by the state) but it must be collective, it must be comprehensive and it must blend urgency with realism. This is not a problem which is going to be fixed quickly.

  • Michael Osborne

    The liberal chestnut that rape is about power, not sex, is a great slogan. But did not Foucault teach us long ago that sexuality itself is constituted by power?

  • Blue Ozone

    Pierre De Vos
    February 8, 2013 at 13:31 pm

    “MIchelle Solomon, I agree with you. Withdrawing is not an option. My post is an attempt at thinking about how we engage and what we protest about”

    How about self-castration Pierre. You take the lead, the rest of us will follow.

  • Blue Ozone

    “Deeply embedded cultural practices force many women to take the major responsibility for child rearing and cooking and cleaning – time consuming jobs
    mostly done without financial reward.”

    I thought in a healthy patriarchy responsible men take care of women and the children? Perhaps what you are trying to describe is the collapse of a healthy patriarchy.

  • Gerzell

    This is for Johan. We are not talking about male rape but female rape as there as been an upsurge in this instance. And even more of these cases go unreported.

    I agree with the article in that we cannot solve our societal issues by simply staging a protest. We need to deal with the root cause of the issue and it starts with education.

  • Blue Ozone

    Michelle Solomon
    February 8, 2013 at 13:15 pm

    “Pierre: This. Your piece. Yes. Violent masculinity is the root cause of sexual violence in this country, in many countries. *In the States it takes the form of mass shootings by young white men.*”

    I’m sorry but I just cannot take you seriously. So why do young black men not run around mass shooting people in the USA. Are they all feminist? Then Pierre apparently points out that rape is a much less common problem amongst middle/upper class men, i.e. there seems to be a class dimension at play. Could it just be that he may be on to something there?

  • Mike

    What occurred in Bredasdorp is gratutious violence which includes rape.It has nothing to do with patriarcjial control over women.It is about the weak, mainly women becoming targets of violence by those who have no respect for themselves let alone anybody else.
    Afriforum has spoken out against the farm murders where the same form of gratutious violence including rape was carried out on old white people.
    What we have witnessed is the result of a VROT goverment in which people are employed in the NPA to see that ANC fraudsters are protected and so on and so on.

  • anton kleinschmidt

    What an incredible exercise in poor taste given that child has been butchered. You insensitively turn the issue into another of your self serving and pseudo angst ridden generalised diatribes

    Be that as it may, did you even stop for one minute to consider that every woman who is raped has one or more of the following…..a husband, a lover, a father, a brother, a son, a male friend, etc. All these men are devastated by the ghastly attack on the woman they love and their support and commitment to her well being are untainted by people who think like you. This circle of loved ones has a ripple effect into society and many men are genuinely concerned by this scourge. You have quite obviously placed yourself outside of this circle of men who care but whose protest is impotent in the face of a pandemic which is unstoppable in the context of a dysfunctional law enforcement and the risible judicial system that you happen to be part of. Maybe you should spend some time speaking to men whose loved ones have fallen victim to this scourge.

    Obviously there are men out there who are toxic pigs determined to inflict their twisted behaviour on society, and the basis of their patriarchal bestiality needs to be dealt with. Many of the men you denigrate recognise this reality and the fact that you seem unable to differentiate speaks volumes for your perspicacity and suitability as a commentator on this issue. That is the point so please do not try and tell me otherwise.

  • Penny

    While patriarchy is obviously responsible for many mindsets that believe it is acceptable for men to control women, I can’t help wondering if the poverty in our society is not another aspect. People without work, hopeless about their future and with no idea what to do about it have shattered self-esteem. Perhaps they drink or drug too much and then if they are men, anything that a women (their girlfriend or ex-girlfriend) does that they don’t like (doesn’t want sex. chats to another man, breaks up with them) further crushes their self-esteem and they react violently with great anger, lashing out at the women and the world in the process. So perhaps rape also comes from a sense of powerlessness?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    If firefighters reacted the way some commentators are suggesting in regards to the awful scourge that our women and children face, the world will burn to ashes while there is arguing, debating, pontification, theorising, philophising …

    Rapists do so because they think they can get away with it.

    In South Africa most do!

    It’s time to speak out and, hopefully, galvanise our nation into action to end this.

  • Nkululeko

    Don’t worry South Africa. We have the best constitution in the world. We host the best conferences and the best sporting events. We will be hosting the olympic games too. Matric pass rate is 30%. We are in control of national key points. What more?

  • Blue Ozone

    February 8, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    “All of a sudden we are reminded how bad rape is in our society despite the fact that it happens every four minutes. No once off march, petition or noise will change our current social, moral, economic, family arrangements which are the core of our problems.”

    Well said gwebs. But please remember this is once again about that backward Zulu patriarch Zuma and his “violent masculinity”. Doesn’t really matter how many women the ANC elects to cabinet or appoint to positions of power.

    “*63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. Of Health/Census) — five times the average.
    *90 percent of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes — 32 times the average.
    *85 percent of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
    *80 percent of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes — 14 times the average. (Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
    *71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes — Nine times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
    *75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes — 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
    *70 percent of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
    *85 percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Dept. of Correction)”

  • Pingback: RAPE « Making Mountains…()

  • anton kleinschmidt

    To help demonstrate the massive anger I feel about this issue, you may want to consider the following letter from me which the Cape Times published in early January 2013:

    “In your edition of 3 January you feature no less than three prominent articles about that awful gang rape in India. So far so good, but hidden away on Page 5 you relate the equally awful story of a 17 year girl raped and then stabbed to death by four men on Sunday 30 December near Harrismith. Two of the arrested men were siblings.

    There is something horribly wrong with the editorial standards in this country when a story relating to the rape and murder of a South African child does not even make it onto the front page whilst prominence is given to an incident abroad.

    The rape in India was obviously quite awful but the situation in South Africa is infinitely worse. Please consider figures published on the internet by Wikipaedia. In 2010 there were approximately 22.000 rapes in India to give us 1.8 rapes per 100,000 citizens. During the same year there were 277.000 rapes (including 60.000 children) in South Africa giving us 120 rapes per 100.000 citizens. Add to this anecdotal evidence to the effect that only 1 in 3 rapes are reported in South Africa and there is clear indication of a pandemic. South African figures are the worst of all those reflected, and our nearest “rival” is Botswana with 95 rapes per 100.000 citizens.

    It would be wonderful if civil society and the media could bestir themselves to show the same levels of humanity arising with the protests in India. It is high time that the global community starts to take notice of the terrible things happening in this country and the media needs to lead the charge. …..Anton Kleinschmidt.

    Today’s Cape Times has the Bredasdorp atrocity as their lead story with further extensive reporting on Page 4 and in their main Editorial. Just maybe, my letter helped to make a difference. There was no national outcry about that poor girl in Harrismith 5 weeks ago.

  • Michael Osborne

    PdV, you appear to take it as a matter of faith that there is some kind of causal (associational?) link between patriarchy and the rate of rape. But consider the fact that there are many societies in which the women are arguably subject to worse subordination, but levels of reported rape are much lower than here (AK mentioned India.)

    Then again, this may reflect difficulties in how one defines patriarchy across cultures. Also, I suspect, contra AK, that rape is reported more frequently here than in some other countries. Still, I think this all renders some of your assumptions deeply problematic.

  • Gwebecimele

    Thanks Anton, replace rape with death and the circus continues. We still dont know anything about the 7 men that died in KZN during December. Yesterday I posted a link on rapes in Limpopo. Instead we were flooded with the death of a cyclist. Can’t we at least be equal on our last day.

    Shame on our Editors.

  • Blue Ozone


    Everybody knows what is the dominant correlating factor with not only sexual violence but the vast majority of ills that plague society. Not only in South-Africa, but in India as well.

    Poverty, child sexual abuse and HIV in the Transkei region, South Africa

    “In economically poor countries young girls take to prostitution. It is a sign of poverty and economic distress. A study carried out in India (1995) showed that girl prostitutes are primarily located in low-middle income areas and business districts and are known by officials. UNICEF estimates about 300 000 child prostitutes are in India. A little over 50% of prostitutes come from neighboring poor countries like Nepal and Bangladesh.14 The purpose of these case reports is to highlight the problem of poverty, sexual assaults and HIV/AIDS in this region of Transkei, South Africa.”

  • Peter Vos

    Sorry Prof, this is garbage. All men and women should rage against this obscenity.

    And no, all men do not share culpability. For any normal heterosexual man, the concept of having sex with an unwilling victim is so inconceivable as truly to be ‘other’. Akin to sex with animals or children.

    As for the patriarchal society, I’m dubious. Did Victorian England produce a rash of rapists? Would not conversion to a matriarchal society – apparently your solution – further inflame the newly disadvantaged to increase their rate of rape?

    The fact is our society is breeding a plague of psychopaths who graduate in their early teens from fatherless homes with no education, no socialization, no hope and no boundaries. The gang becomes the family and women and girls are easy prey.

    Like paedophiles they are incurable.

    So what’s the solution? Better education for girls? Better contraception? Easier abortions? Stop child-grants? Forced adoptions? Mass sterilizations – spay a stray?

    I don’t know, but a loud public outcry for better policing to take these bastards permanently out of society seems like a good place to start.

  • Michael Osborne

    Speaking of Steven Friedman, has anyone noticed how much he has in common with that other opinionated Friedman, Thomas of the NYT?

    Perhaps then someone would take the time to create a Steven Friedman random op-ed generator, along the following lines:

  • Michelle Solomon

    Oh dear, Pierre. You seem to have attracted an MRA-type troll in the form of Blue Ozone. 😛

    Thank you, and I agree with your call for nuance on this. One by-product of this current outrage is that it has opened the potential for a dialogue around violent masculinity(ies) in a way that has been more of a struggle before. I’m hoping to use my available platforms to open a dialogue on this, and I hope you do too. Your expertise in unpacking highly problematic incidents like this one would be fantastic, and go away to showing how rape culture and patriarchy works in courts and the legal system:

    Speaking for myself, you have the ability to call out the courts and legal system in a way that I can’t. I am not a legal ‘expert’. If South Africans knew more about how the justice system lets rape survivors down, I think there would be more sincere outrage and activism around this issue.

  • Blue Ozone

    Michelle Solomon
    February 8, 2013 at 16:57 pm

    What is the problem. Michelle, can’t you debate rationally basing your arguments on facts and logic inference? I have posted two links that seems to challenge Pierre’s fem crit garbage i.e. that “patriarchy” is the root of all evil.

    All you could manage was to call me a troll.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Michelle Solomon
    February 8, 2013 at 13:15 pm


    “Honestly, I’m tired of saying these things over and over again. Exhausted.”

    Thanks for posting that. It’s important that the rest of us know how you feel by the effort you have been making in the tiresome task. It also important for us to know that you do these things. Most people will no doubt give thanks for your efforts.

    We should also consider that Ms Anene Booysen had her life wrenched away but not before having been mercilessly raped, slit from throat to guts, intestines ripped out, fingers broken and mutilated so badly that the hospital staff who treated her had to be treated themselves by trauma counseling.

    The essence of your comments seem to be that we set aside screaming outrage over this brutal rape and murder and start dealing with the underlying cause which, as you see it, of “violent masculinity”.

    What should we do which society figures a way of re-engineering men?

    Should we let the criminal justice system which has failed the victims be allowed to continue unchallenged?

    Or perhaps not put pressure on the police to do their work?

    Or let the victims adjust (or not adjust) to every lives through their own devices?

    Perhaps you could also tell us how to identify those who are inflicted with the “violent masculinity” syndrome – is it all men or some?

    While all this effort is being put in to neuter the violent males do we tell the vulnerable women, men, children to be patient and understanding while we sort out this mess and find lasting solutions in the longer term?

  • Max

    Wider societal change on this issue will take time and will have to be underpinned by socioeconomic change. Education, employment, it is all important.

    In the shorter term we should urgently seek to improve the response from our police and courts to rape. I find it fascinating how few people have failed to connect their current outrage about rape to the Commission of Inquiry into policing in Khayelitsha. It is mainly gender-based violence that drove social justice NGOs to demand that inquiry.

    Finally, I share Pierre’s discomfort with the deafening hand-ringing on twitter. if people ar really so outraged, then wwhy don’t they organise and start doing something. There is no reason why you should wait for the TAC, Sonke Gender Justice, or whoever to arrange a march or to write letters or to help track a case through the courts. At least give some money to rape crisis.

  • Brett Nortje

    You can’t rape a .38!

  • Brett Nortje

    South Africa has suffered 500 000 murders under ANC rule.

    Based on the homicide statistics, how many rapes would you have expected?

  • Johan

    @ Michelle & Gerzelle, et al.

    “Men are overwhelmingly the perpatrators of violence, and are largely women are the victims of male violence. If you, Johan, have proof to the contrary then produce it. Otherwise, stop with your “what about the men!” nonsense.”

    “This is for Johan. We are not talking about male rape but female rape as there as been an upsurge in this instance. And even more of these cases go unreported.”

    Wow! ““what about the men!” nonsense” indeed! So, if I understand your position correctly: It’s OK for men to be raped, because it doesn’t happen so often..? Wow! You won’t mind if I don’t support that notion, will you..?

    Also, because you have clearly made up your mind, and you are indeed correct in saying that male on female rape is more prevalent, what follows won’t change your opinion, but maybe some other reader – prof de Vos for example – will find value in the information. As a final word to the two of you: racism & sexism (feminist AND chauvinist): THAT’s what’s really unhelpful here!

    To the rest of the readers, I believe the discourse around rape is, somewhat justifiably perhaps, fairly prejudiced against males. I am not saying one type of rape is worse than another: quite the contrary: I am saying ALL rapes are EQUALLY heinous. In the interest of a more informed opinion then…

    I didn’t do a lot of reading. The google search string that first sprung to mind was “male rape statistics”.

    Here’s a decent article to scan:

    A quotation from a wikipedia article @
    Several studies argue that male-male prisoner rape, as well as female-female prisoner rape, might be the most common and least-reported forms of rape, with some studies suggesting such rapes are substantially more common in both per-capita and raw-number totals than male-female rapes in the general population.

    Another informative article:

    Prof will be able to fill in the date when rape of males first became included in the legal definition of rape in SA: quite recently if my memory serves me well. I’m speaking from a failing memory when I say that before the relevant act was changed, rapists of men could only be charged with sexual assault, not with rape. As I said, as far as I know that discrimination has now been removed from legislation. Also, it seems as if male rape has not been studied that often – as Michelle and Gerzelle have informed us, it’s not really a topic worth studying – and might be even more under-reported than female rape. (Did you see, Gerzelle?) Consequently, I have not found exact stats for SA. Maybe someone here can help.

    If what I have written can move the instinctive language we use a little away from “he raped her” towards “the rapist raped the victim”, I would have been successful. Then perhaps we will look at the crime statistics for sexual crimes (the term under which rape is reported) without automatically assuming all those crimes were perpetrated by male perpetrators on female victims. We will also feel equal compassion for all the victims of rape irrespective of gender, race, age,…

    I do despair that the Michelles and Gerzelles might be a lost cause. They understand that the rape of women by men is a terrible thing. That’s a start, at least.

  • Beetle

    The rape and mutilation of this young woman has only made the news because the attending doctor was so revulsed that he revealed the full detail of the atrocity.
    The press saw it as fodder for circulation increase. Disemboweling and eye gouging are newsworthy.

    Ms Booysen would otherwise have been just another statistic.

  • http://Webmail Motho wa batho

    It cannot be that men are threatened by the sudden freedom of women because even in the Bible,ages ago wowen were raped.unless one is merely saying such is one of the innumerable contributing factors.

  • Blue Ozone

    Thanks Motho.

    Genesis 1:27

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

  • Blue Ozone

    James Brow: It’s a mans world

  • ewald

    Seems no one wants to contemplate the possibility that women themselves could be planting the seeds of violence in the way they beat and humiliate the boy children in their care.

    I work closely with Xhosa people in the Eastern Cape and beatings, shouting and degrading attitudes towards boys are more common than would be readily admitted, especially in the absence of fathers who can’t defend the boys. When those boys one day come back from the bush as so-called ‘real men’ they have years of pent-up anger ready to avenge themselves and to settle the scores. They were once vulnerable and defenseless, now is the time to reverse the roles. I have no doubt from my own experience that the issue is not the violence against women and children, but the violence perpetrated BY women on children. And for women who have suffered under patriarchy for ages, why not vent their anger on the defenceless boy children in their care? We need to look at the experiences of that ‘sweet little’ 5 year old boy that eventually turns him into a butcher by the time he is 18. I agree with Pierrre, we need to look and think.

  • Blue Ozone

    Believe me – mothers can be tyrants. Been there – have been done by that. In fact in my tiny world my dad was the nice guy and my mother was always picking up shit into our face.

    I will never fall for that “patriarchy” bullshit.

  • Gwebecimele


    What is a so called real men? As usual you want to an expert on something you know nothing about. Contrary to your twisted belief rape is less prevalant in rural EC.

  • lana

    clearly you do not know a rape victim personally. instead of just throwing your arms in the air saying “well, it’s not going to change” why not just *support* those who have been emotionally scarred for life? i am thankful that i don’t have to ask you for emotional comfort one day if i find myself in an unfortunate event like this.

  • anton kleinschmidt

    I have re-read my original post and it occurs to me that I could have conveyed exactly the same message by using less emotionally charged language. My anger got the better of me and for this I apologise.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (


    Expressing outrage about rape is not going to change the structures of power, privilege and domination from which all men benefit. A campaign to address rape therefore needs to go beyond pledges by men that they will respect women and treat them better than in the past. Such a campaign needs to challenge male power and domination. In the absence of a complete change in power relations between men and women in society, pledges by men that they oppose rape and respect women run the risk of once again turning women into helpless and vulnerable victims in need of the protection of men, thus reinforcing the gender hierarchy that lies at the root of violence against women.”

    And …

    The statement comes in the wake of the rape and murder of many lesbians in South Africans over the past few years. This includes the gang rape and brutal killing of Eudy Simelane, former star of South Africa’s Banyana Banyana national female football squad. Simelane was found in a creek in a park in Kwa Thema, on the outskirts of Johannesburg and had been brutally beaten before being stabbed 25 times in the face, chest and legs. As well as being one of South Africa’s best-known female footballers, Simelane was a voracious equality rights campaigner and one of the first women to live openly as a lesbian in Kwa Thema. …

    Until our leaders speak out about homophobia, the rape and the killing will continue. And like PW Botha, they will sleep soundly at night because they obviously do not take their conscience with them to bed. Unlike Lady MacBeth there will be no blood-filled dreams of dread.

  • Michael Osborne

    AK, your apology is graceful. But it will not appease the likes of the Trollish MDF and friends. Nor will they ever respond to your substantive points.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (
    February 9, 2013 at 15:12 pm

    “Such a campaign needs to challenge male power and domination.”

    Oh absolutely, it always us evil heterosexual white men.

    “When we grew up and went to school
    There were certain teachers
    Who would hurt the children in any way they could
    By pouring their derision
    Upon anything we did
    Exposing every weakness
    However carefully hidden by the kids

    But in the town it was well known
    When they got home at night
    Their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them
    Within inches of their lives”

  • Blue Ozone
  • anton kleinschmidt

    Thanks Michael

  • StevenI

    @ Themba so why comment?

    @ Michael Henning – please go fuck yourself sorry I-self

    @ Superenvironmentalist – WOW – using a blog to stop rape? You’re obviously an attempted NGO trying to do generate funds – please fuck off. Btw who are the Manyen?

    @ Michelle Solomon – yes I believe men are the main culprits but US men mass shootings? Do you remember the Boomtown Rats’ SHE “Wants’ to shoot the whole day down” (Don’t like Mondays)

    @ MDF – “Only un-progressive, un-enlightened men should withhold their protest. The other kind of men (meaning most of us on this blog), must certainly raise our voices.’
    You normally have so much to say – shame on you?

    On another point – you want to “raise” – ‘our voices’ – cut the fuckers bollocks off – unfortunately our President is the worst of the worst when it comes to women not being sex objects

    @ Gerzell – please prove an up-surge. A member of my family (male) was almost raped by the headmaster’s brother

    @ Anton Kleinschmidt – well said Sir!

    @ Blue Ozone – psychotic bitch?
    Are you mad? She was what was needed at the time! You seem (in your other posts) to have a major problem with mother figures.
    Why also do you reference US statistics? What’s that got to do with us?
    You mention young black men in the US – the FACT in this world is that; whilst we have total inequality between the big shots and the workers (and the US is the 2nd worst) we will have problems. It is however excuse!

  • StevenI

    Last sentence should have read ‘no excuse’ (too many Bolitka 7 in Moscow)

  • Blue Ozone

    February 9, 2013 at 20:59 pm

    “You seem (in your other posts) to have a major problem with mother figures.”

    Do I really need to revisit all the atrocities committed by women that are now blamed on men? Do I need to explain how it is the biological drive of women that select the “fittest men”. Or how we have all fallen for delusion.

    Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy

    “So many problems seem to loom up if love becomes the basis of marriage.
    But they loom up only because we see things through the screen of our
    old concepts and beliefs. The day we accord love its highest value, the
    idea that children belong to individuals, to parents, will become
    meaningless. Really, children don’t belong to individuals; they really
    never belong to them. There was a time when the father was unknown, only
    the mother was known. That was the age of matriarchy, when the mother
    was the head of the family and descent was reckoned through the female line.

    You will be surprised to know the word /father/ is not that old; the
    word /uncle/ is much older. /Mother/ is an ancient word, while /father/
    is very new. The father really appeared on the scene when we
    institutionalized marriage; he was not known before. The whole male
    population of a tribe was father-like; only the mother of a child was
    known. The whole tribe was loving to its children, and since they
    belonged to none they belonged to all.” The Man and His Philosophy

  • ewald

    @ Gwebs.. you have a literacy problem as well?

  • Super Environmentalist

    Stevenl, why the anger directed at us. Your use of language is atrocious. Re-read my post. I didn’t suggest using a blog to stop rape! I felt the blog reflected a generalized view to men expressing outrage and then doing nothing about it.

    Super Environmentalist (SE) is not an NGO, but a community of people who wish to make a difference in the world. RAPE, along with murder, theft, destruction of the environment, etc destroy the very fabric of society. At least SE is doing something to educate people on these issues.

    Other than diss and critique contributors, do you have something else to offer us and the world around us? A solution to the problem of rape? Which is what Pierre’s blog is lookin for, isn’t it?

  • Gwebecimele


    Are u suffering from a “Bonobo Syndrome”?

  • Brett Nortje

    Really? I thought Pierrot was continuing the war against his father figure?

    As for “the problem of rape”? You are not going to find many people on this blog who really want to discuss the ‘problem’ being that overwhelmingly it is black men – to a lesser extent coloureds – that rape.

    Perhaps De Vos was smart enough to sense that but too PC to say so?

    Super Environmentalist says:
    February 10, 2013 at 7:06 am

    “A solution to the problem of rape? Which is what Pierre’s blog is lookin for, isn’t it?”

  • Paul Kearney

    To me PdeV’s blog is typical academia – propose a solution so high level that it’s not practical to implement then pat yourself on the back. I’m with AK and even Brett to some extent. Stop breast beating and propose something practical. Teach young women self defence. Curb alcohol and drugs (I’m willing to bet alcohol was a major factor in the sad Bredasdorp rape). Imprve the education system to limit patriarchal influence, if possible. Improve SAPS who, it seems have their fair share of misogynists. Get a grip on employment and dignity. Maybe it is better to have two employed at R59 per day than one at R105 and the other on a basic income grant and waiting for the bottlestore to open?

    Will any of the above even be contemplated for a millisecond? I doubt it and so rape, and PdeV’s esoteric ramblings, will continue.

  • Super Environmentalist

    Of course if all things are equal (which they are not in most countries) then statistically crimes would be committed in proportion to race numbers. So in South Africa most crime would be committed by black men! But this doesn’t excuse white men.

    Referring to Paul Kearneys post, I read some research recently that there is a link to the price of alcohol and violent crime. If prices are high crime is reduced, and vice-versa. Is that part of a solution, put up prices of alcohol.

    This is a can of worms!

  • Brett Nortje

    Paul, you get to the heart of the matter quickly. One of the foremost drivers of these social-fabric crimes is job-killing Cosatu which also plays an atrocious role in sabotaging the education of kids to be 21st-Century citizens.

    Perhaps more diabolically, it raises peoples’ material expectations sky-high which can only lead to more frustration-aggression.

    Rape is a hugely complex manifestation. First thing you need to have is the guts to tackle it. These pinky-in-the-tea-drinking-air mhlungus don’t.

  • Brett Nortje

    Balls, SE!

  • Blue Ozone

    Super Environmentalist
    February 10, 2013 at 7:06 am

    “Other than diss and critique contributors, do you have something else to offer us and the world around us? A solution to the problem of rape? Which is what Pierre’s blog is lookin for, isn’t it?”

    It doesn’t help if we continue to [perhaps wilfully] misdiagnose the “root cause” of “our problem”. I challenge the assertion that it is “male patriarchy”. I postulate that it is socio-economic conditions, i.e. an unequal distribution of wealth. The solution is therefore not the destruction of male patriarchy, but rather a socialist orientated society.

    “Gender empowerment measure” is another indicator listed in the report. One element of this indicator is the percentage of seats held by women in parliament. In Cuba, 43% of parliamentary seats are held by women, the third-highest level in the world after Rwanda (51%) and Sweden (47%). In Australia, some 30% of seats in parliament are held by women and the US figure is only 17%.”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Blueish Guy

    “In Cuba, 43% of parliamentary seats are held by women”

    Yes, this is inspiring, not least because all of them are members of the party that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the Cuban masses have voluntarily voted for over half a century!

  • Pingback: What it takes to fight rape « Akanyang Africa()

  • joeslis

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm


  • joeslis

    What does it take to fight rape?

    Reintroduce the death penalty, to be administered by vigilantes. That should work a treat.

  • John

    It’s interesting to see the bizarrely defensive statements emerging in the comments to this blog post. It’s one of the more incontrovertible statements one can make about South African society, and yet, our dream team of masculinity wish to force the issue. I am genuinely alarmed that people still hold these kinds of views.

  • Blue Ozone

    February 10, 2013 at 16:11 pm

    “I am genuinely alarmed that people still hold these kinds of views.”

    What kind of views, John. That perhaps not all the evil in the world are caused by men and patriarchy? If you have a problem with your own masculinity and/or your “race”, please don’t expect all of us to uncritically jump on your politically correct bandwagon.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Joeslis

    The Cuban people do not needs lessons in democracy from you or Al-Jazzera. Foreigners from class-ridden societies have no conception as to how, where government genuinely represents the aspirations of all, there is no need for so-called “opposition” parties. Also, many of the “opposition activists” in Cuba over the years have turned out to be nothing but agents of US imperialism!


  • joeslis

    @ MDF

    Dobar dan, gospodine Fass.

    Far be it from me to lecture our friends the Cubans on ‘democracy’. Au contraire: they can vote for their own MPs, whereas we hapless citizens of RSA have ours imposed on us by our political masters. Respeck!


  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Joeslis

    “Far be it from me to lecture our friends the Cubans on ‘democracy’”

    Respek. You have the appropriate attitude. I, too, know little about the Habana legislature. What I do know it has many women. Yet few blacks. Yet the Cuban masses love it! (OzoneBlue will explain.)


  • Brett Nortje


    Full of sound and fury signifying nothing…

  • Gwebecimele

    Did you know about the “Presidential Handbook”?? Apparently they can go on holiday on our behalf.

  • DM Mwangi

    PdV and the purveyors of sexual liberation theology– the result of which is the objectification of women and the commodisation of their bodies– are far more culpable for the scourge of rape than those he bemoans viz. ppl loudly condemning the heinous evil that occurred in Bredasdorp.

  • Brett Nortje

    Are you suggesting rape first occurred during the 60s?

    Here, put on this cap and go stand in the corner with the other kids who made absurd statements!

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    DM Mwangi
    February 11, 2013 at 11:24 am

    Eish Dm,

    “PdV and the purveyors of sexual liberation theology– the result of which is the objectification of women and the commodisation of their bodies– are far more culpable for the scourge of rape than those he bemoans viz. ppl loudly condemning the heinous evil that occurred in Bredasdorp.”

    You can talk kak man!

  • Chris (not the right wing guy!)

    Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! ( says:
    February 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    “You can talk kak man!”

    Hey Maggs, do you say by that you actually understand what Dm is saying? If so please explain in English so I can also understand!

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Chris (not the right wing guy!)
    February 11, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Hey Right-Wing-Guy,

    That’s kinda like asking if I want to be fed to hungry lions or hungry hyenas.

    Nasty! 😛

    p.s. Dmwangi has a serious mental problem – maybe there’s an institution for the mentally depraved (which impresses WHITE people of course) which will incarcerate him.

  • Brett Nortje

    My compulsion to annoy Mwangi aside, his contribution is the most helpful after OBS’s ‘father figure’ stats to piece together the big picture ‘Why’.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Why is this particular rape creating such a hype?

    I ask this not in a casual way. Is this crime more media-friendly only because of the Dehli rape case?

    Anene is certainly not the first recipient of extreme brutality – remember the PE woman (her name escapes me) who was also raped and disembowelled and had her throat cut? She survived, but her case did not make the same waves as this one.

    The hard truth is that crimes like what happened to Anene are not extraordinary in South Africa. The Prof is right on one score – why march when this happens all the frikken time?

    Why all the media hand-wringing: “We must change people’s attitudes and the laws.” WTF?

    Rape is already a terrible crime, dozens of men are burnt to death in townships around the country. Rape is also already illegal with a long sentence attached.

    All those solutions have been implemented and done precisely fuck all. No amount of marching is going to do anything but fuck all.

    The only solution is to encourage the right to freedom and security of person. That means people must have confidence in their rights to defend themselves. That also means people must have the ability to do so and the CHOICE of the tools available.

    Given the facts released by the media, it looks like Anene may have been a victim anyway. But we have to ensure that there are as few Anenes in our future as possible.

    So far, I have to say that Brett is the only one who has proffered a solution which could have the remotest chance of making a real difference.

    “Nobody rapes a .38”

    Anyone got a better idea that can work in the real world?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Hey Brett

    Are your organizations busy printing posters for Bredasdorp that say “Nobody rapes a .38”

    Your organizations need to ACT bud.

  • Lisbeth

    @ Brett, Zoo Keeper:

    Am I correct in assuming that a .38″ is a firearm?

    Are you suggesting that all women, including teenagers, arm themselves?

    What are the chances of a, say, 17-year-old of obtaining the required gun licence?

    And what good is a gun when you suddenly find yourself surrounded by a gang of men with evil intent?

  • Zoo Keeper


    You can’t approach life with absolutes, silly!

    As I said, Anene would probably have been a victim anyway. From the media reports it looks like some of those arrested were well known to her, so she may have trusted them. As a 17-year old she would not have received a firearm licence under the FCA, but I believe the old act gave them to 16 year-olds (Brett can come in here).

    “And what good is a gun when you suddenly find yourself surrounded by a gang of men with evil intent?”

    My guess is that it would a whole lot of use. It might only take a show of the gun to make them back off – in fact most defenses are just that: show-n-go. If she got off a shot, most likely the evil men would scatter, giving her the space to do what my sensei’s used to tell me: run away!!

    Put yourself in that position – surrounded by evil men and unarmed, and surrounded by evil men but armed. Which scenario would you prefer? Please answer that question?

    I don’t advocate arming everyone. But I do advocate allowing everyone the CHOICE to do so. It is not everyone’s cup of tea. But like the stats from the US show, more concealed firearms reduces contact crime (Chicago, Washington etc).

    If people have the CHOICE, criminals will not be sure who has chosen. Even if they know their victim has not chosen to arm herself, someone close by might have made that choice.

    Its about reducing the pool of victims and windows of opportunity for criminals to do their work. Non of the PC rubbish does that, in fact the stats show the PC brigade makes things worse.

    Absolutely nothing the PC bunch has proposed will make one iota of difference. It (laws, commissions of inquiry, calls for behavioural change, hand-wringing meetings and discussions) has never made a difference and certainly will not now. So they can march and make themselves feel better. Because that is all it does: it just makes the marcher feel better.

  • Lisbeth


    “Put yourself in that position”

    OK, let me try that. I just know I would freeze. My hands would shake so much (with terror) that I wouldn’t be able to extract the gun from my handbag (I somehow don’t see myself waving the thing around in front of me wherever I go, just in case …). I end up dead, ‘they’ have my gun.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Zooky

    “It might only take a show of the gun to make them back off – in fact most defenses are just that: show-n-go”

    Zooks is right. Women walking alone at night should have their guns in hand at all times, ready to aim it at any man who approaches close enough to physically overpower them. Effectively, there would be a 2 metre exclusion zone around every woman, enforced on pain of death. Excellent idea, Zooks!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Lisbeth, with respect, I just said that you gun must be in your hand — not your handbag. Zooks has come up with a very practical suggestion. Don’t shoot it down, just because you are a PC-addled baby!

  • Zoo Keeper

    Thanks Dworky – could always count on something especially good from you!


    So because you can’t handle the situation, no-one else is allowed the CHOICE?

    Its all about CHOICE, Lisbeth. Let those who want to make the CHOICE, make that CHOICE, please!

    In a situation like that there is panic, no doubt.

    I propose to allow the CHOICE more freely so that potential attackers are deterred from attacking more people. Simple, and fairly un-contestable in actual fact.

    I have had personal experience of pretending to have a firearm being effective!! I was in Hillbrow early 2000s (the really bad days) and had to walk past some very obviously bad guys with weapons, could see the bulges under their shirts a mile off). All I did was pretend by the way I walked (keeping my head up high and looking around, and at them), and shifting my bag so my jacket appeared to be ready. They didn’t even try make a move even though they had checked me out quite obviously.

    Situational awareness is also priceless of course. But if it came down to trouble I wouldn’t have stood a chance, because I wasn’t armed. Point is, it is all about deterrence.

    Just because you would freeze and be unable to use your firearm because you haven’t done enough training, does not under any circumstances allow you to impose your inability and fear the crims would get your gun on anyone else.

    The lady in news who shot some robbers the other day would be left helpless by your imposition of your inability on her. She would most likely be a rape/murder statistic but you would be happy because they didn’t steal her gun!

    Personally, I am very happy the innocent lady is alive and well. I prefer my victims to be alive and well, don’t you?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Zoo Keeper
    February 11, 2013 at 17:12 pm

    Good plan ZooKy,

    From what age should women be armed and dangerous?

    17, 11, 2?

  • Zoo Keeper


    Can drive a car at 18, why not get a firearm? Soldiers do.

    My firearm licensing philosophy is based on training, once you have the training cert you can get your gun (as many as you like) in the category you’re trained in.

    A free society allows its citizens a lot more choice than a prisoned society – like the nanny states.

  • Lisbeth

    Zoo Keeper

    “… and shifting my bag so my jacket appeared to be ready”

    You know, I’m gonna practice that trick, big strong macho man. Although it does sound a bit tricky.

  • Mickhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Zooky, your suggestion makes more and more sense. I read somewhere that rape in the UK is much, much, more common than in the U.S. It that because British women invariably pack a revolver when nipping out to buy cigs, while Americans stagger under the weight of incredibly strict gun control?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Zoo Keeper
    February 11, 2013 at 17:22 pm


    “Can drive a car at 18, why not get a firearm? Soldiers do.”

    Hanging around with Brett does have its downsides!

    So what happens to those below 18 years?

    Perhaps they can be the “sacrificial lambs”?

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs, I’ve told you about my psychologist friend, Dr Jo. Her husband was chief psychiatrist at a state nuthouse and he did hundreds of interviews with rapists.

    I told you his considered opinion is that in South Africa, rapists are simply stealing sex.

    I just need to quote one example at you to show that your way, nothing is going to change: The Zuma rape trial.

    I understand that it is important to you to try delegitimise the challenge that ZooKeeper posed to your world view.


    You have nothing on offer. Meanwhile…

    You know as well as we do that three or four rapists are going to be shot, the press is going to have a field day, social media will go viral and the epidemic of rape will dry up, and quite naturally that will extend to young

    Spillover of the deterrent effect. It worked in Orlando, Florida, in the days before social media. Why wouldn’t it now?

    I say this very same deterrent effect is already visible in South Africa – I think muggings of black men have come down since 1m black people got licenced guns.

  • Brett Nortje

    Fassbrander, when the UK had far fewer restrictions on gunownership (the days before the Bolshevik Revolution) than most US states, the confrontational crime rate in the UK was much lower than the US.

    But you are right, confrontational crime in the UK has increased to the point where there is now a movement for Castle Doctrine laws.

  • Brett Nortje

    Zoo Keeper says:
    February 11, 2013 at 17:12 pm

    ZooKeeper, my brother and his girlfriend/wife went for a walk around Florida Lake one evening when they were set upon by knife-wielding muggers. He drew his cellphone from behind his back and screamed as loudly as he could “Freeze, or I’ll shoot!”

    Of course, their attackers didn’t freeze. They ran. Fast as they could.

    The miniaturisation of cellphones we see nowadays is a mixed blessing. IMHO! Try that trick now…

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    “Fassbrander, when the UK had far fewer restrictions on gunownership (the days before the Bolshevik Revolution) than most US states, the confrontational crime rate in the UK was much lower than the US.”

    You are right. Also: Before the first Roman invasion (circa 45 B.C.), British crime was out of control. Then the Romans (under Hadrian), brought in primitive handguns. Crime plummeted. That’s why I say – the solution to guns is: more guns!


  • Brett Nortje

    Crime plummeted because Hadrian built a wall to keep people like you out!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Brett, in those days the Slovenian people brought trade and goodwill to all shores of the mighty Adriatic and beyond. Now, it is all ruined and corrupted, by ZIONIST interlopers.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Well done General Phiyega – it helps to arrest someone.


    You really should have “shot the bastard”, ne.

    Matthew Prins was the third person arrested last Friday in connection with Anene’s death. But he was released the next day after police found no evidence linking him to the case.

    Matthew said that he was visiting a friend the night Anene was attacked.

    “I was in the area but I wasn’t at the pub [where Anene was],”he said. “I don’t even hang out at that place.

    “I only heard about the incident the following Tuesday afternoon when police came to raid our place.

    “[During the raid] police found blood on my [car] seat. But the blood had been there since the week before when I went fly fishing.

    “I tried to explain this to police but they wouldn’t believe me. I think that is how they thought I could be involved.”

    Prins said he was called to the Bredasdorp Police Station on Friday so cops could check his SIM card.

    “I went with my brother and while I was there they kept me,” he added.

    “They treated me like s***. I felt bad for my family because this was hurting them.

    “I mean, it’s rape and murder and I wasn’t even involved in anything.”

    Prins claimed he doesn’t know the two accused who are currently in custody.

    “Even though I was released, it still doesn’t change what happened. People now look at me like I’m one of them [suspects],” he added.

  • Zoo Keeper


    Not sure what the macho reference is for? Its about surviving a situation and I bluffed my way out. In those instances, there is no room for macho anything.

    Still waiting for a way to address the vulnerability of SA’s women from you. All you’ve done is set up straw-man arguments but have come up with nothing in return.

    What is your way to help address the situation?

  • Zoo Keeper


    If you seek to restrict access, you have to prove that the restriction is absolutely necessary.

    The concept of rights to own weapons is beset by a subconscious fraud which bedevils reasoned debate.

    That concept views police and military as separate from the society. But this is inherently wrong, to paraphrase Peel: the police are the society and society is the police, the military is the society and the society is the military.

    Now give that a go?

  • Steve from Beep Bank

    Yet another “Let’s put a bell on the collar of the cat” post.

    So, how exactly are we going to do that?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Lisbeth

    You seem to relish pouring cold water on Zooky’s ingenious proposals. They may not represent a platonic ideal. But give him some credit for thinking creatively. Like him, I have often “bluffed” my way out of a tricky situation by pretending to have a bulge in my pocket. Believe me, this was no macho affectation!


  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Zoo Keeper
    February 12, 2013 at 10:32 am


    “The concept of rights to own weapons is beset by a subconscious fraud which bedevils reasoned debate.”


    As Brett tells us “guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill PEOPLE”.

    Perhaps we should restrict PEOPLE!

    p.s. So ZooKy – if a rapist is confronted by a woman with a gun, will he stop raping, stop attempting to rape the woman with a gun?

    It seems that you are suggesting that rapists should be more afraid of Lisbeth with a .45 than of the entire criminal justice system.

    Good plan.

  • Brett Nortje

    In a nutshell, Maggs! Well done.

    I say women should be encouraged to kill their would-be rapists (within the bounds of the law) and the message sent out to society should be that ‘in this country we deal with rape in the first intance by encouraging the women that are about to be raped by defending themselves!’

  • Jenny

    I agree Pierre. The problem is the subjugation is much like Apartheid – it is so deeprooted in the fabric of our society as well as the social norms. From the ridiculous adverts on TV where only women do the washing and worry about their husband’s stained shirts to the children court judges who do not give custody to fathers very easily to the president who shows the world that he is worthy of five women and those women are not worth fidelity and commitment. This patriarchal subjugation of women is everywhere. Look at the non-existent maternity benefits: the govt message is we need to be chained and shackled to our infants until they are two years old, we should not be working outside the home. It is so insidious and deep that it will never change I am cynically afraid to say.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Jenny

    “This patriarchal subjugation of women is everywhere”

    I still find the proposed causal nexus between patriarchy in SA and the high rape rate hard to follow. For all of our many faults, SA scores relatively well on the standard indicia of female subordination; certainly compared to countries in which women are nor allowed to vote, or drive cars, and where official ideology recognises the right of husbands to “chastise” wives. I have no doubt that patriarchy plays an important enabling role in all societies. But I think a proper understanding of SA’s uniquely high rate still eludes.

  • Jenny

    @Michael I think it filters down inevitably. With poverty comes frustration and a longing to possess – and the easiest thing to prove worth and manhood in the face of poverty are women and children. And if the social messages and indeed the political ones deem this okay, rape and violence become the norm. In those countries who do not allow women to drive etc, I don’t even think we are made aware of the amount of rape that goes on. At least we still have the relative ‘freedom’ to report it. But how long is that going to last?

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Jenny

    “With poverty comes frustration and a longing to possess – and the easiest thing to prove worth and manhood in the face of poverty are women and children.”

    Probably right; but you are going to find resistance on this point from those who deny that rape is relatively more prevalent among South African poor.

    Also, if you are correct in saying that rape is even more under-reported in the worst male-dominated societies – which I suspect you are – that casts some doubt on the stats depicting SA as the rape capital of the world.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Michael Osborne
    February 12, 2013 at 14:19 pm

    Hey Prof,

    “With poverty comes frustration and a longing to possess”

    You say that’s probably right????

    Please clarify.

  • Zoo Keeper


    Yes, a rapist would be frikken terrified of Lisbeth with a .45!

    A rapist is intent on raping. Rape is illegal and the criminal justice system is set up to prosecute people who break the law like the rapist. What the criminal justice system says or does is entirely irrelevant to his set of considerations.

    In the moment of confrontation, all that rapist is going to be thinking of is his own survival and running away from Lisbeth.

    Of course, if Lisbeth is disarmed the rapist has the advantage. Gun Free SA promote the path of least resistance, so under their rules Lisbeth must curl into a ball and beg for mercy. But he’s a rapist so he is going to rape Lisbeth no matter what she asks for.

    I would love Lisbeth to tell me which scenario she prefers – pointing her .45 at the rapist or curling into a ball and begging for mercy.

  • Zoo Keeper


    I would agree with MO. I too think the stats of rape in male-dominated societies are under-reported. I have heard chilling tales from places like Saudi and Dubai.

    For me, rape is firstly about power and domination, with lust being a minor motivating factor. You just have to see the violence that often accompanies these horror incidents to see that it is not about lust (but there will always be exceptions to the rule).

    I don’t think poverty itself is the problem, but I have a suspicion that low levels of education are more relevant considerations.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Maggs and Lisbeth

    My points about the choice to own weapons is based on the fact that the first responder at a crime scene is always the victim.

    The police are at best the third responders, after the second responder who has found the body and reported the crime.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Zoo Keeper
    February 12, 2013 at 15:27 pm


    “Yes, a rapist would be frikken terrified of Lisbeth with a .45!”

    But what if Lisbeth is confronted by two thugs with bigger .45s (say Brett and OB)?

    Anyway – the suggestion seems to be loaded with anti-poor innuendo implications, unless of course you are suggesting that the state rolls out a “one woman, one gun” programme.

    That could mean another 26 million guns!

    Hey what about male prisoners who are victims of rape – perhaps they too could be armed and dangerous.

    And the “choir boys” in churches.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Maggs

    “You say “Jennifer] is probably right????”

    OK, I take back the part about Jennifer probably being right about a “longing to possess. ” (Please ask her to explain.) But I still concur with her as to the rest of her second sentence.

  • Michael Osborne

    Zoo, I still do not understand how you can think it is practical to expect a woman to pre-emptively shoot any man she does not trust who approaches too closely. No doubt there are cases where a firearm would be most effective, the classic case being a home invasion, where one sees the assailant in the next room. But I get the impression that only a small proportion of rapes arise in this context, and that, in most cases the rapist is known to the victim or, if not, she is surprised, and would therefore not have the time to draw and shoot a weapon.

  • Zoo Keeper


    The thing about guns is that they are the great leveller. If Brett and OB stand in her way with a .45 each, all she needs is a .22 to make them think more than twice.

    Its about the fact she has one, not the size of the bullet, that counts (there’s a loaded innuendo waiting for you to exploit!).

    i don’t advocate arming each and every citizen, but I do advocate easier access if one makes the choice to have one, and robust defense of the rights to self-defense.

    We have the right to freedom and security of person, which rights the State is obliged to further. It is a suggestion wholly in line with the Constitution.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Zoo Keeper
    February 12, 2013 at 16:18 pm

    LOL ZooKy,

    “not the size of the bullet, that counts (there’s a loaded innuendo waiting for you to exploit!)”

    Now you’ve ruined the friendship with Brett an OB!

    Anyway – beneath all this is, the violent nature of our society. Adding more potential for violence is not going to make things any better.

    The police, the NPA, the courts and correctional services must all be pressured into doing their jobs while Pierre & Co debate longer term solutions!

  • Zoo Keeper


    I have not advocated women shooting anyone who approaches her too closely! each situation must be taken on its own merits. Any women who c=goes around shooting willy nilly will go to jail for murder, as she should.

    Just because I advocate for easier access, does not flow into an advocation of unprovoked violence! Indeed, with the choice comes responsibility – just like Spider Man’s uncle said!

    How and when rapes arise is a situational thing. A rape may arise from an attack by third parties, the victim may or may not be able to resist. That all depends on the actions of the attackers and the situational awareness of the victim (was she talking on her cell phone and not looking around her). Certainly, where the rapist is known to the victim, a firearm might be useless in the situation. However, if the rapist knows his victim does own a gun, he may be a little more cautious in case she comes after him! Certainly, he’d have to pick his moment more carefully.

    But, those points above aside, pointing out a firearm is not a 100% guaranteed defensive mechanism is a straw man. Its like saying because air bags don’t always work we should not allow anyone to have airbags in their cars.

    Nothing works 100% of the time. But whatever steps you take, they have to be aimed at encouraging personal safety thus reducing violent crime. If you seek to restrict anything, then you must prove that it works.

    As I’ve said earlier, I actually don’t own a firearm. but I have done the research and the gun-control lobby’s argument does not do what it says on the box. In fact, all I can find is that it leads to increases in violent crime (they focus on gun-related stuff to avoid dealing with the increases in violent crime that accompany their measures).

    The next thing is: do you have an armed response company protecting your neighbourhood and/or property? If you do, you cannot dismiss my argument because you rely on the overt threat of firearms as a deterrent to potential attackers. In this case, you are actually dependent on firearms for your own safety.

    Firearms are very, very rarely discharged in the general direction of another human being. Their primary role, like all weapons, is to deter attacks so they don’t have to be deployed. About 99% of us have an innate aversion to killing another human, see the US Marine Corps research into killing.

    The real Dodge City was a place of great peace and not the wild shoot ’em up gallery of Hollywood for example.

    And then of course you have to confront the right to freedom and security of person, and the obligation on the State to further that right, not restrict it.

  • Zoo Keeper


    You bring up a great point, thank you.

    The violence of our society.

    If you remove the ability of the weakest and most vulnerable to protect themselves in their hour of need, you allow society to be ruled by its lowest and most brutal members.

    Our society has very, very low firearm ownership stats by world standards – about 5% of households own a legal firearm (some of course own more than one which why in absolute terms we quite a few owned by a minority).

    Anene was not killed with a gun, she was ripped open with a blade. Most of our horrific crimes (such as rape) are committed with bladed weapons and blunt objects (including hands), not firearms.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Zookeeper

    “I have not advocated women shooting anyone who approaches her too closely! each situation must be taken on its own merits.”

    OK, then, I think we agree. I do not deny that a gun may well help in case of a home invasion. You agree that a gun will not usually prevent a rape if a women is surprised in the street, or attacked by someone she know well and trusts. Re armed response companies, I have no objection to them being armed; in fact, I think it is necessary. My main objection is to the gun lobby (and I am not saying this is you), exploiting every opportunity to advocate increased gun availability.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Now look what’s crawled out from under a rock!

    The violent nature of crime in South Africa should act as a wake-up call to all in society, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa said. …

    Mthethwa described the rape and murder of young girls and women as a “monster” which needed to be confronted by all South Africans.

    “The responsibility is really to all of us as society, that that humanity of ours, that ubuntu of ours, is very much needed in this time.”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa

    “That UBUNTU of ours, is very much needed in this time.”

    The Minister is right. No-one can say that govt is not acting decisively to combat the scourge of crime. I am supporting the Minister by demanding a 3-fold increase in the general level of UBUNTU in every sector of our society.

    Maggs, WDYS?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 12, 2013 at 17:35 pm

    Hey Dworky

    That sounds like shit coming from a raving lunatic than a Police Minister.

    Where the heck does Zuma pick up these characters???

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “Where the heck does Zuma pick up these characters???”

    Maggs, I don’t care what you say now. In the same circumstances (as I think you one said), I too would support Mr Zuma again.


  • Zoo Keeper


    I think we’re on the same page by and large.

    My main argument is that it is for the gun control lobby to prove their point. Thus far, as Brett will gleefully tell you, they haven’t got the evidence to back their claims up. In fact, from what I’ve gleaned the evidence is against them pretty much 100%.

    It is also goes to the heart of what a Bill of Rights real purpose is. The Bill of Rights is not a nice, feel good document at all. It is a very serious document indeed.

    Its main purpose is to stop State tyranny, and record where the State cannot go with individual rights. Its all about protecting us against the State, and not much else. Sure, there are some benefits on the side in the horizontal application but these are actually very much secondary.

    When you look at it that way, and view (as I said above), with the police and military as part and parcel of the society as a whole, each as much a part of the other, the restrictions on the rights to own weapons becomes more and more difficult to justify.

    That and the age-old philosophical question: What is law? Its the set of rules made by the guy with the biggest and mostest guns! Jokes aside, it is really not that far off.

    This is where I have my problems with the gun control lobby. They view the Bill of Rights almost as a luxury or a given, not the absolute necessity to be treasured and protected at all costs.

    They also view the police and military as separate entities from the society, thus corralling the society with walls of steel. Society becomes divided into police, military and civilians. The civilians in the middle being told what they can and cannot do. I can’t stand that because I believe in maximum freedom – more libertarian than anything else.

    Its amazing that the left-wing is responsible for the greatest blights on our freedoms yet they have managed to blame those on the right wing! Fascism, communism, socialism, even Apartheid was socialist in its nature, have all had this world view and have all caused more death and destruction than even religion! Gun control is central to these philosophies, because its all about subjugation and control in the end.

    I tried really hard to dismiss that argument but the wheel of evidence keeps bringing it back up. So I’m not being a conspiracy theorist, the evidence is showing that it is actually the case!

    So this is where the gun control lobby argument falls apart at the seams and why I distrust it so much – the violent crime argument. Simply because gun control has never, ever had anything to do with violent crime. Even the “celebrated” UK’s laws are designed to avoid a rebellion by the working class and nothing else.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Zoo Keeper

    “In fact, from what I’ve gleaned the evidence is against [gun control] pretty much 100%.”

    Here you overstate your case. There is evidence that, in certain instances, increased availability of guns in a society contributes towards (note that I did not say causes), violent crime. You may wish to say the evidence is wrong, or needs to be critiqued, or that it is outweighed by other evidence, but you cannot deny that it is just not there.

    You say that the UK’s laws “are designed to avoid a rebellion by the working class and nothing else.” Even if that is so, what the laws were designed for is not the point. There is an amount of knife crime in some parts of the UK, but murder by gunshot is tiny compared to the U.S. I find it hard to believe that at least some of the people with a propensity for violence would have used a gun rather than a knife if the steets were awash with unlawful guns, as they are in parts of the U.S.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 12, 2013 at 17:44 pm


    “In the same circumstances (as I think you one said), I too would support Mr Zuma again.”

    Guilty as charged.

    But I was young then and had a lot to learn!


  • Jama ka Sijadu

    How about giving our girls & women some killer self-defense training from an early age as a start?
    Teach them to break fingers, gouge eyes, crack windpipes, crush testicles or whatever they need to do to escape these situations quickly?
    Some in India have even suggested women carry around a little chilli powder, to rub into a potential rapist’s eyes when they get a chance.
    Being able to surprise & immobilize an attacker even for a few seconds can sometimes make a huge difference in these situations.

    What stops us from setting up specially trained sexual violence units in the police & the prosecuting authority, or specialised courts to ‘fast-track’ rape cases, having police keeping tabs on people that have been charged with violent sexual offences (even if they’ve been acquitted?) so that they know they are being watched?
    Whether driven by lust, or drugs, or a desire for power, the one things that emboldens rapists (& in fact all other criminals in South Africa) is the belief that they will not get caught. If we can just get the police / justice system to do its work properly, half the battle will already be won.

    One thing I have always wondered about is why there are always such swift arrests in high profile / cases that receive a lot of attention from the corporate media & politicians, whilst other cases are ignored, or “under-worked” by the police?
    The chauvinistic attitude of some in the police force towards victims of rape has also contributed heavily to the under-reporting of rape as well as cases being dropped, so some sensitivity training is in order as well, not to mention training on the proper collection & handling of evidence.

    What we cannot get away from is morality: we must teach our children respect for others, respect for themselves & the “appropriate” expression of sexual & aggressive urges.
    This “Do as thou wilt” type of elastic morality will be the ruin of our country if we are not careful.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Jama

    “How about giving our girls & women some killer self-defense training from an early age as a start?”

    Another brilliant idea:

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    It’s rather disturbing that several of the comments seem to be centered on the notion that if women are able to defend themselves better then rape will decrease by extension it’s women’s vulnerability which is the cause of rape.

    Of course victims are vulnerable people – whether it’s a 2 week old baby, a 85 year old grandma, a 105 kg male prisoner.

    The solution does not lie in getting people trained and prepared to defend themselves against rapists – it lies in society protecting and defending its people.

    In the longer term the kind of suggestions which Pierre makes.

    In the shorter term rapidly removing those guilty of the brutality and violence from society by putting the kind of pressure on the relevant authorities needed to make them do their work and do it properly!

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (


    A carefully crafted, evil crime plotted and planned by a “mentally unstable” rapist?

    Some magistrates and judges need to be incarcerated in these “mental institutions”.

  • Jama kaSijadu

    Hey Maggs

    Whilst vulnerability is certainly not the cause of rape, fact is these criminals are invariably cowards who love a soft target & they will think twice before attacking someone who can defend themselves.
    Whilst I agree that putting pressure on relevant authorities is our duty as citizens, I am a father of two young girls & waiting for “ghavament” (led by a man who was once charged with rape) to do its job is not a practical solution for me given the current rape stats etc. Can we not get a little more ‘hands on’ in our suggested remedies?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Jama kaSijadu
    February 12, 2013 at 19:54 pm


    “I am a father of two young girls”

    That’s even more reason why we should be focusing on sound, sensible and workable solutions.

    In the process of trying to find ways to defend our nearest and dearest, let be alive to the possibility that with the kind of suggestions here at least may well turn them into paranoid, nervous wrecks.

  • Brett Nortje

    It has been 13 years since Coetzee published ‘Disgrace’, Maggs and neatly encapsulated the zeitgeist prevailing among ‘progressives’ like you and Pierrot and Vice in Lucy.

    ‘It is our lot. We have to suffer it’….

    Your weltanschaung is an utter failure, Maggs, and you have no right to sacrifice more people on its altar. Are 500 000 not enough?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Brett Nortje
    February 12, 2013 at 20:34 pm

    Well G,

    No comment!!!!

    After days without resolution, Dorner’s fugitive status caused concern among some and downright fear among others in the upscale community that the FBI consistently ranks among the safest cities in the U.S.

    “If he did come around this corner, what could happen? We’re in the crossfire, with the cops right there,” said Irvine resident Joe Palacio, who lives down the street from a home surrounded by authorities protecting a police captain mentioned in Dorner’s posting.

    The neighborhood has been flooded with authorities since Wednesday. Residents have seen police helicopters circle and cruisers stake out schools. Some have responded by keeping their children home. Others no longer walk their dogs at night.

    Dorner’s background added to the anxiety. The former LAPD officer also served in the Navy, earning a rifle marksman ribbon and a pistol expert medal. He was assigned to a naval undersea warfare unit and various aviation training units, according to military records. In his online manifesto, Dorner vowed to use “every bit of small arms training, demolition, ordnance and survival training I’ve been given” to bring “warfare” to the LAPD and its families.

  • Jama kaSijadu

    “the kind of suggestions here at least may well turn them into paranoid, nervous wrecks.”

    I’m all for “sound, sensible & workable”, but also favour action rather than platitudes. I mean we don’t have to wait for “patriarchy” to be overturned or whatever…
    Practical example: I can convince my friend (who boasts to me that he rapes his girlfriend if she refuses him sex) that what he is doing is not cool, that its criminal.
    But should I actually not frog march that ‘poor’ girlfriend to the police station, insist she open a case against my friend?

  • Brett Nortje

    I asked here on this blog years ago how a 16yo who lives in a squatter camp courts a girl in his class who lives in an RDP house and has a head filled with cellphones and shiny things – in short, a game show mentality. That kid is going to watch the ‘Big Man’ get the girls his whole life. Particularly in a country where you have an institution like lobola.

    Last week Monday during lunch I stood in a queue for half-an-hour. Black people not having enough money for the things that had already been rung up and putting things back. Staples. Like rice and potatoes. This country has not known real economic hardship in 23 years. Just the ANC wheelspinning for 18 years instead of repairing the damage caused by sanctions and disinvestment and Cosatu killing jobs.

    What are we going to do when things get really, really tough?

    In front of me was the world’s meanest granny, five foot of frown. And her grandson in his 20s. She let him keep a 2l Stoney and a packet of chips but like I say they also had to put staples back.

    Is it a natural situation? Being dependant on your granny when you’re 25?

    But, this shouldn’t be our inquiry. If we fixate on the ‘why’ we’re never going to get around to the solution.

  • Maggs Naidu


    It seems that you haven’t read my comments. The immediate step is to force the state agencies and institutions to do their work.

    P.s. Choose your friends more carefully. A rapist will not be my friend!

  • Brett Nortje

    Please, Maggs. Who fukked up the administration of the criminal justice system in the first place?

    Now you’re trying to fob us off with solutions revolving around the people who created the mess in the first place.

    Why is ‘now’ different to the last 18 years?

    And you DO NOT believe in miracles? Divine intervention?

  • Gwebecimele

    Lol! Where do ushop?
    Did u see Tiger brands,absa results the consumers are near breaking point? Bring e-toll, eskom hikes, municipality rates hikes and we are on our way to zim.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Brett Nortje

    Where I’m often the only white face.

    Hard times have hit – hard. Strangely enough the manager – this family always owned the cafes where I grew up, then they branched out into cash&carry type supermarkets – says sales were up 30% over Christmas.

    But I saw the people buying – stokvels – from as far away as Rustenburg.

  • Jama kaSijadu


    With the greatest of respect, no offence, but I only visit this blog to read the Prof’s comments…& the occassional Fassbinder “Ubuntu” rejoinder. The rest…
    Seriously though I’ve just read something u posted 3 DAYS ago to Michelle Solomon & I agree, except to say that there are more practical ways to fight rape & abuse than just petitioning state agencies to do what they are in any case paid to do.

    PS: you think you know someone until they spill their guts to you over a bottle of whisky…are u suggesting we should brand rapists on their foreheads so they can be easily recognised by all who cross paths with them?

  • Jama kaSijadu

    PPS: state agencies only seem to listen to us when we burn stuff…

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    an interesting perspective …

    Rapists aren’t going to read a Tweet and realise the error of their ways. So, for all the solidarity that these public shows of support provide, we need to do more. I don’t know what that could be

  • Zoo Keeper


    The proponents of gun control rely on their intervention being a necessary requirement to reduce violent crime. If this is correct, then following the introduction of these measures, there should be a statistically significant drop in violent crime after their introduction – not so? The result should show long term decreases following the sharp initial drop.

    Violent crime will not disappear, but will drop markedly.

    This should be the pattern across countries where it has been introduced, absolute numbers not being relevant, but the trends. The UK suffered a spike in violent crime almost immediately post-Dunblane bans – completely opposite to the advertised effect. Jamaica and Ireland, both enacted some of the world’s most stringent gun control laws in the 1970s, yet both suffered massive spikes in violent crime almost immediately thereafter. Australia has seen no reduction in violent crime consequent upon the measures being introduced. The UK police are now under-reporting violent crime to keep the stats low. If gun control was the panacea its is claimed to be the British bobbies should be bored instead of running away.

    Handgun crime in the UK spiked after the Dunblane bans and continues at a higher rate than pre-Dunblane. Knife crime is getter higher and higher, because perpetrators can closer and closer.

    Mexico has extremely hard gun control laws, yet has massive gun-crime figures.

    The US is “awash” in legal firearms. Ownership there is about 1 firearm per person. About one third are handguns. There are approximately 100 million legal handguns in the US. Yet, the US has a total firearm homicide (excluding suicides which are irrelevant) figure which matches ours! We have approximately 2.7million legal firearms owned by about 5% of the population (mostly rifles). We’re a very gun-light country and yet we’re a violent crime heavy country. The gun control enacted here has had no effect on violent crime at all. The trends have remained unaffected.

    So you see, my point is that it is for those who wish to restrict a right to prove that their restriction is reasonable and justifiable. This proof cannot rely on the odd exception which may be out there, but has to be a general rule of the intervention. It very clearly is not the general rule and in most instances has had a negative effect.

    If this is so, that it is a negative, then restricting lawful ownership has no reasonable and justifiable purpose related to gun and violent crime.

    The latest US debate revolves around so-called assault rifles. However, firearm homicides by these “assault rifles” are statistically insignificant – handguns are the most prevalent tool. Tens of millions of these are in legal circulation already. Colombine happened in the middle of the last ban. An “assault rifle” was only one of three guns used at Sandy Hook yet it is the only type focused on. So why the focus on these particular weapons? What makes politicians so afraid of them?

    If it has no crime-related purpose then, we’re left with finding the true purpose, and the only purpose which raises its hand is control of the society by the political elite.

    Its a favorite of the gun rights lobby to point out that about 250million people were murdered by their own governments during the 20th century, nearly all following gun control measures – Germany 1938, Russia, China, Cambodia, Malaysia, Burma. This excludes battle figures from wars, such as WW1 and WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc.

    We’re just out of a violent battle with a tyrannical regime, and our constitution is drafted based on inherent mistrust of politicians (why else restrict the terms of a president for example). Just after these battles, the right to own weapons by the population is often recognized as an absolute necessity to prevent it happening again. The English used to be “the most free people in the world” because they could own any weapon the army could. Now the English have gotten lazy with their freedom, and have even lost freedom of expression – criminal sanctions for “offensive” tweets are being handed out!?

    “Give me your freedom and I’ll keep you safe” is the embrace of the python. I can’t blame the gun rights lobby for jumping on every opportunity to state their cause, simply because they’re under siege almost permanently. Certainly, the gun control lobby shows very little restraint.

    If there is no proof that the measure is reasonable and justifiable, then the measure must be consigned to the dustbin. Like communism, gun control sounds nice and makes sense. Until you engage your brain and examine the evidence that is.

  • Michael Osborne


    “The proponents of gun control rely on their intervention being a necessary requirement to reduce violent crime. If this is correct, then following the introduction of these measures, there should be a statistically significant drop in violent crime after their introduction – not so?”

    Zookeeper, this would follow only if water-tight restrictions on the sale of weapons were followed up with effective steps to remove the firearms already in circulation. That would need a suspension of the Constitution to allow house-to-house searches. Otherwise, even if you shut off the spigot immediate, in countries like the US and SA, there would remain more than enough guns on the street for a generation or more.

    I think this argument from futility is probably the best argument against gun control that can be made.

    That being said, to argue that guns, like other technologies, do not in principle increase killing power is absurd. One reason why wars in the 20th century killed so many more people than conflicts in the 19th century was that the technological means of war became more efficient. You can kill more people per second with a H-bomb than with high explosives, with an artillery shell than with a rifle, with an automatic rifle than with a single-shot musket, and so on.

    Once you admit – which you must – that the injection of technology has a tendency to increase the kill rate, the more sensible discussion can begin. You can argue that, whatever adverse impact the availability of guns may have must be balanced by the essentially political reason why the citizenry must be armed. As you have said, a disarmed citizenry is helpless against the potential tyranny of its own leaders. (Deriving from John Locke’s concept of the social contract; the people always have the right to overthrow the government, by force if necessary, if the government reneges on the contract.)

    This is the more interesting argument that lies behind much of the gun control debate as it ordinarily runs on radio talk shows. But it seems to me we can never get to that debate. The discussion is dominated by extremists who are incapable of seeing any merit at all in the other side’s point of view. On the one hand, people argue, implausibly, that guns can never, ever, contribute to criminal violence. On the other hand, there are those who think that gun control is a panacea for all social ills. Can we not move beyond that foolish polarity?

  • Brett Nortje

    But, Michael, we did!

    The 1969 Arms and Ammunition Act was regarded as pretty sensible legislation by a lot of gunowners. But, for the gun prohibitionists that was not enough. They are never satisified.

    Since then, the break-down in trust has been irretrievable.

  • StevenI

    When I was a kid in the UK in the 70’s reading about Judge Dredd in the “Action comic he had a gun called “The Lawgiver”.

    If any unauthorised person tried to use the gun it would explode!

    We might not need the explosion (?) but is there not technology out there that could would allow only the authorised user to fire it?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    The thing about a regular gun is that it looks scary. When it comes to real weapons, we’re used to guns that are black or metallic. But what happens when the gun is pink, or another bright color? Chances are if you’ve seen a colored gun, it’s almost always been a toy. And that’s exactly what happened in Greenville, South Carolina, where a 3-year-old boy was fatally wounded when he and his 7-year-old sister were playing with a pink gun and mistook it for a toy.

  • Zoo Keeper


    I agree with you, there are polarizing opinions on both sides.

    And I agree, the logical conclusion to gun control is beset by futility.

    I want to get to that debate too – the essence is as you say: the right of the citizen to bear arms and guard against tyranny, versus the negative effect (if any) of increased availability of firearms to the general public.

    It an argument that needs information and education outside of Hollywood special effects studios!

    Yes, semi automatic rifles do make killing more efficient than muskets. I will never disagree that technological advances have not had this effect (that would be absurd).

    Newer bullets, composite structures and better designs have of course increased the effectiveness of the gun. A musket is no comparison to an M16 for example. But simply because one is better than the other, does not win the argument.

    The argument must go then that the increased efficiency of firearms is increasing violent crime and then that it is a valid crime prevention method to keep these things out of lawful hands. Remember, these initiatives only target the lawful, the unlawful have never obeyed the law so it has no bearing on their decision-making process.

    The US is the best example. Very efficient guns are in plentiful hands in the US, but despite their huge presence, there is no correlation to increased violent crime. In fact, the concealed carry laws have made a noticeable positive effect on contact crime in places like Washington DC and Chicago. US crime figures are on a long-term downward trend as firearm ownership sky-rockets.

    Therefore, notwithstanding the increased effectiveness of the technology, these technologies are not being put to evil use on a scale commensurate with their technological advances. It is arguable that as the power in the hands of the law-abiding increases, the criminal, even if he has access to equal weaponry, will still shy away from conflict because it is simply too risky. If you take the lawful firearm away, the risk to criminal diminishes drastically and his propensity to commit contact crime increases.

    An interesting figure is the rate of home invasions in UK vs US – 53% in the UK occur whilst the homeowner is home, because the criminal has nothing to fear. That and if the homeowner resists outside of a narrow band of parameters, he will usually be punished harder than the criminal (which is why they are having such confused debates on self-defense in the UK).

    The US is at about 13% by contrast, because criminals are too scared of being shot. They also case the joint 2 or 3 times before going in on average, as opposed to the UK where casing the joint is rarely undertaken.

    Interestingly though, the great killers of the modern battlefield is ranged ordnance. During the Battle of the Somme, despite popular myth, about 37% of casualties on the British side were caused by bullets, the rest by artillery and mortar fire.

    Most of WW1 and 2’s deaths were caused by bombing or artillery. In History of War (forget the author) one of the most common fragments found in battlefield corpses were the bones and teeth of the man standing next to him! Gruesome stuff, but testament to the fact the personal firearms are not the great killing machines Hollywood makes them out to be.

    As technology has been perfected, we’re killing each other at longer ranges, now into drone warfare in which the protagonists are physically continents apart!

    Humans have a natural aversion to killing another human face to face strangely enough. The US Marines studied the conduct of their front line troops through all the D-Days in the Pacific Theater. They found that only about 25% of troops engaged in combat actually fired in the general direction of the enemy. Of the total, about 1% were taking aim and deliberately killing their enemy. That shows how difficult it is, even in battle, to aim at another human and kill him. This obviously covered shooting, not hand-to-hand stuff. That 1% are the ones who come back mentally intact, the others are usually suffering PTSD.

    The other thing is that battlefield theory has changed. Gone are the hunting grade cartridges of WW1 and 2 (.303 and 30/06 and 7.92) and they are replaced with the much weaker .223. This cartridge is designed to wound, the theory being that a wounded comrade draws more troops out of combat to care for him than a dead one. And its lighter so a troop can carry more rounds.

    Which also gives the lie to the media’s loud proclamations of “powerful assault rifles”. They’re getting weaker and the bullets are getting smaller because killing is no longer the main purpose! Some are being issued in the 4mm range (that’s the same as the common air rifle!).

    The tool being discussed needs to be thoroughly understood, and the stats thoroughly investigated, but it is beset by ignorant hype, especially in the media. I find the gun control lobby the most hysterical and least educated in respect of firearms. Not to say the gun lobby is free of the same, but the prevalent theme there is a response based on facts and figures, and combat and policing strategies which work.

    And finally, given the massive death toll of the 20th century, the onus lies squarely on the gun control lobby to prove its case, in respect of violent crime. Importantly though, they must conclusively establish that their measures increase protection against government tyranny. Government tyranny is usually exercised through the police and military, the very organizations the gun control lobby believes should be the only ones carrying arms!

  • Zoo Keeper


    There is some kind of palm print stuff out there but it is hugely expensive, and what if it malfunctions at the moment critique – that would expose the manufacturer to serious lawsuits.

    You would also be looking at retro-fitting millions of items. Whose gonna pay?

    Nice concept, but destroyed by its own futility.

  • Brett Nortje

    Steven, the problem I have with your suggestion is ‘why?’

    The owners of licenced handguns do not abuse them at nearly the rate the SAPS abuse their service pistols so what mischief are you trying to address?

    I’ve proposed here many times that the state subsidise a Baby Browning each for every woman who cannot afford one, but we all know the weapons these women are most likely going to use are knives….

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Zookeeper

    Re the libertarian argument for the right to bear arms. I know that the NRA always argues that there is no need to ban assault rifles, because, whilst it is true that spectacular shoot-ups, like Sandy Hook often, feature such weapons, the vast majority of fatalities involve handguns. (Which is, I understand, a fact.) NRA further says that assault rifles in particular must be allowed because of the rationale you mentioned – an armed citizenry is the best defence against tyrants.

    But that makes me wonder: why does the NRA stops at assault rifles? After all, citizens bearing only rifles would have little chance against the state’s forces, with its tanks, airforce, missiles, and drones. So, logically, should not the NRA also demand the right of citizens to bear heavy weapons too, in order to even the odds?

    The same argument would apply too in SA. WDYS?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, I can’t shake the feeling that the DA is EXPLOITING the Limpopo so-called textbook crisis, just to bash the ANC. Is this not politically immoral?


  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 13, 2013 at 19:52 pm


    “Maggs, I can’t shake the feeling that the DA is EXPLOITING the Limpopo so-called textbook crisis, just to bash the ANC.”

    Not only the DA.

    The GRANDSTANDING Section 27 has joined with the enemy!

    The Limpopo education department accused Section27 of “grandstanding”.

    “It is unfortunate that Section27 decided to grandstand and declare themselves champions of service delivery in our schools,” said spokesman Pat Kgomo.

    “We welcome their continuous engagements with us, but not to the extent of them overstating their importance over the department.”

  • Gwebecimele
  • StevenI

    @ Brett

    “Steven, the problem I have with your suggestion is ‘why?'”

    The only weapons that will work should, in theory, only be in the hands of the good guys

  • Brett Nortje

    Yep. I understand. This is a favourite fall-back position of ‘progressive’ change-agents who have been argued to a standstill on the demerits of gun control.

    The point is in this country the good guys are better guys than the cops.

    And I certainly wouldn’t want to see cops having to wait for their handguns to user-ID them while under fire from a heist-gang armed with AK47s and a rogue cop or two armed with R4s.

  • Zoo Keeper


    Without a philosophical divide between the military and the citizen, then the citizen should have the right to own tanks, missiles etc. In fact, in the US you can own tanks with live weapons in some states.

    Remember, the bigger the item, the more expensive it is to operate. I watched a TV show the other day and these guys were re-conditioning a 40mm Bofors gun for a client.

    The sheer cost of large items keeps them out of almost all of the citizens’ hands so they are actually a bit of a straw man. When it comes to cutting edge technology, like drones, the can be a rationale of keeping the knowledge that accompanies these things out of enemy hands. But where the tech is fairly “old school”, then philosophically there should be no problem.

    In SA, why should someone not be able to own a G5 artillery piece and shoot it on a range somewhere? If he can afford the millions in the purchase price and (I’m guessing here) but probably R100k per shot you’re looking at less than a handful of persons who could enjoy the game!

    Unless the technology is cutting edge and it is vital for national security to be kept out of enemy hands, the reasons for not allowing ownership in private hands becomes a difficult one to generate.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (


    As Brett will say, guns don’t kill people, people kill people!

    Celebrity athlete Oscar Pistorius has shot and killed his girlfriend of more than a year.

    According to a brief report on, Pistorius mistook her for an intruder in his house in Silver Lakes, Pretoria.

    The incident happened at around 4am today.

    Captain Sarah Mcira confirmed Pistorius’ girlfriend was shot in the arm and head. She died on the scene.

    Pistorius is apparently in police custody.

  • Pingback: V-Day « Rebuilding Foundations()

  • Brett Nortje

    As Lord Atkin said in Liversedge v Anderton when he held the internment of all German-born UK citizens because there was a war on with Germany was unlawful – freedom is a timerous thing.

    There are no guarantees, except that you are free.

    To live in a free and open society requires robustness.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Imagine the double breach of trust in the case of N’s grandchild: your grandfather rapes you and then your granny beats you up when she finds out.

    This child’s story stresses the need for family trust and support so that women and girls will have the confidence to seek help after sexual molestation of any kind. When even your own family can’t be counted on to stand by you, who will have the courage to lay an official charge?

    It illustrates another problem: the grandmother who assaulted the girl was herself assaulted by her husband. Where violence and abuse are part of the behaviour of one generation, it’s only too likely that the pattern will repeat itself. Where a man assaults a woman with impunity, rape is only a little further down the line.

    What appals me most about this story though is that both grandparents treated the girl as an object, a ‘thing’ to be assaulted or raped at their pleasure. Not much different, is it, from the thinking of those who raped and killed Anene Booysen?

  • Brett Nortje

    I’m also scared Anene didn’t have a nice life but had nowhere else to go.

    The real problem here isn’t so much failing families as a failing state. Remember that report I posted a couple of years ago where a schoolgirl was sitting in class in Daveyton learning that if she said no it was rape and if she was under 16 and she jumped up and said ‘teacher next door did that to me!’

    WHat happened in that case? There were about 14 complainants?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Zookeeper, we are agreed then that, if one takes seriously the proposal that an armed citizenry is the best defence against tyranny, one would want citizens to bear not just small arms, but also tanks, artillery – subject of course to the practical costs constraints you mention.

    Presumably also, there, can be no objection to armed citizens forming militias, meeting at weekends etc (on private property), to drill, exercise, and conduct war games? Finally, can we agree that there is no reason in principle, subject again to cost constraints, that private militias should not obtain fighter planes, gunboats, etc?

  • Zoo Keeper


    We’re getting to the nub of the issue. in principle, those things you mention should be allowed.

    It is then for those who wish to take those rights away, to prove that the restrictions are reasonable and justifiable. It is not for those who wish to have a shoot ’em up on a weekend to justify their actions to anybody, which is currently the case.

    Take for example a Mig17. Costs about US60 000 to buy a flyable one, but about an extra US100 000 to get ship-shape for regular flying. Then the operating costs are about US3500/hour for 50 hours per years. So anyone wanting to buy one in SA would have to fork out about R1.6 million to have it in the hanger, then R30k per hour flying time. You haven’t even bought the machine gun and bullets which will probably cost another US75 000. No missiles have been fitted yet.

    Want a supersonic jet like a second hand F5 and you’re looking at millions of dollars. Ships are even more expensive – plus you need a crew trained and paid.

    These items are designed to be used by countries and cost a fortune, which is why they are a straw man. because they could never be used in large numbers.

    BUT the concept that they are available is a very, very powerful one indeed – and a chilling one to those who wish to exercise unfettered power.

    The debate is currently set in the “I can’t see why a civilian should be allowed” instead of “the reasons for not allowing members of society who are not part of the standing military to do the following is: … ”

    A heavily armed society is a tough proposition for a politician, because you’ve got to do what they tell you to do. And politicians simply cannot stand being told what to do!

    The other straw man is “well what could those hill billies do against an M1 Abrams” so there’s no need to own these things because they would not be effective.

    In order to deploy said M1 Abrams, the politicians would have to take the political decision to deploy such equipment against their own people. Not only that, but in order to passify a country, you need to deploy exponentially more troops and keep them deployed against their own countrymen. Keeping morale up and mutiny at bay would be extremely difficult.

    A large regular army quickly gets stretched beyond its limits in these situations and guerrilla warfare will see it losing in the long run (Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, now the US, Napoleon in Russia etc, etc.). It would never be a set-piece battle in which the hill billies would always lose. It would always be a guerrilla action in which the regular army would eventually lose and the politicians would be jailed.

    The politicians know this, which is why they set up these straw men. An armed citizenry is not an exercise in futility in the slightest.

  • Michael Osborne

    Zookeeper, please pay no attention to MDF, who, as is his wont, attempts to hijack our serious discussion with absurd flights of fancy.

    That said, I too am curious to explore just how far you are prepared to push your line of reasoning. Re cost constraints: I think a very wealthy individual, and certainly corporations, would be able to afford to assemble an effective little Air Force . (And it would not take much to compete with the SA Air Force, if the reports about its degradation are to be believed.)

    There are plenty of examples in history of private militias becoming powerful enough to challenge relatively weak states.

    The whole basis of modern statehood has always been the notion that the state enjoys a monopoly of violence – that is a line of thinking that comes through Hobbes and Locke. If you seriously wish to remove from the state its monopoly on violence, you are in the philosophical territory of anarchism. Under that philosophy, the state has no special legitimacy. It is just another armed group, attempting to claim the mantle of legitimacy. If so, it makes perfect sense that groups of private citizens should voluntarily form armed militias to compete with the state, and with each other.

    Is there where your reasoning takes you?

  • Anne Hill

    Many an activist career started with signing a petition – most ordinary people need a platform to get going. Don’t knock it. Every little bit counts in the end. What’s YOUR next move? By the way, why are most signatories female? Rape is overwhelmingly a male problem; females are overwhelmingly suffering the damage. Males should be gathering in their millions to address the scourge.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Zookeeper, I am now persuaded by your argument. I recall Brett’s suggestion a while back that there is no reason in principle that private militias should not have a stock of small tactical nuclear weapons — at least in countries like the U.S., where the govt keeps thousands of such weapons. That will “level the playing field”. (As well as everything else.)

  • Zoo Keeper


    MDF has kept me entertained for years!

    True, a company or wealthy individual could conceivably challenge the legitimacy of the weak state.

    However, where that State has allowed its citizens the right to bear arms, that company or wealthy individual will face the same challenge and difficulty of establishing legitimacy against an armed populace. The only chance said company or individual has to succeed is to go on the offensive against the people using his mercenaries. Whilst he won’t be held back by political considerations, establishing hegemony over a restive and armed population will prove impossible.

    The only way for the company or individual to win is to disarm that population – Stalin for example.

    Its a circular argument because you come back to the same safe-guard – the well-armed society.

    In respect of the duty to maintain a military; if a State has allowed its military to degenerate like ours has, that is a critical failure of the State. The State is duty-bound to maintain a strong military to protect the society. Because of the cost of these machines, the running of an effective military is really only possible with tax money. Ergo, the State has to ensure the economy prospers as much as possible to allow it to receive enough money to defend the society.

    And also, because the State is failing, it cannot ever follow that the citizens should lose rights to keep the balance – i.e. weak state = reduced rights to own weapons. There is perhaps a strong argument that the weaker the State gets, the stronger the society must become because it will become the frontline.

    If the society has beaten its swords into ploughshares, then it will plough for someone else.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Zookeeper

    “where that State has allowed its citizens the right to bear arms, that company or wealthy individual will face the same challenge and difficulty of establishing legitimacy against an armed populace”

    True enough. So, presumably, if one wealthy group builds a strong private army – as did “General” Aidid in Somalia – another competing group will feel the need to build up an equally powerful army of its own. Now we will potentially have two private armed forces, and the govt’s army in the middle, and an arms race between all.

    But let us be clear: You really have no problem with a private individual, or a wealthy group or an alliance of private citizens, building a private army, complete with artillery, tanks, Air Force and Navy, if they can afford it all? Is that really your position?

    Please confirm that is truly your position, then we can continue to work out the implications of what you are proposing.

  • Zoo Keeper


    For the purposes of our debate, lets assume that is my position and work our way through it?

    Shall we set some boundaries and use a low-tech country as a starting point to avoid glib points (at least keep them at bay for a longer period)?

    The reason I propose this is that are valid reasons for high-tech weaponry not being disclosed widely in case their secrets of operation get to the enemy. This would include nuclear weapons and advanced missile systems, drones etc; but not common, low-tech weaponry such as machine guns and assault rifles, tanks and artillery, gunships and old aeroplanes with guns, maybe rockets and dumb bombs.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Brett Nortje
    February 14, 2013 at 9:33 am

    Hey G,

    So Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend.

    His life was not threatened.

    He is sad!


    p.s. if she had a gun would she have been alive today?

  • Michael Osborne

    OK, we can debate on that basis. But a preliminary point. I can understand you saying a govt will not want to share high tech equipment with private citizens, lest it be leaked to foreign enemies. But suppose that the private militias are able to obtain such weapons on their own, say on the international black market? (I saw a report about Mexican drug cartels potentially getting drones in the future.)
    Does that take care of your problem?

  • Katlego Matsila

    Re your statement Pierre that some men think and say that “We are not like that. We are different. We are innocent. Unlike the monsters who rape and murder women. Those brutes must be hanged.”

    Well, I have encountered this statement, especially in “racialised” contexts (I am sure we all know very well what that means, though of course we don’t speak about it). But it looks like the hen has come to roost,we have a man who has not been considered a “brut” or one of the “monster who rape and murder women” by many other men, police hinted at the possibility of him having a history of GBV (actually i prefer the term, Men’s Violence Against Women – MVW), and his recent murder of a 30 year old model may well be an act of MVW, we will see. So our beloved, lily white, fast, courageous, strong willed, freedom seeking, and ground breaking Oscar may be that brut, one of those monsters who rape and murder women (and it is entire possible to be beloved, trail blazing, freedom seeking and murderous all at once – a lot of men do that everyday).

    So… stop pointing fingers, and take a hard long look in the mirror of yourself and of your brothers. It will probably take 5 years even 10 years on that mirror for you to transform your relationship to women, and the results of it will bring plenty of beauty and true love and peace.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Stanley Modikane was arrested in the early hours of Tuesday morning at his home in Mayfield extension 5, Daveyton, Johannesburg, after allegedly beheading his wife Phumeza, with whom he had fathered three children.

    Phumeza was murdered on Monday night.

    It is alleged that Modikane had instructed his children – a 14-year-old boy and two girls aged 4 and 10 – to keep their mother’s death a secret because her head would “bring riches” to their home and he would then be able to find them a new mother.

    His children are said to have found him talking to their mother’s head in the bathroom.

  • Mirko

    Interesting take and one I can readily agree with. Possibly, “male toughness” and other figments of masculinity are to blame.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Katlego

    “our lily white Oscar …”

    Thanks, Katlego. As with all crime, it is important that we establish the RACIAL context early on — just so we know what we are dealing with!

  • Brett Nortje

    Don’t be a twit, Katlego!

    Medical Research Council POLICY BRIEF No. 5, June 2004 showed that the intimate femicide rate among whites is 2,8 per 100 000, a fraction of the overall intimate femicide rate of 8,8 per 100 000.

    Katlego Matsila says:
    February 14, 2013 at 18:23 pm

  • Brett Nortje

    Firearms and women

    With the current focus on safety for women I find it even more difficult to believe that the NGOs, SAPS, Safety and Security and Government are all blissfully unaware of Orlando Florida, which solved its rape epidemic problem.

    In 1966 Orlando Florida had a rape epidemic, they did not declare the town rape free or crime free, set up safe zones, suggest women lay back and enjoy it, beg and plead or have busy bodies handing out pamphlets telling women to stay at home for their own safety. The police (considerably more enlightened and pro-active than the SA version) set up a training program to train some 3000 women with firearms, encouraging them to purchase their own if they did not own a firearm. This training program was much publicised in the media.

    What were the results? The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women trained actually ended up firing her firearm; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed. Five years later Orlando’s rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.

    The cost of this intervention, which gave the phenomenal results, was insignificant. No other intervention has shown greater promise of drastically reducing rape and other crimes.

    At least 40,000 other women of Orlando derived a direct benefit and owe a great gratitude to those brave women who undertook training and accepted responsibility for their own safety.

    While the results of Orlando are subject to much debate the results of other similar publicised training programs for armed merchants sharply reduced robberies in stores in Highland Park, Michigan, and in New Orleans; a grocer’s organisation’s gun clinics produced the same result in Detroit. More recently the removal of gun control laws and relaxing or removal of right to carry laws has seen a revolution in crime reduction. The USA now has the lowest crime rate in its recorded history.

    What can be said of any organisation that promotes gun control and advises women not to fight back and give everything including rape to criminals?

  • Michael Osborne

    Zookeeper, another thing: Can I assume you have no objection, in principle, and obviously subject to the fact that the costs would be enormous, to private militias weaponizing their own nuclear weapons? (Provided again that the technology was not stolen from the government.)

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Brett Nortje
    February 14, 2013 at 22:07 pm


    “Firearms and women”

    Here’s more.

    It seems everyone has a story to tell: Pistorius could be a thuggish, out-of-control drunk. He abused girlfriends. He once threatened to break a man’s legs. He loved guns.

    Trish Taylor, mother of the runner’s ex-girlfriend Samantha, posted on Facebook yesterday: “I’m so glad that Sammy is safe and sound and out of the clutches of that man. There were a few occasions when things could have gone wrong with her and his gun during the time they dated. My condolences to the family whose daughter has passed away. My heart breaks for you.”

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs, I’ve never regarded Pistorius as a hero.

    Your belief in individual freedom can’t run very deep if it is shaken by incidents like these.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Brett Nortje
    February 15, 2013 at 8:31 am


    “Your belief in individual freedom can’t run very deep if it is shaken by incidents like these.”

    Reeva Steenkamp has absolutely no freedom now!

    Grow some balls – join the GFSA campaign.

  • Brett Nortje

    Yebo, Madoda. Reeva is dead. And you wish to punish the innocent for it.

  • Brett Nortje

    Tell me, Maggs, what is Sammy and Trish’s culpability in this?

    If they knew for a fact Oscar shouldn’t enjoy freedoms the rest of us do?

  • Zoo Keeper


    I wonder whether we shouldn’t rather build this from a historical point of view and then evolve it into nuclear weapons to develop the principles and find where the balance can lie?

    Perhaps we should start circa 1800s? Personal firearms are available as are field artillery. Field artillery is also very expensive for the time, cumbersome and requires a horse-drawn carriage, plus trained and disciplined team members who also need board and lodging and pay. Once we have a comfortable principle from that age, maybe it should then be tested to see if survives through the world wars into the nuclear age?

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Brett Nortje
    February 15, 2013 at 8:48 am


    “And you wish to punish the innocent for it.”

    The innocent are the victims of the cowards with guns!

  • Brett Nortje

    Yes, I know. That is why I insist on the right to be armed.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Brett is right.

    True, if she had had a gun, at least she would have been able to shoot back at the intruders. But its ridiculous to say that entails that General Aidid enjoys the right to stock thermo-nuclear devices in his fetid basement!


  • Brett Nortje

    Dear Fassbrander, I understand that Michael and Zooky are engaged in a philosophical discourse about a limit to liberty.

    You, however, I have never seen interpret any other Amendment to the US Constitution in the absolute way you interpret the Second Amendment!

    I suspect you are a provocateur, a shiiit stirrer!

    P.s. I seem to have lost Magg’s posts about a Penis Free South Africa. Do you still have the links?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Dear Pigeon-Fancier:

    1. I demand that you disclose whether you now want to backpedal from your brave stance that private individual should be allowed to keep small tactical warheads in their basements, just in case their government turn tyrannical.

    2. I too have lost Maggs’s PFSA posting. But I am too proud to beg him to post them again!


  • Brett Nortje

    The law of neigbours already adequately protects anyone who is worried about her basement-physicist neighbour!

    You MUST have an compulsive obsessive need to legislate?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    “The law of neigbours already adequately protects anyone who is worried about her basement-physicist neighbour!”

    Fair enough. But you are aware that the law of nuisance etc, like the rest of the common law, must be developed per s.39 in a manner consistent with the Const. So, presumably, the law of neighbours would need to be interpreted so as to be consistent with right to autonomy, self-defence, etc. So stop wriggling, Brett, and admit that you (quite rightly), once said that in individuals should be allowed to own nukes!

    And let’s see whether brave and principled Zooky will agree with us on this!

  • StevenI

    Something to take your mind of things:

    A meteorite strike here in Russia

  • Brett Nortje

    Dworky, that is why I believe the restrictions on firecrackers to be be unconstitutional. Beating the crap out of the idiots who set off fireworks should also be deregulated.

    See? A free society allows one maximum room to screw up in, but then you have to take the consequences.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    February 15, 2013 at 11:39 am


    “2. I too have lost Maggs’s PFSA [Penis Free South Africa] posting. But I am too proud to beg him to post them again!”

    Ok – it goes like so :

    All the pricks who are campaigning for guns (or more guns) should be castrated!

    I hope it’s clear.

    p.s. StevenI February 15, 2013 at 13:16 pm – is there any chance that the asteroid which is gonna zoom past earth tonite can be redirected our way just enough to smack Brett on the head (hard enough to bring him to his senses) before it continues on its journey to heaven?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    “restrictions on firecrackers to be be unconstitutional. Beating the crap out of the idiots who set off fireworks should also be deregulated.”

    OK, Brett, good libertarian logic. So, by parity of reasoning:

    1. Restrictions on private thermo-nuclear weapons, owned not only by hobbyists but by Randburg guys who wish to be able to defend themselves against potential tyranny, are unconstitutional

    2. Northern suburbs survivors of an accidental thermo-nuclear explosions should be free to “beat the crap” out of the idiot citizens responsible.

    Logical, eh? Zooky, WDYS?

  • StevenI


    That meteorite that hit here was only yesterday and about 1,500km from Moscow.

    Be careful what you wish for?

    FYI There is also footage taken from a car camera showing it burning up above Chelyabinsk (The Russians standard of driving is so terrible it is common for many cars to have permanently installed cameras recording the loonies)

  • Zoo Keeper


    On second thoughts, let’s put the thermo-nuclear warheads into legal circulation.

    By that I mean it is legal in our theoretical country for private citizens to own thermo-nuclear weapons.

    So let’s begin:

    I’m proposing this is simply an extension of a natural right to own what I can afford.


  • Michael Osborne

    @ Zookeeper

    “By that I mean it [should be] legal in our theoretical country for private citizens to own thermo-nuclear weapons.”

    Some responses:

    1. Why a “theoretical country”? Put your cards on the table. Should it be legal for private militias in the US. to have their own nuclear weapons? And please answer the same question as to SA. Do you not see any significant problems arising from that?

    2. I suspect that you are reluctant to give a straight answer “yes” to private nukes because you have a sense that the position is so plainly absurd as to make you sound like a crazy. I doubt very much even the NRA would support private nukes. (Please let me know of any non-certifiably nutty organisation that supports private nuclear weapons).

    3. Consider an analogy: I am happy enough to debate someone who does not accept the standard Darwinian story of evolution. But when I encounter “young earth” creationists – who believe that the earth is 6000 years old – I just give up. I sense that someone so far outside the mainstream is just not worth arguing with. Same with someone who seriously advocates private nukes.

    4. To go back to our debate on political philosophy: it seems to me that your stance that citizens should be well enough armed to fight off tyranny is a species of libertarianism that verges into anarchism. To be consistent, you would have to say that no government at all is legitimate.

    5. Like communism anarchism has been tried several times, and seems to have failed. In each case, it seems to have devolved into chaos.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years! (

    Eastern Cape police have arrested a 28-year-old man suspected of raping a 100 year-old partiality blind woman.

    The man was apprehended in an informal settlement near to Centane in the Eastern Cape where the elderly woman lives.

    “It was indeed shocking when we started investigating a case of a hundred year granny, partially blind old woman of Centane that was raped and subsequently the provincial commissioner requested this matter be investigated as a priority. A task team was established and the suspect was arrested. He is due to appear before the court on Monday,” says Eastern Cape Police spokesperson Marinda Mills.

    In another rape case in the province, police arrested a 38-year-old male suspected of kidnapping and raping his 12-year-old niece at Butterworth.

  • Zoo Keeper


    I’m also looking for the right answer by the way, and this debate is part of my own journey to find it.

    I’m taking a side and asking you to knock me down if you can. I proposed a theoretical country simply to establish principle, but its seems you are looking for something else?

    Let’s use a real country then – South Africa.

    So back to the question of nukes for the purposes of principle.

    Nuclear weapons have two major characteristics: Massive destructive power and long-term contamination of the target area.

    Sometimes a weapon becomes so powerful it is its own deterrent, as in the case of nukes.

    Given the massive power, it destroys everything in its considerable blast radius. It also contaminates the ground for hundreds of years leaving the target area a toxic waste area. Further, fallout is generated which is prey to winds and uncontrollable.

    If you want to deploy these locally, you destroy your own country and instantly turn everyone against you. If you use it locally, the country and indeed the world will seek your destruction. Its more of a suicide weapon than anything else. This is why it can only be conceivably used in foreign territories which the aggressor wishes to destroy and not occupy and exploit.

    Ergo, nuclear weapons are only really effective as deterrents against foreign aggression – see North Korea and Iran for latter examples.

    Its a bit of a straw man because it has no use against a domestic enemy, even a tyrannical government!

    However, I note you are reluctant to really engage in a serious attack on this as a matter of principle. Instead, you attempt to place me in the category of young-earth creationists! Play the ball not the man, please?

    Just because private ownership has never seriously been raised, does not mean it is not worthy of debate!

    So come on. Please tell me the basis upon which you rely to deny private ownership of nuclear weapons?

    Saying: “I can’t take you seriously” without anything more just says to me you have difficulty articulating your position, and not that you have one.

    If the truth is “self evident” as you appear to suggest, why not commit that “self evident truth” to cyber-paper then? How hard can that be?

  • Michael Osborne

    Zookeeper, thanks for your detailed answer, which I will follow up. Re nuclear weapons, I had in mind low-yield, short range tactical weapons, such as were long been deployed in Europe by NATO against Soviet conventional forces. (I think I mentioned the word “tactical” a few times in my prior posts, but perhaps I was not sufficiently clear.) Tactical nukes are extremely effective and can be precisely targeted to affect a small area.

  • Zoo Keeper


    Cool, we are both looking for where the balance lies so by all means include such weaponry.

  • joeslis

    Michael Osborne

    “Tactical nukes are extremely effective and can be precisely targeted to affect a small area.”

    Any particular area you have in mind? If not, contact me!

  • Dylan

    I am thrilled that his pledge not to make a noise online has resulted in such a noise after all. Opinion and wanting to reach out shows we care, and although you may be an armchair activist, a troll or really determined to make a difference – you are here and we can start today.

    I know a rape victim.

    Do you?

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele
  • Pingback: I Know A Rape Victim -

  • Siyathokoza Khumalo

    Not sure whether my post appeared or not, but I just wanted to say, I wrote a response to this article