It is rather ironic that Zapiro is in hot water for drawing a cartoon bemoaning the fact that some followers of the Prophet Muhammad have no sense of humour. It would be like me being assaulted by ANC Youth League members for saying they are politically intolerant. The vehement response from Zapiro’s critics sort of proves his point.
But irony aside, what would the correct constitutional position be in a case like this where the freedom of expression of the majority clashes with the religious beliefs of the few? I am not talking about one’s personal views and whether, as a matter of respect, one would choose to express or not to express certain views about another person’s religious or other beliefs. Does Zapiro have the right to draw a cartoon of Muhammad or do those followers of the Prophet have the right to demand that Zapiro refrains from drawing such cartoons.
Regular readers of this Blog might have noticed that I am rather libertarian as far as freedom of expression is concerned. Whether it is Julius Malema singing “Kill the Boer” or some fanatical Priest or Imam spewing forth homophobic vitriol, I maintain that more often than not it is better to allow the expression than to ban it. Tyranny thrives in ignorance and silence. If the Pope wants to brand me a pervert who will burn in hell, let him. I don’t believe in hell in any case, so I will just laugh at the Pope and dismiss him as a primitive and superstitious man in a funny dress.
(Of course, one has wondered whether the Pope is making such a fuss about homosexuality because he himself prances around every day in a dress, bedecked in jewels and wearing rather “gay” red Prada shoes, and might be worried that people would think he watches old Liberace videos in his spare time - but let us not go there.)
The Constitutional Court has spoken of the need for our laws reasonably to accommodate the religious and other differences between us. Although the reasonable accommodation of different religious beliefs (and non-beliefs) is not always easy, our Constitution requires all of us to respect the rights of others to hold their own views and to express those views – as long as it does not fundamentally limit our ability to live our lives as we see fit. An atheist is entitled to say that God is dead, just as a reborn Christian is allowed to say that an atheist will burn in hell.
For example, although some people believe that God hates men who love men or women who love women, the state cannot prohibit same-sex couples from getting married because that would infringe on the rights of people based on their sexual orientation. At the same time the state cannot force the religious groups to change their beliefs or to marry same-sex couples in contraventions of their religious beliefs.
Thus the views of religious groups are reasonably accommodated – as they can continue believing in homophobia and can continue practicing it within their Church, Mosque or Synagogue – while the rights of gay men and lesbians are also protected in that the religious beliefs of some are not enforced by the state on all of us to prevent them from living lives of dignity.
In the case of cartoons like the one drawn by Zapiro, one would imagine that the religious beliefs of some could not be used to trump the freedom rights of others and that Zapiro cannot be prohibited from drawing a cartoon that offends some people. To allow that would be to allow the religious views of some to dictate to others what they can and cannot do and say, thus endorsing those religious views and choosing those views above the views and beliefs of others. That would fundamentally infringe not only on the freedom of expression of Zapiro and others but also on their freedom of religion and conscience.
Some atheists, say, may feel deeply offended when they see a woman dressed in a Burka or when they are woken up on a Sunday morning by the church bells, but a law that bans the Burka or bans a church from ringing its bells would not be reasonably accommodating the views of all religious groups. Similarly, just because some people are offended by depictions of their Prophet does not mean the law can ban others from drawing depictions of the Prophet.
The need to accommodate (without prescribing to others what they can and cannot believe, think or do) becomes obvious when one realises that there are many different religious and other beliefs jostling for space in our democracy and that the state should try not to choose which views and beliefs are true or right – as this would infringe on the religious and other freedoms of others. If the state endorsed the views of one group over another it may lead to tyranny. If the state enforces only the views of some because they claim to be more offended than the rest of us, it would mean that the state has chosen sides in religious disputes – something it should not do.
In any event, as Wikipedia reports, there is no unanimity, even amongst Muslims - about depicting the Prophet:
The Qur’an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully. Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Most Shi’a scholars accept respectful depictions and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past.
Just as Christians do not all agree that homosexuality is a sin, Muslims do not all agree that depictions of the Prophet is wrong. This is exactly why the state and our courts should try not to choose sides in these disputes and should leave open a space in which reasonable people could express their views on such matters. Sometimes this is very difficult, of course. Some religious practices or beliefs may be so shocking to the majority or may be viewed as so harmful to some that the state would be justified to intervene.
For arguments sake, if a religious sect believes that child incest is demanded by the teachings of their God, the law may well justifiably limit the rights of that religious sect by enforcing the ban on child incest. This is also why the Constitutional Court endorsed the ban on the possession and use of cannabis – despite the fact that Rastafarians believe the smoking of the Holy Weed will bring them closer to God.
Sometimes – as in the latter example – it will not be easy to draw the line, but personally I would choose more freedom for more people by prohibiting only the absolute minimum number of religious practices while also allowing the widest possible scope for religious contestation trough freedom of expression. Let both the Burka and depictions of Muhammed thrive!
This does not mean, of course, that as South Africans living in a diverse society we should not try to be sensitive about the beliefs of others (whether it is the belief in a God or the belief in no God at all) and should not try to accommodate the practices associated with those beliefs. Although I am not a great fan of the Catholic Church (what with its homophobia and its murderous policy of discouraging its members from wearing condoms in a time of AIDS), I nevertheless keep a respectful silence when I enter a Catholic Church.
And when I speak to a Muslim friend, I will try not to mention my love of bacon and red wine and will, perhaps, politely refrain from bringing up the persecution of gay men and lesbians in many countries where Islam dominates. This I do gladly, not because my friend has a right to demand this of me, but because I think in a diverse society we must try and get along and must respect each other on a personal level.
All I ask is for the same respect to be shown to me and to my own views on religion. Let us all live together without wanting to oppress each other, I say. Maybe in the long run we might all even learn to cultivate a sense of humour.
Thank you Pierre, you first paragraph expresses my view exactly. I can’t help wondering if Zapiro had depicted the prophet “off-screen”, would there still have been the same furore?
Zapiro could also have depicted many religious leaders in the same position, possibly causing a little less grief, but why should he have to?
I didn’t find the Zapiro cartoon funny. I wasn’t offended by it, either.
It does seem that in this instance, however, the image has become more important than what it represents.
Of all the provisions in our Constitution, freedom of religion for me causes the greatest conflict. On one hand, the right to form opinions about the world and understand its goings on is arguably the most important of all human rights. We are thinking creatures, and to limit what we are allowed to think about would certainly deny a fundamental feature of our nature.
On the other hand however, one has the uncontroversial fact of the matter that discrimination, oppression and violence are written into the basic beliefs of several important world religions. For Christians it’s that positively unjust notion that non believers await everlasting suffering and the rationally indefensible notion that people of the same sex ought not to engage in intimate relationships. These are not suggestions for good living; to the Bible believing Christian they are the eternal and immutable dictates of God. In this way, what God and his honest followers want is fundamentally opposed to the Constitution and indeed common sense.
Indeed the Prof. offers wise words when he says in effect that we ought not to constantly berate believers about their beliefs. I wonder to what extent this courtesy should extend. Standing across from a Christian who believes honestly that I will go to hell and spend eternity there, I cannot help but lump the sinner in with his sins. He is an unfortunate, morally twisted man in whose company I may bite my tongue to keep the peace; but in private… I cannot help but form the opinion that in terms of his character there is something sincerely lacking.
Personally, I think a world where no one believed these things would be a better one. Whether I would want our legal system to actively intervene in ridding our society of its unfortunate beliefs…probably not. Governments are likely to cause greater harm in curbing unfortunate religious beliefs than those beliefs themselves. What I do hope for is that the voices of rational unbelievers would become more numerous and religion eventually evaporates and is replaced with rational understanding of each other and the world we inhabit.
In this way, freedom of religion will eventually lead to that infinitely more valuable state of being; Freedom From Religion.
tls i agree.. good article to see others point of view.. i like the website.. keep up the good posts..
Dear prof, I read your missives regularly, generally have trouble faulting you legally or morally, and particularly enjoy your prickly asides. Today is no exception …
“… prances around every day in a dress, bedecked in jewels and wearing rather “gay” red Prada shoes, and might be worried that people would think he watches old Liberace videos in his spare time – but let us not go there.”
Too true, teeheehee …
@Observer- Titillations aside, I sadly agree, there is no danger equal to organized religion, Juliass, Zapiro & ZumZum included …
“wearing rather “gay” red Prada shoes”
Actually they are made by Adriano Stefanelli, an Italian cobbler who takes about a month to make a pair. They cost 400 Euro. Papal red shoes (and indeed red attire in general) is traditional in Catholicism and relates to the symbolism of martyrdom. Finally, as we all know, it is the devil who wears Prada.
I thought that Zapiro’s cartoon was, in a paradoxical way, rather cowardly.
Yes, he bravely defies intimidation by publishing it in the first place.
But the drawing itself portrays its subject in the best possible light — as a perfectly reasonable man complaining about his fanatical followers.
I cannot imagine the fiercely anti-clerical Zapiro letting off any of the other monotheist prophets so lightly.
Pierre, don’t mock what you can never understand. I myself wear my trademark scarlet Stefanelli slippers to occasional art-house openings. Never felt more comfortable.
About those shoes: http://www.adriano-stefanelli.it/en/benedetto.php
Off topic but well worth a read: ““This is not our World Cup,” explained Greg Fredericks, a senior manager for South Africa’s World Cup organizing committee. He noted the dominant role of FIFA, soccer’s Zurich-based world governing body. “It is FIFA’s World Cup. We are just the organizers. We are the stage.” That might have been the end of the story, except that this is South Africa, the country that ended a vicious system of racial segregation 16 years ago to create a noisy, fractious, vibrant democracy. Poking a finger in the eye of authority is part of the national DNA.” See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/sports/soccer/24safrica.html
This is the first post on Constitutionally Speaking that I have ever regarded as being puerile. I cannot figure out what you are rambling on about. What is up, Pierre?
I agree Michael Osborne. He seems to me like someone who was ‘testing the waters’. I think he is waiting for the response of the Muslim community and then draw something that he wanted to draw in the first but ostensibly as a “reaction” to the Muslim community’s rage. How cowardly!
Thanks very much for the link to the interesting article Prof…
Well, things are evolving rapidly in SA. The ANC Youth League promising to trash Capetown,, the Afrikaaner reforming the commando, a private commando; is civil war that far removed from our present and challenging reality?
The various steps of the descent into madness, anarchy and dictatorship are well documented in Africa, as elsewhere. As ostriches we might be, there is much unfolding we need to recognize. Only the foolish and naieve are unwilling to see the progression in play.
The ANC is so ignorant and uneducated about inevitable changes within society, that they are not stopping the one component which will destroy them, the ANCYl.
Ironically, its not the black culture which will benefit eventually. Evil destroys itself. And evil is that which thinks in ignorance it is right in oppressing others for the self interested illusion, benefit of self before all others.
Civil war was avoided with the saintliness of Madiba. The black culture thought it a given they would win. I doubt that they would have, or that they will.
Without a true and respectful full Democracy, SA is doomed to conflict.
Prof: my apologies. If the law fails, the people will act. Lady Justice has still not risen.
Interesting that you mention a civil war Sirjay. I was labelled a prophet of doom last year when I mentioned same…
Sine: this is Africa as you know. I pray it won’t happen, that it wouldn’t be necessary, however, I observe the variables.
The best way to stop that civil war is to realise that we are all South African citizens and stop being selfish…
I like my hidden msg in that statement…
Sirjay
Zapiro came up with picture of the prophet and muslims are angry and you blame it to the ANC, you have a serious problem!
It is interesting that most of us in South Africa don’t understand the word TABOO. The definition of Taboo is: A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and forbidden based on moral judgment and sometimes even religious beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo. It is important that this definition is understood. There are no legal arguments, no constitutional matters when it comes to a Taboo. It is something that is just not done. In the Muslim culture it is taboo to draw the picture of the great prophet. Why can’t we just respect that? The Muslims are not asking for laws to be changed. They are asking for respect. Zapiro knew that drawing the prophet was taboo. Yet he ahead knowing full well that there will be a backlash.
Thomas says:
May 26, 2010 at 9:29 am
“Yet he ahead knowing full well that there will be a backlash.”
Of course he did, probably to see how far boundaries could be pushed.
I don’t know why Muslims don’t want a picture of their Prophet, but then I don’t have to know – all I ought to do is respect their wishes especially since it’s a private matter for followers of the Muslim religion and it does not impinge on my rights, freedoms, lifestyle, values and views in any way whatsoever.
hmmm, maggs, don’t you have to be in charge to set the rules (and define what’s taboo) first? It’s taboo for a muslim to eat pork, but I enjoy the bacon, should i stop eating that out of respect for their taboo? Should muslims be offended when it’s eaten in a hotel where they stay in Joburg? Vexing one, but I suspect that my strong cultural norms (say, around women driving cars) don’t matter much in Saudi – should we ban that in South Africa (I feel some sympathy for that particular idea every day when i run into mothers and their 4×4′s?
pekkil says:
May 26, 2010 at 10:56 am
hahahaha – nice try.
Anyone offended about pork can stay away from places that serve it.
But when I invite or am invited by friends who have religious views, to dinner, I am careful to ensure that I don’t spoil their dinner with my choices.
My cultural norms don’t matter at all in many Mid Eastern countries, so I don’t go there, inspired by that thingies that experts call freedom of choice.
And if you had not noticed yet, we are not in Saudi!
dear maggs
that was my point exactly. You choose to go to the place, or not, because you know the rules that govern that place. Our rules are that we eat pork (well, some do) and that it’s perfectly ok to want to do that. If that offends you, stay away. We draw cartoons. If you don’t like them….. Don’t make your taboos my rules, in other words, unless people who share your taboo are in a position to make the taboo the rule. Zapiro wouldn’t draw this in Saudi I suspect. I’ve seen some pretty horific cartoons in the middle east depicting sharon, by the way….
pekkil says:
May 26, 2010 at 11:23 am
Of course it’s our right to express ourselves in any which way we choose.
And Zapiro is free to draw whatever he chooses and M&G is free to choose whatever it wishes to publishes, especially for the publicity and money that brings.
That’s the wonderful thing about our country.
It does not mean that those things are not offensive to the people who it was intended to offend.
There is, of course, the little detail too that allows, in this case, Muslims to be offended and to express their views.
Unless you think that freedom of expression means that people who are offended have no right to express outrage – I reckon it’s their right react even if that reaction is over the top.
I am a Hindu – you or Zapiro or whoever can do, say, draw whatever you wish about anything which I may consider sacred, I won’t care (unless it’s to correct a blatant error/untruth/lie of course). But that does not mean others should also take such a bland view about that which they hold dear.
p.s Is Sharon considered a Prophet????
dear maggs, all in agreement – the only difference is that the reaction by the offended stays within the realms of the law. And that’s not been the typical program, I notice, and they should simply go to jail for threatening his life, as per our rules.
Whether sharon is seen as a prophet or not, I have no idea, but the graphics I saw demonstrated a robust tolerance for insult and graphic violent detail. Different rules for different sensitivities, it seems
@ Pekkil
I don’t have much faith in the claim that Zapiro’s life was threatened in any serious way.
There’s a robust tolerance for insult and graphic violence almost everywhere – take the Hollywood movies for example (we’re still waiting for the Terminator to be back, after he finishes his stint as Governor).
The body supervising advertising standards has yesterday banned a poster advertisement of a church, which quotes from the Bible: “The FOOL says in his heart, there is no God!” An atheist filed the complaint, saying that he felt belittled by being called a fool open in public, in an ad aimed at drawing people to church. The adertising watchdog upheld the complaint. So much for the particular Church’s freedom of speech and one’s right to quote from the Bible, whenever and wherever one wants.
What similarities can be drawn between the two incidents? Shouldn’t the press Ombudsman ban or at least censure this particular cartoon? Where would that leave us if that in fact happens?
Thomas, the Taboo argument is not tenable in any country even approximating a democracy. In fact it is an anti-democratic argument as it presupposes that the beliefs or views of some must be enforced on others. Saying that a Taboo in one culture should be respected by all in society (regardless of what the law and the Constitution might say) is to say that the rights of some must yield to the wishes, beliefs, superstitions and commitment of others – a profoundly anti-democratic view. Let me explain with an example. Say in my culture it is Taboo for a man and a woman to have sex and to get married (we rather prefer men to have sex with men and to get married to one another). Now in your view this Taboo should be respected by all, so others should not have sex with members of the opposite sex and should not get married – not because the law is required to prohibit it, but in order to respect the Taboo in my culture. Obviously this is absurd and untenable. In the same way none of us should be morally or legally required to respect a religious Taboo of another group. That grouped can, of course, enforce the Taboo in its own institutions by threatening those who break it with punishment or expulsion, but they cannot demand from others to respect the Taboo because they would be demanding of others to voluntarily limit their rights. I happen to be an atheist and I think that organized religion is rather dangerous and damaging to our world and I would not be living my life fully if I had to censor this view because of some Taboo held by others. If I did, I would not be free and my human dignity would be fundamentally affected – all because of what others want me to do or not to do. That is not freedom but tyranny. In a democracy the only way to deal with various Taboos is to accommodate them all by not banning those who hold the belief about a Taboo dear from holding it, but also by allowing everyone else not to respect that Taboo.
@ Pierre,
“In a democracy the only way to deal with various Taboos is to accommodate them all by not banning those who hold the belief about a Taboo dear from holding it, but also by allowing everyone else not to respect that Taboo.”
If that is true, then why was the JSC allowed to get away with asking CC candidate Kathy Satchwell, how “God fearing” people would view her sexual orientation?????
I sometimes get confused what freedom of speech is. If Zapiro would draw for instance, Hitler as a good Samaritan and a Jewish person thanking him. Would this be regarded as free speech, I think so. Would the Jewish community complain, I think YES. Where do you draw the line? Would John Qwelanes comments about homosexual people be free speech? Why then are people opposing him being appointed Ambassador to Uganda?
Thomas, you raise the age old issue about the difference between what we think is morally or ethically or normatively wrong or bad and what we allow the law to prohibit. In my moral universe it is a scandal that a Minister spends R2 million on new cars when people go hungry, but the Ministerial handbook allows this so it is not illegal. Similarly, Qwelane’s homophobia is abominable in my eyes, but as long as his statement does not amount to hate speech as defined in PEPUDA he has the right to express his opinion. At the HEART of the notion of free speech (and democracy) is the idea that legally people are entitled to say things we disagree with. When some people who read this BLog imply I am a Nazi (based on an embarrassing misreading of a post and an even more embarrassing lack of knowledge) I am going to laugh about it and say, well, I think this person is dumb but if he wants to say that, who cares. Even if the vast majority of people disagree with a statement and think its disgusting, the person has the right to make the statement (unless, of course, it contravenes hate speech provision). To hold otherwise would be to censure all unpopular or minority opinions (which might later become majority opinions if they are allowed to thrive) and this would completely undermine the very notion of democracy in which people can exchange ideas and even change their views based on such an exchange of ideas.
Kenneth, please show respect.
You must always interpose “PBUH” after the word P______.
Free speech is a privilege, not a right.
Thanks.
Hey, 3 nuns just robbed the Spar around the corner from us!
“The newspaper has undertaken to refrain from publishing any images of the Prophet Muhammad while reviewing their editorial policy in terms of religious matters, after a meeting with Muslim leaders from a cross-section of organisations, and interests group. ”
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-26-mg-meets-with-muslim-leaders
Oops!
On the other hand, maybe more “nuanced” than that.
Why view it from a “freedom of expression” perspective ?
Because your paradigm is based on a legalistic framework ?
Why not examine the underlying religious philosophy to determine whether blasphemy is acceptable ?
For the legally minded ….
re: Age of consent :
is it conceivable that due to democracy, the age of consent may at some point in the future be lowered to say, 6 years of age ? Why not 6 months of age ?
For the democrats ….
What is the most widely published example of democracy ? The crucifixion ?
What does the “universal declaration of human rights” say about pro-life versus pro-choice ?
Go ahead, waste your time debating the merits ….
Another view: http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article472250.ece/Being-respectful-is-a-choice
FREEDOM OF SPEECH??????????????????????????????
Ad ‘an attack on Afrikaners’
2010-05-27 09:22
Scenes from the controversial Romans Pizza advertisement. (Beeld)
Galleries · User Galleries · News in Pictures
Send us your pictures · Send us your stories
Related Links
Ad industry ‘bullied’ by FIFA
Sanri van Wyk, Beeld
Johannesburg – Romans Pizza has withdrawn a TV ad for its boerewors pizza, called a Boeriezza, after a man complained to the Advertising Standards Authority that the ad was “an attack on white Afrikaans women”.
He also complained that it showed Afrikaners as “backward” and “obsessed with sex”.
In the ad, a buxom blonde woman with two pigtails, bright pink lipstick and a shocking pink top with the words “Wors is lekker” printed on it, walked into a Romans pizza shop.
The man behind the counter asked her if she wanted to buy a “Boeriezza”.
She then asked: “What’s a Boeriezza? I rather want a pizza.”
‘I love wors’
When the man explained that it was a pizza with sausage, she said: “I love wors. Lekker.”
After getting her pizza, she walked into the shop’s glass door. Afterwards, the ad showed her face pressed up against the glass.
Romans’s lawyers, Pretoria legal firm Klagsbrun De Vries and Van Deventer, earlier said in their client’s defence that the client had not intended to offend Afrikaners.
They also said that although there was a difference of opinion on the matter, Romans Pizza was sensitive about any complaints from customers and had no intention of humiliating any community or the public in general.
The lawyers said on behalf of their client that Romans Pizza would remove the ad from the air.
The ASA directorate this week said it accepted this undertaking “on the condition that the ad was removed and not used again”.
One of the lawyers from Klagsbrun De Vries and Van Deventer, Morné Gouws, said on Wednesday that the ad had not been on TV since the end of April.
- Beeld
I am of the view that many of the major conflicts in history can be ascribed to one or more groups’ intolerance of one or more other groups.
This intolerance, in turn is fed by, if not the result of ignorance and prejudice.
Devoutly religious people live their lives on a rules – based system. Everything they do and everythng they think is defined to a large part by their relgious beliefs and thinking.
The “rules” of the game that govern their lives are to be found in the Qu’uran, Bible, Torah etc.
By publishing a cartoon that “breaks” one of these rules, the Newspaper and cartoonist cannot help but deeply offend those that live their lives by those rules.
The old cliche that you cannot understand a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes is true, nevertheless.
Instead of judging people by our own standards and belief systems, should we not perhaps try to at least get an understanding of the other person’s belief system before condemning it?
Many South Africans have a belief system that reveres age and wisdom, and demands that respect be shown to elders and leaders (to an extent irrespective of the deeds committed by such leaders?) – to publically criticise such leaders and depict them with a shower head is likely to cause extreme anger, hurt and indignation.
Zapiro thrives on sensationalism. He knew what the reaction would be. So did the M & G, who are desperate for more readers. What better way to generate free publicity? It’s any case so old hat, it was done in Europe a long time ago.
Thomas says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:00 am
The lady depicted in that ad is a blonde … Now is that just coincidence?!
I could not have wrote it better myself, thank you Prof.
I (and others, judging by the comments) enjoyed the opinion expressed by Grant Walliser in ThoughLeader
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/grantwalliser/2010/05/27/zapiro-vs-the-prophet/
Peter L is right.
We are multi-cultural society. We must show mutual respek.
It is in that spirit that I thank Nic Dawes for his apology to our offended Muslims.
I look forward now to hear him (and Zapiro), grovel before our Catholic community for depicting His Holiness the Pope in a somewhat unflattering light.
Looking forward.
The following article will clarify the issues for brainwashed multicuturalists subjected to liberal tyranny .
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22920
pekkil says:
May 26, 2010 at 11:41 am
Now here is the biggest load of kak that I have ever come across!
“State prosecutor Frenus Zietsman pointed out that …
The woman does not have the support of her family or church, as her Hindu religion regarded rape as a ‘disgrace’”.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100531045025646C363442
If that is an accurate quote, Adv Frenus Zietsman is a damn disrgace!
No-one enjoy Kepel’s article?
Constitutionalism could have been SA’s great unifying factor.
Of course, during the 80′s we used to argue that white and black had so much in common (I used to like the commonality of Christian values argument in which all the people just wanted to get on with trying to live a godly life – which would horrify Kepel….)
How has that worked for SA?
The ANusClowns ppd away the Rainbow Nation.
The euphoria of whites breaking the ice and the people of Orlando west strutting their stuff reminds one of just what was possible.
Have just read this on the above topic: http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/64923
… and then there’s this one, too: http://groundwork.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/zapiro/