Quote of the week

Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.

Khampepe j
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
16 November 2007

Satanism the downfall of Rapport columnist, but why?

The Afrikaans Sunday newspaper, Rapport, is not on my list of must-read publications. Ever since it paid Wit Wolf Barend Strydom R25 000 for a post-prison interview in the early nineties and then treated the mass murderer as if he was a hero of the Volk, I have struggled to regain any respect for the paper. It is not the stories of dominees caught with their pants down that turn me away but the terribly parochial attention to Rugby and all matters Afrikaans. Every time I read it I want to scream: Red nou ‘n Volk!

However, the editor’s decision this week to fire columnist, Deon Maas, because of a column he wrote on Sanatism have lowered my even low estimation of the paper. Don’t these people have any backbone? And who are these readers who still get upset about mild schoolboy statements aiming to shock? Don’t these people have better things to do?

Maas, who used to write a mildly amusing column for the Saturday supplement to Die Burger and Beeld before moving to Rapport two weeks ago, apparently offended some serious religious nuts by writing that Satanism was a religion like any other and was therefore constitutionally entitled to the same kind of protection as any other religion. In tongue in cheek style he wrote that he was not a big fan of Satanism because it was rather a lot of effort.

Die slag van vreedsame huisdiere, die skeur van Bybels, die algemene beswaardheid waarmee jy moet saamleef, swart geverfde vingernaels en die feit dat jy gewoonlik ná middernag moet wakker wees om jou geloof te beoefen, is alles faktore wat Anton LaVey se filosofie effe onaanvaarbaar vir my maak. (The slaughtering of peaceful pers, the tearing up of Bibles, the general moodiness you have to keep up, painted blck nails and the fact that one usually had to practice one’s religion after midnight, are all factors that makes Anton LaVey’s phlosophy somewhat unacceptable to me.)

Probably anticipating some of the histrionic reactions of some Rapport readers, some of them who seem to be caught in a time warp and still seem to believe that dancing on Sunday is a mortal sins and that having sex with one’s wife is only barely torelable in the eyes of God, Maas tries to cover his back by writing:

Propageer hierdie rubriek Satanisme? Nee. Maar as ons wil hê ander mense moet ons punt insien en ons idees respekteer, moet ons hul punt insien en hul idees respekteer. Om iemand anders se idee te verstaan, beteken nie dat jy daarmee hoef saam te stem nie. (Do I propagate Satanism in this column. No. But if we want others to see our point of view or respect our ideas, we have to also try and see their point of view and respect their ideas. To understand anothers idea does not necessarily mean to agree with it.)

Eight days after this column appeared, an sms campaign was launched by faceless readers to boycott the paper. According to its editor Tim Du Plessis, the campaign which also targeted the distributors of the paper, started affecting the commercial interest of the paper. Freedom of expression is one thing, but the bottom line is clearly another, hence Maas was dismissed unceremoniously.

The saga is depressing on several levels. It suggests that a sizable chunk of Rapport readers and therefore South Africans have not yet internalized the values of tolerance and respect for diversity enshrined in our Constitution and, in fact, may be actively opposed to such a value system. Maas was of course perfectly correct: the Constitution protects our freedom of religion and conscience, which includes the right to practices one’s religion as long as one does not break the law. If I want to open a Satanist Church in Putsonderwater next to the NG Kerk (or the massage parlour for that matter) I am constitutionally entitled to do so. Religious fanatics do not have a constitutional right to stop me form practicing my beliefs – no matter how peculiar or boring they may appear. In fact, Priests in the Catholic Church are allowed to prance around in their dresses and wave around smoke while making funny noises while the sinister Afrikaner Protestantse Kerk can conduct sermons where black people are not allowed. This is called freedom of religion.

Now this is Rapport we are talking about, so one must assume their readers are not all the brightest and that many of them do not rejoice and praise the Lord every Sunday for delivering us from the evil apartheid system and allowing us to live in a free country now. But there seems to be a difference between people who has a silent, simmering, hatred and distrust for the values of the “new South Africa” and people who are actively prepared to fight against these values.

It is quite disturbing that there are enough such people to launch a successful boycott campaign against a newspaper merely because someone published an article in it pleading for tolerance of Satanism and extolling the virtues of freedom of religion. It suggests these people are very, very cross: they probably believe that Satanism is up there with eating baby livers for dinner or catching a black man having sex with your blond daughter in the marital bed (I am not equating these things, of course, but mocking the values of those who started this campaign).

To me these views are absurd and ridiculous and I can hardly imagine that there are still people who get upset about Satanism. But then again I do not believe in Satanism or baby Jesus, so maybe I am not the right person to get to grips with this. But looking around me I wonder: if they are so concerned with evil, should they not rather campaign against the Catholic Church for condoning child molestation or start a campaign against child hunger? Is it really worse that Deon Maas writes about Satanism than that people still die of hunger in the world?

Of course, the fact that these views are out there, suggest that no matter what the Constitutional Court says about respect for diversity, many South Africans have hatred in their blood and will not be deterred by mooipraatjies about respect for the views of others.

It is also sad and a bit frightening that the newspaper caved in so easily while piously claiming it supported the notion of freedom of speech. (Strangely it did not endorse the equally important protected freedom of religion, belief and conscience – maybe because its readers do not endorse it either?) Can freedom of the press be undermined so easily by citizen activism?

Whatwould happen if ANC activists started a similar campaign against Mondli Makanya from the Sunday Times? Will they have the same clout to convince its owners to fire him for “commercial reasons”? Or will the proprietors of the Sunday Times have a bit more of a backbone than those at Rapport? Troubling thought indeed.

2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest