Skip to content


The truth, nothing but the truth


Description unavailable



More than 30 years after the nation’s famous anti-apartheid youth revolt, high employment could fuel a similar uprising, according to one official.

In fact, during the recent interview with CNN, Zwelinzima Vavi, general secretary of the Congress of South African trade unions, also likened such a rebellion to the Arab spring from earlier this year (which saw longtime leaders from Egypt and Tunisia get booted), warning that the nation could stand to become the “new Egypt.”

“If we don’t do something urgent enough with the crisis of youth unemployment in South Africa we will be in Tunisia and Egypt very soon,” he said during the interview.

And on apartheid he drew further comparisons.

“I’ve participated in the struggle and I know what type of aspirations and hopes all of us carried throughout those many dark years of struggle against apartheid…. I’m only pointing out that after 17 years of all that democracy in the country we’ve seen little change when it comes to economic freedom,” he said.

“We have unemployment … at 36.6%, with 48% of our people living in poverty. We’re now number one in the world when it comes to inequalities.” According to U.S. statistics, unemployment in the nation sits at a little over 23 percent.

He later added that 73 percent of all of the nation’s unemployed are under the age of 35, calling it a youth revolt waiting to happen.

On the whole, South Africa is the continent’s brightest economic success story. Seen as a gateway to Africa for foreign investors, the nation was the first to host the World Cup Games and was recently considering an Olympic bid. Wal-Mart’s landmark majority purchase of a South African retailer back in May was also, on its face, a step forward for the nation in terms of international business.

However the purchase has been highly criticized by union officials, and many in South Africa worry that the U.S.-based mega-retailer’s foreign imports could hurt local manufacturers and cause more job loss.

But does that mean the nation’s unions are anti-foreign investment? Not necessarily.

 “I’m a realist,” Vavi told CNN. “I know that 80% of all people employed in the economy of South Africa are employed in the private sector and that demonstrates the extent of the role of the markets, of the private sector, in the South African economy. I wish that was not true, but that is true.”

But without a “growth path” to “absorb large numbers of youth into employment” the nation’s unemployment problem won’t get better, he said.

And South Africa may be running out of time.

Could South Africa Be on the Brink of Another Uprising? | News | BET.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

CAPE TOWN/SOUTH AFRICA, 12JUN2009 - Maria Ramo...

Een handjie in Absa, een handjie in Rupert se Richmont? Groete vir Trevor?

So nou skielik is Malema/Zuma? se antwoord “fok die Ruperts”.  Presies hoe hy daarby uitkom is nie so belangrik as dat hy homself nou verontskuldig deur weer iets in die Afrikaner se wereld uit te sonder om aan te val nie.  Nou skielik is die Rupert familie verdagtes?  Intussen is die land reeds in die moeilikheid. lees mooi wat hierbo staan. ABSA het $43 000 000 nodig om te kan voldoen aan die nuwe Basel vereistes m.b.t. likwiditeit.  Dit is nadat ons die afgelope jare doodgegooi is met hoe sterk hulle kapitaal verhoudings was. Ons het al die pad te kenne gegee dat likwiditeit by ABSA n probleem is. Hoe anders kan jy verklaar dat n bankgewaarborgde tjek tien dae neem om by ABSA in kotant omskep te word. Los maar die “bedrog verskoning” – dit werk net vir mense wat nie weet wat aangaan nie. En onthou, ABSA is maar net A gegradeer deur Fitch omdat Barclays hulle kan regop hou. Standard Bank daarenteen het n baie swakker gradering gekry. Die land is aan die brand mense, en intussen speel Malema met vuurhoutjies langs die Ruperts se “grasdak-huis”. Insgelyks is dit fassinerend dat n tabak “legacy” n groot deel van n land se media kan beheer, maar dis mos maar hoe RSA werk. Onder beheer van die grootvyf, of ses, of hoerveel ook al.

ANCYL desperately seeking conspiracies

July 28 2011 at 09:00am

st p3mugRAMOS2REUTERSAbsa group CEO Maria Ramos gestures during the Reuters Africa Investment Summit held in Johannesburg March 8, 2011. Absa Group, the South African bank majority owned by Barclays will likely need another $43 million this year to boost liquidity to meet tighter regulations, Ramos said on Tuesday. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko (SOUTH AFRICA – Tags: POLITICS HEADSHOT BUSINESS)

Deon de Lange

THE ANC Youth League has taken a scatter-gun approach in defence of its beleaguered president, Julius Malema.

It is blaming everyone from the Rupert family to media giant Naspers, Absa CEO Maria Ramos, DA MP Wilmot James and other “capitalists” and “imperialists” for the difficulty in which the youth leader finds himself.

The league yesterday apparently tried to deflect attention from Malema’s family trust, which is allegedly funding the young leader’s lavish lifestyle through tender kickbacks. It said in a statement that Naspers – owner of Media24, which publishes City Press – and its “master” were behind the latest allegations against Malema.

City Press reported on Sunday that businessmen had allegedly made payments into the fund in exchange for Malema’s intervention in the allocation of government tenders.

The newspaper claimed one businessman had admitted to receiving a government tender after depositing R200 000 into Malema’s Ratanang Family Trust, and several other businessmen, notably in Malema’s home province of Limpopo, had done the same.

“(Media24) publications replicate the apartheid ideology of white supremacy and portray black people as corrupt or superstitious human beings, with no potential to develop and engage in conscious social, political and economic issues confronting South Africa,” the league said.

The ANCYL took a swipe at one of South Africa’s wealthiest families, the Ruperts, who are shareholders in Naspers, as well as ex-Treasury director-general and current Absa board member Maria Ramos.

The statement also asked whether Naspers shareholders, the Ruperts, and board members Fred Phaswane and Professor Jakes Gerwel approved of “the manner in which their (news)paper is used to fight political battles”.

The league implied Ramos had a hand in Malema’s woes as she had “publicly opposed policy positions (of the league), particularly on the nationalisation of mines”.

The statement went on to draw comparisons between the media’s revelations about Malema and the hacking scandal playing itself out in Rupert Murdoch’s media empire after revelations that the now defunct News of the World tapped into the voicemail records of several royals, celebrities and crime victims in search of tabloid scoops.

“Is the Rupert family… approving the Murdoch hacking strategy of prying into the personal accounts and private lives of political personalities?” the statement asked.

Among a list of rhetorical questions the league posed to City Press – “(we are) asking these questions not with the intention of getting honest answers from City Press” – were the following:

l “How much farm and agricultural land does the Rupert family own in South Africa today, and how did they acquire such land?”

l “If indeed an amount of R200 000 has been deposited into the trust to facilitate a deal, and this is illegal, why did City Press not open a criminal case against Mr Malema and the person who claims to have deposited a bribe into his account, because the laws of this country force them to do so?”

l “What is the role of Absa, whose CEO, Mario Ramos, has publicly opposed the policy positions of the ANC Youth League, particularly on the nationalisation of mines?”

l “Why is Wilmot James, the DA federal chairperson, a director of News24, owner of City Press, and these right-wing newspapers?”

James resigned his Media24 directorship several months before being elected to Parliament in 2009. He told The Star yesterday the league was “simply trying to duck the issue”.

“They should be focused on rooting out corruption in their own ranks. And they should understand that the DA takes issues of possible conflicts of interest seriously. That is why I resigned my position at Media24,” he said.

The league said it was asking these questions “to educate and walk with members of the public about the ulterior motive of the capitalists, imperialists and their representative in the form of the Rupert family, who will do everything in their power to maintain the status quo in South Africa”.

Complaints have now been lodged against Malema with the police, the public protector and the SA Revenue Service.

Hawks spokesman McIntosh Polela has confirmed that a preliminary investigation is under way after the priority crime unit received a case docket from the Brooklyn police in Pretoria, where AfriForum lodged a criminal complaint this week.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Dis met min verbasing dat ek lees van die ommekeer van die lessenaar in Anton van Niekerk se kantoor in die nie-meer-die-B.J.Vorster-gebou-nie. En my heel eerste indruk daarvan, as ek Anton se brief (Moenie apartheid vergoeilik nie) lees, is die plesier wat ek dadelik uit sy taalgebruik put. Hy kan maar. Dit was immers hy wat die woord “internaliseer” doodgekrap het in n referaat wat ek by hom ingehandig het. Op navraag het hy vermakerig vir my verduidelik dat die woord nie bestaan nie. Ek het soveel plesier daaruit geput dat ek die nie-woord-nie nog nooit weer gebruik het nie.

Ongelukkig, is dit vir my opeens asof Van Niekerk se nie-geringe intellek hom arrogant laat, netsoos in die era van Apartheid toe hy die Nasionale Party aktief gedien het ook deur sy formidabele intellek te gebruik om daardie ideologie af te forseer op mense wat onder die indruk van sy filosofiese meerderwaardigheid verkeer het. Dit laat hom toe om meesterlik die hoeke te kan sny. Ek was inderwaarheid persoonlik teenwoordig in sy kantoor op een geleentheid waar hy in die oorgangsjare outeurskap eers ontken het en toe geweier het om n werk van hom wat uit druk was, vir n student te leen omdat die ideologie verouderd was en hy nuwe meesters gehad het.

Van Niekerk se intellektuele morfologie is van so aard dat hy nie die ideologiese krake waarmee hy sy redelik selfvondane konklusies vermom, hoef te demonstreer nie. Kom ons kyk kortliks na hoe n regte meester dit doen:

Dit mag wel wees dat die ANC in die oorlogsjare sterker as vandag onder Moskou se invloed gestaan het. Om egter op grond daarvan te redeneer dat die apartheid-regime die ANC militêr aangevat het ten einde demokrasie en die regstaat te beskerm, is ‘n lagwekkende idee.

Kom ons begin sommer gou-gou deur net iets vir n begin vinnig duidelik te maak. Die taalgebruik hier is verlep en vals. Die woorde is n leuen aangetrek in die vermomming van n argument deur n groot denker.   Die waarheid is egter maklik. Die apartheids-regime het nie die ANC militer aangevat nie. Inderwaarheid het die ANC oorlog verklaar op die regime. As iemand oorlog verklaar, wapens opneem, en n gewapende stryd teen jou begin is jy gewoonlik in die posisie, soos engige litigant ook vandag weet, waarin jy eers verdediging aanteken, alvorens ons die meriete van die geveg bespreek. So, vir doelmatigheid, lees Van Niekerk versigtig.  Eerder as om hierbo te lag vir die bespotlike idee dat die oorlog oor n regstaat en n demokrasie gegaan het, moet hy liefs sy laggie sluk en sy werk begin doen. So net vir die rekord: die ANC het die land militer aangevat, nie andersom nie. En die staat het sy legitimiteit  beskerm, nie andersom nie.

Dis soos dit werk. Niks humoristies daaraan nie. Kry net eers die feite naak in die son. Die oorlog het gegaan daaroor dat die ANC die land aangeval het,   met n gewapende stryd gekom het. Hoekom presies die ANC dit gedoen het kan Anton maar met hulle bespreek en dan sy hogere waardes, sy dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, daaraan gaan koppel. Vir my is dit onnodig. Maar beskou dit net as n voetnota op sy greep van arrogansie.

As Anton van Niekerk dink dat hy die hoekom van die oorlog vir beide kante gaan skryf uit Camp Luthuli uit, dan maak hy n groot fout. Niemand het hom gevra om die argeologie van die oorlog te gaan vasstel en ons daarvan te informeer nie. Hy is in geen spesiale posisie om daaroor aan te gaan nie.  Daar is baie hoekoms in n oorlog. Baie hoekoms wat geopper word wanneer ouers hulle kinders gaan aflaai by die army  waar hulle wapens kry om mee te gaan veg. Die arrogansie van Anton van Niekerk om vandag die ANC ideologie te probeer skoonwas en op ons af te forseer, maak my naar. Maar voor ons die duimpie-profeet ontbloot en sy onge-ergde denke uitwys vir wat dit is, net nog n paar klein goedjies wat deurglip.

Die Suid-Afrika van apartheid was slegs ‘n demokrasie ten opsigte van ‘n klein minderheid van sy bevolking, en van respek vir menseregte was daar feitlik geen sprake nie. In wese is met totale aanslag  bedoel wat die term in sy argeloosheid eintlik aanvoer: ‘n totale aanslag op die bevoorregte leefwyse van Suid-Afrika se wit minderheid, ‘n aanslag wat ten alle koste afgeweer moes word.

Eerstens, verstaan ek nie die gebruik van die woord argeloos hier nie. Argeloos, of argloos: ter goeder trou, sonder om iets kwaads te dink? In wese is met “totale aanslag” bedoel wat die term in sy argeloosheid eintlik aanvoer: ‘n totale aanslag op die bevoorregte leefwyse van Suid-Afrika se wit minderheid, ‘n aanslag wat ten alle koste afgeweer moes word. Vir my klink dit of Van Niekerk hier ongeskik probeer wees. Met Totale Aanslag in argeloosheid aangevoer, sou mens dink die beskerming van die beskawing in Suid-Afrika, die waardes ensomeer. Wanneer ons nie argeloos daarna kyk nie maar veel eer sinies of realpolities daara kyk, dan weliswaar kan mens gelyk gee ‘n totale aanslag op die bevoorregte leefwyse van Suid-Afrika se wit minderheid, ‘n aanslag wat ten alle koste afgeweer moes word. Dalk verstaan Van Niekerk die betekenis van die woord argeloos net verkeerd?

Nou snaaks genoeg, stem meeste van ons heeltemal saam met die arglose  betekenis wat Anton hieraan knoop. Daar was redelike eenstemmigheid dat ons onsself teen die ANC in die grensoorlog verdedig het hoofsaaklik om om leefwyse en bevoorregte posisie in die land te beskerm. Wanneer het dit n geheim geword? Is daar ooit oorloe wat nie oor basiese ekonomiese posisie gaan nie. Natuurlik, self-evident, het ons ons bates beskerm. Ek het nie geweet dat Van Niekerk dit nie geweet het destyds toe hy sy studente in sy multimiljoern rand huis in Die Boord in Stellenbosch onthaal het nie?

Verstout my om nog van Anton van Niekerk se oneerlike filosofiese instrumente uit te wys, gespreks-metodes waarmee hy die onaanvegbare waarheid waarop hy homself beroep vir sy posisie, as t’ware vas soldeer aan die narratief sodat niemand die deure kan oopmaak en kan sien dit lei na die lee kamers in die huis van my vader niet. Die een instrument wat Anton invoer, is die van n baie fyn vorm van sensuur. Hy onthaal die vraag of die Afrikaner die reg het om sy stem te verhef in die narratiewe Suid-Afrika.

Verskeie antwoorde is moontlik. Een moontlike posisie sou wees om te redeneer dat vryheid van spraak een van die wonderbaarlike geskenke aan Suid-Afrika is waarvoor die ANC so hard baklei het, so verdomp ja. Julle het die reg. `n Ander antwoord sou kon wees dat die Afrikaner, as hy iets op die hart het, asseblief moet deelneem aan die gesprek as n GELYKE stem in die wildernis. Praat uit, jy wat iets op die hart het. Dalk kan jou bydrae help om die landskap te verryk. Nog n antwoord sou wees, om te vra of iemand soos Anton van Niekerk enigsins die reg het om te vra OF die Afrikaner mag saampraat? Is dit nie implisiet gewoon net n vorm van diskriminasie nie, of haatspraak, of `n gewaagde on-konstitusionalisme om die vraag te vra nie? Hoe kan jy enigsins vra of enige groep, gegrond op hulle etniese herkoms of kleur, n reg behoort te he om saam te praat oor die sop wat Suid-Afrika verword?

Anton omseil enige moontlike antwoorde om reguit vir die bloedspatsel op die hakskeen te gaan. Hy is nou opreg n touchy-feely New Age man.  Nie net word hy berading gegee om te herstel van die emosionelke letsels opgedoen toe sy lessenaar vooroorgestort het in n aanval van repelsteeltjieaanse woede deur Malan in sy kantoor nie, hy definieer die siel, die hele kern van vryheid van spraak in ons, en die breer Westerse Kultuur, as gegrond op en genoodsaak deur en ter wille te wees van die victimology.  Gesprek is belangrik, omdat dit slegs via die pyn van interaksie en die soeke na wedersydse begrip is dat ons mekaar uiteindelik beter sal leer verstaan en dat ons uiteindelik in staat sal wees om aanvaarding te verwerf en op die grondslag van gedeelde waardes die land as gelykes te bewoon. Alzo spracht Anton van Niekerk.

En netso, word die Afrikaner se reg dan om protes aan te teken en te stry en in stryd te tree teen diegene wat hom stereotipeer tot n formule, tot opdrifsel, `n kondensaat omskryf as `n misleide, eiendomsugtige, oorlogmakende rassis, wat fokkol voel vir ander mense  eensklaps genegeer deur hierdie Pan-Suid-Afrikanisme, en word dit reduseer tot alleenlik die diskoers om die PYN en die SOEKE na BEGRIP om mekaar beter te VERSTAAN en AANVAARDING te verwerf om as GELYKES te kan woon. Dis hoekom Afrikaners nie stilgemaak moet word nie, reken hy.

Ek sou egter nogtans wou pleit vir die reg om mee te doen aan die gesprek – en dus ook vir Buys, Scholtz en Naudé se reg in hierdie verband. Stilte skep te maklik die geleentheid om die onregte van die vroeër benadeeldes ook oor die hoof te sien.  En mense, thought criminals of the past soos Buys, Scholtz en Naude, mag ook maar saampraat. Hy gee hulle toestemming, want stilte, sal die teelaarde skep waarin die onregte van die vroeër benadeeldes ook oor die hoof gesien sal word.

Anders gestel, hulle (Wittes/Afrikaners) kan deelneem aan die gesprek omdat die gesprek n aanklag is op hulle en hulle misdade; omdat hulle moet deelneem aan hulle verhoor, die verhoor van hulle mense, anders sal die onregte van die vroeër benadeeldes ook oor die hoof gesien (sal) word. Uiteindelik, die Afrikaner, bloot instrumenteel tot die konstruksie van die mite van Mandela en sy nalatenskap. Van Niekerk se denke is makaber en ondeurdag, besmet met ideologie. Hy is n man van die struggle. Nou. Deesdae. Na die regering geval het.

Hy probeer sy intellektueel bespotlike posisie effe kwalifiseer. Kyk hoe doen hy dit: Ek verskil egter van haar ten opsigte van stilte, selfs al is dit so dat die stilte wat sy bepleit, nie ‘n passiewe oorgawe is nie, maar ‘n aktiewe luister en ‘n stille werksaamheid om reg te stel waar moontlik.  Anders gestel. Hulle tweetjies reken nadat hulle mekaar se oorwoe akademiese asems geruik het en bevind het dat dit goed was, dat witmense/Afrikaners se rol is om gesien te word, maar nie gehoor nie. Om kinders te wees wat in hulle teenwoordige onwysheid gewoon teenwoordig is om te leer, om boete te doen, om die ander – hulle wat regte het wat nou moreel gegrond is en nie langer konstitusioneel nie, se rou wonde te genees met hulle skuldige trane. Die grond waarop Van Niekerk homself, sy gene, en sy nasate verkwansel, word baie wankelrig. En hy, aartsgenie van sy tyd, sal later ook, netsoos na Apartheid, weer ween en kners op sy tande: dat hy nie geweet het of dit bedoel het nie.

So ons – wittes/Afrikaanses, het ook regte, maar van n ander aard. Nie moreel begrond nie, net konstitusioneel. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Vandaar Vice se suggestie dat nederigheid en stilte die meer gepaste reaksie van wit mense in ons tyd moet wees. Ek stem met haar saam ten opsigte van nederigheid: as wit mense het ons geen onwrikbare morele locus standi van waar ons links en regs oor ander kan oordeel nie.

Let wel. Dis n wit ding. ‘n Kleur ding. Witmense het geen onwrikbare morele locis standi van waar hulle links en regs oor andere kan oordeel nie. Anders gestel, swart mense het weliswaar n morele locus standi van waar hulle wel oor ander kan oordeel. Weer eens n afgewaterde reg aan die wittes. `n Morele reg aan die swartes, welkom by Animal Farm.  Anton van Niekerk is weer besig, medepligtig, aan die skepping van n tweede klas, n subgroep met n wasige aanspraaak op gelykheid. In die Ou Suid-Afrika was hy as een van die elite mede-verantwoordelik vir die skepping van n subklas genaamd nie-blank. Nou, onder leiding van sy Opperhoof, Jacob Zuma, skep hy weer n subklas. Die donerse skuldige blankes wat moet stilbly want hulle is almal ryk weens rassisme en apartheid.

Dankie daarvoor. Dankie dat jy namens my praat en nie eerder net namens jouself bieg vir al die dinge van jou eie verlede nie. Maar kom ons lees die genie verder: Om voorts te redeneer dat die totale aanslag-ideologie ten opsigte van die Grensoorlog korrek was, is ‘n bedenklike verdraaiing van die waarheid.

Ideologie as `n begrip wat oorspronklik ontstaan het met verwysing na die wetenskap van idees en die verwantskap tussen elemente daarvan (Destutt de Tracy, 1754-1836) verwys na `n versameling van idees aangehang vir redes buiten net die epistemologiese. Dit weet Van Niekerk baie goed, want ek het dit by hom in sy klas geleer. As sulks behoort hy vandag nog te kan onthou dat n ideologie dus nooit korrek of inkorrek kan wees nie. Dit bly ideologie.

Van Niekerk gebruik die begrip ideologie hier op n wyse waarmee propaganda dokters hulle opponente mee verdag maak. Hy gebruik die begrip ideologie om, om te gaan met die onaanvaarbare idees van bv. Witmense en Afrikaners hier, deur sekere sosiaal-simboliese verklarings vir die oorredingsvermoe van hulle oortuigings aan te bied, welke verklarings spesifiek nie bekend sou wees vir die “volgelinge” (witmense/Afrikaners) daarvan nie.  Anders gestel, hy daal neer van bo af, en wys die arme witmense dat hierdie stryd in hulself, hierdie veertig dae in die woestyn waarmee hulle omgaan en probeer sin vind in dinge soos die grensoorlog, vertoon hy aan ons, dit alles berus op ons domkoppige onkunde, op dinge wat ons wel glo, maar asseblief moet ophou glo omdat hy weet dis nie so nie.   Van dialoog in die streng sin van die woord, van tesis en sintesis, is daar geen sprake nie. Hier is sy politiek – – `n stryd tussen idees wat stemme verwerf ten einde die bevolking in te ent teen die besmetting wat teenstand vir die heersende ideologie inhou – – `n pre-diktatoriale post-revolusionere diskoers waar hy wat nie vir die PARTY en vir die BELEID en vir die REGERING is nie, n uitgeweke revolusionere retrogressiewe gevaar vir die bestaande ORDE word. Witmense, Afrikaners, asseblief. Hulle is gelukkig dat ons hulle nog toelaat om saam te praat.   `n Ideologie is nooit korrek nie. `n Ideologie is gewoon net iets wat mense glo, omdat dit vir hulle dinge verklaar op n wyse wat aanvaarbaar vir hulle is. Om die een ideologie af te maak as inkorrek sodat die teenstander ideologie as korrek aangeprys kan word, is nie Van Niekerk se intellek waardig nie. Asseblief nie.

Van Niekerk gaan egter vinnig verder met sy diskoers. Dit help nie om die “geskiedenis terug te vat” deur dit te laat buikspreek in terme van die vrese en obsessies van die hede nie. As wit mense sit ons met enorme skuld ten opsigte van die verlede.  Let wel, ons doen sommer net gou weg met die geskiedenis-drif van die witmense/Afrikaner. Basta met julle geskiedenis obsessie. En dan bevry van klein dingetjies soos historiese (skuld), waarmee hy so gepas weggedoen het hierbo, bevind hy die witmense summier skuldig in die aangesig van die geskiedenis, maar net gewoon n geskiedenis waaraan hy ons in die opskrywe daarvan, so pas die reg tot deelname verbied het. Dit was Churchill wat gese het “history will be kind to me. I plan to write it myself.”

Dat iemand soos Van Niekerk so totaliter, so fascisties met sy eie kan omgaan is tekenend waarskynlik eerder van n dieper wroeging oor sy eie aandeel in die wandade van apartheid, n aandeel waarin ek geen belangstelling het om dit namens die “volk” saam met hom te help dra nie. Onthou die woorde van Ingsoc in George Orwell se 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” “Big Brother is Watching You.” Is Van Niekerk horende doof of siende blind? Of is hy net gewoon n man met n duister hart, of duister motief? Dalk n lid van die inner-party?

Van Niekerk sukkel egter voort met nog van sy geroeste gereedskap, immer gereed om by die voorafbepaalde waarheid te kom: entitlement vir swartmense, skuld en ekonomiese apologie vir witmense. Hy begin met n hotklou wat alhoewel dit my koudlaat, dit hom oenskynlik redelik vermetel en treffend laat voel:  Apartheid was ‘n stelsel van staatsosialisme wat feitlik volledig afgestem was op die bevoorregting van Afrikaners. Ook die ouers en voorouers van jong wit mense wat geen aantoonbare aandeel in die vestiging en bestendiging van hierdie stelsel gehad het nie, het dit wel gehad, en hulle is dus ‘n produk daarvan.

Die nie nuus vir my nie. Ek weet dit. My pa weet dit. My oupa weet dit en my buurman weet dit. En hoe goed het dit nie geslaag daarin om die Afrikaner op te hef nie. Netso, is die volgende ook waar: Die ANC se beleid is n stelsel van staatsosialisme wat feitlik volledig afgestem is op die bevoorregting van Swartmense. Ook die kinders en jong swart mense wat geen aantoonbare nadeel in die tyd van apartheid had, het dit wel gehad, en hulle is dus ‘n produk daarvan.   Dat dit die ANC se doel is, is self-evident en word grootliks op hulle webwerf verduidelik. Skote petoors Van Niekerk. Skote Petoors aan die Afrikaners wat dink ons skuldigheid behoort tot n monasties ingekeerde stilswye te lei waartydens ons die wysheid van Moeder Afrika kan indrink ter wille van ubuntu-vergifnis vir ons nasate, sewe keer sewe.

Vice erken dat haar (en almal van ons wat wit is) se bevoorregte posisie in Suid-Afrika op ‘n onontkenbare wyse te make het met die sistematiese bevoorregting wat ons en ons voorsate oor dekades en eeue ten koste van swart Suid-Afrikaners gehad het.

In die eerste plek is Vice se bekentenis dat dit almal van ons wat wit is, se posisie is, gewoon snert. Om mee te begin, almal van ons wat wit is, behalwe almal van ons wat wit is en na Suid-Afrika toe immigreer het na 1994. En hulle kinders. So kom ons los die genoeglike, fanatiese morele hoogwaardigheid waarmee die massa-bekentenis en skuldigbevinding van alle witmense deur Van Niekerk en sy cronies, met een helleveeg alles-en almal inklusief gemaak word. Dis nie hare kloof nie. Dis gewoon snert ontsyfer. ALLE witmense. Nee. Meeste miskien.. Praat van korrekte ideologiee. Kom ons praat eerder van akkurate voorstellings. Probeer tog, Van Niekerk, om akkuraat te wees waar dinge meetbaar is, en nie korrek te probeer wees, waar dinge ideologies bepaald is nie. Dit betaam nie n super-genie soos uself nie.

Desnieteenstaande die klein jakkalsies. Ons het reeds amper twee dekades van sistematiese swart bevoorregting agter die rug. As u wil, kan ons beweer dat dit ten koste van witmensse was. Maar hier kruip nog een van die besmette jakkalsies waarmee Van Niekerk die lande probeer brand, ongesiens by die hekke in.  Dis jammer dat ek die bewering moet maak, maar Van Niekerk se denke is effe besmet met Marxisme, steeds die heersende IDEOLOGIE van sy heer en meester Zuma. Dis Marx wat gese het dat daar nie nyd en ontevredenheid in die buurt bestaan het voor die buurman n dubbelverdiepinghuis gebou het nie. Mens is nie arm, voor jou buurman ryk is nie. Arm en ryk is meetbare gegewens, wat slegs n bestaan voer in vergelyking. Die vraag is dus nooit hoe lank is n stuk tou nie. Die vraag is, of tou A langer as tou B is.   Netso, om te reken dat die bevoorregting van een klas op ekonomiese en ander gebiede, plaasvind ter wille van groep A en ten koste van groep B is n reuseaanname wat nie min aan Marx herhinner nie. Die vraag of die Afrikaner homself ten koste van die swartman opgehef het, en of dit meer akkuraat is om te redeneer in die plek van die swart man, is een van daardie onderwerpe wat deur die apologete so belet word dat enige stelling in die verband lei tot of n beletsel, of n  laggie wat jou diskwalifiseer omdat jy so pas die konsensus geminag het en dus nie langer n reg het om aangehoor te word nie.

Nietemin, sou mens strenggesproke slegs kon beweer dat dit ten koste van die swartmense gebeur het as daar n duidelike lyn was wat aangetoon het hoe die lyn op die grafiek van welvaart & voorspoed vir Suider-Afrika se breer swart populasie afwyk van Suid-Afrika s’n. As die Suid-Afrikaanse swartes dus swakker vaar as die Swartes van Suider Afrika, sou die stelling minder aanvegbaar wees.  Dit was natuurlik nie die geval nie, en ongeag hoe rassisties dit vir die koor klink en hoeveel disrespek die koor nou vir my nonsens oor het, is dit n feit dat die swartes van Suid-Afrika ten koste van wie Apartheid afgespeel het, in alle opsigte beter gevaar het as hulle swart bure elders in Afrika. Op die minste is die aannames wat die koor maak nie so self-evident nie.

Dis waarskynlik meer akkuraat dat die witmense en Afrikaners ekslusief gewerk het vir hulle eie voordeel. Netso werk die ANC nou eksklusief vir hulle swartmense se eie voordeel. Die een kannie sleg, demonies, rassisties en verfoeilik wees terwyl die ander een skoon, rein, wonderlik, eties, regverdig en fantasties is nie.    Dis dieselfde ding. Dit praat dieselfde taal. Dit het dieselfde doel. Die een bevoordeel die swartes. Die een het die wittes bevoordeel. Daar’s nie n manier dat die een skielik gekwalifiseer kan word as wonderbaarlik. . . want dit verskil so en so van die ander een nie. Dis albei episodes van sosiale ingenieurswerk; dis albei regstellende aksie; dis albei ras bepaald, dit gaan albei misluk. Onbedoelde konsekwensies loer orals vir die ANC, maar ongelukkig noem die ANC die konsekwensies foutiewelik Die Blankes.

Iets soos die felle sosiale ingrepe om n ideale wereld te vervaardig, in die glorieryke tradisie van sosiale ingenieurs soos Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung Pol  Pot en ander, is sosiale projekte. Dis nie goed of sleg, reg of verkeerd nie. Dis net sosiale ingrepe wat slaag of nie, in die doel daarmee. Die mense wat dit pleeg, kan mens nie onrein of  rein doop en dan die sosiale ingenieurswerk daarvolgens beoordeel nie. Alles wat die mens doen het lofty doelwitte. Ons kan die doelwitte, ingesluit die ANC s’n nou, eers na die oog van die geskiedenis geknip het, oordeel. Eers dan raak die spelers rein of onrein. Intussen, is dit presies dieselfde ekonomiese programme.

En ons weet wat dr. H.F. Verwoerd gedink het van die idee dat swart mense iets meer as rudimentêre onderwys moet ondergaan; dit was “ongewens” omdat dit onvervulbare verwagtinge by hulle sou skep!   Dis weer ideologies besmette taal. Insgelyks moet ek erken dat ek nie sodanige intieme verhouding met Verwoerd had as wat  Van Niekerk oenskynlik gehad het nie, maar ek weet dat mens die stelling hierbo met die verbaasde histerie-wekkende waansin van die ideoloog kan poneer, of in nugter terme wat ongelukkig baie van die histerie wegvat en net n meer praktiese grammatika agterlaat.

Van Niekerk weet wat HF Verwoerd gedink het van die idee dat swart mense iets meer as rudimentere onderwys moet ondergaan; dit was noodsaaklik dat die swartmense opgevoed word in skole sodat hulle die werk wat daarbuite vir swartmense bestaan kan doen. Dit sou nie help om hulle op te lei vir werk wat hulle in terme van die wet verbied word om te doen nie.

Verwoerd het nie n intellektuele sameswering gevoer teen swartmense om hulle dom te maak nie. Hy het soos die leiers vandag dikwels aangepor word deur die nyweraars, seker gemaak dat daar werk vir skoolverlaters is. Ongeag wat mens se opinie van die stelsel was, was Verwoerd gewoon besig om genoeg hande in die fabrieke te kry. Dis nie evil of skrikwekkend nie, dis logies; presies wat in Engeland gebeur het om sekere klasse gewoon op te voed tot op die vlak van industriele geskiktheid.

So kom ons beweeg net weg van die gedagte dat Verwoerd hulle nie verwagtinge wou laat ontwikkel soos bv. dat hulle ook mag lewe en groei en vorentoe gaan nie. Die verwagtinge waarna Verwoerd verwys het, was dieselfde verwagtinge  wat ook afwesig was by die wit kinders op die mynvelde, kinders vir wie enige iets meer as net hande-arbeid op die myne, geheel en al buite die kwessie was.   Alles kannie altyd net in die treffende trrap van sensasie die gegewe wees nie.

Nietemin, kom ons gaan terug na dit wat seker die kern van Van Niekerk se brief moet wees, dit wat hy met al sy intellektuele pierewaaiery hierbo probeer af forseer. Van Niekerk kan net nie sy brein kry rondom wat die eintlike punt hier is nie. As Filosoof is dit jammer dat hy harder praat as wat hy luister. Sy interpretasie van wat inderdaad gese word, is so vinnig uit die blokke, so defensief in die aangesig van die Koor dat hy die bal geheel en al misslaan.    Kom ons help Anton reg. In die eerste plek, kom ons probeer ook doen wat Heidegger graag wou doen. Kom ons reinig net gou die slegte reuk wat Anton met sy gelaaide taal invoer. Kom ons neem die onderstaande, en verander dit net sodat Anton nie sy eie swanesang kan gaan haal deur voor te gee ons stel dit implisiet so nie.

Albei maak ‘n soortgelyke punt daaromtrent, naamlik dat wit mense wat aan die kant van die apartheidsregering in dié oorlog geveg het, heeltemal geregverdig was om dit te doen.

Anton se paragraaf het die krag om my fisies naar te maak, deels omdat dit so jammer is dat iemand wat die blou lig op sy kop het wat flits-flits van intellektuele prestige, eerder verkies om vir die “thought police” te werk.  Laat my toe, om nou Anton se paragraaf te korrigeer: Albei maak ‘n soortgelyke punt daaromtrent, naamlik dat wit mense wat aan die kant van die staat in dié oorlog geveg het, heeltemal geregverdig was om dit te doen.    Kom ons kry ons feite gou reg. Die Regering het my nooit opgeroep weermag toe nie. Die Nasionale Party het my nooit opgeroep weermag toe nie. Die Staat was ook nooit bekend as die apartheidstaat voor apartheid afgeskaf is nie. Netso is Zuma se regering nie die Affirmative Action of die Integrasie Regering nie. Nie eers na die tweede wereld oorlog is troepe van die Duitse Wehrmacht beskryf as Nazi Soldate nie. Hulle was slegs Nazi soldate as hulle (a) Nazi Party Lidmaatskap gehad het, of (b) SS was. Hoe die Afrikaner/Witmense wat diensplig gedoen het Apartheidsoldate geraak het terwyl die troepe in Stalingrad net Wehrmacht troepe was, moet een van die ongelukke van daardie Geskiedenis waaraan Afrikaners/Witmense nie mag deelneem nie, wees.

Die STAAT het jou opgeroep. Die STAAT het jou opgeroep omdat die Wette van die Land dit afgedwing het. Die Apartheidsregering het dit nie gedoen nie. Netso kan mens nie redeneer dat iemand wat in die Polisie was vir die Apartheidsregering Polisewerk gedoen het, of dat iemand wat by die Universiteit Filosofie gedoseer het, dit vir die Apartheidsregering gedoen het nie. Anton van Niekerk het vir die Staat gewerk. Nie vir die Apartheidsregering nie. En ook nie vir die Apartheidstaat nie. Netso dan, kan diensplig nie uitgesonder word as om dan nou glo Apartheidsregering-nasionale diensplig te wees nie.

Albei maak ‘n soortgelyke punt daaromtrent, naamlik dat wit mense wat aan die kant van die staat in dié oorlog geveg het, heeltemal geregverdig was om dit te doen.

In terme van die reels van Internasionale Reg, Nuremberg wette/beginsels en dies meer, was die soldate wat vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Magte geveg het, heeltemal geregverdig om dit te doen. Hulle is wettiglik opgeroep. Hulle is goed opgelei. Hulle het voldoen aan alle internasionale standaarde wat gestel word, en hulle het die grense van die land patrolleer teen die intensies van insypelaars wat die gepubliseerde doelwit gehad het om n marxistiese staat in die plek van die huidige te stel deur middel van die gebruik van geweld. Dis al. Dis regverdigbaar, netsoveel en meer so as die Kubane in Angola, die Russe in Mosambiek, die Amerikaners in Vietnam. Die Chinese in Vietnam.    Die rede daarvoor is dat die oorlog nie gegaan het om die regverdiging van die apartheidsbedeling nie, maar om die “beveg van die kommunistiese aanslag”. So reken Van Niekerk, sink die Afrikaners/Wittes se argument.

Die regte rede was egter gewoon die insypeling oor die grense van mense met Russiese wapens wat hulle aangewend het om publieke teikens, onder andere my familie en vriende op hulle plase en in dorpe aan te val en te vermoor met die gepubliseerde intensie om n Marxistiese Staat in Suid-Afrika te vestig.   Dis al getoetsde feit. Om nou nabetragtend uit Stellenbsoch agter jou omgekeerde lessenaar waar jy wegkruip die oordeel te fel: julle outjies wat diensplig gedoen het het geveg om apartheid in stand te hou, is gewoon nonsens.  Apartheid was nie in die prentjie nie. Ons het saam met swart troepe geveg. Baie van ons het swart peletons gelei. En ons het Kubane geskiet. Hoe is dit n geveg om apartheid te handhaaf?   En meeste van ons het Stellenbosch toe gekom en geveg teen Apartheid die heel jaar. En dan kampe gaan doen. Want dit was die reels, en ons het nogal die reels gevolg; iets wat ek vir die nuwe Suid-Afrika kan aanbeveel.

Van Niekerk kannie insien dat die nie-marxistiese demokratiese Suid-Afrika n vloek is wat gepleeg is in onderhandelinge tussen wit en swart na Rusland geval het nie. Dis gaan sy verstand te bowe omdat dit geen ideologiese nut het nie.   Die Nasionale Party het onmiddellik na die val van die Sowjet Unie, sy tempo verander en ses jaar later was die nuwe Suid-Afrika daar. Dis iets wat vreeslik standhou met die gedagte dat ons primer teen marxisme baklei het, en daarna bereid was om as kapitalisme, wat ons na aan die hart le, gewaarborg word, met ons swart landgenote tot n vergelyk te kom.  Wat meer is, die ANC was verplig om na die val van die Sowjet Unie baie vinnig aan te pas aangesien sy nuwe ondersteuners, borge en finansiers nie Russiese Kommuniste was nie, maar Wes Europese Demokrasiee vir wie privaat eiendom gelyk aan menseregte gereken is.

Om voor te gee dat die bg. net `n nonsensie is, `n klein jakkalsie, wat geen verskil maak nie WANT ONS HET GEFIGHT VIR APARTHEID vertoon n erg tipiese ANC-nuwe-SA-intoleransie vir enige iets of iemand wat met Big Brother Zum se struggle encyclopedia verskil.   Die argument is dat die ANC geen demokratiese intensies vir Suid-Afrika gehad het nie, en dat wit mense se deelname aan die oorlog uitgeloop het op ‘n skuif in die ANC se strategie van “stalinisme” na demokrasie en die regstaat.    Dis inderdaad nie die argument nie Anton. Dis die feite. Die ANC was n erg Marxistiese Party wat n Kommunistiese Land in die tradisie van China en Rusland hier sou vestig. Onaanvegbaar klaar.  En die wit mense se deelname aan die oorlog, HET die ANC vir lank genoeg gefrustreer in sy drome om vir broer Stalin n provinsie by te sit, dat die tyd verloop het en Rusland INEENGESTORT HET, en sodoende het enige kans om n post-Berlynse muur Kommunistiese Staat te vestig, in duie gestort. Watter deel hiervan is moeilik om te verstaan?

P.W. Botha en sy apartheid-regime was inderwaarheid heeltemal reg om die oorlog te regverdig in die naam van ‘n “totale ­aanslag” van ‘n Moskou-ANC-SAKP-geïnspireerde kommunisme, en die feit dat ons nooit so ‘n stelsel in Suid-Afrika gehad het wat ons moes ontbind na die val van Rusland nie,  is die gevolg van die oorlog en dus iets vir Afrikaners/wit mense om op trots te wees.

Hoe is dit dat die ANC en sy Koor, onder die indruk verkeer dat Kommunisme, die vieslikste en haglikste sosiale eksperiment wat tot dusver nog skeefgeloop het, en meer hel op aarde gebring het, en eiehandig meer as 50 miljoen mense se moord veroosaak het, nou n vlekkelose beleid was, en nie naastenby so erg was soos apartheid met sy 20 mense wat dood is in gevangeniskap nie? Hoe is dit dat die kommunistiese stelsel wat die ontwikkeling van mense ten koste van ALMAL wat daaronder geleef het, onmoontlik gemaak het en tot absolute armoede en minderwaardiheid gelei het orals waar dit gepleeg is, nou skielik n morele hoegrond kry bo Apartheid wat baie gesonder vir diegene onder sy skandvlek was ?

Hierdie betoog moet in samehang gelees word met Charl-Pierre Naudé se amperse oorval (“Filosoof deel pille uit vir haar eie siekte.”, DB, 29.06) oor Samantha Vice se fyn beredeneerde bespreking van die onomstootlike morele predikament verbonde aan wit-wees in Suid-Afrika (“How do I live in this strange place”, Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 41, no. 3: 323-342).

En dan looi Van Niekerk weer sy vyande. Naude se opinie word sarkasties as n oorval afgemaak. Ha ha ha lag ons almal saam. Maar, Samantha Vice se fyn beredeneerde betoog van die onomstootlike predikament van wit wees in Suid Afrika, word oppergesag. Van Niekerk, hou op snert verkondig. Hou net op. Die Afrikaner se geskiedenis is sye eie, en soos alle groepe sal hy dit self skryf. Die ANC het geen locus standi in die skrywe van my geskiedenis nie, omdat die ANC, maar net n korrupte Afrika regerende party is en niks meer as dit nie.  Insgelyks, is die enigste predikament aan wit wees in Suid Afrika, die genetiese mite wat skynbaar my ras konstitueer. Ek het geen predikament omdat ek wit is nie. Ek verafsku die nuwe Suid-Afrika, ek verafsku loopbaan-apologete soos jy wat vir die vorige en die huidige regime hulle intellektuele sluipmoorde pleeg, en ek het groot heimwee vir die ou Suid-Afrika, die Weermag en die tyd toe my mense my lewe bestuur het.

Anton,  as jy dit nie kan insien nie, hoekom skenk jy nie alles wat jy het in n fonds saam met almal wat skuldig is, en verontskuldig so jouself en jou kinders van julle algehele onwelvoeglike voorspoed wat uitsluitelik ten koste van swartmense opgebou of by swartmense gesteel is nie?

Tags: , , , , ,

A view down the beer and wine aisle of a super...

Image via Wikipedia

As a shareholder in Pick n Pay I obviously would like to see the returns on my investment grow but unfortunately, since Nick Badminton took over, there seems to have been a steady decline in performance from the company.

As a shareholder in Pick n Pay I obviously would like to see the returns on my investment grow but unfortunately, since Nick Badminton took over, there seems to have been a steady decline in performance from the company.

 Now we read that more than 3000 workers are to be retrenched and I find myself wondering why this is necessary and how it will help solve the problems (Pick n Pay to axe up to 3000 staff as market share slides, July 7). One would assume that if they are on a growth path with more stores, then more people would be hired.

As a customer, my wife finds Pick n Pay much less appealing than ever before, although she has a “card”.

– Staff, at least in Johannesburg outlets, are surly and unfriendly, which will surely not improve now.

– In the large stores the additional space is not used to provide a greater range of product but to add more and more of the same.

Every Walmart store I have visited in the US has many alternative brands. In Pick n Pay if you don’t want Ricoffy you can have Nescafe and that’s it — but it will take 10m of shelf space to show you this.

– Since it uses external merchandisers whom it doesn’t manage properly, the aisles are often blocked by merchandiser trolleys with people busy on both sides of the same aisle.

– Products are often not price-marked. Shelf marking is poor and it is necessary to check the barcode to ensure that the price you see is the price you might pay.

– There is a serious shortage of floor staff to assist customers — those that are there seem to spend their time talking to each other, always at the expense of serving the customer.

– At bakery counters the quality of fresh product varies greatly from one outlet to another and there are not enough serving staff. Plenty of people, but limited servers.

– The aisle marking is poor and confusing. Products are not, from the customer perspective at least, logically grouped to facilitate a walk-through buying pattern.

In the Norwood store the shelves are so high one cannot get a general overview of the layout or find the correct aisle marking easily.

– Floors are cluttered with “stuff”, especially as you enter the sales area, adding to the sense of confusion and chaos. His biographic details show that Mr Badminton is a Bishops boy who went straight into Pick n Pay from school at a young age.

He was apparently turfed out of home by his dad but he does not seem to have learned from that experience. I assume he has had some formal management training, although this is not shown anywhere, neither is any work experience other than at Pick n Pay. He has apparently only lived the Pick n Pay approach to selling.

When I worked in the supply chain some 20 years ago Pick N Pay was our most arrogant of customers, but it had little competition then.

Now that there is competition it needs to learn that its customers are what it is all about.

Screwing suppliers is only part of the story. Getting customers into the stores is its part of the deal. Arrogance doesn’t help. You have to listen and live the experience.

In the meanwhile, Checkers are just up my street, which is a great relief to an old man, if not to my investments.

Henry Watermeyer


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Caricature of Idi Amin, the president of Ugand...


My family and I moved to Canada just over two years ago and I have never looked back since.  While the Home Coming Revolution say there is an increase of the people wanting to return we are certainly not amongst them and would immigrate somewhere else before returning to South Africa.

Looking at the site itself only one side of the picture is painted, it is certainly not balanced and as a result find it to be propagandist. Bridget Britten-Kelly stated in a News24 story that blogs on the site increase by 137% but provides no figures. There is no indication of why people want to return, what percentage of people wanting to return actually do, what is number of people who immigrated verse the number of people returning and how many people leave the country or are planning to leave the country each year. She also does not state how many people who have returned actually re-immigrate or are unhappy with this decision to return. It really sounds like some neo-liberal organisation.

We have not involved ourselves in the South African community here at all; but we come across South Africans almost every day, it is honestly unavoidable in a city like Vancouver. We have not met any that want to go back and there seem to more and more arriving all the time.

Anyone can make it

My wife had found a new career and is enjoying it; I will soon be starting on a Canadian qualification at a top institute, which will lead to new and better career prospects. My son enjoys school and has an abundance of future opportunities available to him; including the opportunity to study at the best universities in the world where entrance is based purely on GPA. By this time next year we will own property in one of the hottest property markets in the world. It does take time settle in and moving half way across the world comes with a set of challenges, but by making the most of your move you can do it quite quickly.

We are not wealthy or particularly well qualified, just your average people; so if we can do it then so can anyone else. In fact we were in the middle to high income bracket in South Africa, here we are in the middle-income bracket and are still able to save far more than we did in South Africa.

The sense of freedom one feels living in a country like Canada cannot be explained, it is something that has to be experienced. After living here now for over two years we could not be happier and have decided never to return and will be proud citizens this time next year.

Crime is not the only factor

In South Africa, like most people, our family was a victim of crime. We enjoy living in a society is pretty safe and we never feel threatened by crime. However that is simply one reason for us not to return. The fact that Canada is stable and economically sound also makes a big difference. A major stress reliever is that everything runs as it should and government departments provide the high level of service that my tax money pays them to do.

It is difficult to predict what one’s life will be like ten or twenty years from now, but this is what you have to consider when deciding to immigrate anywhere or return to your home country. Looking at what is happening in South Africa there are certainly new concerns and for the sake of our future and our children we will take our chances here. These are additional reasons for us not wanting to return.

One man can be dangerous

Crime is still a consideration, however a much greater concern should be not be Julius Malema’s comments but the rising support of the policies touted by him within the ANC and its alliance partners. Yes, he is part of the larger ANC organisation and is confined by the constitution but his racial slurs are not criticised by the party leadership, nor are his attacks on the West. Of greater concern is his push for nationalisation is gaining momentum. The current ANC leadership appears too weak and does not seem to be able to handle him. This proves that he is becoming increasingly powerful and influential within the organisation making a serious potential candidate for its leadership.

One man can make a difference; look at Mugabe, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin. In fact Hitler promoted Pan-Germanism while Malema is promoting Pan-Africanism. The thing to remember is these leaders certainly did not allow little things like constitutions to get in their way. If the ANC does go ahead and changes the constitution to legally allow the appropriation of land, mines and banks by the government then what is stopping them from making other self-serving changes such as extending the presidential term indefinitely.

Inefficiency does not create employment. One does not have to be an economics professor to understand that inefficiency leads to greater unemployment in the long the run. The ANC has not been successful in running the public organisations it is mandated to do. High crime, falling education standards, unemployment, no service delivery, corruption, unqualified financial reports of municipalities and inefficient government service is the order of the day.

There is no sign that it is improving in any way, in fact things are regressing. It appears that the government’s attitude is that it could be worse rather than let’s make it better. There is not a sense of “Let’s be all we can be”. Now if nationalisation goes ahead (there is a strong possibility it may) this style of management is going to be brought into organisations that are currently run by educated and experienced professionals. This does not paint a good picture for the future of those organisations, the unemployed or South Africa.

The right type of FDI is needed

Recently Wall Mart took over Massmart and some have seen that as countries wanting to invest in South Africa. Massmart is a drop in the ocean for Wall Mart and honestly all they are doing is taking over existing infrastructure. The type of investment South Africa needs to attract for it to be beneficial is one where new factories and technology is brought into the country and this is simply not happening. New companies wanting to invest into South Africa are put off by governments who want to start a process of nationalisation and this will result in a decline in foreign direct investment into the country. Why should they invest in South Africa when they can freely invest in many other countries in the world, especially those that have a cheaper and more efficient labour force?

The Youth League leaders, wearing Armani suits, drinking Johnnie Walker and driving German luxury vehicles, promotes nationalisation as cure for unemployment. It obvious this is more in self-interest rather than to uplift the poor and youth. If they were interested in the youth they would be promoting a solid education system, entrepreneurial skills within the youth, labour efficiency and an open market which encourages business and investment. This will allow South Africa to compete with the rest of the world and is really the only cure for unemployment. Even communist countries such as China understand this principle.

Stability is good

South Africa is a democracy, no doubt. However the difference between living in Canada and South Africa is that non-performing governments get voted out of power and so are forced to perform.

Are things getting better in South Africa? Are any of the countries underlying problems being addressed? The answer seems to be no for both of these. Prices have increased dramatically, even our better off family members are finding increasingly difficult financially. Unemployment is unacceptably high, crime is not getting any better and the education system does not have the ability to provide the country with a decently skilled work force.

Then one has to ask, will it be any better ten or twenty years from now when our children need to find jobs? I think it will be very unlikely that it is unless the country gets a leader who is strong and places the wellbeing of the country over his own interests in the most passionate way. On the other end of the scale the likely hood of Canada or Australia still being stable in ten to twenty years from is pretty good. They have been stable democracies for many years and will continue to be

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

CAPE TOWN/SOUTH AFRICA, 10JUN2009 -Jacob Zuma,...

Image via Wikipedia

Upholding important democratic principles doesn’t always make for defending the most savoury of characters. So, while Tuesday’s Equality Court ruling against Jon Qwelane is certainly a victory for gay rights, what it means for freedom of expression is less certain. By THERESA MALLINSON. “And by the way, please tell the Human Rights Commission that I totally refuse to withdraw or apologise for my views. I will write no letters to the commission either, explaining my thoughts…” So wrote Jon Qwelane in his now-infamous column, “Call me names, but gay is NOT okay…”, published in the Sunday Sun in 2008. Tuesday’s ruling by the Equality Court means Qwelane is going to have to eat his words – and cough up some money as well – R100,000 to be precise. Understandably, the column provoked an outcry on publication, with press ombudsman Joe Thloloe receiving more than a thousand complaints. Among other statements, in the column Qwelane declared his support for Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe regarding his “unflinching and unapologetic stance over homosexuals” and, referring to the Civil Union Bill, asked: “How soon before some idiot demands to ‘marry’ an animal, and argues that this Constitution ‘allows’ it?” Hateful certainly, and deserving of condemnation in the strongest terms. But is it hate speech? Section 16 of our Constitution provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including “freedom of the press and other media”. However, among other caveats, this right does not extend to “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”. What people crying “hate speech” often seem to forget is this last clause: incitement to cause harm. But there is also another law that addresses hate speech, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Discrimination Act, which states: “[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; or promote or propagate hatred.” And, although “a clear intention to be hurtful” may be broader than “incitement to cause harm”, such intention still needs to be proven. In his ruling on the matter back in 2008, press ombudsman Joe Thloloe found that the Sunday Sun had breached the South African Press Code on three counts. These were: Publishing denigratory references to people’s sexual orientation in the column by Qwelane; Implying that homosexuals are a lower breed than heterosexuals; and In the cartoon accompanying the column, which was also disparaging of homosexuals. Thloloe did not find that the column constituted hate speech: “In this column Qwelane does not advocate hatred, but merely states his views on homosexuality and is not calling for the harming of gays and lesbians. It is robust language, but not hate speech, as pointed out by Gender Equality Commissioner Yvette Abrahams in a letter published in Sunday Sun, ‘Qwelane stops just short of what would be considered hate speech under the law’.” The Equality Court sees it differently. On Tuesday it found in favour of the complainant, the South African Human Rights Council. “The article and cartoon propagates hatred and harm against homosexuals. Homosexuals as represented by the complainant have suffered emotional pain and suffering as a result of the action of the respondent,” read the ruling. Qwelane was ordered to pay R100,000 in damages, and make an unconditional apology to the LGBT community. Pierre de Vos, constitutional law expert at UCT, said he’s in two minds about the ruling. “I obviously think that what Qwelane said was completely offensive and disgusting, but I am a bit nervous about the use of hate speech in general to limit freedom of expression, so I would argue that the Equality Act should be as restrictive as possible to limit the effect it would have on freedom of expression. “I’m not so sure that it should have been found to be hate speech,” De Vos said. “The test is whether it could reasonably be construed as to have the intention to be hateful, or was he merely expressing deeply obnoxious views that he truly believes in? As somebody who is on the side of free speech, it’s probable I wouldn’t have found that it was hate speech.” De Vos notes that the Equality Act itself may fall foul of the Constitution. He said it was plausible that Qwelane’s column was found to be hate speech, “given how the Equality Act is currently phrased”. However, he added: “I also believe the Equality Act might be unconstitutional. The freedom of expression section of the Constitution defines hate speech as speech that is not protected as such, that constitutes incitement to cause harm, and the Equality Act says [hate speech is] any speech that can reasonably be construed as being hurtful to a group, so it’s much broader. It clearly is a limit on free speech, and the question is, is it justifiable or not?” Notwithstanding his legal background, De Vos feels such issues are best dealt with outside of court. “My view is that in an open and undemocratic society the best way to deal with disgusting and obnoxious speech is to confront it and argue against it and to confront the person who makes personal statements,” he said. “The law is not really the best way to deal with it. Even in the Julius Malema case, I argued that it wasn’t in their best interests to take him to court.” The Malema case De Vos is referring to isn’t the “Kill the boer” case, which is currently awaiting judgment by the Equality Court, but Malema’s previous run-in with this court, where he was fined R50,000 for the comments he made relating to President Jacob Zuma’s rape case: “When a woman didn’t enjoy it, she leaves early in the morning. Those who had a nice time will wait until the sun comes out, request breakfast and taxi money. In the morning that lady requested breakfast and taxi money. You don’t ask for taxi money from somebody who raped you.” As De Vos writes in his blog, Constitutionally Speaking: “Given the modest educational achievements of the respondent, his sexist world view and the context in which the words were uttered (at an election rally where Julius was defending Jacob Zuma) it is far from clear that his words could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to cause harm to women in general. “Even if the words could be so construed, the magistrate erred by failing to make a finding on this crucial point. She thus never made a finding on whether, objectively determined, Julius could be reasonably suspected of having the intention to harm women in general. By failing to focus on the intention of the respondent, the magistrate did not apply the test for hate speech correctly.” Regarding the Qwelane finding, the magistrate in question accepted the arguments put forward by the complainant, one of them being: “It is evident from the wording of the article that the intention of the second respondent was to communicate words that would be construed to demonstrate the intention to be hurtful, harmful, and which would propagate hatred…” As Qwelane did not present a defence, the matter of his intentions was not examined in depth, and the argument of the complainant was uncontested. HRC spokesman, Vincent Moaga, said the commission had laid the case after receiving several complaints. The HRC waited until the press ombudsman had made his ruling before it launched its own case. “After our assessment of the complaint, we found that there was indeed a prima facie case of human rights violations,” Moaga said. “We met with various stakeholders who had lodged complaints; we thought it might be best to take it to the Equality Court, which we did.” Asked about the ruling, Moaga said: “We are quite pleased that the court concurred with us on all the issues we placed before it. For us this is one of the major victories on our part to continue to fight and eradicate inequality.” Speaking about freedom of expression, he said: “We are always of the view that people have a right to freedom of expression, but then that there are limitations within that right, and some of those limitations are well set out in the Equality Act.” The ruling is obviously a huge boost for South Africa’s LGBT community. Cobus Fourie, a board member of The South African Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation – a group formed directly in response to Qwelane’s column – said the ruling was: “Definitely a move in the right direction, meaning that it sends out a clear message that one cannot trample on human rights or the rights of minorities in this country”. In terms of the R100,000 in damages, Fourie said: “We welcome the monetary compensation and I think it should go towards hate-crimes prevention.” Moaga said the HRC had yet to decide how the money would be distributed. Speaking in her personal capacity, Phumi Mtetwa, the former director of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Project, said: “I think the ruling comes at a very important time when this country is discussing freedom of speech, but I think every activist, every human rights activist, should be welcoming the ruling of the Equality Court.” Like Fourie, she also highlighted the importance of the ruling’s message. “I think it sends a very stern message in a context in which hate crimes and corrective rape take place. Within 30 days during April and May, four lesbians were raped and killed, so we hope this judgment will send a message to the religious fundamentalists and politicians who are silent on the issues about hate crimes and corrective rape.” Mtetwa’s mention of politicians was no accident. Qwelane’s opinions on homosexuality take on an added dimension considering he is South Africa’s ambassador to Uganda, a country with draconian anti-homosexuality laws, and which is currently looking at even harsher penalties for homosexuals. Qwelane’s initial appointment to this post was met with outrage in certain quarters, and now the issue is back on the agenda. Department of international relations and cooperation spokesman Clayton Monyela said on Tuesday: “This incident happened before Qwelane was appointed as ambassador by the President. He wrote the article in his personal capacity. So it’s in his personal capacity he must deal with this.” However, Monyela has subsequently announced the department will study the ruling before deciding whether disciplinary action will be taken. For Mtetwa, this isn’t good enough. “I think that Dirco cannot just say Jon Qwelane’s thing was personal and was said before he was appointed ambassador. I think the appointment of ambassadors must be based on track record, and the fact that they’re distancing themselves and saying that it’s a personal thing is not acceptable. We are calling on the department and the presidency to recall Qwelane.” She has a point. Ambassadors are, or rather should be, chosen based on their record, moral standing and their ability to present the best of South Africa. In cases where the country of their posting has laws at loggerheads with our own Constitution, their commitment to representing South Africa’s position is critical. Our gay rights legislation, including the Civil Union Bill, is the front-runner on the continent. We need to appoint ambassadors who are willing to promote this stance. Not speak out against it, either prior to or during their time in office. Airing one’s opinion at a dinner party among friends is one thing, but writing in your personal capacity on a public platform, as Qwelane did, is quite another. As such, why President Jacob Zuma chose to appoint him as ambassador to Uganda is inexplicable. To return to the judgment of the Equality Court: It remains to be seen how an apology, and even R100,000, will remedy the hurt Qwelane caused. We are outraged and appalled at his despicable statements, but it has to be asked: Is bigotry a crime? While Qwelane’s words call for robust condemnation, this doesn’t necessarily mean we should be legislating against them. Baldly put: A victory for LGBT and human rights activists that is at the expense of freedom of expression is a pretty hollow victory. And the chilling effect this episode could have on freedom of expression further down the line is extremely worrying. DM Photo: John Qwelane testifies before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s special hearing on media at the South African Brocasting Corparation (SABC) in Johannesburg September 17. He accused mainstream English newspapers of colluding with the apartheid state between 1960 and 1994.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Overview of the Corruption Perceptions Index (...

Image via Wikipedia

South Africa’s ANC is reviving apartheid-era secrecy laws that could make exposing corruption or dodgy government deals punishable with prison, raising fears for the future of the country’s new democracy. Opponents of the Protection of Information Bill argue it will allow dishonest officials to hide misdemeanours by making sensitive information difficult to obtain and by threatening journalists or whistleblowers with up to 25 years in jail. Even the ANC’s biggest ally, the trade union federation COSATU, has called on the former liberation movement not to rush the proposed bill into law. “This new bill is a threat to South Africans’ democratic right to be fully informed on matters of public interest,” COSATU, which claims about 2 million members, said in statement. “It could be abused to cover up information on corruption, the misuse of public resources and to criminalise whistleblowers who try to expose crime and corruption.” The ANC, which came to power in 1994 after decades of white-minority rule, says the law is in line with international norms and is not a bid to gag whistleblowers or the media, which makes a habit of exposing tales of state fraud and corruption. The ANC said newspapers that want access to classified documents can go through courts, a long and drawn-out process. “The claim that the media can seek access to a classified document via the courts is laughable,” the Sunday Times, South Africa’s leading weekend newspaper, said in an editorial. “This amounts to censorship by litigation,” it continued. “In the event that the courts grant permission, (it) would occur a considerable time after it was relevant.” A survey by market research company TNS released this week showed only 31 percent of South Africans supported the new laws Once implemented the laws would give more civil servants and state institutions sweeping powers to deem documents state secrets, raising concerns among investors about the health of state enterprises such as power utility Eskom . “The law, if and when it’s passed, will not have an immediate market impact but investors are concerned about a creeping erosion of transparency,” said Anne Fruhauf, Eurasia’s Africa analyst. “An investor comparing emerging markets said they were more confident about the information from Brazil, which we all know has corruption and transparency issues, than they were about the information they obtain in South Africa,” she added. “If you close down the space further, you have a problem.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,