 |
| Manuel |
 |
| Manyi |
In short, we racialised the basic criterion for ensuring socio-economic transformation. In terms thereof it is now the position that, as regards jobs and contracts, it is the law that –
a) a White must be discriminated against outright;
b) a Black must be the recipient of favourable discrimination; and
c) and a Coloured, Indian or Chinese may be treated as a Black if he/she accepts such label.
Right there we embraced and embedded a concept that was at the very heart of apartheid culture. We adopted racism as central to our transformative model. Perhaps it was understandable. Given the prevailing polemics, perhaps it was unavoidable. The people, it seems, may not have tolerated anything less at that time. However, as history so often proves, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Using “reverse racism” as the national transformative elixir was like using snake venom to cure the effects of the bite – inherently dangerous. The BEE brigade and “tenderpreneurs" were to prove emphatically just how dangerous.
At the same time, we proudly held up our Constitution as a standard for the whole world. It positively prohibits racial/ethnic discrimination, except that the right not to be discriminated against can be limited, but only as follows –
36. Limitation of rights
1. The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including
a. the nature of the right;
b. the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
c. the nature and extent of the limitation;
d. the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
e. less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
2. Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.
Put quite simply, you cannot be discriminated against, unless it “is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society and there isn’t a less restrictive means to achieve the same purpose”.
So do/did we have “a less restrictive means to achieve the same purpose …” that accords with what “is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom?”
The answer is a resounding Yes! It is staring us in the face and is really a no-brainer! It is not rocket science!
A person should be affirmed if he/she is still disadvantaged on account of the effects of apartheid.
That is logical. It is common sense. It is right. It is fair. Most of all it is not racist. Whatever your race, ethnicity or skin colour, if you are a citizen, still disadvantaged on account of apartheid, you may be affirmed! Goodbye BEE and the other corrupt stratagems that have sabotaged, not promoted, true transformation. The poor would actually be affirmed, not have their faces spat in.
The Coloured issue was always a touchstone on the issue of whether or not these AA and BEE laws/protocols bring about transformation and social justice. The stinky nature of things is proved by the simple fact that, during apartheid years, many Coloureds had to play White in order to secure socio-economic advantage. Now, by law, they have to play Black!.
It gets a lot more stinky, as we are now seeing. Let’s be reminded of this little matter -
In the aftermath of his failure to become the president of the South African Rugby Union (SARU), Mike Stofile said the elections at the annual general meeting held on Friday proved there was no place for black people in South African rugby. …."I've been saying for four years now there is no place for black people in South African rugby and this is the final nail for black people in this country. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-03-28-stofile-there-is-no-place-for-black-people-in-sa-rugby
Stofile said this after being beaten, in a democratic election process, by Oregan Hoskins, a Coloured, for the position of president of SARU. Mike Stofile’s stance could not have been more clear. Whatever we were imagining, under our much vaunted AA and BEE laws/protocols, Coloureds were not Black and had no right to be selected, democratic process or not, in preference to a Black.
ANC leadership said nothing. The Human Rights Commission said nothing. The whole nation was paralyzed by this show of blatant racism.
 |
| Roberts |
The High Court was obliged, so it seems, to declare that Chinese folk were Black.
Now the ANC Government proposes bringing in a Bill to limit the number of Coloured people an employer can have in the work place in the Western Cape. For the objectives of the Bill to be achieved the so called “Coloureds are Black definition under labour law” has to be dumped. So under our marvelous, world beating Constitution, Coloured folk stand to be defined as both “Black” and “non-Black”.
All of the above is, self-evidently, nonsensical to the point of near insanity. It is vomitus stuff. Whatever else, it certainly cannot be viewed as “reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”.
It is not reasonable, but madness. It is not justifiable, but racist.
Most of all it is not based “on human dignity, equality and freedom”. It is an insidious, systemic, stinky business in which we are demeaning our humanity and thrashing the dignity of all people of Colour.
Understandably many Coloured folk have been confused on the matter. We need to understand that, as a matter of simple anthropological/genetic fact, we are not Black, just as we are not White. We are neither Negroid nor Caucasian. To say we are Black is to propagate a very “convenient untruth”.
We also need to understand that, whatever the pretence, we are not accepted as Black. We must be indebted to people like Stofile, Roberts and Manyi for being honest enough to expose a huge “inconvenient truth”.
Most importantly, we need to understand that the social and legal obsession with being Black is racist. It is a “social construct” that had its uses in the American and South African struggle for social justice, but is no longer relevant in “an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”.
If we continue to countenance this pernicious concept we will not be just on George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” but on the “The Plantation”, with Manyi and gang being the masters, those who embrace the Black label being “house niggers” and the rest of us being the “plantation niggers”.
When Mohamed Bouazizi, of Tunisia was tired of having his dignity trashed, he was moved to commit immolation. This brought down a government and led to a long outstanding struggle for social justice in the Arab world.
Our dignity, and rights, are being trashed. We don’t need to set ourselves on fire like Mohamed Bouazizi. We just need to take the thing to the Constitutional Court. Whatever utility the thing was perceived to have at the time it was conceived, in 1994-6, actual experience has proved, and is proving, beyond doubt that it really has no place in our society. We voted the DA into power in the Western Cape. It has the resources to mount a constitutional challenge. As a retired High Court judge, it is my respectful stance that the racist criteria for affirmative action will not stand up, as it requires the most tortuously obscene reasoning in support.
 |
| Lady Justice |
Therefore speak to them in parables: because
they seeing, see not
and hearing they hear not,
neither do they understand
Mathew: 13:13
No comments:
Post a Comment