Affirmative Action Is Racism ... by Dr Peter Hammond

Only Biblical Christianity offers a rational basis for opposing racism and for pursuing justice.

Equality before the Law is a Biblical principle:“The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the Lord. The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.”

Num 15:15-16 “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.”

Jesus Christ

Leviticus 19:15 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28“For He Himself is our peace Who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.”

 Ephesians 2:14 “From one man He made every nation of men…”

Acts 17:26 “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.”

2 Corinthians 5:17-19 “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength…love your neighbour as yourself.”

Mark 12:30-31 Before the coming of Christ, the heathen nations despised honest work and consigned it to slaves. When Christ was born, half of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. Three quarters of the population of Athens were slaves. 

But Jesus revolutionised labour. By taking up the axe, the saw, the hammer and the plane, our Lord imbued labour with a new dignity. Christianity undercut slavery by giving dignity to work. By reforming work Christianity transformed the entire social order. Our Lord Jesus Christ began His ministry in Nazareth with these words: “The Spirit of the Lord is on Me…to proclaim freedom for the prisoners…and release to the oppressed.”

Luke 4:18 When the Apostle Paul wrote to Philemon concerning his escaped slave, he urged him to welcome back Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but…as a dear brother…as a man and as a brother in the Lord.”

Philemon 16: Because of these and other Scriptural commands to love our neighbour, to be good Samaritans and to do for others what you would want them to do for you, Christians like St. Patrick, William Wilberforce, John Newton, William Carey, David Livingstone, Lord Shaftsbury and General Charles Gordon, and so many others, worked tirelessly to end the slave trade, stop child labour and set the captives free. Amongst all the religions of the world, only Christianity brought an end to the slave trade. On the other hand, those who hold to Darwin's theory of evolution, have no objective basis with which to counter racism. In fact, Darwinian Evolutionism has inspired a whole host of racist ideologies and movements including Communism. The actual title of Darwin's famous evolutionary book is: “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

Karl Marx wanted to dedicate “Das Kapital” to Charles Darwin and wrote “Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in the natural sciences for the historical class struggle.” “

Violence is the midwife…” As Stalin so succinctly put it: “Evolution leads to revolution.”
Both Darwin and Marx expressed racist views. It is ironic that so many Russians and Africans have held Marxist beliefs, because Marx himself despised the Slavs and the Blacks, writing that they were “frozen at pre-civilisation levels” and would never make any contribution to history!

(Karl Marx The Racist, 1978; Understanding The Times, David Noebel, 1991; Marx and Satan, Richard Wurmbrand). “They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity…” 2 Peter 2:19

The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as: “…discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.” 

Yet many who speak out vitriolicly against racism, are themselves racist, displaying intense antagonism towards people of other races, and advocating policies which discriminate on the basis of race. 

These are many of the same people who would respect Martin Luther King, but who are not willing to live by his maxim: “They will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

Frustrated people easily give in to character conditioned hate. The easiest idea to sell anyone is that he is better than someone else. The holocaust in Rwanda where mobs of Hutus slaughtered over 800 000 Tutsi Christians is just one example of the destructive power of tribalism in Africa today. More people were killed with machetes in six weeks in Rwanda, than have been killed by nuclear weapons in all of history. 

H.G. Wells noted that racism “justifies and holds together more baseness, cruelty and abomination than any other sort of error in the world.” 

Abraham Heschel described racism as “the maximum of hatred for a minimum of reason.” 

It is disturbing how many African leaders, while ostensibly opposing racism support one of the most vitriolic racists on the continent today: Robert Mugabe. 

Despite Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe, being guilty of some of the most vicious racism with a disastrous policy of state sponsored terrorism, the stealing and looting of farms and businesses, murder of farmers and opposition members, terrorising of supreme court justices, bombing of opposition newspaper offices, imprisoning of critics and reckless promotion of racial hatred against whites and Jews, the ANC government of South Africa steadfastly refuses to criticise Mugabe. 

The crisis in Zimbabwe is severe. People are dying of starvation in a man made famine, orchestrated by the ZANU-PF government of Robert Mugabe. Thousands of productive farms have been seized by government organised mobs. Vast herds of cattle and wildlife have been slaughtered. Crops and stores burned. Farmhouses looted. Many people beaten or murdered. 

One of the most productive agricultural economies in Africa has been systematically destroyed because of fanatical racial hatred. Not only did these farms feed the entire nation, but they also exported food, providing the highest percentage of foreign exchange earnings. These commercial farms were also the largest employers of labour in the country and provided homes for up to 4 million farm workers and their dependants. 

Yet, the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, needing a scapegoat for his failed socialism, played the race card and declared: “Farmers are enemies of the state!… We have degrees in violence!…I will be a Black Hitler - 10 fold!…Those farmers who resist will die!” 

During the March 2002 Presidential Election in Zimbabwe over 1 400 MDC election observers and supporters were arrested in a massive nation wide clamp down on the opposition. Human rights groups documented over 70 000 human rights abuses in the run up to the elections. This included severe beatings, abductions, torture and murder. ZANU-PF officials, supporters, war veterans and youth brigade militia rampaged through residential areas, attacking people indiscriminately, beating street vendors, dragging white farmers from their cars, savagely beating and murdering many. 

Yet, although almost all observers condemned the elections as fraudulent, incredibly, the African National Congress (ANC) government of South Africa expressed their “warm congratulations” to Robert Mugabe for “a convincing majority win.” 

Many condemned the ANC's “obscene haste” to declare the poll legitimate, even before all the reports had come in. When the head of the South African Observer Commission declared the elections “legitimate” and brushed aside the widespread murder, violence, abduction and torture of observers and massive irregularities, he was jeered by journalists and diplomats alike. When questioned about the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters in Zimbabwe, the ANC official dismissed it as “an administrative oversight!” Journalists laughed out loud, stood up and walked out in disgust. 

“Whoever says to the guilty, you are innocent - peoples will curse him and nations denounce him.” Proverbs 24:24 

It is evident that this blind support for Mugabe is inspired, in large part, by racial prejudice. Despite Mugabe engineering one of the most “spectacular economic collapses in history” with his national suicide of Zimbabwe, all too many black political leaders support him - irrespective of the lawlessness and savagery afflicting the population of Zimbabwe. 

This racism and hypocrisy was also evident at the UN World Summit hosted in South Africa. Even while Mugabe's supporters were slaughtering endangered wildlife and destroying huge forests and game reserves in Zimbabwe, Mugabe was being applauded as a key note speaker at the World Summit on Sustainable Development! Some of the greatest game reserves in Africa have been in Zimbabwe. Now many of these wildlife sanctuaries are scenes of unprecedented slaughter. Along with the wholesale poaching, marxist mobs have been engaged in wholesale theft, abductions and murder. Properties have been burned out, tourists have been chased out of safari camps and game rangers have been assaulted and even killed.

“How long will the land lie parched and the grass in every field be withered? Because those who live in it are wicked, the animals and birds have perished.” Jeremiah 12:4 

Under Mugabe even judges have been assaulted by mobs in their chambers in court, journalists and editors have been arrested and tortured, pastors have been arrested for praying for peace and justice, and the only independent daily newspaper and radio station in Zimbabwe have been blown up. 

“Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets.” Psalm 55:11 

How can anybody in the ANC ever again speak against the racial discrimination of “apartheid South Africa”, when they have instituted their own racial discrimination through affirmative action in South Africa and are so enthusiastically supportive of Robert Mugabe's vicious racism in Zimbabwe? 

Dr Peter Hammond

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…who are wise in their own eyes…who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent…for they have rejected the Law of the Lord Almighty…” Isaiah 5:20-24 

Dr Peter Hammond is the author of In The Killing Fields of Mozambique, Holocaust in Rwanda, and Faith Under Fire in Sudan.  

Judicial Service Commission … political renting?

The Supreme Court of Appeal, South Africa, (SCA) has lambasted the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)

for attempting to brush the John Hlophe issue under the carpet.

What happened is that two Constitutional Court Judges had alleged that Hlophe attempted to influence them in an upcoming hearing on a matter involving Jacob Zuma, then a presidential candidate; now President. As a result all of the Judges of the Constitutional Court had signed a letter formally laying a complaint of an attempt by Hlophe to pervert the course of justice in violation of our Constitution. Hlophe filed a counter complaint of victimization. Both claims remain unproven.

Judge John Mandlakayise Hlophe is perceived as a champion of Black interests in the ANC camp. Not surprisingly, therefore, his cause was taken up within the camp, and the Constitutional Court Judges, and their complaint came under vociferous attack. A "Justice For Hlophe Alliance" was formed.

Under the Constitution the JSC has a duty to adjudicate complaints properly laid against a judge. The nation awaited its decision with bated breath.

The JSC did not adjudicate the matter. It concluded that it was unable to do so. Its reasoning was that any hearing on the matter would be a waste of time, as it would never be able to decide the truth of the matter, given Hlophe’s denial. It is to state the obvious to say that when a person is accused of misconduct, civil or criminal, the fact the he/she denies it can never preclude/disable an adjudicating body from having a hearing and deciding where the truth is. Courts, tribunals and other fora all over the world, are daily faced with situations of dispute.  Deciding truth is the very essence of adjudication. So, in simple terms, the JSC decided to funk out of its duty. The SCA has said as much. The question is Why? Why did the JSC decide to abdicate its duty to decide whether or not Judge John Hlophe was guilty?

What happened inevitably induced a perception that Hlophe’s enormous political stature, and perceived connections to the now very powerful Jacob Zuma camp, influenced the JSC and triggered their dysfunction. In terms of this view, it is really a no brainer, given how obviously wrong their funk was? John Mandlakayise Hlophe had the political currency to save him. The JSC was prepared to deal in it. It is called political renting. Is this the culture at the JSC?

I (Chris Greenland) appeared before the JSC to be interviewed as to my suitability for appointment as a judge. As the interview started, Commissioner Julian Von Klemperer (picture on right) stated –“Mr. Chairman we are opposing confirmation of this candidate as a judge”. 
The interview had hardly begun … and here was a commitment by a camp, because that is what the use of the word “we” must mean, to oppose my candidature whatever my performance in the interview.  There had been a complaint that Von Klemperer "did not apply its mind" to the issue in the process involving adjudication of the Hlophe matter. This is exactly what Von Klemperer was now doing as regards my candidature ...  not applying his mind to the process but prosecuting an agenda instead!

Klemperer camp was making it clear that he and others on the Commission had already made up their minds. An interview was a waste of time. Coincidentally Hlophe tried unsuccessfully to have Von Klemperer removed from the JSC panel due to adjudicate the complaint about him. 

In support of this agenda against me, because that is what it was, Von Klemperer served up a monstrous lie, and produced a false transcript of court proceedings over which I had presided, in order to support the lie. Despite my protestations that the accusation was preposterous the attack was allowed. See media report …
In doing so, he admitted that it was an “ambush”, as I had not been given any notice of his accusations. It is an established practice of the JSC that candidates are given timeous notice of concerns.

Thereafter there was no interview, as the matters covered could never have informed any reasonable person as to my suitability for a judgeship. For instance, it was muted that Robert Mugabe had appointed me as a judge as an act of “reconciliation”.

Quite obviously if members of an adjudicating authority make it clear at the start of the process that they are not going to accept your candidature, whatever you might have to say, the subsequent interview is a sham. Permitting the ambush, and the marginal relevance of the questions that followed, simply confirmed the process as a complete sham.

In a subsequent communication to the JSC, both the complete falsity of the accusation and the transcript, advanced by Von Klemperer, were proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The further obvious point was made that the falsehoods had been advanced in terms of an artfully crafted agenda, at the heart of which had been the production of a false transcript. Since the court had been jam-packed with lawyers and advocates, at the time I presided over it, all these “officers of the court” had not heard me say what Von Klemperer served up to the JSC. And yet the lies had been served up all the same.

The glaringly obvious point was made that to serve up lies to the JSC, in order to mislead it in its sacred duty to assess a candidate for the office of judge, was subversive of our constitution. The further point was made that, in terms of evidence, manifest before and after the interview, it was clear that the motive behind the whole scam was to block my appointment, as I was perceived as being pro public in Road Accident Fund matters. The Chief Justice, Pius Langa,  confirmed, after many months of insistence for an answer, that the falsehood had emanated from the Eastern Cape Society of Advocates.

Advocates are officers of the court. By any test, lying by an advocate to a public body is serious. Lying to the JSC, a constitutional organ of State, could not be more serious. It is of interest to note for instance –

The Judicial Service Act (Ch 14) of Uganda, S 21 –

“Any person who, in connection with the exercise by the commission of its functions, wilfully gives to the commission any information which he or she knows to be false or does not believe to be true, or which he or she knows to be false by reason of the omission of any material particular, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding thirty currency points or to imprisonment not exceeding twelve months or to both.”

Lying in order to block the appointment of a shortlisted candidate to the office of judge is indescribably serious. It is a subversion of the Constitution, as it obviously disables the JSC from making a competent assessment of a candidate.

This occurred in October 2008. To date the JSC has done absolutely nothing about the matter. The miscreants are known. What they did stands proved beyond doubt. Why? Why has this matter of most serious implications been also swept under the carpet?

The answer appears from the facts of the incident itself. As said, Von Klemperer was allowed to commit to a stance on behalf of a constituency, even before I was interviewed. The JSC then contented itself with what was now a sham interview.

What this means is that the operational culture of the JSC was to permit its own members to commit to endorsing or blocking a candidate for a judgeship on behalf of a faceless patron, cabal, constituency or person. Judges are then selected on the basis of the strength of that patron, cabal, constituency or person, i.e., political currency.

The judge, so selected, is then beholden to whoever ensured his/her appointment. The independence of the judiciary is thereby rendered somewhat elusive. Nothing could be more serious.

If this young democracy is being made subject to political renting at the very heart of its constitutional organs and institutions, it is already perniciously betrayed. What is of particular concern is that the country's most senior judges and advocates serve on the JSC.

And what have I done about this gross injustice? Recorded it in a book for all posterity to know how you fare in South Africa when you have no political currency to trade in; 
and how Nelson Mandela's dream came to be betrayed.. 

At least truth will endure.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order --- http://www.lulu.com/shop/chris-greenland/the-other-without-fear-favour-or-prejudice/paperback/product-23302259.html