Inequality and social injustice --- this culture is not an exclusively White invention

Phylicia Oppelt

In present day South Africa, and Zimbabwe for instance, it is blindingly obvious that there is widespread inclination to imagine that all the ills of the dispossessed/disadvantaged masses is explicable as a product of an imported White culture of inequality, with racism as its most pernicious form. Local history confirms this -- painfully.

So it is instinctively imagined that, but for this import by White imperialists/colonialists, we would not really have a problem of inequality. In the result there is a huge tendency to see Black leaders exclusively as our saviours and reject White leaders as disqualified. Typically we are inflicted with articles such as  - “This great black hope is inaudible without white” by an otherwise very good journalist/editor Phylicia Oppelt.  The whole point of the article is to discredit Lindiwe Mazibuko, as a political leader, simply because she is in association with a White led political party.

Oppelt is not being deliberately dishonest or racist. The problem is founded in her imagination. She imagines that what she is putting down is fair comment and this is because, like so many, she imagines that the culture of inequality is a “White thing”, imported by Whites. In the result Whites are substantively and perceptually disqualified from leading anybody to true freedom, let alone the disadvantaged Black majority. So it is all too easy for her to even rate Julius “Whites are thieves” Malema as preferable to Mazibuko because, according to Oppelt, there are no White links in his stance and message. Oppelt does redeem herself here.

So we really need to dispassionately examine the proposition that the concept/culture of inequality is a product of White mentality? Is it?

In my book “The Other – without fear, favour or prejudice” I relate how my Black grandmother, an Ndebele woman of the abeZansi class, accepted very few of the other ethnic groups, White or Black, as her equal.  Her behaviour was normal. That is the point. Her attitude and behaviour was perfectly normal for the times she was living in. That is an undeniable fact and cannot be gainsaid or wished away.

King Shaka Zulu

My grandmother was an Ndebele of the Mzilikazi clan. Mzilikazi, as is known, fled from Shaka Zulu and migrated to what is now Zimbabwe. Mzilikazi and his people took the prevailing Zulu culture with them. Equality was not part of the culture.

So this whole region was steeped in inequality; inequality of the most pernicious proportions. In South Africa King Shaka’s kingdom was founded on and kept dominant in terms of a most brutal pogrom known as mfecane.

Mfecane is used primarily to refer to the period when Mzilikazi, a king of the Matabele, dominated the Transvaal. During his reign, roughly from 1826 to 1836, he ordered widespread killings and devastation to remove all opposition. He reorganized the territory to establish the new Ndebele order. The death toll has never been satisfactorily determined, but the whole region became nearly depopulated.

In addition the Zulu nation was defined and structured as unequal with the abeZansi class being ‘royalty”. The people were divided into three main sections: the Abezansi [who were the aristocrats], the Abenhla [middle class] and the Amaholi comprising folk who had been captured in raids on other tribes. The Amaholi or Holi were practically in the position of bondsmen and rarely allowed to possess cattle.  

In Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) all other tribes were raided, robbed and quite brutally subjugated to the rule and dominance of the newly arrived Ndebele from South Africa. So the Whites were not the first colonizers. Neither were they the first to import the culture of inequality.

It is a reality that the culture of inequality was something of an international pandemic. From earliest times man was preoccupied with invading, raiding and subjugating his fellow men, all over the world. Alexander even got the name “Alexander The Great” for indulging in such thoroughly objectionable conduct. It is unnecessary to burden this post with the innumerable other examples such as the exploits of Genghis Khan who is credited with having killed more humans in his conquest of Asia than were killed in the last to world wars.

What is far more pertinent is to point out that the concept/culture of equality was just about nowhere to be found in this world be it the French ("let them eat cake") China, Britain (aristocracy), Russia, India (untouchables) or anywhere else. A “classless society” was never part of the ordinary approach of humanity throughout its existence.

So Shaka and the Zulus, and Mzilikazi and the Ndebeles were simply part of an international norm that was no more “White” than it was any other complexion!

So where does all this lead us to? What is its significance? To answer these question we need to imagine one more thing. What would have been the norm had the White man not arrived? Do we imagine that we would all have been living as equals in a classless society?

Now be honest. The truth shall set you free, as inconvenient as it is to accept.

The Man

As much as the Man from Jerusalem admonished humanity 2012 years ago - "Love they neighbour as thyself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you", mankind has always been deaf to His Word!

And the truth is that whether it be Jacob Zuma, Helen Zille or anyone else, each has equal potential to be a good or a bad leader. Their race or ethnicity really has nothing to do with it! To believe that only a Black person can lead is emotive irrationality. 

Black people now have political power. The onus is on them to provide leadership to ALL subjects, regardless of race, colour, ethnic and other differences! That leadership starts in the brain ... of all ... 

When in doubt, tell the truth. Mark Twain

http://proudlyzimbabwean.orgfree.com/book_page.html

A New Years Appeal -- to opinion makers of South Africa

This was first posted in January 2011 and again in Jan 2012. It was widely circulated. However it was completely ignored by all those that it appeals to. I remain undeterred, as truth must always endure.
It as relevant as ever as during  past years we have heard Whites being referred to as "thieves" and Lindiwe Mazibuko being attacked just for being a Black in the Democratic Alliance, just for starters. Comments on social network sites, and in response to media reports, show that the populace is as racially orientated as ever.
None other than the President, Jacob Zuma, has just lambasted our Black populace not to love dogs and use facial and hair enhancement lotions, as this betrays Black ethnicity. "Even if you apply any kind of lotion and straighten your hair, you will never be white," he was reported as saying.  

This is terrible stuff! really!.
He had previously voiced discomfort with the current Black Economic Empowerment model (BEE), saying what we all already know – that it has proved to be simply a vehicle for enrichment of a new “connected” elite. Read ....

So, once again, this is a direct appeal to Redi Tlhabi, John Robbie, Jenny Crwys-Williams (all of Radio 702), Justice Malala, Professor Pierre de Vos, Patricia de Liile, Helen Zille, Judge Dennis Davis, Mondli Makhanya (Sunday Times),  Ferial Haffaje (Mail & Guardian), Bongani Keswa (the Sowetan) … and other influence peddlers in South African Society.

Please decide which of the following statements are true as regards South Africa -

a)   human beings are categorized according to race, colour and ethnicity under Affirmative Action (AA) laws and BEE protocols;

b)   with Whites excluded from jobs and contracts as a matter of course;

c)  with Blacks included as of right;

d) and with Coloureds/Indians/Chinese to be included only if they first claim and prove that they are Black;

e) so rights and privileges are being accorded on the basis of race, ethnicity and colour;

f) this was the paradigm approach of the apartheid culture and system;

g) that culture was racist;

h) racism is evil;

i) and evil begets more evil.

Never mind which you may want to bake it, all of the above statements appear to be true. It would appear that we have racism. We have adopted it, believe in it, nurture it,  sustain it, and propagate it … despite its evil nature.

At a stroke we appear to have adopted the very essence of the apartheid oppressor’s culture.

It is not the reality we wanted, or want … but it is the reality we got.

Certainly this is the position, unless one is able to counter this conclusion with the same simplicity of the statements advanced, without emotive obfuscation and political gobeldigook and spin.

The simple answer is that racial discrimination is not, in itself, racist. It is racist only if it lacks justification or is unfair. Given the need for massive transformation, after apartheid,  little socio-economic transformation would have occurred without  it. It would have been somewhat naive to believe that the largely "advantaged" Whites, who have as yet to just say sorry for the daily mistreatment of Blacks during apartheid, would have "volunteered" any form of real transformation.

In short, this is one of those rare occasions when the “end does justify the means”. Normally it does not, as would be the case where we would not award our “General” Cele a medal for uncovering a plot to bomb Soccer City and kill 75, 000 fans … if he uncovered the plot by torturing the informants.

Our case can be likened to having to use the venom of the snake itself in order to counter the effects of its bite.

But, of cause, as with using snake venom, we were always required to be acutely mindful of what we were dealing in, to proceed with extreme circumspection and to use no more of this venom than was absolutely necessary, if we were to avoid harming, even killing, the patient.

But, with respect, except as regards Employment Equity (salutary), which includes non-racial discrimination as regards gender and our disabled brethren, we have not been at all circumspect in the use of this poisonous elixir, but somewhat reckless. To-day we appear to have an “Animal Farm” situation where “Black good, White bad, Coloured/Indian not too good” as the underlying national premise on which entitlement to socio-economic rights and privileges accrue. President Jaco Zuma's latest "you want to be White"  gaffs have vindicated my stance on this quite spectacularly. 

The problem, and with respect, it is a terrible problem, was in the setting of the basic criteria under AA as “Black”. It would have been a relatively simple matter to set and implement it as subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage. Since Black folk are the majority in this category, they would still have been the majority beneficiaries of AA and other “real” transformation strategies.

The difference however, and it is a real difference, is that the socio-economic transformation model would then NOT have been racist.

This paradigm difference in approach would also have largely put paid to the present BEE model, which has but a nodding acquaintance with redressing disadvantage, and as Zwelinzima Vavi (President of Cosatu) says - "It is greed that is inspired by the conspicuous consumption of the new elite, the (black economic empowerment) types who blow up to R 700, 000 on one night parties ...” while millions are denied true transformation and still live under corrugated iron, cardboard and plastic. Read ....

It is blindingly clear that, because we prescribed being "Black" as the paradigm criteria, opened the door for all these fat cats to tenderpreneur themselves to fabulous wealth whether or not they were ever disadvantaged. Evil begets evil!

This embedding of Black ethnicity, as the basic criteria, is having other pernicious repercussions. If you don’t think it is evil consider the plight of Coloureds as a "touchstone" test. During apartheid many Coloured families had a “White sheep of the family”. By this is meant, a family member who had “crossed over” and was very secretly “playing White” so as to secure socio-economic advantage.Now, by law and protocol, all Coloureds are required to “play Black”, so as to secure the same advantage.
You see, in Australia the government shamefully abducted Coloured children and tried to “breed out” their Black blood. Here we imagine that passing a law classifying them as Black under a so called “extended definition of Black” gets rid of the “Coloured problem”.

It is to state the obvious to say the a person should neither be advantaged or disadvantaged, purely on account of ethnicity.

Now, please ask any 5 year old child whether or not Trevor Manuel or Herschel Gibbs is “Black” . You are then going to have to deal in lies in order to assure the child that … blah, blah, blah … as you trot out the politics of advantage and disadvantage. Please spare the child the business about Chinese being Black.

Justice can never be founded on lies!

Consider what we are doing to our children with this “Animal Farm” environment in which “Black good, White bad, Coloured/Indian/Chinese not so good” is the message.

What do Sonia and Mathew Booth tell their children about who and what they are? This is wicked stuff. 

What is happening to the self-image of each of our little ones? Ask any criminologist and/or psychologist how important it is for human beings to accept and be proud of what and who they actually are. Problems with self image predisposes human beings to deviant and/or criminal conduct. What culture are they internalizing?

Do we really believe that one day Black folk will suddenly decide that Blacks are no longer "more equal then others" and that race, ethnicity and colour no longer matter? Do we really believe that? Do we really???

Are we so delusional as to believe that this obsession with race, colour and ethnicity is a worthy replacement for apartheid culture?

Oh yes, the American brand of AA is also raced based. The difference, and it is a huge difference, is that it is race based benevolence by a White majority for the benefit of a Black minority, apparently as an act of atonement. No one is prejudiced. No one is corruptly enriched. Despite this, the Courts there are still often embroiled in having to deal with allegations of "reverse racism" with resolution dependent on whether the discrimination was just and equitable.

As said, if subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage, was the criteria for AA and other true transformation programs, we would not have our hands steeped in perpetuating the evil culture of our apartheid oppressors.

Now unless you are able to say that what appears above is not true, in language that has  the simplicity of truth, devoid of emotive obfuscation, you have a duty, a sacred duty, as an influence peddler, as an opinion maker, as a leader in your own right, to take on this evil. It is corrupting the very fabric of our society, subverting nationhood and fueling confusion, resentment and dysfunction.

You cannot continue to countenance the very essence of the culture of the apartheid oppressor and say, 

as it did  -

"we do this in the name of social justice".

_______________________________________________

I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.

I'm for justice,

no matter who it's for or against.

Malcolm X

The good, the bad and the ugly - Part 2

Execution of South African citizen – Janice Bronwyn Linden

Linden

At 04h30 hours the Chinese government predictably executed a South African citizen, despite high level pleas by our government and human rights groups. Janice Bronwyn Linden, 35, from KwaZulu-Natal was executed for being caught carrying three kilograms of crystal methamphetamine at an airport in that country in November 2008. Her crime was the attempted smuggling of this dangerous drug into China. Under Chinese law the penalty is death by lethal injection, unless the accused is prepared to admit and express contrition, then clemency is considered. Janice refused to accept responsibility or express remorse.

No reasonable person can resist being flooded with emotion about the cold blooded putting to death of another human being. It always grates one’s inner spirit. We feel deeply disturbed. This is because we are human. It is inherently offensive to our nature that another human be killed in cold blood. The other reason is that we are “hot wired” to simply forget the plight of the victim at the moment in time that the issue is raised. In our mind’s eye we do not see the victim lying in his/her grave, often in mutilated state. We don’t think of little children orphaned after their mother had been raped and decapitated.

Still, all this begs the fundamental issue of whether or not there are some who deserve to be deprived of their lives. The debate on this matter, usually referred to the “abolitionist debate” has raged on for decades. I have sentenced 5 murderers to death. I have had plenty of time to think about this issue, not as an academic imbued with esoteric/exotic theoretical notions of justice, righteous morality and pontifical intellectualism, but as a person with a highly developed Christian conscience, who has had to listen to, and live through, the evidence in which one person purposefully decides that another be gratuitously and cruelly killed, sometimes in circumstances of utmost depravity, as when a baby is raped and strangled … slowly!

In my book “The Other – without fear, favour or prejudice”, I examine the arguments propagated by the abolitionist camp. The reality is that they simply fall down badly when subjected to logical, philosophical and moral scrutiny. For instance I point out that there is no dispute that I am entitled to kill a person I find raping and strangling my wife or child. It then becomes quite impossible to draw a line in the sand and say that “well at this point/stage you are no longer entitled to kill him”. However, this still does not mean that capital punishment should be practiced. In my view, it should not! However this is not for the reasons conventionally advanced which, as said, do not stand up to scrutiny.

What I want to also draw attention to is how fickle and hypocritical most of us are on this issue, no doubt! See --- http://coginito.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-some-are-good-even-bad.html where just about the whole world was exposed in this regard. The post unarguably proves that the ancients were indeed right in their adage of an “eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth…” howsoever much we may imagine that we now too “civilized” for such conduct. We are not! We are as barbaric as ever.
I concluded this in my book published last year and have just be proved right once again quite spectacularly The media is reporting that Saudi Arabia has just beheaded a woman after convicting her of practicing sorcery and witchcraft!? It is mind-boggling that one of the richest nations on this planet can do something so depraved and barbaric.

Janice Bronwyn Linden did not kill anybody. We also do not know if she was guilty. The standards of procedural and substantive justice in China are highly questionable. So this post does not judge her. We are all in sympathy with her family whose grief must be quite unimaginable.

What can be observed is that drug dealers, distributors and suppliers are responsible for untold human suffering and the terrible deaths of millions of our young folk in particular. To me this is not theory. I have been personally confronted with these truly heinous consequences. They don’t care tuppence how many lives are ruined or lost, as long as they can make money. The toll that they exact on humanity is unquantifiable. The Chinese logic is that they will take a life to save lives.

What is also pertinent to point out is that the Chinese have stated that under their law all are equal. For that reason Janice stood to suffer the same punishment that ordinary Chinese folk are subjected to. To that extent the Chinese cannot be faulted, if she was guilty.

This raises an analogous issue that has been in the media, the case of Shrien Dewani. A British Court has decided that he be extradited to South Africa to face charges involving the murder of his bride. The presiding judge was moved by a guarantee proffered by the SA government that, if convicted, Dewani would not be subjected to the same prison conditions as other SA prisoners. ???????

Put jurisprudentially, the British judge was prepared to subscribe to, support, connive and collude at persons beings being “unequal under law”. This is obviously highly offensive to any reasonable mind.

Also highly problematical about the judge’s approach is a failure to recognize that a government, whose term is limited to some 5 years at a time, is in no position to guarantee what the next government will do, accepting that, if convicted Dewani faces life imprisonment. The next government may well understandably (and correctly in my view) take a stance that it cannot be bound by an agreement in which a foreigner, in particular, is to favoured over its own citizens! Our constitution and laws expressly forbids unequal treatment.

Dewani needs to take the matter right up to the House of Lords. I humbly reiterate my advice that our government liaise with Switzerland, the country of the victim’s domicile, and get Shrien Dewani tried there!

The judiciary as a mistress.

In recent times the judiciary has been lectured, lambasted and repeatedly warned to maintain its place and to refrain from overruling the will of the people, as manifest in our ANC government’s decisions and laws. The President, the ANC Chief Whip and ANC Secretary General have all taken turns at this. This has happened even though the reality is that, if any judge does not understand that a judge must be apolitical, he/she is incompetent and should not be on the Bench. As an Acting Judge in the Eastern Cape I met many judges. I can give the categorical assurance that not one of them needs such lectures or advice. In fact it is grossly insulting. See “South Africa – a Constitutional Democracy under attack..”

There is now also a credible perception that, in addition, ANC leadership is implementing an agenda to “pack” the judiciary with “onside” judges, starting with the controversial appointment of Mogoeng Mogoeng, who was undoubtedly carefully handpicked for the post of Chief Justice, even though he was not the best candidate by a very long way. It is supposed that by having onside judges dodgy legislation, like the now internationally infamous Protection of State Information Bill, will be upheld by the courts.

If this is indeed the agenda, might I humbly, but passionately, advise and counsel ANC leadership to abandon it. It won’t work. It will not work! It will fail! I base my advice on my experiences as a judge and having attended international judicial conferences.

You see, once a human being is appointed as a judge, the psychological climate that he/she is then operating in is incredibly unique and different from that of the rest of us. It is a truism that judges lead lonely lives. Indeed they do, even though it is an incredibly fulfilling life. However it is not fulfilled by anything that any politician is able to offer. Once you appoint a person as a judge there is nothing more that you are able to offer, give or favour him/her with. Judges exist outside the circles in which assets, power and influence are traded in and dispensed.

Like any human being a judge needs personal affirmation on a continuous basis. That affirmation can only come from within judicial circles, not from outside. The judge becomes immersed in a world in which he/she is divorced from the hum drum of ordinary life and becomes preoccupied with developing a love for that which is good, that which is right, that which can be held up as truth for all to see. Truth becomes both the objective and the journey travelled, not polemics.

In addition, the way the system works, ensures that diversion from this path is quickly exposed. It is very difficult for a judge to give a bad judgment without soon knowing that he/she has stepped off the path and is losing the affirmation that we all crave. Your decisions and judgments are necessarily seen, considered and studied by your local and international community of judges, the legal sector, including legal scholars. It is members of this community that will react. You will then know, beyond doubt, whether or not you are in step or starting on a maverick path. Probably the worst maverick path a judge can chose to take is one in which he/she is then seen by his/her peers as beholden to a politician. It is about as reprehensible as incest. The psychological pressure is both overarching and subconsciously enormously insistent.

It was therefore not at all surprising to me when, despite the highly visible and loud warnings, admonitions and counsel, the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down a very keenly worded judgment that the appointment of Menzi Simelane as the Director of the National Prosecuting Authority was unconstitutional for being irrational.

Put simply, once a person is appointed as a judge he/she will feel compelled to start acting like a judge --- not a politician. Ask the previous Nationalist Party that burnt its finger very badly when it tried to “take over the Bench” by appointed “onside” people as judges. In my book “The Other – without fear, favour or prejudice” I explain how I always felt a “dual personality”.  There was Chris Greenland, an ordinary man, pretty terrified of the very Court he was presiding over, and there was Judge Greenland, who carried out a sacred office with due decorum. There were decisions that I handed down, which I did not “personally” support. However, as a judge, I was satisfied that they were right.

Lady Justice

So my appeal to ANC leadership is that, if that is your plan, don’t do it. Appointing people other than on merit will only result in South Africa having a mediocre Bench. As a result all citizens will eventually suffer.

It is not possible to have the judiciary as a mistress. The mistress will find love, comfort and satisfaction elsewhere. There is nothing you will be able to offer to keep her loyal.

Jackie Selebi

Further to what has been posted in Part 1, please read the outstanding article by Sunday Times editor Mondli Makhanya titled “Shame on those who sold our integrity to save their skins”.

The good, the bad and the ugly --- Part 1

Jackie Selebi

As reported by the Sowetan, here we have a man who went from hero to zero. It is said that he is now on a dialysis machine on account of chronic kidney failure. It would appear that Selebi started succumbing to health problems the instant he heard that the court had decided that he deserved to be incarcerated for some 15 years for corruption.
Ordinary human beings cannot but feel mixed emotions about the whole Selebi saga. Here is a man that made a very valuable contribution to our liberation. Now we are throwing him into prison for 15 years. Given that he is in his mid 60s, the sentence more or less means the end of his life as a free man.

I must be abnormal. I have no mixed emotions. I feel only a solemn exaltation that he is reaping what he has sowed. I have this picture of an arrogant politico, strutting about with complete disdain for our concerns. These included his relationship with a self confessed drug lord, Glen Agliotti. He gave us the proverbial finger saying “he is my friend, finished and klaar”. As our Chief of Police he should have been first in the fight against our pandemic levels of crime. Instead he was first as a corruption don. A more disgraceful course of conduct is hard to imagine, especially given the fact that he had somehow managed to wheedle his way to being head of Interpol as well. Wow! Selebi personifies the ultimate betrayal.

To him, our concerns were irrelevant. They were irrelevant in terms of a prevailing mindset, spawned in a well established climate of patronage. As a member of a new elite he was unaccountable to us ordinary folk. Being “more equal than others”, on our version of animal farm, he was entitled to do as he liked, when he liked and how he liked, whether we liked it or not.

Treating us as the ignorant foolish masses, he disdainfully claimed “these hands are clean”, fully expecting us, as sheep on the farm, to simply accept the word of one of our new breed of leaders. He saw himself as one of the “untouchables”. The arrogance was nauseating. The man was assured, comfortable and supremely confident that he was indeed untouchable.

He was; thanks to our then president Thabo Mbeki. Despite mounting information, propagated by our then free media sector, President Thabo Mbeki, made it clear that Selebi was his man and, as such, was untouchable, just as 'Manto' Edmie Tshabalala-Msimang (then Minister of Health) had been, despite proof that she was a convicted thief who had stolen from her own patients as a ward sister.

What the Mbeki camp, including Selebi, did not foresee was Polokwane. The 52nd National Conference of the African National Congress (ANC) was held in Polokwane, Limpopo from December 16 to December 20, 2007. By vote of “ordinary branch members” of the ANC Thabo Mbeki was removed as leader of the ANC and that guaranteed his subsequent removal as president.

Jackie Selebi lost his patron. He lost protection. He lost his status of being “more equal than others”. He reverted to being one of us, unprotected, vulnerable and accountable. The law jumped on him, took its course and visited him with what he fully deserved. A very big crook is where he deserves to be - in jail.

Lets us be thankful that, in this case, justice has been done, and seen to be done. For that we are thankful, firstly to the ANC’s marvelous process in which ordinary human beings have a voice to effect change that is needed. Secondly, we are blessed with the right to information that a free media deals in, for our benefit. This is now under severe threat on account of the now infamous Protection of State Information Bill. Thirdly we have independent courts manned by conscientious judicial officers acting without fear, favour or prejudice. This may also now be under threat, as there appears to be an agenda to “pack” the courts with “onside” judges starting with a carefully handpicked Chief Justice. 

A question that is arising is - will this big time crook actually serve his sentence? He has become "very sick" with exquisite timing. It is now being claimed that the prison hospitals do not have the capacity to treat him. Shabir Shaik was relieved of the obligation to serve his sentence on the basis of illness. There can be no doubt that Selebi is seeking the same indulgence.

Will he get it? He is a club member. He is part of the new elite. He is entitled to be treated as "more equal than others". Are we not on our own version of "animal farm"?

I would not take any bets on this. Really!

Dr Conrad Murray

As I predicted, the “bad” doctor has been rightly convicted by a jury of ordinary human beings, and sentenced by a judge to the maximum permissible under United States law.

Many have said that they see Michael Jackson (MJ) as the problem and Murray as a victim. Nothing could be more misguided. Like millions of other human beings on this planet, MJ was in serious trouble. He was a drug addict. His latest drug of choice was propofol. He did what he needed to do. He employed a doctor, at very generous remuneration, to help him manage his problem.

What Murray did was to firstly feed his patient with gallons of the drug. MJ was suffering from severe sleep disorder. Understand that propofol is not sleep disorder medication. It is an anesthetic. It does not induce sleep. It induces unconsciousness, so that surgeons can operate. Unless very carefully monitored, the patient can die. On TV this morning I watched a program where a vet was performing a small operation on the hoof of a zebra. His assistant kept his hand on the chest of the zebra throughout the operation so as to monitor the animal’s state of unconsciousness. Murray did not carefully monitor MJ. He did not have the equipment to do this. In addition he was busy phoning around, including phoning a girlfriend. That is when MJ died. Murray was not equipped to resuscitate his patient, and his “claimed” attempts were pathetic in the extreme.

In short Dr Conrad Murray played Russian roulette with his patient, and it cost MJ his life. Under our law I would have had no hesitation to convict of murder on the basis of “constructive intent”. Constructive intent is present when you can foresee death as a reasonable possibility and are reckless as to whether or not it occurs. That was exactly Murray’s conduct, sustained recklessness as to whether or not JM died.
The High Court in Cape Town has just convicted a Taxi driver, Jacob Humphreys, of 10 counts of murder for "recklessly' driving his vehicle across a level crossing, resulting in it being hit by a train. Note that the judge also said that Humphreys played "Russian roulette" with the lives of his passengers.
Murray ceased to be a doctor and became a drug dealer. Because of his criminal conduct the world lost the greatest entertainer of all time. Elvis Presley had the looks, the voice and the physique. Michael Jackson had the magic.

Justice has been done, and seen to be done.

COP 17             

It is the last day of this terribly important talk shop. The World descended on Durban. Many South Africans were led by our ministers in “feeling proud”. And yes, we do feel proud that we can host such an event, just as we all felt rather great to have hosted the Soccer World Cup.

Congratulations must be extended to our International Relations and Cooperation Minister, Maite Nkoana-Mashabaneour, who was the official host of the whole thing. She was always beautiful to look at, personable and marvelously upbeat, even when the going seemed to be bad, with the big powers like the United States, China and Canada, in particular, playing up.

Personally I don’t buy the argument that we are causing climate change. I am a 100% climate change sceptic. The science is quite dodgy, and is credibly disputed by reputable scientists. This planet has being undergoing cyclical periods of climate change from day one. That is a simple fact. In addition volcanoes and animals (burping and farting), in years past, pushed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than we have done in decades. That is another fact. The last and critically important fact is that whatever else scientist may disagree on, they all agree that they really have little understanding of how the planet used to have massive climate changes in the past. It is known that that the sun can play havoc with our climate. That is a fact. Sunspots have their own cyclical activity, and in days gone by there was no one to record and monitor this, as is the case now. 

However we do need to understand that the World, led by the United Nations, needs a big issue to be concerned about. The UN needs to justify its existence. Climate change is now perhaps the biggest industry on the planet. HIV/AIDS is losing its allure. We now have HIV/AIDS fatigue; no question! And climate change, which started off as “global warming”, until the proponents were embarrassed by reality, has developed into a very huge industry indeed. And as was the case with HIV/AIDS, serious money is being made by any amount of entities and people who are connected to the thing. It is big business, very big business.

Let me give you an unarguable example of the inherent lack of good faith/(hypocrisy) that the UN is infused with. As early as 1994 the UN got just about every nation to solemnly commit to taking effective measures to relieve the plight of road crash victims. Please note that over 95% of road crash victims are entirely innocent, as only one or more of the drivers can ever be actually responsible for a road crash. Next, and this is very important, road crash victims are the second biggest pandemic on this planet, after HIV/AIDS. In supporting documentation the UN published statistics that showed that, for many countries, the cost exceeded their entire aid budget. So in 1994, the UN was rightly gearing itself up to adopt the road crash victim issue as a major issue that we should all be concerned with. For reasons, that probably have to do with the fact that the whole insurance and legal sectors stood to lose, rather than gain, if the UN intervened on behalf of road crash victims it, in effect, abandoned its enthusiasm for this issue. So to-day we only have New Zealand, the State of Victoria in Australia, Botswana, Namibia and those few countries that have full scale social welfare, that have an efficient and effective victim orientated model for road crash casualties. Everywhere else the victim, who might be a five year old child, or even a child in utero, is left to find the guilty driver and fight with his/her insurer for justice.

I have tried strenuously to proposition the UN on this issue and have received hardly an acknowledgement in return. There is simply no explanation for the UN to be concerned about HIV/AIDS victims, (mostly self inflicted) and simply ignore the plight of the victims of the next biggest pandemic on this planet, other than crass hypocrisy and pandering to vested interests of big business. I challenge anyone to refute this.

Understand that whatever the UN decides to promote will have many takers. It provides huge opportunity at both personal and organizational levels. 

The other problem, regrettably, is the venue and/or host. The reality is that South Africa is one of the worst offenders when it comes to polluting the atmosphere. And what is more is that it is fully committed to continuing in this mode, with the building of the World’s biggest coal fired electricity power station posted as non negotiable. In all seriousness, would you host an anti-crime conference in the house of one of Al Capone’s gang bosses? It is somewhat obscene to hold SA as a credible leader on the matter of climate change.

It does bring to mind the Soccer World Cup. This was also hailed as a great success for SA. It suited international politics and SA that it be hosted here. The reality is that it cost a fortune for a country of scarce resources and conferred no discernable benefits. That much is no longer even argued. See --- http://coginito.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-world-cup-moment.html

Still I support the climate change initiative. Anything that makes us better planetary citizens is a good thing. We really do need to stop abusing the planet and other creatures. We are wasteful, predatory, irresponsible and downright venal as planetary citizens. It needs to stop.

I would encourage everybody to join Friends of the Earth International, whatever you may believe in.

And, once again, we must congratulate our Minister of International Affairs for a job well done.

Dear Leader, President Zuma - Road carnage

On a breakfast program this morning our President gave a solemn undertaking that citizens who have had useful ideas spurned in the past should come forward and elaborate. He guaranteed that these ideas would be reviewed as the current National Plan is intended to be fully inclusive.

Road Carnage

On 23 December 2010, the networks carried yet another story about the carnage on our roads. Some 20 persons had perished in a taxi pile up. Since that date the carnage has continued unrelentingly. By 27 Dec 2001 the number of persons killed was over 900.

The point to be made is that we are world leaders in the business of killing and maiming human beings on our roads, and have been for many years.

And for all these years we have indulged ourselves in crying, moaning, groaning … etc about the problem whilst perpetuating stratagems that have always been doomed to failure.

In late 2003 a certain female educator was accorded an audience with the functionary, charged with responsibility for Road Safety stratagems, at Department of Transport.

The then ailing Minister, Dullah Omar, had expressed great interest in what she had to offer, to the extent of extending her an invitation to attend a Road Safety symposium that he sponsored.

She had an educational product, devised over a long period, titled “RoadSafe”. It was multifaceted, and Outcome Based Education aligned. It rested on certain fundamental realities including –

a) current stratagems, prosecuted under Arrive Alive, were guaranteed to be ineffective (that much was already just about agreed by all except Arrive Alive itself);

b) concomitantly “more police”, “harsher penalties” and other “let’s be more draconian” measures were also doomed to failure;

c) the reason being, the simple but fundamental one, that the whole problem was steeped in a deviant road use culture;

d) which culture needed to be addressed on all fronts, starting in the schools where being “RoadSafe” should be embedded as a subject like any other.

As a starting point she had devised a board game for children as “tactile” experience is so important in a child’s learning experience.

The product however encompassed an approach that would involve all sectors of society as a “national’ commitment to “change road use culture” to one that was “RoadSafe” so that the concept, name and attitude became as natural as breathing over time; ingrained, embedded in the psyche of upcoming drivers in particular.

The paradigm proposition was that to continue as we were was equivalent to treating acne or other skin disorder with soap and creams when the underlining cause is a blood disorder.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Her product had received the enthusiastic endorsement of the CSIR. That’s right. This important scientific government agency gave the “RoadSafe” its full endorsement.

The good lady was shown the door, after a short sharp lecture by the relevant female functionary at DOT, that she should understand that “we have our own programs …”

Eight (8) years have now been lost. During that time the road use culture has not changed one jot and thousands of people have been killed, injured, mothers widowed, children orphaned.

CSIR filed its recommendation. Minister Omar has sadly passed on. The “RoadSafe” concept/brand

sits on a computer in a suburban home in Pretoria, whilst mayhem rules on our roads.

What has also happened since the date she was shown the door is that an entity titled the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) has come into existence. Road carnage has continued. Interviewed by Jeremy Maggs on eTV on the 28th Dec 2011, the Acting CEO of the RTMC promised "viciousness" as a strategy to the problem. God help us Mr President! Maggs was constrained to point out to him that it was road use culture that was/is the problem!

So Mr President, might we take you up on your word, and draw your attention to this instance where being "unconnected politically" guaranteed that your useful voice as a citizen remained unheard.

 Current stratagems are proving hopelessly ineffective. The cost to the country needs no elaboration. It is horrendous on every count. This was predicted at the time the good lady was shown the door by the functionary at the Department of Transport.

Mr President, also please note that when we submit ideas to ANC branches, we do not receive so much as an acknowledgment, ever!

______________________________________________________

PostScript --- this was submitted to the President's Office, ANC Head Office, Gauteng Branch and SABC 2 on 21-22 Nov 2011. Not so much as an acknowledgement was received as at 27 Dec 2011. The SABC 2 breakfast show was thus no more than yet another pantomine, We are voiceless on this new animal farm.

In the meantime the death toll for the Xmas period was over 900 killed and thousands injured as at 27 Dec 2011.

South Africa -- Constitutional Democracy under attack by ANC leaders

In a previous blog post "Dubula ibhunu --- (Kill the Boer song) A Nation in Trouble" I had taken the stance that South Africa was in serious trouble, as it was apparent that leadership had little understanding of the imperatives of a constitutional democracy and that the President continues to be very badly advised. 

That I was not wrong is now beyond question in terms of the following (per Pretoria News 28 Sep 2011).

ANC CHIEF Whip Mathole Motshekga fired a shot across the Constitutional Court’s bow warning the highest court in the land to stay out of the fight over the controversial Protection of Information Bill.

Speaking to Jeremy Maggs on the E.News channel Motshekga went on to say that the ANC would not countenance the court striking down the Bill once passed by the ANC in Parliament.

“If people are defeated in a political arena, they want to substitute the will of the people with the will of the judges. Then we must redefine our democracy and how we want to manage our country” he responded. "It is not for judges to decide for Parliament, because that would be a gross violation" he said.

It should be remembered that the President had previously said at a conference of judges that - “the powers of the courts cannot be superior to the powers resulting from the political and consequently administrative mandate resulting from popular democratic elections”.

"Zuma is criticising the Constitutional Court, saying (as the old National Party did in 1953) that it should not be above the sovereignty of Parliament; members of the South African Communist Party seemingly agree, contending that the constitution itself is outdated and should be changed, while Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe declares it is sacred and the very bedrock of our democracy.

These are not mere disagreements on policy, and there are plenty of those. They are fundamental differences over the very nature of the state — as fundamental as it is possible to get in politics. What Zuma and the South African Communist Party are saying amounts to a repudiation of the covenant entered into by all parties at the Convention for a Democratic SA and consecrated by Nelson Mandela in his historic inaugural address in 1994.

A covenant to declare the new S A a constitutional democracy, in which the constitution is the supreme law to which all citizens, including MPs, Cabinet ministers and the president himself, are subject". [per Alastair Sparkd @ http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=161501]

To date, the media has taken the stance that this constitutional democracy "may" be under threat. No one should be confused any longer; it is not under threat; it is under attack; robust, aggressive attack; and the ANC Chief Whip has served notice that the Constitution will be scrapped to remove the doctrine of separation of powers.

As a former judge, I am able to say with considerable confidence that the Protection Of information Bill, in its current state, has very little chance of surviving a court challenge. The Constitution requires the very opposite of what the Bill is attempting. It insists that information be made available, not restricted.

So we are being given due notice that when the courts do their job and strike down the bill, wholly or in part, the ANC will not accept this and will scrap the constitution to rid it of the separation of powers.

In a nutshell, what the Chief Whip is saying is that the courts are not there to countermand the will of the majority party - - even if the majority is wrong. A good example is the issue of the death penalty. 84% of South Africans support the death penalty, but the courts ruled against this. The decision of the courts has been accepted even though it is completely against the will of most people, let alone the ANC!

So, at a stroke, we can see that the ANC wants to have a situation where IT has a prerogative to "pick and choose" which court decisions it will accept -- AND also an unfettered right to decide what is the law, what is the rule of law, what are human rights .. NOT the courts!

We should all understand that the very essence of a constitutional democracy, and the doctrine of separation powers, is to ensure that all human beings, even the very lowliest, are protected  -- protected even against the will of the majority if necessary. It is often necessary. History has shown that the majority is often wrong. Just ask Socrates and Aristotle, persecuted for their brilliant minds of disagreement with the majority.

The passion with which the ANC wants to be able to conceal information is extremely worrisome considering that nothing has happened to date that indicates a need for concealment.

What we need to understand very clearly is that, although the Bill has been reported as "anti media", it is actually about shutting up and gagging ordinary citizens. The media are making a fuss simply because they deal in selling information. But this is about dumping our right to free speech in very large measure. So you stand to be imprisoned for that sms, tweet, FB post or any statement made in whatever form - if some faceless bureaucrat has classified the info as secret, whether you know of such classification or not.

So, South Africans. Take Note!. This is called the tyranny of might is right!

Judicial Independence

On 2 November 2011, this what President Jacob Zuma included in his speech at the farewell dinner for the outgoing Chief Justice:

 “Our view is that the Executive, as elected officials, has the sole discretion to decide policies for government. I know that the last time we raised this point, we generated a heated debate within the legal fraternity, some of whom did not see that it was actually an affirmation of the doctrine of the separation of powers.

This challenge is perhaps articulated clearly by Justice VR Krishna Lyer of India who observed that: "Legality is within the courts' province to pronounce upon, but canons of political propriety and democratic dharma are polemic issues on which judicial silence is the golden rule."

In our view, the principle of separation of powers means that we should discourage the encroachment of one arm of the State on the terrain of another, and there must be no bias in this regard.

We respect the powers and role conferred by our Constitution on the legislature and the judiciary. At the same time, we expect the same from these very important institutions of our democratic dispensation.

The Executive must be allowed to conduct its administration and policy making work as freely as it possibly can. The powers conferred on the courts cannot be regarded as superior to the powers resulting from a mandate given by the people in a popular vote. 

We also reiterate that in order to provide support to the judiciary and free our courts to do their work, it would help if political disputes were resolved politically. We must not get a sense that there are those who wish to co-govern the country through the courts, when they have not won the popular vote during elections. This interferes with the independence of the judiciary.”

This now perhaps the 4th time that the President has felt compelled to lecture the judiciary on the matter of what is known as the "doctrine of separation of powers".

This is highly problematical, for the simple but very good reason that any judge who does not understand this doctrine should not be on the Bench of the Superior Courts. A judge who does not understand this is incompetent. A medical analogy would be that a doctor who does not understand what "intravenous" means would be incompetent. It is that basic. We can accept, beyond doubt, that the President does not believe that the judges are incompetent. So why these repeated admonitions?

Regrettably all the indications are that the Executive does not understand the doctrine as it applies in a constitutional democracy and/or is resolved in rejection. This is the only reasonable inference that one is compelled to draw on the evidence to date. It explains the repeated "warnings" to the judiciary.

These "warnings" will now have the following regrettable knock on effects: -

a)  Judges will undoubtedly interpret the situation correctly, and know that they are under scrutiny on the issue of being either "on side" or "off side" in relation to the Executive.

b)  As judges are human beings, they will experience conscious and/or subconscious pressure to comply with the wishes of the Executive.

c)  This, in turn, will induce conscious or subconscious bias in judicial approach, either "for" or "against" the Executive. 

d)  The recent controversial appointment of new Chief Justice will inevitably be seen as having been driven by a political imperative to have an "onside" judiciary.

e)  For the incumbent, it regrettably impacts negatively on his credibility and the issue of bias will have a subverting effect on his functionality both subjectively and objectively, regardless of how functionally independent he actually is.

f)   Should there be another split decision, like the one in which the Executive’s disbanding of the Scorpions was reversed, perception of a judiciary being split along "pro/against" the Executive lines will receive a huge boost.

g)  If the majority in such split decision turns out to be led by the new Chief Justice, the perception will be that the judiciary is now beholden to the Executive and no longer independent, regardless of whether or not the decision is jurisprudentially sound.

h)  In this way the credibility and stature of the judiciary will be comprehensively subverted and/or destroyed, locally and internationally. 

i)   For judges this will mean loss of stature and prestige. For the country this will also mean loss of stature, credibility and prestige. This will have a serious eroding effect on investor confidence.   

j)   The organically induced disrespect for the courts will have an insidiously aggravating on the climate of anomie that has undoubtedly had this country in its grip for decades now.

Observations:

There can be little doubt that the President continues to be very ill advised. It must be hoped that to-day’s appointment of Michael Hulley, as his legal advisor, will redress this situation. There are three (3) cardinal issues that Michael Hulley needs to make the Executive understand.

 (1) In a constitutional democracy the sacred duty of the judiciary is to jealously guard the letter and spirit of the constitution against all comers, including the Executive.

 (2) The inevitable consequence of this is that the Courts can, and must, overturn the will of the majority, even when passed by Act of Parliament. In any event, history has repeatedly shown that the majority is often wrong, badly wrong. It was the majority who screamed “"crucify Him, crucify Him". Two of the greatest minds in history Socrates and Aristotle were persecuted by the majority for saying that planet Erath was flat and revolved around the Sun. Socrates was put to death Aristotle had to flee.

"A word like ‘tyranny’ is interesting for its inevitable conjuring up of concerns about the tyranny of the majority, a misstep of democracy that judges – in their independence from the political process – are able to correct."       Writer Chris Geidner .   Commentary on the court decision overturning California’s Prop 8  In the Gay & Lesbian News Magazine.

 (3) As much as government may wish to have issues “"politically" resolved, every citizen, even the lowliest, has an absolute right to take a matter to court if he/she thinks, believes, even just imagines that the court’s protection/intervention is needed. The Courts have a very well established procedure for dealing with matters that are improperly brought, including summary rejection on the basis of being frivolous and/or vexatious, and punishing the applicant. That right therefore, does not stand t be questioned.