Execute or imprison?

This is an extract from a book.

As a magistrate I performed prison visits in order to afford prisoners access to independent oversight. Notable was the attitude of condemned prisoners (those awaiting execution) about property. They were nearly always concerned with extracting a solemn promise from me that their property, or specified items of property, was to be handed over to a particular person upon their execution. Sometimes the subject matter of such concern would be something as mundane as a blanket worth just a few dollars. It was obvious to me that property is of huge significance in the African psyche and has strong links to spirituality. It is therefore not uncommon for a sangoma to advise, for instance, that the reason that misfortune has befallen a consultant is that ancestral spirits are angry on account of the fact that lobola has not been paid.

I also picked up a particular phenomenon that does not appear well represented in criminology. A long term prisoner gave me a story that was incredibly detailed and had what judicial officers term "the ring of truth" about it, on account of its detail and objectively verifiable factors. According to him he was still in prison because of an illicit deal, involving the sale of cattle and gold, which had gone wrong between him and the governor of the prison. He was able to furnish dates and full details of the governor's house where, according to him, clandestine meetings had occurred. The story covered a saga that had occurred over a three year period and he was able to provide complex details on all its aspects including the nuances that attach to stories that are true.

In all aspects he appeared to be what courts refer to as a "credible and reliable witness". Testing his story only induced him to clearly and calmly reveal even more supportive details. The point he was making was that he had been due for release many years earlier but was being kept incarcerated by the governor manipulating the system so as to ensure that he, the governor, could get away with having cheated him on their deals. A more convincing story was hard to find.

I called the prison officials, whom I always excluded from such interviews, so that a prisoner was free to divulge information, and asked them for his file. Only then did the truth emerge. His story was an incredibly fanciful invention of the mind which was blocking out the true reasons for his situation. The man had originally been convicted of a particularly horrendous double murder, involving the use of an axe, and sentenced to death. Fortunately for him he was reprieved, at the last moment, by the then British Governor and the sentence commuted to life imprisonment. Of this he had served about 10 years by the time I saw him. His mind had long since blocked out the horrendous events he had experienced in committing the murders, his trial, sentence and reprieve, and substituted it with the story he was now advancing.

I then discovered that this phenomenon was quite common to long term prisoners with similar histories, i.e., the psychological blocking out (hysterical suppression) of the terrible true reason for their incarceration.

For society the problem that arises is that, once the phenomenon takes hold of such a prisoner, he his utterly convinced, in his mind, that he is innocent and being victimized. He is in no different a position to a person who is actually innocent, and being unlawfully kept in prison. Both "know" that they are innocent. It can be strongly argued therefore that their continued long term incarceration, on both a subjective and objective test, constitutes "cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment" as understood in jurisprudence, and a human rights perspective. Put differently, to keep a human being in prison who neither knows, understands or accepts that he is guilty of anything, is cruel, inhuman and degrading. Facts are awkward things.

This has serious implications for the abolitionist camp that opposes the imposition of capital punishment and sees life imprisonment as acceptable. In terms of the phenomenon I discovered, long term imprisonment is cruel, inhuman and degrading once a prisoner's mind suppresses the reason for his/her incarceration. It therefore cannot be a credible substitute for capital punishment.

Now if you can't kill people as a punishment - and you also cannot keep them in prison for too long - what then? To this day I have not found an answer to these "awkward facts".

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

Are you a sheep?

In my book¹ I relate how, as young lads at boarding school, we all claimed to be having sex during which process the girl would faint at the moment of penetration, whilst emitting a huge sigh of unbearable pleasure and surrender. These claims were shared with general enthusiasm, contributing to social bonding, comradeship and friendship. Some even paid others a fag or two for their "secret" as to how to make a girl succumb more spectacularly!

The reality was very different. No one was having sex. The claims about penetration and girls fainting were fatuous rubbish!

However, no one placed these claims in dispute. They were accepted as truth. Acceptance was as natural and easy as breathing. 

Why? Why was fatuous rubbish and monstrous lies accepted without dispute in our group? The answer is very simple. Human beings are "social animals". It is by bonding, cooperation and pulling together that we have achieved dominance over all other creatures on the planet. Psychologically we need to feel loved and accepted. We love the feeling of "belonging". To disagree with others is to risk rejection. To disagree with a dominant group is to invite being marginalized, even ostracized. So we are "hot wired" to have a "herd mentality".

At school the older boys, at 17 years+ age, were of sexual maturity. It was natural for them to have a need for sex. Since sex was simply not available at a Roman Catholic school they simply invented a false reality. Having no experience of sex fertile imaginations filled in the gaps in a way that flattered their egos. Since they were the dominant group, what they put out was accepted as truth and promulgated by the rest of us --- unthinkingly --- because a herd mentality and the need to belong are natural to human beings.

In his classic work “Animal Farm”, George Orwell quite spectacularly portrayed how the views of a dominant group become the norm for the rest. Because the rest accept and propagate these views “unthinkingly”, he rightly portrayed them as sheep. Sheep do not think for themselves. They simply follow whoever is leading. They are concerned only to be part of the herd. They have a herd mentality. Just one sheep dog can drive a whole herd of a hundred sheep in whatever direction it chooses.

How right George Orwell was!! Really! We see this phenomenon repeat itself amongst humans with incredible regularity. Consider how the 3rd Reich used it with the German people resulting in the Holocaust. White folk in Zimbabwe individually were the very best I have encountered. In my book I relate as to how some of them gave up time with their own families to come and give us an incredibly happy first Xmas party at the children’s Home I was in. However, as a group, they supported and followed Ian Smith on a course of sheer madness. The apartheid system, a most extreme form of social injustice, was perpetrated on account of otherwise very intelligent White people acting as sheep.

We have had some spectacular examples in our recent history in South Africa. Not one ANC Member of Parliament voted against the banning of the Scorpions even though 84% of ordinary South Africans were against it! We saw the same phenomenon recently when all the Black ANC members voted to support the now internationally infamous Protection of State Information Bill. There are countless examples here and in other parts of the World.

What amazes me about these folk is that surely they know that this is the age of information and that their children and successors will come to know of the grotesquely unprincipled way in which they have acted? Do they feel no shame? Do they feel no compunction about bringing shame and disgrace on their pedigree?

So each of us needs to ask ourselves a question, and ask it repeatedly. “Am I now acting as a sheep? Have I consciously, or even subconsciously, stopped thinking for myself and simply following the herd?  Have I conveniently suppressed my ability to distinguish right from wrong in order not to lose my place in the herd? Am I now a sheep?”

A very good example is the issue of gay and lesbian rights. People in the anti gay/lesbian camp simply refuse to accept the reality that gays and lesbians are the way they are on account of the same natural phenomenon that made them “straight”, or White, or Ndebele, or Tswana …. over which no one has any control! What you are at the moment of birth is not in your hands. Typically they start off by putting themselves in the “traditional” or “African culture” camp and postulate all arguments in terms of the camp beliefs – not in terms of reason --- just as we believed the rubbish on sex as naïve school boys. I even had a friend in Namibia who candidly admitted that he and others routinely had sex with sheep and goats during puberty. However he was totally against gay and lesbian rights. He based his opposition on "African culture".

So too as regards politics. Most folk simply support the actions of the leaders of whatever political party they are in, or have decided to support, regardless of how wrong those actions may be. They consciously decide to abandon truth, and what is right, so as to ensure that they remain in their favourite herd. It gets worse. They will even set upon those who disagree, hound and persecute them just as dogs were set upon anyone seen as dissenting on Animal Farm. How many times has Archbishop Desmond Tutu been set upon and insulted for daring to simply disagree with the ANC herd and say - “on this occasion, you are wrong”.

Politicians, of course, take full advantage of this, just as the pigs did on Animal Farm. They rely heavily on the fact that their supporters will act as sheep and simply bleat “baaa … baaa … baaa … “ whatever they do or say. They demand that people should not think for themselves but simply accept whatever “the leadership” has cooked up. An extreme example is North Korea where the leader is institutionalized as a living God and the populace is denied the right to think at all! To a lesser extent Gadaffi, who so many of us sheep revered, was also trying this on a huge scale in Libya with his "Green Book".

If we perform an analyses of failed states we find that, in most cases, the failure became guaranteed once the populace behaved like sheep and put all its faith in leadership. We do not have to look far on this one! I also think that it is a sin to voluntarily forego your intellect, the most precious of gifts we have, that distinguishes us from other creatures. Hence my motto - "cogito, ergo sum".

So, with respect, you need to always ask yourself – “am I a sheep.? Am I unknowingly following a herd? Worse still, am I knowingly doing what is wrong just so that I can stay in the herd? Am I accepting fatuous rubbish and monstrous lies?

Am I a sheep?

 Postscript  ---- 

There’s an annual contest at the University of Arkansas calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year’s term was: “Political Correctness.” 

 The winning student wrote:“Political correctness is a doctrine — fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rapidly promoted by mainstream media — which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.”

________________________________________________________________________

¹ http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-other---without-fear-favour-or-prejudice/17794093

Gay and Lesbian Rights --- just come out of the closet

Two Gay men

Our Face Book sites have hosted raging debates about homosexuality, referred to as so called “Gay and Lesbian rights”. Even Zeinab Badawi and our Constitutional Court Judge Cameron were at it on BBC’s “Hard Talk” recently. The concern here is the emotional rhetoric in the anti gay camp that is so righteous, so condemnatory, as to constitute hateful speech. It is all too clear that just having to consider the issue induces a huge raft of extremely negative emotions in members of this camp. Why?

It is necessary to first set out what informs my own stance. As a human being, I find it unimaginable that I could have sex with another man. My mind simply cannot wrap itself around the thing. Even if you put a gun to my head I will not do it.

That is why I have concluded that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. Nature has determined the issue for some of us. For nearly all of us nature has determined whether or not we are hetero or homo. There are a few exceptions, as when some become gay on account of experience, as with prisoners or being a victim of pedophilia. However, for the vast majority it is not a matter of choice.

For that reason I am precluded from ascribing any sort of blame. Something that is completely natural cannot attract blame and/or condemnation.  It follows that there can be no basis whatsoever for discriminating against Gays and Lesbians. They are entitled to be fully accepted for who and what they are, just as I am. It is that simple.

That it is not a matter of choice is simply ignored by the religious and other fanatics. Biblical text is heavily relied on even though it is easy to justify all sorts of obnoxious conduct relying on the Bible. These range from discrimination against women to contending that Black folk were pre-ordained to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water".

Culture is heavily relied on by Black folk, even though that same culture once determined that women are unequal, that one twin should be killed at birth just for starters. A Namibian friend of mine quite openly admitted that they used to lose their virginity to goats during puberty, but was dead against gays and lesbians.

In my book^(1), published last year, I recount an incident at school when I had to disarm a lad who had gone beserk, and was trying to stab anyone in reach, with a dagger. I succeeded, at the expense of having the dagger penetrate my right foot, permanently severing a tendon of one of my toes. At the time no one was able to deduce the reason for the lad’s behaviour. 

This emerged many years later, when it was revealed that he was now living as “the wife” of a White male. At school he had been acting out terrible inner pain and hurt at finding himself with sexuality that, at the time, was completely unknown to all of us. He felt that he was a misfit; a freak, with acceptance out of the question. I only learnt of homosexuality after I left school, at age 22.

Psychologist will confirm that the behaviour, exhibited by this lad, is not at all surprising. People act out their inner pain and hurts. They will lash out, often with extreme aggression.  They will target those whom they perceive as being unsympathetic to what they are feeling deep inside. Unable to deal with their own demons, they resort to aggression in word and deed. There is a most illuminating book, titled the Primal Scream, on this subject.

So if you are experiencing an emotive response to the question put about gay and lesbian rights, it may well be a warning bell. If you find that your response is condemnatory, you may need to take note. If it is hateful, you really need to sit up and investigate why?

And remember, that to hold to a stance that someone else MUST be discriminated against, simply for being who and what they are, is inherently persecutory and hateful. It is hateful and persecutory to seek to deny others freedoms that you accord yourself. No question!

You need to look within yourself. Get help. See a psychologist. Get counseling. You may find that your emotional intelligence is being driven by deep seated suppression of your own sexuality. You may be acting out the hurt and pain you are feeling, like the poor lad at my school. You may be angry and resentful about the fact that an unsympathetic world, including your own family, has prevented you from being who and what you are.

Just come out of the closet.  The real world is now much more accepting and understanding. You will be welcomed and accorded the love and respect you need as a human being. You will realize that all the Biblical texts against homosexuality are comprehensible trumped by the central message by the Man from Jerusalem that = “Love thy neighbour as thyself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Come out of the closet. The truth will set you free.

⁽¹⁾ The Other - without fear, favour or prejudice. Book site is -http://proudlyzimbabwean.orgfree.com/book_page.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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.