Prof. Jansen’s blurred vision: A response to Rhoda Kadalie

Forgiveness is a privilege enjoyed by those who offer contrition; a gift from the wronged to the wrongdoer, with reconciliation as a goal. A goal that ought to raise both the wronged and the wrongdoer above the wrong. This is my understanding of the concept of forgiveness. If you disagree with this understanding then I doubt very much whether you will find any of what follows agreeable.

I hold Rhoda Kadalie in high regard. I do so for her incisive and uncompromising ability to articulate her views on many of our difficult social and political issues. This she does without fear, favour or prejudice; not to mention sycophancy. This is the chief cause of my disappointment with her opinion carried by the BusinessDay in its 22 October 2009 issue. I must at this point state that I agree with a lot of what she says in that opinion save for the basis of her defence of Prof. Jansen’s decision firstly to withdraw the charges against the students who have come to be known as the Reitz four and to allow those students back onto campus for the purposes of continuing their studies.

I hold Prof. Jansen in high regard. His credentials both as a human being and as an academic leader are nothing less than impeccable. He is a leader among his peers and considering where he comes from to get here, his leadership is even more astounding than Rhoda Kadalie describes it in the opinion. As much as I hold Prof Jansen and many other leaders of our society, I have on occasion had cause to disagree with him. I am no judge on these matters and I am not qualified to even tie the Professor’s shoes but disagree I do. When the Professor wrote in The Times that the cause of decline of standards and performance of poor previously white schools was the influx of black pupils, I disagreed with him. When the Professor misunderstands forgiveness, as I believe he did when he made the decisions in question, I disagree with him as I disagree with Nelson Mandela on the same subject.

Back to the opinion. That Prof. Jansen is the best thing to have happened to the University of the Free State is without doubt the gospel truth. That he will, all things being equal, achieve the reconciliation and integration he has set out in his inauguration speech, is similarly beyond any doubt. That the ANC is latching onto this issue as with many others, to gain political mileage is similarly true. That is what political parties do. However, to state as Rhoda Kadalie does that his withdrawal of the charges and allowing the Reitz four back onto campus, is visionary, reconciliatory or that it will purge the University of the rot is with respect, ill-conceived. For this reason alone I beg that the decision be reviewed at the least.

Rhoda Kadalie will no doubt remember the late Chief Justice Mohamed. While sitting as a judge, I believe it was in Namibia, he was implored by a defence counsel to show mercy on some white youth who out of primitive passion and alcohol had beaten an elderly black man to death. The defence counsel argued that these young men are but a product and reflection of the society they have been raised by. Their upbringing, so the argument went, has caused them not to have proper regard of black life as human life and so on and so forth. The late Chief Justice rejected the plea and the reasons advanced for it. He said: “To allow the 'racist socialisation' of pre-independence Namibia to operate as a mitigating circumstance, after the new Constitution has been publicly adopted, widely disseminated, and vigorously debated both in Namibia and the international community, would substantially be to subvert the objectives of the Constitution, to impair the process of national reconciliation and nation building and to retard the speed with which Namibian society has to recover from the legacy of its colonial past."

I am persuaded by this argument. Moreover, if the Professor were to follow the thread of integration and reconciliation that Rhoda Kadalie argues justifies the decision, then he will quickly arrive at a point where the “Sotho-Tswana” (sic) members of the community will tell him that one does not call an older person by their first name. Once the Professor arrives at this point, it will be difficult for him to even watch let alone condone the Reitz video. I cannot reach any other conclusion than that the conduct of the students is condoned in the face of the decision by the university not to apply its own disciplinary rules and processes.

That the ANC, Cosatu, Media and other social formations and institutions have come out sensationalizing or have come out against the Professor’s person is a red-herring. That Rhoda Kadalie disagrees with these formations and institutions (largely for good reasons) should not corner her into an illogical support of a wrong and unjust decision.

I ask that Rhoda Kadalie consider the following story that took place at one of our better universities. It was common practice at the men’s residences of this university for students to drink a lot, to be rowdy and then to vomit at various public areas of the residence. This was affectionately known as parking a tiger and some house committees even had prizes for the best tiger parked by a young man, whatever that means. So, the practice was not only tolerated, it was encouraged. The student who had parked a tiger would then have to pay R20 or so, which would then be given to the woman who has the unpleasant task of cleaning the vomit. The woman would be part of the cleaning staff employed by the university who invariably was from somewhere on the Cape Flats. She would invariably have children of her own probably the same age or older than the students whose vomit she cleaned for R20.

I now beg of both Rhoda Kadalie and the Professor to at least review what they believe to be good reasons for the Professor’s decision and to consider whether the decision is as visionary and reconciliatory as it is held out to be.

Finally, I ask Rhoda Kadalie to consider what message she believes the Professor is sending to the women who were humiliated by these sons of the University of the Free State. The apology on behalf of the university and by extension on behalf of the Reitz four nor the compensation cannot be enough to dissuade me that the view of the university community is that these women in their blue overalls do not matter. Just like the women from the Cape Flats who cleaned young men’s vomit for R20.

The University of the Free State could not have found a better leader than Prof Jansen but it can do better; it can have the Prof and a leader who has the courage to admit when he is wrong.

What am I missing?

I think I am losing my mind. There are two stories in the media which completely befuddles me. I am not even sure if they are stories worth telling in the first place (well, maybe as snippets) let alone the analysis and the interviews that I now have to be bombarded with.

The first is the analysis of whether soldiers may or may not belong to a union or participate in a strike or protest. Well, now that you have heard hours worth of debate on this issue, allow me to remind you of what our law provides. Contrary to popular belief, the law is fairly straightforward on this issue. Firstly, the right to belong to a union and to strike and to protest and so on, is conferred on every employee by our constitution. Secondly, this right is then regulated and protected under the Labour Relations Act. So, if you are an employee, you will be protected by the LRA from all manner of evil often visited upon employees by employers; one such evil is the denial of the right to form and belong to a trade union. Now how do you know if you are an employee? This is no simple matter. Well, thankfully the LRA tells us what an employee is. So, if according to the LRA you are an employee then you will be protected from the evils of the capitalists.

Now, here is the thing: the LRA specifically states that "This Act does not apply to members of the National Defence Force". This I would have thought is the end of the matter. Apparently not because for the last two days I have heard all manner of arguments of how the soldiers in question were peacefully exercising their rights. Rights they of course do not have, but hey let's not get technical.

So I ask, what am I missing?

The second story is about a certain Mr Huntley. Well, it is a nice story of how creative this oke from Mowbray can be and don't forget to credit the immigration lawyer that represented him. But, similar to the marching (striking) soldiers, everyone (including me) is throwing their five cents' worth of wood into the fire. Now we have a bonfire building up nicely and in the classic SA style, the lines are once again drawn. Here is the thing, Mr Huntley, ably represented (I guess) told the Canadian authorities a story that entitles him to refugee status. The authorities believed him and granted him protection as a refugee that has fled persecution from back home. I have no idea what test (if any) did the authorities apply but that doesn't matter, it is their test, their country, their laws.

So I ask once again, what is there to analyse?

Nothing; this is fairly straightforward: the Canadian authorities believe that white South Africans on the basis of being white stand to be persecuted by black South Africans. And of course they are doing their bit to help.

Re a leboga Caster, thank you . . .

This is what all South Africans, in fact this is what the whole world should be saying to this gifted athlete. The world does not give a damn though.

There is an apparently Chinese proverb that goes "when you are being shown the moon, do not look at the finger". A lot has been written and said about Caster Mokgadi Semenya, the women's 800m champion. The greater part of what was said and written had less to do with her achievement on the track than it did with the controversy around her sex. I say sex because I have come to learn that gender is another long and complex story. Sad as this whole saga has been, it has also been a gift to us, one for which we should be very grateful. In fact, the abominable treatment to which Caster has been subjected to has for the rest of us become a series of gifts.

The first gift is that we now know that just because people are writing or talking about something, does not mean they know what they are talking or writing about. It just means that they are exercising their right to express their view on the matter. A lot of what was carried in the media, both print and electronic, betrayed gross ignorance of the issues involved in this young athlete's saga. My own bigotry and prejudice made me have a second look when her picture was splashed across the front pages of newspapers. I found myself thinking and saying (to my best friend) ". . . eish, I'm not sure. Just look at . . ." Thanks to Caster and writings of those who know what sex, gender and identity are all about, I have recognised the bigot in me and now have an opportunity to deal with it. It also helped that a friend is a gynaecologist. The issue is that Caster does not fit in with the picture that we have formed of what is female, and therefore needs scrutiny and tests. Please, before you choke me, this is separate from the issues of fair competition that IAAF will tell you about. So, gift number 1: thou shalt no make your bigotry and prejudice into some objective standard or measure, there is lots of science behind sex and gender.

We do this all the time though; from the way people dress, walk or speak; we judge and categorise them into little neat boxes. What they do or say thereafter does not count for squat. One of my own is routinely stopped at the entrance of female public toilets and asked if she's sure this is where she want to be. She routinely lifts her usually baggy top to show that she is female, No she does not flash! Amazingly this always gets her a pass into the "ladies". Well, a lot can be said about the kind people who just want to make sure that she is not lost or making a mistake about the toilets. The fact is, it is on her general appearance that she is routinely suspected of not being female.

The second gift is that it never hurts to find out some facts behind the sensational story. Failure to do so, puts you squarely within the first gift above. Some limited research into the whole gender issue will quickly reveal the complexity that surrounds it. Hermaphroditism, although fairly common, is still spoken of in hushed tones. There are XY's out there with fully developed female genatalia and breasts. You have surely read stories of individuals claiming to be trapped in a "woman's" or "man's" body when in fact they are the opposite. You have also read about the man who has given birth in US. It is in our laziness to fully consider these issues that we are comfortable to dismiss human beings as "freaks". Those that are against homosexuality and are happy to persecute human beings for not choosing to love within the stereotype; do not know anything about homosexuality - oh, except that it is not natural. The fact is, it does not fit in with the generally accepted world view, therefore it must be wrong. And then of course there is the Bible, reportedly written by God "Himself" - enough said. Now, thanks to Caster, people have an opportunity to go and look into the issue of gender and maybe understand that it is a continuum rather than a point.

Finally, the IAAF, like all other world bodies, have now emphatically been shown up for what it and they are, thanks to Caster. Next year will be the first time that the Fifa soccer world cup will be held on the African continent. It is no small wonder that it is the African country that is the most European that earned the honour. South Africa is a lot of things but Black is not one of them. Of course there are millions of Black people living in this country but you know the townships don't count, right? A quick look at TV programming, public events, etc. will quickly illustrate this point. It is only in the last 2 years that advertisers discovered Black people, even then, only those Black people closest to White. On this basis and thanks to the lobby of the current Fifa president, the soccer world cup is coming. Oh, then there was the issue about the vuvuzela? Welcome to my world! You will of course remember the late Dempsey. Can you imagine what happened at the voting that year? All those fair minded gentlemen who said No!

Now what about the IAAF? They have apparently had to deal with this difficult issue of gender on no less than 9 occasions that I am aware of. There were reportedly 8 women tested during the Atlanta games all of whom apparently "passed" the test. And then there was a particular woman who having "passed" the test, subsequently "failed" and was stripped of her medal. Now, here is the slit in the IAAF's fairness skirt: I have not before the Caster furore heard of all the 9 cases. More importantly, no names or photographs of the athletes behind the cases seem to have been made public either during or after their tests. If they were, it was probably in some specialised publications rather than in the general media, I don't know. In short, the athletes, as they should have been, were treated with decency, decorum, sensitivity and respect. Against this background, why did the IAAF now hang Caster out to dry? What about her case did not merit decency, decorum, sensitivity and respect?

There has been something made of the incompetence of the SA athletics body. I'm not sure how this body should have dealt with this issue really. My understanding is that insofar as they were and are concerned, they have among their athletes a talented women's 800m contender now world champion. So, what were they meant to do? Approach the IAAF on some, "we know what you guys are thinking so just to set the record straight . . ."? The IAAF had concerns, which in their own words were fuelled by rumours, so it was the IAAF that had to deal with this matter. By the way, it is their job to deal with these type of issues, I take no issue with that. They however handled this one so callously as to amount, albeit in my mind, to malice. So, another gift from Caster: trust these international bodies at your own peril.

I hope that our collective gratitude to Caster will go beyond letters to the editors, protests, welcoming her at the airport and all those public expressions of outrage. I hope our gratitude to her would be displayed in the way that we look upon and treat those that we see as different. The way we interact with those that do not fit our bigoted pictures of what should be. Everytime that we interact those who are different, and we remember that they are no less human, no less deserving of decency and respect, then we would be paying homage to this talented athlete - then we would be emphatically saying: Caster Mokgadi Semeny, re a leboga, siyabonga, dankie, thank you.

And by the way, congratulations on your victory, you are afterall the women's 800m world champion.

Service Delivery Protests

There is a real risk of this post becoming sanctimonious. The only experience, if that, I have of what the press refers to as service delivery protests, is through the news reports and casual conversations. The facts are that yes, there have been and probably will more protest in mainly the lesser developed parts of our townships. The protesters when asked, say that the reason for their protest is the failure of government to provide basic services.

Protests are without question important part of the broader freedom of expression. Each one of us has a right to assemble and to protest subject only to the limitation imposed by the constitution. There are also other limitations to the right to protest that do not come from the constituion. These limitations are created by other laws, by good manners and common decency. It is a crime to destroy other citizens' or government property and no interpretation of the right to protest, can change this simple proposition.

The protest take place mainly in the so-called informal settlements and other poorer townships. These areas, poor and unserviced as they may be, are also public and communal spaces, shared by a lot of people; poor people. Some of the people caught in the middle of these protests want to carry on with their lives and should be allowed to. This is of course a hollow if not a pointless statement in the context of these protests. To illustrate, during an interview, one of the leaders of the protests expressed disappointment that criminal charges brought against some of the protesters would not be withdrawn as was apparently "agreed" with the authorities. That there is a possibility of an agreement being reached with the authorities in the face of flagrant breach of the law is scary - but hey who am I fooling, these agreements are reached apparently quite often. If you happen to be a victim of the crime, you pretty much have to move on and get over it.

Where does all of this come from? When did it become ok to destroy your neighbour's house in an expression of your frustration with the government? There surely must be a difference between the 1980's "making the country ungovernable" and the present. A look at the Khutsong township protests (which I wrote about) and how those were resolved may give some clues. I was and still am flabbergasted about what went on there. After a court had ruled against the community, they still went ahead and protested (read thrashed the township, burned a house or two, kept the children out of school and stopped people from going to work). All of this was ugly and to me incomprehensible. What did I expect? A counter-revolutionary like me will never understand the processes of the struggle of the people against an oppressive government. Well, the people of Khutsong won their battle. The government has decided that they will stay in Gauteng province and not be moved as the government of Mbeki had wished.

Now, which community would not want taste victory for itself and the predominantly unemployed residents? Counter-revolutionarily speaking, in a democracy the weapon that citizens have against a government, any government is to make sure not to return it to power in the next round of elections - not to burn the mayor's house, which incidentally they probably had paid for. However, for as long as the victory of Khutsong remains fresh on the minds of the people, the struggle (burning, thrashing and intimidating) shall continue.

The next round of local council elections is around the corner. This is the opportunity for the people to make their voices heard and to get rid of the ineffective councillors. It is also conceivable that the people can no longer wait for a better life for all or maybe they are beginning to doubt whether there can be more that can be done - together or otherwise.

The task that faces this government is bigger than huge. It will take a sober and forward-looking approach. This is no time for quick wins, neither is it time to find scapegoats nor to point fingers at this or another government. Today, this minute, people are losing their belongings, their jobs, their dignity. In the meantime, I do not know of any action taken against those that have been identified during criminal actions. The way I see it, there can be no reason in the minds of the protesters to doubt that they too will soon savour the victory of Khutsong.

What are the government's options?

It was just a matter of time . . .

I hear there is some ruction and disquiet caused by one of our best female artists Thandiswa Mazwai, she who is all woman, in my humble estimation that is. My dear wife finds her less agreeable but only in form. Give me that voice, let me enjoy the sway of those enchanting hips, ohh give me Thandiswa. All that of course is not the cause of this post, the ruction however is.

Thandiswa is reported to have expressed, in rather strong and dare I say unlady-like terms, her dislike of the Afrikaans portion of the South African national anthem; a portion more affectionately referred to as "Die Stem". For those who may not know (a very likely event given how long it has been since Black people were official referred to as kaffirs); Die Stem was for a long time the national anthem of the Republic of South Africa. It succeeded God Save the Queen which was the national anthem during the days of the Union; during which days Black people were officially known as natives alternatively savages.

The 90's came around and with them, the winds of change. All hitherto terrorist and seditious organisations were unbanned and political prisoners (yes, there were a lot more than one Nelson Mandela), were released. Celebrations ensued and as in the nature of celebrations, there was inebriation followed by deviation from cause of liberation in favour of peace. With peace comes the necessary cessation of hostilities. For some reason whenever peace is the objective, there seems to be a requirement for general amnesia. There seem to be a requirement that we forget the events that led to the initial hostilities. I can still remember the mantra "let by-gones be by-gones". Just in case you think me smug; I confess that I too chanted that mantra for I too were sick of war and hostilities. We all wanted it to end; so much so we forgot the fundamental requirement of peace making - the truth.

It is in this elated inebriation and lust for peace that apartheid left but Die Stem and Springbok stayed behind; and as Nelson Mandela rose to address the rainbow nation, he said: "I greet you all in the name of peace..." To demur then would be nothing less than being a ghastly party pooper. Who wants to be known by those terms? Truth, logic and common sense do however have a nasty habit of periodically coming to visit (between the festivities), just to see if the brain is still in use and the heart is still pumping. It was in such a moment that I wrote words to the effect that "I am now stuck with Die Stem in the middle of my National Anthem". What is one to do? The blue sky and the depth of the sea poetically expressed in that reminder of my dehumisation are not of the endless beauty and bounty of this land but of my exclusion. Put differently, they are expressions of triumph over the god-less.

Like with most if not all symbols, be they street names or public buildings, very little discussion or sharing was countenanced. The proverbial majority was apparently in favour of all the proposed changes or lack of changes and so it came to pass and thus it remains. For the sake of contrast: when the famous February 1990 speech in the then parliament had been made. Frederick Willem de Klerk still put a question "whether Black people were worthy of citizenship of the Republic of South Africa", to the White people - in a referendum! You do recall "Vote Yes for Change" right? It was still up to the White people to decide whether I was welcome to dine at the national table, as an equal, in the land of my birth and origin. One would have thought that similarly all national symbols (and all things proudly Sout African) would have been put to a referendum too. Not just to a competition to determine who could compose the nicest and most reconciliatory anthem. But making peace and asssuring White people that they will not be systematically butchered or robbed of their hard earned possessions is no easy chore. No less so was the reassurance of the investor community of the natives' commitment to peace. Peace, was more important than doing what in my mind (then and now) was the right thing to do. As one would be encouraged to stop at a red traffic light or to pay one's TV licence.

As in the nature of things, common sense and logic come for their periodic visits. As in the nature of things common sense and logic are often ignored or banished to the back of the national mind. All that until such realities can no longer be ignored, as was apparently the case with the fair and talented Thandiswa. Such expressions of dislike of Die Stem are of common occurence among those that I associate with; which begs the question: which majority was in favour of this state of affairs in the first place?

It was therefore only a matter of time that someone with a greater voice would refuse or hate to subject it "to where the cliffs would give an answer".

Meet Mr Jensen

This is well-written piece on white South Africa as seen by a white foreigner:

http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen06092009.html

Take back your dignity . . .

The poor do not matter, this is so regardless of all else that you may have read or heard. In fact, it would suit most of us just fine to not see another poor person. The first line of defence when it comes to the poor, is to look the other way, to convince ourselves of all manner of reasons that they are there. We never pause to think that maybe they are there because we (those who are not poor) are here.

One only has to visit any of our urban areas' public facilities to really appreciate what Desmond Tutu meant when he said that the worst form of violence you can subject people to, is poverty. Whether it is the train station, the hospitals or the schools; those that are meant for use by the poor have similar characters in common. They are dirty, over-crowded, unsafe and downright undignified.

I don't know what it is about poverty that attracts or rather that brings out the worst in human beings. The poor areas of our country are marked by all manner of social ills; from chronic alcoholism to drug addiction, from child and spouse abuse to what seem to be wanton and random murder. In and among these human dumping sites, there are invariably shiny examples of human dignity. There are tidy homes with modest but immaculate gardens and an air of respectability. No rubbish lying around, no family violence, no alcohol or drug abuse.

The government will not and in my view cannot look after the interests of the poor. The interests of the poor are by nature anathema to those of capital, which most if not all governments need more than they need the poor. The present model of wealth creation is such that there will be the top which is very exclusive, the middle which is marginally bigger and then the rest made up of the poor. This is not some Young Communist League rhetoric, it is simply the way this and many societies work. I beg your indulgence for a few more lines:

Senior government officials and practically all politicians do not by and large live in and among the poor. Not that they should, I am merely making the point that they do not as a general rule live in the poor areas or among the poor. I also concede that poor is a relative term but I trust that most readers will have a fairly good picture of what poor looks like as they read this piece. To do otherwise is to split hairs.

In the unlikely event that senior government officials and politicians' children attend a public school, they will be attending a well-run public school that is located "not in a poor area". As a general rule (of which I am yet to learn of an exception) children of senior government officials and politicians do not go to the township schools let alone poor township schools. Neither do my children for the record, but that is hardly the point. Similarly, children and families of the senior government officials and politicians do not as a general rule make use of public hospitals. Almost all government employees are on medical aid of one sort or another and therefore have the benefit of private health care. So the government spends twice; first on medical aid that will go into the coffers of private health care providers and secondly on the public hospitals, the very hospitals that are administered and managed by government officials on medical aid.

At the risk of stating the obvious (incidentally, my dearest wife tells me this morning that there is nothing wrong with stating the obivious, for what may be obvious to one person may not be so to another) people who are not poor do not send their children to poor schools. Where there are medical needs, these are met by the very best of private health care.

You may ask what is wrong with all of this and I may just take your point. This is the way things are whether wrong or right. I do not here sit in judgement of senior government officials and politicians; I am merely observing what is a fairly accurate if not common a trend. Most importantly I ask myself what the impact on society does this trend have. This trend is the reason I conclude that the government (anywhere in the world) will not and cannot meet the needs of the poor. The poor do not matter.

Those who live in the poor areas are working hard to get out of there or at the least to make sure that their children get out. Nobody wants to be poor because to be poor is to be faced with a form of violence that is not matched by any other. If you are poor, you do not count and you know it.

On the other hand, if the senior government officials and the politicians lived in the poor areas, used public transport and public schools and public hospitals; then they would have a vested interest in these areas and facilities. They will have a vested interest all the time and not only every 5 years or so. At present they do not and for that reason, the poor will continue to be ignored.

Given that the government will not and cannot give the poor their dignity back, the only alternative for the poor is for them to take their dignity back. To take their dignity back as they did in the 1980's when townships used to have competitions such as the cleanest school etc. The poor can take back their dignity by treating their own environment with dignity, even when they are forced to use the undignified portable toilets. The one thing that the poor have always managed to do through the ages, is to be resourceful and to make a lot ouf of very little.

The schools, the streets, the homes and most importantly the communities are the source of dignity for the poor. Dignity will stop littering and all that goes with it. Dignity will stop wanton drunkeness and drug abuse. Dignity will not allow anyone to resign themselves to being a basket case. When the poor resolve to treat themselves with dignity, the government will have no choice but to treat them with dignity.

These are my thoughts and I stick by them.