Media storm in a Protection of Information cup?

It is reported that after pressure from civil society and elsewhere, the ANC government introduced some far-reaching amendments to the Protection of Information Bill.  I have not seen the amended Bill but I am told that it limits the scope of the organs of state that may classify information as secret thereby denying access to such information.  I have also heard it suggested that the Bill must have a public interest clause for it to be acceptable.

I may be missing something so maybe if I put my thoughts out there; I could be put straight by a fellow South African or two. This is not a sudden attack of ignorance on my part where the Bill is concerned. As you can see in this piece, even before the amendments to the Bill, I did not think it was as bad as “everyone” seemed to think. When later on I discovered that those who decried the Bill did not seem to have read the Bill, I became more attached to my earlier belief about the Bill. It seemed to me that the majority of the commentators on the Bill (in its earlier and present form) are quite happy to take the word of the media reports on what the Bill says. So I ask - why would so many well known and respected South African be so set against what I believe is a Bill like any other of its kind? I don’t know.

I also don’t know why statements about the Bill or what its effect will be that are simply not fact, are paraded as such. Allow me to illustrate. A caller on SAFM programme says that if the Bill was to become law, the fracking shenanigans in the karoo would not be known. This assertion is accepted as fact by the presenter and his guest, who happens to be Professor Habib. Why is this? I don’t know. Let’s indulge the logic of this caller and compare it to the Bill as it was before the amendments.

Measures taken in terms of this Act must –

(i)                  have regard to the freedom of expression, the right of access to information and the other rights and freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights; and

(ii)                be consistent with article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have regard to South Africa’s international obligations;

These words come from the Bill. In fact they form part of what the Bill refers to as principles that underpin and inform its interpretation. Now, I would have thought that classifying fracking information would go against these principles and be contrary to the Bill. But then again I may just be naïve. Let it not be forgotten that interpretation of legislation is a job best suited for the courts and not editorial suites.

It seems to me that the general understanding is that the Bill when it becomes law will give this government power to classify information without cause or justification. Moreso, regardless of the provisions and purport of the very Act that empowers them to classify the information.  There are also claims of this Bill being unconstitutional. If this be the case, surely the Constitutional Court will strike it down. These assertions are made without reference (none that I have seen or heard) to the constitution or to the offending portions of the Bill. This should not come as a surprise though. The objections to the appointment of one Mogoeng as Chief Justice were not founded on the constitution which,  govern such appointment. The inappropriateness of Mogoeng was not based on the constitution which required only that he be fit and proper and a South African citizen. The objections were based on his religious beliefs and matters previously dealt with and not regarded as impediments to him becoming Judge President of the North-West division of the High Court and later a judge of the Constitutional Court.

As for the public interest clause, I’m unable to understand its purpose under the circumstances.  The Bill (the one before the amendments) lists purposes for which classifications may not be put to use. When you have time read sections 17 and 21 of the Bill (the one before the amendments). Let us assume for our present purposes that any classification is done strictly in accordance with the letter of law. Once properly, legally and justifiably classified, what circumstances would amount to public interest if such classified information was to be disclosed contrary to the provisions of the Act?  It seems to me that on the one hand “rule of law” proponents accept that there is information that this state, like others around the world, is justified in classifying and keeping secret. But on the other hand reserve for them a right to disclose the very information and seek refuge under “public interest” which they assert should be contained in the very Bill. How can that be? I don’t know.

Of course there are justifiable criticisms of the Bill. For one, it is poorly drafted. But whether it is as draconian a piece of legislation as it opponents claim? I don’t believe so. Maybe the issue is not the Bill but that this government cannot be trusted with it.  In the meantime, it would be interesting to see what Protection of Information Act 84 of 1982 says about states secrets and why it is not a bad Act and why it should stay on our statute books.

The debate about the so-called secrecy bill should not be made up of conclusions but a serious of statements that resolve themselves logically into one or other conclusion.

Professor Jansen, please, enough already!

I am at my wit’s end with Professor Jansen. What on earth did poor black children ever do to this man? Ok, here is the context to my current frustration (I have many so bear with me):  This is the article Prof. Jansen wrote in today’s edition of The Times or Timeslive, depending on what your news source is.

This is not the first of this type of article that Prof. Jansen has written and this post is not the first of my attempt to challenge the Professor’s thinking with the hope of getting him to change his mind at least once.  I have disagreed with the Professor here, challenged him here and also here. I have to do this again, because the Professor has done his thing against the black poor child, again.

In light of the previous articles that the Professor has written, specifically referring to the so-called “white working class” schools, I ask that the Professor’s column be withdrawn, that he be re-called as a columnist on the grounds that it is offensive, insulting and it incites violence. Please consider the previous posts (hyperlinked above) where I ask the Professor to stop equating black pupils with lawlessness, thuggery and moral decay. Another Professor decried similar generalisations by saying: Islam does not beat women, Muslim men do. It is not that Professor Jansen does not get it, he gets it just fine. He wants to be offensive and insulting and for that reason, he should be denied the platform to do so. Like David Bullard, he must go and finance his own platform where he can continue to be offensive and insulting at his own cost.

Once again, like he has done on more than two separate occassions (that I know of), Professor Jansen insists that when black pupils (read poor black people - why else will rich black parents send their children to working class white schools?) are enrolled at a white school, they come with ill-discipline. In his own words: The white children had long left as black children dominated enrolments. The black youth coming to this school were those who routinely failed inside the township schools of Soweto and surrounds, or were pushed out because of their violent and disruptive behaviour.

The Professor could not be further from the truth. The black children who are enrolled in the schools that the Professor feels so deeply for, are those whose parents are trying to get out of the misery that is the township schools. The schools that the Professor describe in the very article where gun shots ring around the school or across the school playground. These are the schools in the areas of our country that Rev. Skosana describe as hell on earth. The schools that cannot expel the worst of pupils. These are the schools that the department of education in Gauteng tried to secure some years ago and bore the wrath of Julius Malema’s Cosas. The Professor will of course remember that famous and destructive march through the streets of Gauteng by Cosas, then led by Julius Malema. The Professor will remember that a child had been attacked at school, dragged off to a nearby open veld, killed and his body set alight. Enclosing the schools and insisting that the school gates be locked during school hours, was the Gauteng education department’s response to this gruesome event. An event many poor black parents seek to protect their children from by sending them to the very schools the Professor feels so deeply for.

The white children are removed from these schools for other reasons Prof. The discipline in these schools slip for other reasons Prof. The system fails these schools. Like the formerly Afrikaans universities fail black students who get attacked in the middle of the night. Attacks that are so violent that some end up in hospital. Like your university failed poor working mothers when they were humiliated by the white students you feel so deeply for. During my days at university I watched with amazement how lecturers avoided disciplining black students and then complaining among themselves about the lack of discipline among the students. It is lack of leadership, lack of courage for one’s convictions and not poor black children that is responsible for the decay that you feel so deeply about Prof.

The Professor feels for the school principal who visciously assaults a child. He says that’s the consequence of a violent society. This is a lot worse than one adult threatening violence of yesteryear on another adult, violence he is unlikely to carry out. The latter has the whole media fraternety feeling for her.

Dear Professor: I feel for the children who are beaten. I feel for the children who are blamed for their blackness and their poverty and for all that is bad.

I ask for leadership, I ask for courage, I ask for your column to be discontinued.

Another Sharpeville Day!

This blog owes its existence to the memory of Sharpeville Day (now crassly referred to as human rights day). Actually the name is not as crass as the politics that gives credence to renaming a day that is a turning point in the road that leads to Nelson Mandela being an icon to the exclusion of all others. By all accounts and from all points of view, this was a huge day!

As a student I organised the commemoration of this day in the residence where I lived. That was a long time ago. Long before the name was changed to human rights day. Back in the day when Black people knew who they were and no one, I mean nobody, was a “so-called” anything.

The commemoration was a short and small affair. Tim Hughes (as he then was) gave the keynote address or was it a talk, a lecture? He was imminently qualified for the task. Yes, he was a white Masters student at the time. The point of the commemoration was for us to hear, to debate and to learn. Tim outdid himself and the evening went well. To the surprise of the detractors, we did not after the affair go on a rampage to attack white students in our residence or cause any public disturbance or any other kind of disturbance. We hung around, chatted a little and retired to the pub.

Even back then, Sharpeville Day was a lesser of the other struggle days. It was a day students took off to catch up with life or to catch up with their studies or whatever else that may have go away from them. Then again this should be no surprise; Africanists were never a big deal. Do you remember that Africanist Lumumba? It all goes back to that house in Orlando West and the decisions that followed. The stand-off between the two groups, ready to kill each other over a disagreement (even enlist common thugs with guns in their fight for being the right organisation). It is so however that we tell the stories from our point of view - this is mine.

This Sharpeville Day comes when a lot has changed since those men and women lay sprawled life-less in the open veld in front of the Sharpeville police station. Back then the Pan Africanist Congress was a movement to be reckoned with. Tomorrow, when the day dawns on Sharpeville Day 2011, the PAC will be but a name in the memories of those who like me, wish for a different tomorrow. Such is the triumph of the non-racial project. How do you say BEE in non-racial language? Well, you say it the same way that you say that human rights day commemorates those who were killed on 21 March 1960. Such is the defeat of the anti-racist project.

Tomorrow will once again come with all the fanfare of rights and non-racialism – all born of the blood of those who would rather have anti-racism. Tomorrow will showcase all the values that have held Africa captive for all the years and will continue to do so going forward. These are the values that apparently seek to be inclusive of all South Africans. That they achieve inclusiveness at the expense of the majority of South Africans is just detail. It is reported that the President invited the leader of the opposition to join him at one of the events tomorrow. She turned him down. She will be addressing an event of her own, galvanising her supporters to protect the human rights that under the ANC government are under threat. She will as usual scare the electorate into voting for her party or at least try. All in all, tomorrow will be fun, as it has been the last 16 or so years.

I will in all probability be a bystander through all of the fanfare of tomorrow. I better be careful though; it is reported that the first victim of the 21 March 1960 massacre was a bystander who was on his way to work.

It's election time - Participate!

Some 22 years ago on a university campus, there reigned a policy of non-participation. This policy was imposed by a black students' organisation on the basis that all organisations and fora then in existence on this particular campus, were creation of white liberals and black students should not legitimise them by participating in such reactionary formations.

As is usually the case in the course of such noble struggles, some break rank. As it turned out 3 black students broke rank and stood for elections to participate in the house committee of the residence they stayed in. The 3 souls were promptly branded traitors and coconuts and all manner of other names. They were worse than the oppressors - they were collaborators!

As is further usually the case in these matters, the white students in that residence, true to their liberal non-racial values, promptly adopted the 3sum and volunteered their services as campaign managers, speech writers and pamphleteers. All 3 were duly elected to the house committee and as with most things South African, they became the first, the trailblazers, the traitors.

In the meantime the 3 bore and endured the brunt of coconut-hood. It was quite a surprise when a year later, the organisation that advocated non-participation, decided on the mother of all participations - it had candidates stand for SRC elections. And that is how the university got its first black SRC president - a comrade and activist educated at St. Johns College.

These more than 2 decades old incidents, continue to intrigue me. The argument of the 3 coconuts was that they could not but participate in the house committee because this is where they lived. If they do not participate they deprive themselves of the opportunity of influencing what happens where they live. After they were elected to the house committee the annual formal dance theme was changed from "Cotton Club" to "District Six".

Fast-forward to 2011 and the local elections. This is where we live and if we do not participate then we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to influence the decisions about our respective and different homes. The trick and difference between then and now is that we participate only in groups and never as individuals.

Somewhere in Luthuli House a list will be prepared of the appropriate cadres who will then be presented for endorsement by the people to occupy the various positions in the various municipal councils. Of course, these cadres will be presented to the communities for vetting before they are put up for election. Whatever the spin that is put on this, the ability of any given cadre is considered only if s/he is indeed a cadre. You are cadre first then a servant of the community second. This is not such an issue because the community is all for cadres anyways otherwise the community is just made up of agents. The will of the people is the will of the cadres and of the people is of the cadres.

So, don't miss the opportunity to participate! When the cadres are paraded for your consideration and approval - remember to disapprove when you don't believe the cadre to be up to it. This is about where you live, where the water should be available and clean. Where the refuse must be fetched regularly and sewage treated.

One more thing, make sure the cadre lives where s/he serves, it is the right thing to do.

Purity, Certainty and other intellectual vices . . .

Andile Mngxitama is nothing less than a gem. He would of course not take kindly to being called a black diamond but a gem he is. There is never a doubt in his mind (as reflected in his writing) on the issues he holds dear. He provokes thought and debate and all things dear to a healthy democracy.

In this, his latest offering in Sowetan, he pulls no punches. This piece is one in a chain whose recent link was this post on Thought Leader, by Sentletse Diakanyo. Sentletse like Andile habours no doubts about his views. Please take time to read these two pieces of riveting reading; while you are at it, read a whole lot of other writings and offerings by these two writers - it is the right thing to do.

Unlike Andile and Sentletse I am not so certain on the question of who is an African. It is with this uncertainty that I disagree with Sentletse. There was a time when there was no Africa, no Europe and no Blacks. The physical land mass we now affectionately refer to as Africa was there but I am not sure what it was called before the days of compasses, discovery and conquest. I suppose if the question Sentletse was answering was "who were the Africans?" then I would agree with him.

What I find most disagreeable in the piece by Sentletse is his reliance on the term Black as if it is real. On what basis do we now rely on a social construct to support a proposition of what is fact? There seems to be some reality that dictates the identity of an African outside of the meaning of where such is located. To illustrate: we look to Nigeria for Nigerians and Namibia for Namibians. So, at a certain level African should similarly denote those who are located within the extent of this land mass.

It may well be true that many years ago, long before the white man came to Africa, it was the home of the Black people. The problem is that before the white man came, there were no Black people. Those were created by the white man. In spite of all sorts of horrible things visited upon Africa by the settlers, Africa is here and is populated by its people - the Africans. These however come in all manner of shapes, colours and interests.

Now what point is there to the declaration of being or not being an African? So I am an African, me and Van der Walt both, so what? This is a question Andile asks. To him, unless you have a point to make about being or not being an African, you best shut up on the matter. It contributes nothing to the betterment of the down-trodden (I am putting words into his pen here). Well, it is the Blacks among the Africans who are cowards - I believe Andile meant to say. In fairness to the Blacks though - the horse bolted when the nation decided back in the 90's to just get the hell on. In short, we got played. One can understand how we got to be played. I mean we were so excited to be free to go and come and go again as we please, in our own country, that we forgot to focus on the detail. Besides, when the guys in charge have been out of the country for so long (yes, Robben Island is out of the country) how could they know better?

All this talk about African coming only in one colour like the old ford is dated if you ask me - just look at the ford fiesta, it too has come a long way since the famous words of Mr Ford. Africa has come a long way too. Even though some countries still view albinos with suspicion, Africa has come a long way since the days Sentletse speak of. In any event I would rather listen to what Sobukwe had to say on matter African rather than some automaker.

To now insist on purity and certainty would probably be intellectually mischevious if not downright devious.

Praat my Bilingual Country

Whatever claims our fearless liberators may make, it is just the way it is - ours is a bilingual country, with both languages having nothing to do with most residents of our country and having everything to do with just getting along for peace's sake.

This is of course strange some 16 years or so after calling truce and apparently changing the rules such that the woman on a wheelchair could also have a fair chance of being CEO. Don't get me wrong, I could not give a shit what language the conversation at the water cooler is conducted in. I mean, one of the two languages of course. For my sins I got an A in matric Afrikaans and spent most of my formative years in the Afrikaans heartland,so met respek, fok u, I say. You have by now noticed that I keep using the uppercase everytime I refer to Afrikaans. So, whenever there is a switch between the (pronounced "thee") South African business language to the other South African business language, I'm still smoking (pronounced smoooken'). That however, is hardly ever the point.

The point is a lot more subtle as most points generally tend to be.
What does a non-Afrikaans speaker do when he gets to the water cooler smack bham in the middle of an Afrikaans conversation? No problem, she must just go find a water cooler with isiZulu speaking colleagues and problems' solved.

Of course if you were to raise any of these issues at work you would promptly be told to relax a little, be more like . . . Nelson Mandela, be accommodating. Not to have such a chip on your shoulder, the war is over now. The joke is on us though because such are the things that cause wars, not the chip on anyone’s shoulder. I apologise for digressing.

The question on my mind is why our country is bilingual while our fearless leaders proclaim multilingualism and 11 official languages etc. Frankly, the last time I checked, Setswana was only ever an official language back in the day when Bophuthatswana was a republic and Tautona was its president. Granted, on the pages of the constitution of our country there are 11 official languages. The big idea is that within reason, one can be served in her own language, especially when it comes to government services.

In practice though, there are only 2 official languages, English and Afrikaans. This, for the same reason “die stem” sits snuggly in the middle of the national anthem. It is hard being a South African with a memory and a chip on your shoulder. It is not easy to be all fuzzy and warm inside about what it means to be South African. Maybe it is because I am not a “forgive and forget” kinda guy. I am more of a “don’t do it again” kinda guy. It is however done to me again and again. The only change is of course the perpetrators. Sipho made a point of making an appointment for us to meet after work only to tell me that it is not nice of me to keep yapping in vernacular in front of our colleagues who only speak English and Afrikaans. This is absolute bull because this is Marthinus and his mates that Syfo (as he is affectionately known to us) is talking about. These okes sit in the coffee room and yap in Afrikaans all the time, even when Syfo, myself and hottie from Zambia are in the room. Syfo, as far as I know has not taken the issue of inclusiveness up with them.

All institutions (public and private) that matter in this country conduct their business in English and Afrikaans. I was part of a debate about this once where I was told that it would cost a fortune to produce materials in all 11 languages. I conceded that point. I also asked the guys to concede that it would be even cheaper if we only printed the materials in English, which seems to be a generally accepted business language anyways. My request was politely declined on the basis that the business has a large number of Afrikaans customers. This is shortly after a powerpoint showing how black people have become the biggest customer base was shoved up my ass by Marthinus himself.

This is why I advised the hottie from Zambia to invest in a “tweetalige woordeboek” and to start watching 7de Laan. This here is a bilingual country with 11 official languages.

Suuushi Already!

I mean shush it, shut up, thula'msindo! I have just about had it with this sushi story because - yes you have guessed right - it is not a bloody story! Some guy spent some time in prison for fraud, came out, started a business or three, made some money, threw some parties, etc. Now this guy has become the very barometer by which we measure the state of the rainbow nation!

Why is this a story? Why is it of importance to the public that some guy surrounded himself with music videos girls at his birthday party, also ate sushi off one of such show lasses? Blues restaurant has been doing this for years! Beautiful blondes in jeans and exciting tops to serve the clientele! Footballers, playboys with money, Kerzner, Hefner - you name them, they have lots of money (by the looks of it) and they all have hot girls grace their parties and everybody loves it or so it seems. So, what makes Kenny different?

Mr Vavi came out guns blazing on some self-righteous bullshit of how Kenny was rubbing his faecal wealth on the faces of the poor. What a load of bull! The poor get to watch the people they elected to look after the poor's welfare drive down the road in flashy cars with blue light escort! The poor get to watch other kids go to school in flashy uniforms and their own kids get knocked up by the very teacher who are supposed to be "in loco parentis"! The poor get to listen to Vavi support the walk out of the classrooms by the teachers to the detriment fo the children of the poor. This is long before the poor get to see a week old SundayTimes portraying Kenny and the video girls.

Oh, you will of course remember that the lead communist, Dr Nzimande himself, stepped off his beemer to add to the criticism of the king of sushi. Then he walked off the podium and into his million rand plus worth car and drove off or rather was driven off to some palatial abode for the night.Kenny has publicly said that he didn't get his money from the government or from his relationship with the government. Personally I think the brother is talking crap but hey, that is a matter for another post. I do however know for sure that the South African citizenry paid for Blade's car and his hotel accomodation. Insofar as Kenny is a thief go after his ass and send him back to Bloem prison otherwise, save us the self-righteous bullshit.

There are stories out there. Stories worth telling. Stories worth the honour of being called a newspaper.

Interlude: Gratitude

This space is never personal or at least it is never meant to be personal. Well, this is the second time (that I can recall) that it will be personal. The thing is, I am grateful and there is nothing more personal than gratitude. You are the only one who can really know how grateful you are. It does not matter why I am grateful. It is enough for you to know that I am grateful; for a whole bunch of people and for a whole bunch of stuff.

In the middle of this gratitude or around it I am not sure - is life as we have come to know and despise. Nelson Mandela was hospitalised (for whatever major or minor reason) and the whole country was pretty much shitting itself (to quote a friend). I could not for the life of me understand the point of all those journalists camping outside the hospital for two days and two nights. What was this about? Was it about who gets to tell the story of the passing of Nelson Mandela first? Is this not one of those rare moments where a journalist is at peace with being scooped? I concede, Nelso Mandela is news. Everything about him is news. He is also a father, grandfather, husband and ex-husband and all other things that we are and would like to keep private. I concede also that many would not want him to die; even though 92 year olds do die, mostly unprovoked.

So, why camp outside the hospital so that we (journos and those who follow them), get to be the first ones to know of the passing of one Nelson Mandela? Is it because we have come to own the man? Maybe he is South Africa personified but I have my doubts. Make of it what you will but I was in church today and the priest kept asking this: "how do we hear the stories we are told and how do we tell the stories that we tell?" I am not sure what to make of all that but I guess there are many sides to a story. So maybe the journos just wanted their side to be first - whatever that means.

In other news, the people of Egypt took to the streets in defiance of the security forces and in support of their demands that their president or is it prime minister, I forget - resign. Depending on where you stand, this is democracy in action or of course, lawlessness. Whatever it may be, Egyptians seem to have decided that enough, is enough. Some have said that this may give new energy to the people of Zimbabwe. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

I am grateful that I am not part of any of the demonstrations and fighting for rights or peace or liberation or change. While all this was happening, there was joy elsewhere and music and sunshine and smiles and laughter on the faces of children and old people. For that I am grateful, again.