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.

Violent Black Criminals . . .

I know you will probably not believe me when I tell you that this post has nothing to do with Steve Hofmeyr. For what it is worth, it does not. It is as a result of a conversation on tweeter, between someone who calls himself comradesipho and another by the name of sentletse. These two among others seem to have been talking about black criminals and how they are violent or maybe there were just talking about crime, I don't know. In the cause of the conversation, there was a suggestion that if we could figure out why black criminals are so violent, then we would go a long way in solving South Africa's problems. I may have gotten the whole thing wrong though but I hope to learn from it.

Is this conversation about black criminals as opposed to white criminals? Is the use of black in this conversation the same as the use of that term in relation to BEE? How would understanding the violent black criminals help to solve the problems of South Africa? Are these problems of violence or of crime or problems generally?

Anyway, back to violent black criminals. Does it really matter that violent crimes are committed by blacks? Well, in South Africa it does matter. It provides important statistical evidence that blacks, not crime, are violent. Consequently, there is or must be a link between violence and race. The continuum would be from white (non-violent) to blacks (very violent) with (who exactly) in the middle - here I must admit I am stumped. All this is no news. It is human to seek out "facts" or (more appropriately) incidents that support your view of the world. It is the same thinking that supports the view that muslims are terrorists, jews are wealthy, indians are cheats and so on and so forth. It is on this naturally human basis that race becomes a study object of violent crime.

What interests me in this whole race-is-a-function-or-cause-of-all-else world view, is how I get to represent or be represented by others of "my race". A few years ago, some boys with "good breeding", who also happened to attend one of Johannesburg's finest schools, just happened to beat one of their own senseless. This violent criminal act was seen just as that. Of course there was a problem here - white boys of such good breeding just don't do such things. It must have been the alcohol. No, wait a minute. It turns out the lion's share of the violence was carried out by some boy from "the wrong side of the tracks". I think he was from the east rand and did not attend the top school concerned. These boys and others like them do not and are never said to represent whiteness in their dastardly acts. I happen to yawn without covering my mouth? Ah yes you got it, the double-whammy of bad breeding and race.

This of course is a complex web; it had to be to be sustainable over such a long time. The racist project is one of the most clever systems to be devised. It survives on its appearance of complexity; on this need to explain it. The system is so clever that very clever people spend a lot of time considering its merits and demerits. I have often wonder why the system is simply not destroyed just as it was constructed. The response I get all the time is that "you are being too simplistic - you don't understand". I concede that I am a great fan of simplicity; it is irresistible to me and has served me well so far.

To illustrate: black people routinely go to rugby matches, cricket matches, golf at sun city, etc. This is never celebrated as incidents of a society transformed and united - correctly so. Six white people among 7 thousand soccer fans? "Oh just see how our country has changed and how the people are together". People often ask with what seems to be genuine puzzlement: "what happened to the goodwill of the soccer world cup?" Nothing happened to the goodwill, it wasn't there in the first place. People behaved because security was good and they sat together because that's just how the ticketing worked. A lot of white people went to the events because more white countries qualified and more white people could afford it. Simple really. After the game we all go home.

This may come as a surprise to some folk but I would rather no one comes over the wall at my home to rob and kill me and my family, no matter what race they belong to. I would rather no one turned their children into porn stars or kept their daughters in the basement for their sexual pleasure. Unfortunately though, people do just that. It seems to me that violent crime is ok as long as its victims are not white, regardless of the perpetrators at least in South Africa.

Crime is a function of a whole lot of things, some known some not. Some day we will knuckle down to deal with those things. In the meantime, do watch out for those violent black criminals.

Who is Annalie Botes?

There seems to be a rule that when one says something, especially if it is a view or an opinion, then one has to be right. I am not even sure what being right would be in that context but I will not dare unzip that wet suit. So I say something like “Swazi women are the most beautiful”. Yeah, yeah it is all positive and shit but what informs the observation? Is it my visit to the “reed-dance” festival; or is it a result of some study of “beautiful” women? I bet you my overdraft that the garden variety response to this opinion would probably be something along the lines of “okay that’s your view or taste or whatever other let’s agree to disagree expression or even agree”. I bet you that no one will call me a tribalist or racist (should they discover that I am actually white).

Now, what happens if I say “Swazi women have big bums and they steal other people’s husbands and to top it all, they have an insatiable sex drive”? Before you answer, let us consider the current brouhaha about Annelie Botes.

It is reported that Annelie does not like black people, doesn’t understand them and that she fears them. Is also reported that Annelie believes that black people are angry because of their incompetence; and that black people are responsible for the violent crime in South Africa. She is apparently waiting for her husband to go on pension so that they can both emigrate to England where her children are already living. I am intrigued by this but I will leave it at that because I am not the one who will have to deal with black people in England or the yobs for that matter.

The question for me is why is Annelie taking so much flak for her pretty much kak believes? She is probably wrong about a myriad of other things. I have not had an opportunity to read any of her books so I don’t have an insight of her other believes and fears. I don’t know the woman from the proverbial Eve. She probably believes that all black men have large penises too. So, she probably looks at black men with trepidation or relish, I don’t know. The thing is that Annelie looked around and formulated the views she expressed based on her observations. Moreso, she formulated views about which she can do nothing but pack for the land of Harry Potter.

Ok granted, she is wrong. So what? At least she is not wrong like Alan Greenspan whose error cost people their fucking homes. Fundamentally, Annelie does not hold views that are radically different from your garden variety white South African. She’s just not smart enough. The tricky thing about being wrong is that at that moment of wrongness, you are right, so I can’t even fault die ou tannie. I think that the poor tannie is taking so much flak from the sophisticated whites and the angry blacks because she is so easy. Just wait and soon she will be hauled before the equality court for hate speech or something similar to such crimes. She’s getting flak for the same reasons that motivate reporters to pursue people with strange eating habits. So what if I want to eat raw fish off the floor? Why is that anybody’s business? I will tell you why – it is because the real stories are just too damn hard.

Black people (whatever that means) do not need protection from statements that are naïve and stupid just like the Swazi women do not need protection from equally naïve albeit lustful statements. That Annelie is wrong does not make anybody else right, especially the commentators who jumped to repudiate if not crucify her. There seems to be undue fascination and interest in irrelevant nonsense. In the face of the untold amount of investment in whiteness, it is disingenuous to protest when whiteness seeks to express its supremacy, however clumsily it does it.

The story of Annalie Botes is not a story. It is a red-herring, a non-issue. It is as irrelevant as Gareth Cliff’s views on the mating habits of the Killarney Golf Club Egyptian geese.

You have to love that man Julius . . .

The CEOs of banks like those of mining companies are looting the country's resources for their individual pockets. This, or words to that effect, is what the man Julius said on television news this morning.

Just when you would have thought that the income disparities would receive proper attention and ventilation, enters the man Julius. Of course there is some difference between the mining and the banking industries. There are similarities too. The captains of either industry are the country's if not the world's, handsomely rewarded individuals. Whether they should or not be as handsomely rewarded is of course a mammoth debate. There are those who argue that the combination of the abilities, qualifications and responsibility of these individuals is enough justification for their envious pay packets. Then there are those that would say: "to each according to need and from each according to ability."

Julius simply says that they are earning far too much for an individual and that must be fixed forthwith.

What then, if I may ask, would be an appropriate salary for a CEO of a bank? Julius doesn't say but I am sure he has a number in his head that would be appropriate and in the national interest. Let us not lose sight of the prevailing negative sentiment where bankers and stockbrokers are concerned, the world over. There is sufficient smoke there to justify a suspicion of a fire, without the methylated spirits that Julius was dispensing at the Garankuwa student gathering.

It is not the first nor will it be the last time that the man Julius shall enthrall students with his brand of oratory. You will recall that he had some inspiring words and lyrics for the students of the University of Johannesburg not too long ago. Then there were the statements that led to a human rights court proceedings. Incidentally, whatever happened to that case?

The way I see it is that while there are somewhat serious and hopefully cerebral conversations happening elsewhere, someone has to keep the youth entertained. Now who other than the inimitable Julius Malema would be up to such a task, bearing in mind the short concentration span most youth suffer from? Or can it be that the ANCYL does have a programme that will see the mines nationalised and private sector salaries set by legislative fiat? I do not think that there is too much resistance to the idea of some form of public ownership of the mines. Afterall the public already owns the minerals, the mining companies only have a licence to mine and sell the minerals, at their cost. For this privilege the public, through the state apparatus, collects royalties. This is not quite the case with financial services unless something happened in Durban that changed the rules and I missed it. As far as I have been able to work it out, financial services sector is regulated for the protection of and in the public interest. As long as the institutions follow the letter of the law, they are at liberty to pay what the believe is the right price for the services of their employees, all the way to the most senior employee. This approach to business is according to Julius wrong and if he has his way, will soon be changed. For this, the youth applauds.

The irony of this whole saga is that the very students, once they qualify or is it if they qualify, stand to be employed by the very private sector that they hold in such low regard. Having accumulated knowledge and experience in their respective careers, would they accept that the government or some public formation determine how much they should earn? Maybe that problem does not arise because they probably do not wish to grow up to be a CEO of a bank or of a mining company. Maybe they wish to grow up to be a politician.

Whichever way you look at this, it can only be that the address of the man Julius can only be acknowledged for its entertainment value, if anything at all.

Consider the other call that the rich must be taxed to fund the proposed National Health Insurance. With the passage of time and declining CEO salaries (if Julius gets it right) who will then fund the NHI? Possibly the proceeds from nationalising the mines? Incidentally, how much would the CEO of the NHI be paid or will she be a public servant whose salary shall be determined by law?

Don't say this has not been entertaining please, there is a funny side to this. On a completely different note: how much would Julius say is too much for an official car of a minister? The cost of minister Davies' Toyota Fortuner or the cost of minister Nzimande's BMW?

I have to say it once more, you gotta luv that man Julius.

Our divisive constitution . . .

The constitution is too important a matter to be left to lawyers and politicians alone. This is no fancy speak; in fact I don't recall being more serious in this space than I am now, writing this post.

This weekend I had a rare privilege of reading one of the speeches written by the late Robert Sobukwe. If you can, do get a copy of that booklet of speeches by one of this country's foremost leaders. Sobukwe writes, in this particular speech, to set out the policies of the PAC - "to set the record straight" as he puts it.

On the issue of rights of the citizens under a new constitution (speaking prospectively of course) he says that the PAC would not consider minority or group rights. He goes on to say that it is the view of the PAC that granting and guaranteeing individual civil liberties would be the highest order of rights for the citizens. He says that in a free South Africa there would be no need for group rights as each individual citizen would be assured civil liberties.

I do not do Sobukwe justice in my paraphrasing of some of the views he expresses in this particular speech but I urge you to find and read it. A copy of the booklet of speeches may be found at bookshops and at the Market Theater precinct.

It is in the context of reading this speech that, as I have always believed, the short-comings of our constitution became clearer than before to me. I suppose that when one has been deprived (of anything really), even the smallest token resembling that which you have been wishing for would suffice. Of course hindsight is perfect vision and it is of course easy to sit in the comfort of my home and muse about the past as if I am an expert of sorts. For the record, I am no expert. I am a keen student of events.

The constitution of this country was born of negotiations which were meant to end the struggle, apartheid, poverty, etc. Moreso, the constitution was meant to end all forms of discrimination and to bring the nation together. You will therefore appreciate my confusion as I try to make sense of Proportional Representation. This system of voting is meant, among others, to protect the rights of minorities lest they get overrun by the black masses and become the new-age dispossessed.

What group rights such as proportional representation and the "vote for the group" rather than the individual has done is to perpertuate the very divisions that the constitution was meant to eliminate.

The result is that there is no division between the party and the government. Maybe there shouldn't be such a division but the problem here is that the executive is not accountable to parliament (representatives of the South African people) but to the party. This is no small matter. It is government of the organisation, by the organisation for the organisation. The people do not matter that much.

It is for this reason that you should not leave the constitution to the lawyers and the politicians alone. This document ultimately determines how you live your life and carry on your trade, raise and educate your children. It is a document that ought to give you the power to choose who should be in charge of public health and education. Under the current system, the political party not you, makes that choice. Loyalty to the party (whichever party that may be) is rewarded at the expense of your vote.

This will remain the case, for as long as group rights are prioritised above individual rights as it is under our divisive constitution. A constitution that is apparently one of the best in the world. Best for who really? Definitely not for the people.

Protection of Information Bill and the Media Tribunal; much ado about everything

As far as information goes the media in South Africa does not seem to be the best source. I decided to look for information on the Protection of Information Bill, which has caused much ado about everything in the last few days. I also searched around for information on the Media Tribunal which I am led to believe will be introduced in the near future if the ANC has its way. Well, that is a small if.

First the Protection of Information Bill. There is very little in the media that provides information on the Bill but there is a lot that informs one about the dreadful things the Bill, once it becomes law, will do to media freedom. Similarly, reports on the impending Media Tribunal are more about the ugly stuff the tribunal will do to our beloved press and less about what this ghastly thing is or intended to be.

Back to the Protection of Information Bill. During a short and rushed interview conducted by one Chris Gibbons on 702 Talk Radio, the chief state law advisor, one Enver Daniels was called to defend the Bill. Defend it he did, eloquently too, if my opinion in that regard counts for anything.

Armed with a laptop and some bandwidth, I decided to give up on the media and to ask Google for help. Google gave me a copy of the Bill. The Bill tells me that [it intends] To provide for the protection of certain information from destruction, loss or unlawful disclosure; to regulate the manner in which information may be protected; to repeal Protection of Information Act, 1982; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

I have no reason to doubt the Bill when it tells me that. Mr Daniels also told Mr Gibbons that in the view of the state law advisers, the Bill does not in any way infringe upon any of the rights set out in the Bill of Rights. About that I am not sure but I am sure that if there is doubt, those clever lawyers who wear long green dresses will set the record straight.

So I decide to spend some more time with the Bill. It tells me that:

• Unless restricted by law or by justifiable public or private considerations, State information should be available and accessible to all persons;

This and other statements of principle will form the basis on which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be interpreted and applied. So I decided there isn't much to worry about at this stage but to wait and see what the powers that be does with this Bill. At this point I did not see any of the claims that the Bill signals the end of press freedom. Satisfied that I will for a time being continue to happily blog without the threat of prison or harm, I moved on to the Media Tribunal question.

Let us not lose sight of the reality that as we speak (or is that read or write?) there is a thing called the Media Ombudsman. I have little information on what it does but I am told that it is there to protect the public against the excesses of the media. With that, bear in mind the cringe-worthy reports about individuals and organisation that the media published only to retract later, if that.

I am not sure what form the Tribunal will take - very little information available except from the ANC who are the proponents of the Tribunal. What I know is that other than the Ombud, the only recourse I have when the details of my messy divorce are liberally reported in the press, will be to go to court and by then the damage will have been done already. Mind you, I don't really care much about my sordid shenanigans being published, it is just that my children now have to bear the brunt of the untruths. As I said, that is too late now. There is a small matter of protection of minor children but I guess that was lost on the journalist reporting on the story of young boys who are said to be used for the pleasure of paedophile tourists. So, once again I decide to wait and see what the Tribunal will look like and the powers it will be given to protect the citizens or to bludgeon freedom of the press.

The press must be free to do its civic duty and no government, however popular should be allowed to mess with that. I also believe that my right to privacy especially the privacy of the more vulnerable members of our society is even more important. The press must continue to unearth information for the benefit of our society without fear, favour or prejudice. Where they mess with the wrong guy they will be sued or like in the case of Mr Bullard, be fired. What about where they mess with the vulnerable? Would there still be objection if special courts were established for the single purpose of hearing media excesses claims - for free maybe?

Of course governments and liberation movements are not to be trusted - for the simple reason that they have people in them. On the other hand, if all journalists had the common sense of Anton Harber or the humility of Ryland Fisher we probably would not need a media tribunal; or would we?

As I said, it is much ado about everything and I suspect it will be fun yet.

Just a thought . . .

Why is it that when you trick someone (illiterate) to sign over their asset (which they did not think of as an asset) over to you, it is not regarded as theft? I'm fondly reminded of my forebears who signed over land because they thought they were signing an alliance or for a bag of tobacco.

I guess the law is the law.