Zapiro’s cartoon in the Sunday Times, depicting a woman symbolising the justice system being held down by the ANC, SACP, ANCYL and Cosatu, with Julius Malema telling Jacob Zuma, who is unbuttoning his pants, to “go for it”, may well have crossed the line of what constitutes fair comment.
The cartoon seems to suggest that the ANC president is about to rape the criminal justice system with the parties set out above assisting him by holding “her” down.
While Zapiro is entitled to use the metaphor of rape to highlight local misgivings concerning the attack on the criminal justice system, it is in light of JZ’s acquittal for rape tantamount to a rejection of the findings of a judge operating within the system he seeks to protect.
Moreover, it shows a total lack of sensitivity to the aggressive nature of current South African discourse. I feel that Zapiro, as someone who does the most amazing work generally, has let himself down on this one.
His decision to withhold an apology is unfortunate.
Of course with all of the proverbial shit hitting the fan, one wonders whether the Sunday Times will do a David Bullard on Zapiro. If that were to be the case, it would be most unfortunate.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that the cartoon crosses the line, South Africa needs editors to be courageous right now.
More than ever before.
BL – You mean like this?
Times of London (today)
Met racism accuser Tarique Ghaffur relieved of his duties
(Chris Young/PA)
Tarique Ghaffur: has been forced to take leave
Philippe Naughton
The top London police officer who accused Sir Ian Blair of a racist campaign of victimisation has been stripped of his responsibilities and put on gardening leave.
The action against Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, the country’s most senior ethnic minority officer, was announced today in a message to staff by Sir Ian, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Sir Ian’s decision was immediately condemned by the Black Police Association, which said that Mr Ghaffur was being “victimised”. But Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, supported the move, which he said was necessary to restore confidence in the Met’s operational efficiency.
Mr Ghaffur will retain his rank of Assistant Commissioner – and a salary of around £180,000 a year – but has been “temporarily relieved of his duties” including his oversight of security for the London
Sir Ian insisted that the move had nothing to do with Mr Ghaffur’s decision to take him to an employment tribunal, but was instead because of the highly public manner in which he did so and because of the “media campaign” he allegedly conducted. Two weeks ago, Mr Ghaffur, in full uniform, held a press conference to confirm reports that he had taken his case to an employment tribunal after what he said was a longstanding campaign by Sir Ian to hold back his career.
In his statement to staff, Sir Ian wrote: “I have reflected whether operational effectiveness, leadership and confidence in the MPS as an organisation and the security and safety concerns of Londoners are being affected. It is also clear this is having a negative impact on the London 2012 Olympic Security programme and risks undermining confidence in it.
“Certainly, it is the case that the interests of Londoners are not being well served by this current situation. Accordingly, I have decided that, for the time being, AC Tarique Ghaffur be temporarily relieved of his responsibilities although he will remain an assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police Service.
“With immediate effect, I have invited DAC Chris Allison to take over temporarily the command of Central Operations, including the contribution to Olympic security.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the decision has nothing to do with his actions in filing the ET application or the fact that he has made the allegations which are the subject matter of the ET claim. Rather, my decision results from the way in which he has chosen to conduct himself, for example by the manner in which statements were made in his press conference, and in conducting a media campaign, both personally and through the advisors and organisations supporting him.
“It is a matter of regret that I have had to take this action but I want to make it clear that we still want to find a way to resolve his issues through a mediated process.
“For the time being, AC Ghaffur is on authorised leave of absence.”
Mr Ghaffur, 53, arrived in Britain as a refugee from Uganda and joined the police force in 1974. The tipping point in his long-running row with Sir Ian appears to have been his decision to hold the press conference in a West End hotel to detail his grievances against Sir Ian. He has since complained about receiving death threats.
Alfred John, chairman of the Met branch of the BPA, said that the Commmissioner’s reasons for the suspension were “utter nonsense”.
He said: “The Met BPA is extremely disappointed that Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur has been victimised in this manner by Sir Ian Blair.
“The message that this sends to black and minority ethnic officers and staff is clear – ’Exercise your right to challenge unfairness and discrimination at your own peril. You will not be listened to and you and your supporters are likely to be victimised’.”
Mr John attacked Sir Ian’s suggestion that his decision was made because of Mr Ghaffur’s conduct. “We think that is complete and utter nonsense,” he said. “It is unprecedented – look at how many tribunals are brought against the Met and no-one is ever told to go on gardening leave.
“This move was something we expected, because that is the way minorities are treated in the Met. And that is a sad statement to have to make.”
Every time we have a post I have BL conducting a running battle normally
without any relevance to the topic of that article.
Comment after comment which ignores issues long forgotten and
very often with a very selective memory about how the debate went.
When I ignore the crap, the guys say pwease Twaps you must
answer (mostly abusive off the topic comments) BL’s “vital”
question (probably asked 70 times before and regardless
of the answer – asked again and the answer ignored)
So answering might as well be a lecture on the Smurfs.
If after 15 comments of abuse (read through them) I eventually
get the zig and say let’s hear your views genius, I get told
I’m picking on the poor thing.
I shouldn’t let him yank my chain?
You’re right – those who feel I have to answer questions
that are covered by articles please understand that
henceforth they are covered by articles on this site.
Those who feel I am picking on poor old BL – ignoring
all the irrelevant and abusive crap I have to put up
with, please feel free to raise this issue.
Then all I am asking of you is should I be consistent
with all of those who have had the same type of
ongoing comments (mostly off topic)
sent to them? Do what the rest of them did?
Or allow him to comment freely like everyone else
and answer only what is relevant?
As I am not like those that blacklist people I will allow
BL like everyone else to comment at his leisure BUT
if I am ignoring him please understand that it
is far fairer than most do.
You will be referred back to this.
Trapzuman,
I really can’t understand why you are bringing the UK into this discussion.
Is it bcause you have dug yourself into a massive hole and are desperately using diversionary tactics to dig yourself out? If so, your readers won’t fall for it. They are too damn smart. (“Absolem” and “amused reader” have, for the record, already told you that it is irrelevant)
Must I now defend The UK because I hail from the UK? Am I now victim to some sort of South African blog xenophobia?
Are you now going to ask “Alan in Botswana” to defend the laws relating to freedom of expression in Botswana because he does not concur with your OTT views about Zapiro?
As I have been answering all day I’ll answer BL in the morning.
Perhaps you might all want to start by reading the post on the Preacher who attacked Islam and BL’s quote from Jane Duncan and his queery about how she could be a member of the FXI after her take on the British system.
This one will need a proper answer and I am not carrying this garbage forward to another post.
Traps
The state must balance the rights of an individual (to freedom of speech) with the rights of the majority. If one man (Hamza) choses to use that right to exalt listeners to murder others on the basis of their religion or culture, the state is entirely correct (and in fact was very belated) to decide that Hamza’s freedom of speech was not more important than the fact that he was inciting racial hatred and violence, which is a criminal offence in Britain.
YOU brought up Hamza, not me.
In contrats Zapiro is not inciting anyone to anything, he is reflecting upon the unconstitutional actions of our leaders, and trying to bring about discussions that will benefit the majority.
I simply do not see how you can compare the two.
On a different note i am suprised that you have got so upset with the answer / don’t answer debate.
I, like most other readers, really enjoy your blogs, and do not expect an answer to everything i write. You usually are very calm and considered, and respond to the posts that interest you or that you feel add to the debate, a course of action that makes reading your blogs even more enjoyable.
For some reason, BLD, and BLD alone really pushes your buttons and you seem to lose your sense of calm and perspective. He makes the odd good point, but for the most part he is just plain annoying, immature and childish (like the pathetic i wouldn’t sell you a dog thing – honestly!). He was almost certainly spoilt by his mother. People read your blogs for your opinion not his, so why descend to his level at every tiny provocation.
Ignore him, don’t retaliate by saying you wouldn’t sell your dog to him either, it demeans you. Rather focus on more of your excellent and thought provoking blogs.
I think Mondli should fall on his sword, not for the cartoon. When he fired Bullard, he apologised telling us that his editorial systems had failed. Then he has to retract 2 front page articles in one month. The second one he had defended in his column.
Maybe he should also go for the readers he is going to lose from publishing the cartoon.
Traps,
I never thought I’d see the day when I totally disagree with you.
Zapiro needs a huge pat in the back by Mondli (and democracy loving South Africans). Put in words what Zapiro put in picture would not have captured the dangers we face as South Africans by people (especially political leaders and future President of the country) who abuse the Justice for their own political gains.
That cartoon was right on and the reaction is testament to its impact.
We have no sacred cows especially public figures who abuse the political and justice system for nefarious purposes.
As far as I’m concerned, no apology is necessary from Zapiro. He deserves that ol’ pat in the back.
Trapzuman,
I should draw your attention to the fact that Abu Hamza would have also contravened South Africa’s hate speech laws. He incited murder. Jane Duncan (FXI), of course, doesn’t think it was a problem because she has a wider agenda that supports Islamic fundamentalism in its war against The West.
But you should note that Jane Duncan is not attacking the hate speech clauses in South africa’s constitution relating to freedom of expression.
So Duncan has appalling double standards. Hate speech in the UK is fine but in South Africa it isn’t.
Trapido,
Sorry dude.
You started this with a clear condemnation, and ran into a well-reasoned wall of counter-argument that seems to have driven you to personal and irrelevant attacks. Concede or dispute, but don’t capitulate or divert the argument.
As Zapiro said, it is unfortunate for Zuma that his sexual history adds another level to this cartoon, pointed out by the ANC alliance, but that is not the point here at all.
It does not render the cartoon “OTT’.
The fact of the matter is that our justice system is under intense attack and in danger of being subverted for the sake of one man who refuses to answer a very strong case against him.
Zuma’s case is not only an ‘arms deal case’. That is only one element of dozens of charges. But if Mbeki or others are guilty as well, how will we ever find out other than by the presentation of evidence, in court? We need Zuma to go to trial, and implicate all others, ‘taking them down with’ him, or fall on his own.
Either way, your promotion of a political amnesty is also a capitulation, and would qualify you to be alongside the others holding Lady Justice down, had your blog been influential enough.
I will not be back.
BL – your response :
The reason why I said BL said “Britain”, can be seen if you go to the post marked “Reason for Scorpions closure”
He had previously told me that the British system was his model. If you go to the post concerned (see below) you will see that nowhere does he deny
that he said Britian. He even clarifies that he has no problem with the SA system and, more importantly, why he believes incarcerating Hamza was justified.
Part of my comment plus the time inserted :
“In terms of Freedom of Speech he ranted and raved about the need for total freedom and South Africa needing to fight for it. If you go to his definition of the limitations on free speech in the thread designed for it, you’ll find his idea is for a system which in reality is far more draconian than the “freedom of speech system he condemns” A system (Britain) in which Muslim clerics are deported, detained without charge and wire tapping phones of politicians has become so bad it’s best to visit your mate and hope they
aren’t using long distance mikes.”
Michael Trapido on August 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm edit
Part of his comment and the time :
“Q2. Please explain why the draconian system you are suggesting for free speech is far better than the a system which is streets ahead of it when it
comes to freedom of speech?
A: For the record, I think that the constitutional limitations on free speech in South Africa are reasonable. I also believe that, in the light of
the serious terrorist threat in The UK, it was reasonable to imprison Abu Hamza for his inflamarory words.”
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on August 15th, 2008 at 8:24 am edit
In addition look at this post’s comments and see how I keep asking him to answer on SA versus Britain. As always insted of answering he waits for any gap. Only after other guys ask what has Britain got to do with this, does he
suddenly say he never said Britain. Please check times on the comments. You will see that he does answer without denying that he had said Britain before he saw the gap.
I was going to invite you to look at his take on the “preacher” who had a go at Islam post but I think it best you read BL’s own blog first (Thereafter feel free) :
http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/
While reading it try and find any criticizm on his part against Britain, America, the West or Israel. Compare it then to his response to anyone who says anything against them. Compare it then to his contempt for anyone who uses the term patriot. In his case patriot is a bit tepid, zealot is your best possible description.
Have a look at his attacks on people (many scholars included). Note a question followed by his interpretation of any answer or no response – then quoting his interpretation as if it is fact. Then he adds to it.
I trust you won’t miss his repeated lambasting of Zapiro because he only does cartoons of Israel never the other side. (Nothing to do with fair
comment – just because he doesn’t do the other side) I also want you to look at the people he is lambasting and casting aspersions against simply because they hold a different view or just can’t
be bothered to answer any more. And this list is not exhaustive.
Now read my article on a “Compromise candidate” : You will note BL is one of those who comments repeatedly. Yet he asks questions here about whether I believe Zuma has compromised the criminal justice system. So I have to quote
and quote from that article, which he knows like the back of his hand, and yet the further down we go the more distorted the picture. Note regardless
of any answers how he still carries on as if you don’t answer and repeats his own views as if you had said them.
Note also what he believes that my answer (that I thought Zapiro was OTT) plus his interpretation of whatever, would result in for this country.
BL here is my answer – if I get time bud I’ll answer you in future. If I don’t you write whatever you want. You will not be censored but I’ll be joining the rest who don’t have to waste hours explaining things over and over to other people who visit the site and can’t be bothered to wade through every post full of this crap and who don’t know your style.
Have a lovely day
The thing that struck me about all of this, was not so much the distasteful nature of the cartoon, but the fact that it brough home so forcefully the fact that while Zuma’s supporters continually lambaste Mbeki for being out of touch with the people, Zuma and his followers are equally so. Ordinary people in the street are deeply concerned about the state of the law and justice in our country – rightfully so – yet is seems that in their scrambling for power and position, and in their pursuit of their own agendas, neither Mbeki nor Zuma give a damn about the concerns of ordinary tax paying citizens. Zapiro’s cartoon, in my opinion, has voiced that concern more loudly than all of the signatures on the petitions against the banning of the scorpions could ever do, and for that I am grateful. If the leaders of our country had any concern at all about the people of South Africa, they would take the sentiments expressed in the cartoon very seriously. South Africans are deeply concerned about the erosion and flouting of justice in South Africa, which is openly led by politicians. Maybe its time for a reality check.
Since when should an artist apologise for reflecting the thoughts of a nation? Mr.Zapiro most certainly has NOT let himself down and regardless of the use of rape as a metaphor for Zuma’s current behaviour we must remember that at the end of the day, it is a CARTOON. I commend the man and his genius, I spit on Zuma’s arrogant misuse of power. Zapiro’s pen is most certainly more powerful than Zuma’s big stick.
Mike,
I do not believe that debating with you is a waste of my time. On the contrary, I believe that it is one of the most important things I can do.
However, as you “can’t be bothered to wade through every post full of this crap” I will now withdraw from this thread.
I will let your readers decide about the validity of our different perspectives.
Dear Traps
I think that you could just be right… it did go a little bit to far.
I have no sympathy for the ANC, SACP, ANCYL and Cosatu representatives in the cartoon. They are currently on a campaign to scare South Africa in to giving in to some extra-judicial deal with Zuma. Shame on them, they got what they deserved.
As for Zuma himself, it would have been more appropriate to show him contemplating on whether he should “go for it” as his masses of supporters wants and begs him to do, or maybe doing something totally different. Certainly it was unfair portraying him unbuttoning his pants.
I am no Zuma fan, but the cartoon is a prejudiced and not constructive.
Kind Regards,
GS van Zyl
The real question is not whether or not the S Times will keep Zapiro but why the Maul & Godiron keeps an @rsewhole ANC apologist like Trapido on its books, er pages.
Must be something about freedom of speech, I guess.
The drawing is better described as a caricature than a cartoon. Caricatures generally are OTT, unrealistic but often more on the mark than than other text or pictures. Often politicians are drawn as animals members of the other sex, etc. Even countries get the same treatment. They normally included exageration, hyperbole and distortion in order to get to the “truth”. Traps, you should inform yourself before you write for others.
As to why Zuma deserves “respect” is a mystery.
I am nonplussed by the descent into sandpit squabbling. Looking at the header, Trapido is quite clear as to his perspective:
It’s a logical consequence then that he would find the cartoon in question ‘OTT’. For my part, I applaud Zapiro for his bravery: an attack on our judicial system demands a strong response and Trapido’s sensitivities seem rather quaint in this instance. A little over the top, perhaps.
is it zuma and the hooligans who surrond him you are concerned about or the rest of us. rape is disgusting and so is threatening our livelihood and mortaging our future. as die groot krokodil liked to say total onslaought need total strategy. the zunami declare war and i think theyshould be paid in kind.we will meet in the trenches!!!!!!
I have read through the comments and have found them both interesting & amusing.
In my opinion Zapiro’s cartoon highlights something that is becoming worryingly apparent – that SA is descending from a “democracy”(?)into a “kakistocracy”: Rule by the worst (Greek word but the first 3 letters are readily understandable in Afrikaans).
I agree with the many comments that Zapiro has hit the nail on the head and should certainly not be “punished” for his work.
Racist? what nonsense.
@moderatemajority: “The fact of the matter is that our justice system is under intense attack and in danger of being subverted for the sake of one man who refuses to answer a very strong case against him.”
How is our justice system under attack?
And your statement that Zuma refuses to answer a “very strong case” against him is pure bollocks.
He is answering it, very definitely. You just don’t like the fact that he isn’t pleading guilty and proceeding directly to jail. But if it were you facing a charge in criminal court, you would no doubt be trying all you could to avoid being found guilty too, if you felt there was a loophole to exploit.
Zuma has a perfect right to employ every legal stratagem to secure his acquittal.
“But if Mbeki or others are guilty as well, how will we ever find out other than by the presentation of evidence, in court? We need Zuma to go to trial, and implicate all others, ‘taking them down with’ him, or fall on his own.”
What you need and what you’re going to get are two different things.
“I will not be back.”
Sure, you will.
Traps and BLD
Can you both stop your stupid squabblings about irrelevancies. We don’t give a damn about Britain at the moment. You both did the same about whether Russia was in Europe or not. It is bloody childish!
This is how the French Revolution started.
This is how the Russian Revolution started.
This is how the Chinese Revolution started.
In all cases intellectuals gave in and appeased a mob, mob rule took over and millions died!
THIS time we must learn from history and NOT appease the mob!
@Lyndall Beddy: There is a reason why revolutions took place in those countries and deposed the monarchies.
Wherever a monarchy has abused their subjects, eventually they have revolted.
Britain had its monarchy briefly deposed by Oliver Cromwell, but his rule was even worse than the Kingdom he overthrew and Britain reverted.
To prevent rebellions we need to look at the root causes of them and find ways to address issues before people take up arms to gain the freedom they seek.
South Africa avoided going down that path by negotiating with the ANC in the early 90s.
Lyndall Beddy,
I can put your mind at rest. I have stopped our “stupid squabblings about irrelevancies” and will no longer comment on this blog.
I hope that readers of this blog can now concentrate on the wisdom, insights, wit, historical knowledge, relevant comments etc that are integral to your comments.
I am sure that you have a massive fan base.
Trapido,
Enough now with your directionless equivocation on the central questions (posed by Blacklisted Dictator). Why don’t you start attempting to answer these questions, especially that they go to the heart of the caricature itself?
Over to you, Mr Trapido!
Richard Catto
Sorry – what you have been taught about those revolutions is propaganda not history. In none of the cases did “the people” revolt against monarchies or anything else. That is school book revisionary history. In all cases a middle class developed, went after power, and got overtaken by mob rule.
BL
I did not intend to hurt your feelings – but you and Traps are fiddling while Rome is burning!
Being accused of rape by a woman and not being found guilty does not exempt one from any future criticism that uses a “rape” metaphor. Imagine Zapiro thinking, “Wow, what a perfect metaphor – the rape of the justice system! It’s exactly what can happen now to our country if we don’t look out! Oh, wait. He’s been accused of rape before so I can’t use that. And he’s black. We are not allowed to depict black men as rapists – only racists allow for the possibility that black men can be rapists. I will have to use it on someone who has never been accused of rape. Preferably a white guy. Bummer.” Yes, that is exactly how we want our independent thinkers and watchdogs to think like in a truly free and open society! Perhaps they need to write to the ruling party and request permission to criticize them, too.