I don’t know if many of you lot have noticed but there is a worrying trend that is starting to develop every time an issue crops up that grabs national attention — individuals or groups getting behind those who share their race rather than their ideas.
This South Africans is your non-starter for ten.
Though I accept that there is a definite partisanship that has emerged from apartheid as well as racism down the centuries this cannot be allowed to continue to destroy the fabric of South African society heading into the future. Indeed rather than proudly pronouncing on how each view or incident confirms that which divides races, people must try to see the views of all others as the aggregate of our country’s collective standpoint on issues.
In that way instead of creating anger as we seek to change others to our will, we create unity in a departure point that recognises a diversity of thought as one.
Instead of popularising misguided design through attaching race, creating a better country by promoting what’s right as opposed to what’s expedient.
Over the past few weeks we have seen a number of issues unfold, all of which have grabbed our attention.
In the case of Caster Semenya we have an IAAF complaint that has resulted in gender testing being considered racist by South Africans.
Why?
There are precedents whereby women of other races have been subjected to this testing. Yet we have sought to attack an international community and an IAAF, which played a vital role in ending apartheid, with all the grace of a lynch mob. In addition we have then been subjected to ANCYL president Julius Malema saying that whites couldn’t be bothered to go to the airport to welcome Caster home. Twice over racist nonsense where none exists. Why would you ever want to stir racial resentment based on a nothing claim?
Where were the more sensible heads?
In the case of Judge John Hlophe I have made my views very clear as anyone who regularly reads my articles will know. Suffice it to say that for the purpose of this exercise I am of the firm belief that the JSC bottled it just as the NPA did on President Zuma. Yet in both cases I like to think that I have accepted both decisions with good grace and tried to promote South Africa regardless of my views. I have certainly been behind the president since he took office.
The issue that has disturbed some of us in both the Zuma and Hlophe matters has been the need to follow the due process of law to its logical conclusion, which many of us consider has not been the case. But that must be a starting point not an end to it.
The fact that our system has not brought us the desired result means we must accept that this is the system and if we want different results then we need to change it. But until such time as we can get that right we must accept its results, in this case that Zuma is our president and that Hlophe is still a judge despite any misgivings. Accept that Judge Kriegler and those who stand behind him are using the law as a mechanism to protect the judicial system of our country.
It is not about black and white, it is about checks and balances, protecting our judiciary and — for those who support Hlophe — allowing those cleared by the system to live their lives.
In the case of the Kriegler challenge I was alarmed to see businessman Cyril Ramaphosa, Johannesburg High Court acting Judge Kgomotso Moroka and advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza withdraw from the Freedom Under Law organisation.
Notwithstanding the basis furnished by this prominent threesome, it once again appeared to be a case of lining up along racial lines rather than the real issue being played by all: Should the JSC have given Hlophe the walk?
Then in stepped the National Interfaith Leadership Council (NILC) and confirmed that they were relieved when the JSC reached its decision on Hlophe.
- “For some time now, South Africans have had to endure a series of tensions and legal rows of one form or another within the judicial fraternity, which have without doubt left this honourable sector bruised,” McCauley said.
“In most instances, these clashes have been more about personalities and ideological difference than about defending the sacrosanct rule of law,” he said.
It was for this reason that the NILC had sighed with relief at the recent ruling by the JSC.
(Reverend Ray McCauley)
Though I happen to disagree with McCauley, the fact of the matter is that I’m delighted to see whites taking a stand behind the JSC. Not because I believe there is merit in the NILC argument but simply because I would like to see races forget about colour and take each other on — mixed in together — with only the issues to divide them.
In this instance the view that the NILC were relieved that the JSC called time on Hlophe because of the ongoing animosity is rather nice and befitting of our interfaith leaders.
It is, of course, also horribly misguided as it suggests allowing parties to trample on our law and then get away with it simply because they kick up a huge unpleasant stink.
I think the final word must go to Motlanthe who this week correctly pointed out to the ANC parliamentary group that the country is watching them and accordingly it is time to win the day by putting forward superior arguments. If I may be so bold as to just add — without any unnecessary regard to race.
Traps, McCauley is a bad example to use as someone with credibility standing behind the decision of the JSC. As a Zuma self-appointed spiritual advisor, it is unsurprising that he will back the decision of the JSC on Hlophe (who is a known Zuma sympathiser). Connect the dots and you’ll soon realise that McCauley’s stance has nothing to do with justice.
Mike
Don’t forget to mention that Judge Johan Kriegler never challenged the judges who acquitted Wouter Basson. Yes, he was utterly silent when the NPA arranged a ‘fair well’ party for Mark Thatcher.
Traps – I hope you are not advocating for a false cross-racial consensus on issues, achieved out of convenience rather than conviction. Unquestioning partisan/sectarian solidarity is just as bad as blind racial solidarity. The funny thing is I happen to agree with what NILC said despite my serious reservations about the group’s motives (rightly or wrongly).
I have to agree with you 100%. The most toxic recipe for SA is when identity politics trump the integrity and intelligence of the individual. I happen to agree with the JSC judgements to dismiss both cases as being reasoned and correct, but this is on the merit of the judgements themselves. A disturbing number of comments seem to ignore any merit or substance in the entire issue, and simply issue crass calls to solidarity of one kind or another. I truly hoped and believed that South Africans were beyond this point. It could also be a result of a general ‘dumbing down’ of commentary (political and social) rather than a symptom of real racial polarisation though, and my hope is simply that the more intelligent and thoughtful South Africans have refrained from commentary.
Spot on Traps – I would go further and lay down a challenge to all users of this and the M&G website – let’s try for just 10 days to not use race in any comments.
One big problem with your argument, Traps: If everyone followed your lead of “we must just accept things” the world would be a FAR worse place. There were MANY people who agreed with you (in fact, I think most comfortably-off people are behind you most of the time) when apartheid was seemingly secure; Many who agreed with you when the Vietnam war was defended by the US administration; Many when the Iraq war was in its early days; Many STILL who say the Palestinians should just accept the 1948 mandate; Etc etc.
AND THEY WERE ALL WRONG. It takes guts and courage for those few lonely “loonies” to stand ON PRINCIPLE even when their lives are made most uncomfortable by the majority, the “powers-that-be” the mainstream press, the “mega-dollar evangelist pastors”, etc.
I take my hat off to the principled few.
Well said,Trapps. While it is imperative to allow space for public debate by various sectors, it is important that we be guided by ethics, and not fear or favour. Each and every nation adopt its own ethics but there are some which are universal. To determine which ethics should be followed by each nation depends in large part on what results in positive spinoffs! As each nation degenerates into disrespect of its own laws and constitution, you will find that the results will not be good especially for posterity. We have ample examples in Africa warning us of accepting bad ethics. In order to be a succesful nation we need to have courage to show disdain towards matters sorrounding our current President and Judge Hlophe. we must not kowtow as has been done by Ramaphosa and Ntsebeza and the acting judge.
What a confused piece of argumentation. It seems that you are unhappy that issues have been dividing along racial lines, and that are therefore pleased whenever something bucks this trend. McCauly’s intervention is seen as bucking the trend.
However, the NILC and McCauly in no way represent what you call “our interfaith leaders”. McCauly speaks largely for himself and a small number of his adherents. The SA faith communities are more appropriately represented by such bodies as the SACC, the SA Catholic Bishops Conference, the Jewish Board of Deputies, the SA Muslim Council, the African Churches (ZCC, etc). To most people, McCauly’s moral leadership is minimal, as compared to our other great religious leaders Tutu, Buthi Teghale, Rabbi Goldstein, and the likes).
In fact, if you wish to find an arena in which the racial divide is minimsed, looked to our real religious representatives—not to the NILC.
broadly i agree with you.
however, each case needs to be evaluated on its own facts.
the hlope issue has always been more about politics and less about the rule of law – have you ever heard of a judge on review having his own lobby group !!?
hlope is a politician – maybe the position of the MoJ is a better position for him than the CC
Truthfully, I say unto you – What do Hansie Cronje, Jacob Zuma, Carl Niehaus and now John Hlope all have in common? The wonderful and irrepressible Rev Ray McCauley!
Is it just me or is there a pattern here?
If only we could believe that Ray McCauley was anywhere near presenting the kind of unbiased input that I think you’re really looking for Traps.
Wouldn’t it be great to stop playing the man whatever colour one is? Somehow I don’t think the “superior argument” is coming from the NILC – mostly perhaps because they haven’t made one.
Rock on!!!
Enjoy your posts though, keep going!
I am sorry Traps, but this is just a horrible confusion of arguments. You establish first that it is about time we approach our disagreements without muddying the waters with racism. That’s a fine sentiment. Then you applaud the NILC for supporting the JSC on their Hlophe decision BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE. Firstly, where do you get the assumption that they are all white; secondly, since when is McCauley qualified to pronounce on ANYTHING judicial. Yes, it is horribly misguided, and another example of those with some imagined, self-imposed authority, mouthing off. McCauley’s conclusions are ignorant and patronising. Judge Kriegler has been careful to stress that his objections to the JSC are not about Hlophe as an individual, but about the failure of the JSC to fulfill their oversight role. As with the Zuma white-wash, ALL South Africans deserve better than the sub-standard judicial processes that have been foisted onus
My challenge about Kriegler is the fact that he thinks cross-examination of Hlophe and constitutional court judges would lead to the “truth”. As I said before, I am not a lawyer but follow a scientific approach to reasoning. Hlophe only had conversations with two judges.
There is no other collaborating evidence other than each parties version of what transpired. No tapes of their conversations were made. Both the constitutional court judges that spoke with Hlophe, did not initially think that Hlophe was trying to influence them until they discussed the matter with other judges.
Other than “He said” and “he intended” will cross-examination of any of the judges clinically arrive at the truth? Will it not just be an exercise that fuels perceptions about judges? Is it not a judicial soap-opera? Does that not do more damage to an ordinary man’s respect for the judiciary?
Does the judiciary not work on the basis of evidence in making decisions? When prosecutors decide to prosecute a case, do they still proceed, knowing that they do not have evidence? Would evidence deducted from cross-examination in the Hlophe matter reach a threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
My only criticism of the South African legal system is that it does not make use of a jury system. This results in only lawyers who later get promoted to judges to be the ones we depend on. When they don’t make common sense like they usually don’t, it’s a disaster.
I disagree that we got hte NPA outcome because of the system. The system was twisted and distorted to reach the outcome that was desired – this would have been done whatever the system was.
Ultimately, there is no protection when people in positions of authority conspire to get round the system for a partisan end. The system ought to withstand the machinations of an individual, but no system can withstand sustained conspiring at different levels.
History will judge us for how we have treated truth
Mr Trapido you do not give much recognition to the fact that there are black peole who have “lined up against” the JSC. You also make the NILC seem like a McCauley project.
As for Montlanthe’s statement it is not about the gift of oratory as that gift can be used to defend the indefensible. Indeed objectivity is something that is in short supply in politics. It is said at the turn of the 20th century for all of the troubled or paradoxic politician John Xavier Merriman’s intentions the Cape then South Africa were characterised by a fluid party system and for that matter it was a constituency based system albeit flawed by a flawed qualified franchise. What more in a party list system where the members of parliament are used to carry out the party politburo’s decisions. To defend what they may not necessarily believe in. What then becomes the MPs’ constituency? The general electorate or those who determine the list? Is it not possible that what the Central Committe/Politburo/NWC etc decide may not necessarily serve the country well?
For all its flaws the public play of Sotormayor’s Senate hearing, the earlier disqulifications of some of Obama’s nominees for tax avoidance,possible criminal liability, the townhall shout-outs, the possibility of democrats voting against the President’s original stimulus plan, budget, presence of Blue Dog Democrats, the presence of black conservatives are a vibrancy that makes admire the American democracy despite its flaws.
It is unfortunate that you honestly believe that your views are not tainted by race and socialisation. Hence you seem to believe every debate should be benchmarked against you personal views which by pure coincidence happen to be shared by most white commentators. It is clear that the judiciary is a contested power terrain and anyone who pretends otherwise is false.
There are no ‘political solutions’ to legal issues!
Their is nothing wrong with code of judicial ethics which requires judges to refrain from discussing their ‘take’ on any issue being argued in the court on which they sit. THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RULE THAT IS THERE TO PREVENT ‘CABALS’ FROM TAKING OVER THE JUDICIARY!!
As such, it is there to protect every citizen from abuse of judicial power. The ‘checks and balance’ are all in place, Traps, but they are being systematically compromised out of existence to protect the interests of the ANC–against the interests of democracy itself!
The avoidance of racial conflict is NOT the issue here. The dismantling of our Constitution is THE issue–the one issue that must over-ride all others. The Constitution is all that stands between ANY government ANYWHERE and dictatorship. Constitutionalism is not an exclusively SA-can issue.
Inter-racial harmony results from the building of TRUST between the races. In a democracy that trust is based on support for the rule of law that is applied to all citizens equally. Thus far the release of Shaik, the failure to ENFORCE conflict of interest guidelines, the back-door appointment/”nomination” of lame-duck judge to keep the bench warm for Hlophe and now the ‘get out of jail free’ card handed to Hlophe are not cause to congratulate a thoroughly politicised group masquerading as a religious group for appearing to bring the races together. The decision was a disgrace. Period.
Sorry, the first word above should be ‘THERE’.
Traps
McCauly uses religion to get close to the powerful – he used to support and try to influence the top Nats, and now he supports Zuma. I sincerly hope that Zuma will not let him close enough to influence him.
Principles are principles precisely because people choose to stand up and fight for them with often dire consequences to their person.
The question is; who decided to bring race into this and the Semenya case in the first instance? you can’t expect people to be compliant in the face of thuggery which this clearly is.
I follow the sentiment of your argument re. the NILC but let me add nevertheless that McCauley is an opportunist who finds himself in pretty good company who uses similar tactics when controversy surrounds him. I cannot accept that he speaks for sensible South Africans.
Though I agree with the principles of this article, I am disturbed by your attitude to the decisions to which you refer – the Zuma and Hlope decisions.
If these decisions were reached through indisputably proper application of the law, or were even in keeping with the intent of the law, I would be with you 100%. There are though ample grounds for suspicion that these decisions were political compromises; Zuma’s case has been debated ad nauseum, so no reason to elaborate; Hlope delayed and delayed (remember his “illness” among other things) until the composition of the JSC changed. It is surely no surprise (nor an accident) that as a Zuma man in the dock for pro-Zuma lobbying, his case should receive a favourable boost by the appointments to the JSC made by a Zuma government.
In short, the checks and balances that are intended to ensure that the government is subject to the law have been successfully bypassed twice in close succession. I think to quietly accept this is absolutely and incontrovertibly wrong for anyone who claims to support the rule of law over the rule of the government.
Shame on you Michael.
Siphiwo Siphiwo on September 7th, 2009 at 2:41,
Court judgments are different things from the JSC. A court might make a bad decision (that is why we have Appeal Courts), but for the JSC to make a politically tainted decision that is also bad in law, then the whole fabric of justice is at stake – it would mean that the system is open to manipulation.
Also, you presume a duty to criticise all wrong judgments. Not valid.
Lyndall, I don’t see much danger of Zuma doing anything but taking Mr/Rev/Dr McCauley for a ride. He is a useful idiot to show how “sympathetic” he and the ANC are to “religious” positions. It is a way to avoid, or to neutralsie, genuine religious or biblical standpoints concernign affairs of state.
I agree with you that to use race for Caster’s debacle was silly because there are precedents, like women from Asia and formally Eastern Europe who have been subjected to this humiliation before, the objection should have been in the inhuman nature of the process.
The second nature of the problem is deeper than that. The problem is that some of our previously advantage fellow citizens have realised that it will be difficult to remove the ruling Party so they resorted into new tactics of fighting on, viz. 1. Constitution 2. Judiciary independence.
Firstly, the Constitution was never under threat in the first place, its being used as a scare tactic(swaart gevaar). Secondly, Judiciary independance has not been under threat, there has not been one incident where judges have been afraid to pass judgement, with opposing reactions. So to cry threat to the juduciary when no law has been broken and only other avenues provided by the very Constitution are explored, is hypocricy at its best. The result of this is what we see happenning. South Africans we have a great country, one of the best in the world, with some problems of course which if we work together can be solved. Lets stop these underlying racist attitude and on the other hand lets lets stop crying racism everytime every time even when its not warranted. Its time everybody change tactics for our future.
Ja Lynne, let us not begin with the Zuma White wash, let’s start with the Apartheid white wash of which you were a handsome beneficiery. The Truth Commission was also white wash! So please stop be judgemental. This is a racial matter whether you like it or not. We as a country has not dealt with the issue of racism and I don’t agree with the President when he says that a debate on racism will take us back.Kriegel is also less than frank when he says that this is not about Judge Hlophe. He (Kriegler) has been running a capaign against the JP for the past four(4) years making statements which simply boils down to that blacks are incompetent. So let me tell you this is a racism issue whether you like it or not!
@ Siphiwo
Basson was aquitted because of a lack of evidence, as far as I know. There’s nothing Kriegler could’ve done about that. Are you suggesting that he should’ve become an investigator or prosecutor?
I don’t support Kriegler because he’s white. Neither so many other of his white supporters. End of story.
Traps,
I think that it is more a case of individuals or groups getting behind those that share their political viewpoint and support of a particular party, rather than race.
It just so happens that there is a strong positive correlation between SOME ethnic groups in SA and support of particular parties.
Indinas and coloureds seem to buck the trend, and would appear to base their voting trends on ideas and policies. Perhaps there is merit in not having a “natural home”?
@Siphiwo Siphiwo – nearly all of us if not all of us abhorred the alleged deeds of medical Doctor Dr Wouter Basson (SA’s Mengele?). The fact is that he was tried in a number of courts of law and there was found to be insufficient evidence for a guilty finding, so he was acquitted (a very different concept to “Not Guilty”). Many of us would have liked the ZUMA and Hlope issues also tested in a couurt of law, rather than withdrawn.
Your outrage would be justified if the cases against Basson had been withdrawn.
The slap on the wrist that Mark Thatcher got was pure politics – despicable and no different from the politics that have bedevilled the Zuma and Hlophe legal matters.
See – we agree on something.
At the end of the day, two wrongs do not make a right.
The fact that the Political heads were not held to account for Apartheid era atrocities is an utter disgrace – the TRC process was used and abused by some.
Edmund Burke said that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. Rather than Kriegler being subjected to these nonsensical and childish attacks, he should be commended for having balls to defend the rule of law and integrity of the judiciary.
@Mike Atkins. Point of correction, good or bad verdicts of the Constitutional Court cannot be appealed, hence all parties are jossling to have their own people there.That’s the only way of balancing the scales in that court. How do you explain eleven judges hearing a hearsay story from two judges and rushing to collectively lay a charge of misconduct.Subsequently one of the judges is no longer sure that Hlophe’s intent was to influence him.
@ T-man. I find it wrong that since other “better” nationals were subjected to humiliation in the past, therefore Caster should take it like a “man”. I say “better” because why would you raise stories of lowly placed individuals who deserve no better. People have a right to raise objections and interpret events the way they perceive them. It’s not their problem that you’re trying hard to sound reasonable in the face of immense provocation. Just cringe everytime a black person cries racism.
Mark Thatcher’s arrest and trial would have embarrassed the ANC no end thank you. Read “The Wonga Coup”. They thought they had the support of Mbeki and the Spanish against a dictator who was also alleged to be as bad as Idi Amin, and who had the most money salted away in the USA of all the Africa dictators.
It is very funny that South Africans become very uncomfortable when racial dynamics are discussed. Interesting enough, it is generally white people who do so. Race is a very prominent factor in South African society. Racism is practised on daily basis in different forms by both black and white people but mostly by white people.
South Africa is a racially divided country and it is fairly normal that most issues will be racialised.
People will never stop talking about racism unless racism itself ceases to exist or exists in comfortable quantities. We can not avoid being in conflict even when we need to, just because we want to appear as civil with one another. Conflict is necessary sometimes, as long as people do not commit crimes as a result. Forced love and peace is the worst we cab ever try to settle for.
Most of the influential people who are living in South Africa were socialised in deep racial communities, to become racists. Most of them can not even be expected to change entirely, they are broken for life. So, in the current generation, it is normal to have a racially divided society but with time people will converge naturally.
Ja, Enrico, you racist! Why do you assume that I am white? Because I happen to agree with the criticism of the JSC? Do you assume that only white people see fault in the judgement?
This is what I have issue with. It is profoundly racist to believe that under the new present dispensation we cannot ask for the BEST for every one of our citizens. Judge Hlophe has compromised himself several times. We do not have to hang on to him because of the grossly racist belief that no-one else will further the cause of transformation, upliftment, etc. if this man is removed. I honestly believe that in this land of ours there are numerous qualified and soon-to-be qualified men and women with integrity and honesty who will pick up the baton. Why do we have to put up with less than the best??? Please will you tell me that?
Ray McCauley is simply a cunning opportunist who knows how to get people to hand their money over to him using the magic spell and false promises of his form of religion. Finish and klaar. Don’t use him as an example in this context.
Lynne nobody said that we must hang on to him at all costs, but this campaign started with the white bar council in the Cape whose members could not swallow the fact that a young black legal scholar with exceptional university qualifications could be the JP of the Cape nogal!There are still judges sitting on the bench with dubious records for imposing apartheid laws and for imposing capital punishment for their role in the struggle for liberation. You know who they are but hipocrites like you and Johan Kriegler have convenniently forgot abo those muderers who are still amongst the bretheren. And for the record, I don’t assume that you are white, I know that you are white.
Some of this commentary makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.. @ Madoda, @ T-man : The fact is JUSTICE IS NOT DONE, IF POLITICS INTERVENES AND A CASE NEVER MAKES IT TO COURT. That DOES threaten the constitution and is NOT just. I’m sick of this argument that ‘there was no proper case anyway’ – its not for us nor the politicians to decide – its supposed to be done in court. But now that process has been unconstitutionaly short-cicuited & the case doesn’t even get to court.
@ Sipho – what are you on about mate? T-Man made no reference to ‘lowly placed individuals’? Also, in your own words: ‘People have a right to raise objections and interpret events the way they perceive them’. So you agree then, that Johan Kriegler has a right to raise the objection he has?
You’re right Traps – it’s time SOuth Africa put race behind and start looking at the issues on their own standing. As a start, I vote we deport Malema for inciting hatred – we would all be certainly better off.