Sunday, March 17, 2013

Durban Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier responds to our questions about his Paedophilia interview!

I still would like an oral interview, but the Cardinal did email me this, from a private email address shortly after I asked his Archdiocese for a response. I have not seen this statement anywhere else, it seems I am the first to receive it (Update: it was later received by much of media about a day later.). The Archdiocese has confirmed that it is him who emailed me, and that it is his view:

Parts are still problematic, but at least he has hopefully by now realised the gravity of what has happened, and that statements such as his are not acceptable in any context, according to the morals and values of society. And I truly hope that in his explanation and seeming apology, he is not perhaps suggesting that he had anything to do with  shifting sexual predators from parish to parish in the 1990s. I would also like to ask the Cardinal whether the case/cases he referred to on the BBC ended with a police investigation and the sexual predators in jail, or whether they indeed got no punishment, when he has said he personally thought they deserved none.

If you follow this link to our earlier article, the first on the interview published in this corner of the world, to my knowledge: this account is what I believe is a fair account of what happened, and a context and history to this, including some statements by another bishop, who believed that there was a serious betrayal in South Africa, of Christ and victims, which has yet to see the light of day.

Just before I give his view, I'd quickly like to quote the BBC on his interview, to show the grave statements, which so concerned those who objected to the statements of the cardinal: whether he was ambushed or not, and whatever context they were in. These are the sort of statements which do need serious clarification, which it seems the Cardinal has realised this dire need in such a scenario as his words on British Broadcasting Corporation Radio 5 have created:

Napier said to the BBC's Stephen Nolan Show on BBC 5, according to the BBC:


'"What do you do with disorders? You've got to try and put them right.

"If I - as a normal being - choose to break the law, knowing that I'm breaking the law, then I think I need to be punished."

He said he knew at least two priests, who became paedophiles after themselves being abused as children.


"Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged."'
BBC | ''Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal' by BBC at 16 March 2013 Last updated at 02:13 GMT

And now: Napier's response to me:




STATEMENT ON STEPHEN NOLAN SHOW
At the outset I confirm that I fully uphold the Churchs position that:
a.       Sexual Abuse of Children is a horrendous crime against Children, their Families, the Church and Society.
b.       It is to be dealt with according to the requirements of civil criminal law and Canon Law.
c.       Accordingly once the existence of an offence has been verified by thorough investigation by independent investigators engaged by the Professional Conduct Committee, the matter is reported to the civil authorities, either the police, a Child Welfare Officer or a Social Worker, so that civil criminal action may take its course.
d.       Once civil action has been concluded the local Church submits the case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
e.       Action determined by CDF is carried out.
BBC Radio 5 Live Interview
On Friday night at about 21h45 I received a request from BBC Radio to speak on the election of Pope Francis. As I had done more than a dozen times I agreed.
The interview conducted by Stephen Nolan for Radio 5 Live began with a general discussion of the Conclave, the atmosphere in the Sistine Chapel, etc. Then Stephen asked what Pope Francis needed to do about reforming the Church with particular reference to Sex Abuse of children. I accepted the question as I had done with other interviews.
I spoke about my own experience. In the early 1990s expert medical opinion was that paedophilia was a condition that was treatable, even curable. Therefore offenders could return to ministry after treatment. With experience that medical opinion evolved to saying that while offenders could be treated, their condition was not curable; indeed even treatment was not always successful. Therefore return to ministry was not an option.
To illustrate the complexity of the issue, I raised the question of the offender who had himself been abused, and with one particular case in mind opined that he needed treatment rather than punishment. Thats when the wheels came off.
I now stand accused of saying that paedophilia is a mental condition or disorder and not a crime. At least twice I stated that I was not qualified to say what paedophilia is. I was afforded no time to explain that the priority of pastoral concern must always be for the victim. But that has been overlooked in the heat of the argument.
The point was and still is: Child Sexual Abuse is a heinous crime among other things because of the damage it does to the child. In that concern I  include the abused who has become an abuser.
Whether he needs medical help as much as, if not more than punishment, is a question that is still to be answered by medical experts? Does the damage suffered by the abused in any way affect his culpability before a court of law? Again only the experts can give us the answer. I am not qualified, but dont I have the duty to ask on behalf of the abused abuser that he be given treatment even while inprison?
Subsequent to the show I called Stephen on Saturday without success. Eventually at about 23h30 someone from Radio 5 Live phoned to say I could go on the Show to clear the air. That was done, but not too successfully as the interview once again became an interrogation.
I asked to speak to a superior to complain formally about the deception of being asked to speak about the election when the agenda was Child Abuse. The senior editor Paul passed me on to Philo who gave me a chance to listen to the clip recorded earlier and make further clarifications.
While I issue this statement to give the background to the interview and also to what the Church is actually doing about Sexual Abuse of Children, I apologise sincerely and unreservedly to all who were offended by the botched interview, and especially to those who have been abused and need every help and support that the Church can give.


+ Wilfrid Cardinal Napier OFM
Archbishop of Durban

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Durban Cardinal Wilfrid Napier says Paedophiles 'not' criminals, and don't deserve punishment

Update (but don't miss this article which also includes it at the bottom): The Cardinal has given us a so far seemingly exclusive response to a request for comment on his statements to BBC Radio 5. He has clarified/retracted his seeming statement that Paedophiles are not criminals, here: Durban Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier responds to our questions about his Paedophilia interview! Parts are still problematic, but at least he has hopefully by now realised the gravity of what has happened, and that statements such as his are not acceptable in any context, according to the morals and values of society. And I truly hope that in his explanation and seeming apology, he is not perhaps suggesting that he had anything to do with  shifting sexual predators from parish to parish in the 1990s. I would also like to ask the Cardinal whether the case/cases he referred to on the BBC ended with a police investigation and the sexual predators in jail, or whether they indeed got no punishment, when he has said he personally thought they deserved none. Below is what I believe is a fair account of what happened, and a context and history to this, including some statements by another bishop, who believed that there was a serious betrayal in South Africa, of Christ and victims, which has yet to see the light of day. And comments by the current pope, that the only approach for such predatory behaviour must be zero tolerance.

I once interviewed Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, about a priest in his diocese seemingly breaking the rules of the Catholic Church, the cardinal asked whether I was a foreigner who struggled with English, and proceeded as though a proud parent, praising the dissident, and disobedient priest as one of the best. It is in perhaps this type of spirit, that Cardinal Napier has said some very strange things to BBC Radio 5's Stephen Nolan show.

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, of Durban, says that paedophiles in his view were abused as children, and because they were abused, in his view, it is a psychological condition, and they are not criminally responsible, and therefore do not deserve jail, or any punishment at all for that matter.

This is in stark contrast to now Pope Francis, who as a bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio, before he changed his name to become Pope Francis, had then powerfully stated:

'"If a priest is a paedophile, he is so before he becomes a priest. But when this happens you must never look away. You cannot be in a position of power and use it to destroy the life of another person."

Bergoglio says he has never had to deal with such a case, but when a bishop asked what he should do, he told him the priest should be sacked and tried, that putting the church's reputation first was a mistake.

"I think that is the solution that was once proposed in the United States; of switching them to other parishes," he says. "That is stupid, because the priest continues to carry the problem in his backpack." The only answer to the problem, he adds, is zero tolerance.'
The Guardian | 'Pope Francis's book reveals a radical progressive in the making' by Giles Tremlett at 15 March 2013 16.33 GMT.

But to quote the BBC, to assure you I am not just making this extraordinary interview up, of Cardinal Wilfrid Napier's interview with the BBC, the BBC quotes Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, of Durban quite directly:

'"What do you do with disorders? You've got to try and put them right.

"If I - as a normal being - choose to break the law, knowing that I'm breaking the law, then I think I need to be punished."

He said he knew at least two priests, who became paedophiles after themselves being abused as children.


"Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged."'
BBC | ''Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal' by BBC at 16 March 2013 Last updated at 02:13 GMT

The Cardinal's statement however, completely misinterprets criminal responsibility in South African law. If the fact a person incurred violence as a child excuses their behaviour, most rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals would be considered innocent. The ISS recently studied the root cause of South Africa's rape epidemic, seeing it as the uncured exposure of children to violence, without psychological help for the mental conditions, such as in the kindness of the form of post-traumatic stress counselling, which the ISS says: could have stopped violence breeding violence. Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom, recently reported that those who have served in the army, are more likely to commit violent crimes than ordinary criminal offences. Violence does breed violence. But that does not absolve responsibility for raping a small child and ruining the life of that child and all who love that child. That certainly does not justify covering up paedophilia to prevent the law from protecting that child. In South African law: if you are criminally responsible and mentally sane: you go to jail, and sanity relates there to the ability to see right from wrong and obey right. Paedophiles, tend to have that ability and to CHOOSE to do wrong. But let us for a moment look at his argument, because South African law knows how to deal with the mentally ill who are harmful to others and break laws: the approach would be to make the paedophile then a 'guest of the president', in a mental health facility, that is to say, that they would spend the remainder of their untreated life in a mental health facility, restricted from their previous freedom, and locked away from society for the sake of the country.

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, has in the past dealt with sex abuse in the church, as though it were inevitable:

'"It is clear that to the degree that Christians are not apart from the society in which they live, they will carry over from society some of its dominant features .

"Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if there is sexual abuse of children in society, some members of the Church will, sad to say, carry it over into the Church."'

IOL | 'Abuse is problem among SA clergy: Archbishop' by Kashiefa Ajam at 3 November 2007

On 6th April 2010, Archbishop Bhuti Tlhagale of Johannesburg took a very different approach, perhaps with the views of Cardinal Wilfrid Napier in mind, or perhaps with those of others, it is unknown whether he has known of Wilfrid Napier's approach:

'In our times we have betrayed the very Gospel we preach. The Good News we claim to announce sounds so hollow, so devoid of any meaning when matched with our much publicized negative moral behavior. Many who looked up to priests as their model feel betrayed, ashamed and disappointed. They feel that some priests have “slipped away from the footprints of the Apostles.” Trust has been compromised. The halo has been tilted, if not broken. What happens in Ireland or in Germany or America affects us all. It simply means that the misbehavior of priests in Africa has not been exposed to the same glare of the media as in other parts of the world. We must therefore take responsibility for the hurt, the scandals, the pain and the suffering caused by ourselves who claim to be models of good behavior. The image of the Catholic Church is virtually in ruins because of the bad behavior of its priests, wolves wearing sheep's skin, preying on unsuspecting victims, inflicting irreparable harm, and continuing to do so with impunity. We are slowly but surely bent on destroying the church of God by undermining and tearing apart the faith of lay believers. …

The upshot of this sorry state of affairs is that we weaken the authoritative voice of the church. As church leaders, we become incapable of criticizing the corrupt and immoral behavior of the members of our respective communities. We become hesitant to criticize the greed and malpractices of our civic authorities. We are paralyzed and automatically become reluctant to guide young people in the many moral dilemmas they face.

Under such circumstances, when allegations after allegations are made, when scandal after scandal is brought forth, as clergy, we probably feel much closer to Judas Iscariot and his thirty pieces of silver. “Alas for that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed” (Mk. 14.21). Or perhaps like Simon Peter, we are deeply buried in denial; we curse and swear when we hear the words: “You are one of them.” We answer: “I do not know the man you speak of.” Each time we toss our vows in the air, each time we break our fidelity, we betray Christ himself.'
First Things | 'The Moral Consequences of Episcopal Sin' by Edward T. Oakes 15th April 2010

South Africa has increasingly had to deal with sex abuse scandals and seemingly with allegedly guilty supervisors: with reports of South Africa's schools not replacing teachers who abuse children sexually, and Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg, also facing a sex scandal, this one involving lecturers in the Arts and Journalism schools. Witwatersrand has hired a law firm to help investigate the allegations in their backyard. Sex abuse by teachers in South African schools, has also come to light lately, as has the terrible culture of rape in the country, which now has reared up its terrible form, whereby it is alleged by the Medical Research Council that a third of Gauteng men have performed rape, and one in ten have gang raped. As the Institute for Security Studies (or the ISS) wrote in 'Why we can't 'fight' violence', the solution may be to give psychological help to children who experience, or observe trauma and violence before they themselves become damagers, and devils of sorts to others, that does not excuse those who perform these heinous crimes from criminal responsibility however. The ISS unlike Napier, realises the great importance of some little thing called the Justice System, and the Rule of Law.


Update:

I have been pestering Cardinal Napier and a friend of his, about an interview. The Cardinal has not yet said yes, but his friend says he will ask for the Cardinal to accept an interview with me, so I can hopefully then do so. The Cardinal has been sticking sort of by his views on his social networks, below I quote these micro-blog entries of the Cardinal, who at present has not answered any of my own Tweeted or otherwise questions, but did respond to a Twitter user who asked him for clarity (in a manner that leaves even less clarity at present and creates all the more a need for a proper journalistic interrogation/interview of the matter, and how the Cardinal practices his views.):



















Hopefully the Cardinal will allow an interview, where I put the facts to him and see his response on each.

I still would like an oral interview, but the Cardinal did email me this, from a private email address shortly after I asked his Archdiocese for a response. The Archdiocese confirms that it is his address which sent the reply, and that this below is his view. I have not seen this statement anywhere else, it seems I am the first to receive it:

STATEMENT ON STEPHEN NOLAN SHOW

At the outset I confirm that I fully uphold the Church’s position that:

a. Sexual Abuse of Children is a horrendous crime against Children, their Families, the Church and Society.
b. It is to be dealt with according to the requirements of civil criminal law and Canon Law.
c. Accordingly once the existence of an offence has been verified by thorough investigation by independent investigators engaged by the Professional Conduct Committee, the matter is reported to the civil authorities, either the police, a Child Welfare Officer or a Social Worker, so that civil criminal action may take its course.
d. Once civil action has been concluded the local Church submits the case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
e. Action determined by CDF is carried out.

BBC Radio 5 Live Interview

On Friday night at about 21h45 I received a request from BBC Radio to speak on the election of Pope Francis. As I had done more than a dozen times I agreed.

The interview conducted by Stephen Nolan for Radio 5 Live began with a general discussion of the Conclave, the atmosphere in the Sistine Chapel, etc. Then Stephen asked what Pope Francis needed to do about reforming the Church with particular reference to Sex Abuse of children. I accepted the question as I had done with other interviews.

I spoke about my own experience. In the early 1990’s expert medical opinion was that paedophilia was a condition that was treatable, even curable. Therefore offenders could return to ministry after treatment. With experience that medical opinion evolved to saying that while offenders could be treated, their condition was not curable; indeed even treatment was not always successful. Therefore return to ministry was not an option.

To illustrate the complexity of the issue, I raised the question of the offender who had himself been abused, and with one particular case in mind opined that he needed treatment rather than punishment. That’s when the wheels came off.

I now stand accused of saying that paedophilia is a mental condition or disorder and not a crime. At least twice I stated that I was not qualified to say what paedophilia is. I was afforded no time to explain that the priority of pastoral concern must always be for the victim. But that has been overlooked in the heat of the argument.

The point was and still is: Child Sexual Abuse is a heinous crime among other things because of the damage it does to the child. In that concern I include the abused who has become an abuser.

Whether he needs medical help as much as, if not more than punishment, is a question that is still to be answered by medical experts? Does the damage suffered by the abused in any way affect his culpability before a court of law? Again only the experts can give us the answer. I am not qualified, but don’t I have the duty to ask on behalf of the abused abuser that he be given treatment even while inprison?

Subsequent to the show I called Stephen on Saturday without success. Eventually at about 23h30 someone from Radio 5 Live phoned to say I could go on the Show to clear the air. That was done, but not too successfully as the interview once again became an interrogation.

I asked to speak to a superior to complain formally about the deception of being asked to speak about the election when the agenda was Child Abuse. The senior editor Paul passed me on to Philo who gave me a chance to listen to the clip recorded earlier and make further clarifications.

While I issue this statement to give the background to the interview and also to what the Church is actually doing about Sexual Abuse of Children, I apologise sincerely and unreservedly to all who were offended by the botched interview, and especially to those who have been abused and need every help and support that the Church can give.


+ Wilfrid Cardinal Napier OFM
Archbishop of Durban

Thursday, March 14, 2013

An attack on an Israeli Pianist, and those attending his cultural event, may have been prompted by the Wits SRC: Wits University SRC Embroiled in anti-Semitic attack! #IsraelApartheidWeek #Racism #InternationalIncident

An attack on an Israeli Pianist, and those attending his cultural event, may have been prompted by the Wits SRC, who those seemingly involved in the attack, say they were assisting.



As the African National Congress poorly attempts to woo Western Cape Muslim votes away from the Democratic Alliance, the African National Congress run Students Representative Council, has gone on full anti-Israel mode, plastering campus with anti-Israeli posters, and letting Israelis know how unwelcome they are. The SRC likes a certain type of free speech, and has previously allowed gay activist students to draw giant penises touching in a sex act on a 'wall against borders' prominently in front of senate house, and often approves posters about accepting gay people, for 'diversity', ironic given the other causes the SRC support, notably including groups which harshly punish homosexuality, but perhaps walls are the only problem that concerns them. They even had a gay group poster opposing Israel, again, rather ironic given Palestinians kill gays, while Israel is very pro-gay. Politics and all that.

The SRC also tends to support an ANC Youth League agenda. The Wits SRC, has taken to publishing any letters condemning their racist campaign, on the 'Boycott.Divestment.Sanctions.' website. Israel is an occupying power, a status different than Apartheid, though the focus of the 'Israel Apartheid' week, is more on attacking the culture and aspirations of Israelis, than any highlight of anything productive. Disrupting cultural events, stinks of the strategies of the old Apartheid Nationalists against their opponents. What has happened in South Africa, whether xenophobic or racism, is something that should be taken to the equality court, if such things were done even-handedly. A quote below from the New Age newspaper, of one of those involved in this atrocity, suggests that the xenophobic/racist attack was prompted by the Wits SRC, who had tried to have the concert shut down by the university.

This went a step further than forcing pornography on students, as a musical concert by a Jewish pianist from Israel, was attacked by students supporting the Wits SRC campaign, after the Students' Representative Council declared Wits a no-go-zone for Israeli culture and beliefs. Wits has issued an apology of sorts, but whether this means anything is uncertain. Wits has also apologised for lecturers allegedly abusing their positions to coerce students into seemingly sexual relationships with them, and for attempts allegedly by these to harass multiple students.

While the University claims to be investigating this seeming hate behaviour, no sign of punishment of those who have committed this act of hate, has emerged as yet. I shall firstly post the bragging of those who had the meeting disrupted, then the university 'apology', then the victory media dance of the ANC, for their success in attacking another culture. P.s. Kenneth Mgaga is a name previously quoted in The Sowetan newspaper as: 'The ANCYL chairman in Alexandra, Kenneth Mgaga, who is part of the faction that is calling for Sithole to leave, was arrested on Wednesday in connection with the hitlist.' (3rd February 2012). Kenneth Mgaga, seemingly previously quoted as: a ranking member of the African National Congress youth wing, is the ONLY Wits student quoted in support of this violation to the right to peaceful assembly.

'PRESS STATEMENT: S. African Students Disrupt (& Cancel) Israeli Performance At Johannesburg University

PRESS STATEMENT: S. African Students Disrupt (& Cancel) Israeli Performance At Johannesburg University

13 March 2013

Last night, 15 minutes into what was going to be a 90-minute scheduled concert by Israel's Yossi Reshef, Wits University students in Johannesburg stormed the concert venue, disrupted Reshef's performance and as a result forced the organizers to cancel the event. The cancellation was celebrated by the protesting students as a "cultural boycott of Israel success".

Kenneth Mgaga, a politics student who was present at the protest, explains: "The Reshef performance, which was funded by the Israeli Embassy in Pretoria, was a clear violation of the cultural boycott of Israel. In weeks prior to the concert, our Student Representative Council (SRC), had repeatedly raised this concern with the organizers as well as relevant university authorities. However, neither the organizers nor the University Management responded to our SRC's letters. Thus students embarked on last night's protest action, to much success."

In August 2012, the Wits University Student Representative Council (Wits SRC) became the first South African SRC to adopt a full academic and cultural boycott of Israel (see: www.bdssouthafrica.com/2011/08/university-of-witwatersrand-student.html).

Reshef's one-week visit to South Africa coincides with the 9th international Israeli Apartheid Week campaign (http://tinyurl.com/ao2bgyrtinyurl.com/ao2bgyr ) currently underway at South African campuses. On Monday night, Reshef's performance was protested by over 45 Rhodes University academics and students in the Grahamstown.

Mgaga further comments: "The hosting of Reshef in South Africa is a direct attempt to undermine the Israeli Apartheid Week campaign. Last year the Israeli government sent Israeli "Public Relation envoys" to our campuses during Israeli Apartheid Week to 'educate' us (see: http://tinyurl.com/ch4wlrm ). This year they've decided on a different approach, either way, we stand firm in our solidarity with the Palestinians against Israel and its apartheid policies."

Various calls have been made for the protest and boycott of Reshef, including one by the Youth League of the African National Congress (ANC). Abner Mosase, the International Relations Secretary of the ANC Youth League said in a statement: "[W]e condemn the coming of the Israeli pianist Yossi Reshef at Wits University and other parts of the country who is clearly sponsored by the Israeli government. We call on all students to boycott the concert as it only seeks to normalise apartheid Israel. No one must be seen singing with [Israeli] apartheid, particularly in South Africa where we have seen what apartheid policies can do." (Find the full ANC YL statement here: http://tinyurl.com/c9p8755tinyurl.com/c9p8755 )


TASNEEM ESSOP: +27 (0) 71 502 8674 / witspsc@gmail.com
WITS UNIVERSITY PALESTINE SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE (WITS PSC) SPOKESPERSON'

http://www.bdssouthafrica.com/2011/03/press-statement-s-african-students.html



Here is the apology of the University, followed by the smug ANC Youth League victory speech on the matter:

'Wits - University of the Witwatersrand
STATEMENT FROM THE VICE-CHANCELLOR AND PRINCIPAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND, JOHANNESBURG

The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, deeply regrets that a concert held on its campus last night was disrupted by some members of the University community and representatives of external organisations.

In light of this incident, the University takes this opportunity to issue a public apology to all those who attended the concert. The disruption of this event points to intolerance on the part of some members of the University community and goes against the core values espoused by the University. The University is investigating this matter and will take the necessary action based on its policies, processes and procedures.

The University reiterates that the views and opinions expressed by the Students' Representative Council or any other student groups on campus do not represent the official views of the University, nor are they necessarily an accurate reflection of the views of the majority of students, staff and alumni.

Wits University is a leading institution on the African continent renowned for encouraging dialogue and debate on often diverse and conflicting views confronting society. It provides a platform for different constituencies to express their views and opinions through considered debate and intellectual engagement in the spirit of tolerance, respect and openness.

We value the diverse views of all our staff, students and alumni regardless of their race, religion, gender, culture, language, ideology or otherwise, provided that they do not exceed the limitations explicated in our Constitution.

The diversity of people, programmes and ideas at Wits leads to the richness and robustness of the institution. This is indeed one of the greatest qualities of excellent higher education institutions, and one which Wits cherishes.

Prof. Loyiso Nongxa

Vice-Chancellor and Principal

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

13 March 2013'


'Acting ANC Youth League president Ronald Lamola urged the youth of South Africa to mobilise, “to boycott and fight the Israel apartheid regime which has constantly undermined the rights of the Palestine people”.

Their support came a day after Wits University students disrupted a performance by pianist Yossi Reshef whose concert on the campus was said to have been funded by the Israeli Embassy in Pretoria.

“Reshef’s performance was funded by the Israeli Embassy. It was a clear violation of the cultural boycott of Israel,” politics student Kenneth Mgaga said.

The Wits Palestine Solidarity Committee (Wits PSC) had called for the cancellation of the event

“However, neither the organisers nor the management responded to our SRC’s letters. Thus students embarked on last (Tuesday) night’s protest action, to much success,” Mgaga said.

Reshef was scheduled to play for a full 90 minutes but was interrupted 15 minutes into the performance by protesters.

Wits PSC spokesperson, Tasneem Essop, said yesterday: “The University’s Student Representative Council passed a resolution that calls for the full cultural and academic boycott of Israeli institutions. The resolution was brought to the SRC by the Wits PSC and was unanimously adopted.

“The resolution says the SRC will ‘not participate in any form of cultural or academic collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions and will not provide support to Israeli cultural or academic institutions’.”'
The New Age | 'Campaign intensifies' by IRVINE MAKUYANA at March 13 2013 11:50PM

'Lamola called on the government to recall its ambassador if Israel did not “comply with ending apartheid”.

“This must be done to demonstrate our seriousness in opposition to its fundamental policies of apartheid and colonial occupation.

“As the ANC Youth League, we fully support the boycott of apartheid Israel and call on all South Africans to stop visiting Israel.

We must contribute to the international isolation of this brutal regime until it ends its policies of racial and ethnic discrimination against Palestinian people.”

Lamola said the youth league welcomed the Department of Trade and Industry’s initiative of labelling all products from the occupied Palestine territories, but wanted this to be extended to all Israeli products. “We encourage the same approach in sports, culture, and academic spheres,” he said.

He condemned the visit to Wits University of Israeli pianist Yossi Reshef.

Reshef’s concert was disrupted on Tuesday night. He had to be escorted off the stage when members of pro-Palestinian organisations stormed the hall.'

IOL | '"SA must cut ties with Israel"' by Mogomotsi Magome at March 14 2013 at 12:22pm

Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme