Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Cheat on your wife and ‘also use a condom’ says the leader of South Africa’s parliamentary opposition party. #Adultery #cheating

Cheat on your wife and ‘also use a condom’ says the leader of South Africa’s parliamentary opposition party. #Adultery #cheating

We summarised our article in an audio podcast of about 3 minutes, the article continues below our podcast:



She is leader of the Democratic Alliance in the Parliament of South Africa. She is the Democratic Alliance Member of Parliament for North Durban. She calls herself a’ baker’, ‘mover’, ‘shaker’ and a ‘hopeless romantic’ on her Twitter profile. Perhaps she is not that much of a romantic though.

One of the constituents of Lindiwe Mazibuko asked what was the Democratic Alliance policy on having women on the side of a relationship with another woman. To quote what was asked of Lindiwe Mazibuko: what the Democratic Alliance’s policy on ‘side chicks’ was. According to Lindiwe Mazibuko their policy is that women are not birds, clearly a reference to the use of the word chicks, and to use a condom in addition to that.

So did the Democratic Alliance answer the question, as to whether or not they support cheating on women? Did they take a stand against women abuse and cheating during the 16 days against women abuse? No. They just advised that while a man cheated on his girlfriend or wife, that he utilise a condom. A strange policy indeed, one which was not only answered by the leader of the Democratic Alliance in Parliament but retweeted by the Democratic Alliance to all of their followers on twitter.




Some time ago we reported on comments by Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille that HIV AIDS was driven by intergenerational sex.



South Africa has one of the highest HIV AIDS infection epidemics in the world. Uganda largely combated the HIV infection rate when nowhere else in Africa were able to. They did this by combating a culture of polygamy. South Africa’s white population has a very low HIV AIDS rate. Possibly about 2% of white South Africans have HIV AIDS. In some black communities where polygamy is rampant: at least 37% of women have HIV AIDS. Polygamist and homosexual communities have very high rates of promiscuity, and are the main centres of HIV AIDS spread in South Africa and the world. Research by Edward C Greene, when he headed a Harvard programme on HIV AIDS: found that the promotion of condoms use in Africa actually correlated with increases in the spread of HIV AIDS. Polygamy and a culture of cheating are the reason why the black population of the Republic of South Africa have one of the highest HIV AIDS rates of infection in the world. For a party that wants to win the black vote, Helen Zille’s Democratic Alliance are remarkably unconcerned with the health conditions which their advice would afflict the black population of South Africa with. Empirical research repeatedly links societal acceptance of polygamy to higher rates of cheating, and endemic STD spread. The relatively low presence of HIV in the white population of South Africa is because polygamy is frowned upon in white society. Homosexual white South Africans however have a very high rate of HIV, correlating with the rate of HIV among homosexuals in other countries. The rate of HIV among black South Africans, correlates to the HIV rate in other polygamist societies, although the rate of spread of HIV is higher than in most places, including other polygamist societies.

The Democratic Alliance has taken a major political risk. They state that anyone who opposes black economic empowerment, or believes that discrimination against white South Africans via black economic empowerment is not good for all South Africans: have no place in the party. They have aggressively promoted black economic empowerment, and have been accused of promoting people in their party merely because of the colour of their skin.



Much of the Democratic Alliance’s most important positions are not filled by career politicians with deep understanding of governance, but by black young women, with more experience in marketing than in any real position of governance, or background in law. We have also covered the fact that the Democratic Alliance seems to promote homosexual people in their party far beyond what would be representative of the homosexual population of the country: so much for desiring a political party which is representative of the population? The Democratic Alliance periodically puts their resources towards gay pride efforts, saying that love knows no gender: perhaps not what their homosexual constituents think given their sexual partner preferences.



Their marketing push has emerged with some agendas, the Democratic Alliance names their recruitment campaigns after the war strategy of the Nazi campaign during World War II. That is to say that they call it the Blue Blitz. The word blitz might be popular in some marketing circles, but its origin is in the effectiveness of the genocidal forces of Adolf Hitler during the Holocaust in which up to 11 million people lost their lives.

Helen Zille’s Democratic Alliance is in stark contrast to its apartheid era predecessor. My grandfather, Michael Emmet Barry: ran under their banner in Welkom, with pamphlets stating that racial discrimination was destroying the South African economy. With many South Africans believing that the Democratic Alliance would bring back apartheid, something it was formed by in large to oppose: the Democratic Alliance has attempted to change perceptions by cracking down on South Africa’s white population by press releases, statements, resource use, internal appointments within the political party, and in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. Nothing says you’re for one population group like cracking down on another in a racist rampage? Nothing says you aren’t really for that population group, like giving out advice which is deadly to that group.

Related:

Western Cape Premier Helen Zille: 'Inter-generational sex is wrong and drives AIDS.'
http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2013/02/wc-premier-helen-ziile-inter.html

The DA is a party for elitist whites. Not for the majority of South Africa – Helen Zille
http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2012/11/the-da-is-party-for-elitist-whites-not.html

ANC decries xenophobic attacks, while DA instead decries lack of 'Gender Reassignment' procedures? ...
http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2013/05/anc-decries-xenophobic-attacks-while-da.html

Love knows no Gender' : Helen Zille's Democratic Alliance claims at 'Gay Pride March'
http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2013/05/love-knows-no-gender-helen-zilles.html

South Africa: DA's SA Christian voters lose say?
http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2009/03/south-africa-sas-christian-voters-lose.html

Democratic Alliance mock Jacob Zuma for being Christian and claim he has no right to hold faith in the public realm.

http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2013/11/democratic-alliance-mock-jacob-zuma-for.html

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

ANC threatens 'Black Tax' for law firms?

I strongly believe that all South Africans are capable of real greatness. I strongly believe that black and white South Africans have great inner potential. Both can achieve the height of their profession with the right environment and preparatory steps. The problem with the current ANC perspective, is that rather than focussing on improving the education and cultural understanding of those who were disadvantaged by Apartheid, or whose parents might have been: the ANC treats a job, or a share in a company, or spot in education, much like an extension of government welfare programs. Employment should be the exchange of real use for real use: not an extension of government policy and politics. Unfortunately, a job seems to be not a service but a right and possession to the ANC, perhaps this is what scares many global businesses away from doing business in South Africa. They find suddenly that they are unwillingly part of the welfare state, they are not there to gain, but to give: the weary companies quickly bolt as fast as they can elsewhere. This ANC practice makes no business sense: forcing companies to act to their disadvantage when our neighbours allow conditions efficacious to economic growth.

Whether or not someone can do a job they are given by force and heavy taxes on those who don't give them it, this occurs. Those who govern industry are appointed by skin colour and not because they will govern the nation's industries best. Rather than improve on literacy and education and make black graduates as well prepared for the workplace as many white graduates, the approach has been to let them pass when they shouldn't be allowed to pass. Failing a course and redoing that course is a gift; it means you are actually competent to work in such a field and to work to make money in it. White and other graduates who failed a course and re-did it, are advantaged by this.

 In ADR we were taught that big businesses increasingly are turning to white advocates in private courts to resolve disputes. Why? The curriculum informed us that this is because businesses are losing trust in the courts: because the grand design of skin colour appointments has been viewed as making a trial a gamble: will the judge hearing a case decide it correctly, or has he merely been appointed for his skin colour without adequate knowledge of law?

There are many deeply competent black professionals, unfortunately BEE makes people who have a lot to lose prefer to go with someone who has been put through a harder test. Special forces personnel are only allowed in after they take rigorous punishment. That high quality standard for entry is why they are cherished. The logic goes that a white professional must be very good to get a job despite government disincentives to hiring them. A child who inherits a family business while never running it, might likewise not actually have the skills required.

The government is once again shooting itself in the foot:

'"In 2011, the majority of LLB graduates were African [at] 1784, 355 were coloured, 404 were Indian and 1268 white," Jeffery said in a speech prepared for delivery at a general meeting of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, at Sun City, on Saturday.
'The majority of graduates were also female, at 1954, compared to 1622 males, he said. '"However, what is more startling is the fact that, despite the majority of LLB graduates being African, it is still the white graduates who are getting articles. '"The Law Society of SA's figures show that the Law Society of the Northern Provinces has just over 12 000 practising attorneys. Of those the overwhelming majority of 8207 are white, with 3165 African." 'The LSNP serves Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo and North West. ''Disheartening picture' 'Jeffery said that in all the provinces, 1104 articles of clerkship were registered 2012. Of these, 587 candidate attorneys were white, 412 were African, 89 were Indian and 16 were coloured. '"If one looks at the profiles of our law firms, it paints a rather disheartening picture," he said. '"For example, if one looks at some of the firms who constitute the so-called 'big five' of our firms, there is cause for concern about the lack of representivity, especially on the level of directors or partners. '"My office found that in one of the 'big five' firms there are 123 partners, of whom 93 are white and only 30 are black. Of the 30 black practitioners, only 17 are African."'Jeffery asked why, if it was possible for smaller law firms to have majority black ownership, it not possible for the bigger firms.'
(SAPA 'SA law firms still pale and male' Mail and Guardian at 10 NOV 2013 12:50)

Note, he does not look at the marks the graduates achieved. The statistics are clearly not based on efficacy but merely a focus on skin colour. Pigmentation. Ethnicity. Race.

What is the real difference? Usually marks, usually ability. Law firms are not racist, they like money too much to be.

Articles go to graduates with high marks who impress in interviews. As a law student who just recently passed my final exams, I have been shocked in the past by the standard of work a black or non-white student can hand in and still pass when a white student writes perfect English and cites correct authority, but fails: the same seems to go for matric This is no favour to the black student involved in it, nor is it a favour that plagiarism is passed over: in fact it means they cannot learn and grow to become better as a legal practitioner. Failing is an important part of passing, where necessary. 

Foundations of Law, Latin and so much have been scrapped because students have come from a schooling system, ill prepared to function in higher tertiary education. These people are accepted not because they can handle tertiary education which they must pay for and take out loans for, but due to quotas. Often they drop out in the first year. For LLB, every year: half the students drop out. 

Rather than have basic English and accounting taught, literature and film are studied. Many black South Africans are not first language English, but this is not remedied: putting them at a deep disadvantage in attempting to fulfil a job based almost entirely on language and comprehension, communicative art. Law is all about language, and independent thought, but largely it has been reduced to something like a trade, where exact repetition is required for marking rubrics rather than creative intelligence. Often lecturers are hired to fulfil quotas rather than for their abilities, and often students are admitted for skin colour not ability to handle varsity level work. This false equality hurts the recipients of it, who otherwise could have received real equality: top notch education, and training to make them equal to what the government wants them to be treated as.

If white students still excel, it is because they were taught to do so in their schools prior university, and because they try much harder to gain a job: due to the insurmountable obstacles government attempts to lay in their way. A job is not then a possession, but a service, to which they are not entitled to, but earn. That is particularly a pertinently, very, extremely different mind-set: a realism which forces striving.

Many large businesses now turn to arbitration with white advocates and the rules of court to settle disputes. Why? Transformation. The same curse the ANC continues to spell upon all black South Africans whether they deserve to be associated with it or not. No one wants to lose 1 00 Million Rands, because the judge appointed was appointed out of a government design, and not because he is competent. No, instead: if a black judge is appointed, it should be a black judge who knows the law. Let us not pretend that it is not possible to have black judges at the same calibre as white judges. Let us also not pretend that those judges who are incompetent in every meaningful way should have been appointed. Instead, let us realise that judges must be appointed for ability and not for skin colour.

BEE de facto says a company must hire someone even if they are not as competent for the job. Doing so practically risks loss of revenues for a company. Big firms must give away large parts of ownership to black people merely for skin colour or be fined. Demanding charity to someone: making a job their possession rather than: their service in exchange for fair or proper remuneration: terribly makes such job a government tax on a company, as does redistribution via BEE and BBBEE. This is government forcing business to act a way to fulfil government mandates. Do people like tax collectors? Do they want someone to do a job in: the nightmare scenario: where they possibly were pushed through school and varsity, and into a firm due to their skin colour: due to government designs that are false equality? If BEE did not exist, a black employee might be viewed as superior: they got there, they made it. With BEE, a question mark is forced over black professionals: are they there because of government using companies as a means of welfare, or are they the person who knows their job best or adequately?
People by in large statistically don't hire black attorneys or black advocates because they are perceived as incompetent. This includes the ruling party. Why are they perceived as incompetent? Because the government demands they are given jobs whether they are competent or not. A black professional might be very competent, but anyone hiring one has the realisation that they might have got there through competence or they might have got there because of a grand design of government: a forced hand-out to someone who cannot do the job they are assigned.

I believe in real equality: don't treat unequal as equal. Don't equate a graduate who will make a firm millions or billions with one who will cause it trouble time and again. These are not equals: because one is efficacious while certainly and without doubt the other is not. I am not saying one is white and the other is black: no: an incompetent white person is as much a disaster as an incompetent person from any race. Even then there are levels of incompetence: but a person from any race can be deeply incompetent.

So how can real equality be achieved?

1.     Ditch BEE for a start: it creates an impression that whites have to work for their job while blacks have it handed to them. It creates the impression that a job is a right not a privilege for a black, and a privilege not a right for a white. Like the Phoenicians, white South Africans work their hardest despite being discriminated against, and strive: they know they have to fight for anything or they will be destroyed. Entitlement however makes people less likely to try hard, they are more likely to demand a job than earn it. And those who try less hard give others who try a bad name.
2.     Allow salaries to be more determined by work put in, than by union demands. BMW is the tip of the iceberg, ANC policy is destroying South Africa's chances.
3.     Introduce proper English language and grammar courses as mandatory. The reasoning goes without saying: law is about language. So, is business.
4.     Introduce Latin courses. Much of law is in Latin, or based thereto.
5.     Make Afrikaans mandatory: much of law is in Afrikaans.
6.     Introduce logic courses. Law is principle, but often students are taught ideology. This hurts them in the field. Ditch Marxist, socialist rhetoric for principle.
7.     Make ethics courses a mandatory part of law. Not just the sort of courses which might teach what a lawyer can get away with: proper courses on why ethics are important, on why being morally upstanding is important.
8.     Introduce mandatory courses on financial management and sound budget processes.
9.     Introduce basic mathematical and English learning.
10. Stop pushing people through the system because of their skin colour. Giving someone a certificate does not give them an opportunity. Fail those who should fail: they would benefit from redoing a course and actually knowing the work.

I strongly believe that a black attorney can be just as good as a white attorney. Either the government believes all whites are racist, or that blacks need a hand-out, charity, welfare to succeed. Either way, the real way to achieve good work for black South Africans is to prepare them to be good at the work they elect to do. Can we stop having this stupidity, that is BEE: that destroys the economy and the reputation of blacks in law and elsewhere?

 Can we instead focus on the good of all South Africans by improving on our people as other nations do: be it education, good policing, and an environment for all-round improvement. Without the right environment, and preparatory work, who, if any, can succeed? We need to create equality, which in some spaces exists. We need to create real opportunities by adequate, world class preparatory work.


Friday, November 8, 2013

Democratic Alliance mock Jacob Zuma for being Christian and claim he has no right to hold faith in the public realm.

There is nothing quite like a politician feigning insult for another person’s apparent sake. The politician who has purported to raise alarm in this instance: is the same one which every year sends out these ridiculous press releases about what a good Catholic he is and how he attends Fatima and wants other individual people to join him in this experience. He also prides himself in representing the cancer organisation of South Africa. For all his faithfulness to Fatima, or rather to trips to there: he does not hold too much faithfulness to his Catholic faith. Recently, when South Africa was blighted by terrible xenophobic attacks: he almost comically took the opportunity to argue that more cosmetic surgeries on homosexual people ought to be conducted, on their private parts. He went on and on about the great grandeur of altering a man to look like a woman and how this certainly in his view was good for human rights. He sent me three press releases that day. None of them condemned xenophobia in any way or form. His unfortunate lack of conscience, was fortunate for me in highlighting it, my article of his impolite behaviour was quite the popular critique. There is nothing like a politician feigning insult for another person’s apparent sake. Nothing quite distracts from the real issues.

Recently his Excellency President Jacob Zuma made strong remarks against rape, stated that politics needed to be more cordial and civil and asked for prayers both for his own party and others, that they may cease to insult those elected positions of leadership in South Africa through name-calling. Jacob Zuma also made reference to his religion, Protestant Christianity. It is perhaps apt that he made such reference. Jacob Zuma was speaking to Protestant bishops. Zuma also acknowledged that we are all in it together in South Africa: he said that as such, it was the duty of churches to pray for the leadership of South Africa. This is how I interpret statements Zuma made several weeks ago, granted with some hyperbolic language, the type of hard to take serious self-importance which is the forte of the current president of the Republic of South Africa. This is not however how a certain shadow minister of the Democratic Alliance official opposition party, under the leadership of Ms Helen Zille: perceived this speech of the President of the Republic of South Africa.

I recently received an email which I verified as from the ‘famed’ politician above, the shadow minister of home affairs, who loves to act at feigning insult for another person’s apparent sake.

‘Closing the gap between Church and government is dangerous’ harked that unangelic howl. The contents of the gentleman’s unfortunate email press release were all the more alarmist and reactionary.

‘About a month ago Jacob (not the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham in the Old Testament) Zuma addressed the Presbyterian Synod in Giyani.  (Why a political leader would be invited to address a religious synod is beyond me.)’ Stated Mister Manny De Freitas, in his shadowy role as Shadow Minister of Home Affairs for the Democratic Alliance.

No doubt Mister De Freitas took out some or other Bible from his regular trips to Fatima, looked at the index and searched enthralled, for that name Jacob. Somehow he found the genealogy of said Jacob, one assumes without us of course actually bothering at attempting checking it. Why a politician would periodically make consistent pilgrimages to Fatima is not beyond me, why he would trumpet such trips loudly to the press is not beyond me. Why Helen Zille would be invited to address the Catholic Women’s League (CWL) is also not beyond me. Politicians like to address anyone of any religion, even people they don’t like very much: it is certainly a way to gain votes. Assuming however that Jacob Zuma did not request to be invited to the synod of Protestant bishops or whatnot: why on earth would anyone at all attempt to invite a president to address their gathering? Why would the Catholic Women’s League (CWL) invite Premier of the Western Cape Ms Helen Zille to address their meeting? Perhaps it has something to do with prestige, the honour associated with government officials, or the draw of a well-known speaker?

Mister Manny De Freitas could not stop there. Zuma had the audacity to say that the church was not entirely separated from the state, but that God required churches to pray for the leaders of the country, and that this showed that even the church and the state are connected in their humanity. Mister Manny De Freitas would have none of that.

‘Increasingly Zuma has been bringing Church and State closer and closer.’ Manny De Freitas made his unsubstantiated claim in hopes of being glorified before the sons of man or whatnot, ‘This is not even my analysis’ Manny De Freitas smugly attempted to convince whatever media he thinks in his pocket. Instead according to Manny De Freitas who considers his own word to be God Almighty from the highest heaven : ‘Zuma at that same Synod said that God had made a connection between government and the Church.’

Such is what He loudly squealed. He being Manny not God, but speaking with the sureness of his own ‘divine’ consciousness.

‘The President’s irresponsible statements continue to flabbergast me.’ Manny said of the President of the Republic of South Africa’s asking Protestant church rulers to pray for those in secular power, for the politicians of South Africa, because, as Mister Jacob Zuma made known to the bishops of a Protestant church: the church is not entirely separated from the world or from the state as though it lived in some bubble, unaffected by political corruption.

‘A few years ago he arrogantly stated that the ANC would rule until Jesus comes.’ Manny De Freitas continued his tirade, again purposely misunderstanding the concept that when Jesus comes it is the end of the world according to the religion Jacob Zuma follows, Manny quickly adds ‘If this is true lets pray that it’s really soon’.

‘I would wager a bet that Zuma has never read the Constitution – not even once.’ Manny De Freitas quickly quips, but what follows suggest that he also has not read the constitution, if we are to assume Jacob Zuma has not.

‘The Constitution is clear that it does not recognize any connection between the Government and the Church’ Manny further solicits media with his uninformed sound bite, although I have not seen such clarity, in fact the constitution makes direct links between the government and religion when reference is made to marriage ceremonies. There is not even separation between the judiciary, the executive, and Parliament in the sense that Manny De Freitas will demand it. The South African national anthem is God bless Africa. Christian holy days are respected government holidays in South Africa. We ask witnesses to make a religious oath in court although they are allowed to make an affirmation instead.

‘The Constitution is clear that it does not recognize any connection between the Government and the Church and guarantees the freedom of religion, belief and opinion.’ Manny De Freitas says as he continues to enforce the impression that he has never read the constitution, which does not guarantee freedom of religion, belief and opinion. The case of Prince versus the Law Society is just one example of how religion is validly limited in South Africa. Belief is also not guaranteed, and opinion is limited in the Bill of Rights itself. Perhaps Manny De Freitas should spend less time at Fatima wooing voters under the naughty guise of being a Catholic politician, and more time researching his own false claims.

Manny De Freitas then purports to read minds, he smirks, no doubt as it is he who now pronounces an ultimate judgement upon Jacob Zuma: ‘In Zuma’s world, he doesn’t understand that there are even people that don’t believe or even care if Jesus comes.’

Manny De Freitas then attempts to get a bit nasty, or rather a bit more nasty than he had been in his quick judgements against anyone who professes a Christian faith ‘Someone should provide him the breaking news that there are even people who don’t believe in, or even know, Jesus’ Manny De Freitas is quick to mock Jacob Zuma. Perhaps it is people like Manny De Freitas that caused Jacob Zuma to feel the need to pray that politicians act in a civil manner in the treatment of one another.

As someone who breaks news, I find Manny De Freitas wanting in his use of English: this is not breaking news, nor should anyone presume to abuse language in such a manner to mock the religion of another person. In fact one of those limits on freedom of speech which Manny De Freitas forgot to read in the Bill of Rights forbids hate speech against religions.

Manny elaborates, yes he elaborates, shockingly as he has herein: ‘Someone should provide him the breaking news that there are even people who don’t believe in, or even know, Jesus and that it’s acceptable as we all have the freedom to believe, or not believe, in whatever we like.’

Perhaps Manny should read State versus Blom. We do not have the right to believe whatever we want in South Africa. Yes, we have the freedom to choose what religion we follow, as does Jacob Zuma who was practising his Christian faith by speaking. Manny De Freitas is perhaps not speaking from the law then, but his own belief system. Perhaps cults are something, something which Manny De Freitas desires to be deeply accepting of. Perhaps Manny De Freitas should launch a campaign to repeal the Witchcraft Suppression Act, which imprisons people for up to 25 years for their belief in witchcraft, and making accusations that a person is a witch or wizard or sorcerer of some type. Perhaps he should repeal the provisions which make practices such as selling psychic services of a sort unlawful and punishable by jail or a fine.

‘History has shown us over and over again the danger of mixing religion, any religion with government.’ Manny De Freitas claims without so much as a footnote, a broad and very inappropriate and universal claim. Is he speaking of the Pharaohs? Is he speaking of the Queen of England? Is he speaking of the emperors of Rome? Is he speaking of the Roman Dutch basis of our law which we have thanks to the Roman Catholic Church? Does he hate the Knights of Malta? Does he hate and despise the Vatican City state? Does he think Andorra should not exist?

But Manny De Freitas will not stop there. He clearly believes that any person who might think that religion might have a positive impact upon the government, people like the Pope, the leader of his own claimed religion: can have no knowledge whatsoever of history.

Albania used to be a Christian nation, but the Ottoman Empire wanted to conquer it fully: so it taxed Albanian Christians until a large majority converted to Islam. When Rome split from Constantinople in Albania also, the Eastern Roman Empire demanded conversion to Greek Orthodoxy. The North of Albania refused to convert. The North remained Catholic, to this day it has a large Catholic population. Much of the rest of the country who did later under the Ottomans convert to the Muslim faith in the process lost their patriotism, and submitted to foreign rule, because their former faith had been eradicated by taxes, and their rebellious spirit with it. ‘Albanianism is the religion of Albania’ this is the phrase which reunited Albania into one nation once again. Targeting the majority religion of the country is a sure way to destroy its defiance against human rights abuses. This is what Things Fall Apart is all about: the use of Protestant Christianity to subdue the people of Africa, in concert with the persecution of the majority religion. Forbidding religion from entering the public sphere, was a method used in Angola in an attempt to control the population. Similar tactics were used in other Marxist regimes at the time. The Nazis saw a similar need to muzzle free religious expression if they were to conduct the genocide successfully.

‘It never turns out well,’ Manny boasts of what he thinks is knowledge or at least thinks sounds like knowledge: in criticising Zuma for associating himself with a religious faith. But this is not enough for Manny, anyone who contradicts the ‘man God’ Manny De-Freitas must be publicly humiliated and he thus says, ‘ but then I doubt that Zuma’s ever read any book, let alone a history book.’

Clearly Manny De Freitas expects a weak and foolish press, he ends with that phrase of phrases ‘kind regards’, a phrase usually used for friends and close acquaintances.

Though perhaps Manny De Freitas should be educated a bit about history and South Africa:

The concept that the church and the state are not one, but separate entities which can be at war with one another: is a Christian concept according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The Encyclopaedia Britannica details that this comes from the words of the founder of Christianity, who is known by the Latinised name of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Mark chapter 12 verse 17, Jesus states that Christians must render unto Caesar that which is the property of Caesar’s and not give unto Caesar that which belongs to God.

The word secular was developed by the Roman Catholic Church to refer to the laity in comparison to the religious such as priests and nuns and monks. The laity lived a secular or worldly life with secular vocations such as law. Unlike Egypt or Rome, the spiritual world and the physical world are differentiated so far as which powerbase governs what.

‘During the 1st century AD the Apostles, living under a pagan empire, taught respect for and obedience to the governing powers so long as such obedience did not violate the higher, or divine, law, which superseded political jurisdiction. Among the Church Fathers, who lived in a period when Christianity had become the religion of the empire, the emphasis on the primacy of the spiritual was even stronger. They insisted upon the independence of the church and the right of the church to judge the actions of the secular ruler.’
(Encyclopaedia Britannica ‘church and state’ (2012) Deluxe Edition)

Concepts such as natural law have currency for the simple fact that Christians are believed to have a moral duty to obey those placed in secular authority above them. The exception is where these rules would be against the will of God or natural law. Despite this distinction Christianity itself has created many theocratic states. Flavius Valerius Constantinus, the first Roman emperor to openly profess Christianity, a gentleman of Albanian origin: also declared himself priest and Emperor and claimed to take power over certain functions of the church without ever being ordained (Encyclopaedia Britannica ‘Constantine I’, ‘Albania’, ‘Christianity’ (2012) Deluxe Edition). In more recent history there are the papal states and Calvin’s Geneva. Nations which in some way Mix church and state include every member of Britain’s Commonwealth who’s secular and religious head is a King or Queen of England. This is a good portion of the nations of the earth. Malta is run by the Knights of Malta, and most famously the Vatican City state is both head of the world’s largest religious organisation, and itself a secular state with secular laws and powers. In large swathes of Protestantism and other forms of Christian thinking a belief in a divine right of a ruler to rule has certainly hold sway until recent times. The Holy Roman Empire and the Russian Czar’s held such opinions.

In the old Testament of the Bible: right after Noah and his sons got off of the arc, his one son saw Noah naked and drunk. The son in question called the other sons and told them of it. The other sons avoided looking at the undignified form of the seeming ruler of humanity at that moment. They did however cover him with a cloak, walking backwards to avoid seeing the naked form of the ruler. The son who violated the dignity of Noah, was cursed to slavery.

The president of the Republic of South Africa adheres to a Protestant Christian belief system, with some emphasis on the Old Testament of the Bible, the church Jacob Zuma adheres to also views polygamy in a permissive manner. President Jacob Zuma is known to strongly hold to the traditions of his ancestors, and to a most Africanist Christian viewpoint. I do not agree with the president on many things, that does not however mean that I could be morally permitted to unthinkingly mock him simply for his differing beliefs, merely because they are different than mine.

When Jacob Zuma made this speech I wondered how it related to the Witchcraft Suppression Act, although I did not look further into it. This is the speech which Mister Manny De Freitas above so wantonly mocked and so fully misinterpreted:

‘“If you don’t respect those in leadership, if you don’t respect authority then you are bordering on a curse,” said Zuma, who once said the ANC would rule until Jesus returned.
 ‘“Whether we like it or not, God has made a connection between the government and the church. That’s why he says you, as a church, should pray for it.”
 ‘He likened people who lack “values” by raping children and the aged to animals. “If you don’t have that, (values), then you are not different from animals.”
 ‘Zuma urged the church to pray for politicians who insult leaders. Without mentioning names, he said their language was rough and disrespectful.
 ‘“Because if you allow them to insult those in authority, you are creating a society that is angry with itself,” said Zuma.
 ‘However, the ANC leader said his fellow comrades were also guilty of this “careless” language. “I am not saying the ANC is innocent of the careless language.”
 ‘ANC MP John Jeffrey recently apologised for calling Mazibuko, the DA’s parliamentary leader, “a person of substantial weight”.’








(Independent Newspapers South Africa ’Zuma invokes wrath of God’ 7 October 2013 at 7:55 AM)

Jacob Zuma’s words are certainly not pleasant words, nor are their words which I strongly agree with. Certainly you should respect leadership, even where there is lack of leadership: so far as you are required to do so. That does not mean that one cannot be critical of leadership or speak of leadership in its true place: bad leadership should be treated as bad leadership. Insulting the human dignity of leaders in an unbecoming manner however is perhaps uncivilised. As for any curse connected to this, I might be quite in danger of such a curse for I am often critical of public figures in an appropriate manner in order to hold them accountable and to ensure that they do the job in a proper manner. Certainly the government and morals are connected. The separation of church and state tends to be to enable one to criticise the other, generally the church of the state. His strong words against rape of the elderly and children certainly reflect recent headlines and some public opinion among sectors of the population. He should not however only condemn rape of the children and of the elderly. Any and every rape is immoral and wrong and illegal. The rape case brought against the president was not as strong as media would have portrayed it as. That does not however preclude him from at the time being morally obligated to strongly condemn all rape in South Africa. The fact that I’m not the government allows me to criticise the government. This is important. The church also is separate from the state in order to criticise the state. His wording might be quite strong, the polite and cordial political discussion based on the issues and not name-calling: is certainly preferable, however.

Should Jacob Zuma had been permitted to attend a synod of religion?

Is that not up to the religion in question? South Africa does not have separation of powers but cooperative governance so far as the judiciary, executive and Parliament are concerned. The government periodically cooperate with various churches, and seek the advice of civil society in accordance with the demands of the constitution for inclusive and cooperative government, in governing the state. Jacob Zuma however has every right to associate with his own religion or a gathering of people in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic. He is an ordinary citizen of South Africa so far as this is concerned. Premier of the Western Cape and head of the Democratic Alliance opposition party, Helen Zille has in the past made public address to the Catholic Women’s League (CWL) at a meeting of the league. She too is a head of a part of the government. It was up to the Catholic Women’s League (CWL) whether or not they wanted the Premier of the Western Cape to address a meeting. It was up to this Presbyterian church whether or not they wanted to have the president of the Republic, a natural human being: to address their meeting. There was no abuse of the constitution in that sense.

Do I approve of the decision of this church to have the president speak to them? No, not particularly. I also do not particularly approve of Helen Zille speaking to the Catholic Women’s League (CWL). There is however no closing gap between religion and the state. Certainly there is no gap in the first place in South Africa, but rather cooperative government which seeks the assistance of civil society in leading South Africa. The church and the state are not one institution, nor do they have one head. In fact there are many churches in South Africa. None of these churches are part of the government, although they are given special status by the government, and are able to perform marriages in certain cases.


Disclaimer: Nothing I’ve said in this article should be considered to be legal advice in any way or form. For legal advice please approach your own legal practitioner with the appropriate skills to deal with your specific issue, appropriately set forth your issue to them and act as you deem appropriate with the legal advice. Legal information is merely provided for journalistic purposes and entertainment in this article, not for the purposes of taking legal action. I have mentioned laws and South African court cases which I have studied at the tertiary level at law school, my mention is made from memory, to inform in a journalistic manner but not in any way as legal advice. Nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

UK: The Independent, advertises 'Elegant', 'Beautiful' new look:... with recently deceased Egyptian corpses...

According to Britain's daily newspaper: The Independent, the first thing I should have noticed was that the heading of big black letters stating 'The Independent' had gone from horizontal to vertical.

The Independent is left of centre so far as politics and social issues are concerned, it would despite this, have many disagreements with Europe's and America's left-wing politicians as to market issues. In this sense the title Independent is highly warranted.

The fact that a back issue, relating to a story in August about 'Egypt's day of shame', was used to display and showcase the new look starting Thursday: perhaps displays a different sort of independence.

A screenshot of 'elegance', and 'beauty'?:



I would not have even noticed the change: were it not for an Egyptian blogger who I follow: re-tweeting the shock and disgust of the populous of the small yet deeply devastated portion of Earth which is designated the land of the Pharaohs.

The use of tragedy to sell newspapers is unfortunately a reality of life. The use of gory images to increase sales has become an acceptable practice in the industry. The use of back image back story in demonstrating what a new look of a newspaper will be is perhaps to be expected. They did not however use back images relating to the Royal baby. They purposely chose to use this pain and suffering that is of human demise, the deep wounding injury that struck as utter tragedy upon Egypt: to display just how 'elegant', 'beautiful' the new look of the Independent happened to be, if indeed it did happen to be so.

The first thing I noticed was the corpses. I then noticed the headline shaming Egypt. I did not notice the change from horizontal to vertical of the newspaper's name.

An Egyptian blogger re-tweeted disapproval:



We broadly accept newspapers carrying gory images of individual people. We accept this because they are covering the stories of those people. If they were not about covering the stories of those people, we might accuse them of having a sick morality. I hope it is most unintentional that the Independent has chosen to dig up a wound still fresh in Egypt's short-term memory. I sincerely hope that the use of the image of people who are probably other people's loved ones to demonstrate just how 'elegant ' and 'beautiful' The Independent think it is to be including such an image in the new look demonstration, is not an admiration of the macabre.

However one views the choice by the Independent or their culpability and their state of mind in determining to use such back issue: nonetheless it is a choice which has been made, denying that is as real as denying death: as denying the deaths and injuries which are turned into advertising profit, as the Independent show just how 'elegant' they are, or perhaps how 'not elegant' they are in this specific choice.

How you treat their determination is really up to you.

Friday, November 1, 2013

The Catholic bishops' 'groundbreaking' human trafficking organisation is not concerned with actual human trafficking per se… : A disquieting Interplay...


The Ekhanya official newsletter of the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (‘SACBC‘), speaks of a groundbreaking ministry against human trafficking. Perhaps the most groundbreaking thing about this ministry, which the SACBC says has been praised by the South African government and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (‘ USCCB ‘): is its radically alternative, bizarrely utterly unusual definition of human trafficking.

Having recently finished my final exams for final year law, my understanding of trafficking is that it requires a sale and purchase of an illegal or prohibited product. For instance, there is trafficking in narcotics: that is to say the illegal drug trade. There is also something called human trafficking. Human trafficking for sex slavery is a major form of human trafficking. In antiquity this was referred to as the white slave trade. Human trafficking is differentiated from prostitution by all major organisations. People smuggling is also generally differentiated from human trafficking, although technically speaking in linguistic terms at first glance: people smuggling is maybe a form of human trafficking: the trafficking is voluntarily, and cannot be classed as a form of slavery, and unlike real human trafficking: does not entail the selling or buying of the human being but rather the selling or buying of illegal passage for that human being making it not in fact human trafficking.

The reason why at first glance one might associate illegal migration assistance with human trafficking is that the word traffic connotes movement: trafficking however refers not to movement but to sale. Drug-trafficking refers to the sale or buying of drugs. Human trafficking refers to the sale or buying of human beings: it refers to the ownership of one human being over another human being and the sale of that ownership to a third human being or organisation of human beings. Slavery itself is hard to define. I gave a gander to an extraordinarily long article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica deluxe version of 2012, on slavery, in preparation for writing this article. It was primarily concerned with legalised slavery. It looked at the history of slavery from ancient humanity to modern times. It was not however concerned with human trafficking, but rather purely with legalised slavery and historic slavery. The best definition of a word is often a contextual utilisation focused definition. This or that word is utilized for this or that purpose legitimately, and illegitimately utilised for this or that purpose in certain contexts by certain speakers in a manner which is nonetheless comprehended in those circumstances.

So how do the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference define human trafficking in their newsletter relaying a workshop on human trafficking hosted by their so-called ‘groundbreaking' human trafficking ministry?

Apparently they consider any cheap migrant labour, to be human trafficking?

Seasonal and migrant labour periodically streams into South Africa from neighbouring countries, to work in the agricultural sector of the economy. Some of these temporary immigrants are clandestine or illegal immigrants. In some cases there have been allegations that some farmers might mistreat some farmworkers whether South African or foreign. Illegal immigrants might also be paid a smaller amount than South Africans are. This is not a situation unique to South Africa, but occurs in most Western and other nations. Some have referred to such working conditions as slave like, or slightly more accurately considered these to be inhumane working conditions.

Whether legal or illegal, such migrant workers flow through the South African border every year, pay a taxi fare when they enter the country, and willingly go to work. They brave poor working conditions where these exist, and work extraordinarily hard for every small wage. The reason why they do such a thing is that they would not be able to support themselves at all were it not for this poor quality of employment, which nonetheless puts food on the table.

I recently investigated farmworker wages, given the recent strikes in the agricultural sector in the Western Cape for higher wages. South Africa by large part still utilises human labour in the agricultural sector. Most Western countries have fired the majority of previous agricultural workers over a time. These agricultural powerhouses tend to be mechanised powerhouses. An agricultural economist has stated that the wages which were proposed by government and which are being enforced upon the sector would have the effect that agriculture would have to mechanise, and remove the matters of human labour from the equation or face liquidation and bankruptcy. The Economist stated that certain produce would only be agriculturally viable in neighbouring countries should such a move go-ahead. In many cases the only wage which can be paid a seasonal farmworker is a wage which an ordinary person might look down upon as petite. South Africa has always had allegations of abuse of farmworkers and other manual labourers. Differentiating propaganda and special interests from true allegations, however, is a different story.

‘Mission to End Human Trafficking

‘Sister Melanie O’Connor HF of the Counter Trafficking in Persons office (CTIP) recently conducted workshops with priests, religious and laity in the dioceses of Aliwal North and Dundee. While participants in Dundee did not immediately recognise the concept of human trafficking, Aliwal North identified the problem of unaccompanied and undocumented migrants from Lesotho in their area.

‘Many of these are being exploited for farm or domestic work, receiving as little as R 200 a month, and are also physically abused. Participants agreed that such conditions are slave-like, amount to human trafficking and need to be looked into. The CTIP office which is a joint venture of the SACBC and LCCL (Leadership Conference of Consecrated Life) has received praise from the South African government and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for its ground-breaking ministry against human trafficking. ‘
(Ekhanya volume 6: official newsletter of the SACBC, for November 1, 2013)

Originally I thought that their first paragraph was a quotation, as they had indented it, following the practice for quotations. After subsequent conversation with the organisation however, and what I hope is not indifference, but rather: their lack of comprehension of my differentiation between their quotation and their own statement: I have come to terms with the fact that neither the first nor the second paragraph is a quotation by Ekhanya. Rather they constitute together one press release/article. This official newsletter does not state that many of these are simply allegedly exploited, or that it is only possibly human trafficking. Ekhanya states that ‘Participants agreed that such conditions are slave-like, amount to human trafficking…’ That suggest that the CTIP were in agreement with the participants, or else that this was an expected or welcomed outcome.

There is no correction in the press release/article as to what ordinarily would be considered human trafficking, that is the buying and selling of human beings. It is common for the phrase slave-like to be used outside of the context of slavery, so I will not focus deeply upon this. Merely stating that something has a semblance to something else is not portraying that other thing as the something else. However, where there is no sale or buying of human beings: and this is called human trafficking, such seriously impedes real efforts to prevent human trafficking. Disobeying minimum wage laws or laws relating to basic conditions of employment and liveable working conditions is certainly not something of trivial matters. This is not however human trafficking. There is no buying or selling of human beings.

One might expect that this error is due to Ekhanya and is in no way attributable to the department dealing with human trafficking. This was my first assumption.

I thus wrote to the office for media at the SACBC whose responsibility it is to distribute Ekhanya.

‘Dear office of media, for the SACBC

‎’I find this article/press release on human trafficking concerning. Human trafficking is the trafficking in humans. It requires a buyer and a seller. Low wages might be against the minimum wage or any number of things, but these cannot conceptually be termed human trafficking. Please rectify this serious error on your part.


‘Yours Faithfully,

‘Marc Evan Aupiais.
‘Editor, SACNS. ’
The response I got was far from satisfactory:

Fr S'milo Mngadi, gave me the following unsatisfactory and insufficient reply:

‘Dear Marc

‘Thank you for communicating your concern. However, we were reporting on what the participants of the workshop “agreed” upon. We do not hold any opinion on the matter.

‘SACBC Communications’

I asked for rectification, and gave reasons: reasons hampered by the fact they merely indented for seemingly no reason:

‘You quoted their views, and after their views stated that such is human trafficking outside of quotes. As someone who has studied and passed Public International ‎Law, at tertiary level, I am deeply concerned by this. Furthermore, it does not instil confidence in the human trafficking organisation if a press release linked with it does misplace the concept of what Human trafficking is. Is it now policy that funds to fight human trafficking will be used to fight low wages paid to migrant labourers? This is a serious and grave error. It has certainly made me personally reconsider any support of the SACBC program which looks like a joke due to the release given. Trafficking of human beings is not comparable to low wages given migrant workers or even very poor working conditions or assault. It is like comparing rape and corporal punishment in schools. Both are forbidden in law, but such a comparison makes a joke of rape. The quote of slave-like is possibly not so serious: it does not say the migrants are slaves. Saying something has a semblance to human trafficking, okay. Saying it is human trafficking undermines any efforts to combat human trafficking.’

(I have corrected three typos which I had made: namely: dors (does), make (makes), instill (instil). These do not however in any way affect the meaning of what was communicated.)

Receiving no response, I continued:

‘In the very least it is good etiquette to note an error in something portrayed. The quoted part was theirs. That outside of quotes was in your power. Either way it undermines SACBC as more interested in politics than in actually combating bona fides, ‎real human trafficking. Whether wrong or right, what your service displayed outside of quotes as human trafficking with no correction is deeply concerning. Yes, you are a press release office, but I would expect at least some level of fact checking. I clearly am wrong. And clearly campaigns by SACBC to end human trafficking are not actually about human trafficking at all. Am I wrong to infer as much from your nonplussed response?’

(Typo in spelling of etiquette corrected: it stated ettiquette, where etiquette was the intended word).

It has been over two hours since these emails and I have received no response whatsoever. I understand that the indentation was not in fact a quote but simply an indentation for whatever purpose it served. However, my concern is still very real. Is this the manner in which such office educates about human trafficking, by teaching that which does not fall in the definition to be human trafficking? Is this what such organisation wants South Africans to see as its purpose: claiming to fight human trafficking but in fact fighting to improve working conditions and to gain higher pay for workers. Is this all union activity in the guise of fighting human trafficking? These are concerning questions which I do not feel have been answered by the inadequate response of the SACBC Communications Department.

It is the Cardinal Napier story all over again. I asked for an interview as to whether or not his paedophilia interview with the BBC and responses subsequent to it to various media outlets: meant that he had in fact moved paedophiles from parish to parish in the 1990s. I certainly got the first retraction of the statement he had made to the BBC, but as I stated in my article, inclusive of his retraction, which I published a day ahead of anyone else: I felt that the question which I posed had not been answered in any meaningful manner. Cardinal Napier has still not informed me as to whether or not he assisted in any sort of cover up for paedophiles.

I hope that the SACBC does not intend to deeply insult the human dignity of those who are human trafficked, by comparing ordinary workers’ rights issues which nonetheless are serious: with actual human trafficking. Their quiet when desirable department of media has yet to give me a response on this. I hope that one will be forthcoming in the near future, that I shan’t hold my breath is nonetheless implied in this matter.

After publication we gave the SACBC a link to our article. Their representative to media, Fr S'milo Mngadi, informed us that he considered it 'unfortunate' that we had published our article for the perusal of the public. Fr S'milo Mngadi stated that what the SACBC media office relayed of the CTIP organisation's actual activities and use of resources, did not represent the CTIP organisation's publically stated policy, to which he offered a hyperlink. Indeed, if their policy were that of a labour union or migrant worker importer, the SACBC's CTIP organisation's actions would not be newsworthy.

The fact however that they state their purpose is fighting human trafficking when they use their resources in unison with SACBC, spreading misinformation about what human trafficking is, and pushing matters in the political sphere under the guise of Human Trafficking focus is what causes our deep unease. Our organisation's editor informed the SACBC that it is part of our ethical mandate at SACNS to be appropriately critical of, and hold accountable public organisations and figures, and that our article was in the public interest and fair comment.

As such, we do not believe that informing the public of discord between claimed purpose and actual actions of an organisation is an 'unfortunate' publishing of information. This is especially the situation, where such an organisation, as CTIP apparently exploits the cause of the most vulnerabe, the human trafficked, for other purposes such as promoting wage differences. On what do we base this? The SACBC's own words.

We at SACNS find it 'unfortunate', furthermore, that media should be patronised or seemingly threatened rather than properly treated with respect. We informed the SACBC that we three times gave them opportunity to comment or clarify if their portrayal of their own CTIP was wrong. We then waited two hours before publication, in which time they certainly had seen our concerns that from what they were saying: the public were in fact being duped on what CTIP do with their resources.

Slavery: colloquially: legalised forced labour, or in some modern political definitions: unlawful forced labour, is different from human trafficking, which is sale and purchase of the ownership of human beings. Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably. Cheap migrant labour is neither human trafficking or slavery. Indentured or peon labour is forced labour to pay off a debt: there is no evidence of this being the case in the South African agricultural setting, and it is clear from all accounts that migrant labourers regularly return to their place of origin, meaning that none of the three definitions are applicable. Labour law and inhumane conditions might be issues, however this is a matter then not of human trafficking but within different areas of law and political discourse. Essentially, it is not human trafficking.

Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice in any way or form. Marc Evan Aupiais is a Roman Catholic: This is stated in the interests of full disclosure. The church which is referred to in the article is the Roman Catholic Church, specifically that in Southern Africa.

Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme