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.

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'?:

'Elegant'? 'Beautiful'? Britain's daily Independent advertise new look with Egyptian corpses? http://t.co/M6QTxDO9RU pic.twitter.com/I4iMJR7huU

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) November 3, 2013

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:

Kind of is: pic.twitter.com/KJhlbnt2ts

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) November 3, 2013

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.

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.

‘We don’t listen to homophobes’: AgangSA’s Gay pride shout out in response to public criticism ...

‘We don’t listen to homophobes’: AgangSA’s Gay pride shout out in response to public criticism of their statements!

Some of you weren't pleased that we went to gay pride.We don't listen to homophobes. Therefore,we'll continue to support the LBGTI community

— AgangSA (@AgangSA) October 28, 2013

On Saturday, I raised some concerns I happen to have about legal inaccuracies that AgangSA were portraying on their twitter and in public.

A question of legal accuracy.

Spotted at the Joburg pride #GayRightsAreHumanRights pic.twitter.com/ruu5hIOXOS

— AgangSA (@AgangSA) October 26, 2013

AgangSA claimed that ‘gay rights are human rights’.

As I pointed out to the organisation, human rights apply to all human beings whether they are straight or gay.

These are a specific set of legal rights which are universally accepted as existing. Those with an interest in the field, understand these rights to be centred on the right to religion, the oldest human right, as well as on life, liberty, dignity and so forth. In the international law field, it has consistently been rejected, that so-called gay rights are part of human rights. Civil rights certainly are not human rights, nor are many other rights which people accrue via the political system.

A somewhat left-wing constitutional court system in South Africa, with judges appointed because the Supreme Court of Appeal was seen as too Conservative, certainly has allowed the left-wing of the African National Congress to push homosexual civil unions through, just as they pushed the unpopular abortion on demand model, amongst other unpopular and controversial Western-based ideas, which some of late: allege are imperialism. The reason institutes such as the South African Constitutional Court appear to play such a vital role in this scheme for the westernisation of South African morality, is because the populous by in large agree with our neighbours Up North.

This conservative African way of thought: is especially the case among the black poor and middle-class, the people that many opposition parties claim to be going after. Oddly, much campaigning seems to focus on interests exactly mirroring Today's American foreign policy, rather than the mores of the voters which parties claim to be attempting to woo.

Agang, a political party operating in South Africa, was misunderstanding the point our editor was making: In fact attacks violating human rights, are just that, attacks violating human rights: gay rights are a separate concept altogether:

@SACNSNew well with the rate of homophobic attacks, their rights are not respected

— AgangSA (@AgangSA) October 26, 2013

AgangSA has decided to alienate the South African electorate.

Most other African nations do not endorse the Western idea of ‘gay rights’, or gay pride. Most of our neighbours in fact outlaw such practices, or deeply frown upon them. South Africa is no exception, so far as the population is concerned. The most recent survey on the matter by the government found that about 80% of South Africans consider homosexual acts to always be wrong. A more recent questionnaire into the matter, asking the separate question of whether homosexuals should be accepted by society, still found massive opposition.

'Spotted at the Joburg pride #GayRightsAreHumanRights' / @AgangSA Who is going to vote for Agang? Complete misread of RSA voters.

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 26, 2013

A better way forward?

It would seem that a Western obsession with homosexuality among other controversial activities, has if anything increased violence against homosexuals and encouraged legislatures to further outlaw such activities.

AgangSA, responded to my concern about their claiming that gay rights were human rights , by pointing to the rate of anti-homosexual assaults and murders. I spoke some time ago about the concept of hate crime, in relation to the white population of South Africa. It is where crimes cannot be explained by crimes of convenience, and by interpersonal crimes, or crimes committed by the mentally unstable. By this definition there are certainly many hate crimes committed against homosexuals that are also residents or South Africans. Such a crime is a deplorable act of vigilantes' intentional injustice, and cannot be condoned.

.@AgangSA I unequivocally condemn attacks on people due to sexual preferences, BUT 'gay rights' aren't human rights. Gays have human rights.

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 26, 2013

I do not approve of homosexual sex acts, and I do consider the much, much media promoted homosexual lifestyle to be both dangerous and profligate given the high coincidence of disease, utilisation of narcotics, high suicide rate even in accepting cultures, and so forth. I do not believe in typing a person by their sexual preferences. I might disapprove of behaviour, but I’m very unlikely to type a person solely based on their sexual preferences.

Where I do have homosexual friends, I tend to trait them, that is to type them: by their loyalty, disloyalty, likes, dislikes: the normal things by which people type their friends. Gay pride however tend to have the effect of typing homosexuals simply by their sexual lifestyle. As a Roman Catholic I do not approve of condoms, I do not approve of extramarital sex whatsoever. I don’t approve of it when a friend engages in such activities, but that tends not to be the ultimate type I assign such a friend. Likewise, with my homosexual friends: I do not approve of their sexual preferences, or of extramarital sex that they might engage in: but I do not type them by these activities of theirs.

'@SACNSNew well with the rate of homophobic attacks, their rights are not respected' / @AgangSA Yes, but those are ordinary human rights!

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 26, 2013

If such political parties were to focus not so much upon typing a person by their sexual preferences, and instead upon reducing hate crimes against all categories of persons: that might in fact reduce hate crimes against the homosexual population of South Africa. I think this would be a much better use of the time of such political parties, if indeed they were aiming at the best interests of homosexuals and South Africa. It seems odd that instead of going with the demographic polls related to South African voters: such political parties are aiming at a nonexistence demographic. Such much deferred to, powerful vacuum of a nonexistence demographic: perfectly correlates with American foreign policy at the moment.

Especially concerning, statements by both the Democratic Alliance of Helen Zille, and of AgangSA which is founded by Mamphela Ramphele: that any people who might be homophobic, do not deserve to be listened to whatsoever. Again, this is an attempt to type people based on one or other aspect of that person: it is a sort of activity which I think breeds intolerance rather than tolerance against the people AgangSA so publicly claim they support. Encouraging the typing of people based on one or other aspect of that person, encourages division, polarisation, hate crimes, and gives the majority of South Africa something massive to lose, if they determine that they will tolerate a different type of culture and lifestyle. If anything such activities by AgangSA and the Democratic Alliance, are counter-productive if the aim is to truly protect the human rights of the homosexuals in South Africa.

'Some of you weren't pleased that we went to gay pride. We don't listen to homophobes.' / @AgangSA Name calling against the electorate?

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 28, 2013

AgangSA continues to Subscribe to our editor, Marc Evan Aupiais on the social networking site Twitter, where our objections relating to legal accuracy were raised. It is uncertain what other responses to their gay pride tweets were received by the organisation. It would nonetheless be preferable if politicians such as Mamphela Ramphele, were to listen to the electorate of the country, and address their concerns, perhaps through debate: rather then refuse to speak at all with those who disagree with their viewpoint. Especially in a country, where the views of Mamphela Ramphele are not those of the majority of the population.

South Africa's head of Competition Commission: resigns over spending + R 100,000 of government money on pornography

According to the newspaper, Business Report (a subsidiary of Independent Newspapers South Africa), Competition Commissioner: Shan Ramburuth is in big trouble. Shan Ramburuth, according to the publication: used work resources to aid and abet his pornography habit. While abroad he used his work 3G card, approximately 2 years ago: in what one gleans must have been an extensive visit to a pornographic website, it has, basing one's self upon the report: come to be known. In his job as Competition Commissioner, he is supposed to ensure fair competition in the South African market and protect consumer rights.

It does not appear to be part of his job description: to wantonly view naughty material online. Economic Development Minister, Mister Ebrahim Patel, received and accepted Mister Shan Ramburuth's resignation. Business Report based their report on a fellow subsidiary of Independent Newspapers South Africa: the Sunday Independent newspaper. Independent Newspapers South Africa, were recently sold to an African National Congress linked consortium.

The source of the information, that Shan Ramburuth has resigned and that the resignation has been accepted, is, in essence, a ruling party appointee: Manelisi Wolela, who is spokesperson for the Department of Economic Development. A LinkedIn account, under the same name, of Manelisi Wolela, belongs to an individual who attended the University of Zimbabwe. Wolela is spokesperson for the department. Shan Ramburuth, however is reported in another newspaper late last night as saying he had not yet finalised a resignation. The minor point is exhausted below for the interests of accurate reporting. Business Report does not mention such denial, in their story published Today.

The usage of pornography, in the work environments, but not for work purposes, has recently also come under investigation in the United Kingdom: where it has been reported that parliamentarians have made extensive use of the Parliament's Internet facilities in the United Kingdom, in an unfettered addiction to pornographic content online. Studies have linked pornographic usage, to changes in the brain, which are of a similar nature to drug addiction.

Business Report, does not cite a reply to the allegations, from alleged pornographic connoisseur, Mister Shan Ramburuth, who has allegedly resigned, due to such misconduct and the misuse of government funding for the commission.

Mister Shan Ramburuth's reported habit is part of what the report calls a 120,000 Rand charge for international roaming. It is uncertain how much pornography Mister Shan Ramburuth allegedly viewed to accumulate such expense for the Department. The percentage of the about 120,000 Rand bill that was utilised in pursuing the seedy alleys of the online world, is not mentioned, however it seems unlikely that such a charge would be accumulated by ordinary usages, or that the pornography would be so noticeable if a good portion of the expense were not the pornography perusal by the Commissioner.

The New Age, a newspaper linked also to the Ruling Party, has a different story however, saying that Shan Ramburuth denies such resignation, based on Western linked Opposition Party friendly, The Sunday Times:

'"As far as I'm concerned, I'm still talking to him [Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel] about it...I have in my discussions with him, discussed various options," Ramburuth told the newspaper.

'"I would like to conclude that [discussion] with him before making any statement."

'Patel's spokesman Manelisi Wolela, however, said following complaints "relating to acts of misconduct", an investigation by Patel had ensued. "Earlier this week, Ramburuth resigned as commissioner and as an employee of the Competition Commission," he said.

'Wolela said the resignation would take effect on October 21.

'The Sunday Times referred to a forensic report by Paul O'Sullivan and Associates which detailed how Ramburuth apparently visited 25 pornographic sites between August and November 2011. His data bill in October that year - while using a government issued sim card overseas -came to a total of R123,000.

'The report suggested he had visited "inappropriate sites which were of an explicit pornographic nature"'

(SAPA 'Competition commission head Ramburuth denies resignation' The New Age at 19 October 2013 21:51)

A copy of the update on Business Report's Facebook, which is Published, Today, Sunday, is available below:

'Business Report

'Competition Commissioner Shan Ramburuth has been forced to resign after he visited a pornographic website using his work 3G card two years ago, contributing towards a R120 000 bill for international roaming, the Sunday Independent reported.

'Department spokesperson Manelisi Wolela confirmed last night that Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel had accepted Ramburuth's resignation, the newspaper added.'

Post by Business Report.

(Business Report 'Update', Sunday, 20th October 2013, at 10: 15 AM.)

ASIA/SYRIA - Maronite Bishop: With regard to the conflict in the Middle East, Western Christians are poorly informed

(Article from Agenzia Fides: the Vatican official Missionary News Service)

ASIA/SYRIA - Maronite Bishop: With regard to the conflict in the Middle East, Western Christians are poorly informed

Latakia (Agenzia Fides) - With regard to the events in the Middle East and in particular the tragedy of Syria "The West is poorly informed including its churches, despite good intentions".

This is what Bishop Elias Sleiman, head of the Maronite Eparchy of Latakia, in an interview just re-launched by the U.S. section of Aid to the Church in Need, said with regards to the processes taking place in the Middle East that in his opinion are likely to weigh negatively on the moves of the international community concerning the Syrian conflict. "The problem of so many media" specified the Syrian Bishop "is that they really do not grasp the real picture of the situation. The Arab Spring has been depicted as this clear push for liberty and democracy, but the actual results in Libya, Egypt and Yemen, for example, proving otherwise".

The region of Latakia in northern Syria, has so far been largely spared from the conflict. In the territory Christians continue to live peacefully with the Alawites. According to Bishop Sleiman, the only way out of the conflict is to increase international pressure in order to establish "a dialogue between the regime and moderate elements of the opposition". The world’s big players must get involved in earnest and put pressure on the various parts "to come to the negotiating table", considering that "the big challenge is religious fanaticism" and that now "the moderate rebels and Islamists have begun fighting each other".

(GV) (Agenzia Fides 19/10/2013)

Windows 8.1 and the Surveillance State: Don't give away your privacy rights: OPT OUT!

I just downloaded Microsoft's 'Free update' from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1. Except, it wasn't really too Free.

Automatically save my 'camera roll' to Sky Drive where espionage agencies can access it? Give Microsoft my internet browsing history... send information to Microsoft? Send my files for Microsoft to look at? Just some of the settings and agreements you have to opt out of. Yes, much of it is hidden, go through opt out options one by one. Also, default Sky Drive saving? Concerning. Give Microsoft my location? Is Microsoft my new girlfriend? Would I trust a girlfriend with such information? Can I trust a corporate giant to be trustworthy?

Having installed Windows 8.1, and opted out of these ridiculous conditions, I have the distinctive feeling I am being spied upon, eavesdropped on 24/7 by the Spy 'in the Machine'. I feel like my camera is turned against me. I feel like my keystrokes are logged. I feel like an exotic spectacle, brought from Africa to the West in a cage to be ogled at. I feel like I am endangered by corporate greed, which allies with a nosey foreign government. This is not paranoia, unfortunately. This is the reality we all might in fact easily face. I feel like if I warn enough people, I might land up like that person in China: Retweeted hundreds of times then arrested, except America does not arrest her suspects: she abducts them, she bombs them and considers family 'collateral damage', and she trusts electronic evidence when time and again it is utterly wrong. It is not a good idea to trust Silicon Valley, and their illicit paramour: U.S.A. Drones Are They!

I feel this way because Microsoft works with the American government as their major contractor, and Microsoft has been accused of selling user privacy to the same government which uses emails between people to order illegal kidnappings, drone strikes in other countries without the permission of the governments of those countries.

If Microsoft wants to recover from PRISM, why are they suddenly so snoopy?

And why are the journalists who were so critical of Windows 8, without just reason, and through basically lying about it, suddenly too poor in quality to realise that for Windows 8.1 you sell your privacy away unless you opt out. Are these journalists ravens? Are they some kind of bird which seeks the shiny things in life, regardless of the real value? Probably! They sold their security down the road for Android and IPhone, when Blackberry still protects her user-base. They sold yours too, ignoring the inherent weaknesses in those platforms, and the abuse of private data.

Remember, in the Age of Mass Unfettered Espionage, your Computer is like a child or animal, have it avert its eyes, or leave the room when it isn't meant to see something. Don't change in front of its camera: cameras can be hacked, but most importantly of all, don't 'legitimise' the invasion of you privacy by not opting out or worse: legitimise it by actively opting in. Opt out. These invasions are unnecessary. The same invasions power the cute tricks Microsoft added to impress the idiot 'journalists' who run device blogs. Pitty they never looked under the terms, conditions bonnet.

Run Rabbit Run!

The Germans got it wrong... #SexTrade

It is the old tale of two cities... European countries.

One saw that prostitution was the sale not of sexual intimacy, but of what survivors called sexual abuse. The other thought it should be a regulated, ordinarily taxed profession. That the victims of this profession were often illegally in the country, often human trafficked slaves, was ignored.

The one country radically reduced prostitution, and almost eliminated human trafficking. The other, increased trafficking, and the abuse that accompanied it.

'The grim reality of prostitution and its inextricable links with trafficking were highlighted in a seminar organised by the European Women's Lobby (EWL) in the European parliament on 1 October.

'[...]

'[...]

'Examining EU member states, Sweden and Germany have developed opposite legislation on prostitution, with the same aim of tackling trafficking and organised crime. During the EWL seminar, police officers from both countries shared their insights into the effectiveness of the contrasting policy models in place in each country.

'Germany embraced a 'practical' approach in 2000, aimed at controlling the system of prostitution by decriminalising procuring and encouraging the integration of women in prostitution into the regular labour-market.

'The protection of the rights of prostituted persons while clearing the way for a targeted crackdown on organised crime was central to this stance. At the same time, Sweden, inspired by a more human rights-based analysis, viewed prostituted persons as victims entitled to specialised support, by mobilising political will to tackle demand (by banning the purchase of sex) to render supply redundant and eliminate the primary root cause for both prostitution and trafficking.

'According to chief superintendent Helmut Sporer, from Augsburg's criminal investigation department in Germany, the normalisation of prostitution has increased the vulnerability of prostituted persons, while transforming Germany into a popular sex tourism destination.

'The average woman in prostitution is between 18 and 20 years of age, trafficked from Romania, fearful of recourse to the police; pimps lead their 'businesses' like any other entrepreneurs, and the purchase of sex is just like any other trade market.

'Sweden meanwhile, has halved street prostitution in 13 years without increases in more hidden forms of exploitation; the numbers of men who purchase sex has dropped by almost half, and the population's support for the law, initially a meagre 30 per cent, has risen to 70 per cent.' Cécile Gréboval 'Policymakers show 'lack of political will' to tackle root cause of sex trafficking' TheParliament.com Parliament Magazine 9th of October 2013, accessed 13th October 2013 http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/policymakers-show-lack-of-political-will-to-tackle-root-cause-of-sex-trafficking/#.UlrrPFDItwi

The fatal fluttering of a suicide bomber's heart in Iraq...

The fatal fluttering of a suicide bomber's heart in Iraq, can cause disastrous devastation to spread to the entire region.

Does Violence in Iraq still matter?

I don't report on the consistent, always climbing, slithering, growing: Iraqi death count from daily attacks and suicide bombings to the extensive extent I once had.

The pure mass of daily bombings however, determinedly build both resentment, and resilience in the heart of the Middle East.

The blasts strain ethnic tensions in a deadly vibration, and explode against religious harmony like the deadly vice of wrath. Civic stability is disturbed by the satanic touch of death.

Iraqi bombings thus destabilise the region around Iraq and act as a sandbox for aspirant and ominous, and infamous terrorists to practice slaying innocents with near impunity. It is the infamous nursery of terrorism, even more so than Somalia or Libya, or ill-fated Afghanistan.

That is not un-newsworthy.

That, instead, is most disquieting a concept to fathom. A concept we might want to tread upon lightly, or, in an attempt to ignore: 'I don't know', one might proudly say. That does not leave the psyche unscathed: imagine in comparison the psyche of those quite approximate to the ever climbing digit counter of death. I don't think our measurements have yet sunk to the bottom of the deep blue hole of death. I don't know if we can truly comprehend the devastation that consistent violence brings, wrought in fiery explosion, bladed weaponry, and blackest gunfire, cautiously delivered to the heart and lungs, on the angelic, shining wings of a devil disguised.

Opinion by Marc Aupiais (SACNS news editor)

WHO'S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD SHUTDOWN? #America #Debt

Shut-down in America, is it so bad?


The American federal government has been shut down. As a negotiating tactic, US President Obama had park rangers shut down national monuments and tourist attractions.

Another almost spiteful shut-down was an animal camera in a zoo. Government contractors and the 48% Romney infamously referred to would be expected victims. Polls say only one in five Americans have been affected so far. Catholic media are upset about an alleged ban on mass for the military.

All newsworthy no doubt. However, much ignored is that while the Federal government and its strange pet projects shut down, local and 'state'/provincial governments did not.

There is fear America's ever burgeoning debts will not be paid by taking out more debt from geopolitical foes and bond holders. This debt is there due to America's extensive social spending. It also seems to be a debt America is increasingly unable to settle in full.

So the Shutdown came, and the debt default is feared? Feared by who though? Who expects the American government to continue to be able to pay massive debts day in and day out?

Granted I would not invest in America right now and a jumpy stock market could crash, but America is hardly acting like a trustworthy debtor. Rather they require debt for ordinary daily work, not infrastructure investments.

That is any way a bad investment.

The hunt for the real #RedOctober movement in South Africa and abroad!

When I think of Red October, I think of the brilliant book and movie: The Hunt for Red October. I think of a Russian submarine, and yes, I think of a really awesome name. Yes, the Red October in which communism has a birth in Russia shares that name. In fact, it is possible the submarine gets named after that red October... just slightly possible... to use the British understatement.

Red October, is a movement that marched in October against crime, and against race based politics and a race based mindset of the government in treatment of the citizenry of South Africa.

From unflattering pictures, to outright defamation against and mockery of this movement: South African media have not been honest or truthful.

These are the allegedly racist demands of the Red October bunch?:

'1 Urgent attention to the lack of security on South African farms and the lack of attention to farm murders in general
'2 Urgent attention to the continuing violence against women
'3 Urgent attention to police action regarding murder and crimes committed against the people of South Africa by foreigners streaming across our borders
'4 Urgent attention to the lack of quality education for all our children, respecting their culture, language, religion and heritage
'5 Urgent attention to the lack of service delivery, the preservation of our natural water resources and the lack of control over the theft of electricity
'6 Urgent attention to the legal processes and lack of justice with regard to the detaining of prisoners without proper due course
'7 Urgent attention to expedient trials and harsher sentences of criminals found guilty of violent crime, i.e. murder and rape
'Nothing racist in that lot – no calls for return to apartheid, no we’re better than you, no bigoted name calling, no incitement to violence, no mention that 'this should be limited to white people in any way, shape or form!' (Claire Smith 'An eye opener' in MyNews 24 11th October 2013

The actual truth about crime stats: And yes, the stats suggest whites are targeted for hate crimes!

When I passed Forensic Medicine earlier this year, I was informed by the Forensic Service, that race based statistics were not too easy to come by. Coloured people were more likely to kill and to be killed, then blacks... the least likely to commit crime were also the least likely to have crimes committed against them: wealthy white South Africans. This is not a numbers game: the proportion of black South Africans who commit crimes and are victims of crimes, both exceed the proportion of the country that is black, likewise with coloured people. Less whites commit crime and less whites are victim to crime.

The explanation of the Forensic Service, is this: poor people across the world are more likely to commit crime, and crimes are more likely committed against people you are acquainted with or know well. Most crimes are inter-personal crimes. Friends of criminals are their most likely prey. This is how crime statistics work.

The problem is where crimes are not crimes of opportunity, and are not inter-personal crimes. The type of crime I speak of is called the hate crime. This is where violence in a crime is not directly related to the profit of the crime. This is where people are murdered due to their skin colour, religion, political beliefs, or other such attributes.

In France there are the extreme right which opposes immigration, and the anti-fa or extreme left who claim to oppose the extreme right, but are just as rightly categorised as extreme, and violent.

In South Africa, when we look at crimes against whites, we need to factor in the wealth, home areas, security, etcetera of white South African citizens. Whites are more wealthy, and thus will be subject to and commit a disproportionately less amount of crime. If however, that lesser amount is more than the factoring of wealth would imply, then such crimes need to be accounted for by hate crimes.

Crimes against whites are often more violent, not committed by people who know them, and often result in rape and murder where these are not necessary for criminal profit.

A 4 year old statistic of media purporting to show the amount of crime against whites is as concerning as government claims that most South Africans die from gun violence. According to the Forensic Service, most murdered people die from KNIFE violence, except in areas such as Gauteng, which still do not make gun violence the national most popular form of murder. The reason these statistics relating crimes against whites are concerning, is both because they are out of date, and because they tend not to be the sort of thing that is in the public domain. Also, there is a big difference between people killed by acquaintances, and those killed for their skin colour.

Okay, so we have the background which media ignored.

Are Red October 'white supremacists'?

If they are, any such rhetoric is missing. Their website quoted Edmund Burke and Martin Luther King. They are concerned about BEE, but as I will demonstrate below they have reason to be.

One media response was this:

Christi van der Westhuizen of Eye Witness News compares Red October to white supremacists... Despite no link! pic.twitter.com/XaiweWU4bQ
— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 12, 2013

So based on research not available, we are to condemn a movement as racist? A movement which did not use the old South African flag (not that that implies racism, a flag is a flag), did not make racist statements, and were largely concerned with crime.

Media called them racist for focussing on crimes against whites, on hate crime: not just interpersonal or opportunity crimes. Firstly, this hate crime spree is real and costs the economy a lot. The same sort of hate crimes also are committed against foreigners in South Africa, although our major political parties also seem not to be too concerned over that. This hate crime costs our industry base and agricultural base also: many farmers have and will leave the country, meaning jobs lost and our trade deficit increased.

Secondly, the Black Lawyers Association, or Black Business Forum, are not subjected to the same scrutiny, when they do in fact focus ostensibly seems to be to purely, more or less, look out for: advancing people based on the colour of their skin.

Thirdly, is it not acceptable for demographic groups to combat hate crimes aimed at that group? Is that not allowed? Are we not allowed to speak if people who happen to share our ethnicity are attacked, and if by that same ethnicity we would be targeted if in same place, time as they were?

The BEE Problem

White South Africans don't carry around pass books. The pass book, though should more rightly be called a passport book. Black and white areas were not randomly selected. The South African government granted independence and 'independent' government to multiple states which it considered to be independent of South Africa: the TBVC states. People who lived in these states would thus by the logic of the government require passports to enter another country. The current belief is that the states in question, and their similar case of North Cyprus, were not really other states. However, the pass idea was not some special torment dreamed up, but rather an attempt to justify something which is now widely condemned: apartheid: the dividing of South Africa into about 6 or 7 countries, each purportedly governing their own land area.

The problem with this, is that the division of the land was race based. It was based on classing people by their race. Not their culture, not their efficacy, not their education level, not their likes, not their dislikes, not their morality: their race.

What was behind this is race-based judgement. What was behind this was a Maxist sort of workings. The Nationalist Party was a left wing Socialist party, just as Hitler's National Socialists (NAZI party) were left wing and Marxist. Just also as Starlin and Lennin were marxists.

BEE follows the same premise: that people are not the individuals who walk the earth, but must be judged based on their skin colour.

BEE as a tax.

I by no means mean to say that black people are less competent than white people at business. I do believe however that competent black people should in any case be able to get a job without government help: unless we are to consider every white person racist: which would frankly be a racist thing to attempt.

A white person who builds up their business, is taxed by the government, in that they have to give 50 % of that business or whatever the industry based demand is, to someone who did not work for, build, care for: that business, often someone who is not educated or skilled in running businesses, and often someone who is linked to the Ruling Party. A company must hire a black person even if they are incompetent to do their job, over a white person who based on their education level, efficacy, skills, person skills, etcetera: would certainly be profitable, and effective in bringing in money for a company? A person who is incompetent to do their job is a liability for a company, they cost that company money they would otherwise have made off a competent candidate. If a person must be paid and cannot do the job they are paid to perform, because the government wants them to have money, then likewise this is a tax. Also, this is marxism.

BEE positive?

So, criticising BEE is probably a rational thing to do, given that rather than create true equality through better education, better policing, better infrastructure, which would allow black candidates alleged not to have an equal footing: the actual equality to get a job... government wants people who do not have the same footing or benefit to a company to be paid for the job which could have brought more profit for a company.

What happens if BEE is taken away? Will these people who are paid for jobs they did not earn on the merits ever be hired again? Can South Africa compete with countries who allow businesses to hire the best people for a job, rather than the one who happens by the 'accident'/'chance' of ethnicity to have darker skin?

Instead of letting Churches and temples and Mosques care for the poor: the people who for thousands of years have, we spend our taxpayer money on social grants. Infrastructure suffers, police are underfunded and often not hired on merit. Our judges are often not the best for the job but the right gender or colour to satisfy pea counters. We thus create that environment where more crime exists, and black people being often poorer, are hit harder by crime, because there is not policing to protect their communities. Without safe communities, schooling is more difficult. The cycle continues.

So what is the solution? The Lynching of scapegoats: foreigners burnt alive? Xenophobia? Blaming whites for things the whites you know probably didn't do?

Or is the solution to take recognizance of the truth: to realise that there is a problem: that racism, the blinding to truth due to skin colour, rules the system? To realise that BEE and socio-economic rights, and telling people the rich are bad: causes job losses through unreasonable strikes? Causes people to believe that they are 'economic freedom fighters'? Causes people to be prepared to die to gain a raise by force rather than by becoming a more profitable asset to a company? If I wanted a raise, should I not have wanted it because I earned it? Not because I won't work unless I am paid a massive raise that drives a company out of business? I would not be an asset to a company then, but a liability, a tax, enforced through a system that is not friendly to business, and thus not friendly to people who want to work.

So, what do Red October have to say?

To quote one of the protesters:

'So, let’s answer the criticisms leveled at Red October.
In 2009 white people represented 1.8% of murder victims, but make up 8% of the population.
By this statement E news is trying to indicate that white people, especially Afrikaners, are not victimized and are, in fact, nice and safe and complaining about nothing. Anyone fearing ‘white genocide’ is clearly a delusional fantasist.
Up until this point, any figures quoted by groups worried about the degree of violence focused on white populations were discredited as the South African Police Service does not routinely collect data on the ethnicity of victims and perpetrators of murder. Obviously that doesn’t make nice convincing TV news, so E has gone through the archives until they found a 4 year old statistic gathering dust in a corner. Want to disprove groups who spend an awful lot of effort trying to document murder rates through the devotion of their time to collating anecdotal reporting? Then where is your carefully researched analysis of murder over the past 19 years? Where is your statistical analysis of last year’s crime statistics that were released last month? Where is your evidence of the reliability of your single snapshot statistic from 2009?
So, let’s leave statistics aside – as Benjamin Disraeli reportedly said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
What is verifiable is the horrific brutality and savagery of farm murders in South Africa; if you have a strong stomach, Google it. Torture, rape, murder and mutilation are a legitimate and reasonable part of robbery or a wage dispute? I didn’t think so.
This march is ridiculous as it only focusses on crime against white people
I refer you back to the motivation for the protest above. This was against all crime, all murder, all rape, all violent attacks. No one in this country should have to live in fear. Yes, the focus shifted towards white victims of brutal farm attacks, but these were the people who could be bothered to get off their backsides and make a stand.
If all those who criticised the march on that basis stood up and arranged a protest against the complete lack of control that the ANC government has over crime in this country, then we’d attend that one too. But you haven’t, so we can’t.
The additional demand to scrap racial quotas such as Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment, etc, etc, proves that Red October is a front for racists who wish to return to apartheid.
It has escaped reporting, but organisers and speakers took great pains to point out that this is by no means a call to return to apartheid and that the system was fundamentally wrong.
All forms of discrimination are fundamentally wrong. None of them are positive. The ANC, however, insist on applying racial quotas and conditions on all areas of commerce and employment. How will it ever be fair that someone has to hand over large percentages of the business that they have worked hard to establish and make successful, just due to their skin colour?
The motivation for this protest also highlights the issue of education, asking for quality education for ALL children in this country. The ANC has had 19 years to focus on education, ensuring that every person can compete for jobs based on their abilities and qualifications rather than the melanin content of their skin. They have failed spectacularly – the government can’t even get textbooks into schools for the start of the school year! In order to cover for their incompetence and lack of motivation in this area, they impose employment quotas to give a thin veneer of success.
In the face of a difficult and hostile job market, many white families have had to rely on their entrepreneurial abilities to make a living. If you can’t get a job, you have to work for yourself in order to survive. The new focus of the government has now been to attack white ownership of business, to demand that anyone who has worked hard to establish a successful, profitable company now hands over a percentage of what they built up to black ownership.
There is one group determined to keep race a flashpoint in South Africa and that is the ANC. The ANC are just as obsessed with race as apartheid was, possibly more so.
As the title of this piece indicated, this experience has been a real eye opener. Caricatures mindlessly spouted by the media are being used unfairly to silence people’s concerns. I guess there are none so blind as those that refuse to see, and deaf as those that refuse to hear.
From a Brit living in South Africa – Claire Smith'

Claire Smith 'An eye opener' in MyNews 24 11th October 2013

The King and Queen of the tiny kingdom of Lesotho met the pope.

The Vatican has given this release about that tiny country within a country. Lesotho is entirely landlocked by South Africa.

Post by News.va English.

Stop Blaming Apartheid: ANC former leader bellows to the government!

A former member of the Ruling Party's National Executive Committee, and former Treasurer General of the African National Congress has demanded the government take responsibility for its own actions. The old communist playbook of blaming your predecessors, could no longer fly.

That said, another statement of Phosa's in an interview later the same day suggests he is taking a swipe at ANC leadership, possibly for political purposes.

Post by Business Report.

Post by Business Report.

Is Pope Francis mentally competent to do his job?

I feel uneasy over Pope Francis statements and actions: not just because what the catechism defines as sin he seems to brush aside: but saying lonely old men and unemployed youths are the Greatest evils... Is Pope Francis competent in his position? As a bishop he was not so unpredictable. Can anyone explain his unplanned imprecise words, is there some explanation which justifies his behaviour? Is he saying nuclear war, rape, and countless evils are not as bad as lonely old men? Is he lonely? Is that it?

His statements of an obsession with abortion, gay marriage, etcetera: that is not what I experience in parishes: if anything moral issues are not covered at all. He speaks of nuns needing to not be too spiritual: point me to a spiritual nun, because I don't know any. Nuns are deeply secular in behaviour and outlook. The type of nun who prays all day, as the saints desired nuns to be, is near non-existent, and as a result nunneries are dying. Pope Francis has seen no need to have clarifications made of his statements. He signs off on very bad translations of speeches. He doesn't read what he signs off on according to Vatican officials. And his very public 'humility' seems to be the opposite of humility and aimed at attention getting. Perhaps the Pope is lonely? Is that it? But he seems somewhat unpredictable.

For instance he says the Church must stop obsessing about things, and the next day he strongly condemns the things he said the Church obsessed about in that the Church condemned these things.

At first one reasons the pope like a leader in the Arab World: as speaking in hyperbole, but he is not speaking an embellishing language when he makes multiple strange unvetted statements,

As you know I am not one to respect personages, I treat everyone with the same respect, and I do follow procedures of respect where requisite such as respecting someone with power over me, or court etiquette: I believe the faith and what it says of papacy, but I will be honest if I am concerned. I am deeply concerned about Pope Francis. If he were a political leader I would call for resignation due to the loss of competence to fulfil a job satisfactorily. But he is the pope, and only he can determine his fitness for office. Whatever the reasons, I would like to hear explanations, thoughts to explain this.

The pope need not be impeccable, and is only infallible in certain circumstances, but a pope who has so little concern for the deep spiritual damage to the flock is something I am concerned by if that inference is fair and true.

The responses I have been subject to so far, range from acknowledgement of my concerns, to requests we pray for the pope, to people attacking my article as diabolic, to people believing the pope is a humanist who will destroy the faith. The Catholic Church has survived deeply evil popes, and the gate of hell will not overcome it. Jesus saying that suggests that there will be times when we think the gates of hell will submerge us in the devil. I do not believe this pope is evil. He was amongst the most faithful and orthodox and outspoken moral focussed archbishops. I respect what he has said. At the same time I think he may have lost touch with his surroundings. I am concerned he may not be functioning in fine form, and if so, then why is he not allowing others to vet his words to make sure they fit the position of a widely followed world leader? I have also been told that the Holy Spirit chooses the pope, though I do not see that in the dogma of the church: The Holy Spirit guides ex Cathedra (From the Chair) statements of the popes: of which only a few have been made: such as on the assumption of Mary, and possibly on women not being able to (notice: this is about impossibility not what ought to be, the church teaches that the process of anointment there does not work) be priests: both of which I believe were ex cathedra and followed the processes, and thus join Vatican II as dogma. On women priests, it relates to priests needing to be like Jesus in as many ways as is possible: this is also why priests tend to be celibate, and straight if the Canon Law has its way: to as closely channel Jesus Christ as possible. If Jesus had been a woman there would likely be the same dogma but against male priests.

The pope in general is speaking from a personal perspective not infallibility. And the pope's actions are personal acts of a human being. The man who becomes pope is still physically there. The pope is not God, and bad popes have been elected in the past. There is no great promise that the electors will choose the perfect candidate, only that God will protect certain statements and certain aspects of the Church.

The ageing population problem is certainly a great evil: our societies are undergoing under-population: not enough youths to replace the elderly retiring. Immigrants therefore come in to fill the vacuums as nature hates a vacuum, but immigrants are often not well adapted, and locals feel threatened and thus become xenophobic and violent. Lack of education and experience does leave unemployed youths, a result of ageing population. And in China and India bare branches: unemployed youths caused all the major revolutions, and unemployed and unmarried youths to be precise are dangerous. Bare branches is one example, gangsterism is another coincidental. Elderly if they opt for suicide, undermine the fabric of society, and make it seem that those without economic value are worthless. Perhaps the Pope's words could be stretched here and there, to be in line with reasoning. What I say of ageing population is me, not the pope. Also, if that were the case he would need to have said that it were the source of many an evil, not the greatest evil itself. Surely death and torments are the greatest evils, not unemployed youth and sad elderly populations. Maybe he doesn't want lazy nuns. Maybe he wants media to be kinder to the church and is reaching out to make headlines better... But is this how he acted as a bishop? Is this what a younger version of the man did? If he meant the things I would like him to mean, or if he is playing media or whatever else as some might want him to being, so be it. However, he doe not issue clarifications like other popes did. He seems almost obsessed with his own image and closeted off away from the de facto world. It seems as though he might have lost his inhibitions, and his firm grounding upon good faculties. This is not an unorthodox leader, but the man who was exiled from the Jesuits for standing up for the dogma of the Church. My worry is if he has lost his faculties, in a world where the faithful have learnt to rely heavily of a Vatican lead.