Archive for the ‘Apartheid’ Category

Monday 14 – Morning Star Online

In July, KEN KEABLE went to South Africa to attend the national congress of the South African Communist Party to receive a special recognition award on behalf of all the London Recruits. Here is his story

After the Rivonia trial ended in 1964, with Nelson Mandela and other leaders jailed for life, almost all other African National Congress (ANC) members had to go into exile to avoid arrest and torture.

Then they were faced with the problem: how were they to carry on their liberation struggle inside South Africa when they were outside?

A brilliant idea was put forward. The exiles would recruit young, white internationalists mainly in the London area people who had no personal connection with South Africa and were therefore not known to the racist regime.

We I was one of them would enter the country posing as tourists, business people or honeymoon couples, without arousing suspicion. In fact the regime assumed we were racists like them.

Some of the London Recruits, as we were called, were students at the London School of Economics and included several young Trotskyists belonging to the International Socialists; others had no political affiliation at all.

The great majority of the recruits were young workers members of the British Young Communist League or, in a few cases, the Communist Party. The expenses were met by the Soviet Union and some received training in the Soviet Union or Cuba.

In 2005 when I began researching and editing the book London Recruits: The Secret War Against Apartheid I was aware that there were other recruits but I knew very little as to who they were, how many there were or what they actually did.

Each of us only knew our own part of the story and we had kept that secret for decades, so deeply ingrained was our habit of a need for top secrecy. Besides, it seemed to belong to another era.

I was amazed at what I found. Some of us had smuggled large quantities of weapons, others did reconnaissance, helped uMkhonto we Sizwe (abbreviated as MK, meaning Spear of the Nation) fighters to enter the country or smuggled thousands of letters and packages into South Africa and put them in the post locally.

However, the main activity was to set off leaflet bombs or other leaflet distribution devices, alongside street broadcasts using amplified cassette players. We did that once a year every year from 1967 to 1971 each time hitting five cities simultaneously, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Durban, East London and Cape Town.

This made the newspaper headlines and told people that the ANC was not defeated. The leaflets brought news, gave advice on how to conduct the struggle and most importantly brought hope.

All royalties from the book go to the Nelson Mandela Childrens Fund.

While in South Africa, I visited the Museum of the Armed Struggle at Lilliesleaf Farm, Rivonia, which has a special section devoted to the London Recruits. Our story is now being made into a documentary film to be released next year.

The film company, Barefoot Rascals, has done a huge amount of research and British trade unions have given the project terrific support. Details about the film are on www.londonrecruits.com.

We now know the names of 66 London Recruits besides the Brits, these include four from the US, four from Ireland, one Greek, one Greek-Australian, one Frenchwoman and one, only recently discovered, comes from Britains Ugandan Asian community. She did her work in Botswana 13 of the 66 are women.

Three of them Sean Hosey, Alex Moumbaris and Marie-Jose Moumbaris were arrested and tortured.

This July saw the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the first of the London Recruits in South Africa.

How significant our efforts were is for others to judge. The South African people liberated themselves from the evil apartheid regime but we are happy to have played a part, however small.

The defeat of the apartheid regime struck a mighty blow against racism all round the world, not least in Britain, so we are grateful for that.

We were not busybodies, interfering in the internal affairs of another country that were none of our business.

Apartheid was a crime against humanity and capitalist Britain was involved up to its neck. The British Parliament founded the Union of South Africa on May 31 1910 as the unification of four previously separate British colonies on a basis of institutional racism.

Most British banks and big corporations and the finance institutions of the City of London invested heavily in apartheid South Africa and profited hugely from it, while the British diplomatic service did its utmost to protect South Africa from international sanctions.

Those institutions are still in place. That is why our struggle continues. As I said in my acceptance speech for the SACP award to the London Recruits, the ideals that motivated us in our youth are now more relevant than ever. We hope that our story will inspire people, especially the young, to fight for a better world.

I was impressed by the congress, which was attended by over 2,000 delegates. The SACP is growing rapidly and has over 284,000 members in more than 7,000 branches.

For me, besides the award ceremony, the main focus of what took place was the decision to reconfigure SACPs relationship with the ANC and allowing SACP candidates to stand in elections separately from ANC. This was preceded by the decision not to invite South Africas President Jacob Zuma to the congress.

Normally the ANC president who so far has also been the president of South Africa attends the congress and addresses it. This time he was pointedly not invited.

The decision to change the relationship between the SACP and the ANC was greeted with an outburst of dancing and singing that lasted over 15 minutes I was witnessing an historic turning point.

The resolution left the leadership more room for manoeuvre and allows for sensitive handling of the relationship. Many South Africans have a deep loyalty to the ANC because it was the instrument of their liberation and some of them may perceive the SACPs change of policy as a betrayal.

My impression was that the delegates were fed up with having to defend the indefensible just because the SACP was in government with the ANC and especially the corruption and what they call state capture by the wealthy Gupta family and their dubious relationship with President Zuma. I left feeling optimistic for the future.

Ken Keable is the editor of London Recruits: The Secret War Against Apartheid, which is available from the Morning Star or from any bookseller. For his acceptance speech, or to watch it on video (with the introduction by Ronnie Kasrils), visit www.londonrecruits.org.uk

Read more:

Monday 14 – Morning Star Online

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

‘Dagga laws’ from apartheid era – Expert – South African Broadcasting Corporation

=iwsPKd5Qt=: I)Ao_fM$`oOQ4vQ{i]}WknhGhLE~XX>VLYZh3revo;Q`wq+Cc`8!ZD]/8s[^;]Flk?}MnCFtaW#Zmc^co~Y?=>7;l’la;!XbwKJiWJ,Lw/c]cg;grEJHb{=!o!?uk#y,xOrji%r>p^7zsW6Oy&j,p //qrTB”*{n;nnvZ;yoVonw~__WbewOkqYwm[sIi{_2~}vr4|2.+Mt[n-G5;WRkst;vh~eT{[?^EGJMkGe9FQ2oO~{6bq9XvS{Du@:E1gW;i;kb’9;4FD={G””x6T^AbFYW@(T&do|E,;a{v|8?`{RQN~=oz-*r/^eD/ |qKrhlcTM i`8AJ+Fmg*J>0tJ0nJrRL–`(U`s}Ha>,mfV y$v!qdaZp”70]|q”;0/yE]XHDZ’s7~91!qo kXm2d{FF8T-w4e,,OAl@;m+_ AkmEBgha3&mR0_Zi]qwPHC0$]Vfd(K38c;0{Pu`6’$|tM1n7&3 &%F&N4VpVKAHu5CKE$gbWn|PAU Ce`PpIeBy1h+NH^4^ Qd#kYvN}7_5’LxogL3%E!yA`@Er L F?`W|~#/z!&rp)~ql’Ju&H2_&@MCm_t+kJ7+l B++0m”xFU~ 3m#3E,N”;E&gD.6|kqh!-_y`_qf !!0omJ!5yq@Y1Uk>FTwUpZknf1n+KUjcbSjzQ=OPv?}>t+pw-sF1X7a7},B0pyz?EMcV }ZAyM?S=8-Rk”wzuC)} kdz2?G-jlACUtT9tBK9 5Bhi9l$gi(#'{DMp>Ik?iu0~zz~6 sBZE[Hnqk2h0h~HV3^o#zGUaqh3]cziK9mQr:H$~Cwqq_}4[PI’E9″WrEn$LVJ6JlQsKR8E`]q.k6TwM,kaYwU(xba `a8i3Z,f&>HVn$oqGS*Vu9!TMK-}9{Hm.=6`JUN}_dK|{0OAwtz2f>zF|*3 1L-[YGJ02|h>,<.t4>%Ue_Utp%Ib(Y-t6M*rZymwGK’X 0ci^2 Fc l}E IuJOS?#OZ KvN9vBqSL8wAv(q3_4t,/~]CcG9b=dBz R&W$;a0.OD(*z;ST*0~^`?D{ ?d”P&Mjfz7wb $krN;ZsTC28]| t*[1:.j(,MNjF.bwLN=]pK(!jJg|Os3J5O@a==0$?S_,o.^`sKeLMiHw|+2fG7)Ys+3LM7yNjR@E$}`b$ Usle3;d”>A$Ly0M1-AzTh 7#?C?sgTuly]$P?)]n4EdL/j^06EGzK)!.DqSsDde,r @2[gKT9,S_d{BMa :&O`(!t{tb ‘Wh#&wMb$ck|Zv^yq kp!~Tq|i2GAG#4$T#b4dM 8Sd?Ia R,Pp ]uO7)n=1Kelf,+a7`M|:y!4T#}InELHd !(^Bw==?830 r#%4W5pdRUM-J|)auDN+TAGG18f+ &H%}$!%NcH!jXeVwOop_&mMBEl^Tgjm! %o5eiaDy%kmA]’1X:$Ra5^FG1=”GGBZT9);’:@Dv?anp1i’sdv0(D”yiHigr~rd’718RbCSwbPAA%LI$|LN~$8ZKo-hXxq”z%z|4~ZSIBK=L{K>=c8-$@V

XX(/5ss)rtQg :y%d(4*^hU#-]WJz6=oo.ecnN881$AO0 Zb%9oo}lGyPwmxA-,c#Qr_/*;EJ@Z/v9nF^33+[EVqnq c$6%.k/w)i=k;&cAtc`;vzBr>,@0TWt:`N.3|NUbj{pAOeoJ”` b- Ui3A1E8rM.t2`XC27c|e }]s*5S__MV[f~`_ !tkR]Vwyt[e;T)(G0v+9+derL4i*yf3N(!%PnWN)FVkqP+cJMGF oGxCdb2cc5[|AKUo3^fsiRo`iZmyiZkzX_Y[1xYs3/%xtg`’Mo]=l$WoZ.]-#WwOCL$#RnI}D!l6V+QG}~D`=MmxsMOkv`’g]?yK-TL3s.Oh AjI+/>0]z s=oZWHrAie f)eEXJPE0- j6EILx P@6dZc iR= {d1jR+-h0.M]?q{_![i>4Njr!_[JY<_ b e-j tro>#22’ObJh;W2WQ!3Q=nE&YDUx1#XUeJ9~C3gA]whP9C}4Kau _c”! 2;0T.(3YX3sn3U00>:8!g21&ufU2`n9p;2ML!s-`E}i}P8n{UjKn |w6=RmQo 7n CqE+P)p/:s(wOO’)]g@^h9Mq~aN|cAK _HdoIj/_9?8:tsN,R$vTTqX3|PtKR2Nig%)”LzWg yQ8TvP~1~-Cw3{^>l: :WkHzGhK*8r= =$7>UA&pI5Ke3@S

Read the original here:

‘Dagga laws’ from apartheid era – Expert – South African Broadcasting Corporation

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Apartheid spy boss’s memoirs insightful but disconcerting – Independent Online

I was not disappointed. Barnard has documented valuable information that provides insight into the negotiations. But he has also drawn his own conclusions, some of which, unfortunately, are not quite right.

I am grateful that a different dimension to this history will soon be available, as the late Dr Mario Oriani-Ambrosinis memoir, The Prince and I, is ready to be launched. Ambrosini, a constitutional law expert and adviser to the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) in negotiations, became the brilliant bane of both the ANC and the former National Party government.

His memoir, like all the others, is written from a subjective perspective. But Ambrosinis perspective is unique as he was an outsider operating on the inside. As a former history professor at Georgetown University, he understood the wider historical context and could draw parallels and lessons from experiences throughout the world.

Also as a libertarian, he approached the negotiations with an agenda to win the best possible democratic outcomes for our country with the greatest possible freedoms, and the greatest possible protection of those freedoms.

His memoir will break new ground in terms of what we know, and what we believed. However, until it becomes part of the public debate, it would be remiss of me not to respond to Barnards book. I too have a duty to complete the picture of the past for I am one the key protagonists.

Barnard has dedicated his chapter “Critical Talks” to what he calls one of the most important – and the most demanding parties to the negotiations: the IFP and Buthelezi.

Our positions, according to him, were more often right than wrong but the IFP endured obstacles to its participation on an equal footing with the ANC and the then government. A major obstacle was the Record of Understanding signed by the ANC and the government behind the IFPs back, which intended to make further negotiations bilateral, under the pretence of multiparty participation.

I disagree with Barnard, however, that our influence in the negotiation process gradually faded. If that were the case, there would have been no need for Nelson Mandela, FW de Klerk and me to sign a memorandum of understanding for reconciliation and peace just eight days before the 1994 election. It was understood that the election would not be credible without the IFPs participation as millions of South Africans would have been excluded from a “democratic” outcome.

The IFP secured substantial gains during the negotiations in the interests of a strong democracy. We tabled the need for social and economic rights, a constitutional court, independent organs of state controlling the executive, the recognition of indigenous and customary law, a federal state with provinces, and many other aspects of a modern constitution.

While others focused on the details of the transfer of power, the IFP looked ahead to the kind of democracy we were forging. We insisted on discussing issues such as the form of state, whether South Africa would be a unitary or a federal state, whether the powers of governance would be centralised or devolved, and how we could create checks and balances to limit unfettered power, which always produces corruption.

We insisted that the constitution contain a Bill of Rights. The ANC failed to see the need, believing a democratic government would never infringe on the rights of its people; and it was simply not on the governments agenda.

Securing a Bill of Rights and securing provinces were just two of the IFPs victories. One can hardly say that our influence was insubstantial.

But we faced obstacles, not least the fact that NIS was intercepting my communications and those of the IFP’s. This made it difficult to trust those we were negotiating with. One of the ANCs key negotiators, Cyril Ramaphosa, later told Ambrosini that they had been intercepting our faxes. It is no surprise Barnard now openly admits De Klerk would receive copies of IFP speeches before they were even delivered.

Barnard freely quotes from minutes of meetings between the IFP and the government. He feels equally at liberty to quote from what he repeatedly calls a confidential letter I wrote to my late friend Dr John Aspinall. Evidently, my personal correspondence was watched as carefully as my public statements.

I must admit I am rather disconcerted by Barnards verbatim recollection of my private correspondence. Evidently he still has copies of these covertly obtained confidential documents, which to my mind is not merely unethical but possibly illegal.

To a large extent, it was hardly necessary for national intelligence to intercept my communications, for the IFP had a habit, as Barnard relates, of putting everything in writing, handing out copies, and then reading everything out word for word.

Our reasons for doing this were quite simple. The IFP was willing to commit to a position. We didnt play the game of saying one thing in this meeting and something different in another. We also believed strongly in documenting a factual record for we had endured endless lies and propaganda against us. It was important that the facts were on record at the time, and for the future.

The campaign of propaganda and vilification are exactly what made Mandela uncomfortable and not entirely at ease whenever I came up in discussions with then justice minister Kobie Coetsee and Barnard, before his release. Mandela was uncomfortable with the lie propagated by the ANCs leadership-in-exile that I was an apartheid collaborator, because he knew full well that Oliver Tambo and Inkosi Luthuli had asked me to lead the KwaZulu government.

Because of this propaganda, my life was continually threatened while I served as chief minister. Having no private army such as Umkhonto weSizwe, and unable to issue a single firearm licence to the KwaZulu police, I was forced to seek the governments assistance with security for me and my ministers.

But Barnard overplays the extent to which national intelligence supported the KwaZulu government. It was not him who brought Jacob Zuma to me, but the Reverend CJ Mtetwa. I then took Zuma to see the king at his Enyokeni residence.

I have never done things for personal gain or advancement.

As Barnard points out, my principled stand on the issue of the king earned me nothing. This perhaps is where the IFPs approach to the negotiations differed from that of other participants.

We did, as Barnard says, have to become confrontational.

At times we did need to employ delay tactics and a boycott strategy.

However, none of it was done to advance the IFPs position in a democratic South Africa.

Our fundamental goal was to create a strong democracy in which we would serve in whatever capacity the people chose.

Many analysts still struggle to understand this truth at the heart of the IFP.

The record of the IFPs participation provides insight into the partys longevity and continued influence in South African politics. We maintain a legacy of putting principles first, honouring our commitments, and working in the best interests of all South Africans.

To some extent, this uncompromising approach has prevented the IFP from capturing the limelight, but it has provided South Africa with a trusted political leadership for whatever lies ahead. That is likely our greatest contribution to South Africa.

* Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi is an MP. He is the president of the IFP.

** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

The Sunday Independent

Continue reading here:

Apartheid spy boss’s memoirs insightful but disconcerting – Independent Online

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Makhosi Khoza: ANC hounds are worse than apartheid forces – Daily Maverick

Makhosi Khoza has been an ANC activist since she was 12 years old, but shes deeply distressed by her partys continued support of President Jacob Zuma and the hounding of his opponents.

Its common cause how I voted, she said on Tuesdays no confidence motion in Zuma. Obviously I cant betray my conscience.

Khoza, along with more than a handful of ANC Members of Parliament, made it clear that she would vote according to her conscience during the no confidence motion meaning she would vote against Zuma. The presidents supporters have called for her and others who refused to follow the party line to be punished after Zuma survived by a slim margin, with up to 39 ANC MPs voting against him or abstaining.

Its people that have no foresight. Its people that are denialists. It is people that dont love the ANC. Its people that want to protect what theyve accrued, said Khoza on the ANC leaders calling for disciplinary action to be taken against MPs suspected of voting against the president in the secret ballot.

Zuma and his key allies, such as Free State Premier Ace Magashule and ANC Womens League President Bathabile Dlamini, have said that errant MPs should face consequences, even though the Constitutional Court and former ANC presidents Thabo Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe have said MPs should be able to vote according to their obligations to the Constitution without fear of censure.

Theyre not different from the apartheid forces. In fact, theyre worse, said Khoza. During apartheid there was a common enemy that never pretended to be in the ANCs corner. Now, she said, ANC members pretend to be committed to building the country but are only trying to protect their self-interest, captured by capitalism. Evil has no colour, thats the point Im trying to say.

Khoza said she would not stoop to the level of her detractors and she will accept it if she is fired.

The mission has changed. The values have changed, she said, claiming that the ANC has been trapped by capitalisms benefits. There is a tendency to glorify and romanticise the liberation struggle as if everything was fine. The struggle movements had their problems Khoza saw people who were necklaced and almost lost her life when she tried to intervene.

She said Zumas problems were known before he came into power. I think the ANC should have recalled Zuma before this vote. Defending him only undermined the future of the party. Its just a crazy organisation, she said.

Khoza is still committed to saving the ANC, but she clearly believes the party is going in the wrong direction and, like other liberation movements across the continent, its losing public support as leaders enrich themselves and the party fails to hold them accountable.

Khoza refuted the official ANC statement claiming Zumas victory on Tuesday was a positive for the party. However, she said there were positives to take away from the vote. Some ANC MPs, more than any before in such a vote, understood the issues and stood up to the president. She said the public response to her stance had been humbling. To be honest with you its been quite overwhelming. Its been really, really positive.

Its come with a cost. Khoza choked up when she spoke of her children. She said her daughter was the most shaken by the death threats sent to both her and her family. But her 19-year-old son, who has grown up knowing only Khoza as a single parent, had also been severely affected.

My son actually at some stage was actually like, I think the police are actually treating you like a fugitive. She said the police would go to her house and ask her son who Khoza has been meeting with, where she is. Its really taking its toll on my kids, she said. That sometimes breaks me but I am resolute as I want to do it. The last thing they want me to do is retreat.

On 10 September, Khoza will face disciplinary charges from the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal. She believes the charges are politically motivated and theyve been laid against her specifically because shes spoken out against Zuma. Khoza said the result of the disciplinary hearing is a foregone conclusion. She wants to participate because she believes the ANCs principles should be applied equally, even if the president seems to have violated much of the partys rules.

Can Khoza continue to serve as an MP under Zumas leadership? What will she do now? Khoza would not answer questions about her future, only to say she would first go through her ANC KZN disciplinary proceedings. Do not be surprised after that if she chooses to resign from Parliament and focus on transforming the ANC ahead of its December conference, where Zuma will be replaced. DM

Photo: ANC MP Makhosi Khoza (GCIS)

Visit link:

Makhosi Khoza: ANC hounds are worse than apartheid forces – Daily Maverick

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Apartheid in the Holy Land | World news | The Guardian

In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: “Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.”

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.

The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or – I hope – to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: “I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro-freedom. I am anti- injustice, anti-oppression.”

But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.

comment@theguardian.com

Read more from the original source:

Apartheid in the Holy Land | World news | The Guardian

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Op-Ed: The tinkering has started against media freedom in post-apartheid SA – Daily Maverick

Op-Ed: The tinkering has started against media freedom in post-apartheid SA

When it comes to media freedom which is everyone’s freedom, we should never again have to use the fig leaf of I didnt know. BY JOE THLOLOE, who addressed the recent event, The Gathering Media Edition.

Allow me to start with a personal story that illustrates our current dilemma:

In 1977, I was a guest of the State, detained in Pietermaritzburg under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. My father was allowed to send me R10 a month, which I had to personally sign for at the Post Office. The Security Police would interrupt their torture sessions at the Alexandra Street Police Station and escort me to collect the money.

I remember one particular trip vividly. As the police were driving, they taunted me: Look at these people in the street and show us one oppressed black person. Look at those two they are laughing and enjoying themselves. Can you point out one unhappy person who looks oppressed?

I could not point to one but I insisted they were oppressed and unhappy.

When we got to the Post Office and we got out of the car, I was, as usual self-conscious because of the handcuffs and the leg chains. My hair stood wild because I hadnt combed it for days.

Two women walking past commented loudly in isiZulu: This one must be a ruthless killer. Thats why theyve shackled him this way. Look at his hair! He is a killer.

Their comments were as stinging as the taunts from the police, who saw only happy and satisfied Bantus. To them the baas had given us work and civilised us with education and religion. They were not different from the women who wrote my biography in their minds.

I knew the women because I spoke their language and lived with them in Orlando East and in Sofasonke Mpanzas Shantytown in Johannesburg and in Sobantu and Edendale in Pietermaritzburg. I knew the pain hidden behind their laughter.

The policemen would probably tell the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that they didnt know the effects of apartheid: they had been indoctrinated to believe that what their leaders were doing was for the good of the Bantu and die Vaderland.

We were a country divided: the one side not hearing the other. And those of us who tried to tell what we thought was the truth ended up in jail, in exile, gagged from publishing anything or working as journalists, or we ended up dead. You will remember the Nat Nakasas, the Can Thembas, the Juby Mayets, the Thami Mazwais, the Thenji Mtintsos, the Ernest Coles each one of us here will have his or her list.

Its these ugly memories that stoke my passion for freedom of expression, for freedom of the press and other media. We should never again have to use the fig leaf of I didnt know.

It has been 21 years since our founding fathers, the 490 members of the Constitutional Assembly, collated the collective wisdom of the country into the Constitution of South Africa. In one phase they received 250,000 submissions from the public.

And it is out of this collective wisdom that they wrote:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes:

(a) freedom of the press and other media;

(b) freedom to receive and impart information or ideas;

The authors were already planning the utopia materialising before us now each man, woman, and child becoming his or her own news editor, reporter, sub-editor and distributor all at the click of a button on his or her own device.

All settled 21 years ago. So why should we be discussing this today when this Gathering should be about new issues like the technology revolution that has changed our work life, about lies that have been wrapped in fancy ribbons and called fake news if its fake it cant be news or about how to improve the quality of our journalism.

Sadly, we South Africans glossed over Section 16 of the Constitution and did not assimilate it into our culture in spite of several important decisions by our courts, including the Constitutional Court.

The courts have, for example, stated:

The Constitution recognises that people in our society must be able to hear, form and express opinions freely. For freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy. It is valuable both for its intrinsic importance and because it is instrumentally useful. It is useful in protecting democracy, by informing citizens, encouraging debate and enabling folly and misgovernance to be exposed. It also helps the search for truth by both individuals and society generally. If society represses views it considers unacceptable, they may never be exposed as wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and enables us to scrutinise political argument and deliberate social values.

(As an aside, let me point out that when a Penny Sparrow tweets that blacks are monkeys, she hasnt taken anything from me. I know Im not a monkey, she and her readers know that Im not a monkey. I can respond via Twitter or any other media and show how ridiculous she is. When I scream Racist! and use state resources to pursue her, Im caught in a puerile game and the nation chases a red herring our attention is diverted from the real issues of poverty and regression and theft in our society.)

Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are cornerstones of our democracy and when we temper with these we endanger the very fabric of the society we have known since 1996.

This tinkering has started.

In recent weeks, for example, the South African National Editors Forum and 11 journalists, commentators and editors asked the High Court in Johannesburg for an urgent interdict against Black First Land First (BLF) members, to stop them from harassing, intimidating, assaulting and threatening journalists.

The BLF has largely ignored the court order and continues harassing journalists. For example, Micah Reddy of amaBhungane, was accosted by BLF supporters as he left a TV production set in Braamfontein, Johannesburg on 18 July, just days after the interdict.

Some residents in Coligny in the North West have harassed journalists covering protests there.

A few journalists have also complained about the harsh treatment they have received from the police.

A more ominous threat, however, is that of a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal, and it has been hanging over print media since the 2007 ANC conference in Polokwane. The ANC was part of the Constitutional Assembly that gave us Section 16.

It is not just the threat of a statutory MAT that bothers the media it is the anti-media rhetoric that accompanies this threat, which could be fuelling the violence against journalists. The ANC might appear to be on the side of the angels when it speaks out against the BLF thugs the ANC brandishes the Constitution as it does this – but it is inadvertently encouraging the BLF anti-media posture with its own rhetoric around the Media Appeals Tribunal.

This country needs a more informed discussion of Section 16.

Personally, I dont fear that the MAT will materialise. the ConCourt will strike it down because it of the freedom of expression provisions in the constitution of the country. The tragedy of the exercise is that so much time and money taxpayers money will have been wasted on the road to the ConCourt.

A quick look at the arguments advanced by the ANC for wanting an MAT is revealing.

In its policy document on Communications, the ANC argues that self-regulation of print media in SA has failed as there are insufficient punitive measures which can be taken (for example no fines can be imposed).

The logic of this assertion eludes us. First, there is an unsubstatiated allegation that self-regulation has failed, and then instead of substantiating it, the authors bizarrely leap to insufficient punitive measures. The party has never shown how they arrive at the conclusion that it has failed.

Allow us to break this assertion to its components. Since 2013 the Press Council has defined itself as a system of independent co-regulation with the partners being the media and the public, and explicitly excluding government. This was done to comply with the recommendations of the Press Freedom Commission (PFC), led by the late former Chief Justice Pius Langa.

The architecture of the Press Council ensures this independence.

The Press Council, which in another organisation could be described as the board, is led by a retired judge, Judge Philip Levinsohn, former Deputy Judge President of KwaZulu-Natal. It is made up of eight media representatives and 8 public representatives. If you add eight public representatives and the chairperson, it is obvious that the non-media voice is the bigger one in the council. The constitution of the Press Council affirms its independence:

1.3 The constituent associations named in 1.2. explicitly guarantee the independence of the PCSA, so that it can act without fear or favour in the interests of a free and ethical press, and in pursuit of the aims and objectives set out below.

The constituent associations South African National Editors Forum, the Association of Independent Publishers, the Forum of Community Journalists, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau South Africa (online publishers) nominate the eight media representatives. The public representatives are appointed by an Appointments Panel, headed by another eminent jurist, Justice Yvonne Mokgoro, sitting with two media representatives and two public representatives. First, they advertise the positions in media across our land, then they draw up a shortlist of people to interview and make the appointments after the interviews. All South Africans over the age of 18 may apply. The Press Council found this a more open and democratic system than retaining seats for various sectors of society like the trade unions, the religious community, the legal fraternity/sorority, etc.

The third judge who sits at the pinnacle of the system is Judge Bernard Ngoepe, former Judge President of North and South Gauteng. He heads the Panel of Adjudicators, which consists of eight media representatives and ten public representatives. The appointments in the Panel of Adjudicators are made in the same way as those for the Press Council.

This is a truly independent co-regulatory system.

Now that we have correctly defined the system, we need to assess whether it has failed or not. The yardstick to measure success or failure is the promise that an individual or an organisation makes and the extent to which it lives up to that promise. The Press Council acknowledges that the South African Constitution states:

34. Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.

The Press Council is not a court of law, but sees itself an alternative dispute resolution mechanism providing a speedy and cost-effective process for resolving the complaints of readers. It is designed for people who want to clear their names quickly without having to spend thousands of rand for lawyers and years in the courts. It is not for those who are out for revenge, hoping to get sufficiently punitive measures against publications; that is the terrain of law enforcement agencies and the courts.

Last year, for example, 536 people used our system. They knew right from the beginning what they were letting themselves in for. We made it clear what they can expect from the system.

Total number of complaints received:

That having being said, we can get to the nub of this argument. The right to choose is at the heart of our democracy; publications choose to be members of the Press Council, they are not forced to be. Any attempt to force publications to be part of any forum that prescribes journalistic standards will be struck down by the Constitutional Court. Our standards are set by the member publications and their readers and are not imposed from outside the newsroom. Member publications sign up because they truly embrace these high standards of journalism and ethical conduct. It is good business.

All that the Press Council offers is an alternative to expensive and long-drawn out litigation.

So many people have sacrificed their lives for the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. None of us here believes they suffered or died in vain. We need to honour them.

Ask yourself: How much am I prepared to pay to preserve these freedoms? Is my voice loud enough against those who threaten freedom of expression?

Freedom of expression is not just for journalists, it for everyone, to quote the Constitution. DM

Joe Thloloe presented this speech to The Gathering The Media Edition, last week. Thloloe is a veteran journalist, former press ombudsman and current director of the Press Council of South Africa

Photo: In this file photo of 2010, a protester joins a silent march agains the Protection of State Information Bill, which has yet to be signed into law by the President. The threat of a statutory Medial Appeals Tribunal also hangs over the media. Photo Kim Ludbrook/(EPA)

See the article here:

Op-Ed: The tinkering has started against media freedom in post-apartheid SA – Daily Maverick

Fair Usage Law

August 11, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

It’s apartheid, PAGE says of plastic cup segregation – Free Malaysia Today

Founder Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim says such practices are an effort to demean other religions.

PETALING JAYA: An education group has described the segregation of plastic cups for Muslim and non-Muslim students at a school here, as a form of apartheid that must be stopped.

But instead of blacks and whites, its Muslims and non-Muslims.

Parents who have a problem with their kids sharing cups should just get them to bring their own. In fact, bring your own drinks, Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim, the founder of Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE), said.

She was commenting on a photo that went viral recently, of plastic cups bearing the labels Muslims and non-Muslims that were placed beside a drinking water dispenser at Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Puteri in Hulu Langat.

Azimah said while the matter may seem trivial or inconsequential to some, it had wide implications.

For her, it appeared to be an effort to demean other races and religions.

Azimah compared such practices to those in the past like Nazi Germanys treatment of the Jews, and the ethnic division between the Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority in Rwanda.

It is a direction which is detrimental to the integration and acceptance of all ethnicities in Malaysia. Islam is a simple religion and does not exist to cause hardship for anyone.

The Centre For A Better Tomorrow, a civil society group that champions moderation, described the practice as a colossal misconduct on the part of the school and said it was akin to a crime against humanity.

We are teaching them to live in a divisive world at a young age, its co-founder Gan Ping Sieu said when contacted.

The former deputy minister said if society continued to condone such bigotry as adults, they would be guilty of destroying the unity forged by the nations forefathers.

Gan said religious leaders must also play their part by rectifying such misguided mentalities.

A visit to Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Puteri by FMT yesterday found that the school had separated the cups, which were placed next to a drinking water dispenser in the walkway of one of the blocks.

The cups were labelled Muslims and non-Muslims.

A canteen worker said the practice began last year under the schools principal, who was transferred last month after a four-year tenure.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Read this article:

It’s apartheid, PAGE says of plastic cup segregation – Free Malaysia Today

Fair Usage Law

August 11, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Post-Apartheid, Zuma And Black Re-construction | News24 – News24

White race iniquity in Africa entered Southern Africa with serial blasts of violence. Armies of European raiders, robbers and arsonists swept across the region with dynamites, guns and Bible, decimating and destroying erstwhile peaceful and prosperous indigenous societies.

An anti-climax of this organized barbarity was the establishment of apartheid rule in South Africa. Apartheid categorized the black indigenous of the land as sub-humans fit for all evil treatment conceivable by white conscience. It reduced black people to mere raw materials for white economic property. The Sharpeville massacre of March 21 1960 was a most naked exhibition of white mans definition of decent response to the cry of the oppressed for liberty and comfort. For standing against apartheid rule in South Africa, the likes of Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela were targeted by the racist and illegitimate Boer (white) leadership of the segregated country. Steve Biko was beaten and tortured to death. Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years in solitary confinement!

In recent years, about a decade and a half since apartheid was officially wound-down, the international community has been receiving news of intermittent violence in the so-called Rainbow Country. A Truth Commission was once set-up to settle grievances spewing from decades of extreme white iniquity in South Africa. The post-apartheid eruptions in black South Africa since that Commission concluded its task clearly mirror the fact that post-apartheid black South Africa is far from rehabilitated.

After the gruesome murder of protecting black miners by South Africa police authorities a few year ago, xenophobic attacks have been happening against blacks from other Africa countries. Black South Africans accuse their brothers and sisters from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Mozambique, Zambia and elsewhere of denying them jobs and other economic opportunities due to them in their country. Black South Africas defense of its campaign of brutal assault against fellow black is as illogical as the arguments often put forward by US police authorities in respect of their cold-blooded murder of African-Americans.

The primary interest of white in any foreign territory he is able to enter and occupy is profit! White man is dangerously red-eyes for economic power and is ever plotting to protect and continually enhance his illegitimate economic advantage. The recommendations of South Africas Truth commission that was set-up to address gross human-rights abuses perpetrated by its white population in the years of apartheids brutal existence are more insulting than disappointing. Part of its recommendation was that each victim or family (blacks) should receive approximately $3,500 every year for six years. Meaning, at best, what black victims of any degree of inhumanity visited on them by white South Africans are entitled to; as far as financial compensation is concerned, is $21,000! And to imagine that the paltry sum was to be paid in a long spread of six-years tells white South Africa attended the Truth Communication without repentance!

Today, the post-apartheid refusal of white South Africans to support genuine economic rehabilitation of black South Africa is producing violent outcomes that are, expectedly, being blamed on black people. Whites such as the Oppenheimer and Rhodes families freely looted South Africa for many decades and are still extracting enormous profit from that territory till this day on the black, sweat and blood of black South Africa! They grew stupendously rich by robbing, enslaving and killing blacks in South Africa. These evidently criminal white families control the economic jugular of South Africa and have, since their successful scheming of the Truth Commission against adequate compensation and rehabilitation of black South Africans, been plotting to exercise effective control on political South Africa.

Black numerical superiority in South Africa is considered a viable threat to Boer economic dominance in the long-run. To avert the emergence of a black South Africa that is politically strong and organized enough to force white South Africa to concede to meaningful economic enhancement for black South Africans, the strategic harassment of anti-apartheid President Jacob Zuma arises. Boers are quietly determined to dominate and control profit in South Africa forever!

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24’s community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.

Visit link:

Post-Apartheid, Zuma And Black Re-construction | News24 – News24

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

DA’s plan to bring back era of colonialism and apartheid has been exposed ANCWL – Politicsweb

POLITICS DA’s plan to bring back era of colonialism and apartheid has been exposed ANCWL

Meokgo Matuba |

10 August 2017

Women’s league not shocked by party’s announcement that it will table a motion for dissolution of parliament

ANCWL statement on the DA motion to dissolve Parliament

10 August 2017

The African National Congress Women’s League (ANCWL) is not surprised nor shocked by Democratic Alliance (DA) announcement that it will table a motion for the dissolution of parliament.

DA’s plan to bring back their highly praised era of colonialism and apartheid has been exposed and must be rejected. The DA’s plan to remove the democratically elected government from power, is motivated by its desire to defend the supremacy of minority in terms of land and economic ownership.

After realizing the seriousness of the ANC to implement the radical economic transformation (RET) which is for the benefit of the majority of black people and women, the DA funded by the imperialists is hellbent in ensuring that the RET program fails. The intention of the DA to dissolve parliament means not having oversight to government departments and will negatively impact the provision of much needed services to the poor and the working class.

South Africans must take note that the DA has never had the interests of the people in particular Africans at heart. It has never supported budget votes passed in Parliament to enable government departments to deliver much needed services to the poor and the working class. DA is not pleased with some of the following achievements by the ANC led government which benefits majority of people:

– Housing Nearly 500 informal settlements replaced with quality housing and basic services. Three million free houses built, benefiting more than 16 million people.

– Water Approximately 93% of South Africans accessing potable water.

– Electricity Approximately 12 million accessing to electricity.

– Education More than nine million children attending no-fee schools, whilst nine million children are also provided with free meals at school. All children in public schools receiving free stationary. In 2016 over R14 billion was disbursed as loans and bursaries supporting approximately 480 000 poor undergraduate students to access universities and TVET colleges.

– Social welfare In providing temporary intervention to fight poverty ravaging millions of people and around 17 million people receiving social support grants.

– Healthcare All HIV positive South Africans qualifying for anti-retroviral treatment regardless of their CD4 count.

The ANCWL calls it’s supporters, members and society at large to support government initiatives aimed at improving the lives of the poor and working class. Despite different political ideologies South Africans must join hands to built united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic prosperous country.

Issued byMeokgo Matuba, ANCWL Secretary General, 10 August 2017

See more here:

DA’s plan to bring back era of colonialism and apartheid has been exposed ANCWL – Politicsweb

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Monday 14 – Morning Star Online

In July, KEN KEABLE went to South Africa to attend the national congress of the South African Communist Party to receive a special recognition award on behalf of all the London Recruits. Here is his story After the Rivonia trial ended in 1964, with Nelson Mandela and other leaders jailed for life, almost all other African National Congress (ANC) members had to go into exile to avoid arrest and torture. Then they were faced with the problem: how were they to carry on their liberation struggle inside South Africa when they were outside? A brilliant idea was put forward. The exiles would recruit young, white internationalists mainly in the London area people who had no personal connection with South Africa and were therefore not known to the racist regime. We I was one of them would enter the country posing as tourists, business people or honeymoon couples, without arousing suspicion. In fact the regime assumed we were racists like them. Some of the London Recruits, as we were called, were students at the London School of Economics and included several young Trotskyists belonging to the International Socialists; others had no political affiliation at all. The great majority of the recruits were young workers members of the British Young Communist League or, in a few cases, the Communist Party. The expenses were met by the Soviet Union and some received training in the Soviet Union or Cuba. In 2005 when I began researching and editing the book London Recruits: The Secret War Against Apartheid I was aware that there were other recruits but I knew very little as to who they were, how many there were or what they actually did. Each of us only knew our own part of the story and we had kept that secret for decades, so deeply ingrained was our habit of a need for top secrecy. Besides, it seemed to belong to another era. I was amazed at what I found. Some of us had smuggled large quantities of weapons, others did reconnaissance, helped uMkhonto we Sizwe (abbreviated as MK, meaning Spear of the Nation) fighters to enter the country or smuggled thousands of letters and packages into South Africa and put them in the post locally. However, the main activity was to set off leaflet bombs or other leaflet distribution devices, alongside street broadcasts using amplified cassette players. We did that once a year every year from 1967 to 1971 each time hitting five cities simultaneously, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Durban, East London and Cape Town. This made the newspaper headlines and told people that the ANC was not defeated. The leaflets brought news, gave advice on how to conduct the struggle and most importantly brought hope. All royalties from the book go to the Nelson Mandela Childrens Fund. While in South Africa, I visited the Museum of the Armed Struggle at Lilliesleaf Farm, Rivonia, which has a special section devoted to the London Recruits. Our story is now being made into a documentary film to be released next year. The film company, Barefoot Rascals, has done a huge amount of research and British trade unions have given the project terrific support. Details about the film are on www.londonrecruits.com. We now know the names of 66 London Recruits besides the Brits, these include four from the US, four from Ireland, one Greek, one Greek-Australian, one Frenchwoman and one, only recently discovered, comes from Britains Ugandan Asian community. She did her work in Botswana 13 of the 66 are women. Three of them Sean Hosey, Alex Moumbaris and Marie-Jose Moumbaris were arrested and tortured. This July saw the 50th anniversary of the arrival of the first of the London Recruits in South Africa. How significant our efforts were is for others to judge. The South African people liberated themselves from the evil apartheid regime but we are happy to have played a part, however small. The defeat of the apartheid regime struck a mighty blow against racism all round the world, not least in Britain, so we are grateful for that. We were not busybodies, interfering in the internal affairs of another country that were none of our business. Apartheid was a crime against humanity and capitalist Britain was involved up to its neck. The British Parliament founded the Union of South Africa on May 31 1910 as the unification of four previously separate British colonies on a basis of institutional racism. Most British banks and big corporations and the finance institutions of the City of London invested heavily in apartheid South Africa and profited hugely from it, while the British diplomatic service did its utmost to protect South Africa from international sanctions. Those institutions are still in place. That is why our struggle continues. As I said in my acceptance speech for the SACP award to the London Recruits, the ideals that motivated us in our youth are now more relevant than ever. We hope that our story will inspire people, especially the young, to fight for a better world. I was impressed by the congress, which was attended by over 2,000 delegates. The SACP is growing rapidly and has over 284,000 members in more than 7,000 branches. For me, besides the award ceremony, the main focus of what took place was the decision to reconfigure SACPs relationship with the ANC and allowing SACP candidates to stand in elections separately from ANC. This was preceded by the decision not to invite South Africas President Jacob Zuma to the congress. Normally the ANC president who so far has also been the president of South Africa attends the congress and addresses it. This time he was pointedly not invited. The decision to change the relationship between the SACP and the ANC was greeted with an outburst of dancing and singing that lasted over 15 minutes I was witnessing an historic turning point. The resolution left the leadership more room for manoeuvre and allows for sensitive handling of the relationship. Many South Africans have a deep loyalty to the ANC because it was the instrument of their liberation and some of them may perceive the SACPs change of policy as a betrayal. My impression was that the delegates were fed up with having to defend the indefensible just because the SACP was in government with the ANC and especially the corruption and what they call state capture by the wealthy Gupta family and their dubious relationship with President Zuma. I left feeling optimistic for the future. Ken Keable is the editor of London Recruits: The Secret War Against Apartheid, which is available from the Morning Star or from any bookseller. For his acceptance speech, or to watch it on video (with the introduction by Ronnie Kasrils), visit www.londonrecruits.org.uk

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

‘Dagga laws’ from apartheid era – Expert – South African Broadcasting Corporation

=iwsPKd5Qt=: I)Ao_fM$`oOQ4vQ{i]}WknhGhLE~XX> VLYZ h3revo;Q`wq+Cc`8!ZD]/8s[^;]Flk?}MnCFtaW#Zmc^co~Y?=> 7;l’la;!XbwKJiWJ,Lw/c]cg; ziK9mQr:H$~Cwqq_}4[PI’E9″WrEn$LVJ6JlQsKR8E`]q.k6TwM,kaYwU(xba `a8i3Z,f&> HVn$oqGS*Vu9!TM K-}9{Hm.=6`JUN zF|*3 1L-[YGJ02|h> , %Ue_Utp%Ib(Y-t6M*rZymwGK’X 0ci^2 Fc l}E IuJOS?#OZ KvN9vBqSL8wAv(q3_4t,/ +2fG7)Ys+3LM7yNjR@E$}`b$ Usle3;d”> A$Ly0M1-AzTh 7#?C?sgTuly]$P?)]n4EdL/j^06EGzK)!.DqSsDde,r @2[gKT9,S_d{BMa :&O`(!t{tb ‘Wh#&wMb$ck|Zv^yq kp!~Tq|i2GAG#4$T#b4dM 8Sd?Ia R,Pp ]uO7)n=1Ke =oo.ecnN881$AO0 Zb%9oo}lGyPwmxA-,c#Qr_/*;EJ@Z/v9nF^33+[EVqnq c$6%.k/w)i=k;&cAtc`;vzBr> ,@0TWt:`N.3|NUbj{pAOeo J”` b- Ui3A1E8rM.t2`XC27c|e }]s*5S__MV[f~`_ !tkR]Vwyt[e;T)(G0v+ #22’ObJh;W2WQ!3Q=nE&YDUx1#XUeJ9~C3gA]whP9C}4Kau _c”! 2;0T.(3YX3sn3U00> :8!g21&ufU2`n9p;2ML!s-`E}i}P8n{UjKn |w6=RmQo 7n CqE+P)p/:s(wOO’)]g@^h9Mq~aN|cAK _HdoIj/_9?8:tsN,R$vTTqX3|PtKR2Nig%)”LzWg yQ8TvP~1~-Cw3{^> l: :WkHzGhK*8r= =$7> UA&pI5Ke3@S

Fair Usage Law

August 15, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Apartheid spy boss’s memoirs insightful but disconcerting – Independent Online

I was not disappointed. Barnard has documented valuable information that provides insight into the negotiations. But he has also drawn his own conclusions, some of which, unfortunately, are not quite right. I am grateful that a different dimension to this history will soon be available, as the late Dr Mario Oriani-Ambrosinis memoir, The Prince and I, is ready to be launched. Ambrosini, a constitutional law expert and adviser to the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) in negotiations, became the brilliant bane of both the ANC and the former National Party government. His memoir, like all the others, is written from a subjective perspective. But Ambrosinis perspective is unique as he was an outsider operating on the inside. As a former history professor at Georgetown University, he understood the wider historical context and could draw parallels and lessons from experiences throughout the world. Also as a libertarian, he approached the negotiations with an agenda to win the best possible democratic outcomes for our country with the greatest possible freedoms, and the greatest possible protection of those freedoms. His memoir will break new ground in terms of what we know, and what we believed. However, until it becomes part of the public debate, it would be remiss of me not to respond to Barnards book. I too have a duty to complete the picture of the past for I am one the key protagonists. Barnard has dedicated his chapter “Critical Talks” to what he calls one of the most important – and the most demanding parties to the negotiations: the IFP and Buthelezi. Our positions, according to him, were more often right than wrong but the IFP endured obstacles to its participation on an equal footing with the ANC and the then government. A major obstacle was the Record of Understanding signed by the ANC and the government behind the IFPs back, which intended to make further negotiations bilateral, under the pretence of multiparty participation. I disagree with Barnard, however, that our influence in the negotiation process gradually faded. If that were the case, there would have been no need for Nelson Mandela, FW de Klerk and me to sign a memorandum of understanding for reconciliation and peace just eight days before the 1994 election. It was understood that the election would not be credible without the IFPs participation as millions of South Africans would have been excluded from a “democratic” outcome. The IFP secured substantial gains during the negotiations in the interests of a strong democracy. We tabled the need for social and economic rights, a constitutional court, independent organs of state controlling the executive, the recognition of indigenous and customary law, a federal state with provinces, and many other aspects of a modern constitution. While others focused on the details of the transfer of power, the IFP looked ahead to the kind of democracy we were forging. We insisted on discussing issues such as the form of state, whether South Africa would be a unitary or a federal state, whether the powers of governance would be centralised or devolved, and how we could create checks and balances to limit unfettered power, which always produces corruption. We insisted that the constitution contain a Bill of Rights. The ANC failed to see the need, believing a democratic government would never infringe on the rights of its people; and it was simply not on the governments agenda. Securing a Bill of Rights and securing provinces were just two of the IFPs victories. One can hardly say that our influence was insubstantial. But we faced obstacles, not least the fact that NIS was intercepting my communications and those of the IFP’s. This made it difficult to trust those we were negotiating with. One of the ANCs key negotiators, Cyril Ramaphosa, later told Ambrosini that they had been intercepting our faxes. It is no surprise Barnard now openly admits De Klerk would receive copies of IFP speeches before they were even delivered. Barnard freely quotes from minutes of meetings between the IFP and the government. He feels equally at liberty to quote from what he repeatedly calls a confidential letter I wrote to my late friend Dr John Aspinall. Evidently, my personal correspondence was watched as carefully as my public statements. I must admit I am rather disconcerted by Barnards verbatim recollection of my private correspondence. Evidently he still has copies of these covertly obtained confidential documents, which to my mind is not merely unethical but possibly illegal. To a large extent, it was hardly necessary for national intelligence to intercept my communications, for the IFP had a habit, as Barnard relates, of putting everything in writing, handing out copies, and then reading everything out word for word. Our reasons for doing this were quite simple. The IFP was willing to commit to a position. We didnt play the game of saying one thing in this meeting and something different in another. We also believed strongly in documenting a factual record for we had endured endless lies and propaganda against us. It was important that the facts were on record at the time, and for the future. The campaign of propaganda and vilification are exactly what made Mandela uncomfortable and not entirely at ease whenever I came up in discussions with then justice minister Kobie Coetsee and Barnard, before his release. Mandela was uncomfortable with the lie propagated by the ANCs leadership-in-exile that I was an apartheid collaborator, because he knew full well that Oliver Tambo and Inkosi Luthuli had asked me to lead the KwaZulu government. Because of this propaganda, my life was continually threatened while I served as chief minister. Having no private army such as Umkhonto weSizwe, and unable to issue a single firearm licence to the KwaZulu police, I was forced to seek the governments assistance with security for me and my ministers. But Barnard overplays the extent to which national intelligence supported the KwaZulu government. It was not him who brought Jacob Zuma to me, but the Reverend CJ Mtetwa. I then took Zuma to see the king at his Enyokeni residence. I have never done things for personal gain or advancement. As Barnard points out, my principled stand on the issue of the king earned me nothing. This perhaps is where the IFPs approach to the negotiations differed from that of other participants. We did, as Barnard says, have to become confrontational. At times we did need to employ delay tactics and a boycott strategy. However, none of it was done to advance the IFPs position in a democratic South Africa. Our fundamental goal was to create a strong democracy in which we would serve in whatever capacity the people chose. Many analysts still struggle to understand this truth at the heart of the IFP. The record of the IFPs participation provides insight into the partys longevity and continued influence in South African politics. We maintain a legacy of putting principles first, honouring our commitments, and working in the best interests of all South Africans. To some extent, this uncompromising approach has prevented the IFP from capturing the limelight, but it has provided South Africa with a trusted political leadership for whatever lies ahead. That is likely our greatest contribution to South Africa. * Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi is an MP. He is the president of the IFP. ** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media. The Sunday Independent

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Makhosi Khoza: ANC hounds are worse than apartheid forces – Daily Maverick

Makhosi Khoza has been an ANC activist since she was 12 years old, but shes deeply distressed by her partys continued support of President Jacob Zuma and the hounding of his opponents. Its common cause how I voted, she said on Tuesdays no confidence motion in Zuma. Obviously I cant betray my conscience. Khoza, along with more than a handful of ANC Members of Parliament, made it clear that she would vote according to her conscience during the no confidence motion meaning she would vote against Zuma. The presidents supporters have called for her and others who refused to follow the party line to be punished after Zuma survived by a slim margin, with up to 39 ANC MPs voting against him or abstaining. Its people that have no foresight. Its people that are denialists. It is people that dont love the ANC. Its people that want to protect what theyve accrued, said Khoza on the ANC leaders calling for disciplinary action to be taken against MPs suspected of voting against the president in the secret ballot. Zuma and his key allies, such as Free State Premier Ace Magashule and ANC Womens League President Bathabile Dlamini, have said that errant MPs should face consequences, even though the Constitutional Court and former ANC presidents Thabo Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe have said MPs should be able to vote according to their obligations to the Constitution without fear of censure. Theyre not different from the apartheid forces. In fact, theyre worse, said Khoza. During apartheid there was a common enemy that never pretended to be in the ANCs corner. Now, she said, ANC members pretend to be committed to building the country but are only trying to protect their self-interest, captured by capitalism. Evil has no colour, thats the point Im trying to say. Khoza said she would not stoop to the level of her detractors and she will accept it if she is fired. The mission has changed. The values have changed, she said, claiming that the ANC has been trapped by capitalisms benefits. There is a tendency to glorify and romanticise the liberation struggle as if everything was fine. The struggle movements had their problems Khoza saw people who were necklaced and almost lost her life when she tried to intervene. She said Zumas problems were known before he came into power. I think the ANC should have recalled Zuma before this vote. Defending him only undermined the future of the party. Its just a crazy organisation, she said. Khoza is still committed to saving the ANC, but she clearly believes the party is going in the wrong direction and, like other liberation movements across the continent, its losing public support as leaders enrich themselves and the party fails to hold them accountable. Khoza refuted the official ANC statement claiming Zumas victory on Tuesday was a positive for the party. However, she said there were positives to take away from the vote. Some ANC MPs, more than any before in such a vote, understood the issues and stood up to the president. She said the public response to her stance had been humbling. To be honest with you its been quite overwhelming. Its been really, really positive. Its come with a cost. Khoza choked up when she spoke of her children. She said her daughter was the most shaken by the death threats sent to both her and her family. But her 19-year-old son, who has grown up knowing only Khoza as a single parent, had also been severely affected. My son actually at some stage was actually like, I think the police are actually treating you like a fugitive. She said the police would go to her house and ask her son who Khoza has been meeting with, where she is. Its really taking its toll on my kids, she said. That sometimes breaks me but I am resolute as I want to do it. The last thing they want me to do is retreat. On 10 September, Khoza will face disciplinary charges from the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal. She believes the charges are politically motivated and theyve been laid against her specifically because shes spoken out against Zuma. Khoza said the result of the disciplinary hearing is a foregone conclusion. She wants to participate because she believes the ANCs principles should be applied equally, even if the president seems to have violated much of the partys rules. Can Khoza continue to serve as an MP under Zumas leadership? What will she do now? Khoza would not answer questions about her future, only to say she would first go through her ANC KZN disciplinary proceedings. Do not be surprised after that if she chooses to resign from Parliament and focus on transforming the ANC ahead of its December conference, where Zuma will be replaced. DM Photo: ANC MP Makhosi Khoza (GCIS)

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Apartheid in the Holy Land | World news | The Guardian

In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders. What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about. On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes? I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: “Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.” My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden? Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured. The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred. Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or – I hope – to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders. We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land? My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: “I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro-freedom. I am anti- injustice, anti-oppression.” But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures? People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful – very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust. Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment. We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers. Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times. comment@theguardian.com

Fair Usage Law

August 13, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Op-Ed: The tinkering has started against media freedom in post-apartheid SA – Daily Maverick

Op-Ed: The tinkering has started against media freedom in post-apartheid SA When it comes to media freedom which is everyone’s freedom, we should never again have to use the fig leaf of I didnt know. BY JOE THLOLOE, who addressed the recent event, The Gathering Media Edition. Allow me to start with a personal story that illustrates our current dilemma: In 1977, I was a guest of the State, detained in Pietermaritzburg under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. My father was allowed to send me R10 a month, which I had to personally sign for at the Post Office. The Security Police would interrupt their torture sessions at the Alexandra Street Police Station and escort me to collect the money. I remember one particular trip vividly. As the police were driving, they taunted me: Look at these people in the street and show us one oppressed black person. Look at those two they are laughing and enjoying themselves. Can you point out one unhappy person who looks oppressed? I could not point to one but I insisted they were oppressed and unhappy. When we got to the Post Office and we got out of the car, I was, as usual self-conscious because of the handcuffs and the leg chains. My hair stood wild because I hadnt combed it for days. Two women walking past commented loudly in isiZulu: This one must be a ruthless killer. Thats why theyve shackled him this way. Look at his hair! He is a killer. Their comments were as stinging as the taunts from the police, who saw only happy and satisfied Bantus. To them the baas had given us work and civilised us with education and religion. They were not different from the women who wrote my biography in their minds. I knew the women because I spoke their language and lived with them in Orlando East and in Sofasonke Mpanzas Shantytown in Johannesburg and in Sobantu and Edendale in Pietermaritzburg. I knew the pain hidden behind their laughter. The policemen would probably tell the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that they didnt know the effects of apartheid: they had been indoctrinated to believe that what their leaders were doing was for the good of the Bantu and die Vaderland. We were a country divided: the one side not hearing the other. And those of us who tried to tell what we thought was the truth ended up in jail, in exile, gagged from publishing anything or working as journalists, or we ended up dead. You will remember the Nat Nakasas, the Can Thembas, the Juby Mayets, the Thami Mazwais, the Thenji Mtintsos, the Ernest Coles each one of us here will have his or her list. Its these ugly memories that stoke my passion for freedom of expression, for freedom of the press and other media. We should never again have to use the fig leaf of I didnt know. It has been 21 years since our founding fathers, the 490 members of the Constitutional Assembly, collated the collective wisdom of the country into the Constitution of South Africa. In one phase they received 250,000 submissions from the public. And it is out of this collective wisdom that they wrote: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes: (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive and impart information or ideas; The authors were already planning the utopia materialising before us now each man, woman, and child becoming his or her own news editor, reporter, sub-editor and distributor all at the click of a button on his or her own device. All settled 21 years ago. So why should we be discussing this today when this Gathering should be about new issues like the technology revolution that has changed our work life, about lies that have been wrapped in fancy ribbons and called fake news if its fake it cant be news or about how to improve the quality of our journalism. Sadly, we South Africans glossed over Section 16 of the Constitution and did not assimilate it into our culture in spite of several important decisions by our courts, including the Constitutional Court. The courts have, for example, stated: The Constitution recognises that people in our society must be able to hear, form and express opinions freely. For freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy. It is valuable both for its intrinsic importance and because it is instrumentally useful. It is useful in protecting democracy, by informing citizens, encouraging debate and enabling folly and misgovernance to be exposed. It also helps the search for truth by both individuals and society generally. If society represses views it considers unacceptable, they may never be exposed as wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and enables us to scrutinise political argument and deliberate social values. (As an aside, let me point out that when a Penny Sparrow tweets that blacks are monkeys, she hasnt taken anything from me. I know Im not a monkey, she and her readers know that Im not a monkey. I can respond via Twitter or any other media and show how ridiculous she is. When I scream Racist! and use state resources to pursue her, Im caught in a puerile game and the nation chases a red herring our attention is diverted from the real issues of poverty and regression and theft in our society.) Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are cornerstones of our democracy and when we temper with these we endanger the very fabric of the society we have known since 1996. This tinkering has started. In recent weeks, for example, the South African National Editors Forum and 11 journalists, commentators and editors asked the High Court in Johannesburg for an urgent interdict against Black First Land First (BLF) members, to stop them from harassing, intimidating, assaulting and threatening journalists. The BLF has largely ignored the court order and continues harassing journalists. For example, Micah Reddy of amaBhungane, was accosted by BLF supporters as he left a TV production set in Braamfontein, Johannesburg on 18 July, just days after the interdict. Some residents in Coligny in the North West have harassed journalists covering protests there. A few journalists have also complained about the harsh treatment they have received from the police. A more ominous threat, however, is that of a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal, and it has been hanging over print media since the 2007 ANC conference in Polokwane. The ANC was part of the Constitutional Assembly that gave us Section 16. It is not just the threat of a statutory MAT that bothers the media it is the anti-media rhetoric that accompanies this threat, which could be fuelling the violence against journalists. The ANC might appear to be on the side of the angels when it speaks out against the BLF thugs the ANC brandishes the Constitution as it does this – but it is inadvertently encouraging the BLF anti-media posture with its own rhetoric around the Media Appeals Tribunal. This country needs a more informed discussion of Section 16. Personally, I dont fear that the MAT will materialise. the ConCourt will strike it down because it of the freedom of expression provisions in the constitution of the country. The tragedy of the exercise is that so much time and money taxpayers money will have been wasted on the road to the ConCourt. A quick look at the arguments advanced by the ANC for wanting an MAT is revealing. In its policy document on Communications, the ANC argues that self-regulation of print media in SA has failed as there are insufficient punitive measures which can be taken (for example no fines can be imposed). The logic of this assertion eludes us. First, there is an unsubstatiated allegation that self-regulation has failed, and then instead of substantiating it, the authors bizarrely leap to insufficient punitive measures. The party has never shown how they arrive at the conclusion that it has failed. Allow us to break this assertion to its components. Since 2013 the Press Council has defined itself as a system of independent co-regulation with the partners being the media and the public, and explicitly excluding government. This was done to comply with the recommendations of the Press Freedom Commission (PFC), led by the late former Chief Justice Pius Langa. The architecture of the Press Council ensures this independence. The Press Council, which in another organisation could be described as the board, is led by a retired judge, Judge Philip Levinsohn, former Deputy Judge President of KwaZulu-Natal. It is made up of eight media representatives and 8 public representatives. If you add eight public representatives and the chairperson, it is obvious that the non-media voice is the bigger one in the council. The constitution of the Press Council affirms its independence: 1.3 The constituent associations named in 1.2. explicitly guarantee the independence of the PCSA, so that it can act without fear or favour in the interests of a free and ethical press, and in pursuit of the aims and objectives set out below. The constituent associations South African National Editors Forum, the Association of Independent Publishers, the Forum of Community Journalists, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau South Africa (online publishers) nominate the eight media representatives. The public representatives are appointed by an Appointments Panel, headed by another eminent jurist, Justice Yvonne Mokgoro, sitting with two media representatives and two public representatives. First, they advertise the positions in media across our land, then they draw up a shortlist of people to interview and make the appointments after the interviews. All South Africans over the age of 18 may apply. The Press Council found this a more open and democratic system than retaining seats for various sectors of society like the trade unions, the religious community, the legal fraternity/sorority, etc. The third judge who sits at the pinnacle of the system is Judge Bernard Ngoepe, former Judge President of North and South Gauteng. He heads the Panel of Adjudicators, which consists of eight media representatives and ten public representatives. The appointments in the Panel of Adjudicators are made in the same way as those for the Press Council. This is a truly independent co-regulatory system. Now that we have correctly defined the system, we need to assess whether it has failed or not. The yardstick to measure success or failure is the promise that an individual or an organisation makes and the extent to which it lives up to that promise. The Press Council acknowledges that the South African Constitution states: 34. Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. The Press Council is not a court of law, but sees itself an alternative dispute resolution mechanism providing a speedy and cost-effective process for resolving the complaints of readers. It is designed for people who want to clear their names quickly without having to spend thousands of rand for lawyers and years in the courts. It is not for those who are out for revenge, hoping to get sufficiently punitive measures against publications; that is the terrain of law enforcement agencies and the courts. Last year, for example, 536 people used our system. They knew right from the beginning what they were letting themselves in for. We made it clear what they can expect from the system. Total number of complaints received: That having being said, we can get to the nub of this argument. The right to choose is at the heart of our democracy; publications choose to be members of the Press Council, they are not forced to be. Any attempt to force publications to be part of any forum that prescribes journalistic standards will be struck down by the Constitutional Court. Our standards are set by the member publications and their readers and are not imposed from outside the newsroom. Member publications sign up because they truly embrace these high standards of journalism and ethical conduct. It is good business. All that the Press Council offers is an alternative to expensive and long-drawn out litigation. So many people have sacrificed their lives for the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. None of us here believes they suffered or died in vain. We need to honour them. Ask yourself: How much am I prepared to pay to preserve these freedoms? Is my voice loud enough against those who threaten freedom of expression? Freedom of expression is not just for journalists, it for everyone, to quote the Constitution. DM Joe Thloloe presented this speech to The Gathering The Media Edition, last week. Thloloe is a veteran journalist, former press ombudsman and current director of the Press Council of South Africa Photo: In this file photo of 2010, a protester joins a silent march agains the Protection of State Information Bill, which has yet to be signed into law by the President. The threat of a statutory Medial Appeals Tribunal also hangs over the media. Photo Kim Ludbrook/(EPA)

Fair Usage Law

August 11, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

It’s apartheid, PAGE says of plastic cup segregation – Free Malaysia Today

Founder Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim says such practices are an effort to demean other religions. PETALING JAYA: An education group has described the segregation of plastic cups for Muslim and non-Muslim students at a school here, as a form of apartheid that must be stopped. But instead of blacks and whites, its Muslims and non-Muslims. Parents who have a problem with their kids sharing cups should just get them to bring their own. In fact, bring your own drinks, Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim, the founder of Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE), said. She was commenting on a photo that went viral recently, of plastic cups bearing the labels Muslims and non-Muslims that were placed beside a drinking water dispenser at Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Puteri in Hulu Langat. Azimah said while the matter may seem trivial or inconsequential to some, it had wide implications. For her, it appeared to be an effort to demean other races and religions. Azimah compared such practices to those in the past like Nazi Germanys treatment of the Jews, and the ethnic division between the Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority in Rwanda. It is a direction which is detrimental to the integration and acceptance of all ethnicities in Malaysia. Islam is a simple religion and does not exist to cause hardship for anyone. The Centre For A Better Tomorrow, a civil society group that champions moderation, described the practice as a colossal misconduct on the part of the school and said it was akin to a crime against humanity. We are teaching them to live in a divisive world at a young age, its co-founder Gan Ping Sieu said when contacted. The former deputy minister said if society continued to condone such bigotry as adults, they would be guilty of destroying the unity forged by the nations forefathers. Gan said religious leaders must also play their part by rectifying such misguided mentalities. A visit to Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Puteri by FMT yesterday found that the school had separated the cups, which were placed next to a drinking water dispenser in the walkway of one of the blocks. The cups were labelled Muslims and non-Muslims. A canteen worker said the practice began last year under the schools principal, who was transferred last month after a four-year tenure. The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Fair Usage Law

August 11, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

Post-Apartheid, Zuma And Black Re-construction | News24 – News24

White race iniquity in Africa entered Southern Africa with serial blasts of violence. Armies of European raiders, robbers and arsonists swept across the region with dynamites, guns and Bible, decimating and destroying erstwhile peaceful and prosperous indigenous societies. An anti-climax of this organized barbarity was the establishment of apartheid rule in South Africa. Apartheid categorized the black indigenous of the land as sub-humans fit for all evil treatment conceivable by white conscience. It reduced black people to mere raw materials for white economic property. The Sharpeville massacre of March 21 1960 was a most naked exhibition of white mans definition of decent response to the cry of the oppressed for liberty and comfort. For standing against apartheid rule in South Africa, the likes of Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela were targeted by the racist and illegitimate Boer (white) leadership of the segregated country. Steve Biko was beaten and tortured to death. Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years in solitary confinement! In recent years, about a decade and a half since apartheid was officially wound-down, the international community has been receiving news of intermittent violence in the so-called Rainbow Country. A Truth Commission was once set-up to settle grievances spewing from decades of extreme white iniquity in South Africa. The post-apartheid eruptions in black South Africa since that Commission concluded its task clearly mirror the fact that post-apartheid black South Africa is far from rehabilitated. After the gruesome murder of protecting black miners by South Africa police authorities a few year ago, xenophobic attacks have been happening against blacks from other Africa countries. Black South Africans accuse their brothers and sisters from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Mozambique, Zambia and elsewhere of denying them jobs and other economic opportunities due to them in their country. Black South Africas defense of its campaign of brutal assault against fellow black is as illogical as the arguments often put forward by US police authorities in respect of their cold-blooded murder of African-Americans. The primary interest of white in any foreign territory he is able to enter and occupy is profit! White man is dangerously red-eyes for economic power and is ever plotting to protect and continually enhance his illegitimate economic advantage. The recommendations of South Africas Truth commission that was set-up to address gross human-rights abuses perpetrated by its white population in the years of apartheids brutal existence are more insulting than disappointing. Part of its recommendation was that each victim or family (blacks) should receive approximately $3,500 every year for six years. Meaning, at best, what black victims of any degree of inhumanity visited on them by white South Africans are entitled to; as far as financial compensation is concerned, is $21,000! And to imagine that the paltry sum was to be paid in a long spread of six-years tells white South Africa attended the Truth Communication without repentance! Today, the post-apartheid refusal of white South Africans to support genuine economic rehabilitation of black South Africa is producing violent outcomes that are, expectedly, being blamed on black people. Whites such as the Oppenheimer and Rhodes families freely looted South Africa for many decades and are still extracting enormous profit from that territory till this day on the black, sweat and blood of black South Africa! They grew stupendously rich by robbing, enslaving and killing blacks in South Africa. These evidently criminal white families control the economic jugular of South Africa and have, since their successful scheming of the Truth Commission against adequate compensation and rehabilitation of black South Africans, been plotting to exercise effective control on political South Africa. Black numerical superiority in South Africa is considered a viable threat to Boer economic dominance in the long-run. To avert the emergence of a black South Africa that is politically strong and organized enough to force white South Africa to concede to meaningful economic enhancement for black South Africans, the strategic harassment of anti-apartheid President Jacob Zuma arises. Boers are quietly determined to dominate and control profit in South Africa forever! Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24’s community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed

DA’s plan to bring back era of colonialism and apartheid has been exposed ANCWL – Politicsweb

POLITICS DA’s plan to bring back era of colonialism and apartheid has been exposed ANCWL Meokgo Matuba | 10 August 2017 Women’s league not shocked by party’s announcement that it will table a motion for dissolution of parliament ANCWL statement on the DA motion to dissolve Parliament 10 August 2017 The African National Congress Women’s League (ANCWL) is not surprised nor shocked by Democratic Alliance (DA) announcement that it will table a motion for the dissolution of parliament. DA’s plan to bring back their highly praised era of colonialism and apartheid has been exposed and must be rejected. The DA’s plan to remove the democratically elected government from power, is motivated by its desire to defend the supremacy of minority in terms of land and economic ownership. After realizing the seriousness of the ANC to implement the radical economic transformation (RET) which is for the benefit of the majority of black people and women, the DA funded by the imperialists is hellbent in ensuring that the RET program fails. The intention of the DA to dissolve parliament means not having oversight to government departments and will negatively impact the provision of much needed services to the poor and the working class. South Africans must take note that the DA has never had the interests of the people in particular Africans at heart. It has never supported budget votes passed in Parliament to enable government departments to deliver much needed services to the poor and the working class. DA is not pleased with some of the following achievements by the ANC led government which benefits majority of people: – Housing Nearly 500 informal settlements replaced with quality housing and basic services. Three million free houses built, benefiting more than 16 million people. – Water Approximately 93% of South Africans accessing potable water. – Electricity Approximately 12 million accessing to electricity. – Education More than nine million children attending no-fee schools, whilst nine million children are also provided with free meals at school. All children in public schools receiving free stationary. In 2016 over R14 billion was disbursed as loans and bursaries supporting approximately 480 000 poor undergraduate students to access universities and TVET colleges. – Social welfare In providing temporary intervention to fight poverty ravaging millions of people and around 17 million people receiving social support grants. – Healthcare All HIV positive South Africans qualifying for anti-retroviral treatment regardless of their CD4 count. The ANCWL calls it’s supporters, members and society at large to support government initiatives aimed at improving the lives of the poor and working class. Despite different political ideologies South Africans must join hands to built united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic prosperous country. Issued byMeokgo Matuba, ANCWL Secretary General, 10 August 2017

Fair Usage Law

August 10, 2017   Posted in: Apartheid  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."