Michael Coetzee

Dancing to their tune

2010-05-07T02:27:00.000+02:00

It was to be expected that news of Lolly Jackson’s death would elicit a flood of self-righteous com mentary on the man and his life.

The fact that Jackson made his fortune by running strip clubs seems to rub a lot of people up the wrong way. It would be interesting to know just how many of them frequented Jackson’s establishments and so con tributed to his said wealth.

We’ll probably never know the an swer to that question, but we may be able to find the answer to another.

Why do people look down upon exotic dancers and strippers and the business they are a part of as much as they do?

One will, for example, hear many comments about how Jackson sup posedly exploited women and how all exotic dancers are being exploited by their employers.

Now, naturally, some dancers out there probably are exploited by their employers, but that can be said for most industries.

Some may not like their jobs, but that will hardly put them in some special minority either: a great many of the world’s workers don’t love what they do, but do it in order to put food on the table.

If we deride strip club owners for letting desperate women work for them, then what about all the other industries that employ desperate people (which in the current econom ic climate includes just about every one)?

The only difference is that stripping pays much better than many of the other more “respectable” career choices out there.

A lot of the negative attitude toward stripping is probably religious, and predicated on the idea that women’s bodies are somehow dirty and evil, and that any expression of sexuality is sinful.

But remove all the dogma and brainwashing from the equation, and what do we find?

A room full of women who want to show off their bodies to an audience keen to appreciate them.

Certainly most women probably don’t find the idea of parading naked in front of a group of men (and women) appetising, but to each their own.

And many men don’t have any interest in watching strangers from the opposite sex gyrate around metal poles wearing their birthday suits.

But what harm does it do the uninterested parties if some people do choose to work and entertain them selves in this manner?

None at all.

Perhaps then a lot of the animosity aimed at strippers, strip clubs and their clientele stems not only from religious indoctrination, but also from jealousy.

Jealousy that your body isn’t as toned as a stripper’s, jealousy that you don’t have the self-confidence that they do, or jealousy that some men are free to enjoy a night at a strip club while you aren’t.

But neither jealousy nor an uncon scious revulsion of the female body are valid reasons to vilify an entire industry.

As is so often said, this is a free country, and Jackson made the most of the freedoms that were given him.

His path might not be one that others would choose for themselves, but it’s one he blazed in a unique, unapologetic and ultimately ex tremely successful fashion.

For that, for the work opportunities he provided for so many women, for his contributions to charity and for the entertainment his clubs provided, he deserves at least some respect.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 06/05/2010.

Thin coat of cruelty

2010-05-07T02:26:00.000+02:00

Take a long hard look at our society and it soon becomes clear that people don’t treat other people very well.

Look a little longer and it also becomes obvious that people don’t treat animals very well either.

Fortunately, there are people out there who do great work to prevent the ill-treatment of animals.

Unfortunately, many of the proponents of animal rights take their views to such an extreme that they become albatrosses round the neck of their cause.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) this week demonstrated just such behaviour when they released a Press release begging South Africans to “not involve animals” in the upcoming Fifa Soccer World Cup.

Such a call would probably lead the average person scratching their heads in bewilderment. How could animals be involved in an international sporting tournament in the first place?

Read a bit more and it’s revealed that all the panicking is about a company apparently selling animal-friendly paint that can be used to colour the hair of dogs in various bright colours.

This could be used, for example, to turn your dog into the ultimate Bafana Bafana supporter by adding a bit of yellow to his ordinary, drab coat.

But wait!

According to the SPCA, colouring the hair of your dog is irresponsible and may lead to stress and “fear-biting”.

Now one has to wonder why on Earth your dog would bite you if you were to simply brush its hair. If that’s the case canine paint should be the least of your worries.

But apparently this is just not on, because, says the SPCA, “live animals are not toys”.

Neither are live humans, but we often paint them in a variety of colours, then dress them in skimpy out fits and make them dance in the rain before rugby matches, with no ill effect.

As long as the proper animal-friendly products are used, what exactly is the problem?

The SPCA suggests that as an alternative dogs should rather be dressed in jerseys sporting a team’s colours.

Maybe SPCA bosses spend too much time in their air-conditioned offices to notice, but the sweltering African climate can make life quite uncomfortable even for us furless members of the animal kingdom, even without jerseys.

That’s beside the point though. The crux of the matter is that pets are private property, and that as long as no laws are broken and animals are not treated cruelly, the SPCA should butt out of people and their pets’ private lives.

It’s bad enough that they daily kill countless pets simply because they think that their owners’ yards are too small, or because the fences aren’t high enough to meet SPCA standards.

This, of course, while frothing at the mouth whenever some other group or person happens to kill animals (for food, scientific research, or as part of cultural practices, for example).

The ordinary pet owners of this country care more for their own pets and know better how to treat them than the SPCA ever can.

Paint your dog or don’t paint your dog. But don’t let the SPCA decide for you, or fall for their propaganda that it has anything at all to do with cruelty towards animals.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 29/04/2010.

Musings on an April morning

2010-04-29T01:34:00.000+02:00

I have seen the light.

After many years of being an opponent of religious fundamentalism, I have decided to embrace it and become a religious fundamentalist myself.

It all happened after a long correspondence with a professor of theology, Dr Uno Aprile from the University of Minsk.

He made it clear to me that faith is indeed more important and more powerful than evidence or reason.

Human reason, and what is called human “wisdom”, can only go so far.

Look at the state the world is in today, and what we have managed to achieve with the human intellect that humanists take so much pride in.

War, plagues, famine, rampant immorality – these are the fruits of the liberalism I once championed.

When one takes a hard look at the evidence (without relying on it too much, for that would mean a return to the tyranny of reason) it becomes clear that all the suffering and evil in the world is the direct result of the erosion of traditional religious values by relativist philosophy.

The post-modernists who took over in the universities of the world after World War 2 have done more to imperil the souls of people than any of the many pernicious philosophies that preceded it.

Before they arrived on the scene people had certainty, the sort of rock-solid certainty that only blind faith can bring.

Can anyone deny that the world was a much better place before April 1, 1946, and the rise of the atheists and others who would deny the proper place of fundamentalist belief in our lives?

The following decades would bring only ruin, perhaps best exemplified in the antics of the hippies.

While these drug-addled, long-haired, tie-dyed delinquents are fortunately long gone, the effects of the movement they championed are felt by everyone in the Western world to this day.

They questioned things that should not have been questioned, and as a result we now have a situation where people feel free to doubt the religion they were brought up in.

Women forsake their God-given purpose on this earth and instead try to make it in the corporate world, running around like blind mice in pantsuits, while their children are suffering at home and the stove remains cold.

The destruction of traditional marriage means that men can no longer be assured of a warm meal and a clean house when they get home from work.

Disobedient children can no longer be Biblically disciplined, because divinely mandated corporal punishment is suddenly illegal.

This erosion of parents' rights started when it became illegal to stone disbodient youths at the city gates, as the Bible demands.

Back then we should have known that it might have started with them taking away our stones, but that our whips and rods would be next!

Feminism, the sexual revolution, gay “rights” (shouldn't that be “wrongs”?), none of these abominations would exist if we only clung to the wisdom of bronze age peasants!

Those who have the wisdom that only years of ignoring mainstream “facts” and “knowledge” can bring will know what I mean.

As for the others, they're just fools.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, April 1, 2010.

Don't count on it

2010-04-29T01:26:00.000+02:00

Something strange happened in Britain this week.

The Liberal Democratic Party, which at best could always be categorised as an insignificant also-ran on the political scene, suddenly became a major contender in British politics.

Just a week ago, the ruling Labour Party was hard at work figuring out how to gain the few percentage points of support it needed to pass the Conservatives in opinion polls.

Then, in the space of a few days, the Lib Dems shot past Labour, and according to some polls are now even more popular than the Tories.

What happened? This game-changing ocurrence was the result of a television debate between the leaders of the three parties.

Such debates are a mainstay of American politics, but this was a first for Britain.

And right now, Labour and the Tories must be kicking themselves for agreeing to what they must have thought would be a fun, insignificant piece of political theatre, but has instead turned their duel into a three-way race with the Lib Dems.

Before this happened, there was not one single indication that the Lib Dems were going to become a player in national politics.

But how quickly things can change!

Interested local observers might well wonder whether something similar could play itself out over here.
Could an insignificant opposition party (and face it, at the moment they're all pretty insignificant in the greater scheme of things) suddenly challenge the hegemony of the ANC?
And could proper televised debates between party leaders be the catalyst for such a shift in the status quo, as it was in Britain?

Probably not, for a variety of reasons.

One of them is that there's very little evidence that South Africans approach politics in the same manner that it's approached in Britain, the US and other democratic republics.

Our political system may have all the trappings also found in those other countries, and look just like it, but it does not and cannot function in the same way, thanks to the behaviour of voters.

It should be pretty obvious to everyone by now that the vast majority of voters, of all political persuasions, vote with their hearts and not their minds.

For them, voting is like supporting their favorite sport team, and the only people who bother to read election manifestos or can even give a reasonable explanation of a party's platform are the party officials who draw them up.

Another, closely related reason is the worrying strain of anti-intellectualism that runs through the country.
It's evinced by such remarks as Julius Malema's infamous “there's no Pedi word for hermaphrodite” comment. There is actually, but Malema didn't know it, and was proud of it.

And so a television debate, which attempts to engage intellectually with voters to make them decide on who to vote for, is not going to have much of an effect.

It might be worth mentioning that it's this same anti-intellectual approach that gave the Americans eight years of George W Bush, someone who was “down to earth” and who you “could have a beer with”.

But then we have plenty of evidence of what such an approach leads to right here.

The Lib Dems deserve all the credit in the world for making the most of the opportunity they were given, but they could work with an electorate that allowed them the opportunity.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen over here.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 22/10/2010.

Is it worth your life?

2010-04-29T01:22:00.001+02:00

Earlier this week, Transport Minister S'bu Ndebele described South African roads as “lawless”, something known only too well by those of us who put our lives on the line on the country's roads.

The Minister seems however to have been referring more specifically to the non-payment of traffic fines and the fact that a lot of people don't turn up in court for traffic law cases against them.

But it's the other sort of lawlessness that is the real problem on our roads – the reckless and dangerous driving that kills thousands of people every year.

Every single day, people die in traffic accidents due to the negligent and aggressive behaviour of motorists who insist on driving as if they are the only people for whom the country's highways and streets were built.

And every day, there are just as many close calls. Talk to friends, family and collegues, and you're sure to hear harrowing tales of escaping death by only a few milliseconds or centimetres.

The only thing more disturbing than the incidents themselves is the frequency with which they occur.

One of the most tragic aspects of this situation is that it's all so completely unnecessary.
Despite a big pothole problem in many areas, our roads are in pretty good shape and cannot be held responsible for the carnage.

Once again there are some notable exceptions, but most cars on the road are relatively new and in roadworthy condition.

This means that there is but one thing that can be blamed for the majority of fatal accidents, and that is driver (and pedestrian) behaviour.

How often do you see a car driving 50km/h above the speed limit and moving dangerously and illegally across lanes simply to gain a single car length?
Is arriving at the next traffic light two seconds before the car you just passed worth your life or those of other motorists?

Evidently it is for quite a few drivers out there.
And getting more people to pay their traffic fines is not going to solve the problem.
Traffic fines and other punitive measures such as ones coming into effect under Aarto only come into effect after a crime is already committed.

It's the same situation we find with violent crime: the police can naturally only respond once a crime has been committed, and even then, apprehending a murderer does not undo his actions.

The only way to bring safety to our roads is to bring an end to the mentality that leads to reckless and negligent behaviour – a traffic fine isn't going to make anyone value his or his neighbour's life more.

As with the other crimes that ravage our communities, we need to ask ourselves where this callous disregard for human life comes from.

At what point, and for what reason, does someone feel justified in putting at risk the lives of innocent people? What switch goess off in their heads that makes them decide that they are willing to kill and maim to get to the pub before the game starts?

The only thing that's obvious for now is that obviously parents, schools and churches are failing miserably to instil in our citizens a respect for their and others' lives.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 15/04/2010.

What unites us?

2010-04-29T01:20:00.001+02:00

The murder of Eugene Terre'blanche once again throws into relief the fact that there is precious little uniting South Africans.

Beyond the fact that we're all lumped together in a piece of land with some very arbitrarily determined borders, what is there that we really have in common?

Perhaps the only things that truly unite us are our differences and the fact that we seem all too ready to kill for them.

And despite the image that the outside world might have of South Africa, these differences don't run neatly along racial lines either.

Right-wing Afrikaners reserve a special hatred for liberal Afrikaners, and the liberals in turn can't stand the right-wingers.

And both of these groups on either side of the political spectrum can't stand the “fence-sitting” moderates in the centre.

The decades of violence that have rocked KwaZulu-Natal also make clear that the Zulus are not some homogeneous group with shared interests and political views.

A list of all the racial, religious and social groups in the country and the differences that divide them would be a very long one.

Such differences are of course a fact of life not only in South Africa but in other countries as well.

In some nations the differences are fewer than the similarities.

The vast majority of Iraqis, for example, are Arabs and Muslims, yet the fact that some are Shi'ites and others Sunnis leads to the sort of violence that constantly threatens to tear the country apart.

Then there's the US, the world's racial and religious melting pot par excellence.

Its population comes from practically every nation in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, and there are followers of every single religion you can imagine and probably a few that you couldn't.

Yet despite all the many – and make no mistake, very real – differences that divide them, they are ultimately united as Americans in a way that makes their country infinitely more prosperous, stable and peaceful than Iraq or South Africa.

Without this sort of unity we will forever remain in a fragile state where the actions or utterances of extremists on either side of the political spectrum could plunge the country into chaos and violence.

Now more than ever then we need new and innovative approaches to nation building, because the ones attempted thus far have obviously failed spectacularly.

Nobody can say for certain what form an effective approach will take, but one thing that is certain is that nation building efforts need to be based on much more than trying to engender loyalty to a soccer or rugby team.

We need much more than 90 minutes of solidarty while watching 11 men kick a ball around a patch of grass.

But maybe there is no form of nation building that will be effective. Maybe it's just not possible to unite all the people of this country, with their 11 official and many unofficial languages, their different religions, their varied political views.

It does seem rather silly to assume that just because people share a certain space that they must inevitably get along.

Will that style of wishful thinking prove to have been justified in the case of South Africa?

Only time will tell. But if recent events are any indication, we won't have to wait very much longer to find out.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 08/04/2010.

To JuJu or not to JuJu ...

2010-03-25T08:37:00.001+02:00

Why is Julius Malema (in)famous? The unfortunate answer is that the ANC Youth League leader is well known only due to the efforts of the journalists he berates as part of a “white boer” conspiracy against him.

Malema is a household name be cause of the inane statements he habitually makes, statements so out of touch with reality and so filled with hate and venom that incredulous reporters can’t help writing stories about them, and audiences can’t help reading them.

Each of Malema’s public speaking appearances is like a gruesome traffic accident, and the media-consuming public are like the motorists stuck in a traffic jam, slowly moving past the scene of the crash.

Although they know that nothing can possibly be gained from looking at the mangled bodies and twisted metal, and that it will only end up upsetting them, they look anyway.

It’s the same with a Malema speech.

Whether he’s singing songs calling for the killing of sections of the popu lation, advocating the murder of political opponents, trying to rewrite history or simply giving expression to his obsession with race, the one thing all his utterances have in common is that they are totally lacking in any sort of merit or value.

The man is not a member of government, nor is he a public servant of any sort.

Inconsequential is perhaps the best way to sum up the man and his utterances.

He’s merely a wandering clown employed to keep the populace's at tention away from matters that really affect them, such as the lack of service delivery and the fact that the rich in this country, both black and white, continue to get richer while the poor – black and white – continue to get poorer.

Malema, of course, is one of the few who keep getting richer and richer, insisting that he's a champion of the poor while sipping his obscenely expensive French champagne.

Writers of letters to newspapers often complain about the coverage Malema receives, but one has to wonder whether these people would really be happy if the media did not report his antics.

While the falsehoods of the enfant terrible of South African politics may be recognised as such by those familiar with history and current affairs, there are those who believe everything that Malema says.

And those people then go on to make real-life decisions based on the latest bulletin from the Malemaverse.

It could be argued that this fact does at the end of the day make what Malema says newsworthy. But is that enough justification to reprint calls for violence and murder?

What do you, dear readers, think?

Should South African media outlets stop reporting on Malema, and in so doing deprive him of his main method of spreading propaganda?

Or do you think that simply ignoring the man would be irresponsible and negligent on the part of journalists?

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 25/03/2010.

Politics for the birds

2010-03-24T14:18:00.001+02:00

Ancient Rome had a class of priests called augurs, whose job it was to divine the will of the gods by interpreting the flight of birds.

The various magistrates that ran the Roman government made sure that an augur “took the auspices” before any action affecting the government or the people of Rome was embarked upon.

The historian Livy wrote that “everything in war and in peace, at home and abroad, was done only after taking the divinations”.

The Stoics, adherents of what be came the pre-eminent philosophical school in Rome, argued that augury was valid, since if there were gods, they cared about people, and if they cared about people, they would make their will known to them.

There might not be many people left today who scan the skies for signs from the gods, but we have our own political soothsayers who are always on the lookout for a sign of what is to come next.

They’re called political analysts, well known for interpreting the flight of politicians from one party to another.

Unlike the gods of old though, it would seem that our politicians may not really care about their people that much, nor do they care for providing signs as to what they’re planning on doing next.

This means that professional political analysts and others who watch the political scene closely often remain in the dark with regard to what politicians are cooking up behind closed doors, and all that can be offered are opinions based on incomplete in formation.

But it doesn’t take a trained sooth sayer to know that some big changes may be afoot on the political scene, even if nobody can be sure exactly what form these will ultimately take.

Cosatu is openly expressing its disappointment with the policies of Pres ident Jacob Zuma, someone they backed for the top government job in the hopes that he would be more friendly towards the goals of the left than Thabo Mbeki.

The ANC in turn has accused Cosatu of acting like an opposition party, and while these two alliance partners continue to bicker, there are rumours that some ANC members may be planning a vote of no confid ence in Zuma as ANC president.

That’s not even to mention the already-on succession battle for control of the ANC and thus the country, or the inflammatory remarks of Julius Malema and his mentor, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.

With all the scheming going on, today’s politicians really could do with some augurs of the ancient variety themselves.

They could advise on such courses of action as whether now would be a good time to start a breakaway party (COPE obviously didn’t have a trained augur on the books), nationalise mines or seize agricultural land.

And maybe South African voters are another group who could do with some divine assistance so that they know who to vote for and who will deliver on their lists of campaign promises.

Unfortunately the voting public is unlikely to get any sort of supernatural help.

That means it’s up to each voter to analyse the promises and track records of politicians, and then make a rational decision informed by history and current events.

Now that would be a real miracle.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 18/03/2010.

Let's turn to reality

2010-03-24T14:16:00.002+02:00

Thousands of people showed up for the Turn2God spectacle at the Union Buildings last weekend as various religious zealots waged “spiritual war fare” in an attempt to free South Africa from the forces of darkness.

Among those in attendance was Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille, whose theological insights amounted to the fact that love is very important.

The ringmasters of the circus how ever didn’t have much time for love, and wasted no time in placing the blame for the nation’s woes at the feet of our ungodly Constitution and the laws it allows.

According to one Ds Bennie Mostert, things in SA would be so much better if only God was recognised in the Constitution – just as was the case during the apartheid years.

Other speakers seemed to agree with Mostert that legalised abortion and same-sex marriage bring down the wrath of God upon a nation, and that citizens shouldn’t expect to live in a land of milk and honey until they’d rejected their secular ways for lives of obedience to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Now, fundamentalists often complain that their beliefs should not be subject to critical reasoning or scientific scrutiny, as they are matters of faith. That’s all fine and well.

But when they make statements such as the ones above, they move away from the theological sphere and into the world of facts and statistics.

So let’s test Mostert and co’s theories regarding God’s punishment of nations.

Seven countries recognise marriages between same-sex individuals: SA, Belgium, Canada, the Nether lands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.

Nobody can deny that things aren’t going a little badly over here when it comes to prevalence of violence, and SA is at number two in the world in terms of murders per capita: 0,49 per 1 000 people. But what about the other countries mentioned?

It would seem that Mostert’s theory doesn’t hold water, as out of the other countries the highest one on the list is Canada at number 44, with a murder rate of a paltry-in-comparison 0,014.

What about abortion?

If God punishes countries for abortion, then we should expect the ones where a lot of abortions take place to be veritable hells on earth, shouldn’t we? But this isn’t the case.

Sweden makes an appearance again, at number five on the list of most abortions per capita: 4,16 per 1 000 people. That’s a lot more than South Africa, with a measly 1,7.

Norway comes in at number seven, and Canada at number 14 with 2,15 abortions per 1 000 people. Still quite a bit higher than South Africa’s rate.

The Norwegians may be forgiven for not having much time to ponder God’s wrath while they sit back and reap the benefits of the second highest GDP per capita in the world ($66 964).

Those other ungodly countries with their same-sex marriage and abortion do quite well too: Sweden at number nine, the Netherlands at no 10 and Canada at no 14 (South Africa is 85th).

It would seem on closer inspection that these homosexual-loving, abor tion-performing heathens are being blessed with low crime rates and a whole lot of financial prosperity! With punishment like this, who needs rewards?

Correlation does not imply causation, however, which is perhaps a good thing for the Bible-bashers.

Only 5% of Norwegians regularly go to church, compared to 56% of South Africans.

Imagine what conclusions one may reach?

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 11/03/2010.

Hands off our rights

2010-03-24T14:14:00.001+02:00

The bigots who run the Christian Action Network (CAN) don’t really deserve any sort of publicity, but as they for some reason continue to get mentioned in the media, it becomes necessary to at least offer a counter argument to the drivel they habitually introduce into public discourse.

Their most recent attempt at trying to force their puritanism and narrowly defined “morality” on everyone else in the country revolved around the news that Multichoice was considering offering one or two pornography channels on DStv.

According to CAN, such a channel would “pour fuel on the fire of sexual abuse and exploitation”.

Serious sounding words, but what do they mean?

As is always the case with CAN, it’s a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Pornography has nothing at all to do with the terrible sexual abuse and exploitation suffered by so many citizens of this country.

Perhaps CAN lackey Taryn Hodgson is suffering from a severe case of projection here, because the abuse and exploitation of women certainly has a lot more to do with the conservative ideology promoted by right-wing conservative Christians such as CAN.

Not only is it plainly obvious that an ideology that sees women as inferior beings will naturally lead to their abuse, but the sexual repression advocated by this same ideology inevitably leads to sexual neuroses that may find their outlet in criminal sexual acts such as rape and sexual abuse.

Then there’s the fact that there is no proof that pornography has any of the harmful effects on society that CAN claims it does.

But right wing fundamentalists always have to lie, because reality rarely supports their arguments or positions.

This is a country that is supposed to offer its citizens freedom of expression and the freedom to choose what forms of entertainment they want to enjoy.

Some people find pornography repulsive and would never dream of watching it, and this is their right. Nobody is going to break into your house and force you to switch on the porno channel.

Others may enjoy it, and it is also their right to view if they wish to.

But being the enemies of freedom that they are, this situation is unbear able to the likes of CAN. No, they need to inhabit a world where every one does things their way. If they don’t like porn, you’re not allowed to like it either.

The fact of the matter is that if the proposed pornography channel(s) ever come into existence, those who wish to watch them would have to request the service and pay for it.

They would require a pin and would be restricted to being viewed by adults only.

Yet again though these realities mean nothing to those who hate democracy and freedom.

Consider CAN’s recent review of the film Invictus. On their website the film is described as idolatry, and the freedom struggle as “a brutal 30-year terrorist war waged by Nelson Man dela’s ANC”.

It’s obvious these people don’t re spect our democracy or the hard fought freedoms we all – including CAN – enjoy.

What a shame that they have to abuse their freedom to try and take it away from others.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 04/03/2010.

Zero cake left to eat

2010-03-24T14:12:00.001+02:00

ANC Youth League president Julius Malema wants to have his cake and eat it too. And so far, he seems to be quite successful at this.

Malema likes to lambaste the media and complain that it promotes the interests of his opponents.

At the same time he relies on the media to disseminate his views and is never shy to go on television or radio to give an interview.

He likes to portray himself as a champion of the poor and the down trodden, while living it up in a multi million-rand house, driving an R800 000 car and wearing a R250 000 watch while entertaining his wealthy friends.

Malema is a proponent of the nationalisation of mines, and says that wealth should be in the hands of the people, not those of rich corpora tions.

While he says this, he gets richer and richer from the government tenders won by companies he is the director of.

The ANCYL president is opposed to the use of state institutions or assets to further political ends, insisting earlier this week that he does not want to be probed by SARS if it was being done in the interests of some political agenda.

But on the same day he revealed that “intelligence agents” had provided him with a list of people targeting supporters of President Jac ob Zuma. This is a blatant case of state assets being used to further a political agenda by providing information to a political party or private individual.

You can’t have it both ways, unless, of course, you happen to be Julius Malema.

He is forever on a crusade against racism, but is perhaps the most race-obsessed individual in the country, after Thabo Mbeki.

Malema has admitted that for him everything comes down to black and white.

No wonder then that when he finds opposition from black politicians he labels them as merely being the lack eys of some massive white conspiracy designed to keep the black man down – it’s a way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance.

This sort of behaviour is the biggest problem facing Malema if he wants to be taken seriously as a politician, or if he wants to develop any sort of reputation that can actually be besmirched, as he claims the media is trying to do.

The problem lies not in his political positions, some of which may be good ideas, others not so much.

No, Malema’s biggest liability is this apparent lack of consistency between his positions on issues and what appears to be the reality of how he goes about conducting his own life.

To be fair, this isn’t a problem unique to Malema.

Quite a few politicians from various parties and organisations don’t exactly live up to the standards they espouse in public.

They will, unfortunately, continue to get away with this unless voters begin to hold them accountable at the polling station.

Zuma said this week that Malema’s financial dealings are not his business. Maybe, but they should be the business of those who are asked to put their faith in Malema as a leader.

If voters do not hold their leaders accountable, the fat cats of South Africa will continue to gorge them selves until there’s no cake left for anyone.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 25/02/2010.

No reason to be cynical

2010-03-24T14:10:00.001+02:00

The recent debacle caused by reports on the non-winner of the R91 million PowerBall jackpot has left egg on the face of many in the South African media.

News outlets reported that a Cape Town couple had won the massive prize, only to be forced to retract this version of events after lottery operator Gidani revealed that someone else had, in fact, pocketed the money.

It comes as no surprise that many people are asking how something such as this could have happened.

Throughout the world there seems to be a lot of cynicism towards the media and the accuracy of journalism. And, to be fair, citizens of many other countries indeed have reason to be cynical.

US media houses, for example, failed to properly discharge their duties in the run-up to the Iraq war and even now remain guilty of not invest igating or challenging the statements of government officials.

South Africans have much less reason. While nobody’s perfect, our media has a pretty good track record when it comes to informing the public.

It’s understandable then that South Africans trust the media more than any other democratic institution, according to research.

Sometimes those in power try to make it as difficult as possible for journalists to do their job, such as National Prosecuting Authority boss Menzi Simelani’s recent order that prohibits public prosecutors from speaking to the media.

And obviously, when a person or a group deliberately tries to deceive the media, then naturally the chances of false or inaccurate reporting increases. But when journalists make mistakes, as they inevitably do, the mistakes are usually discovered by, reported on and corrected by journalists.

Journalists take their jobs very seriously, and if there’s one thing they hate more than anything else it is to discov er that they got a story wrong.

The truth eventually emerges, but it takes much longer and wastes time that could have been spent much more productively, just as is the case when the police are forced to deal with hoax complaints.

Fortunately most people don’t make it their mission to peddle false stories to reporters, but just like the imbeciles who phone 10111 with a fake story about an armed robbery, they are out there.

In many respects journalism is a collaborative effort between journalists and members of the public.

This cannot be any other way, be cause a form of journalism that cuts itself off from the public would not be able to serve that public in any way, shape or form.

Occasionally this means that journ alists can be taken in by unscrupulous people, but this is a risk that has to be taken in order to ensure the best service possible is rendered to the other 99,9% of people out there.

Those who get concerned over the accuracy of news reporting when events such as this week’s happens need not worry too much.

There is certainly no other group or institution out there so committed to finding, exposing and correcting their own mistakes.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 18/02/2010.

Penalties and Politics

2010-03-24T14:07:00.002+02:00

Keep politics out of sport is a refrain frequently heard in this country, where politics does indeed seem to find a way into every aspect of society.

But there is something much more worrying than politics in sport, and that is politics as sport.

Looking at just the politics of South Africa and the US, some interesting and disturbing parallels with the world of sport, especially football, become apparent.

It seems that political parties have become a lot like football clubs, with fanatical supporters who stand behind their teams no matter what.

And while this may be desirable in the world of sport, it certainly isn’t in the world of politics.

Take, as an example, the Republicans and Democrats in the US.

Republicans supported President George W Bush when he master minded the illegal “rendition” and torture of terrorism suspects, even though this violates American and international law.

Republicans insisted that the President knew what was best and that he needed support because he was, after all, a Republican. And the team needs their support!

Many Democrats opposed Bush’s lawbreaking, insisting that he was acting illegally and unethically.

Enter Barack Obama. Contrary to promises made on the campaign trail, Obama continued with the “war on terror” tactics of his predecessor.

And just like Republicans suppor ted Bush’s lawbreaking, Democrats are now supporting Obama’s. The arguments are the same: he is the President, he is doing it to keep us safe, and he needs our support since he is, after all, a Democrat. Go team!

Republicans on the other hand are vehemently opposed to everything Obama does, even though in almost every important respect he is doing exactly what his predecessor did.

It all comes down to what team you’re on. It’s fine for the President to break the rules if he’s from the party you support, but it’s not okay if he happens to be from another.

Back home things are no different, with party loyalty among the coun try’s voters also mirroring that of fanatical football fans.

ANC supporters will vote ANC no matter what, and admit that much. Democratic Alliance supporters wouldn’t vote for the ANC even if they managed to turn South Africa into a utopian superpower.

Just like footballers go on the trans fer market each year, our politicians are always ready to cross the floor if they are made a better offer by another party. Loyalty may be absolute among supporters, but it’s not a requirement for the players/politicians.

We even have an equivalent to the hooliganism that plagues football, and things can get quite out of hand when you put groups of supporters of op posing parties in the same room.

But one of the differences between the beautiful game and the not-so-good-looking one is that soccer players run the risk of being sacked if they don’t perform.

Politicians as a class unfortunately have nobody above them who can fire them for failure to perform.

The only people who can do that are the voters, but as is clear, that’s not going to happen.

Uncritical voters who approach politics as if it is sport will get the sort of leaders they deserve.

And in this game, losing has far more dire consequences than it does on the soccer pitch.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 11/02/2010.

Twitter

2010-02-04T01:10:00.003+02:00

For those so inclined, you can now follow me on Twitter.

Twisted word games

2010-02-04T00:52:00.002+02:00

The religious fanatics of the Christian Action Network (CAN) put on another farce outside Parliament earlier this week – a “funeral procession” in memory of foetuses aborted since the legalisation of abortion in South Africa.

A few days earlier they placed anti-abortion ads under the “Deaths” sections of several newspapers.

One of the salient characteristics of religious fundamentalists of all stripes is an unwillingness to live in reality, illustrated by their insistence on classifying those aborted foetuses as “dead babies”.

Despite supposedly despising post- modernism, the CAN takes a decidedly post-modern approach to their works or propaganda, manipulating language in an attempt to redefine terms and concepts to match their own twisted views.

In CAN literature foetuses are described as “pre-born babies” and abortion as “murder”.

Both redefinitions are laughable and are patently false, scientifically and legally.

A foetus is not a human being that can be murdered, and this is why pregnant women are not charged with manslaughter when they miscarry.

Trying to redefine reality with silly little word games is a complete waste of time, and ridiculous as well.

Can you make chicken cordon bleu with eggs as the main ingredient? They are, after all, pre-hatched chickens, aren’t they?

Anybody in the mood for some post-digested steak?

Come to think of it, the CAN approach to reality would also make it rather difficult to charge someone with murder – we’re all just pre-dead corpses, after all.

But this is just the latest episode in CAN’s reality-challenged public displays of ignorance.

They are also (in)famous for their stance on homosexuality, labelling non-discrimination against gays as “homo-fascism”, and South African schools as “homo recruitment centres”.

Unsurprisingly, they are also proponents of “creation science”, better known under its more descriptive moniker, “thumb-sucking”.

In a CAN article arguing against the celebration of Halloween, it is stated that the ancient Druids used to hollow out pumpkins as part of religious ceremonies. The only problem is that pumpkins are native to the New World, and the last ancient druids died 1 300 years before Christopher Columbus was born.

A perusal of CAN writings soon makes it clear that these people are inhabiting an alternate reality where everything is different from what is the consensual reality inhabited by the rest of us.

This is all fine and well, in theory.

But the alternate dimension travelers of CAN aren’t happy to simply be left alone to live in their make-believe world.

No, they want their fairy tales and falsehoods to become the basis for decision-making in this reality.

They want to change the very real laws of South Africa and take away the rights of real people based on premises only valid in their fantasy land.

Over here in what we’ll call “the real world” people like that are usually classified as crazy and are confined to sanatoriums.

In case any trans-dimensional anti-abortion warriors are reading this, it’s also known as a post-sanity hospital.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 04/02/2010.

SA's own catastrophe

2010-02-04T00:50:00.001+02:00

Every so often an event takes place that causes many public displays of emotion and the shedding of copious amounts of crocodile tears.

It happened after the Asian tsunami of 2004, and it’s happening again now following the earthquake that struck the island nation of Haiti a week-and-a-half ago.

As has become usual for events of this sort, Hollywood stars are roped in to convince the public to donate money, and the stars themselves are given an opportunity to display their charitable natures by telling everyone how much they are giving to help the poor and unfortunate.

But it’s all very confusing. Why should the whole world suddenly feel bad for the Haitians?

It’s politically incorrect to say so, but it is an undeniable truth that Haitians themselves must bear some amount of responsibility for the magnitude of the tragedy that has befallen their country.

Of course, Haitians did nothing to cause the earthquake to happen, as has been claimed by religious lunatics such as American evangelist Pat Robertson.

The earthquake itself was nothing but a simple, if somewhat predictable, geological event and nothing humans could have done could have caused or prevented it.

But the extreme loss of life and suffering it caused did not need to happen, and was amplified as a direct result of the state Haitians allowed their country to fall into.

There’s no doubt that Haiti was in an atrocious condition long before it was hit by the earthquake.

It is the poorest country in the Americas, with a severe lack of infrastructure, shoddily built buildings and no building standards.

Only 40% of the population have access to basic healthcare. Nine out of 10 children suffer from waterborne diseases and intestinal parasites, according to IPS News. Corruption is endemic.

Combine this with the highest fer tility rate in the Western hemisphere and the host of other problems Haiti faces, and an earthquake suddenly seems to be the least of its worries.

According to geologist Professor Roger Bilham, it “was a relatively modest earthquake, but its large death toll (was) caused by its proximity to a poorly constructed city”.

No one can deny that if Haiti had a better infrastructure, and buildings built according some sort of standard, far fewer people would have died.

Getting back to the response to the crisis, it boggles the mind why people in South Africa and other countries of the world would be so willing to donate money to poor Haitians while turning a blind eye to the homeless person standing at the next set of traffic lights.

How is it that people manage to feel no compassion for their own neighbours and countrymen, but are more than willing to give money to those 10 000km away?

Perhaps it’s simply easier to be charitable when you’re dealing with abstractions rather than real people – familiarity breeds contempt, after all.

But who can deny that whatever money is sent to Haiti could be better spent improving our own country?

If the Haitians had taken that ap proach themselves, they would not now need to rely on assistance and handouts from other countries.

If you have a burning desire to give away some money to charity, just look around.

There’s plenty of need right here in your own country.

Originally published in The Citizen, 21/01/2010.

Another education option

2010-02-04T00:49:00.002+02:00

Hundreds of thousands of six- and seven-year-old South Africans go to primary school for the first time this week, an experience always guaranteed to be traumatic for the new pupils and their parents.

The anxiety will be especially bad for those children for whom this will be their first experience of spending their days not at home with a parent or caregiver, but in an unfamiliar environment filled with strangers.

And while the trauma of separation is also one of the causes of anxiety for parents, there are many other reasons for them to be concerned.

This is even more true today than it was in the past.

Government recently admitted that the Outcomes Based Education system is a dismal failure – a conclusion supported by the 2009 matric results, which saw 230 000 students failing.

Then there are the incidents of attacks on pupils by others, as in the well-publicised Morne Harmse case, reports of teachers abusing and even impregnating students, and problems with alcohol and drug abuse among both teachers and students.

Small wonder then that many parents wish for an alternative to condemning their children to 12 years in a broken institution run by incompetent bureaucrats and staffed by under paid and often unmotivated personnel.

Private schools do offer a solution to many of these problems, but they remain prohibitively expensive to most, and can have issues of their own.

There is, however, another option that many remain unaware of and that fewer consider: home schooling.

While home schooling may also be impossible for some, it is in fact a workable solution for far more people than might consider it to be one.

There exist numerous curriculum providers with varying levels of support, including systems where children are subjected to regular assessments to ensure that they have mastered the required work for the grade they are in.

Home schooling provides several advantages that cannot be offered by public or private schools. These include flexibility in terms of schedule, learning at a pace suited to the individual child and not determined by the capabilities of 45 other children, and isolation from almost all of the abovementioned problems that plague public schools.

The results speak for themselves.

Research released in the US last year showed that the average home-schooler scored 37 percentile points higher in achievement tests than the average public school pupil.

Home-schooled individuals, contrary to popular myth, also do not lag behind in the social sphere, and there exist many options for extracurricular sports and cultural activities as well as opportunities for socialising with others of their age.

Other research found that “(in) all areas of life, from gaining employment to being satisfied with their home schooling, to participating in community activities, to voting, home schoolers were more active and involved than their public school counterparts”, as paraphrased by the Washington Post.

Famous home-schooled indviduals include many former Presidents of the US such as Abraham Lincoln, who underwent only 18 months of formal schooling.

Today there are scientists, doctors, writers, lawyers and individuals from any imaginable profession who were home-schooled.

Knowing what they know of the state of education in SA, parents owe it to their children to seriously investigate whether home schooling is not aviable option. in their particular situation.

The education system maybe broken, but South Africans are in the fortunate position of having the right to choose how to educate their children.

Parents in many other countries, such as Germany, are not so lucky.

For the sake of the next generation, let’s make use of that freedom.

Originally published in The Citizen, 14/01/2010.

Wedded to freedom

2010-01-07T15:20:00.002+02:00

President Jacob Zuma married his fifth wife in a traditional Zulu ceremony in Nkandla this week, and if the photos from the event are any indication, the couple had a wonderful time and are looking forward to a long and happy marriage.

Not everyone was happy with the nuptials though, and on the same day the Christian Democratic Party (CDP) described the wedding as “a giant step back into the dark ages”.

Now anyone may be forgiven for never having heard of the CDP, seeing as it is a non-entity in the political landscape of this country.

The party’s website describes its leader, Theunis Botha, as an opponent of “secular/humanist [and] socialist/liberal philosophies”.

Botha supports “biblical principles as the only sure philosophy guaranteeing a fair and effective government”.

It is always amusing to watch these self-appointed moralists rail against the values and institutions of their own society, while still benefiting from the very freedoms won by the philosophies they abhor.

How can anyone honestly believe that a theocratic form of government, exemplified by the rule of the Ayatollahs in Iran, is preferable to a secular one?

Botha’s biblical bigotry is shared by African Christian Democratic Party leader Kenneth Meshoe, who also came out against the President’s wedding this week.

Meshoe said that he was very disappointed, because “this act is against biblical teaching”.

Perhaps politics has kept the good reverend a bit too busy to read the Bible, because he must have missed all the passages condoning polygamy.

The good reverend might also give some thought to the fact that Africans had traditional forms of marriage that worked very well for them for centuries before they were introduced to the Bible and ideas of marriage created by a combination of Middle Eastern and European traditions.

To insist that Africans’ own traditions are inferior and immoral displays the height of arrogance and cultural imperialism.

His assertion that polygamy is “no longer relevant in democratic societies” is pure nonsense.

Polygamy is particularly relevant in democratic societies that purport to give their members the freedom to enter into whatever consensual and mutually acceptable relationship arrangements they wish to.

An open and free society should provide the opportunity for men and women to start and maintain relationships of whatever sort. Whether you’re polygamous, polyandrous, polyamorous or celibate, as long as we’re talking about consenting adults, then it should not be anyone else’s business except the people involved.

Unfortunately, far too many people still care way too much about what others think of their relationships.

Take Tiger Woods as an example. Here is a man obviously not suited for a monogamous marriage, and under no obligation to follow such a lifestyle.

Woods was free to simply not get married and have as many long- or short-term relationships as he wished, but the desire to conform to an image preferred by his sponsors saw him trying to play the part of the traditional husband in the traditional family.

In South Africa, of course, the word “traditional” has completely different connotations when describing marriage and the family, as the Zuma example makes clear.

Thank goodness that, unlike Woods, our President made use of the freedom in our society to enter into the type of relationships he wanted to, instead of allowing himself to be dictated to by the hypocritical gatekeepers of so-called sexual morality.

Originally published in The Citizen, 07/01/2010.

Julius, the great unifier

2010-01-07T15:17:00.001+02:00

One of the most entertaining parts of the spat between Jeremy Cronin and Julius Malema is seeing people for whom the term communist had always been synonymous with the Antichrist, now voicing their loud approval of SA Communist Party leaders.

Those who lived by the motto that they’d rather be dead than red now find themselves in agreement with the wing of the tripartite alliance from which they always feared the worst.

Whatever one might say about the capabilities of ANC Youth League pres ident Malema, he does seem to have the ability to unite usually antagonistic parties in opposition against him.

In his ability to polarise, Malema may turn out to be a lot more like Thabo Mbeki and a lot less like his idol, President Jacob Zuma.

Even though this latest episode of mudslinging may appear on the surface to be just another chapter in the personality politics that has come to dominate South African politics since before the Polokwane conference, its causes go deeper.

A lot of ink has been used over the years analysing the dynamics in the tripartite alliance, especially the role of the leftist SACP and Cosatu and their relationship with what has become a decidedly capitalist-friendly and by the day more nationalist ANC.

Barely a year goes by without reports that the alliance is about to fall apart, but this is invariably followed by stage-managed reconciliation.

But there is a first time for everything, and there is reason to believe that this time the writing may indeed be on the wall.

Jacob Zuma, the great hope of the ANC’s left wing, is making it clear that there there will be no shift to the left under his presidency.

The elevation of some Cosatu and SACP leaders to high government office can appease their followers for only so long before it becomes apparent that no jobs, houses or basic services are forthcoming.

From a purely ideological stand point, there is no reason for the SACP and Cosatu to stick around in the tripartite alliance.

But what they fear most of all is that, should they go their own way and contest elections separate from the ANC, they will end up like all the other ANC breakaways and become insignificant also-rans on the political scene.

The PAC, the UDM and, by all indications, COPE have all become nonentities on the political battleground, despite at one time being seen as giant-slayers capable of bringing down the ANC.

Any party which thinks of taking on the ANC really has no option but to think twice: despite the fact that the majority of the country's population are poorer than they were before it came to power, all the country's oppos ition parties put together are incapable of even preventing the ANC from achieving a two-thirds majority.

But things might play out differently for the SACP and Cosatu.

They would be the first truly credible threat to the ANC from the left. All the previous contenders were either to the right of the ANC or occupied the same middle part of the spectrum.

For many, “communist” will forever remain a dirty word, while for others the conspicuous consumption, anti- intellectualism and racial chauvinism championed by Malema will forever remain more attractive than the idea of sharing resources and wealth.

But for many others, the prospect of a Malema presidency is enough to let them become suddenly colour-blind, politically speaking.

Julius Malema may very well be the man who finally makes opposition politics a viable pursuit.

Originally published in The Citizen, 17/12/2009.

The goal of propaganda

2010-01-07T15:14:00.001+02:00

Anyone tired of hearing about the 2010 Fifa World Cup and hoping to be spared being bombarded with 2010 news, logos and music for a little while will simply have to develop new levels of tolerance for football hysteria.

From now until the end of next year’s soccer extravaganza (and probably for quite a while thereafter), nobody will be able to drive down a stretch of road, open a newspaper or turn on a television set without 2010 staring back at them.

Part of it is simply national pride. World Cup host nations, like Olympic host cities, like to blow their own horns as much as possible.

But in South Africa sports events take on an extra layer of meaning and significance, only amplified in this instance by the fact that the World Cup is the biggest one of them all.

Whereas in most other countries the propaganda is aimed to the outside and meant to convince foreigners just what a magnificent place the host country is, in South Africa it is just as much directed inward, to our own citizens.

Ever since the 1995 Rugby World Cup the powers that be have attempted to co-opt events such as these for nation-building purposes.

Nation-building has been the holy grail of South African politics ever since the end of apartheid.

It can be a somewhat vague term, but for our purposes the Wikipedia definition will do: “The process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state ... [aimed] at the unification of the people or peoples within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run.

“Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth.”

There has not been enough major infrastructure development for it to be a useful tool in nation-building – in fact, the lack of service delivery occasioned by a lack of development continues to be a powerful force working against nation-building.

Propaganda then remains the only remaining option.

But how much of a return on investment can we expect from 2010 in terms of nation-building?

Will this event really do anything to unify the different racial, social and economic groups in South Africa?

Or will it, like previous events of this sort, simply be a temporary panacea meant to make everyone forget their daily struggles and their conflicting interests until the lights are turned off and the crowds go home?

It might be good for the country’s image and it might create a few temporary jobs, but it will not solve the most pressing issues that threaten to tear this country apart.

Imagine for a moment if all the time and money spent on a month-long sporting event was rather spent on job creation, education and the delivery of essential services.

Imagine if the police took as much care to safeguard the ordinary citizens of this country as they are doing to protect foreign tourists and sports stars.

Instead of importing foreign soccer coaches for millions of rands, should we not rather be importing experts in infrastructure development and service delivery?

This approach to nation-building may seem a lot more boring than events with choreographed dance numbers, strobe lights and fireworks, but they have a longer-lasting effect.

They also have the added benefit of actually working.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 10/12/2009.

Beware family police

2010-01-07T15:11:00.002+02:00

This week marks the third anniversary of the legalisation of same-sex marriage in South Africa.

But while local proponents of gay rights can be quite happy with what they’ve managed to accomplish so far, things aren’t going so well in some parts of the world, as evinced by the passing late last year of a California constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Supporters of the amendment managed to get it passed due to support, monetary and otherwise, from conservative religious groups that say they are fighting for the preservation of “traditional marriage”.

One has to wonder whether their legislative efforts would then not be better directed at a law that makes divorce illegal?

Fundamentalist religious groups in the US have, however, not only been active promoting the oppression of homosexuals in their own country, but have also extended their tentacles to the African continent.

Uganda is currently in the process of passing an Anti-Homosexuality Bill that would mandate a life sentence for any person found guilty of homosexual acts.

Not content with merely imprisoning gays for the rest of their lives, the Bill also requires that a death sentence be imposed on those found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality”, that is, having homosexual sex while being HIV-positive, or having it with someone who is under 18 or disabled.

According to The Times in the UK, the Bill also “proposes a three-year prison sentence for anyone who is aware of evidence of homosexuality and fails to report it to the police within 24 hours ... and seven years for anyone who defends the rights of gays and lesbians”.

It has been revealed that the Bill's author, David Bahati, is a protege of US Republican Senator James Inhofe, member of the powerful Christian fundamentalist secret society known as The Family, whose political machinations were revealed in a best-selling exposé by Jeff Sharlet entitled The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.

It was Sharlet who this week also revealed the links between Bahati and The Family.

That Bahati’s inspiration comes from fundamentalists in the US is not hard to see. He told a Ugandan newspaper, The Observer, that his Bill is aimed at “safeguarding the traditional family”.

Creating the conditions for bigotry and hatred to masquerade as “family values” is one of the most appalling and sickening accomplishments of the religious right.

Government-sanctioned discrimination based on what you were born as should still be very fresh in the memories of our rulers, and in its dealings with Uganda our government should make clear its strong disapproval of that country’s position on homosexuality.

But this is unlikely, given our President's utterances about homosexuality and the influence of our own “family values” brigade.

Prominent among these is the National Interfaith Leadership Council (NILC), which has tried to worm itself into a position of influence with the President in an attempt to have so-called “liberal” laws reversed.

The NILC, interestingly, is led by Ray “Show me the money” McCauley, who himself happens to be an adulterer, Biblically speaking.

It’s both entertaining and repulsive to watch these “traditional values” men rail against such supposedly divinely censured practices as homosexuality and abortion, while they are themselves guilty of a host of other acts expressly prohibited by the same Bible they use to try and discriminate against others.

But then, hypocrisy is nothing new, as the Bible also tells us.

Originally published in The Citizen, 03/12/2009.

Don’t be complicit

2010-01-07T15:07:00.001+02:00

The 10th annual 16 Days of Activism Against Abuse of Women and Children campaign kicked off this week, and is sadly no less relevant and necessary today than it was a decade ago.

Earlier this week, a spokesman for Noluthando Mayende-Sibiya, minister for women, youth, children and people with disabilities, said that although the campaign had succeeded in raising awareness, violence against women and children appeared to be ongoing.

Unfortunately, that is indeed the case and according to Powa, one in every four women is assaulted by her hus band or boyfriend every week.

Combine this with the highest rape stats in the world and it’s obvious that this is one of the worst countries in the world for women to live in.

Government and other sectors of society have put a lot of effort into trying to rectify this situation, with very limited success.

In a country where 85% of the population claims to be religious (80% of them Christian), the role that religion plays in causing or condoning violence against women cannot be overlooked.

Many religious denominations pride themselves on espousing traditional, conservative morality, which strangely (or not) doesn’t seem to be bearing fruit when one looks at the above-mentioned statistics.

If they are succeeding in instilling values in their adherents, why is South Africa at or near the top of the list when it comes to not only crimes such as rape, but also murder and the like?

Could it be that far from preventing violence against women, these so-called traditional values are actually exacerbating the problem? It is a fact that the vast majority of forms of religious expression all over the world are not very female-friendly.

Despite some theologians’ pronouncements that God is genderless and that the sexes are equal, there can be no doubt that for the vast majority of Christians the creator of the universe and the one and only God is male – a father, and a son – and women have to play second fiddle.

There are exhortations in the Bible and from the pulpit that women should submit and be obedient to their husbands, and the Koran allows a husband to hit a disobedient wife.

Should we then be surprised that the average woman endures 39 incidents of assault before seeking help?

Liberal theologians from Christianity, Islam and other religions have tried to put a less violently sexist slant on interpretations from scriptures, but this does not appear to be having much of an effect in the real world.

It’s left up to ordinary ministers and priests on the ground to impart a more enlightened and modern understanding of gender relations to their followers, but unfortunately, they most often seem to rather reinforce the sexist and oppressive patriarchal customs of their communities.

It’s time for religious leaders to do something real to help end the scourge of woman abuse in our society.

Helping a few women here or there to get back on their feet after exiting an abusive relationship is not enough.

What is required is a wholesale reappraisal of their systems of belief, use of language and position in society.

To do anything less would mean nothing less than remaining complicit in the preventable suffering of half of the world’s population.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 26/11/2009.

The art of democracy

2010-01-07T15:01:00.002+02:00

American poet and writer Edgar Allan Poe, in his work of literary criticism, The Poetic Principle, argues that one of the greatest “heresies” in poetry (and art) is didacticism – the philosophy that art should be informative, instructional and educational in nature.

He would not have been an admirer of President Jacob Zuma's approach to art appreciation.

Meeting with a wide variety of South African artists this week, Zuma cautioned them to be responsible when developing local television and radio content, according to Sapa.

“Whatever we present is part of societal education,” said the President, making it clear that in his mind didactic considerations should trump aesthetic ones.

As someone whose personal anthem is a request to be brought a machine gun, one would imagine that Zuma would be the first to point out that violent art does not actually cause violence.

But he, in fact, expressed the opposite view, complaining about the blood, sex and violence on television.

“If you listen to ... short stories you are exposed to conspiracies, to killing, to murders, everything you can think of and the young people... are looking at it and choosing their own characters.

“Then we wonder why our society is so violent and there is so much rape and everything.”

We may indeed often wonder why society is so violent, but one thing we can be completely sure of is that it’s not due to the content of radio and television shows.

Art is one of the many areas that politicians should rather refrain from interfering in, because, among other reasons, they generally tend to have absolutely no clue about it and because they often desire to shape and direct the output of art towards the fulfilment of some political or nationalistic agenda.

And so the Nazis had the art of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union gave us Socialist Realism, and the apartheid rulers censored works that they felt undermined their ideology and by extension society as a whole.

Yet it was precisely the banned and the censored art produced in South Africa and by South Africans abroad that played such a major role in the transformation of society.

This art had the power to transform because it was not kept captive by political interests and government control.

If government is truly interested in harnessing the talents of artists to better society, then the best thing it can do is to provide material and financial support to painters, sculptors, writers and musicians, and then to simply stand back and let them do what they do best.

But this is unlikely to happen. Unfortunately, there has been a worrying shift to the right that has been slowly taking place over the last few years in this country, and this is yet another example of a form of moralistic paternalism that is becoming all too common.

Combine this with the parochialism that characterised official responses to the Caster Semenya debacle and also the ridiculously over-the-top reaction to the recent rendition of the national anthem, and it seems that whatever advances our society may have made since the 1980s are slowly but surely losing ground to a spiteful, self-righteous and selfish chauvinism.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 19/11/2009.

From terror to art

2010-01-07T14:37:00.003+02:00

The much-anticipated video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released this week with much fanfare in many countries across the globe.

South Africa was no exception, with avid gamers queuing outside game shops for the special midnight launch on Monday.

London’s Leicester Square hosted a massive event of the sort usually reserved for movie premieres, and it is estimated that first-week sales in the UK will exceed 1 million copies.

But it’s not been all good news. Controversy began raging soon before the game’s release, when leaked foot age of the game, in which civilians are massacred by terrorists at an airport, was leaked to the Internet.

Upon release, politicians voiced concern at the overall levels of viol ence.

The game is indeed very violent, as one would expect of an action game that takes its inspiration from present-day conflicts around the world, but it’s no worse than one would expect from a similarly age-re stricted movie or book dealing with the same subject.

A bit of sensationalism surrounding the release of a video game with adult content has become something of the norm, and the furore over the 2008 game Grand Theft Auto IV is another good example.

This particular instance is, however, interesting.

The Grand Theft Auto games are a favourite bugbear of censorship and “morality” crusaders, and as a game that sees the player take on the role of a career criminal, it’s easy for them to use out-of-context snippets to convert the uninformed to their point of view.

The Call of Duty games, on the other hand, see the player take on the role of a soldier. He’s always one of the “good guys”, whether it be a GI taking part in the D-Day landings during World War 2, a sniper taking out Nazi commanders, or, as in the case of the latest instalment, fighting on the front lines against the threat of global terrorism.

But the above-mentioned airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 introduces something completely unexpected, disturbing and thought-provoking into a game that American neoconservatives might otherwise have considered as great propaganda for the “war on terror”.

The player controls a character that has infiltrated a terrorist organisation and in order to maintain his cover, the character participates in the mass slaughter of civilians.

Earlier in the game, a commanding officer mentions the high personal cost that will have to be paid to maintain an undercover identity, but that the cost of failure would be greater.

But playing through this scene will make anyone wonder what exactly should be considered too high a price to pay to keep people safe from terrorists. As in the current debate about the torture of terrorism suspects by the US, the question is one of how much of one’s own humanity is worth sacrificing in the endeavour to defeat evil men?

By engaging with the discourse surrounding such topical and important issues as these, Modern Warfare 2 is a landmark achievement in the growth of video games’ social significance and increasing acceptance as a true art form.

Time will tell if more vociferous opposition to the game will be forthcoming, but if this does happen, it will probably have less to do with the issue of violence per se, and more to do with the raising of uncomfortable questions.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 12/11/2009.

Love those hypocrites

2010-01-07T14:34:00.001+02:00

There is no way that anybody who has been at all exposed to any form of news media this week could have escaped being fed some sort of details on the Joost van der Westhuizen “sex scandal”.

The former Springbok finally admitted that he was indeed the star of the infamous video made with a hidden camera and the assistance of stripper Marilize van Emmenis and an unidentified white substance.

The drugs Cat and cocaine have however both strongly denied that it was them seen going for the try-line in Van der Westhuizen's nostrils, and this may have something to do with the fact that unlike Joost, they don't have biographies about to hit the shelves.

Van der Westhuizen’s months-long denial – taken to melodramatic proportions with the employment of a private detective and talk of conspiracies – seems to be part of a pattern that can be observed whenever someone who confesses good old-fashioned values are caught with their pants down.

And if there’s one thing you can be sure of, it’s that the more vocal someone is about their disapproval of this or that sexual act or lifestyle, the more likely they are to be caught engaging in just what they so strongly condemn.

Following the initial revelation, the person in question inevitably denies the reports. This usually goes hand in hand with a whole lot of indignation and a reminder that they are very religious and would never even think of doing such a thing.

Only once it becomes impossible to any longer maintain that it wasn’t them do they admit to what was plain to everyone else all along.

At this point it’s all about how everyone makes mistakes and that one shouldn’t judge others, which would probably be a lot easier if they’d admitted to whatever they did in the first place instead of engaging in wilful deceit and attempts at public manipulation.

Recently, some people in America raised the question of why commentators in the media always seem to make such a big deal about the extra-marital flings and indiscretions of conservative political or religious figures, and don’t do the same when a liberal is caught in the same situation.

The reason is quite obvious though – it’s hypocrisy, and not on the part of the media.

It is the hypocrisy of railing against pre-or extra-marital sex, homosexuality and alternative lifestyles while yourself secretly partaking in them that makes revelations of such conduct newsworthy.

Revelations that someone who has never proclaimed to be a bastion of conservative mores isn’t such is not news at all.

There is still a tendency among South Africans to demand the strictest adherence to traditional values from their heroes and celebrities.

This is a very silly preoccupation because, after all, what do a person’s sexual proclivities have to do with whether they are good sportsmen, singers, artists, businessmen or politicians?

But instead of trying to drive home the point that whatever he did in his private life had nothing to do with his professional life, Joost turned himself into just another hypocrite.

And if the media like one thing more than they love celebrities, it’s celebrity hypocrites.

Judging by the sales of Van der Westhuizen’s book, which sold out on the day of its release, the rest of South Africa does too.

Originally appeared in The Citizen, 05/11/2009.