Showing posts with label stephendarori. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stephendarori. Show all posts

Friday, March 31, 2017

It’s the people, or #OyVeyJacobZuma Zumarism


And so the endgame begins. As expected, President Jacob Zuma has taken the propitious step of reshuffling his cabinet, ousting trusted Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, and thereby demonstrating a shameful disregard for the commonplace notion that government should treat the capital of its taxpayers with respect.
There has been lots of vague speculation over why it would be necessary to dismiss a loyal and respected finance minister, laced with hints and suggestions, so let’s be clear on this topic: the president is dismissing Gordhan because he wants more control over the fiscus and Gordhan stands in his way.

The full list of new Cabinet ministers
Who’s in and who’s out. Read the full list here
 BDliveSA
He wants more control because, like all unpopular leaders, he feels he can spend his way into people’s hearts – and particularly the hearts of his chosen recipients, his family, his friends and his supporters in the higher ranks of the party.
But by doing so, he will cause ructions within the party and chaos in the fiscus. Zuma’s legacy so far has been a catalogue of disasters for his own alliance and his own supporters. The once mighty Cosatu that bestrode the workplace in SA for years has now been reduced to essentially a union of state employees, the only group too afraid to disassociate itself from the party in power.
The South African Communist Party, once an influential think-tank within the alliance, is now discarded and demeaned. The ANC Youth League, once a fertile training ground for party cadres, is overshadowed by its breakaway political movement, the Economic Freedom Fighters.
Under his leadership, the ANC, which once commanded the support of more than two-thirds of voters, in the latest local government poll could barely muster a simple majority.
He has been a disastrous and calamitous runaway train on a demolition derby.

Zuma faces down open revolt, guts his Cabinet
Jacob Zuma’s reshuffle shock will have far-reaching consequences, with the rand falling sharply overnight and set to fall further

For the state of government finances, he has been equally a calamity. His own personal gluttony has been reflected in a fiscal position that has slid from serious to parlous. Over his term, state debt has doubled; government has borrowed more than a trillion rand; the level of business confidence is miserable and consequently, the economy has slouched into a gravelly state of bare stasis.
It seems almost inevitable now that SA’s government debt will be downgraded to junk status, but even if it is not, there is simply no conceivable way that Gordan’s successor can possibly regain the same level of trust of foreign lenders.
In response to all these setbacks, Zuma’s response has been to up the ante, trying to discover his inner Robert Mugabe. By adopting this gambit, Zuma has misjudged the country’s people, most of whom are urban dwellers who seek economic stability, not doubtful promises of grand redistribution.
Yet, in the midst of this dark time, there is one redeeming feature. The endgame has begun. Instead of being caught in a quasi-clandestine battle over the future of the party, the battle lines are clear. On one hand, stands Zumarism, with all its promise of corruption, dislocation and disfigurement. On the other, stands anti-Zumarism, with all its promise of pragmatism and a future of mutual respect.
As a result, the choice that stands before ANC members of leadership and parliament is now peculiarly stark. They need to decide on which side of history they stand. And the root question is equally stark: do they stand with the people of South African, or do they stand with Zuma and his faction.
For nobody in the party is the choice more wrenching than Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa. If he remains in the cabinet now, his already battered credibility will be lost irretrievably. He will forever be associated with a president who plainly does not even want him to be his successor. What an ignominious end to such an illustrious career.
Still, Zuma may discover that this kind of zero-sum game thinking results in the most hollow of victories.

Helen of Twitter Dethroned H.R.H. Queen of Colonialism

Mandela's key wingman Ahmed Kathrada calls for #OyVeyJacobZuma to step down from the Grave

No automatic alt text available.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Former judge takes on Helen Zille's “colonialism” Twitter political correctness head-on

Former judge takes on “colonialism” political correctness head-on

Former Supreme Court Judge Rex van Schalkwyk tackles South Africa’s insidious and debilitating political correctness around colonialism head on, taking us on a global history tour that exposes the shallow current dominant discourse for what it is – errant nonsense. The more frightening prospect is that, in the midst of the official opposition’s turmoil over Western Cape Premier Helen Zille’s tweet about colonialism having conferred benefits on this country, we are establishing a new (and twisted), norm for acceptable free speech. That van Schalkwyk’s voice is almost drowned out in the current media discourse shows just how far we’ve drifted into what is now almost mainstream thinking about what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to expressing your opinion publicly. Adapting to a new Constitutionally-protected and legislatively-equal society is both appropriate and pragmatic. However, what is now evolving is akin to the headmaster, teachers, prefects and classroom bullies colluding to brutally and mercilessly shame and/or silence anyone who differs from them, creating a dysfunctional and fearful behavioural ethic. Some commentators are even claiming (contrary to all of history) that if colonisation, or something similar, had not occurred, the indigenous peoples would have made all the scientific, engineering, medical and other discoveries without outside influence. Pure fantasy, says Van Schalkwyk, who then goes on to show us exactly why. – Chris Bateman



There is something seriously wrong with a society in which it becomes impossible to express an honest opinion. Helen ZIlle’s tweet (never a good idea) contained, essentially, the truth but in the collective hullabaloo that followed, that fact has almost entirely been lost.Former Supreme Court Judge Rex van Schalkwyk

Whatever her critics may say, she never “defended” or “praised” colonialism in any of the opinions that she expressed; she was careful only to have said that colonialism was not all bad. Any disagreement upon this issue (apart from the political inappropriateness of the comment) means, by necessary implication, that colonialism was all bad. Factually, that is demonstrably false.

Apart from the oft-repeated examples of mechanised transport, roads, electricity, water-borne sewerage and the rest, the one colonial manifestation that cannot be escaped is the written, English language. Even an avowed anti-colonialist and sometime hater of all things English (excepting perhaps the game of cricket) like Robert Mugabe, speaks the language with the accent of an Eton graduate.

It is said by some of the Zille critics that all the apparent benefits of the colonial system were initiated for the benefit of the colonisers. Well, of course, that is true; people do things for their own benefit. It is the impulse that has driven creativity throughout the ages. The contention that there was no residual benefit for the victims of colonialism would seek to disprove the most significant force of development and change throughout history. Colonialism or, more accurately, invasions, constitute much of the history of the world, and it all started millennia before the Dutch settlers “colonised” the Cape of Good Hope.

Civilization may have started with the ancient culture of the Babylonians, located in the fertile valley of the Tigris and Euphrates; they were the first to have devolved a written language. This occurred even before the Aryans invaded Europe from the north and spread their influence as far south as North Africa and east into India. Fortunately for the Aryans, their adventures put their illiterate hordes into contact with the people of Babylon from whence came their literacy.Helen Zille’s Twitter storm. More magic available at www.zapiro.com

The ancient written word of Sanskrit, said by some etymologists to have been the first writing, was imported, according to some historians, from the expansionist impulses of the (by now) literate Aryans. The historical accounts vary but need not detain us. The point is simply that migrations, invasions and what has come latterly to be described as colonialism and/or imperialism has occurred throughout history and has invariably imparted, at least, some benefit.

The famed Library at Alexandria, about which many Africans express a glowing pride, was established in the wake of the invasion of North Africa, by Alexander the Great, a Macedonian. The eponymous name of that great institution was derived from the title of the invader.

The Romans introduced the territories that they invaded to a formidable array of skills including engineering, architecture, water reticulation, art and culture and even personal hygiene.

Much the same can be said in the case of South Africa, but if all else is ignored then the English language has conferred great benefits in communication, literacy, literature, culture, science and commerce.


Read also: Stop playing the ANC’s game; get off Zille and do your job – Wilf Nussey

It is true, of course, that if the Dutch colonisers had not arrived, and the English thereafter, as some anti-colonists would wish, that these and perhaps greater benefits may have been derived from some other source. It is uncertain however that any alternative would necessarily have been more benign. The Belgians would almost surely have been worse, if the invasion had occurred during the time of King Leopold.

If the Chinese naval marvel built by the redoubtable Admiral Zheng He in the 15th century AD had not been destroyed upon the command of the isolationist Emperor Hongxi, the peoples of Southern Africa might today be speaking Cantonese.

Some forms of colonialism were undoubtedly far worse than others. If the Dutch settlement at the Cape can be called a colonisation, it was certainly of the more benign kind. The Cape sea route was seen as nothing more than a half-way stop on the long voyage to India, where the real riches were to be found. By comparison the whole of unexplored Southern Africa was seen as no more than a backward and impoverished region with few attractions apart from the strategic one.
The real colonisation occurred when the British might took on the two Boer Republics in an imperial war of aggression. Even that tragic event produced a significant dividend in terms of commercial, banking and other related expertise that had previously been absent.

If an example is sought of pernicious exploitation it is found in the brutal abuse of the people of Vietnam, whose land was occupied, first by the Chinese, for 1000 years, then by the Mongols, then by the French and finally, by the Japanese. But that was not all. The Americans chose that beleaguered land to fight their war of containment against Communist expansion, with a brutality unrivalled in warfare until that time.

Some of the bedraggled survivors chose a refuge by way of a seaborne migration in what has come to be known as the phenomenon of the “boat people”. Those who survived the treacherous voyage, as well as the hostile immigration officials of California, set up their survivalist enterprises in what was sometimes an antagonistic environment. The offspring of these indomitable people are today out-performing their privileged American counterparts at the Ivy League Universities of their adoptive land. And Vietnam is now approaching a First World status similar to that of many of its Asian counterparts.

Collectively, their success lies in the fact that they have left the past behind.

The anti-colonist obsession that has overtaken our dialogue will do nothing to advance the cause of progress. Judging by the reaction of the anti Zille shills it will, however, have the effect of stilling the voice of dissention. What is then to become of the sacred right of the freedom of expression, if even thought processes are now to be controlled?

We have already reached the stage where the accusation of racialism is cast about so indiscriminately that it has become meaningless to any thoughtful observer. However it has had the effect that individuals have become so apprehensive of the prospect of this unjustified slur that they have begun to censor, not only their speech, but even their own thoughts. Indeed I had wondered about the wisdom of putting these ideas in writing.

In a collective quest to be politically correct, is South Africa in danger of becoming a nation of dissemblers? Is this perchance because the thought police have taken control?
Rex van Schalkwyk is a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa and is the Chairman of the Free Market Foundation’s Rule of Law Board of Advisers.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Catch a Fire is a 2006 biographical thriller film about activists against apartheid in South Africa. The film was directed by Phillip Noyce, from a screenplay written by Shawn Slovo. Slovo's father, Joe Slovo, and mother Ruth First, leaders of the South African Communist Party and activists in the Anti-Apartheid Movement,




Catch A Fire
Catch a fire poster.jpg
US theatrical release poster
Directed byPhillip Noyce
Produced byTim Bevan
Eric Fellner
Anthony Minghella
Robyn Slovo
Written byShawn Slovo
StarringDerek Luke
Tim Robbins
Bonnie Henna
Music byPhilip Miller
CinematographyRon Fortunato
Garry Phillips
Edited byJill Bilcock
Production
companies
Distributed byFocus Features (US)
Universal Pictures International (UK)
Release date
  • 27 October 2006 (US)
  • 23 March 2007 (UK)
Running time
101 min[1]
CountryUnited Kingdom
United States
France
South Africa
LanguageEnglish
Budget$14 million
Box office$5,724,236

Catch a Fire is a 2006 biographical thriller film about activists against apartheid in South Africa. The film was directed by Phillip Noyce, from a screenplay written by Shawn Slovo. Slovo's father, Joe Slovo, and mother Ruth First, leaders of the South African Communist Party and activists in the Anti-Apartheid Movement, appear as characters in the film, while her sister, Robyn Slovo, is one of the film's producers and also plays their mother Ruth First. Catch a Fire was shot on location in South Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique.

Plot
The film begins in "Northern Coalfields, South Africa, 1980". It revolves around Patrick Chamusso, a young, apolitical man (played by Derek Luke) who is accused of carrying out an attack against the government, and an Afrikaner police officer, Nic Vos, played by Tim Robbins. Vos is in charge of locating the perpetrators of a recent bomb attack against the Secunda CTL synthetic fuel refinery, which is the largest coal liquefaction plant in the world.

Patrick is unwillingly swept into Vos's investigation due to his inability to provide a satisfactory explanation for his whereabouts at the time of the bombing (he was actually having an affair with a woman not his wife). Eventually Patrick, his wife, Precious, (played by Bonnie Henna), and his family are tortured and savagely abused by Vos and Vos's subordinates. Desperate, Patrick says that he is willing to confess to a crime he did not commit to protect his family from torture. At last, Vos finally concludes that Patrick is innocent, and orders his release.

Fuelled by the anger at the injustices he and his family suffered, Patrick joins Umkhonto we Sizwe, the guerrilla military wing of the African National Congress and becomes exactly what Vos had initially accused him of being. This decision was an act of revenge against the government for killing his friend and tormenting not only himself but his wife as well. He attempts to execute a plan to attack Secunda, the oil refinery he used to work for, by first bombing its adjacent water supply facilities, and 15 minutes later triggering the main explosion within the refinery itself. This would allow the refinery's workforce to flee between the two explosions, and not be harmed. Also, the damage of the first bomb would reduce the possibility of successfully extinguishing the fire caused by the second, main explosion. Patrick succeeds in the first part, but the second bomb is discovered by Vos and deactivated.

Patrick is arrested and sentenced to 24 years in prison, after his wife goes to Vos and tells him where Patrick is, because she fell for a simple trick in which Vos left photographs of Patrick talking to a female member of the ANC. Through her unjust jealousy she sells him out. He is released early due to the abolition of apartheid.

Precious, who has remarried, is waiting for him and apologizes, and Patrick forgives her and he says he is sorry as well. Some time later, he has been trying to adjust to normal life but the pain he felt wouldn't leave him. One day, he sees Vos sitting out near a small body of water opposite to the side he and friends are on. He creeps over and through some brush sees that it is indeed Vos, and though a part of him wants to break Vos' neck, he decides that it is not worth it, and the real Patrick Chamusso is shown explaining that he told himself then and there that only through forgiveness would he truly be free. He left Vos alone, and went on to remarry and take in over 80 orphaned children in South Africa to provide a home for kids who lost their families during the anti-apartheid struggle.

Cast

  • Derek Luke as Patrick Chamusso
  • Tim Robbins as Nic Vos
  • Bonnie Henna as Precious Chamusso[2]
  • Mncedisi Shabangu as Zeko September
  • Tumisho Masha as Obadi
  • Sithembiso Khumalo as Sixpence
  • Terry Pheto as Miriam
  • Marius Weyers as the Field Commander
  • Michele Burgers as Anna Vos
  • Mpho Lovinga as Johnny Piliso
  • Malcolm Purkey as Joe Slovo
  • Robyn Slovo as Ruth First
  • Patrick Chamusso as himself
  • Sibusiso Mhlongo as a Photographer


Critical reception
The film received positive reviews from critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 75% out of 141 professional critics gave the film a positive review, with a rating average of 6.6/10 and the critical consensus being: "No stranger to the political thriller, director Phillip Noyce tackles apartheid and terrorism with experienced gusto, while Derek Luke and Tim Robbins hand in nuanced performances."[3]
Fortress Zuma coming under attack by forces led by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan

After yesterday’s outrageous blunder I’m trying to work out if SA President Jacob Zuma has now completely lost it. Or whether he is so compromised he just has to jerk whenever his strings are pulled by the crony capitalist Guptas.

Zuma’s instruction that his Finance Minister abort planned presentations to investors in London and New York surpasses base stupidity. Pravin Gordhan has worked tirelessly to court the foreign capital every developing country must attract to grow. These roadshows are critical to maintaining SA’s investment grade rating – without which its cost of borrowing will increase, punishing, especially, the poor.

Being ordered to return home on an apparent whim from Pretoria not only humiliates Gordhan – it needlessly irritates those whose cash injections can make the difference between a flourishing or floundering economy. It is no coincidence the Guptas are publicly demanding Gordhan appear in court tomorrow to defend himself against their absurd assertions.

Rian Malan nailed it in a brilliant piece on Biznews yesterday. He reckons SA’s constitution “has come to mark the great divide in our society. On the one side we have forces raged behind Gordhan. On the other, Zuma and his primitive accumulationists.” If Zuma wins, Malan concludes, “SA will follow Idi Amin and Mugabe into the abyss.” This is going to be quite a week.

Friday, March 17, 2017

International Defence and Aid Fund (IDAF)) and its fight against Apartheid