In his younger days, David Cameron was paid by a shadowy pro-Apartheid lobby group to go to South Africa.
This nugget is revealed by Johann Hari in a piece for the Independent yesterday.
In his mid-twenties Cameron went on a week long “jolly” to white supremacist South Africa, breaking sanctions against the regime, paid for by a shadowy pro-Aparthied lobbying group.
But he says he regrets that and the party now abhors racism.
via Claude at Hagley Road to Ladywood.
Cameron has been urged to apologise for the trip but has yet refused to do so.
However he did admit the Conservatives were wrong to oppose sanctions against the apartheid regime and repudiated Margaret Thatcher’s description of Mandela’s African National Congress as “terrorists”.
Poor old Johann, the Cameron groupies at Harrys won’t like this, especially as it was revealed by an old comrade, although now a hated old comrade.
Here comes “well that was then and this is now” brigade.
What I will say is that Cameron is not the smiling new Tory, as he is often portrayed. That is to win an election, and to be honest can you blame him. If he sounded like a foaming Thatcherite like Rabid Raccoon he wouldn’t even get a vote in Surrey.
Sorry Rabid, at least your an honest piece of vermin.
Old chinese saying “Beware the reasonable man”
PS Are Raccoon’s classed as vermin ?
That’s not new – I heard about that years ago. It was the final nail in the coffin for my parents, as far as Cameron goes.
It won’t matter in the big scheme of things though, sadly. The majority of people are fairly selfish and unaware, and how the Conservative party are likely to treat minority groups won’t be enough to turn the middle ground against them.
“It won’t matter in the big scheme of things though, sadly”
Nor do the previous hard-left views of certain Labour MPs. Shockingly enough it is possible to change one’s opinion over a couple of decades. Heck, over a few years I switched from being authoritarian to libertarian.
This allegation doesn’t stand up too well.
David Cameron was born 9 October 1966. His mid-twenties thus covers the years 1988 to 1994.
De Klerk became President in September 1989 and immediately declared that South Africa would become a non-racist country. Botha had previously attended meetings with the ANC in 1988. Nelson Mandela was released on 11 February 1990.
For the sake of argument, take September 1989 as the date when South Africa formally accepted that apartheid had to go. Most people would agree that the writing on the wall appeared in 1987. It is implausible that Cameron visited South Africa, even as a guest of a pro-apartheid group, expecting status quo ante.
Who was this shadowy group that paid for Cameron’s trip? When did the trip occur?
@4
Well it’s all true, basically:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/David-Cameron-Apartheid-Era-Visit-To-South-Africa-Calls-For-Tory-Leader-To-Apologise-To-Mandela/Article/201002215546457?f=rss
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-camerons-freebie-to-apartheid-south-africa-1674367.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/02/sanctions-lobbyists-africa
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100211/tuk-cameron-told-to-say-sorry-for-aparth-45dbed5_1.html
http://www.lbc.co.uk/cameron-told-to-say-sorry-for-apartheid-visit-20116
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/uk-ireland/cameron-apology-urged-over-visit-14676187.html
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/uk_national_news/5000704.Cameron_apology_urged_over_visit/
etc.
Learn to google before you throw around comments like “This allegation doesn’t stand up too well.”
And in case you can’t be bothered to read:
The trip was in 1989, organised and funded by Strategy Network International (SNI), created in 1985 specifically to lobby against the imposition of sanctions on South Africa.
Cameron has yet to apologise or explain his youthful actions (although what’s new? the vomit-inducing antics of the Bullingdon gang seem to have faded from memory already).
This is reaching. So what if Cameron did? Who gives a damn?
This is just an attempt at a smear at third hand.
It is not as if he was a regular visitor to – and defender of – Cuba say is it? Or that he took money from the KGB. Or regularly took holidays as a guest of the East German regime. All of these things you can do and remain in good standing on the Left. So Cameron went to South Africa as a guest of a lobbying group. Big deal.
And he was wrong to apologise for opposing sanctions or calling Mandela a terrorist.
A fine example of right wing mindset on display here.
First some anonymous hero comes up with “This is not true! Cameron must have been 21 instead of 23 back then…!”.
Then, when a list as long as the M6 is presented to corroborate the story that Cameron did indeed go to South Africa courtesy of an organisation striving to keep the old white supremacist status quo (and it matters little if he was 20,21,23,24 at the time), here comes another apologist saying “so what?”.
Cue the predictable “it is not as if he was a regular visitor to – and defender of – Cuba say is it? Or that he took money from the KGB”.
But of course the above remark shuns a tiny little detail: this is no obscure backbencher we’re talking about (and still, think of the hysterical cries everytime an 89-year-old former Labour activist is accused by the Daily Mail of having been on the payroll of the KGB in 1965 or something).
This is the Tory leader and likely future Prime Minister of Britain we’re talking about. The fact that all you can come up with is “so what” says much about your (lack of) critical spirit when it comes to your masters.
This is reaching. So what if Cameron did? Who gives a damn?
This is just an attempt at a smear at third hand.
To a Thatcherite apartheid supporting troll, I suppose it doesn’t
Also if Brown had visited Cuba and extolled the virtues of Fidel in his youth. SMFS, Harrys place and other members of the right wouldn’t use that.
Oh Yeaaaah
Numpty.
Go back to Harry’s place and get your right wing prejudices reinforced .
@8 Claude: “A fine example of right wing mindset on display here.
First some anonymous hero comes up with “This is not true! Cameron must have been 21 instead of 23 back then…!”.
Then, when a list as long as the M6 is presented to corroborate the story that Cameron did indeed go to South Africa courtesy of an organisation striving to keep the old white supremacist status quo (and it matters little if he was 20,21,23,24 at the time), here comes another apologist saying “so what?”.”
Thank you, but my mindset is not right wing, merely critical of what I think is a weak accusation.
I would have needed to use a time machine to have read some of the links offered by Prufrock. The Independent article, for example, is dated at least eight hours later than my comment.
I did read the New Statesman article to which Sunny links. It is vague about the organisation that sponsored the trip and the date. “1989″ does not tell us very much, because that was when South Africa was launching itself into change. There are 12 months in a year; did Cameron visit in the four months after De Klerk announced that the racist state would end or in the preceding period? I’d like to know but it doesn’t really matter. As I wrote earlier, racist South Africans had already acknowledged that their country would change.
I certainly agree that the young Cameron demonstrated a profound failure of judgement by accepting the jolly. But he has expressed regret for the jolly, and more significantly I think, for following the Conservative party line in the 1980s.
David Cameron’s conduct whilst working at Carlton TV raises many more questions about his fitness to govern than this jolly. Try this article:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/04/david-cameron-what-the-experts-say-115875-22017276/
So, just to summarise then, he did go and he does have some explaining to do.
With all the right-wing ducking and diving going on round here, I think a precis is always a good thing.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what he did 20 or 30 years ago. SA is a fucked up place now, it was a fucked up place then. Just for different reasons. This smacks of someone just trying to work up a new ‘racist tory’ story. Same as this little bit about the ‘stange tales of a tory nation’ book, where one story is about a tory MP saying Ian Smith was a decent bloke, or words to that effect.
@12 DHG: “So, just to summarise then, he did go and he does have some explaining to do.”
Cameron admits that he went on a jolly to South Africa. We, including Cameron, agree that the jolly was misguided. I would be happy to read comments about why “educational visits” should have been utterly prohibited in the 1980s.
David Cameron is an unpleasant man; the SA jolly does not support that argument, instead it reminds us that Tories have superficially changed; please, please read the link in the final paragraph of my previous post.
Ian:
I’m a big fan of SA, spent plenty of time there, it is not as fucked off as you put it, things take time, plenty of work does need to be done but it is getting there and doesn’t need people giving up on it.
C:
I think we are arguing the same point.
You are very wrong Daniel, take it from a safa.
In 2003, South Africa had 21,553 murders (population 44.6 million). In comparison, the “high crime” United States (population 288.2 million) suffered 16,110 murders in the same year. According to Baldauf, the number of homicides in South Africa dipped to 19,824 in 2004. The US, with 293 million at the time, had 16,150.
The last statistics available, courtesy of the CBS, “showed that between April 2004 and March 2005, 18,793 people were murdered in South Africa, an average of 51 a day in a nation of 47 million.” There were 24,516 attempted murders, 249,369 assaults with grievous injury, and 55,114 reported rapes.
I’d say that is pretty fucked up by anyones standards.
I think you’re using old stats, in some cases 7 years old, I also think that anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that South Africa has some very real problems is an idiot BUT and this is a big but, any nation that had been the victim of one of the cruellest and most deprived wholesale social experiments for as long as it was, would come out of it on its knees and re-adjustement will take and is taking a long time.
So don’t give up on it just yet, it is Africa’s largest economy and I believe, the world’s 20th largest, steps are being taken but patience will be the key as well as steps to redress the balance between the haves and have-nots.
The figures I gave are clearly dated but it is no better now: 18148 murders in 2008-09, 121392 Aggravated robberies in 2008- 09, 70,514 rapes in 2008 – 2009, 246,616 residential burglaries in 2008 – 2009.
This huge level of crime simply did not happen during Apartheid (not a defence or an endorsement by any means, simply a fact) and cannot be explained by the removal of the Apartheid system.
Other countries lived for decades under much more murderous and repressive regime such as the European eastern bloc under a regime that claimed around 150,000,000 murders of innocent people and emerged without anywhere near approaching these levels of crime.
And this is happening in a country where, as you say, the subsequent governments have inherited a first world economy.
It is simply not enough or even remotely true to blame this endemic crime on the “white man” anymore and this will not be resolved until realities, rather then political fantasises are addressed, and especially cultural attitudes are changed.
As I said, of course it is high but it has gone down, as your stats show so it is better now.
As for it not happening during apartheid, indeed it didn’t because it was a fascist, racist regime treating the vast majority of the country as third class humans, if human at all.
To suggest that the sheer violence of apartheid has no impact on the current nation is odd to say the least, no nation has experienced that cruel a social device, the US is the nearest and look at that is still recovering from the huge, huge social and economic inequalities meted out to non-whites.
I note that you talk of South African’s current regime inheriting the economic strength (not at all true but by doing this you thus make it clear you believe that the black administration cannot have praise for that) but willing to heap negatives on the black administration for taking over after a terrible repressive regime?
Strange.
Also, comparisons to other repressive regimes are false, what happened in South Africa is unique so best to treat it as such.
Also, I’m not blaming the white man but ignoring the social and economic impacts of the horrors of what happened to South Africa is to miss the point all together.
However, this thread is not about that, it is about D-Cam going there when he really shouldn’t have. So shall we get it back on topic now?
The figures suggest some crimes have gone down, but even if they were to be believed, it is still unbelievably massive and ranks SA as second in the world murder league and first in rape; but the reality is that the police are just getting better at manipulating the figures.
But to suggest that these levels of crime didn’t occur in SA under Apartheid because of some omnipotent fascist police present is patently false; the levels of policing were actually less then they are now. What was clear then, what the major difference was were the penalties for such crimes, and given a choice between severe penalties and rampant crime, I choose severe penalties as most in SA now would. Police and government corruption is a strong contender for the primary reason for this crime wave too.
Whatever impact Apartheid had on inequality certainly doesn’t manifest itself in endemic rape upon the demise of Apartheid, and neither does much of the murder which is purely criminal gang related. Fiscally, the difference between post-Apartheid to pre is actually detrimental to most for a variety of factors such as the fact that people were not robbed and extorted of their earnings wholesale previously, for one.
Subsequent regimes did inherit a first world economy and cannot take any credit for it, in fact they are to blame for much ruination and yes, they must also take responsibility for the massive resultant crime that followed during their regimes for no one else is responsible. The time for political fantasises is past.
Ultimately Apartheid was removed not because of outside pressure but because the majority of Afrikaners would no longer support it, no longer wanted it. I was one of those and quite vocal about it too in a time when it was not the done thing to be.
We need real solutions to these problems now and not more sound bites, and yes I think it is fair to compare the emergence of the Eastern bloc from under the most murderous and repressive regime in human history to our lamentable failure to emerge from Apartheid with such success.
The reality for the ordinary black in SA townships now is far, far worse then it ever was under Apartheid and that is something that is widely discussed here. Of course not one of us would ever consider such a route as any solution in any reality, what most of us now want is these political sound bites that are in the way now, out of the way and the job to get done.
8. claude – “But of course the above remark shuns a tiny little detail: this is no obscure backbencher we’re talking about (and still, think of the hysterical cries everytime an 89-year-old former Labour activist is accused by the Daily Mail of having been on the payroll of the KGB in 1965 or something).”
Being on the payroll of the KGB is slightly different from being a one-time visitor to South Africa. And I am sure most people on this site would defend long term KGB informants to their last breath. He is not an obscure back bencher, but so what? He did nothing wrong. He simply went to South Africa.
“This is the Tory leader and likely future Prime Minister of Britain we’re talking about. The fact that all you can come up with is “so what” says much about your (lack of) critical spirit when it comes to your masters.”
The fact you cannot explain what offense he is supposed to have committed says as much about your lack of fairness and objectivity as well. He went to a country with an unpleasant social system that does not exist any more. Big deal. Where is the problem?
9. Golden Gordon – “To a Thatcherite apartheid supporting troll, I suppose it doesn’t”
Well given that 99.9 percent of the population is also unlikely to give a damn and most of the rest are obscure Trots, unwashed student activists and employees of the BBC I don’t see what you think you are going to get from this claim. No one cares. And why should they?
10. Golden Gordon – “Also if Brown had visited Cuba and extolled the virtues of Fidel in his youth. SMFS, Harrys place and other members of the right wouldn’t use that.”
If he had praised Castro of course I would. But Cameron did not, to the best of my knowledge, praise Apartheid. He went, he did not approve. Now half the former British Cabinet were Communists of one sort or another. The majority of those seem to have visited one or other much worse regime. A lot of them are on record as praising them as well. No one cares. They ought to but they don’t.
There is no wrong-doing here. The sight of a bunch of Trots working themselves into a self righteous lather is not going to build a new Left either.
I spent thre months travelling around South Africa in 2001, and I thought it had no hope of being this ‘Rainbow Nation’
The inequality was too great – and ran along racial lines which made it doubly worse. I thought then that it was a basket case.
See all the ‘beautiful’ people sipping espresso at Giovanni’s in Green Point, Cape Town, while 50 yards up the road, hopeless prostitutes from Angloa were standing outside what looked like squats and crack houses.
http://www.lossis.com/Giovannies,%20Ferrari%201.JPG
As for David Cameron going there. He’s a flipping Tory. And was then a young Tory. That’s what they’re like. It’s a bit of a non-story to me.
Interesting what Jeff Randall said Charlieman.
Seth:
This is getting reductive now, you clearly have a negative feeling about South Africa and only see the bad, rather than entertain any thoughts of positivity about this fine nation. We are just throwing our personal truths at each other, so it has become circular and pointless.
Take for example the admission by you that the crime figures have gone down, you then immediately say that is because the figures are fixed. Can you not see the bias inherent in your attitude here?
You ignore the fascist regimes impact and use of capital violence and punishment to repress all dissent, you ignore the subhuman status assigned non-whites, as if this will have no impact when these shackles are lifted. It is as if Apartheid wasn’t a problem for you, or that at the very least you refuse to accept its implications at all.
Are you suggesting that the current policing and prison system, as brutal as anywhere, needs to increase its brutality and human rights infringements?
You seem to be completely ignoring what the root of the problem is, it is not more police, more violence, more brutality that is needed, I’ve been to Pollsmoor and seen the horror of South African prisons. The answer does not lay here.
Crime comes from poverty, from hopelessness, from despair and rage, would you agree with that?
Without the fascist regime repressing such matters, endemic control, people born into a position of virtual slavery, of sub-humanity, the lid was taken off on the poors of South Africa. It is not surprising the country is racked with problems, the transition will take time from the horrors of Apartheid to the establishment of a fully stabilised South Africa.
The greatest problem is poverty, that is the be all and end all and until South Africa can take on the massive problem of poverty it will remain as it is BUT, things are getting better and rather than negative attitudes, negative ideas (although I am not sure what solution you have to the problem, aside from tougher penal penalties) we need positivity.
You repeat your claim that the current regime cannot take any credit for the successful African economy, whilst laying no responsibility for the current social malaise on the previous administration. A lose lose. This is a dangerous area to inhabit, it can come across as supportive of Apartheid and blinkered in your take on the nation as a whole.
Your beliefs as to way Apartheid fell is also a deeply personal take and not reflective, you place it entirely at the door of the white community, as if the non-white part of South Africa had no part to play in the end of the terrible regime.
What is your solution?
Also, you repeat your personal opinion, comparing a racist regime where the vast majority of the population were treated as sub human and third class, to the ending of Communism in Eastern Europe, which of course had its barbarisms but did not employ a racial attack on the majority. I’m sorry but your comparison, to me, is an entirely false one that you are using to attack South Africa with. Seemingly also forgetting that the transition from Communism to democracy has been very tough for many of those nations.
And you seem more than willing to label Communism as “the most murderous and repressive regime in human history” but not Apartheid.
“The reality for the ordinary black in SA townships now is far, far worse then it ever was under Apartheid”
This is a dangerous statement to make, you are basically saying, the slavery and sub humanity of all non-whites is better than freedom. Similar things were said by white racists when slavery was abolished in both the US and UK, that the blacks will be worse off without the fascist, repressive structures.
This is contemptible and vile nonsense that you need to clarify.
Damon:
Nice to see yet more positivity about a fine nation, 01 was a long time ago, things are getting better and solutions are being found, slowly but surely to a massive problem.
Harriet Harman decribed Fidel Castro as a hero of the left a couple of years ago.
Out of interest DHG – and not as some sort of gotcha – do you think that the population of, say, Zimbabwe is better off now than it was under colonial (racist, fascist etc) rule?
Tim J:
I think that at first, the population of Zimbabwe were far better off without the shackles of colonial rule and the quasi-regime of Rhodesia. Obviously the current Zimbabwe regime of the despotic tyrant is awful, I am not saying that non-white rule is perfect rule, what kind of idiot would say that?
26 – Not suggesting that at all! It’s just a question that has bothered me. Objectively there’s no question that the population of Zimbabwe were better off in the 70s than they are now – higher life expectancy, higher income, higher employment, stronger economy, freer press, less corruption etc. But they weren’t free – they were ruled by racist bigots. Comfortable slavery is (I think) worse than uncomfortable freedom, but now Zimbabwe is once again ruled by violent bigots – black this time – are the people better off or worse off? I think it’s a hard question to answer.
#25
I think that’s a very difficult question to answer.
On the one hand, colonialism in Zimbabwe was one of the most brutal expressions of British colonialism anywhere. Villages were razed to the ground in order to force people to migrate to South Africa and work in the mines.
On the other hand, Mugabe is also clearly an oppressor. I don’t agree with the narrative that he cracked and suddenly became a monster in the mid-late 90s (as some Zimbabweans have suggested to me), or with the narrative that he only or mainly oppresses white people. He was ruthless in defeating & killing rival Zimbabwean groups even on his way into power. Nonetheless, he has never been totally irrational and Britain could have played a more constructive role that mitigated many of his worst excesses which originated from his need to appease veterans who believed that land redistribution was not proceeding quickly enough. If Britain in particular had facilitated more and better land redistribution earlier this scenario may not have arisen. This is only to suggest how the international community could’ve managed Mugabe better, not to excuse Mugabe to any extent.
But ultimately you can’t justify oppression by saying that because someone just as bad ended up coming to power afterwards, an earlier form of oppression should’ve continued/was better.
Tim J:
Freedom and democracy come with heavy prices, look at how successful Germany was under the might of Nazism, the sheer power of the vast Communist Empire, the British Empire for that matter.
Co-erced and repressed people run a pretty tight ship but humanity is freedom, is democracy, as imperfect and fraught as it is.
#29
Of course the trouble is that Zimbabwe doesn’t experience freedom or democracy now. The question is, do the present arrangements offer more potential for freedom and democracy to be won than racist/colonial rule. I think they do, but recognise it’s a difficult question.
Tim F:
Indeed, I was talking in the general sense and what is happening in Zimbabwe is painful indeed.
DHG
That’s just how I saw it. Hopefully it is better now.
Housing, jobs, running water and electricity, closing the wealth and poverty divide.
I’ve been looking online to see what actually has improved, but can’t really find anything concrete. Is it still dangerous to walk around central Johannesburg?
Are their still packs of children walking about barefoot in cities, breathing glue fumes out of plastic bags and sleeping in shop doorways all huddled up together?
Or has the government made it a priority to care for them?
Do whites now travel on a train like Pretoria to Kimberley and feel OK about travelling second class overnight (like I did and was the only white person on the train, and was told by some guys that I was OK because I was a foreigner but if I’d been a South African they would have thrown me out the window) – is that better now?
Do non black South Africans now ride in the mini-bus taxi’s?
Is Hillbrow still a place to be walked through at a very fast pace, looking like you are going somewhere in a hurry?
I worked last year with a number of young white South Africans in London, and they were living like overseas backpackers, but were really exiles. They felt they had few prospects back home.
I went to this event in November which was full of South Africans of all races.
It was a bit of a sad thing to sit and listen to.
http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2009/session_detail/2552/
If anyone knows some good stuff to read, I’d be grateful to hear about it.
Hi damon,
Well, in my opinion as a man who has spent much time there and has family there and a South African missus it is getting better, slowly, oh so slowly and still much, much to be done.
No excuses, the ANC could’ve done so much better with the shambles they inherited but I stand by what I said, negative attack and blame game will do nothing.
If you need good stuff about South Africa (but by no means unrealistic) to read the works of Jonny Steinburg is a good place to start, I’m also consuming some crime analysis and gang analysis from Cape Town; an accurate representation of the complexity of post-Apartheid South Africa is best shown in my father in law’s movie “Forgiveness”.
You now seem to have launched into a full scale personal attack me Daniel, I detected overtones of it in your previous comment but gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it would seem that you wish to impose your layman opinion on someone who was born and bred in SA and continues to live there. All because I disagree with you that SA is ‘pretty fucked up.’
I lived through Apartheid and as I said in my comment I openly opposed it when it was not the done thing to do, so your suggestions to the contrary are extremely offensive and groundless. What did you ever do?
You are full of the very political fantasies that I have said are in the way of moving forward in SA; Apartheid was brutal and bloody but can never even remotely be compared to the Soviet regime with its estimated 150,000,000 murders of its own citizens, to say otherwise is just a fantastic lie. And you are also lamentably unaware of the racial oppression of the Soviet Union with its genocide (of greater proportions then the Shoa) of the Ukrainians in the Holodomor and the ethnic cleansing and deportation of the Balts after WW2 to name just two.
But besides this deep ignorance you are seriously suggesting that oppression and murder based upon grounds other then racial is less serious then oppression and murder based upon race and that people will react differently as a result when they emerge from under it. That is lunacy. Complete political fantasy.
You are also suggesting that black people can only be stopped from rampant criminality if a fascist police and a racist system is imposed upon them and even give the US as another example. That is what you are saying.
Poverty was here long before the fall of Apartheid and yet the endemic levels of crime were not, so whether you like it or not, poverty was not the root cause here. Some feature of the justice and policing system under Apartheid clearly worked and that is not a political statement but a statement of fact.
I believe that component was authoritarian justice replete with respect (or fear) of the police along with harsh penalties for committing crimes.
As a foreigner who doesn’t have to live amongst the result of removing this component you have the luxury of faux moralising about the ‘human rights’ of criminals who have torn my country apart, placing it second in the worlds murder league and first in rape, whilst completely ignoring the human rights of the innocent who did nothing to deserve this storm.
In this environment your luxuries, preached in safety, are superfluous and it is the innocent who need to have their human rights respected and the criminals brought to the realisation that their actions will not benefit them in any way ever.
You can argue about this until you are blue in the face but the reality is we are where we are: It is happening. It needs to stop.
It will not stop until fantasies such as yours are cast aside and realities are embraced; and that includes subsequent regimes facing up facts without political fantasies, such as that this rampant, endemic criminality only took place when their watch began and that they bear the sole responsibility for it and for ending it.
That more then clarifies your contemptible and vile nonsense and I seriously suggest that before you preach to another safa on SA, you actually go and live there for some years.
No Seth, I have not launched into a full scale personal attack on you at all.
You have mis-understood my words.
I can merely go on what you wrote previously and what you seemed to be intimating in those words, that is all.
You miss the point regarding Apartheid, it was never about the death toll but the socio-political toll, as I said before I point to the US as evidence of just how long it takes for non-whites to move beyond and out of the shadow of oppression and repression and what they experienced was no where near the level of non-whites in South Africa.
SA is only some 18 years on, America is some 50 years on, repression of an entire huge strata of society has huge and lasting repercussions.
And I’m sorry, thus, comparisons to the Soviet Union are false and irrelevant to me.
You still seem to be denying poverty is the root cause of crime (not just in South Africa of course but everywhere) and failing to grasp that the structures of oppression and repression in place in SA kept a lid on it, as it has done in other repressive regimes.
Your solution is: “authoritarian justice replete with respect (or fear) of the police along with harsh penalties for committing crimes.”
I find this odd, this is dealing only with the result, not the cause, prisons in South Africa are full to bursting with horrendous conditions, prison is not the answer, nor tougher sentences nor the death penalty.
Fighting poverty is the answer, simple as that, can you agree on that with me or not?
I have ignored no ones human rights, it is you who wishes to cast away the human rights of those that commit crime. If you really think that some draconian, pseudo fascist police state will somehow deal with all the problems in SA then you are sadly mistaken and also, at what cost?
As I said, I’ve visited a South African prison, one of its most notorious and seen the subhuman conditions there, it is no deterrent because when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose through your actions.
I do agree with you that we are both expounding our own truths but to no avail to the other, so it might be best if we just stop?
It is bizarre and illogical that you place the blame of crime only on the current administration (ie: the black administration) with no thought to what they inherited, yet are more than willing to reverse this stance when it comes to the economic strengths of SA?
Do you not see the oddness of this stance?
I have spent a fair time in SA, I don’t live there but want to by a home there as I feel I have roots there now, which makes your sue of the term safa all the more intriguing.
Daniel, you tell me I have ‘vile and contemptible nonsense to clarify’ and tell me it seems ‘Apartheid wasn’t a problem’ for me amongst other extremely insulting and offensive edicts and now claim that you have not launched any personal attack on me? What? It is very clear that you did, and it is very clear why, as it is very clear that you have continued to do so, even ending with some strange and oblique slight about my use of the term safa.
I don’t know if you can grasp realities through all of that political fluff you have so clearly embraced and preach from safety, but poverty was around before Apartheid and during Apartheid whilst these endemic levels of crime were not. Clearly something else spurred on this crime frenzy, not poverty.
Of course ‘fighting poverty’ is important, but the reality is that it is little more then a sound bite in this country as it is in pretty much all others and the real solution to cutting crime is to fight the criminals themselves. Poverty is no excuse for crime. Criminals commit crime and they commit them against innocent people who are also in poverty, as well as those who are not. In fact it is the innocent in poverty who suffer the most from crime. It is the innocent people that need protecting, not the criminals. If the criminals are made to understand once more that crime will lead to severe penalties and that shooting at police results only in death, that no crime will result in any benefit, then the crime will receded back to the levels it was at when this policy was enthusiastically pursued.
As I say, you can preach your faux morality from complete safety but I can tell you that if it was your daughter, mother or sister that had been robbed, beaten, gang raped and murdered your concern for the ‘human rights’ of the criminal will evaporate. If you had what little money and possessions you had worked for stolen and extorted from you on a daily basis, your concern for the ‘human rights’ of the criminal will evaporate. If you had to live in ‘gated community’ effectively a voluntary prison because without it you would not survive a day then your concern for the ‘human rights’ of the criminal will evaporate.
In the UK with its 300 or so murders in a population of 60 odd million you can maybe afford to pontificate on the rights of criminals, but in a country of around 47 million with over 18,000 murders we cannot.
To put it into perspective, an average of 50 murders a day are reported, so within 6 days more people are murdered in SA then the UK has lost in servicemen in 9 years of war in Afghanistan and during the whole Falklands conflict. It is an average of twice as many killed each year as were killed each year in the Vietnam War.
The casualties of this endemic crime resemble a serious war because this is a serious war and it needs to be taken as such.
Real investment and opportunities are not forthcoming to this country because of the levels of crime, especially the rate at which business are targeted, as well as the rife corruption. These are the only route out of poverty this country has. So fighting crime and eradicating poverty is interlinked.
The comparison between the SU and its ‘client’ states ability to move out from under the most repressive and murderous regime the world has ever seen without sliding into a crime epidemic such as ours is very much a legitimate comparison and so is demanding that subsequent SA regimes accept that endemic crime has occurred on their watch and it is their responsibility alone. You cannot seriously claim that the policing and justice system during Apartheid that never experienced anywhere near these levels of crime can be blamed when they are no longer existent and the crime becomes endemic. That is idiocy and political fantasy.
So like I say, I seriously suggest that before you preach to another safa on SA, you actually go and live there for some years instead of pretending to be an expert because you have had an extended holiday or two.
Seth
I based judgements on your words, words that you have to some degree cleared up but to some degree have not.
You can take this criticism of your ideas personally, or you can discuss them, you have chosen the former which will not lead to a god place will it?
You also seem to be ignoring my suggestion that we are pervading our own truths and merely shouting at each other with no dialogue.
We are now also merely repeating ourselves and our opinions, as if repetition equals validation when it does not. I am not going to rebut the same things I’ve already rebutted, it is a waste of time, as is our restating of our positions, we have made those very clear have we not?
I have already dealt with your assertions of poverty under Apartheid. You are free to disagree but repeating yourself is pointless.
Although I spotted this: “Clearly something else spurred on this crime frenzy, not poverty.”
What, in your opinion was that?
You then repeat your opinion that to beat crime in South Africa it needs to be fought, again, I have gave you may opinion on this approach already.
And to be clear, poverty is not an excuse but a reason.
And again, you claim, falsely I believe and with no shred of evidence, that a draconian return to severe punishment for crime will solve it? I presume when all the criminals are shot dead there will be no more will there? Unless of course that dreaded poverty raises up again and churns out more people with nothing to lose so that death holds no fear.
I’m glad you will be nowhere near policy making in SA.
And I’m sorry, brutality at any cost is not humanity, the methods you propose wouldn’t work and are madness.
And to be clear, as soon as you strip away rights for anyone, criminals or not, you are on a slippery slope indeed.
And I have made it clear, it is not an extended holiday, I was involved in work at Pollsmoor and also have family there who regularly keep me abreast of what is happening in SA.
Whatever. Clearly it was a personal attack.
And clearly you fail to grasp the reality that poverty is not a new invention in SA and that it fully existed under Apartheid whereas these massively endemic crime rates did not because of the tactics used by the police and justice system. That is the proof that it works and you have already conceded that it worked. We all know it worked.
And these methods were never when ‘all the criminals are shot dead there will be no more will there more’ as you now disingenuously claim but the practice of firm and respected (feared) authority in the shape of the police (if you fired at the police you would die) and severe penalties imposed by the courts. Today there is no authority in reality and that is the problem, the police are scared, incompetent and corrupt and the courts follow suit.
When you have killings of innocent civilians in a country that far surpass the casualties of wars fought after WW2 (and I was wrong about the SA murder rate and the Vietnam War: It is actually an average of three times higher each year then the a years casualties in the Vietnam war) there is clearly an extremely serious problem, and it needs to be fought, not faux moralised over. We know the methods that worked before and to try and justify the ‘human rights’ of the scum that these criminal are as some sort of bar of returning to tried and proven tactics is a disgusting travesty for freedom and a slap in the face for the innocent majority. This endemic crime is extremely oppressive.
I know in your country the criminal has now become the victim and it is trendy to lament on how awful it must be for the criminal, but in my country we clearly don’t have that dubious luxury. People are being murdered, raped and robbed on an epic scale. Screw the ‘rights’ of the criminal, champion the rights of the innocent majority.
I don’t care how many extended holidays you may have had in SA or how many phone calls you receive from SA, you were not raised here, you do not live here and you have never lived through the times that people of my age and older have. Apartheid was a terrible stain and a curse, but the effects of this crime wave are just as bad, if not effectively worse (again, a statement of reality not a political statement or a call for any return) for everyone including the ordinary black because whilst the poverty levels have not improved, the sheer horror of the crime they face has increased with unbelievable pace. The ordinary black is now far more directly oppressed then they ever were under Apartheid by these criminals. Again, this is simple fact not a political statement or a call for any return. An ordinary black simply did not encounter the state on a regular basis and in lots of cases ever much at all under Apartheid but now they are oppressed directly and daily by these criminals, who rule with complete abandon and arbitrary ruthlessness without any sanction whatsoever.
That is the reality for the innocent majority here so if I sound unliberal when I say screw the criminal and any treatment they may bring about on their head in order that we may protect the innocent majority then I make no apologies.
The methods worked before, bring them back now and stop this.
I was walking around Kuala Lumpur last night and this morning thinking about how different it is here compared to South Africa.
There’s lots of poverty here. People sleeping in the streets all over the place.
Tragic ladyboys (some rather attractive) trying to entice a tourist like me walking down the street at 1am to spend some time with them (and who probably live in some of the grotty cheap hotels just across from my slightly less grotty one).
In some ways it must be like South Africa economy wise and being a multi racial country, but it’s so different too.
I’ve looked up the film Forgiveness DHG. And Jonny Steinburg. Cheers for that.
Seth:
I see this is carrying on, fair enough but if the person who you alleged was personally attacking you denies this then it clearly wasn’t a personal attack and you merely deemed it as such. On this and everything else, we will no doubt disagree.
And once again, you repeat the same things, thus, forcing me, as if they hadn’t ever been written, to repeat my counter arguments back, parrot fashion.
This is the equivalent of two people shouting at each other with industrial strength headphones on, is it not?
Utterly pointless.
Although you are at least drawing closer to making it clear that you want a return to Apartheid style policing, which will never occur and I never said worked, it worked in so much as it occurred within a fascist, repressive and oppressive framework; you cannot turn back the clock and wish for those parameters again, they do not exist, never mind that they were fraught with injustice, brutality and human rights infringements, which you seem to care little for.
Again, you merely repeat your old arguments with no effort to take on board anything else communicated here, which makes this pointless does it not.
You’ve made your opinion clear numerous times, repeating it will not change anything, thus what is the point?
You talk as if a return to draconian measures it at all possible, your argument makes no logical sense at all and is retrograde in its assumptions and aims, you make no concession or efforts to encompass the battle against inequality and poverty in your brutal and harsh mission statement.
You once again and falsely in my opinion, keep drawing contrast from wars and Communism with regards to SA, erroneous comparisons which only seem to be set out by you because you loath and hate South Arica, you have not one positive word to say about it, you make no effort to come up with positive solutions or engage with the real problems, you merely tout law and order and a return to police brutality (which won’t work anyway) as the solution.
“We know the methods that worked before and to try and justify the ‘human rights’ of the scum that these criminal are as some sort of bar of returning to tried and proven tactics is a disgusting travesty for freedom and a slap in the face for the innocent majority.”
The methods that worked before (and by worked we mean utterly oppressed, repressed and was a shameful part of the fascist machinery of Apartheid) occurred within a framework of the majority of the population being treated as subhuman and racially inferior. You cannot return to this state of affairs can you? It is not possible and you look as if you are wishing for a return to Apartheid.
Also, you one-dimensional attitude to the criminal and he or she’s reasons, motives and driving factors, belies a lack of knowledge about the dynamic of crime and will not generate working policy, to merely demonize a section of society will not make the problem go away or easier to deal with, South Africa’s prisons are full, full to bursting and are vile places where basic human rights do not exist.
It is clear you do not think that criminals deserve any human rights, that is not only wrong but a slippery slope towards the de-humanisation of others and South Africa already has a long and terrible history of that.
Your assessment of my country is also false and littered with right-wing prejudice and a clack of understanding that reflects your deep set personal prejudice and politics well.
You seem keen to knock my connection to the country, which is your right but seem to ignore I have a large number of family that do live there. They do not share your views, what of them?
I’m sorry but to suggest that crime in current South Africa is on a morality par with Apartheid (indeed you go on to say what is happening now is worse!) shows your attitude well, that is a disgraceful thing to say, you have full right to say it but it reflects your skewed values well. You make much of saying you do not want to return to it but you do not seem to even understand what it was, I say this because your flippant dismissal of it by comparing it to crime in SA today shows how little you grasp the severity of it.
“The ordinary black is now far more directly oppressed then they ever were under Apartheid by these criminals.”
That is offensive and provocative nonsense, freedom in the face of crime is far superior to being of subhuman status and racially inferior as a virtual slave. You speak of the oppression of crime, as if non-whites were not under constant oppression before. You speak as if the white rule was not without abandon and utterly arbitrary, when it was a cruel, ruthless and malevolent beast, with non-whites having no sanction at all!
Again, your words reflect badly upon you and that the blight of Apartheid is not fully understood by you.
Your simplistic and unrealistic idea of what Apartheid was is worrying, as are you ‘solutions’ to the current problems of South Africa.
The only thing you are right about here is that it is pointless debating with you. You are incapable of being even remotely honest, even about a quite obvious personal attack that you started from your very first comment and continue to your latest.
And all because I disagree with you, a foreigner preaching from safety, that 18,000 murders (3x a years casualties in the Vietnam war) and 70,000 reported rapes in a country of around 48 million does legitimately deem it as ‘fucked up.’
Clearly you are just another completely blinkered and deluded extreme-left parrot incapable of even speaking and comprehending language outside the dialectic system known as political correctness that renders everything down to racism.
You are an offensive man with no grasp of history, logic or even English and twist calls for the return of a strong authoritarian police force and judiciary with calls for the return of Apartheid even though there is no basis whatsoever to do so and I have repeatedly asserted that it is not.
The judicial techniques under Apartheid worked, pure and simple and the rule of law applied to everyone, of all races, and was applied pretty much evenly. If a white man broke the law he was pursed just as vigorously as anyone else. That is a fact, that is my experience of it and that is what happed. Apartheid was bad but it was not all pervading. Something you wouldn’t have the remotest idea about, not having had one second’s experience of it in reality, but yet another area you feel so arrogantly qualified to preach to someone who lived through decades of it.
The Apartheid system was wrong, for the umpteenth time, and I openly opposed it (again, what did you ever do?) so don’t presume to lecture me on it you silly man; but that doesn’t mean that every system that operated under the time of Apartheid was wrong; the policing and justice system worked, we can all see that and you have admitted that it does yourself, and it had nothing to do with race. It worked because it was efficient, authoritative and as incorruptible as is possible with any human organisation.
In fact we are back to your very racist notion that black people can only be stopped from rampant criminality if a fascist police and a racist system is imposed upon them and even give the US as another example. That is what you are saying.
What I am saying is that all are treated equally under a strong system that demonstrably worked before.
Like I have said, you haven’t the first clue of what you are talking about anyway, billing yourself as an expert when you wasn’t raised here, haven’t live here and don’t know the realities of life pre and post- Apartheid. To say that people must be better off in every case purely because Apartheid has been removed is political nonsense from an ignorant preacher. If you earn £10,000 a year employed with benefits but your boss is oppressive and you then go on to your own boss for £5,000 a year with no benefits you are free of your oppression but you are not better off.
The same applies in SA. Apartheid has rightly been removed, but that doesn’t mean everyone is better off: They are not. As explained to you the ordinary black didn’t encounter the state very often contrary to popular myth that foreigners like you absorb so there was very little direct oppression whereas today the ordinary black is very much encounters the criminals who rule the townships and cities with complete impunity and no recourse whatsoever to any law and so are directly oppressed on daily basis.
You cannot even understand that because your whole brain is clearly wired not comprehend it; it is wired to automatically think Apartheid gone = everyone better off and every system that happened to be used under Apartheid gone = everyone better off when this is simply not reality.
But this is a waste of time. I hope you do come and live, because I can promise that you will have much direct experience of this endemic crime very quickly and then perhaps you can base your opinion on experience and reality instead of some unrealistic political fluff preached from remote safety.
Hi Seth:
I’m glad you give me credit for being right on one thing, shame you have to then personally abuse me by calling me dishonest, when I am not and harping on about a perceived (by you) personal attack.
As we are not actually debating but repeating previous claims of our personal truths, I’m not sure where to go with this, aside from to stop replying to you which may well have to be the case. I mean, you do realise that reiteration is not discussion don’t you?
It’s not about the fact you disagree with me (and I with you, it is not one-way traffic and to think so would suggest that your personal truth is the definitive truth, which it is not but I fear you think it is) and all this nonsense about a foreigner preaching from safety, it seems to matter little I have family in SA and have worked there, this seems to be worthless to you.
“Clearly you are just another completely blinkered and deluded extreme-left parrot incapable of even speaking and comprehending language outside the dialectic system known as political correctness that renders everything down to racism.”
This is a personal attack, you are not debating my ideas but attacking me and for someone so sensitive to personal attacks this surprises me. So I will discuss your personal assaults on me and will ask you to not call me names please.
“You are an offensive man with no grasp of history, logic or even English”
Again, another personal attack here so please stop with these.
I have already stated that a) a return of a strong authoritarian police force and judiciary is not possible in the parameters of South Africa as it stands and b) it will not work even if human rights were infringed to enable it to occur, you cannot move the clock back
“The judicial techniques under Apartheid worked, pure and simple and the rule of law applied to everyone, of all races, and was applied pretty much evenly”
That is nonsense, utter tosh, when all non-whites were deemed of sub human status and racially inferior to whites. To suggest that Apartheid was fair to them in any form, judiciary or not, is grossly untrue.
“Apartheid was bad but it was not all pervading.”
Again, a a gross misunderstanding of it, it was all pervading and destructive and awful, to suggest otherwise is to fly int he face of history itself.
You keep referring to your status as a South African and using this as a tool by which to attack me with, I must say, the way you speak of Apartheid I would guess that you aren’t actually South African, there is no way you can prove it, just as no way I can prove that I have family over there, coloureds, who experienced Apartheid first hand. Best to ignore your personal experience, which can not be validated on an anonymous forum and discuss facts.
Otherwise, it is a tedious trump card is it not?
And again, you miss quote me, in that the only reason the justice system worked in SA under the fascist regime was that is was brutal, totalitarian, repressive and destructive, never mind encased in a racist doctrine. This is a success of sorts but at what terrible cost?
And to be clear, what you ascribe to me: “that black people can only be stopped from rampant criminality if a fascist police and a racist system is imposed upon them” I never said, that is your interpretation and I renounce it completely, argue with what I say not what you presume or intimate.
“What I am saying is that all are treated equally under a strong system that demonstrably worked before.”
As I have pointed out, this is quite simply a gross untruth, all were not treated fairly because all non-whites under Apartheid were treated as second class citizens. It did not work before because the social parameters of non-white existence were utterly oppressive and brutal.
As I have already said, tay away from personal attack on me and also stay away from presuming that my opinion is not valid because I don’t live there, esp. on an anonymous forum where anyone can say anything in effort to silence the debate.
Also, I do wish you’d stop building strawmen and putting words in my mouth, I never said: “that people must be better off in every case purely because Apartheid has been removed” but the removal of such a cruel, barbaric and backwards system had to come. And it did.
You also demean oppression by your glib use of it in your example to do with money, as if it was a mere inconvenience to be sub human and less than another human.
I do not think as simply as you presume, as evidenced by my arguments here, which you seem to ignore as this goes on, the thoughts you keep ascribing to me I neither agree with or said.
You are arguing not with me but with a version of me you think I am and by doing so, not addressing any of the questions and arguments I have put to you.
As I said, you are a waste of time and extremely dishonest. You call my comments “‘vile and contemptible” and so by extension, me also; you tell me that I actually support Apartheid when the reverse is true and now you even question if I am South African at all whilst denying making any personal attacks one me. Astounding, man. Truly astounding.
You then cite my observations of your dishonesty as an arbitrary personal attack and the facts that you were not born, raised and resident in South Africa nor did you experience one second of Apartheid or the aftermath as another personal attack when it is quite obviously a qualifying statement of fact when you seek to preach to me about Apartheid and inform me I don’t fully understand it! I think you have a screw loose, man! Really! What behaviour!
Your whole comment goes straight back into what I have already described as your parrot fashion dialectic parameters and inability to process outside them; as I said in your mind every system that happened to be used under Apartheid gone = everyone better off when this is simply not reality; the common law criminal justice system and enforcement had NOTHING to do with Apartheid at all, you just cannot grasp this, it was based on the same principles as all common law such as murder, assault, rape and the like and these offences against it were pursed vigorously irregardless of race. That is a fact. That is what we need to return. A strong, authoritarian state police and judiciary and just because some oddity says it cannot return means nought in reality.
The roads were also serviced under Apartheid as the bins were emptied and the air traffic controlled and no one is suggesting that this be replaced by other systems as they are now ‘tainted.’
Similarly when some parrot fashion dialectic programmed nonsense about the ‘human rights’ of criminal being violated is preached it doesn’t make it reality. There rights are defined by law and are subject to change and if that change is harsh penal servitude then that is their lot. If they fire at the police and the police kill them, then that there is there lot. Those who desire respect show respect. Those who want rights respect others rights. Taking a human life away is the biggest violation of anyone’s human rights and yet you concern yourself with the criminal? What a sheltered life, man. Really.
I cannot wait for you to come and live here and see how much the criminal respects your ‘human rights’ and would love to see you explain your empathy with them the first time you are carjacked or so; the only reason this crime is now rampant is because the authorities are corrupt, inefficient and moreover not feared. The only way to stop it is to bring back the tried and tested methods that prevented such crime for so long.
You cannot even comprehend what is being conveyed to you because it is outside your obvious political fluff parameter, but I can assure you man, a few years here will school you in realities.
Hello Seth:
You open your repost by personally attacking me again and calling me dishonest.
My contribution to this post is born from a love and knowledge of South Africa, that is all.
I have asked you to stop such things and debate the issues at hand and by debate I do not reiterate what you have written 4 times over please.
A person can make a vile and contemptible comment and not be vile and contemptible themselves, just as a person can have a bad idea and not actually be a bad person. This is obvious. Much of the offence you have taken and quick to do so, is based on you taking meaning from my words that I never intended and rather than accepting that, you still take umbrage and have resorted to using personal attacks. I can do nothing about this.
I also never told you that you supported Apartheid, you took that inference so as to play the defence here rather than debate the points at hand.
As for questioning if you are South African, I’m sorry but you refuse to acknowledge my experience or status, or family and yet expect me to acknowledge yours, when there is no proof that can be utilised on an anonymous forum like this. So rather than play trump cards of ‘I was born there’ in order to shut down debate, best to debate on the merit or not of our solutions and ideas.
My evidence of you using personal attacks is evidenced in the comment 41, you cal me dishonest, completely blinkered and deluded extreme-left parrot and offensive. These are personal attacks, not attacks on my ideas. So I ask again, rather than make excuses, just don’t make personal attacks.
You keep attempting to silence the debate by basically saying my opinions and ideas about South Africa are worthless because I don’t live there or was born there. Do you not see how ridiculous an arguing stand point that is? Esp. when I have spent so much time in the country and have numerous family members, some of which have lived in SA for 90 years (!) on one hand and on the other, those that represent the coloured part of the Cape community. It is this family that informs and educates my debate and my reading on the matter.
You have not acknowledged this once in our ‘debate’ yet expect me to defer to your living there, when in reality it matters little whether you are South African or not but the merits of our ideas on the matter.
And I say you must not have fully understood Apartheid based solely on the things you write here, which show a regular refusal to acknowledge what it was and what occurred when it happened. You simply going, I am South African, does not make you right, it is not a trump card to be played, rather I go on what you write here and make a judgement, based on the South Africans I know and how they speak of Apartheid and my knowledge and reading on the matter and honestly say there is a dis-connect with you on what actually occurred.
You refuse to argue the points I make here and have ducked out on numerous questions I have put to you, repeatedly, just so that you can reiterate your views.
You repeat that Apartheid did not effect the law system in South Africa, this is utter, utter madness! To suggest that non-whites received fair and honest justice in a system where they were third class citizens is wishful thinking at best and woefully ignorant of the huge list of judicial travesties that were carried on non-whites.
I urge you to read Antony Altbeker (a South African criminologist, working in SA since 1994) and his book ‘A Country at War With Itself’ and in this book he makes numerous things clear that I hope you will take on board.
1) Crime was heavily underreported under Apartheid by non-whites because there was little point in engaging with a system that did not care for their plight. The judicial system was unsustainable, grossly illegitimate and a tool of the state
2) Much of the initial crime rise is SA was due to people actually reporting crimes that had been occurring under Apartheid because they felt the police would now listen
3) Murder rates have been steadily falling since the mid 90s and are continuing to do so, 20% or all murders are connected to robbery, which has been growing as a crime as murder has been going down. The remaining 80% are interpersonal violence, ie: domestic violence, gang murders, fights and dis-agreements etc
4) The rapid urbanisation of South Africa is one of the key reasons why robbery has increased as it has, there is less crime and less robbery in rural areas, people moving en masse to urban conurbations (as many societies have experienced and the then increase in crime) will lead to a sharp rise in crime
5) Crime in SA is linked to unemployment and speedy demographic changes and the coming out from oppression and cruelty into freedom.
6) With regards to a policing solution, a zero tolerance approach will not work because such approaches only work when there are tight areas to target and focus on and such the spread of crime in SA that it is not possible to do. Also, the low population density of SA does not lend itself well to the cop on every corner narrative, because urban build up is sprawling and spread with low pedestrian traffic, to be a waste of time for any officer
7) The current judicial system lacks bodies, money, equipment and skills and is ill-equipped to fight crime fully, a national DNA database is essential and better record keeping
8) More people need to be sent to jail for less time, rather than less for longer, jail space is a precious resource and the conditions in jail need to improve dramatically, as they currently border on the inhumane, so what can be expected from those that eventually get out from such a place. He also adds that to lock everyone up that commits a crime is unworkable
Mr. Altbeker’s final summation is a useful one, the long term improvement in crime in SA is down to one thing and one thing only, the economic future of the country itself, because a strong economy creates jobs and wealth and attacks the root cause of crime but will also make the government richer to build and support better judicial services for its people.
He also makes it very clear that far too many South African’s live in precarious financial conditions and that any slip for this liminal position, makes a turn to grim far more easier. Too many are on this tightrope.
I hope that these words from a South African, who lives there and who works in the judicial system of SA help you reformulate some of your views and make you understand that your solutions and ideas are unworkable, that you are utilising ideas of what was before and after that are not true and perhaps, just perhaps, other solutions will have to be tried rather than false attempts to step backwards to a time that can never be again.
You are complete waste of time and quite clearly an unhinged liar. You make vicious personal attacks upon me and even bizarrely question my very existence as a South African but then pretend to be some sort of innocent victim of an arbitrary personal attack on yourself when I merely respond to your deeply offensive postures. Did you think I should be silent in the face of your abuse and accusations, man?
Again, astounding. What behaviour. Not the behaviour of a decent man, but taking the lead from the tactics of over a decade of your dysfunctional government I am not surprised that some people in the UK think this is the done thing.
You have no ‘status’ as a South African; you were not born here, raised here or even live here. You did not experience one second of Apartheid nor one second of its aftermath. You have no idea of what you are talking about but you seek to preach to those who do.
Citing one ‘olgist, the preserve of the Marxist, with no evidence to back up his dialectic ideology is proof of nothing and flies in the face of the experience of every South African who have lived through both eras that I know, and I know many, many more then you.
But that you now accept this as fact just further reveals your complete ignorance and obvious complete lack of experience of the issue as just a few comments back you agreed that this wasn’t the case and that this endemic crime didn’t happen under the judicial system used by Apartheid.
Now you turn this statement of fact on its head to suit your dubious purposes by citing a book you claim to have read that proves to you that you didn’t have the first clue of what you were talking about on a major issue (the actual core tenet) just three days ago but you still think you should be taken seriously now and that your ‘status’ of having visited SA acknowledged as evidence of your expertise and insight?
And more amazingly you tell me that I need to read a book to learn about my own country and to correct my own experiences and those of every South African I know!
This is crazy man. Seriously. You are a fool.
Seth
Again, you are calling me names, personal attacks, I sense something else is at play here and that uses of evidence and factual expert analysis to back up my claims is being ignored by you.
You do not address any of the points raised by an expert on the South African criminal system, you merely dismiss it as Marxist and then make the outrageous claim that he made this expert judgment based on no evidence, you do not need me to list the long list of references and evidence he cites do you?
Again, the South Africans I know do not support your views, neither does a respected expert on crime in SA, I could also have drawn upon material from Steffen Jensen’s excellent book Gangs, Politics & Dignity in Cape Town which draws much the same conclusions, presume they are also Marxist (?), presume they are also making stuff up?
You have not addressed a single point I have raised, I have offered a concise evidence based rebuttal of your points and all you do is cal me names and made rather desperate efforts to besmirch the sources.
You then, after dismissing the book, try and use the fact I’ve read and educated myself on SA matters as a sign of weakness, which is bizarre and contradictory.
How about rather than attacking me, actually deal with the points made?
I will not tolerate you calling me names any longer whilst I try and argue the points at hand so please, final request, argue the issues and do not attack me.
As I said you are an unhinged liar. You personally attack me with some extremely offensive accusations and abuse and then try to play the victim when it is addressed.
I have been far, far more polite then most would be after having been described as ‘vile and contemptible’ amongst others, and after having their entire life and actions against Apartheid denied and undermined by some clown who didn’t even live a day under the system nor its aftermath let alone do anything to oppose it. How rude. How ignorant. How offensive. That I say you are a fool is derived from your own abuse, actions and foolish games. You even suggest that I am not even South African at all in order to undermine me. How absurd.
I cannot figure out if you are deliberately trying to provoke a response out of me or if you really are this far gone, man.
As for the rest of your comment, whatever small shard of credibility you may have had left the moment you claimed that just one book by a so-called expert irrefutably proved to you your absolute ignorance of the entire issue when only three days previous you conceded that this endemic crime didn’t occur under the judicial system used during Apartheid. Clearly you haven’t got the first idea of what you are talking about and waver from one entire foundation of truth to the next based upon a claimed three day appraisal of just one book.
As for your honesty, or lack of it, do you seriously expect anyone to believe that three days ago you believed that crime under the judicial system used during Apartheid prevented this endemic crime, but just 72 hours later you have had the opportunity to chance upon the most definitively powerful book to change that belief and not only voraciously absorb the book but also conscientiously verify its sources too? Stroll on, man!
You haven’t presented any evidence at all in any case, just absolute opinion such as:
“Crime was heavily underreported under Apartheid by non-whites because there was little point in engaging with a system that did not care for their plight. The judicial system was unsustainable, grossly illegitimate and a tool of the state”
Where is the proof for this opinion? Because opinion is all it is.
Do you really think that just as we cannot fail to now notice that there is murder, rape and robbery that far outstrips wars fought after WW2 in my country that somehow we failed to notice it then? Crazy talk, man. Nonsense talk, man.
That is all this is, craziness and nonsense.
SA is number 2 in the world’s murder leagues and no.1 in rape and robbery. This is the truth. This we know. This wasn’t the case under the justice system during Apartheid. This is the truth. This we know.
To summarise:
In a thread about David Cameron going to Apartheid South Africa to lobby for the lifting of sanctions, you have taken my positive comments regarding a country I love and attacked them with pure negativity.
The only solution you have offered to the crime problem in SA is to suggest a return to Apartheid style policing and judiciary, refusing to acknowledge the causes of crime but merely suggesting a crackdown.
I have made it clear that a) it is not possible to return to Apartheid style policing b) it didn’t work during Apartheid and it wouldn’t work now and c) it is best to work on the causes of crime then solutions d) zero tolerance policing will not work anyhow in SA
You have then attacked my differing opinions with you based on the fact you are allegedly South African and I am not, thus attempting to shut debate down, your other tactic being very sensitive to alleged personal abuse, when you have been more than willing to call me all kinds of names and continue to do so.
When I have introduced sources to my opinions (aside from personal experience in the country and family members born and raised and still living there, which you have roundly ignored) you have dismissed this with no evidence as a) Marxist b) not evidence based and c) the fact I have read books on SA a sign of weakness that I do not know anything about SA and that as an alleged South African, you have no need to read books on your country because you know it all
Following your illogical stance through, anyone not a citizen of a country cannot comment on it, reading books on a country is unnecessary if you are from there and it is in turn a sign of weakness that you need to read them in the first place.
I summarise this ‘debate’ to highlight the ridiculousness of your stance in it, you have taken some contorted in bizarre positions in order to justify your views and have such an utterly closed mind that you are not willing to entertain any other opinion at all aside from your own.
Why you return here to keep perpetuating your myths? Why do you confuse your opinions on the right course of action for South Africa, with fact?
Indeed, all you do it reiterate arguments that have been proved false or dubious, you repeat claims that I have rebuffed and show no indication that you take on board of deal with what I offer at all.
With regards the text (s) that have clearly got under your skin because they refute everything you say, I read the book some time ago, hence it influencing my thoughts on the matter, I never conceded that crime didn’t occur under the judicial system used during Apartheid, I merely stated that the fascist and racist apparatus of Apartheid was a useful tool in oppressing and repressing with no need to recourse to the law. I have also drawn your attention to under reporting.
I have listed my sources here, you have listed none to back up your views, the quote I extracted from the book is backed by some 7 pages of references. From someone that is offering no evidence, aside from opinion, to demand further verification is inappropriate.
“You haven’t presented any evidence at all in any case”
Two sources that back up my ideas, two entire books, yet this is not good enough? You are prejudiced on this matter to the point of blind obstinacy.
The section you quote is backed up by sources in the book, never mind the general knowledge of the cruelty of the judiciary during Apartheid, you are once again denying this.
You keep saying what it was like under Apartheid and as I have said but will repeat:
Crime was occurring, it went under reported because non-whites were of sub human status, it was not a fair and just system at all.
You bring no evidence to the debate, no discussion, you have said the same thing in every comment and have remained intransigent and closed minded and all you do, every time you comment back, is to reiterate matters dismissed, rebuffed and dealt with.
You find me a published source that says the answer to South Africa’s crime problems is a return to the barbarsim of Apartheid policing.
Find me a source that says socio-economic factors in SA are not a factor behind crime and a mere cracking down with draconian measures is possible.
Show me a source that says that the people of South Africa will accept such measures.
Show me a source that says that it is even possible to bring about such a system within the parameters of a free and honest democracy.
I am waiting but all I think all I will get is you re-iterating the same points again with no evidence, no basis in fact, playing some ridiculous some trump card of being allegedly South African and calling me a liar.
To summarise:
-You claimed that that SA is not really ‘fucked up’ despite being no.2 in the world murder league and 1 in rape and robbery with 3x more reported murders each year then an average year of casualties during the Vietnam war
-The solution I have offered is the solution that worked up until the point it was removed: SA is now number 2 in the world’s murder leagues and no.1 in rape and robbery. This is the truth. This we know. This wasn’t the case under the common law police and justice system used during Apartheid. That is the truth. This we know.
-You present empty opinions as fact claiming that we cannot return to strong policing and judiciary (Why? Because you say so?), that it didn’t work when clearly it did (see above) and after you had already admitted that SA didn’t have anywhere near this massive crime problem in the past
-You continue to add bizarre and quite frankly crazy allegations that I am an ‘alleged’ South African on top of your other personal abuse such as condemning me as “vile and contemptible” and a supporter of Apartheid and cry when those extremely offensive edicts are responded to and that I find that your very odd behaviour and complete lack of honesty leads me to consider you to be a fool
- Just 3 days ago you agreed that the common law police justice system ran under Apartheid DID prevent this endemic crime yet now when faced with the implications of that belief (i.e everything you say on the issue is wrong) you now miraculously claim that within 72 hours of your first belief, which is central to the whole issue, you have chanced upon some life changing, earth moving and truth shattering book that changes your entire foundation on this, and have not only voraciously absorbed the book and its contents but also conscientiously verified its “7 pages” of sources too. Do you really, seriously expect people to believe this as the truth?
-The author of the book you refer to is in a profession that is almost exclusively the preserve of the Marxists, who apply dialectics to everything, and a biography of him cannot be found with reasonable google search or through the usual wiki channels so he is hardly even eminent in his field
-The tracts presented themselves, in common with your assertions, are pure opinion without any referenced source. For example: ”Crime was occurring, it went under reported because non-whites were of sub human status, it was not a fair and just system at all.” Prove that crime went unreported and prove that South Africans could have failed to have noticed murders exceeding modern wars and rape and robberies at world record levels.
-I have brought all the evidence I need to the debate: SA is number 2 in the world’s murder leagues and no.1 in rape and robbery. This is the truth. This we know. This wasn’t the case under the justice system during Apartheid. That is the truth. This we know. You are the one who has now had this radical damascene departure from that truth within three days of affirming it so you need to prove that it is so. Not vice versa.
-Presenting some unreferenced cut-and-paste highlight tracts from the book of an obscure author in a preserved profession is not evidence of anything at all. Nothing, man.
-You seriously claim that this one book that you so amazingly found, absorbed and verified within 3 days and some visits to SA affords you a ‘status’ of expertise and license to preach complete rubbish to someone who lived through decades of Apartheid and its aftermath as well as the experiences of everyone I know and to make claims that fly in the face of all we know, and all is true:
This endemic crime level DID NOT exist under the common law policing and justice system of the past; it only started when it was removed and replaced with this cowardly, corrupt and incompetent alternative.
-Fucked up is a subjective, unfair, pejorative to define a country with. You clearly do not like SA, that much is clear. I have already said, as it is obvious to all, that SA has problems but that murder has been falling and is still falling as we speak. And to be clear, SA is 2nd in per capita murder rate and 4th total murder, just above the United States. Even taking all that on board I do not believe your opinion that SA is fucked up is a fair one.
-The solution you have offered is not at all the solution that worked up until the point it was removed. I have already said this but crime was high and unreported in Apartheid SA, due to the judiciary treating non-whites as subhuman, as the entire government system did. The judiciary of Apartheid SA operated under a brutal, fascist style regime. These factors cannot be recreated in modern, democratic SA. Thus your solution is not a solution at all but wishful thinking for a return to a bygone age that can never return.
-I have presented my opinion on the matter backed up with the work of two experts on the field of South African law and order. To repeat, what ‘worked under Apartheid, a brutal, repressive system of racial prejudice, will not work under a free democratic nation. This is obvious and I repeat, the idea that is worked under Apartheid is also a misnomer, crime went underreported by non-whites as the entire system was bias agains them; it also occurred under the pretence of an oppressive, unequal social system.
It is not because I say so, it is because the premise and framework of your ‘solution; has no basis in fact or reality.
-I have already made this clear, on an anonymous Internet forum you cannot prove you are South African, this would not be an issue if you were not trying to play this as trump card to silence debate. But as you insist that only a South African can know the country of its problems, I have to make it clear that we have to argue on the merits of our ideas, not our nationalities. You also refuse to acknowledge any of my connections to the country, so why should I recognise your alleged connections? It is better if we debate on our ideas not nationalities.
- I did not agree that the common law police justice system ran under Apartheid DID prevent this endemic crime, at all, it worked in so much as it was abrutal and repressive arm of a brutal and oppressive regime and let us not forget the huge wealth of underreporting of crime. It is like praising the dictatorship of Stalin because crime was low, at what cost to the people and their freedoms?
- Your bizarre claim criminologists are all Marxists is see-through in its baseness and vulgarity. First off, it is patently untrue and you have no evidence for your opinion. I also made an error in that he is not a criminologist, so you will have to find some other method of smearing him now. Antony Altbeker worked for the Ministry of Safety and Security between 1994 and 1998 monitoring police performance. Since then, he has worked as a freelance consultant, lectured on police training programmes, and held a senior position in the National Treasury’s Protection Services team. He is currently a senior researcher at the Crime and Justice Programme of the Institute for Security Studies. He is published by South Africa’s leading publisher Jonathan Ball, you also lie about not being able to find him, a simple Google search reveals him.
Does this sound like someone who is not eminent in his field?
Your desperate assertions to try and rubbish sources because they disagree with you is pathetic, why can you just accept you are wrong rather than twist and turn into evermore bizarre positions that make no sense?
-You once again ask for evidence when I have provided it to you, buy the book if you don’t believe me and work through the 7 pages of references that the author uses to back up his arguments.
May I also add, you have provided not one shred of evidence with regards to your opinion, yet demand of me even more evidence. An eminent scholar on law and order in SA who actually works in the law and order system is not good enough for you? This is a desperate, desperate efforts by you.
-We are not debating SA’s position in these league tables, we are debating your terrible non-solution, simply stating where they lay in these tables is not evidence. You have not one piece of evidence that your suggestion will work, can happen and you still ignore that crime stems from socio-economic factors.
-I have already refuted that the quotes are unreferenced and also that he is an obscure author. This is a desperate line of attack from you because you have nothing to back up your so called solution.
-I have never claimed that one book I have read some time ago, along with others affords me a ‘status’ of expertise. I am merely backing up my thoughts with evidence and facts, you however have offered nothing of the sort. You have attacked me, attacked the author but have never once attempted to discuss the ideas because you know full well you cannot.
Your return to this thread to carry out ad hominems is now making me suspicious of your true intentions here.
To repeat:
You find me a published source that says the answer to South Africa’s crime problems is a return to the barbarsim of Apartheid policing.
Find me a source that says socio-economic factors in SA are not a factor behind crime and a mere cracking down with draconian measures is possible.
Show me a source that says that the people of South Africa will accept such measures.
Show me a source that says that it is even possible to bring about such a system within the parameters of a free and honest democracy.
I think the core issues here are your patent dishonesty and obvious ignorance of the actual core issue (your bizarre abusive style aside). Answer me this, why did you state your belief on crime and the effectiveness common law system of the past in such definite terms as thus:
“As for it not happening during apartheid, indeed it didn’t”
Only to change it just 72 hours later when it became apparent to you the implications of your admission, culminating in this new claim:
“The solution you have offered is not at all the solution that worked up until the point it was removed.”
How did this happen? You make a definite statement that “indeed” (epidemic crime) did not happen and so that “indeed” (the common law policing and justice system) did work in the past, but then suddenly claim that yes it did happen (epidemic crime) in the past and no it didn’t work (the system) after all, and cut-and-paste the unreferenced highlight tracts of some obscure book 72 hours later and now claim that although you read it “some time ago” you still believed just 72 hours previous that these levels of crime most certainly (“indeed”) did not occur in the past? What?
Please explain to me how this can happen and tell me in all seriousness why it is that you cannot understand why your honesty may be called into check for it?
As for the rest, very briefly:
- More baseless personal attacks to goad a reaction; I am a SA patriot; it is rampant crime I do not like. SA is 2nd in the worlds murder league and 1st in rape and robbery, all ‘achieved’ within 16 years making it very ‘fucked up’ by world standards
- The solution I have presented did work as SA was not even remotely 2nd in the worlds murder league or 1st in rape and robbery under the authoritarian common law system and you have not one scrap of proof that it was, not one, just your empty inexperienced opinion and some ludicrous notion that South Africans and the world could have failed to have noticed these levels of crime under their very noses, when oddly enough no one call fail to notice them now
- You have not presented any solution nor any experts; just because someone writes a book does not make them an expert on anything; I have made it clear that Apartheid was wrong and that I openly opposed and that this is a call for the return of strong policing and judiciary that worked well in the past and would now be applied equally and can just as easily be brought back irregardless of your baseless opinion on the matter; when crime is dramatically reduced so will poverty be as investment will be forthcoming and people will actually get to keep the fruits of their labour, as well as their honour and lives
- Why on earth would I need to “prove” that I am South African, man? Can you understand how insane that sounds? Do you regularly ask people on the internet for some form of ID, birth certificate or passport? This is lunacy, man. Can you really not see that? What I have said is that you cannot tell me that these levels of crime occurred in a place and a time that you were never at, never lived through, didn’t experience, and that should be pretty obvious to anyone
- Criminologists and Sociologists are almost exclusively the preserve of the Marxist, if you really don’t know this you are very naive; but moreover the fact that you didn’t even know the credentials for someone you cite as an expert and a source of all truth on the issue just goes to further the evidence that you are being very dishonest when you claim that this is the very book that changed your core belief in the crime levels before and after Apartheid and one that should be taken as gospel; the credentials you now cite as his are hardly inspiring as he worked for the very system that created this crime epidemic and as such is hardly going to lay the blame at their, and his, door; I googled his name and found a few book reviews but could not find one independent biography in 5 pages, nor is he even referenced on wikis, so feel free to post the link you claim you have
- You now claim that this man is an “eminent scholar on law and order” but have not cited one scarp of proof of this mans scholarly credentials and he cannot even be found on public wikis or an independent biography found through 5 pages of google name searching; do you know what a scholar actually is?
- We are very much debating the position that SA is in now, and the position it was not in 16 years ago and what has changed; when you find what has changed, you find the solution; simple logic, man
- You have not cited one single reference and have even presented the wrong credentials entirely for this author you trust as a source of the absolute truth and expect me to
- You have made a complete and radical 360o turn on your position that endemic crime levels experience now were “indeed” not experienced in the past within 72 hours but have not cited one single scrap of evidence to support your newfound position
- You are the only to carry out abuse and ad hominem attacks on here calling me “vile and contemptible” for one, I have merely given my assessment of your character based upon your odious and bizarre behaviour and you continue to claim victim hood and make insane accusations as a result; for instance, what on earth is “making me suspicious of your true intentions here” supposed to mean in reality, man? Seriously. This is craziness and nonsense.
I have shown no dishonesty, I have shown no ignorance and I have not been abusive.
You then quote-mine me and take out of context what I said “As for it not happening during apartheid, indeed it didn’t” went on to say: “because it was a fascist, racist regime treating the vast majority of the country as third class humans, if human at all.”
Add to this the fact that crime was under-reported and you have my case. I have already asked you to evidence that a return to Apartheid style policing would work in a democracy and also that the country would tolerate a return to this approach. You also have still not accepted that crime is based on socio-economic factors and all you have done is put forward an unworkable solution.
Your tripping up over this point and on the semantics of it does not change that your proposal is not only unworkable but narrow minded in its conceits and once again, you provide not one jot of evidence that it is possible and would work and you seemingly fail to grasp that whatever it achieved under Apartheid was done at a serious cost to human rights and under an overall banner of non-whites as subhuman.
- With regards to you being a SA patriot, this is a moot point, unproven and/or no relevance here, argue the facts, do not try and ascribe yourself a higher status because you are allegedly from SA. We have trod this path already. And stop confusing your opinion with fact.
- You have not presented a solution, you keep tripping up on this, I have taken your solution apart, methodically and am awaiting you to either provide evidence to the contrary or to alter your solution. To repeat: a return to Apartheid style policing is impossible because SA will not return to Apartheid. I have already pointed out and any source will tell you, never mind mine, that the law and order system under Apartheid obviously reflected Apartheid values or do you deny this? To deny this is to deny fact, if you accept it then clearly you understand that it is not possible to return to the Apartheid law and order system and all of its failing.
- Yes I have offered solutions and I have offered evidence, your dismissal of a published expert who works in and around the law and order apparatus of SA is making you look petulant and foolish. Esp. when you have no sources of your own.
“this is a call for the return of strong policing and judiciary that worked well in the past
I have to take you up on this, let us pick out some elements of law and order during Apartheid shall we, to se what you yearn to return to?
Do you agree with the State Security Council as set-up by PW Botha, which was a vicious form of oppression and utilised the whipping of political offenders? It was the law that held up colour classification, it was the law that banned mixed marriage, it was the law that restricted movement, it was the law that embarked upon legislation after legislation and the enforcing of that legislation to keep non-white down in a position of virtual slavery and degradation.
Where do you think these laws were enforced? In the courts which perpetuated the racist system. By whom? The police, who perpetuated this racist system.
You seem to think that the judiciary was above Apartheid and somehow, even though we all know the judiciary is a crucial branch of any government system, was not involved.
Blind, ignorant and ridiculous madness that you are pushing to win an argument you lost long ago, when you started attacking me and attacking perfectly good sources of evidence against you.
- Again, the question of your nationality is only an issue here because you made it so by attempting to play it as a troop card.
- “Criminologists and Sociologists are almost exclusively the preserve of the Marxist” this is prejudiced, unfounded nonsense! A desperate effort to smear a source that proves you wrong. These pathetic attempts amuse me because you are having to contort yourself into such untenable positions, rather than merely accept you are wrong. And as I said before: he is not a criminologist!
- I am sorry that you are angry that I have a source by a South African who works in the criminal justice system of SA and who has had his books published on the matter and whose work proves you wrong. The best you can come up with it to suggest that anyone can write a book and get it published, seemingly ignoring the fact that he is and I repeat from his biography as South Africa’s leading publishing house Jonathan Ball: Antony Altbeker worked for the Ministry of Safety and Security between 1994 and 1998 monitoring police performance. Since then, he has worked as a freelance consultant, lectured on police training programmes, and held a senior position in the National Treasury’s Protection Services team. He is currently a senior researcher at the Crime and Justice Programme of the Institute for Security Studies.
What source to you have? Not one, not a single one.
- We are indeed debating the position SA is in now, well I am, you are talking utter tosh about all sociologists being Marxists and trying to denigrate a perfectly good source because you cant find much on Google and because he disagrees with you and heaven forbid, actually works in the field of law and order.
- You keep saying I have not sited a single reference, when I have cited two! This is madness, two books have been cited by me, what more do you need?
This debate with you is pointless, you argue position that are untenable, from behind a cloak of anonymity and any evidence offered you merely say: ‘that is not evidence’.
You have failed to answer my questions, which I repeat, to make the point of how little you are providing:
You find me a published source that says the answer to South Africa’s crime problems is a return to the barbarsim of Apartheid policing.
Find me a source that says socio-economic factors in SA are not a factor behind crime and a mere cracking down with draconian measures is possible.
Show me a source that says that the people of South Africa will accept such measures.
Show me a source that says that it is even possible to bring about such a system within the parameters of a free and honest democracy.
I also urge you to deal with my points made re the judiciary during Apartheid, where you blinkered view of what occurred cuts no mustard with the truth.
You have “indeed” shown immense dishonesty and the complete inability to explain how your positions and beliefs can take such a radical shift from a stated position of certainty to another stated position of certainty within 3 days and not only can you not explain this you do not even attempt to explain this or acknowledge that this would lead any reasonable person to question your honesty.
- ‘Quote mining’ or just actually quoting you directly? Or is this also banned in your strange world, man? You said ““As for it not happening during apartheid, indeed it didn’t” and now say that contrary that definite statement of fact, just 72 hours later you no longer believe it to be true but cannot explain why or produce one single scrap of evidence
- You keep claiming “the fact that crime was under-reported” but have not produced one single scrap of evidence to prove this. Nothing, man.
- I haven’t called for a return to “Apartheid style policing” as your new straw man claims, I have called for a return to strong authoritarian common law policing that worked so effectively in the past; I have already pointed out your ingrained inability to separate any system that may have ran under Apartheid from actual Apartheid itself; The roads were also serviced under Apartheid as the bins were emptied and the air traffic controlled and no one is suggesting that this be replaced by other systems as they are now ‘tainted’ by having ran under Apartheid
- There is no semantic point here, you said what you said: You wholeheartedly agreed that there wasn’t these epidemic levels of crime under the past common law policing and justice system so ergo it must have worked; you now claim the complete opposite within 72 hours without presenting a single scrap of proof or an explanation of why
- I am a patriot and for someone who claims to be against hierarchical human management you seem very obsessed with your ‘status’; again this has been explained to you several times: What I have said is that you cannot tell me that these levels of crime occurred in a place and a time that you were never at, never lived through, didn’t experience, and that should be pretty obvious to anyone
- The common law system under Apartheid was based upon English and Dutch common law and applied to all; the townships, by statute law, had their own medical, education and policing systems and their were many black policemen servicing the townships under the same tough common law umbrella that worked so well, that tier situation is rightly no longer an issue and will never happen again but common law under Apartheid was no different then in any other country based upon common law whereas Apartheid was a part of the SA constuition and applied with statute laws with no common law overlap if you really don’t know this fundamental fact then you have no business even bothering to preach a single thing about the whole issue
- That you don’t know that Sociology and Criminology and its very existence are rooted in Marxism is unsurprising and laughable ignorance; Karl Marx is one of the three founders of the social sciences that embrace both (see link below) and the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory (I very much doubt you know anything about that institution) was one of the first and most eminent schools of this so-called science so far from it being a “smear” it is just another example of your immense ignorance
- Actually you are the one who said he was a criminologist, I took you at face value, you now admit that you didn’t even have the first clue of the credentials of the author of this book that you claim is the ultimate source of truth, and now claim that he is an “eminent scholar on law and order” but cannot prove any scholarly connection whatsoever (you don’t appear to even understand what the word means) and cannot even link to an independent online biography of this so-called “eminent scholar” when asked to do so and after calling me a liar for failing to find what you cannot produce
- Again more straw men and bizarre goading as I am not in the slightest bit angry that you have merely named a book that you claim changed your mind about your admission that the old system did work (although you cannot say when this change occurred over the 72 hours) and cut-and-pasted unsubstantiated highlight tracts from it; this is not evidence of anything at all; you have not produced one single verifiable reference from this book or anywhere else that disproves what I have said and what is fact: That this crime epidemic did not occur under the past common law judicial system
- The new credentials you assign to this man (assuming you are “indeed” correct this time) paint a picture of a man who worked for the very system that brought about this crime epidemic and thus is not in a position of unbiased objectivity by any means and does not have any scholarly credentials at all, let alone “eminent” ones
- You think that naming a book is some sort of evidence; how about I claim that the Christian God exists without any shadow of doubt and name the Bible as my source and sole evidence for this, does this convince you of the absloute truth of that assertion?
- The situation is clear: SA did not have anywhere remotely near these levels of crime before under that strong policing and judiciary system of the past and now it does; not even the subsequent regimes deny this dramitic shift in endemic crime nor deny that crime has become the number one extremely serious issue to deal with in SA so I really cannot understand why you claim to the contrary without producing one scrap of evidence, it really is bizarre, man, it really is
- If we know that things changed dramatically, we have only to identify that change to find the solution, and that is not a return to Apartheid as you so underhandly keep trying to assign to me, it is the return to strong common law policing and judiciary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology#Origins
This is my final comment, the last one here no doubt, which I will not read, will fall to you, to re-iterate your contemptible nonsense.
I have explained my positions in depth with evidence, unlike you, who have one opinion and have not supported it with data or indeed know what that opinion would actually entail.
Every question I have put to you, you have refused to answer.
I have produced a text, that is in turn backed up with 7 pages of references to support his finding. The proof of burden rests in you to disprove that during Apartheid, non-white people did not report crime to a judiciary that was set against them. It is not rocket science, what point is their reporting crime to an authority that has stripped you of all your rights.
The past you refer to was Apartheid was it not? You cannot have the policing of Apartheid without Apartheid can you? It is very simple indeed. Although I doubt you think that, to you it seems the vile machinery of Apartheid was a separate world away from the judiciary.
Do you deny here that the judiciary was not an arm of Apartheid? That it did not carry out its policy, edicts and demands ruthlessly?
And how many times do I have to argue the same point? Apartheid judiciary was just that, you cannot return to it, in any shape or form. Why can you not get this into your thick, myopic skull? Thus, you cannot claim that the judiciary was a success during Apartheid when it operated under fascist, racist methodology.
“The common law system under Apartheid was based upon English and Dutch common law”
Are you out of your tiny mind? Are you seriously, in the face of overwhelming evidence trying to suggest that the judiciary, the law apparatus of Apartheid was not imbued with the characteristics of Apartheid when all evidence, the huge list of racist legislation, enacted by the courts and the police, is there for all to see?
“the same tough common law umbrella that worked so well”
This is beyond the pail, you talk of a law that stripped non-whites of all rights, including to vote, utilised torture, capital punishment, horrendous human rights infringements and call it something that worked so well?
Madness, utter racist madness, I’m afraid you have crossed the line, you are defending Apartheid style judiciary. No common law overlap? Fiction! It overlapped into every part of lawmaking! Here is a brief list of the laws, enforced by the judiciary and the police:
Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Act No 55 of 1949
Prohibited marriages between white people and people of other races. Between 1946 and the enactment of this law, only 75 mixed marriages had been recorded, compared with some 28,000 white marriages.
Immorality Amendment Act, Act No 21 of 1950; amended in 1957 (Act 23)
Prohibited adultery, attempted adultery or related immoral acts (extra-marital sex) between white and black people.
Population Registration Act, Act No 30 of 1950
Led to the creation of a national register in which every person’s race was recorded. A Race Classification Board took the final decision on what a person’s race was in disputed cases.
Group Areas Act, Act No 41 of 1950
Forced physical separation between races by creating different residential areas for different races. Led to forced removals of people living in “wrong” areas, for example Coloureds living in District Six in Cape Town.
Suppression of Communism Act, Act No 44 of 1950
Outlawed communism and the Community Party in South Africa. Communism was defined so broadly that it covered any call for radical change. Communists could be banned from participating in a political organisation and restricted to a particular area.
Bantu Building Workers Act, Act No 27 of 1951
Allowed black people to be trained as artisans in the building trade, something previously reserved for whites only, but they had to work within an area designated for blacks. Made it a criminal offence for a black person to perform any skilled work in urban areas except in those sections designated for black occupation.
Separate Representation of Voters Act, Act No 46 of 1951
Together with the 1956 amendment, this act led to the removal of Coloureds from the common voters’ roll.
Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, Act No 52 of 1951
Gave the Minister of Native Affairs the power to remove blacks from public or privately owned land and to establishment resettlement camps to house these displaced people.
Bantu Authorities Act, Act No 68 of 1951
Provided for the establishment of black homelands and regional authorities and, with the aim of creating greater self-government in the homelands, abolished the Native Representative Council.
Natives Laws Amendment Act of 1952
Narrowed the definition of the category of blacks who had the right of permanent residence in towns. Section 10 limited this to those who’d been born in a town and had lived there continuously for not less than 15 years, or who had been employed there continuously for at least 15 years, or who had worked continuously for the same employer for at least 10 years.
Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, Act No 67 of 1952
Commonly known as the Pass Laws, this ironically named act forced black people to carry identification with them at all times. A pass included a photograph, details of place of origin, employment record, tax payments, and encounters with the police. It was a criminal offence to be unable to produce a pass when required to do so by the police. No black person could leave a rural area for an urban one without a permit from the local authorities. On arrival in an urban area a permit to seek work had to be obtained within 72 hours.
Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act of 1953
Prohibited strike action by blacks.
Bantu Education Act, Act No 47 of 1953
Established a Black Education Department in the Department of Native Affairs which would compile a curriculum that suited the “nature and requirements of the black people”. The author of the legislation, Dr Hendrik Verwoerd (then Minister of Native Affairs, later Prime Minister), stated that its aim was to prevent Africans receiving an education that would lead them to aspire to positions they wouldn’t be allowed to hold in society. Instead Africans were to receive an education designed to provide them with skills to serve their own people in the homelands or to work in labouring jobs under whites.
Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953
Forced segregation in all public amenities, public buildings, and public transport with the aim of eliminating contact between whites and other races. “Europeans Only” and “Non-Europeans Only” signs were put up. The act stated that facilities provided for different races need not be equal.
When these disgusting laws were broken, who enforced them? The courts and the police!
As I have pointed out, repeatedly, the author in question is neither a sociologist or a criminologist but the fact you are trying to dismiss both of these areas of study as the sole remit of Marxists is bizarre and ignorant. Sociology for one and its methods is as old as human thought, formalised from the French Revolution but it does not belong to Marx you idiot! Auguste Comte is considered the father of the science in the piece you link to! To dismiss everyone involved in the science, a worthy science as Marxist shows you to be narrow minded intolerant and ignorant. Pull yourself together man and debate the issues here rather than your petty prejudice.
You offer no evidence, no source, no nothing! Have YOU worked in South Africa’s judiciary? Have YOU lectured on the subject? Have YOU had books published on the subject? If he is a bad source what does that make you then? I will tell you, a terrible, terrible racist joke who imagines that the faults of South Africa are that of the non-white. Your agenda is transparent for all your mewling about Apartheid, you believe in its essential values.
I will put these questions to you one last time, just so you cannot answer them again and thus show that your have no clue about what you talk of:
You find me a published source that says the answer to South Africa’s crime problems is a return to the barbarsim of Apartheid policing.
Find me a source that says socio-economic factors in SA are not a factor behind crime and a mere cracking down with draconian measures is possible.
Show me a source that says that the people of South Africa will accept such measures.
Show me a source that says that it is even possible to bring about such a system within the parameters of a free and honest democracy.
I add another:
The law and order system under Apartheid obviously reflected Apartheid values or do you deny this?
All I see is an ignorant, perpetuating racist myths here, myths that maintain your own degraded and vile views of non-whites. You are not from South Africa, I know who you are, your tone is all very familiar indeed and I also know that in your mind the last word in an Internet thread means you’ve won, when in reality you have exposed your prejudice, once again but hide it behind yet another fake name. I know the server you use isn’t coming from SA, so have your precious last word coward, savour it and the succour it will give you pathetic creature. I am done here, debating a fine country with a racist is a waste of time.
Man oh man. Really.
After being held to a standard of proof and asked to produce evidence for your increasingly strange comments you finally you fully cast off the thin veneer of respectability and even any last vestiges of sanity you have attempted to wear throughout this extremely bizarre exchange and at last expose your full character replete with abuse, smears and appropriately insane accusations. You really are unhinged, man! What behaviour. Man oh man.
My patience with you is gone. What is this last ditch blast of insanity about. Really. Are you that ill, man? Are you that desperate? “You are not from South Africa” Kak, how the fuck would you know where I am from, man? You lie so easily. You are a terrible liar, man. “I know who you are”? What? Really, man? And who is that, then? Man oh man. What a cuckoo. “I know the server you use isn’t coming from SA” Kak, man. I am not using any server you stupid crazy man and what is you “know”? Man o man, and you walk the streets?
Why not this outburst of insanity though? After all you have no proof whatsoever for your silly outlandish and downright childish claims that this epidemic crime explosion existed under the common law policing and justice system pre ’94 and you have been proven to be a very dishonest liar unable to answer how and why he was able to shift his entire belief that the past common law justice system did “indeed” prevent this endemic crime to one where it didn’t within 72 hours.
You lied from start to finish and wore your complete ignorance as badge of honour failing to understand even when it is explained to you in detail that common law dealt with crime and crime is the issue in hand whereas statue law dealt with Apartheid. Two different systems you stupid, stupid little man.
Just as you cut-and-paste a few unsubstantiated opinion tracts from a book as some sort of proof for your idiotic flip flop claim that crime was as bad under the common law system ran before ‘94 you now cut-and-paste some statue Apartheid laws as some sort of proof that it existed when we all know it existed, man! It was nothing to do with common law and crime though you stupid ignorant man. The townships were largely self-policed by black policemen using common law and strong enforcement and it worked. End of.
Clearly too, you are the subconscious racist obsessed with your ‘status’ and proclaiming that black people can only be stopped with endemic crime under a “racist and fascist” system and even citing the US as another success for this policy. Really man, this is what you have said, and you dare to call others racist. You cowardly worm.
I am glad that this is over now really, you are clearly a crazy cowardly specimen who cannot back up assertion with evidence or separate opinion from fact nor myth from reality.
You are wrong and have been proved to be not only wrong but an ignorant lying fool too, hence the surreal tantrum.
Redeem yourself and prove that you are not just a lying chancer and answer these questions:
- Why did you state your belief on crime and the effectiveness common law system of the past in such definite terms as thus:
“As for it not happening during apartheid, indeed it didn’t”
Only to change it just 72 hours later when it became apparent to you the implications of your admission, culminating in this new claim:
“The solution you have offered is not at all the solution that worked up until the point it was removed.”
How did this happen? You make a definite statement that “indeed” (epidemic crime) did not happen and so that “indeed” (the common law policing and justice system) did work in the past, but then suddenly claim that yes it did happen (epidemic crime) in the past and no it didn’t work (the system) after all, and cut-and-paste the unreferenced highlight tracts of some obscure book 72 hours later and now claim that although you read it “some time ago” you still believed just 72 hours previous that these levels of crime most certainly (“indeed”) did not occur in the past? What?
Please explain to me how this can happen and tell me in all seriousness why it is that you cannot understand why your honesty may be called into check for it?
- You keep claiming “the fact that crime was under-reported” in the past but have not produced one single scrap of evidence to prove this. Nothing, man. What evidence do you have?
- You think that naming a book is some sort of evidence; how about I claim that the Christian God exists without any shadow of doubt and name the Bible as my source and sole evidence for this, does this convince you of the absolute truth of that assertion?
- What are the real credentials of the author of the book you name: Prove he is an “eminent scholar” and provide a link to an independent biography of this man, you claim I lied about this but cannot produce any evidence or a link, why?
- Why do you claim that this endemic crime explosion is nothing new when pretty much no one even in the subsequent SA governments makes these claims but conversely admit it is a contemporary issue and the number 1 issue?