Lushaba 2: That record needle skipping faux pas remains

READING some of the latest ‘academic’ defenses of Lushaba in the ‘petit press’, one could be forgiven for thinking that he had delivered an important speech at UCT pronouncing on the supremacy of politics over law, utilising dialectical materialism to thoroughly debunk so-called legal institutional analysis, in the process setting the Holocaust in its rightful place, a mere peccadillo involving white people.

Both Chris Roper and Steven Robins are at pains to point out the context of a general critique of various approaches to the teaching of political science. While Roper’s is anything but a systematic contextualisation (in effect denying that the comments were even made), Robins errs on the side of rewriting the lecture altogether, as if the specific context of revolt against democratic and constitutional norms is all good and fine if one also raises substantive issues of colonial violence.

A case of competing frames of reference?

Robins erroneously writes: “As Roper indicates, the wider context of the lecture, and the logic of Dr Lushaba’s overall argument, do not in any way support Holocaust denial, and he certainly does not seek to argue that Hitler and the Nazis committed no crime in their acts of genocidal violence.”

“Instead, the lecture is a critical reflection of the racial blind spots of his discipline of political science, and why it was only after the Holocaust that genocide came to be recognised by scholars and human rights lawyers as a crime against humanity.”

If this were the case, then why did Lushaba not come right out with it, and say so, why beat around the bush? Why slip into an obnoxious, bigoted statement denying Hitler’s culpability for crimes against genocide, or should that be humanity? To use an ignoramus like Roper as an authority, would be to ignore his earlier statements made concerning Negritude and Césaire, a man whose work he rejected in a public address made in 1996, in the process claiming that the term itself was ‘racist’.

As I wrote previously, the result is not simply a moral vacuum in which the only historical crimes of any import are those against black persons, (and vice versa) but worse, a descent into reductionism, racial categorization and the logic of the late BJ Vorster, whose grey shirts were allied to the Nazi Party.

That Lushaba’s approach to political science provides short thrift to his subject matter, may be seen by the equally false claim that there are only three approaches worth considering. Check this page.

Equally problematic is his approach to proven facts like the 13th Amendment to the US constitution. Sorry Sir, while the amendment may have had the effect of extending the category of human being, it tragically did not state so in its wording.

This shoddy approach to evidence-based research in favour of polemic and opinion-making readily leads one to racist bile.

While I agree with Robins: “the lecture raises substantive issues about the relationship between the Holocaust and black histories of colonial violence that are certainly worthy of academic and public debate”, I categorically disagree with its intention and true purpose.

The trouble with a long-winded mitigation argument, sans facts, is the attempt to drown out objections. This is not what Lushaba actually says, and what is recorded, but rather an intellectual interpretation of events, one which seeks to spin an obvious faux pas — In exhalting Hitler’s purported innocence, and ignoring that the intended audience are not pHd candidates per se, but rather first year students, students who deserve a lot better than lies.

“One possible charitable interpretation of Dr Lushaba’s comment is that he understands the word “crime” quite literally to mean a legally proscribed, punishable offence and that he was claiming that under Nazi law it was not a crime to kill Jews” writes David Benatar.

To add fuel to fire, Lushaba proceeds to claim our objections are in the minority, and stands by his words. One would at very least expect an apology, but that would mean climbing down from his seemingly ‘unassailable’ academic pedestal, a pedestal from which he has seen fit to launch racist invective.

There are undoubtedly many valid criticisms of racism and colonialism, however, a critique of racism which concludes that in order to combat racism, one has to suppress women, or homosexuals for instance, would not be a valid critique. 

Similarly, a criticism of traditional approaches to political science, a critique which starts by inferring all law is subordinate to politics, but then falsely concludes the findings of war crimes made under Nuremberg were wrong, is not an educated segway into modernist and post-modernist discourse, but rather, a moribund approach to dialectical materialism, one which invariably leads into antinomian and relativistic terrain.

It is the exact same terrain in which our own TRC findings have been subordinated and reduced to irrelevance by political cadres and apparatchiks of Lushaba’s ilk, emanating from our nation’s academic institutions.

Time to call a spade a spade.

SEE: Commandante Lushaba and the Führer

LUSHABA: SA academia churning out unprofessional kooks and crackpots

THE LATEST rant from within SA academia points to a growing problem with the award of doctorates at these institutions. In February I exposed a fraudulent narrative issued by Dr Mandisi Majavu a ‘senior lecturer in the Department of Political and International Studies at Rhodes University’. (see link below)

This month, yet another senior lecturer in Political Studies, Dr Lwazi Lushaba from the University of Cape Town, demonstrates that there is a dearth of evidence-based intellectual inquiry at these institutions. Data analysis and empirical research should underpin philosophical and theoretical considerations, not the other way around.

If our academic institutions appear to have fallen prey to opinion-based, bigoted flights of fancy, which do absolutely nothing to further freedom of speech nor academic discourse for that matter, and which border upon hate speech, if not outright contempt for our constitution, then it may not come as a surprise, there is a global trend towards downgrading the prestige of the humanities and social sciences.

If jettisoning secular humanism in favour of radicalism for the sake of radicalism, or spurning history in favour of reductionist, ahistorical class analysis doesn’t get your goat, then perhaps the words uttered by Lushaba during a recent address to his students will.

The doctoral fellow has previously been taken to task by a religious studies PhD candidate and blogger James Bishop for issuing racist bile (see here). And was reprimanded for conduct that was “unacceptable, inappropriate and disrespectful” in 2019.

In the video Lushaba claims “Hitler committed no crime. All Hitler did was to do to white people what white people had normally reserved for black people.”

A syllogistic fallacy if any. In other words a flawed reasoning in logic. (Hitler is innocent. He only did what was normal. Therefore genocide of Jews/Whites/Blacks is normal).

Now I am not going to entertain you with galling details regarding the Final Solution and comparisons with previous and subsequent genocides, suffice to add that Lushaba is just plain wrong when he comes to attributing race to Jews (nations are not ‘races’, there is no plural in race, race is the child of racism not the father) and his utterances are best placed in the realm of speculative fiction, the crackpot section.

While the German Army under Lothar von Trotha did participate in a well-documented genocide of the Herero and Namaqua in Namibia, and the Rwandan genocide has often been compared to the genocides following from these atrocities, it is the denial of culpability, the attribution of innocence to the chief protagonist of the Final Solution, Adolf Hitler, and hence an impersonal, ahistorical, anti-morality based upon overly broad, reductionist and need one say, racist generalisations, (as in ‘let’s stick it to the whites’ and while we at it, ‘let’s stick it to the Jews’,) which is most troubling and offensive.

To remind readers who may have read my postings on Mcebo Dlamini, a Wits SRC leader who made similar remarks in 2015, and was subsequently forced by the SAHRC to apologise. The system we know as apartheid was both informed by and had its antecedent in the Nuremberg laws classifying Germans and Jews according to blood quantum and preventing miscegenation between ‘races”.

One need look no further than several examples of the former National Party of South Africa’s membership card which carries both the infamous swastika associated with the Nazis, and also the words proudly promoting affiliation: “The South African National Party emanates from the S.A. gentile National-Socialist movement and incorporates the said movement as also the SA Grey Shirts”.

It was Hitler’s brown shirts who engaged in what became known as Kristallnacht, a pogrom against Jewish-owned businesses while back in South Africa, it was John Vorster’s grey shirts and the government of D F Malan who succeeded in formalising what were until then informal race policies of segregation, in the process shutting down black owned business, which were relegated to the ghettos, ‘locations’ and so-called townships.

The rediscovery of the so-named Fischer tools housed at the University of Stellenbosch, used by apartheid doctors in their offensive project of race classification, further demonstrates the clear links between apartheid and Nazidom.

As I wrote in 2015, ‘A flurry of academic papers followed the 2013 rediscovery of the so-called ‘Fischer Tools’, used for race-classification purposes at the University of Stellenbosch.’

“The artefacts, it was immediately clear,” writes Dan Newling, “had been used to measure and classify physical differences between human beings of different ethnic origins.”

“An inscription on the back of one of the [objects] revealed their origin: they were the tools of Eugen Fischer, a notorious German eugenicist and Nazi whose theories inspired Hitler.”

You can read more from my original post on the Nazis, Mcebo Dlamini and DF Malan here.

And my expose of Mandisi Majavu here.

There are undoubtedly many valid criticisms of racism, however, a critique of racism which concludes that in order to combat racism, one has to suppress women, or homosexuals for instance, would not be a valid critique. The statements by UCT SRC chairperson Declan Dyer in support of Dr Lushaba’s bizarre utterances about Hitler, fall into this category.

UCT SRC chairperson and nazi sympathiser Declan Dyer has come out in support of Lushaba, stating that the comments were part of a larger critique of political science, and one should add, a critique of the anti-apartheid movement which took a non-partisan stance on the subject.

UPDATE: Dr Lushaba stands by his offensive idiotic statements, claims inter alia, that lectures at a public institution are somehow private, that the views of the person who objected are in the minority and that it is his ‘love of the black body politic’ that drove him. If you follow his reasoning, then BJ Vorster, the head of the grey shirts movement affiliated to the Nazis, was innocent? Its a regular shit show. And worse, he appears to claim that the only peers who should be entitled to review his work, should be black etc etc, an apartheid headspace if any. In fact I remember similar crap emanating from my history teacher back in the day, ‘The English treated the Germans badly at Versailles, resulting in Hitler, similarly they treated the Boers badly, who only engaged in apartheid because they were mad at the British.’

Sekunjalo has another Jack Ma moment

THIS WEEK saw ABSA bank withdraw its support for Sekunjalo and Iqbal Survé, citing reputational damage without providing any details. Apparently the bank doesn’t have to supply evidence in court and may boot its clients willy-nilly — on the mere off chance that they represent a risk to shareholder’s profits.

If the attempts by some media critics to paint this as another example of the end of the Gupta years, stemming from the shenanigans at Ayo, seem a little odd given Sekunjalo’s balance sheet, then perhaps it has something to do with the proverbial Iqbal Survé Jack Ma moment. If you remember, Ma fell out of grace with the Chinese Communist Party in November last year, resulting in the cancellation of the Ant Group IPO.

Similarly, Survé’s Sagarmartha IPO failed after the PIC pulled the carpet citing lack of due diligence. If you managed to catch the tail-end of the saga, and last month’s presentation given to a special parliamentary portfolio committee, then you will realise that Survé didn’t take things laying down.

He appears to have spun-off the troublesome Independent Group’s assets into a special interest vehicle, the Independent Consortium, whilst saving both Premier Fishing and Loot.com, two highly cash-generative operations, that form part of his vast empire.

It doesn’t take much digging to find the cause of Absa’s butt-headed reaction, since Survé has been waging a tit-for-tat battle with other media groups, in particular Naspers, itself a mere pawn in a broader financial empire, whose ultimate source of control is the web of intrigue surrounding the Rupert family and Rupert Beleggings.

Since the Rupert’s were instrumental in the creation of Amalgamated Banks of South Africa (Absa), after their well-documented bail-out of the apartheid state and its banking sector during the 80s, which also saw the dynasty benefit from various so-called ‘life-boats’ floated by Chris Stals et al, and are consequently the main sponsors behind the ANC, their erstwhile banking partners might not be all that happy to have Sekunjalo as a client.

Look no further than the history of Volkskas on sahistory.org.za

The move comes as President Ramaphosa was lambasted by the NEC’s Dlamini-Zuma for his apparent proximity to Johann Rupert. Hypocrisy considering the party’s longstanding relationship with its former National Party allies.

In 2018 columnist Azad Essa claimed that the Independent Group cancelled his column immediately after he published a column distributed to a number of Independent Media newspapers critical of China’s mass internment of ethnic Uighurs.

The prospect of Sekunjalo being refused a business license under the current political dispensation in which the ruling party operates as if South Africa is, for all intents and purposes, a one party state, will no doubt come to haunt Survé.

Reports have emerged that Survé initially chose the China National Bank as an alternative to Absa, only to find that keeping ones money in an authoritarian regime, is well, not exactly Swiss banking.

Whither SA democracy under successive Covid lockdowns?

SOUTH AFRICA’S bitter experience with successive states of emergency during apartheid, resulted in a liberal Constitution which aimed to avoid a political dictatorship. The executive is thus bound by a dispensation which enshrines democratic rights and freedoms even during an emergency or disaster.

The failure of Parliament to debate any of the regulations imposed since 23 March 2020, including the successive renewal of the disaster without so much as a democratic mandate, (currently we are in lockdown level 1) means that the checks and guarantees in our constitution amount to little more than hot air when it comes to the ruling party exercise of power.

While silent on the authority inherent to a public health disaster, it cannot be that the National Disaster Management Act is a more powerful instrument of governance than a State of Emergency, or that Parliament is in effect suspended and restrained from its oversight role?

“We must have parliamentary oversight and make a national state of disaster subject to the same procedural constraints that already apply to a state of emergency in our law. After all, the risks of the abuse of power under a state of national disaster are similar to those historically associated with a state of emergency” says Cilliers Brink MP the DA’s Shadow Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

A Coronovirus Management Act for instance, would certainly quell such reservations.

“Recently, the penny dropped for a few free-speech activists when they realised, with horror, that in this election year, all political events are currently banned” writes Cilliers.

“Even if the ban is lifted in the coming weeks, it can readily be reimposed by the stroke of a ministerial pen, regardless of whether there are less restrictive means to curb a third wave of the pandemic” he added.

With the collapse of our democratic institutions, our partisan ‘judiciary’ was soon to follow, trotting out apartheid-era justifications for the treatment of persons who oppose vaccination and removing dissident voices.

It was Voltaire who once said:  ‘I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.’  While it was Harry S Truman who said: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

Spare a thought then for those who disagree with the special measures, introduced unilaterally by the nation’s executive, measures which include mask wearing, curfews, restrictions upon movement and the possibility of mandatory vaccination.

Craig Peiser, one of the organisers of a series of beach protest events held in False Bay by ‘We Are More’, is currently detained in a state psychiatric facility, after he was found unfit to appear for trial, apparently on account of his ‘lack of appreciation of right and wrong’.

This follows a ‘psychiatric report’ authored by one Professor Sean Kaliski.

“Based on the report, the court found that [Peiser] didn’t have criminal capacity when the incidents happened. He couldn’t distinguish between right and wrong” suggests Theolin Tembo  of INM.

Involuntary commitment for political reasons was removed from the Mental Health Care Act in 2002, but this didn’t stop Professor Kaliski from committing Peiser for his acts of civil disobedience.

Peiser who is opposed to mask wearing, removed the mask of an ENCA reporter, resulting in a charge of common assault. The media were barred from the court proceedings which resulted in him being treated as an involuntary mental health care user.

South Africa has often resorted to elements of the Cuban medical system, which routinely commits those who oppose the Castro dynasty inside mental health institutions. The SADF recently imported R260 million of the drug interferon, thinking that Covid-19 was biological warfare.

The country continues to enforce a travel ban on the Dalai Lama and has failed to guarantee secular rights and freedoms.

Dear Mr Fallist

Dear Mr Fallist,

You and your partner have been visiting my home for the past months.

I value our friendship and shared history at Community House, but more often than not, you have returned my kindness by engaging in a ‘bully pulpit’, declaiming upon matters which leave no room for disagreement, nor intellectual freedom from my side nor that of my friends and associates.

Yours is a bully pulpit with its associated guilt trip which boils down to the modern version of Mathew 20:30 — “Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me.”

As a non-theist I don’t quote this biblical reference out of respect for scripture but rather to demonstrate that you appear to have a lot in common with the people that you claim to oppose.

To the day in question, in which you arrived, over a week ago only to tell me that UCT, still required ‘Decolonization’.

An institution from which I have a degree, and which treated persons such as myself, objectors and war-resisters, rather cruelly (to use your words), implementing a form of academic exclusion which amounted to invisibility alongside similar strictures meted out by the apartheid regime.

Nevetherless I finally received my marks in December 2020, some thirty years after I failed to attend my graduation in 1990 only to discover I had received a reasonable second, and had done quite well under the circumstances during a tumultuous period of student unrest.

You proceeded to inform me that there was something terribly wrong with the maths syllabus, ‘since there are other ways to draw a circle that don’t involve European maths’ as you put it. For the life of me, I could not recall any rudimentary method which did not have its origins in the Olduvai Gorge, the Caves of Lascaux and gardens of Mesopotamia.

You then motioned to explain that students at UCT were ‘still being taught Christianity and how many Angels’ (not angles) ‘could fit on a pinhead’, whereupon I exclaimed, that I ‘did not believe that every student at my alma mater was in the process of studying Thomas Aquinas, a native of Sicily, born in Italy.

You then advanced to relate the story of a particular female ‘professor’, a friend who you did not name, nor give any further details.

You explained that she had been active in ‘Rhodes Must Fall’, was appointed to an advisory board to former Chancellor Max Price, and had been overlooked for a job at UCT on account of her politics, whereupon she had taken the institution to the High Court, only to be told after nine months that it was a simple labour court matter.

I explained that since UCT is an institution created by an Act of Parliament (the UCT Act), I could imagine what she was up against and advised that issues to do with the curriculum and policy would be better taken up in Senate and that I am merely a member of Convocation.

I also hastened to guess at what the unfair discrimination case at Labour Court might entail, since as you know, I have had my fair share of labour discrimination litigation including a longstanding dispute, that also involves corruption at the Court by a member and/or associate of the ANC and former professor of law at UCT.

To your chagrin, I began to unpack some elements of the case. Asking who the person was that had beaten the aggrieved educator in question?

You answered that she was an Argentinian, ‘who was not even a professor at UCT’, and offered up the biography of one Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Teaching and Learning — Associate Professor Lis Lange, formerly of University of the Free State (UFS), whose specialty is ‘philosophy of politics in education’

I then made an honest mistake of applying the self-same cursory test applied in my own case against the Legal Aid Board, averring that the courts would assume the case was one merely of sour grapes, your close friend, was simply a sore loser in the eyes of the law if the policy issues were set aside, and it was not simply a question of who was most qualified, but rather of the powers and mandate of the institution to appoint whomever it felt most capable.

I further cautioned that Max Price was no longer the Vice Chancellor, but rather, this post was held by a highly qualified professor of mathematics education, a black woman by the name of  Mamokgethi Phakeng

Whereupon you flew into a rage and was asked to leave.

If there is any lesson to be drawn from this experience, I guess, it is far easier to overlook naked aggression, than it is the inferences which may be drawn, that what you are really engaged in isn’t decolonization per se, but rather the desecularisation of society, its replacement by a politburo that shuns academic freedom at the same time as it discards pluralism and the multi-ethnic character of an institution, which has transformed immensely since the days I was on campus.

I therefore once again reiterate the view that policy issues regarding the UCT curriculum are best resolved by open debate, vigorous intellectual inquiry, evidence-based research and consultation between both academics and the student body.

Kind regards

D R Lewis

Mr President, did you forget to mention Acting Judge Cheat?

THIS WEEK President Ramaphosa moved to defend South Africa’s yellow judiciary from accusations made no less by a member of the Judicial Services Commission. The media has been at pains to aver lack of any evidence supporting accusations of bias against any of the country’s top legal authorities, despite politician Julius Malema condemning actions amounting to political interference.

“Unless supported by evidence, such claims undermine confidence in our courts, and weaken our Constitutional order,” wrote the President in his weekly newsletter on Monday.

He said South Africa’s Constitution makes provision for the removal of judges who fail “to uphold the values and principles with which they have been entrusted.” So I guess if any corrupt members of the judiciary bash the preamble to our Constitution or lower the status of the TRC and its report, they got this one covered?

Unfortunately the nitty gritty of provisions against malfeasance in office in particular, the abject failure to provide legal aid to those on the receiving end of corruption, unfair treatment and lack of fairness and impartiality, makes this a practical impossiblity.

“The National Assembly is empowered to remove judges who are found by the Judicial Service Commission to be guilty of gross misconduct” claims the President.

“The Judicial Service Commission is a carefully constituted body, which includes representatives from the judiciary but also the legal profession, academia and Parliament. There are clear processes established in law to deal with allegations of misconduct against members of the judiciary,” he said.

Ramaphosa then urged those who had ‘evidence of any wrongdoing by any judge to make use of the avenues provided in the Constitution and law to ensure that appropriate action is taken.’

Stating there to be “avenues” without providing any details, of how he intends to help those who do possess evidence, does not translate into action by the President, the Judicial Service Commission nor Parliament for that matter. Particularly when the ruling party in the form of the executive, is involved in the appointment of the nation’s officials, and in some instances, actively influencing the outcome of decisions (see below).

The judiciary is expected to remain independent and impartial, unfortunately the appointment of persons such as Albie Sachs to the bench in the 90s, set the tone for card-carrying members of the judiciary. Political apparatchiks believing themselves entitled to appointment to the ‘commanding heights of the justice system’ via a political project of cadre deployment and involving gerrymandering of the system.

So far as the removal of corrupt officials sitting on the bench is concerned, the constitution is rather vague and opaque on which steps which need to be taken — impeachment via Parliament or finding of gross misconduct by the JSC — surely both actions should occur concurrently? Any miscarriages of justice involving the ruling party exerting undue influence over proceedings should at very least be debated on the floor of the National Assembly?

The President was thus silent on the vexing issue of ‘acting judges’ — those who act in the place of judges, and who for all intents and purposes, are judges. In the liberal language of our constitution, literally anyone with sufficient ‘qualifications’ may be a judge, and while there is provision for citizens to act as lay assessors, this mechanism is rarely used.

The JSC currently disclaims any authority over the behavior of its acting judges, those coopted into the judiciary, leaving an alarming fracture in accountability. The result is that literally any director of a sizeable law firm may act as a judge or magistrate, without disclosing assets or an interest in the proceedings, lending credence to the assertions made by Malema and demonstrated by the evidence provided below.

And this with Judge Hlophe seemingly back at work, as if the hearings into gross misconduct before the JSC never happened? (See ‘He’s a danger on the bench’ – Kriegler  and Be gone, John: the JSC has a duty to get rid of Hlophe)

An as yet unsigned affidavit detailing attempts to prosecute an ANC political partner, labour broker, and erstwhile law professor Halton Cheadle, who presided as an acting justice over a matter affecting both his client and business associates, including then speaker of the House of Assembly Max Sisulu, during a hearing at Labour Court in 2010 and thus implicating the party in capture of the judiciary, is provided.

If you wish to contribute towards a fund to act upon the contents, here is a link to our paypal account.

Who needs vaccine consent when you Pierre De Vos ‘constitutional law expert?’

THE APARTHEID STATE was responsible for some of the worst excesses and infringements of our health rights. Not only did it deprive black persons equal access to medical care but it experimented on its citizens at will, leading to the inclusion of article 12 rights in our Constitution, rights strictly forbidding such practices.

The strictures contained under “Freedom and security of the person” relate to bodily and psychological integrity — the use of torture and forced medical experimentation, and are most certainly not subject to retroactive legislation. They are also protected as non-derogable rights even under a state of emergency or national disaster.

This didn’t stop an incompetent and ignorant ‘legal expert’ by the name of Pierre de Vos from weighing in on the side of the removal or dilution of article 12 rights, based upon various criminal court precedents impacting upon the rights of persons who have already been found guilty of a crime.

De Vos maintains that for the good of the world, mandatory vaccination with or without patient consent is required to stem the impact of the virus and especially its mutations and thus the right to freedom and security of the person, especially bodily and psychological integrity, require some limitation.

The anal probe ‘expert’ claims, without providing any substantive evidence: “The decision by an individual not to be vaccinated against Covid-19 may pose a deadly threat to the lives and well-being of others. If a significant number of individuals refuse to be vaccinated, the virus will continue to spread among the unvaccinated, which may allow the virus to mutate into new strains against which the existing vaccines may no longer be effective. If this happens, the lives of many more people in South Africans and across the world may be lost. Whether to be vaccinated could therefore be a life-or-death decision – not only for yourself, but also for others.

De Vos is a regular contributer on national television and the Daily Maverick. It therefore may come as a surprise to his followers, that his scholastic resort to S v Manamela and Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Gaqa warrants an immediate objection on the basis that as free citizens, we are certainly neither prisoners of Pretoria, nor are we guests of the State President to use a legal euphemism often deployed against those incarcerated under an insanity defence.

It is perhaps why the President in his recent address was quick to reassure citizens that our vaccination programme would be voluntary.

Spare a thought for victims of previous state programmes. In a project headed by “Dr Shock” Aubrey Levin during the 1970s to 1980s, the South African Defence Force forced lesbian and gay military personnel to undergo aversion therapy and/or “sex-change” operations, part of a state sponsored program to purge homosexuality in the army.

The infringements by apartheid doctors include ‘psychological coercion, chemical castration, electric shock, and other unethical medical experiments.’

An estimated 900 forced sexual reassignment operations according to Richard Poplak, may have been performed between 1971 and 1989 at military hospitals. Most of the victims were males, young 16 to 24-year-old white men who were drafted into the army during the South African Border War. Women were also subject to the experimentation.

While the labour camps and hostels surrounding South Africa’s mines, gave the world data on the exact temperatures at which workers die from heat and humidity exposure resulting in a measurement widely used in climate science today, black women found themselves subjected to forced sterilisation, and Depo Provera injection programmes, both seeking to limit the growth of the black population.

The measures and shoddy reasoning provided by De Vos, would require a dramatic shift in the democratic character of our country towards a totalitarian state, in which personal and individual freedoms are trumped by the requirements of large scale vaccination.

Such a programme would invariably open the door to annual Covid shots, and similar interventions, as updates are pushed from Big Pharma, who nevertheless secure an endless stream of funding from government at the same time that they are indemnified from any responsibility.

It remains to be seen whether or not South Africa will be able to chart its own path whilst resisting the global trend under the World Health Organisation to roll-out of such draconian measures.

12Freedom and Security of the personWith respect to subsections (1)(d) and (e) and (2)(c).
Extent to which article 12 rights are protected under a state of emergency

SEE: Japan asks China to stop anal tests on its citizens

If Biko and Plaatjie were alive today, debating non-racialism (response to Majavu)

THERE is a special place in hell reserved for those who wish to forge and revise history. A bizarre fabrication of the facts surrounding the origin of non-racialism was published in the Sunday Independent, written no less by a ‘senior lecturer in the Department of Political and International Studies at Rhodes University’.

Dr Mandisi Majavu’s fraudulent propaganda piece apparently for a stream of political thought adjacent to or associated with the ‘black consciousness’ movement, argues that the black intelligentsia ‘have consistently misread, misunderstood, and mistook white racism for something it was not – a white benefactor.”

He then descends into an unsupported and counterfeit conspiracy claim that ‘non-racialism was introduced by whites in the ANC in the 1950s leading to a further blunting of ‘the organisation’s race analysis toolbox’.

In this asinine and acerbic view, persons such as JT Jabavu, publisher of the first black newspaper Imvo ZabaNtsundu, and even critic Sol Plaatjie, were simply ‘racial accommodationists’. In the process both Jabavu and Plaatjie are stripped of human agency, mere foils for the colonial authorities.

Majavu postulates “Jabavu’s political project was aligned to the agenda of his political “masters” – the South African Party” before upbraiding his chief critic, Sol Plaatjie, written off as unashamedly contaminated by the “white liberal spell of Cape liberalism”, which Plaatjie himself described as representing “British ideas of fair play and justice”.

“Not only was Plaatjie short-sighted” alleges Majavu “when it came to the history of white racism in South Africa, he failed to appreciate what was coming next.”

Well, hang me high for suggesting that hindsight is 20/20 vision and this type of phoney syncretism begs the question — what would Plaatjie or Biko say for that matter, if they were alive today?

“Plaatjie is not the only 20th century black leader ill-equipped to understand the full meaning of the white supremacist project being advocated for by whites in early 20th century” declares Majavu who then goes on to propose:

“John Dube, first president of the ANC, subscribed to Booker T Washington’s racial accommodationist and black self-help politics.” In the process unfairly writing off both Pixley Seme and Alfred B Xuma, ‘part of the black intelligentsia who though fighting valiantly against the Native Land Act nevertheless elicited a ‘disappointing response to race segregation’.

This sets the stage for the unfounded assertion that whites were solely ‘responsible for the introduction of nonracialism’ and that persons of colour, all subjugated servants to a tee, timidly took up the baton, bearing the cudgels of universalism and monogenesis (the theory of human origins which posits a common descent for all human races). This under the egregious whip of the Church, influenced or brainwashed by missionaries and that it was the ANC which invariably became non-racialism’s foremost champion and proponent from the very start.

Majavu’s piece painfully ignores the historical tragedy of the singular fact of the struggle that it was Robert Sobukwe, founder of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) who first articulated race agnosticism in any coherent fashion.

Although universal ideas such as equality and respect for human rights, alongside the paleoanthropological evidence of our common origin, may have been advocated in private by ‘white persons’ such as communist party leader Joe Slovo, the ANC of the 1950s was very much defined by the Freedom Charter, itself a document bound up with the multiracial language of the period.

Sobukwe famously stated in his United African States inaugural 1959 address, “The Africanists take the view that there is only one race to which we all belong, and that is the human race. “

“To us the term “multi-racialism” implies that there are such basic insuperable differences between the various national groups here that the best course is to keep them permanently distinctive in a kind of democratic apartheid. That to us is racialism multiplied, which probably is what the term truly connotes.”

History demonstrates it was thus the ANC an avowedly ‘multiracial’ party which went on to adopt non-racialism at the behest of the Unity Movement and other critics of colour.

In particular my mentor and comrade, the late Dr Neville Alexander used to relate the story of how he and Mandela were prone to engage in dialogue on the issue of the race question, whilst breaking lime stone in the quarry and incarcerated on Robben Island .

Speaking on the position of the ‘Unity Movement,’ Alexander’s view was that there was a ‘common stream of humanity, not separate and distinct streams as the racists would have it’.

The journey of both the ANC and the Rainbow Nation is thus an epic one from the multiracialism of the 1950s to the non-racialism of the new South African Constitution, a document whose preamble enshrines an elegant and powerful idea alongside recognition of the injustices of the past.

Would Steve Biko be a non-racialist if he were alive today? I think he would most definitely support non-racialism in its far-reaching appeal to end race discrimination, at the same time that he pointed out that ‘blackness is not the result of skin pigmentation but rather a reflection of a mental attitude’.

If Jabavu, Dube, and Pixley Seme were alive, perhaps they would be upbraiding the ANC for neglect of its allies in the freedom struggle, its avoidance of the universal imperatives of the Preamble to our nation’s Constitution and its abject failure to chart a coherent vision, free from corruption.

Given the adverse conditions under which those opposed to the apartheid state found ourselves, I find Majavu’s fraudulent attempt to malign non-racialism as an ‘all-white affair’ morally reprehensible and beneath contempt, since the facts certainly do not support the above conjecture.

[David Robert Lewis is an anti-apartheid activist and graduate of the Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town]

[Published in a radacted form by Sunday Independent, 14/2/21]

Let the people surf: acts of civil disobedience over weekend are justified

IT WAS NELSON MANDELA who deployed civil disobedience as a key factor in ending apartheid. His defiance campaign against unjust pass laws, segregation and separate development formed the basis for the new constitutional dispensation.

This weekend saw a mass Turn Up event on South Africa’s beaches, with citizens defying the President’s banning of beach activity including surfing.

Organisers have labeled the  lockdown regulations “draconian” and “ridiculous“. There is no scientific evidence that coronovirus is the result of actual ocean ‘waves’.

Reaction from mainstream political parties were scathing in drawing comparison between police reaction to service delivery and SASSA protests and the weekend’s events, in which police appeared to take a stand-back approach, while the opposition DA were more supportive.

The EFF were quick to point out that the majority of protesters were ‘white’ and bemoaned the fact that protests involving the party which is predominantly black, such as the recent Brackenfell High spectacle had been met with police brutality.

The party seems to forget an incident on Clifton Beach involving the slaughter of a sheep, in which the boot was on the other foot so to speak, when apposite statements regarding the breaking of City bylaws over the weekend were being made by the party.

The incidents may also recall the 1989 apartheid beach protests.

The ANC soon followed with its own equally loud missives, condemning the lack of police action, but forgetting South Africa is a liberal democracy enshrining political rights including the right to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly amongst other rights such as the right to health, environment, occupation and security of the person.

These are for the most part, all non-derogable political rights, like the right to protest in South Africa, rights upheld by a majority Constitutional Court decision and not subject to retroactive legislation.

In November 2018 the Constitutional Court affirmed the right to protest when it handed down a landmark judgment in Mlungwana and Others v S and Another. The court declared that Section 12(1)(a) of the Gatherings Act was invalid and unconstitutional ‘because it criminalises peaceful protesters who fail to notify the authorities of their intention to protest.’

The Pretoria high court recently declared the National State of Disaster’s level 4 and level 3 regulations “unconstitutional and invalid.”

This follows an application by the Liberty Fighters Network (LFN), a group that “consists of economically oppressed South Africans and lawful residents of all different groups,” according to its website.

Needless to say, surfers of all persuasions are still intent on breaking the unjust imposition of the anti-surfing prohibitions.

Zondogate, Arthur Fraser, Adriaan Basson, Media Spy Saga

IT’S A SCANDAL that has been brewing for quite some time, revelations that the Zuma Administration engaged in dirty tricks operations targeting South Africa’s newsrooms, activists, NGOs and anyone opposing his faction within the ruling party.

Millennials will probably not be aware of the Information Scandal which rocked the country during the dying stages of the Vorster government, in which the apartheid state similarly went so far as to purchase news titles outright in an effort to beat sanctions and the anti-apartheid movement.

That Zuma set up a parallel espionage operation, infiltrated newsrooms and appears to have invested millions in getting the Independent Group to write glowing advertorials needs to be seen within the context of the broader efforts by the ANC to replicate the state capture of the former National Party.

It was Naspers and Perskor which first set the stage for capture of the media. The perverse manner in which Naspers was essentially the ‘tap root of the National party” is covered in Chapter 4 of the TRC Final Report and also Hennie van Vuuren’s book “Apartheid Guns and Money” as too the evidence given by one Paul Erasmus.

It was therefore more than a little galling to witness an ongoing public spat between the current head of SANEF and former editor-in-chief of News24, Adriaan Basson and INM’s Iqbal Surve. Most certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Surve writes: “In an opinion piece titled “Hlaudi, Iqbal and Johnny: Inside the horror show of SA’s media rogues” and published on his News24 website, Basson uses the report of a probe into media ethics commissioned by Sanef to justify this unwarranted attack on myself and Independent Media.”

The man implicated by superspy Arthur Fraser in a ‘money for headlines’ scandal goes on to say: “The role played by Basson’s own bosses in state capture is also well documented. Why doesn’t Basson probe and question their lack of accountability at the Zondo Commission probe into state capture, or for that matter the role they played during apartheid?”

It is a developing story, and most certainly there will be questions raised as to why the Zondo Commission is focusing exclusively on state capture under Zuma involving INM whilst ignoring state capture under PW Botha et al?

Readers will no doubt recall that the dirty tricks campaign against the TRC waged by Basson and Co. is ongoing and current, and that both the state and the Naspers company actively oppose my right to legal assistance as contemplated by the Constitution in a matter effecting the life of the TRC and its Final Report.