by davidrobertlewis -

Palestinian academics condemn Abbas Holocaust statement

In response to recent statements by President Mahmoud Abbas, a group of Palestinians have​ released an open letter:

We the undersigned, Palestinian academics, writers, artists, activists, and people of all walks of life, unequivocally condemn the morally and politically reprehensible comments made by President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas about the Holocaust. Rooted in a racial theory widespread in European culture and science at the time, the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people was born of antisemitism, fascism, and racism. We adamantly reject any attempt to diminish, misrepresent, or justify antisemitism, Nazi crimes against humanity, or historical revisionism vis-a-vis the Holocaust.

The Palestinian people are sufficiently burdened by Israeli settler colonialism, dispossession, occupation, and oppression without having to bear the negative effect of such ignorant and profoundly antisemitic narratives perpetuated by those who claim to speak in our name. We are also burdened by the PA’s increasingly authoritarian and draconian rule, which disproportionately impacts those living under occupation. Having held onto power nearly a decade and a half after his presidential mandate expired in 2009, supported by Western and pro-Israel forces seeking to perpetuate Israeli apartheid, Abbas and his political entourage have forfeited any claim to represent the Palestinian people and our struggle for justice, freedom, and equality, a struggle that stands against all forms of systemic racism and oppression.

Rashid Khalidi — Sherene Seikaly — Tareq Baconi — Muhammad Ali Khalidi — Zaha Hassan — Noura Erakat — Raja Shehadeh — Isabella Hammad — Lana Tatour — Nadia Abu El-Haj — Bashir Abu-Manneh — Raef Zreik — Leena Dallasheh — Lila Abu Lughod — Kareem Rabie — Mezna Qato — Amahl Bishara — Dana El Kurd — Nadia Hijab — Samera Esmeir — Ahmad Samih Khalidi — Abdel Razzaq Takriti — Maha Nassar — Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian — Huwaida Arraf — Rosemary Sayigh — Areej Sabbagh-Khoury — Tamara Ben-Halim — Yezid Sayigh — Jumana Manna — Nadim Bawalsa — Yousef Munayyer — Omar Qattan — Ismail Nashef — Nu’man Kanfani — Himmat Zoubi — Shahd Hammouri — Hamzé Attar — Hana Sleiman — Haithem El-Zabri — Samir Sinijlawi — Mussa’ab Bashir — Sam Bahour — Huda Al Imam — Bashir Bashir — Joey Ayoub — Michel Khleifi — Layth Malhis — Abdalhadi Alijla — Anis Mohsen — Karam Dana — Omar Dajani — Ubai Aboudi — Issam Nassar — Bassam Massarwa — Zaina Arekat — Bahaa Shahera Rauf — May Seikaly — Jerry Jareer Khoury — Rania Madi — Wesam Ahmad — Refaat Alareer — Omar Jabary Salamanca — Mona Hewaydi — Y. L. Al-Sheikh — Yasmeen Hamdan — Emilio Dabed — Ines Abdel Razek — Basheer Karkabi — Majed Abusalama — Leila Farsakh — Yazan Khalili — Moien Odeh — Hilary Rantisi — Tariq Raouf — Aimee Shalan — Nadia Khalilieh — Linda Kateeb — Bassam Dally — Zahi Khamis — Sami Jiries — Razzan Quran — Nour Salman — Jamal Rayyis — Izzeddin Araj — Tarek Ismail — Susan Muaddi Darraj — Basman Derawi — Rawan Arraf — Asad Ghanem — Assad Abdi — Umayyah Cable — Fahad Ali — Samar Dahleh — Ayman Nijim — Jumana Musa — Miryam Rashid — Helga Tawil-Souri — Leila Shahid — Leena Barakat — Nadia Saah — Hana Masud — Asma Al-Naser — Diana Buttu — Selma Dabbagh — Rana Issa — Riyad Khoury — Nasser Saleh — Said Abu Mualla — Haneen Zoabi — Muayad Alayan — Afnann Egbaria — Khaled Karkabi — Jaber Suleiman — Tarif Khalidi — Pelican Mourad — Ibrahim Fraihat — Basel Ghattas — Wisam Gibran — Fathi Marshood — Radi Suudi — Ahmed Abofoul — Omar Barghouti — Abdelhamid Siyam — Noor A’wad — Lara Elborno — Areen Hawari — Liyana Kayali — Nadia Naser-Najab — Kamal Aljafari — Anthony Broumana — Seema Hejazi — Fady Joudah — Samah Sabawi — Ramy Al-Asheq — Yousef Abu Warda — Khalil Sayegh — Nadim Khoury — Waseem Abu Mehadi — Jonathan Kuttab — Line Khateeb — Abdellatif Rayan — George Abed — Khalil Shikaki — Diana Alzeer — Lena Khalaf Tuffaha — Nadim Rouhana — Bassam Shihada — Hiba Husseini — Majed Kayali — Nahed Schäffer-Awwad — Burhan Ghanayem — Loubna Turjuman — Abeer Al-Najjar — Naseer Aboushi — Yasmeen Daher — Siman Khoury — Amani Barakat — Dimah Habash — George Bisharat — Walid Afifi — Hasan Hammami — Khalil Hindi — Akram Baker — Margaret Zaknoen DeReus — Mazen Masri — Tanya Keilani — Marzuq Al-Halabi — Hanan Toukan — Abdelnasser Rashid — Fadya Salfiti — M. Muhannad Ayyash — Yasser Abdrabbou — Maurice Ebileeni — Rashida Tlaib — Lina Qamar — Oraib Toukan — Rima I Anabtawi — Emad Salem — Mona Khalidi — Mohammed Said Samhouri — Raja G Khoury — Sara Husseini — Nasser Mashni — Jawadat Abu El-Haj — Norma M. Rantisi — Ann Shirazi — Ahmad Shirazi — Suheil Nammari — Nafez Abo-Elreich — Moosa Omar — Karem Sakallah — Farouq R Shafie — Mahmoud Muna — Izzat Darwazeh — Awni Daibes — Nadeem Karkabi — Ra’fat Sub Laban — Lina Ramadan — Gabriel Mifsud — Khaled Hamida — Basma Al-Sharif — Ali Mansour — Falestin Naili — Manar H. Makhoul — Nabil Armaly — Hassan F Hamed — Waleed Karkabi — Nada Elia — Abed Azzam — Hassane Karkar — Ben Jamal

by davidrobertlewis -

BRICS, a boondoggle of dictators, homophobes & outright misogynists.

LAST MONTH Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were invited to join a grouping of ‘top emerging economies’ known as BRICS dreamt up by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill. The only thing linking the bloc previously was their economic status. Nowadays, the addition of six new members, appears to add weight to the notion that the club is less an economic convenience than a means for these nations to escape pressure from Western values which emphasise elections and human rights.

While Argentina is a democracy, the other new additions are not. Ethiopia’s authoritarian one-party system has largely excluded the public from genuine political participation, while the UAE has been described as a “tribal autocracy” where the ‘seven constituent monarchies are led by tribal rulers in an autocratic fashion’. There are no democratically elected institutions, and there is no formal commitment to free speech.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand is an absolute monarchy. According to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia, the country’s de facto constitution adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia law and the Qur’an. With neighbouring Iran competing as an oppressive theocracy called the “Islamic Republic,” with a religious “Supreme Leader” overseeing all aspects of Iranian life.

This month marks one year since Mahsa Amini died in the custody of the Iranian morality police, setting off mass protests. Authorities continue to quell any new unrest. UN experts in March expressed outrage at the deliberate poisoning of more than 1200 schoolgirls in Iran’s major cities by a regime intent on maintaining religious strictures against women who are forced to wear the Hijab.

Despite the threat of arrest, millions of Iranian women actively oppose the hijab, wearing it loosely around their heads or on their shoulders.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Saudi Arabia face severe repression and legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. LGBT rights are not recognized by the government of Saudi Arabia. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity is illegal. In Iran, LGBT face the death penalty. In Ethopia homosexuality is criminalized under the country’s penal code,

The newcomers for the most part lack universal rights for minority groups. In Saudi Arabia, Jews are restricted from practising their religion in public and the country bans non-Muslims from entering the city of Mecca.

In contrast, Iran’s Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like Zoroastrians and Christians, are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament.

by davidrobertlewis -

Behold, I am Malema the Mighty, bow before my absolutist, authoritarian glory

AS EFF SUPREMO Julius Malema rose from the decks of an elevator platform within the FNB soccer stadium, showered with pop-star confetti before 94 000 of his supporters, he was echoing another stadium-size political event which had occurred in Russia to mark the anniversary of an authoritarian — Vladimir Putin’s ‘special military operation’ celebration in Moscow.

Like the dictator Putin, Malema views himself as the prodigal heir to a former colonial Empire. In many respects the two politicos are cut from the same cloth — Juju as he is often affectionately known — is an ardent fan of policies which have seen war resisters imprisoned, gay rights activists jailed, and media outlets banned.

The well-orchestrated EFF fanfare came barely a week since his party platformed an openly misogynist, and homophobic speaker, Prof PLO Lumumba.

Amidst the sheen of festive excess to mark the party’s 10th anniversary, a thin veneer of Africanism and decolonial rhetoric faceted over Malema’s ultra-nationalist policies, which would entail wholesale nationalisation, ‘expropriation of land without compensation’, and seizure of businesses and property at the behest of reracialisation, ‘revolution and revenge’ against white citizens.

The circus event touting a command economy — another self-abnegating Marxist dynasty much like North Korea’s Kim dynasty — occurred within the oval of a stadium sponsored by a large South African financial institution — one of several which the grandiloquent leader wants to nationalise. It is one of many contradictory policy facts ignored by Malema’s critics, who also point out the party, which claims membership of 1 million supporters, represents barely a 3rd of the country’s over 30-million electorate.

Still, the third largest political grouping in South Africa, borrowed heavily from Putin’s United Russia Party and its contempt for the media, and has sought funding from oligarchs such as Adriano Mazzotti, a confessed tobacco smuggler, seemingly immune from prosecution under the current government.

Leading a chant of “Kill the Boer” a song which has “sparked pushback in both South Africa and the United States“, most notably from South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, reignited debate about a “controversial decades-old tune that dates back to the struggle against apartheid”.

It is doubtful whether the threatening words are appropriate to peacetime and the 21st century? Such criticism was however met with derision from across the spectrum of black social media, with many persons of colour, eager to normalise the equivalent of waving around the old Republic flag.

Yet Malema’s open endorsements of the violent sentiments behind the fringe song popularised by the late Peter Mokaba — which is anything but metaphorical in this context, nor even lyrical for that matter — is uncomfortably close to an outright call for civil war, and needs to be seen against his earlier statements this year, urging followers to ‘not be afraid of murdering in the name of revolution’.

Later at an amply funded black-tie shindig, sponsored by his right-wing capitalist associates (read fawning opportunists), Malema sung the praises of erstwhile and current benefactors, whilst cautioning his guests that he was ‘ruthless when it came to dissent within the ranks of his own party.’

The comments were apparently aimed at his second-in-command Floyd Shivambo.

by davidrobertlewis -

LUMUMBABWE: EFF host to a misogynist, homophobe in PLO Professor

IN A SPEECH littered with offensive references to ‘men’ and ‘man’ that ignored the substantial role played by African women, both during the struggle against apartheid, and the fight against colonialism, Prof PLO Lumumba gave students a one-sided sermon on African history, that avoided her-story. Outside the largely, empty Sara Baartman hall, EFF martials assaulted several LGBT protesters. This in front of a massive crowd of gatherers from the LGBT community which included students, academic staff and allies, who waved Rainbow flags, and sang songs.

Former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor, appeared embarrassed, as she addressed several news teams covering the event, wearing dark shades and avoiding eye contact. She claimed the organisation was ‘not responsible’ for the views of its guests, even though inside, Lumumba’s speech was being met by loud clapping and even applause by EFF supremo, Julius Malema.

It was Malema who had only months earlier marched on the Ugandan embassy, claiming Yoweri Museveni, the Ugandan president was seeking “to use the anti-homosexuality bill against his political opposition”.

Now eager to appear straight, monogamous and even liberal, Malema orchestrated a flipflopping equivocation, joining other EFF staff in trotting out chicanery — what was once the preserve of the traditional far-right. Yes, you heard that right, the liberal “marketplace of ideas”. Malema’s sophistry translates into a disclaimer that the professor’s views are merely ‘his own opinions with which one may agree or disagree’.

Would he be so accommodating if his guest were an outright religious conservative who thinks abortion-on-demand is murder? A white supremacist who believes black persons are inferior?

Trouble with such an expedient and calculated viewpoint, is that anti-hate speech clauses in our Constitution limit speech that is ‘hateful, incitement to violence and propaganda for war’.

The SCA had earlier this month dismissed an EFF application for leave to appeal an interdict , brought , to restrain the party from ‘inciting people to invade private property’. The leader of the red berets however, has escaped several applications brought regarding hate-speech.

The most obvious case being a highly publicised action by Afriforum against various “Kill the Boer” statements. One can only remark that if the boot was on the other foot, would our justice system think differently? There is certainly double-standards at play.

Our country’s enfeebled justice system thus appears to have moved the bar of hate speech, shifting the burden of evidence onto applicants, who are now forced to prove actual harm. The infamous Jon Qwalane case, in which a former Sunday Times columnist was found guilty of homophobic statements by the SAHRC for equating homosexuality with bestiality, was thus overturned on appeal by the SCA in 2021, ‘because nobody died as a result‘.

It is unclear whether the SCA’s obtuse and frankly, outrageous ruling extends to recent statements made by Prof Lumumba, to the effect that LGBT persons should also face the death penalty? Should hate speech, or speech clearly aimed at overthrowing our own democratic system, and the values it purports to uphold, be protected?

Can one really campaign for South Africa to be replaced by Lumumbabwe?

by davidrobertlewis -

BRICS neo-colonialism demonstrated by Putin’s threat of war against South Africa

REVELATIONS of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s temper tantrums, with a threat of armed aggression against the Republic, including a possible declaration of war, have come to light, after a judge ordered that President Ramaphosa’s affidavit on an ICC arrest warrant be made public this week.

The Gauteng High Court ordered that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s confidential affidavit related to an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin be made public by 2pm on Tuesday.

Constitutional and international law expert André Thomashausen was reported as saying President Cyril Ramaphosa‘s confidential affidavit is of a “very high quality” and speaks of the seriousness of the Russia/Ukraine conflict which is the biggest crisis since World War II.

The saucy affidavit, which was made public on Tuesday, claimed arresting President Vladimir Putin if he travelled to South Africa for the Brics summit in August would be a ‘declaration of war with Russia’. Putin has previously threatened to attack any nation which resists his efforts to crush Ukraine, with nuclear weapons, a threat already discounted by the West.

The president told the Pretoria High Court in Gauteng that South Africa ‘does not have the capacity nor appetite to wage war with Russia and Putin’, which begs the question as to who exactly our partners in BRICS are?

BRICS is the fanciful result of an acronym invented by an economist at Goldman Sachs, Jim O’Neill in his report, ‘Building Better Global Economic BRIC’.

Rock, paper, BRICS?

The informal group, much like the now defunct FAANG, is dominated by China, but added South Africa in 2010, with the resulting politicking and economic intrigues, tending to distract attention and energy from another more important, tangible bloc, the African Union.

BRICS member states include members with an autocracy, and even a one-party state where trade unions are banned, have increasingly sort to formalise their political and economic ties to compete with groups such as the G7 and western nations, despite major secular differences in approach to issues such as Gay marriage, minority rights and women.

As part of this neocolonial, brutal one-upmanship, dedollarisation alongside the introduction of a much-vaunted new BRICS currency backed by gold, has been mooted by Putin supporters, eager to escape Western sanctions.

Lavrov promotes ‘dedollarisation’ as if not having access to Western markets (which account for over 50% of South African trade), is somehow a positive move, and all that is required for Russia to succeed, is to avoid post-Bretton Woods financial institutions, while engaging currency unification talks with China?

Return of the Gold Standard?

Exactly where all the required gold lucre would come from to pay for the war, and who would pay for the storage of the hard asset in a system long-since abandoned, is unclear. The gold standard was abandoned in 1971 due to its ‘propensity for volatility, as well as the constraints it imposed on governments: by retaining a fixed exchange rate, ‘governments were hamstrung in engaging in expansionary policies to, for example, reduce unemployment during economic recessions’.

In a speech filled with sketchy ideological keynotes, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma speaking in Durban, attacked South Africa’s financial institutions whilst promoting the BRICS bank (and by implication, gold standard) as some kind of panacea for development financing.

The problem with this rhetoric is that gold itself is in reality, a non-productive asset, since it does not produce interest nor even dividends as such. Gold as a metal is historically favoured for its being inert, but in an era of bitcoin and crypto-currency, it is not entirely certain what role such an asset should play in our future?

Dlamini-Zuma claims without any proven research, “we need an alternative public banking and finance system beyond the dominant one, and we need it urgently. The New Development Bank is thus a step in the right direction, but we need to domesticate alternative banking as a matter of urgency.“

Banks are a mirage, what is Dlamini-Zuma talking about?

While banking institutions have certainly opened up in South Africa over the past years, with several new online banks, some with zero-fees, being given licenses, the so-called BRICS bank is already hobbled by the fact that it exists, like most banks, as a patron and client of the global financial system, which begs the question, in which world, would the new system reside?

The mirage of a separate banking reality, is seen by the fact that China itself, has had a policy of yuan devaluation for decades in order to promote exports and would find it extremely difficult to move towards a system in which it provided a physical asset such as gold for every yuan or Renmimbi printed.

Brazil on the other hand is heavily in debt to its eyeballs, and would certainly benefit from offloading its debt and banana economy onto poorer nations such as South Africa.

India is the only shining light so far as real economics is concerned, but most of this is the result of the ICT service sector, in which the West and Western markets play an enormous role. Apple Computer for example, just posted outstanding results for its India division, with the kind of numbers that political appointees such as Dlamini-Zuma tend to ignore.

South Africa which is blessed with a modern and open financial system, after decades of exchange controls, could do better than empty rhetoric, by focusing on the key element that has driven India’s surging economy, a digital growth strategy that presents a vastly different picture to that of China’s state corporations, many of whom, like China Rail, are running at a loss.

Admittedly, Chinese policy-driven expansion, where the party pulls the strings, has delivered remarkable engineering achievements, but it is also leading to gross dislocations of capital, as seen by the recent Evergreen property boom and bust.

Jim O’Neill’s unproven theory seemed like a good idea at the time.

BRICS may seem like a good idea, but its political impact as shown by Putin’s threats of war, and fallout from the West, shows it also has a lot of shortcomings. Indeed the ‘BRICS Bank’ has already demonstrated its unwillingness to fund member states such as Russia. And thus a lot of the takeaway points being thrown around by cuckold politicos on the left, are really meatless bones provided to the masses to gnaw on.

As delegates arrive in South Africa for the BRICS schmoozefest, attempting to show a unified face while dining on cream puffs, remember that efforts to expand the BRICS group in recent years, to include nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of whom practice gender apartheid, would lead to a paradox of shrinking influence for smaller states according to Patrick Bond. It has also resulted in the diminution of the AU as a focal point in our own backyard.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) thus went to court on Monday to compel Ramaphosa to share the Putin document” on a ‘mission of clarity regarding the ICC threat of arrest’. Ramaphosa had argued the contents could not be shared because he was prohibited from doing so due to international law that governs the workings of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

by davidrobertlewis -

Close your mind, drop your readers: IOL announce loss of 115 editorial posts

IN 2018 I wrote an opinion piece warning, that closure of debate, in particular the gutting of letters pages of titles published by IOL would lead to ruin. The job of a free press is to reflect public opinion, to guide and mediate popular discourse. As a media freedom watchdog put it: “The backbone of any democracy is an independent, professional and responsible media. Their role is to inform, criticise and stimulate debate.”

The daily press may often colour journalism with its own aims and objectives, but when it does so, willy nilly without concern for its readers, it becomes nothing less than yellow journalism. Political propaganda has no place in the broad-sheets of flag-ship titles such as the Cape Times and Cape Argus.

Over the past months we have seen the encroachment of paid agitprop from Russian and Chinese news agencies, Pravda, Sputnik & Xinhau, promoting BRICS ‘Socialism from Above’ alongside the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

To make matters worse, the long-running feud between Dr Iqbal Survé and other news outlets has resulted in a situation in which disputes inform newsroom decisions — a partisan, combative approach which leads to news editors failing to determine fact from fiction. News gathering functions are further stunted by lack of credibility stemming from a discredited Multi-baby scandal.

If management had come clean at the outset, and dealt with the problem at Pretoria News, instead of hunkering down in the basement, other titles may have been saved.

Appointing a complete ignoramus and bigot, Aziz Hartley as group Editor-in-Chief cannot have done IOL any favours, the outcome was to encourage minority parties on the fringes of SA politics to become deal-makers in Anti-Gay Pride coalitions, which resulted in these communities feeling threatened by the group, which to its credit, then belatedly published some defence of LGBT rights, but too late to rectify the damage.

While IOL may have been somewhat quicker to react in this instance, they failed miserably on other fronts.

The Cape Times continues to be stained by a sad episode involving the serialisation of the life and times of a member of the Hitler Youth, this at the very start of its new management. Under Aneez Salie, it has done very little to correct the impression that what is required to gain attention of IOL newsrooms, is membership of the Muslim Brotherhood, if not in fact, then in spirit.

It is a sad day to see titles such as Pretoria News disappear while other titles and Weekend editions are rationalised.

SEE: Closure of the Mind, Independent Media’s suppression of open debate and a free press

by davidrobertlewis -

US historical relations with South Africa are being mischaracterised by Putin propagandists

RONALD REAGAN’S REPUBLICAN USA may have been a tough nut to deal with during the 80s, but harping on about the perceived slight caused by his party’s treatment of Nelson Mandela, whom they Republicans’ labelled a ‘terrorist’, ignores the substantial contribution of many other personalities from within the ranks of the Democrats and broader American civil rights movement.

Personages such as Dr.Martin Luther King Jr., late John F Kennedy, the late Robert F Kennedy, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and UN ambassador Andrew Young, demonstrate the enormous USA impact which ultimately boosted the anti-apartheid movement (AAM) both within and outside the country.

The first American political leader to show genuine interest in South Africa was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. By the time of Senator Kennedy’s visit in 1966, Dr. King had publicly linked the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.

“Our responsibility presents us with a unique opportunity. We can join in the one form of non-violent action that could bring freedom and justice to South Africa – the action which African leaders have appealed for – in a massive movement for economic sanctions.” Martin Luther King’s London address 1963

It was this democratic movement for universal rights which formed the basis for the anti-apartheid movement, a movement whose historical trajectory spans decades of progressive extra-parliamentary activism and whose aims were far broader than the narrow ideological constraints of party politics.

Robert F. Kennedy’s historic visit to South Africa in 1966, remains one of the most important visits by an American during the worst years of apartheid. As Senator Kennedy’s address at the University of Witwatersrand and meeting with Albert Luthuli, shows, he was a strong advocate for liberty, equality, human dignity, democracy, human rights and justice.

Later it was Andrew Young whose trip to SA in 1977 first raised the spectre of serious economic pressure on the apartheid government and ushered in a sanctions campaign which did more to liberate the country than any Russian-supplied weapons and Soviet-style rhetoric.

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 was thus a law enacted by the United States Congress. The law imposed sanctions against South Africa and stated ‘five preconditions for lifting the sanctions’ that would essentially end the system of apartheid.

It is an historical fact that the conclusion to apartheid and white minority rule came as the result of broad economic pressure and that the military campaign at the behest of MK and others, at the end of the day, played a rather minor role.

Partisan propagandists stuck inside Cold War rhetoric forget that Paul Robeson’s American Committee on Africa (ACOA) was the first major group devoted to the anti-apartheid movement, and predate the later boycott movement formed in 1959.

Later incarnations played an equally important part, with the result evolving into the African Growth and Opportunity Act of 2000, which lowered trade barriers by lowering tariffs, and providing economic opportunities and incentives.

It would be a shame to see South Africa lose its beneficial trade status in exchange for appeasement of a Russian dictator opposed to the democracy and civil rights we take for granted? It is no secret that Putin’s United Russia Party is opposed to LGBTIQ rights, and perceives the conquest of Ukraine as a colonial and imperial endeavour.

In 1984, TransAfrica became a founding member of what it termed the Free South Africa Movement resulting in demonstrations on US campuses. While supportive of UN resolutions against apartheid, and the chief supplier of weapons during the conflict, Russia played a marginal role and absolutely no part in the transition process. In fact it was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and end of the USSR in 1991 which brought a wave of democracy and freedom  across Eastern Europe, whose impact is still felt in South Africa today.

by davidrobertlewis -

Glenda Grey & Cheadle silent as WHO declares official end to Covid pandemic

THE head of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) has declared an end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency, stressing that it ‘does not mean the disease is no longer a global threat’. The move vindicates Medialternatives earlier prognosis based upon historical public health data indicating that respiratory epidemics ‘last no longer than two years on average’.

In this respect, extra-Constitutional proposals for compulsory, involuntary vaccination ( a removal of patient consent under article 12), mooted by Glenda Grey and that legal huckster Halton Cheadle, appear to have been made in haste and sans consideration of the overall impact upon our democratic and free society. You can read my earlier pieces directed at creeping totalitarianism and its crackpot advocates such as Pierre de Vos, who was amongst the first to lump ordinary citizens within the ranks of the criminally insane.

The WHO announcement should give democracies pause to consider the cost and effectiveness of containment strategies rolled out during the height of the pandemic back in 2020, and cause all of us to reconsider the legal ramifications of a hasty resort to draconian ‘special measures’ under the rubric of public health and solidarity? Need I remind readers of the National Coronovirus Council and its special state of disaster?

The economic impact of successive lockdowns is still being felt by those countries like our own, which unlike Sweden, embraced containment as a public health strategy, with serious socio-economic consequences.

As much of the world shut down early in the COVID pandemic, Sweden remained open. The country’s approach was controversial writes researcher Emma Frans, with some calling it “the Swedish experiment”. But more than three years after the pandemic began, what can we say today about the outcomes of this “experiment”?

Frans explains Sweden ‘largely stuck to its pandemic plan, originally developed to be used in the event of an influenza pandemic. Instead of lockdowns, the goal was to achieve social distancing through public health recommendations.”

‘Swedes were encouraged to work from home if possible and limit travel within the country. In addition, people aged 70 or older were asked to limit social contact, and people with COVID symptoms were asked to self-isolate. The goal was to protect the elderly and other high-risk groups while slowing down the spread of the virus so the healthcare system wouldn’t become overwhelmed.’

‘As the number of cases surged, some restrictions were imposed. Public events were limited to a maximum of 50 people in March 2020, and eight people in November 2020. Visits to nursing homes were banned and upper secondary schools closed. Primary schools did, however, remain open throughout the pandemic.’

Although Sweden was hit hard by the first wave,” Frans who is a “senior research specialist, C8 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute” says, the country’s total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic, “were actually among the lowest in Europe‘.’

While noting the plan was not without its flaws, and the ongoing controversy over the overall impact upon the elderly and infirm, at least during the first stages, Frans concludes: “the focus of Sweden’s strategy was to reduce the spread of the virus, but also to consider other aspects of public health and protect freedom and fundamental rights. While the Swedish strategy remains controversial, today most countries are taking similar approaches …”

It remains to be seen whether South Africa’s resident ‘experts’ on health and legal matters, those who made headlines during the pandemic, proposing draconian extra-constitutional measures without much opposition nor debate, will retract their former pronouncements?

READ: Mandates: Statist power grab undermines personal autonomy as well as collective rights

READ: Mandates: Public peril or just plain baloney?

by davidrobertlewis -

Reflections on Freedom & Workers Day 2023

FREEDOM DAY is a monument to majority rule under an inclusive democratic system that relegated previous attempts to segregate the franchise according to skin colour. We no longer have to look over our shoulders for the special branch, nor worry about spooks under our beds, and any comparisons with the apartheid regime immediately demonstrate that we are a far more open, transparent and freer society than people like BJ Vorster and JG Strydom could ever have imagined.

But for all the blather over the weekend, speech after speech on worker’s rights and the ruling party’s suppose success in ruling, our President came across like a maître d’ asylum, the manager of a mental ward covering up for the lateness in supplying the main course to a bunch of rowdy inmates — economic freedom (read equal opportunity) is so past overdue that it would not an overstatement, if I remarked, ‘the dish is already cold’ — practically any party promising alternatives to the failed ‘developmental model’ being offered up as the sole option on the table by the ANC, has a pretty good chance at it, come the 2024 general election.

This past 12 months have seen a veritable smorgasbord of trouble besetting the party, which which like the NP ‘volkscapitalisme‘ — sheltered employment and state maximalism of yore — has become synonymous with the fate of the country, leading many to assume a permanent mandate, as if our nation’s mixed economy were under command much like China and its CCP, and our destiny is to be ranked, not alongside democracy but the rather the autocracies of the world.

From the release (attempted burial) of the Zondo Report, to the Phala Phala story (equally discarded), and now several fresh debacles, including revelations of organised criminal syndicates at Eskom, the attempt to wiggle out of an ICC Putin arrest warrant by dumping the Rome Statutes, the equally spineless attempt to dodge commitments made under the UN IFCC climate arrangement, the embarrassing February military exercises on the anniversary of the Ukraine invasion ( greylisting for money laundering the same day), the withdrawal of an invitation to attend the Tokyo G7, the prognosis for the ruling party, if not the nation, seems rather bleak

Remembering how from afar, I watched the 1994 event, casting my first vote in Beverley Hills, Los Angeles, nogal alongside other expat South Africans, many of them exiles and refugees, the day nevertheless still brings tears of joy to my eye, but more often than not I find myself sobbing these days at the deprivation caused by the ruling party, levelling down instead of levelling up.

The South Africa to which I returned may yet be a vastly different country to the one I left, but in many significant ways, things are very much the same here — corrupt politicians, crooked political parties, well-orchestrated graft, crass state largess and siphoning of funds. The ANC from this vantage point looks no better than the previous regime and one can only hope the party will be removed from office in a spectacular way, if only to learn from its mistakes instead of operating under the false assumption of manifest destiny.