Here are some common assumptions, questions and issues raised by the case recorded by South Africa’s measurably corrupt justice system.

Your piece on Dludlu borrowed heavily from the Internet and lacked any credits

Objectively the first article is an original interview conducted between the writer and record producer Chris Syren. The inclusion of biographical material on Jimmy Dludlu supplied by the music industry, in inverted commas and correctly attributed to the music industry, does not in any way constitute plagiarism. The correct course of action would have been to use the material inside an information box.

Your article on Robbie Jansen is similarly lifted from the internet.

The interview conducted over the phone with Mr Jansen, who was at home at the time, is one of the last interviews conducted shortly before his death. Not only is it original, but such questions raise the problem of precedence — if the article isn’t original but rather copied, from what source was it copied?

You attempted to mislead people into thinking you were at Mr Jansen’s home by writing “speaking from his home, Robbie Jansen said”

The common turn-of-phrase is merely journalistic privilege, as a Professor of Linguistics avers, ‘the writer is not present in the sentence’ and no time, space nor place may be inferred, other than Mr Jansen was at home at the time the interview was conducted over the telephone.

The interview is not fit for publication in a family newspaper.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the editor’s choice not to publish, the statement is wholly subjective.

You are clearly white and have mislead people or made absurd statements about your race identity.

Race is a fiction and a bad fiction at that. There is no scientific basis for race categorization. Adaptive traits, such as hair and skin colour are not indicative of a separation between the species. Lewis is in any event a ‘coloured assimilationist’ according to criteria innumerated by C Vogel and A Abdurahman. I suggest your read my piece ‘Living the Heart of Kakness‘ and watch my documentary project ‘Everything is Under Control’.

You have no right to claim anti-Semitism since clearly you are not a practicing nor observant Jew.

Whatever your religious outlook or affiliation, a similarly-situated individual, for example a Christian, would not be forced to answer what are essentially ecclesiastical charges in a court of law. That South Africa’s justice system continues to operate outside of the secular framework provided by our ‘We the People’ Constitution is disgusting to say the least.

The effects of Apartheid separate development are merely a ‘coincidence of homogeneity’.

Euphemisms such as ‘birds of a feather flock together’ were often used by apartheid functionaries to explain away or normalise the effects of their racist policies. The decision memorialises one of many such euphemisms and goes so far as to reduce the TRC report, to a mere ‘report’ and the outcome of the commission, to an exercise in obscurity.

You obviously lied about a number of issues relating to Media24 day-to-day operations etc

The decision is one essentially written up by the respondent, the company who was the adjudicator’s own client. It contains many errors, for example that the complainant worked for Die Burger an Afrikaans language daily. The decision as it stands, is ipso facto null and void and its many unsupported claims lack objective reality. It must be rejected as unfitting of a secular democracy and its findings beneath contempt.

Comments are closed.


  • 💬 Case - Medialternatives