President Thabo Mbeki's decision to seek advice from two Americans who argue that H.I.V. does not cause AIDS has touched off an outcry at home and abroad and raised fears that South Africa's already soaring infection rate will climb still further. News that Mr. Mbeki recently consulted the Americans, a scientist and a professor of African history, leaked out this month, and is the latest of several disputes over how to treat AIDS in a country of 44 million people with one of the highest H.I.V. infection rates in the world.
Mr. Mbeki and his officials spoke with David Rasnick, a biochemist, and Charles Geshekter, a professor of African history at California State University, Chico, as the president was considering strategies to combat the virus, which has infected 12.9 percent of the nation's adults. He plans to convene international AIDS experts later this year, and telephoned the scientists to assess various AIDS treatments and to reappraise the evidence that concludes that H.I.V. causes AIDS. ''The president speaks to all scientists and to everyone who believes he's got something to contribute,'' said Parks Mankahlana, the president's spokesman. ''Until all the questions that keep cropping up are answered, we are not going to be able to say to a person who disagrees with the conventional thinking, 'You are wrong or right.' Mbeki has never said H.I.V. doesn't lead to AIDS,'' Mr. Mankahlana said.
Mr. Rasnick argues that H.I.V. does not cause AIDS, a view shared by Peter Duesburg, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of California at Berkeley. The United Nations AIDS program, the World Health Organization and most scientists say the causal link between H.I.V. and AIDS is already well established. ''At first, we were thinking we would just ignore it, but now we think this confusion can really undermine all the efforts people have made to prevent this disease,'' Dr. Awa Coll-Seck, the director of the United Nations' Department of Aids Policy in Geneva, said in a telephone interview of Mr. Mbeki's move. ''People will reassure themselves, perhaps, that they can continue risky behavior because H.I.V. is not the real cause of AIDS,'' Dr. Coll-Seck said. ''It's becoming a real issue.''
Earlier this month, government officials scrambled to explain how $6.2 million of the country's $17 million AIDS budget went unspent last year. They said the money would be rolled over into next year's budget. And five months ago, Mr. Mbeki stunned health experts by questioning the safety of the standard anti-AIDS drug AZT. This week, Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang said the government had decided the drug should not be distributed in public hospitals. ''There is not enough information for me as the minister of health to expose women to a drug that we do not know about,'' Ms. Tshabalala-Msimang said. Concerns about AZT, particularly for children, have been raised in the United States. One study found that pregnant mice treated with AZT gave birth to babies with tumors. But after reviewing the mouse study and others like it, the National Institutes of Health determined in 1997 that the benefits of the drug far outweighed the potential side effects. One two-year study found that a short course of AZT treatment for women who did not breast-feed their babies reduced transmission of the virus by 50 percent.
But Mr. Mankahlana says South Africa cannot afford to accept the West's conventional wisdom about AIDS without investigating carefully since Western scientists have yet to discover a cure for the disease. ''The fact of the matter is, there is so much that is still unknown about H.I.V. and AIDS,'' said Mr. Mankahlana, who added that the government would spend an additional $11 million this year on research. Mr. Rasnick said he received a telephone call from Mr. Mbeki after he replied to faxed questions from the president about AIDS. Mr. Rasnick and his colleagues say AIDS is typically caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition.
Prominent scientists say this thesis, which is most prominently advanced by Mr. Duesberg, relies mostly on the data of other scientists and that those scientists disagree with this interpretation of their work. But on Jan. 21, Mr. Mbeki called Mr. Rasnick directly, to hear for himself. ''He wanted our views, and we gave them to him,'' said Mr. Rasnick in a telephone interview from his home in Saratoga, Calif. ''He had read everything we had written, everything that was available on the Internet. He knows there are some serious questions out there.'' ''I think he's courageous,'' Mr. Rasnick said. ''You start looking like a lunatic if you question the AIDS axioms. Knowing this in advance, he put his neck out there anyway. He wants to have a free and public hearing about all things related to AIDS.''
source: New York Times
Monday, March 20, 2000
Tuesday, March 14, 2000
National Consumer Forum (NCF)
Member no.: 2002 (of Consumers International)
Joining date: 14 Mar 2000
Operational language: English
Member type: Affiliate
Type of Work: Campaigning and/or lobbying,Consumer Advice,Dispute Resolution,Networking
Joining date: 14 Mar 2000
Operational language: English
Member type: Affiliate
Type of Work: Campaigning and/or lobbying,Consumer Advice,Dispute Resolution,Networking
Location: South Africa
Telephone: +27 12 403 7071
Fax: +27 12 428 7284
Main contact: Thami Bolani
Position: Chairman
Telephone: +27 12 403 7071
Fax: +27 12 428 7284
Main contact: Thami Bolani
Position: Chairman
Description
The National Consumer Forum (NCF) is an individual-based membership consumer organisation, the most active organisation in South Africa. The main activities of NCF are: the printing and distribution of the country only consumer magazine, 'Consumer Fair'; the consumer complaints handling service which handles about 250 queries monthly; advocacy work which focuses on financial services, health, food safety and security, and legislation on consumer protection. Consumer education also plays an important role in the work of the NCF with regular slots on national TV and Radio. Its most popular programme on Ikwekwezi FM attracts about 550,000 listeners.
Source: Consumers International
Monday, March 13, 2000
WITNESS PROTECTION ACT 112 OF 1998
The purpose of the Witness Protection Act is to provide for the establishment of an Office for the protection of witnesses; to regulate the powers, functions and duties of the Director: Office for Witness Protection; to provide for temporary protection pending placement under protection; to provide for the placement of witnesses and related persons under protection; to provide for services related to the protection of witnesses and related persons; to amend the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, so as to make provision for witness services at courts; and to provide for incidental matters.
Establishment of Office for Witness Protection
(1) There is hereby established an office within the Department called the Office for Witness Protection.
(2) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Safety and Security and the National Director, by notice in the Gazette -
(a) establish a branch office of the Office in any defined area for the purposes of the administration of this Act;
(b) abolish any branch office or incorporate it with any other such office, and may for this purpose make any administrative or other arrangements as he or she may deem necessary; or
(c) amend or withdraw a notice issued in terms of this subsection.
SOurce: SABINET
Establishment of Office for Witness Protection
(1) There is hereby established an office within the Department called the Office for Witness Protection.
(2) The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Safety and Security and the National Director, by notice in the Gazette -
(a) establish a branch office of the Office in any defined area for the purposes of the administration of this Act;
(b) abolish any branch office or incorporate it with any other such office, and may for this purpose make any administrative or other arrangements as he or she may deem necessary; or
(c) amend or withdraw a notice issued in terms of this subsection.
SOurce: SABINET
Wednesday, March 8, 2000
A Battle in South Africa Over Racism and Press Freedom
The subpoena landed on the editor's desk on a Friday afternoon last month. It ordered him to appear before the country's Human Rights Commission, which was investigating racism in the media. It said he must account for his newspaper's reporting or face up to six months in jail. All told, the commission issued 36 such subpoenas to editors -- white and black -- of newspapers, radio and television stations. And in a country where freedom of the press was only recently enshrined in the Constitution, where newspapers were frequently closed and journalists arrested under the apartheid government, the subpoenas sent shivers through South Africa's newsrooms. ''I thought, 'My God,' '' said the editor, Phillip van Niekerk, who is white and who runs the Mail & Guardian, a weekly here. ''I really didn't expect them to go that far. The jackboot approach is something we thought we'd got away from.''
In the outcry that ensued, the subpoenas were withdrawn and the editors agreed to appear voluntarily before the commission. Mr. van Niekerk and other white editors say they are willing to discuss the issue; they just don't want to be forced to discuss it. Nonetheless, the hearings on racism in the media, which started this week, have set off a debate over whether the commission and the government of President Thabo Mbeki are trying to stifle criticism and dissent in the press.
It is no secret that Mr. Mbeki and his ruling party, the African National Congress, remain deeply suspicious of the white-dominated news media. Most of the nation's politically influential newspapers, including Mr. van Niekerk's Mail & Guardian, are run by white editors. Party and government officials, who helped write the country's new Constitution, say white journalists seem intent on discrediting the black government and typically disregard issues important to the black majority.
Mr. Mbeki, the African National Congress and commission members deny that they want to muzzle the media, but they rarely sugarcoat their criticism. The A.N.C. applauded the commission for issuing the subpoenas. Last month, in its annual report, the ruling party described the media as a ''hostile press'' that is ''still primarily owned and controlled by antagonistic forces with minority interests.'' Those opinions are increasingly shared by black editors. At today's hearing, five black editors broke ranks with their white colleagues to support the commission's investigation, which has been largely derided by whites. The black editors testified that the media still portrays blacks as corrupt and incompetent, focuses almost exclusively on the white minority and drowns out the stories and concerns of ordinary black people. ''It is our contention that in a country like South Africa, it simply cannot be right that, because of its dominance in the media, a minority should continue to set the public agenda,'' said Mike Siluma, editor of Sowetan, the nation's largest daily, one of several popular newspapers directed at black readers.
The black editors said the issue was so important that they would have willingly testified under subpoena, which stunned their white counterparts, who had unanimously attacked the subpoenas as an infringement of press freedom. ''We talk about a rainbow nation, but we're still living in different places,'' said Mr. van Niekerk. Many of the editors, black and white, battled apartheid in South Africa and suffered for it. In 1988, Mr. van Niekerk, who worked at what was then The Weekly Mail, saw his newspaper shuttered temporarily because the government decided it had portrayed A.N.C. guerrillas favorably.
Peter Sullivan, the white editor of The Star, who then worked for the liberal Rand Daily Mail, was forced to justify his reporting before a government commission in the 1970's. Aggrey Klaaste, the black editor-in-chief of the Sowetan, was jailed for six months in 1977 after the government closed what was then Sunday World. All three men run influential newspapers. All agree that the commission's interim report on racism in the media, which was the foundation of the investigation, was seriously flawed. The report, for instance, criticized a photograph of two black birds near an overflowing garbage can, saying the birds depicted Johannesburg's black downtown and the garbage can its decay.
All agree that the subtle racism and stereotyping described in the report continues to surface in newspapers and television and radio broadcasts. ''We mirror a very racist society,'' Mr. Sullivan said. ''If there was no racism in the media, it would be absolutely astounding.'' But that is where the similarities end. The white editors say they are already working hard to hire blacks and to carefully scrutinize coverage, and that the commission's investigation was, for the most part, unnecessary. The black editors disagree.
After the hearing this week, the commission will present its recommendations to Parliament. ''People must not pretend that things are normal when they are not,'' Mr. Klaaste said. ''The country is run by white people, economy-wise. These newspapers are run by white people. We know that. There's no point in trying to be coy about this kind of thing. They say there is racism in the media, but they say that and do nothing about it.''
The commission began looking at the issue two years ago when the Black Lawyers Association and the Association of Black Accountants called for bias inquiries into two papers, including the Mail & Guardian. The groups pointed out that the Mail & Guardian had written 14 times about allegedly corrupt blacks but only 4 times about whites. Journalists counter that that should not be surprising since the most government officials these days are black. They also note that the major newspapers have given Mr. Mbeki some favorable coverage. Mr. Mbeki and Trevor Manuel, the finance minister, received rave reviews last month for major speeches. According to the commission's statistics, progress has been made in the hiring and promotion of blacks, but whites still overwhelmingly dominate the top tiers of management. Last year, the commission said, about 76 percent of the country's top media managers were white compared with 88 percent in 1994.
But whites are not the only ones to voice concerns about Mr. Mbeki's commitment to freewheeling discussion and critique. Earlier this year, two black professors complained about what they described as the dampening of dissent within the ruling party in a column in the recently revived Sunday World newspaper. And last year, Trevor Ngwane, an African National Congress councilman in Johannesburg, was suspended from his party positions for publicly criticizing the A.N.C.-led council's planned privatization of government services. Parks Mankahlana, a spokesman for President Mbeki, said the Human Rights Commission, an independent body that reports to Parliament, is no mouthpiece for Mr. Mbeki. Last year, he noted, the commission sharply criticized the government for seeming to scale back rights of accused criminals and began an investigation into the government's interim policy against distribution of the anti-AIDS drug A.Z.T.
Mr. Mankahlana emphasized that it was the black government, not the white government, that gave this country its first constitutionally protected rights to free speech. ''This thing of being intolerant of dissent, it's just not true, '' he said.
Source: New York Times
In the outcry that ensued, the subpoenas were withdrawn and the editors agreed to appear voluntarily before the commission. Mr. van Niekerk and other white editors say they are willing to discuss the issue; they just don't want to be forced to discuss it. Nonetheless, the hearings on racism in the media, which started this week, have set off a debate over whether the commission and the government of President Thabo Mbeki are trying to stifle criticism and dissent in the press.
It is no secret that Mr. Mbeki and his ruling party, the African National Congress, remain deeply suspicious of the white-dominated news media. Most of the nation's politically influential newspapers, including Mr. van Niekerk's Mail & Guardian, are run by white editors. Party and government officials, who helped write the country's new Constitution, say white journalists seem intent on discrediting the black government and typically disregard issues important to the black majority.
Mr. Mbeki, the African National Congress and commission members deny that they want to muzzle the media, but they rarely sugarcoat their criticism. The A.N.C. applauded the commission for issuing the subpoenas. Last month, in its annual report, the ruling party described the media as a ''hostile press'' that is ''still primarily owned and controlled by antagonistic forces with minority interests.'' Those opinions are increasingly shared by black editors. At today's hearing, five black editors broke ranks with their white colleagues to support the commission's investigation, which has been largely derided by whites. The black editors testified that the media still portrays blacks as corrupt and incompetent, focuses almost exclusively on the white minority and drowns out the stories and concerns of ordinary black people. ''It is our contention that in a country like South Africa, it simply cannot be right that, because of its dominance in the media, a minority should continue to set the public agenda,'' said Mike Siluma, editor of Sowetan, the nation's largest daily, one of several popular newspapers directed at black readers.
The black editors said the issue was so important that they would have willingly testified under subpoena, which stunned their white counterparts, who had unanimously attacked the subpoenas as an infringement of press freedom. ''We talk about a rainbow nation, but we're still living in different places,'' said Mr. van Niekerk. Many of the editors, black and white, battled apartheid in South Africa and suffered for it. In 1988, Mr. van Niekerk, who worked at what was then The Weekly Mail, saw his newspaper shuttered temporarily because the government decided it had portrayed A.N.C. guerrillas favorably.
Peter Sullivan, the white editor of The Star, who then worked for the liberal Rand Daily Mail, was forced to justify his reporting before a government commission in the 1970's. Aggrey Klaaste, the black editor-in-chief of the Sowetan, was jailed for six months in 1977 after the government closed what was then Sunday World. All three men run influential newspapers. All agree that the commission's interim report on racism in the media, which was the foundation of the investigation, was seriously flawed. The report, for instance, criticized a photograph of two black birds near an overflowing garbage can, saying the birds depicted Johannesburg's black downtown and the garbage can its decay.
All agree that the subtle racism and stereotyping described in the report continues to surface in newspapers and television and radio broadcasts. ''We mirror a very racist society,'' Mr. Sullivan said. ''If there was no racism in the media, it would be absolutely astounding.'' But that is where the similarities end. The white editors say they are already working hard to hire blacks and to carefully scrutinize coverage, and that the commission's investigation was, for the most part, unnecessary. The black editors disagree.
After the hearing this week, the commission will present its recommendations to Parliament. ''People must not pretend that things are normal when they are not,'' Mr. Klaaste said. ''The country is run by white people, economy-wise. These newspapers are run by white people. We know that. There's no point in trying to be coy about this kind of thing. They say there is racism in the media, but they say that and do nothing about it.''
The commission began looking at the issue two years ago when the Black Lawyers Association and the Association of Black Accountants called for bias inquiries into two papers, including the Mail & Guardian. The groups pointed out that the Mail & Guardian had written 14 times about allegedly corrupt blacks but only 4 times about whites. Journalists counter that that should not be surprising since the most government officials these days are black. They also note that the major newspapers have given Mr. Mbeki some favorable coverage. Mr. Mbeki and Trevor Manuel, the finance minister, received rave reviews last month for major speeches. According to the commission's statistics, progress has been made in the hiring and promotion of blacks, but whites still overwhelmingly dominate the top tiers of management. Last year, the commission said, about 76 percent of the country's top media managers were white compared with 88 percent in 1994.
But whites are not the only ones to voice concerns about Mr. Mbeki's commitment to freewheeling discussion and critique. Earlier this year, two black professors complained about what they described as the dampening of dissent within the ruling party in a column in the recently revived Sunday World newspaper. And last year, Trevor Ngwane, an African National Congress councilman in Johannesburg, was suspended from his party positions for publicly criticizing the A.N.C.-led council's planned privatization of government services. Parks Mankahlana, a spokesman for President Mbeki, said the Human Rights Commission, an independent body that reports to Parliament, is no mouthpiece for Mr. Mbeki. Last year, he noted, the commission sharply criticized the government for seeming to scale back rights of accused criminals and began an investigation into the government's interim policy against distribution of the anti-AIDS drug A.Z.T.
Mr. Mankahlana emphasized that it was the black government, not the white government, that gave this country its first constitutionally protected rights to free speech. ''This thing of being intolerant of dissent, it's just not true, '' he said.
Source: New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)