The arrest of at least 26 activists and others in Kinshasa on March 15, 2015, raises serious concerns of a broader crackdown on free expression before the 2016 Democratic Republic of Congo presidential elections, Human Rights Watch said today.
The arrests, including of foreign journalists and a United States diplomat, followed a news conference by the pro-democracy youth movement Filimbi, organized with support from the US embassy in Kinshasa.
On March 17, 2015, the authorities arrested and roughed up at least 10 Congolese activists in the eastern city of Goma during a peaceful protest outside the office of Congo’s National Intelligence Agency (Agence Nationale de Renseignements, ANR), calling for the release of those arrested in Kinshasa. ANR agents beat a Belgian woman bystander who was later hospitalized, and briefly detained a Belgian journalist.
“The Congolese government’s detention of pro-democracy activists is the latest alarming sign of a crackdown on peaceful protest ahead of next year’s presidential elections,” said Ida Sawyer, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Congolese authorities should immediately release those detained if they haven’t been charged with a credible offense and ensure access to their lawyers and families.”
Human Rights Watch called on United Nations Security Council members, who are due to discuss the situation in Congo on March 19, to publicly press Congolese authorities to immediately release all those detained for their peaceful activities and speech.
Among those arrested on March 15 were Congolese activists, musicians, journalists, technicians, and bystanders; youth leaders and activists from Senegal and Burkina Faso; a US diplomat; two French journalists; and the French director of a production company. The US and French citizens and two Congolese were released after several hours. The others remain detained, possibly by the intelligence agency. They have not been brought before a judge, officially charged with offenses, or had access to their lawyers or families, raising concerns for their safety.
Following the news conference at the Eloko Makasi music studio, men in military police uniform arrived at about 4 p.m. and began arresting people. Witnesses said that the officers at first targeted foreigners. They then began arresting Congolese as well, including those who were preparing the concert stage, and bystanders. The security forces were very rough with several Congolese and West Africans, witnesses said, banging the head of a Senegalese activist against the door of a pickup truck and beating others.
The security forces also took computers and other documents and materials from the hall and destroyed banners.
The military police drove those arrested away in at least three unmarked, white pickup trucks. The US and French citizens were taken to the headquarters of the ANR in Kinshasa, where they were interrogated by senior intelligence officials, then released after several hours. It is not known where the Congolese, Senegalese, and Burkinabe citizens are being detained.
Communications Minister Lambert Mende told journalists that the activists from Senegal and Burkina Faso were “promoting violence through a form of training … coaching of certain youth groups close to a certain opposition to use violent means against other groups or against the institutions of the republic.”
Several Congolese pro-democracy organizations had organized a workshop to introduce Filimbi (“whistle” in Swahili), a new Congolese youth movement. The workshop’s objectives were to promote civic engagement and youth mobilization, and to discuss how Congolese youth can organize in a peaceful and responsible manner to fulfill their duties as citizens.
Youth leaders and activists from Senegal and Burkina Faso came to Kinshasa for the workshop to share their experiences. The Senegalese were members of Y’en a Marre, a group involved in protests against former President Abdoulaye Wade’s controversial bid for a third term in 2012. Those from Burkina Faso were part of Balai Citoyen, a group that participated in protests against former President Blaise Compaoré’s attempt to change the constitution to extend his 27-year term.
“Y’en a Marre and Balai Citoyen are well respected organizations that have worked to promote responsible, civic engagement by youth in West Africa,” Sawyer said. “They came to Kinshasa to share their experiences with Congolese youth, including the importance of peaceful means for youth to engage in the political process.”
Filimbi worked in partnership with Eloko Makasi, a socially conscious music and video production company based in Kinshasa’s Masina neighborhood. Musicians who participated in the workshop went to the Eloko Makasi studio on March 14, 2015, to create a song based on what was discussed at the workshop to encourage Congolese youth to be involved in the democratic process and to promote a free, transparent, and peaceful electoral process.
In a March 16 statement, the US embassy in Kinshasa said the Filimbi workshop was one of many activities the US government supports that involve youth and civil society. “These well-known, well-regarded, non-partisan youth groups as well as the organizers of the weekend’s events intended to promote Congolese youth participation in the political process and encourage young people to express their views about issues of concern to them,” the statement said. “DRC government officials and ruling coalition parties were invited to and some were present during the event.”
Under Congo’s constitution, presidents may serve only two consecutive terms. President Joseph Kabila’s second term ends in 2016. While presidential elections are not scheduled until November 2016, political tensions have been rising across the country. In January 2015, at least 40 people were killed when security forces brutally repressed demonstrations in Kinshasa and other cities to protest proposed changes to Congo’s electoral law that would have delayed elections and enabled Kabila to prolong his term. Numerous political party and civil society leaders have been arrested after speaking out against proposed changes to the constitution or Congo’s electoral system.
“These latest arrests signal a worrying clampdown on freedom of expression and assembly in Congo – fundamental elements of a free, transparent, and peaceful electoral process,” Sawyer said. “Youth leaders, musicians, and activists should be able to meet, discuss, and learn without fear of arrest.”
Source: Human Rights Watch
Showing posts with label Freedom of Expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Expression. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Agang launch: Nkandla, Guptas, Arms Deal - Ramphele criticises government
"The leaders of this current government set an appalling example that others follow ... They seem to think they are beyond the reach of the law," Agang SA leader Mamphela Ramphele said on Saturday at the Tshwane Events Centre.
"One by one they have systematically attacked the very foundations of our constitutional democracy, the judicial system, the freedom of the press, accountability of government and the human rights of all citizens."
She said the arrogance of the current government was "breathtaking". It was acting with impunity and abusing "the resources of the state for the enrichment of a party, themselves and their friends".
"The arms deal, Nkandla, the Guptas, the list of these abuses goes on and on," she said to a cheering crowd.
The former activist and businessperson was welcomed by cheers from the crowd who arrived to support her new party.
More than a thousand people, mostly dressed in white T-shirts with Agang SA printed on them, listened intently and cheered as Ramphele spoke about problems facing South Africa.
For the past five months Ramphele visited communities around the country listening to people's concerns.
"We are here to begin the restoration of the promise of our great nation and to offer the hope of a better future for South Africa," she told the crowd.
"There is a desperate need for change."
Leaders failed to deliver
After nearly 20 years, the country's leaders failed to deliver on the promise of freedom, she said. Adding that it was too long to wait for jobs, education and healthcare.
Ramphele said the country had reached a crossroads.
"I for one do not want to think about where we will be in five years time unless we change course. Imagine five more years of corruption," she said as the crowd shouted "no".
"Imagine five more years of young people being lost from the education system and the economy. Five more years of millions of people entering the workforce but not having jobs. Five more years of non-functioning hospitals and clinics."
However, the country had potential and it was this, according to Ramphele, which inspired her at the age of 65 to enter South African politics and start Agang SA.
During Ramphele's speech the mostly youthful crowd, started shouting "enough is enough".
She introduced her campaign team calling them world-class.
Nkosinathi Solomon, who joined Agang from Absa, was the campaign director.
Also on the team were Dr Mills Soko, director of policy, from the University of Cape Town's graduate school of business, Thabo Leshilo, a former Sowetan editor as director of communications, Zohra Dawood as director of fundraising and Rorisang Tshabalala as deputy director of field management.
Elective conference
Ramphele also announced that Vanessa Hani, former South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani's daughter, would join her team to focus on mobilising women as part of the field management team.
Moeketsi Mosola joined as political director and would lead the creation of the party's political leadership.
Ramphele said Agang would hold an elective conference towards the end of the year.
"There are many experienced parliamentarians and battle hardened activists who will join our national and provincial leadership in the coming months," she said.
"We will strike a balance between old hands and many new faces." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
"One by one they have systematically attacked the very foundations of our constitutional democracy, the judicial system, the freedom of the press, accountability of government and the human rights of all citizens."
She said the arrogance of the current government was "breathtaking". It was acting with impunity and abusing "the resources of the state for the enrichment of a party, themselves and their friends".
"The arms deal, Nkandla, the Guptas, the list of these abuses goes on and on," she said to a cheering crowd.
The former activist and businessperson was welcomed by cheers from the crowd who arrived to support her new party.
More than a thousand people, mostly dressed in white T-shirts with Agang SA printed on them, listened intently and cheered as Ramphele spoke about problems facing South Africa.
For the past five months Ramphele visited communities around the country listening to people's concerns.
"We are here to begin the restoration of the promise of our great nation and to offer the hope of a better future for South Africa," she told the crowd.
"There is a desperate need for change."
Leaders failed to deliver
After nearly 20 years, the country's leaders failed to deliver on the promise of freedom, she said. Adding that it was too long to wait for jobs, education and healthcare.
Ramphele said the country had reached a crossroads.
"I for one do not want to think about where we will be in five years time unless we change course. Imagine five more years of corruption," she said as the crowd shouted "no".
"Imagine five more years of young people being lost from the education system and the economy. Five more years of millions of people entering the workforce but not having jobs. Five more years of non-functioning hospitals and clinics."
However, the country had potential and it was this, according to Ramphele, which inspired her at the age of 65 to enter South African politics and start Agang SA.
During Ramphele's speech the mostly youthful crowd, started shouting "enough is enough".
She introduced her campaign team calling them world-class.
Nkosinathi Solomon, who joined Agang from Absa, was the campaign director.
Also on the team were Dr Mills Soko, director of policy, from the University of Cape Town's graduate school of business, Thabo Leshilo, a former Sowetan editor as director of communications, Zohra Dawood as director of fundraising and Rorisang Tshabalala as deputy director of field management.
Elective conference
Ramphele also announced that Vanessa Hani, former South African Communist Party leader Chris Hani's daughter, would join her team to focus on mobilising women as part of the field management team.
Moeketsi Mosola joined as political director and would lead the creation of the party's political leadership.
Ramphele said Agang would hold an elective conference towards the end of the year.
"There are many experienced parliamentarians and battle hardened activists who will join our national and provincial leadership in the coming months," she said.
"We will strike a balance between old hands and many new faces." – Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Reaction to FNB advert like Lady Macbeth’s guilty rants
It is never a good sign when an organisation or individual completely overreacts to perceived criticism. As the simmering discontent of South Africa’s underclass boils over into open revolt and violence and as corrupt shoot-to-kill cops are increasingly deployed in places as far flung as Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg to protect the old and new elites from the wrath of the dispossessed, some politicians are increasingly resembling Lady Macbeth, driven by their guilt and shame to commit ever more heinous misdeeds. The hysterical and often undemocratic response of various ANC and SACP structures to the silly First National Bank (FNB) advertising campaign is a case in point.
In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”, Lady Macbeth urges her husband to kill Duncan, the king, to allow Macbeth to satisfy his ambitions of becoming king. She overrides all of her husband’s objections by challenging his manhood and he relents and kills Duncan. Later Lady Macbeth becomes racked with guilt and sleepwalks through the palace, haunted by the murder of the former king. In this trance she tries to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, shouting: “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!—One, two. Why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.”
The response of the ANC, the ANC Youth League and the SACP to the FNB campaign resembles the attempts of Lady Macbeth to clean imaginary bloodstains from her hands.
“What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?”
The FNB campaign includes videos of young South Africans apparently speaking their minds. In one of the videos a participant says: “Stop voting for the same government in hopes for change – instead, change your hopes to a government that has the same hopes as us.”
The ANC Youth League and SACP joined the ANC in slamming the campaign, with the league saying it was “deeply angered and disappointed” by the bank’s “treacherous” campaign. On Sunday, Youth League spokeswoman Khusela Sangoni-Khawe said FNB had failed in trying to “recreate an Arab Spring of some sort in South Africa” and said it “uses children to make unproven claims of a government rife with corruption. We call upon South Africans to close ranks against what is a treacherous attack on our country.”
ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said the ANC (who is never directly mentioned in any of the videos) was “appalled” by the campaign in which the ANC, its leadership and government were “under attack” the campaign was an “undisguised political statement that makes random and untested accusations against our government in the name of discourse. While we believe that people are entitled to their views, we don’t accept that young kids should be used as proxies to articulate political views espoused, as in the case of the FNB advertisement.”
“Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”
These vehement reactions to what appear to be rather mild criticisms of the government and platitudes about one’s right to vote for the party of one’s choice (widely accepted in any functioning democracy) are curious for several reasons.
First, whatever one might think of FNB and its advertising campaign (and I am not a fan of the campaign or of the lily-livered manner in which the bank caved in to political thugs), the manner in which several ANC and SACP spokespersons conflated the ANC with the state and with the country is worrying. The ANC is not the state. Neither is it the sole representative of the South African people. South Africa, in the words of the Freedom Charter, belongs to all who live in it – it does not belong to the ANC. Like any political party, the ANC deserves to be praised when it does something well and deserves to be criticised when it abandons the poor that it professes to love and serve.
Second, the statement that the FNB campaign is treacherous and tries to recreate the Arab Spring, is anti-democratic and – I am sorry to have to use such an emotive term – proto-fascist. There is nothing wrong with telling people that they should refrain from voting for the governing party. Voting for whomever one pleases is at the heart of political freedom in a democratic state. Every democratic election is based on a fair and free contestation between political parties in which we are all allowed to express our preferences.
We are also all free to try and convince others to vote for the ANC, to vote for the DA, or to vote for the TP (Tender Party), for that matter. It is probably not a great business model for a Bank to get involved in an advertising campaign that might alienate the majority of voters, but if it does, there is nothing treacherous about it. If FNB had not pulled the adverts I might even have lauded the bank for putting its principles (which one may agree or disagree with) before naked profits.
The Arab Spring refers to various uprisings organised by oppressed populations in countries where citizens did not enjoy political rights and where democratic contestation and free and fair elections could not be held. To refer to an advertising campaign in which a teenager urges people in South Africa to vote for the party of their choice as an attempt to recreate an Arab Spring, suggests the ANC Youth league believes that South Africa is not a democracy, that its citizens are oppressed and do not enjoy political rights and that they will never be allowed to change the government by using their vote. Like Lady Macbeth wandering in a trance and trying to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, the ANC Youth League is revealing rather more than it intended about its own undemocratic tendencies. Pity Jackson Mthembu will not display the same sense of outrage about this full-frontal attack on our democracy.
Whether one is a staunch ANC supporter or a supporter of the right wing Freedom Front Plus, if one supports democracy one will not be appalled by the fact that an institution has dared to criticise a political party. Only proto-fascists would be appalled by the fact that a bank has dared to broadcast statements criticising the government.
One might, of course, disagree with the sentiments expressed by the youngsters in the FNB produced videos, and the ANC has every right to express its disagreement with some of the statments made by the youngsters. But claiming that the sentiments are treacherous or that it is not legitimate to criticise the party displays the kind of undemocratic intolerance that cannot be associated with a party who supports democracy.
Personally I find that it is better to ignore attacks that are far-fetched or motivated by racism, hatred or a complete lack of information. That is what I do when I am criticised for something I have written. “Don’t feed the trolls,” I tell myself every time I read the unhinged invective of faceless loonies on my Blog. If the criticism is serious, one either responds to it by pointing out why and how it is wrong, or one takes it on board and changes one’s behaviour. Just a thought: use it, don’t use it.
One does not tell those who criticise that they are committing treason or that they are attacking the state merely because one happens (for the time being) to be the party of government.
I was reluctant even to enter this discussion, not because I am fearful of repercussions, but because what I have written here is so obvious and because all this fuss about a bank’s advertising campaign detracts attention from the far more important social and economic issues facing the country.
Maybe that is why the campaign has attracted such hysterical responses from the ANC and its partners. Like Lady Macbeth, whose paranoid dreams symbolises the fact that she is haunted by her guilt, the ANC reaction is perhaps a symptom of the fear and guilt that stalks the political class in South Africa. As Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg have shown, the poor, economically excluded and marginalised members of society have not benefited as handsomely from the end of apartheid as the members of the old (mostly white) and emerging (mostly black) middle classes.
While those in the chattering classes squabble about silly adverts made to promote the commercial interests of a big bank and argue whether these adds exploit children, many of those same children are dropping out of school or receiving a third rate education because of the cowardice of politicians who are too scared to take on a powerful union. While I write about the nature of democracy, members of social movement are harassed and tortured by the police. While Helen Zille spends her days on twitter, blaming the poor for the lack of services in their communities in Cape Town, millions of South Africans go to bed hungry, wondering whether this wonderful democracy will ever guarantee them a full stomach.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”, Lady Macbeth urges her husband to kill Duncan, the king, to allow Macbeth to satisfy his ambitions of becoming king. She overrides all of her husband’s objections by challenging his manhood and he relents and kills Duncan. Later Lady Macbeth becomes racked with guilt and sleepwalks through the palace, haunted by the murder of the former king. In this trance she tries to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, shouting: “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!—One, two. Why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!—Fie, my lord, fie! A soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.”
The response of the ANC, the ANC Youth League and the SACP to the FNB campaign resembles the attempts of Lady Macbeth to clean imaginary bloodstains from her hands.
“What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?”
The FNB campaign includes videos of young South Africans apparently speaking their minds. In one of the videos a participant says: “Stop voting for the same government in hopes for change – instead, change your hopes to a government that has the same hopes as us.”
The ANC Youth League and SACP joined the ANC in slamming the campaign, with the league saying it was “deeply angered and disappointed” by the bank’s “treacherous” campaign. On Sunday, Youth League spokeswoman Khusela Sangoni-Khawe said FNB had failed in trying to “recreate an Arab Spring of some sort in South Africa” and said it “uses children to make unproven claims of a government rife with corruption. We call upon South Africans to close ranks against what is a treacherous attack on our country.”
ANC spokesperson Jackson Mthembu said the ANC (who is never directly mentioned in any of the videos) was “appalled” by the campaign in which the ANC, its leadership and government were “under attack” the campaign was an “undisguised political statement that makes random and untested accusations against our government in the name of discourse. While we believe that people are entitled to their views, we don’t accept that young kids should be used as proxies to articulate political views espoused, as in the case of the FNB advertisement.”
“Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”
These vehement reactions to what appear to be rather mild criticisms of the government and platitudes about one’s right to vote for the party of one’s choice (widely accepted in any functioning democracy) are curious for several reasons.
First, whatever one might think of FNB and its advertising campaign (and I am not a fan of the campaign or of the lily-livered manner in which the bank caved in to political thugs), the manner in which several ANC and SACP spokespersons conflated the ANC with the state and with the country is worrying. The ANC is not the state. Neither is it the sole representative of the South African people. South Africa, in the words of the Freedom Charter, belongs to all who live in it – it does not belong to the ANC. Like any political party, the ANC deserves to be praised when it does something well and deserves to be criticised when it abandons the poor that it professes to love and serve.
Second, the statement that the FNB campaign is treacherous and tries to recreate the Arab Spring, is anti-democratic and – I am sorry to have to use such an emotive term – proto-fascist. There is nothing wrong with telling people that they should refrain from voting for the governing party. Voting for whomever one pleases is at the heart of political freedom in a democratic state. Every democratic election is based on a fair and free contestation between political parties in which we are all allowed to express our preferences.
We are also all free to try and convince others to vote for the ANC, to vote for the DA, or to vote for the TP (Tender Party), for that matter. It is probably not a great business model for a Bank to get involved in an advertising campaign that might alienate the majority of voters, but if it does, there is nothing treacherous about it. If FNB had not pulled the adverts I might even have lauded the bank for putting its principles (which one may agree or disagree with) before naked profits.
The Arab Spring refers to various uprisings organised by oppressed populations in countries where citizens did not enjoy political rights and where democratic contestation and free and fair elections could not be held. To refer to an advertising campaign in which a teenager urges people in South Africa to vote for the party of their choice as an attempt to recreate an Arab Spring, suggests the ANC Youth league believes that South Africa is not a democracy, that its citizens are oppressed and do not enjoy political rights and that they will never be allowed to change the government by using their vote. Like Lady Macbeth wandering in a trance and trying to wash off imaginary bloodstains from her hands, the ANC Youth League is revealing rather more than it intended about its own undemocratic tendencies. Pity Jackson Mthembu will not display the same sense of outrage about this full-frontal attack on our democracy.
Whether one is a staunch ANC supporter or a supporter of the right wing Freedom Front Plus, if one supports democracy one will not be appalled by the fact that an institution has dared to criticise a political party. Only proto-fascists would be appalled by the fact that a bank has dared to broadcast statements criticising the government.
One might, of course, disagree with the sentiments expressed by the youngsters in the FNB produced videos, and the ANC has every right to express its disagreement with some of the statments made by the youngsters. But claiming that the sentiments are treacherous or that it is not legitimate to criticise the party displays the kind of undemocratic intolerance that cannot be associated with a party who supports democracy.
Personally I find that it is better to ignore attacks that are far-fetched or motivated by racism, hatred or a complete lack of information. That is what I do when I am criticised for something I have written. “Don’t feed the trolls,” I tell myself every time I read the unhinged invective of faceless loonies on my Blog. If the criticism is serious, one either responds to it by pointing out why and how it is wrong, or one takes it on board and changes one’s behaviour. Just a thought: use it, don’t use it.
One does not tell those who criticise that they are committing treason or that they are attacking the state merely because one happens (for the time being) to be the party of government.
I was reluctant even to enter this discussion, not because I am fearful of repercussions, but because what I have written here is so obvious and because all this fuss about a bank’s advertising campaign detracts attention from the far more important social and economic issues facing the country.
Maybe that is why the campaign has attracted such hysterical responses from the ANC and its partners. Like Lady Macbeth, whose paranoid dreams symbolises the fact that she is haunted by her guilt, the ANC reaction is perhaps a symptom of the fear and guilt that stalks the political class in South Africa. As Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg have shown, the poor, economically excluded and marginalised members of society have not benefited as handsomely from the end of apartheid as the members of the old (mostly white) and emerging (mostly black) middle classes.
While those in the chattering classes squabble about silly adverts made to promote the commercial interests of a big bank and argue whether these adds exploit children, many of those same children are dropping out of school or receiving a third rate education because of the cowardice of politicians who are too scared to take on a powerful union. While I write about the nature of democracy, members of social movement are harassed and tortured by the police. While Helen Zille spends her days on twitter, blaming the poor for the lack of services in their communities in Cape Town, millions of South Africans go to bed hungry, wondering whether this wonderful democracy will ever guarantee them a full stomach.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Friday, January 18, 2013
FNB launches "You can help" campaign
South Africa is rich in values, tradition and culture, a truly wonderful country, and one that is admired around the world. Yet, as South Africans, we sometimes forget what our great nation has achieved and remains capable of achieving. It is in times like these that we need to be reminded of the greatness inside all of us, and what is possible when help is joined to common purpose and courage to necessity.
At 18:57, on 17 January 2013, FNB launched a new brand campaign with a live broadcast to South Africa. The broadcast carried a message from the voices we don't often hear, the children of our great country. A message we believe will inspire the nation.
In September 2012, we undertook what is likely the most current snapshot of the opinions of the youth, their views on our country and the role of help. Help, not in terms of coordinated interventions, but little, everyday help; and the power help has to make a big difference. The survey was completed by HDI Youth Marketeers, an independent research firm.
In assembling these views and opinions, we spoke to over 1300 learners and students (ages 10 to 22) from around the country and from all walks of life. We learnt that today's youth are losing their innocence, not to apartheid, but to the many social ills and tragedies that came after it. One child said, "If I was President for a day, I would make South Africa safe for children, women and teens who are abused." Another 10-year-old boy added the following, "I get scared when people are killing each other."
But though some of what they had to say was hard to hear, we learnt too that our youth carry inside them a fire that burns with hope and positivity. Their sense of identity is astounding, and they have an unprecedented interest in working as a community to improve our society and environment. A 12 year old said, "When we help people, we make them feel like they're somebody". Another child said, "If we help each other, we raise our country". Yet another student, aged 10, said "In the future I want to live in South Africa... I know South Africa is full of crime, but if I didn't live here I don't know who I would be." A 15 year old said, "We help each other because we are one blood, one soul, with a 13 year old saying, "If we don't help each other, who will help us".
"The intention of the campaign is not to talk about ourselves, but rather to be a brand for betterment by providing the youth of our country with a stage to voice what impacts the daily reality of many South Africans through the lens of our brand's core positioning of 'Help', says Bernice Samuels, FNB Chief Marketing Officer.
"FNB is a brand of high ideals and has a long history of leading from the front, not just in terms of product and service innovation, but also in terms of its social focus on building a stronger, unified and values-based nation, referring to our Praise Singer, Anthem, and Dog ads to mention a few" adds Samuels.
The chosen venue for the live advert, Naledi Secondary School, played an integral role in the events of 1976, a time when the youth of South Africa sent a message that could not be ignored, and in doing so, helped change the future of our country.
Jason Levin, Managing Director of HDI Youth Marketeers said; "The survey provided a good overall snapshot of the South African youth opinion and was hugely rewarding as it helped us gain insight into how the youth view South Africa. The research was truly inspiring. It is only through projects like this, that true feelings are clearly reflected."
FNB also created a dynamic online portal to support the campaign and everyone is encouraged to visit the blog site, youcanhelp.co.za to participate in the ongoing national discussion we believe will be triggered by the campaign. The campaign is integrated across all platforms, including TV, OOH, digital (youcanhelp.co.za) and social media on Facebook and Twitter (#littlehelps).
"All of the great things we've done, we've done together by helping each other. Perhaps it's time for us to listen to the voices we seldom hear, the youth of our country, because it is the South Africa we build today that will be the country they will inherit tomorrow," concludes Samuels.
In Nelson Mandela's words, "If there are dreams about a beautiful South Africa, there are also roads that lead to their goal. Two of these roads could be named Goodness and Forgiveness." Let us join hands in helping to build this beautiful South Africa we all dream of.
Issued by FNB, January 18 2013
Source: Politicsweb
At 18:57, on 17 January 2013, FNB launched a new brand campaign with a live broadcast to South Africa. The broadcast carried a message from the voices we don't often hear, the children of our great country. A message we believe will inspire the nation.
In September 2012, we undertook what is likely the most current snapshot of the opinions of the youth, their views on our country and the role of help. Help, not in terms of coordinated interventions, but little, everyday help; and the power help has to make a big difference. The survey was completed by HDI Youth Marketeers, an independent research firm.
In assembling these views and opinions, we spoke to over 1300 learners and students (ages 10 to 22) from around the country and from all walks of life. We learnt that today's youth are losing their innocence, not to apartheid, but to the many social ills and tragedies that came after it. One child said, "If I was President for a day, I would make South Africa safe for children, women and teens who are abused." Another 10-year-old boy added the following, "I get scared when people are killing each other."
But though some of what they had to say was hard to hear, we learnt too that our youth carry inside them a fire that burns with hope and positivity. Their sense of identity is astounding, and they have an unprecedented interest in working as a community to improve our society and environment. A 12 year old said, "When we help people, we make them feel like they're somebody". Another child said, "If we help each other, we raise our country". Yet another student, aged 10, said "In the future I want to live in South Africa... I know South Africa is full of crime, but if I didn't live here I don't know who I would be." A 15 year old said, "We help each other because we are one blood, one soul, with a 13 year old saying, "If we don't help each other, who will help us".
"The intention of the campaign is not to talk about ourselves, but rather to be a brand for betterment by providing the youth of our country with a stage to voice what impacts the daily reality of many South Africans through the lens of our brand's core positioning of 'Help', says Bernice Samuels, FNB Chief Marketing Officer.
"FNB is a brand of high ideals and has a long history of leading from the front, not just in terms of product and service innovation, but also in terms of its social focus on building a stronger, unified and values-based nation, referring to our Praise Singer, Anthem, and Dog ads to mention a few" adds Samuels.
The chosen venue for the live advert, Naledi Secondary School, played an integral role in the events of 1976, a time when the youth of South Africa sent a message that could not be ignored, and in doing so, helped change the future of our country.
Jason Levin, Managing Director of HDI Youth Marketeers said; "The survey provided a good overall snapshot of the South African youth opinion and was hugely rewarding as it helped us gain insight into how the youth view South Africa. The research was truly inspiring. It is only through projects like this, that true feelings are clearly reflected."
FNB also created a dynamic online portal to support the campaign and everyone is encouraged to visit the blog site, youcanhelp.co.za to participate in the ongoing national discussion we believe will be triggered by the campaign. The campaign is integrated across all platforms, including TV, OOH, digital (youcanhelp.co.za) and social media on Facebook and Twitter (#littlehelps).
"All of the great things we've done, we've done together by helping each other. Perhaps it's time for us to listen to the voices we seldom hear, the youth of our country, because it is the South Africa we build today that will be the country they will inherit tomorrow," concludes Samuels.
In Nelson Mandela's words, "If there are dreams about a beautiful South Africa, there are also roads that lead to their goal. Two of these roads could be named Goodness and Forgiveness." Let us join hands in helping to build this beautiful South Africa we all dream of.
Issued by FNB, January 18 2013
Source: Politicsweb
Thursday, August 16, 2012
WikiLeaks slams UK's Ecuador embassy threat
WikiLeaks has condemned a British threat to raid the Ecuador embassy in London where its founder is holed up as a "hostile and extreme" assault on asylum-seekers.
"WikiLeaks condemns in the strongest possible terms the UK's resort to intimidation," it said in a statement.
"A threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on the rights of asylum-seekers worldwide."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, an Australian national, has been in the embassy since June in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over sex assault claims.
The Australian fears Stockholm will turn him over to the United States where he could face espionage and conspiracy charges over revelations by his website.
Ecuador Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino earlier said Britain had threatened to "storm our embassy if Ecuador does not hand over Julian Assange".
WikiLeaks said the embassy was currently surrounded by police "in a menacing show of force".
"Any transgression against the sanctity of the embassy is a unilateral and shameful act, and a violation of the Vienna Convention, which protects embassies worldwide," it said.
"This threat is designed to preempt Ecuador's imminent decision on whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies.
"We remind the public that these extraordinary actions are being taken to detain a man who has not been charged with any crime in any country," it added.
A British Foreign Office spokesman has said police were ready to arrest Assange for breaching the terms of his bail granted in 2010.
"The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offenses and we remain determined to fulfill this obligation," the spokesman said in London.
WikiLeaks noted that the tougher stance by London coincided with British Foreign Secretary William Hague standing in for Prime Minister David Cameron while he was on vacation.
It claimed Hague's department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had overseen the negotiations to date with Ecuador.
"If Mr Hague has, as would be expected, approved this decision, WikiLeaks calls for his immediate resignation," it said.
Assange's mother earlier Thursday claimed the United States was behind the British threat.
"What the US wants, the US gets from its allies, regardless of if it's legal or if it's ethical or in breach of human or legal rights," she told reporters in Australia.
Patino said Ecuador "has made a decision" on whether to grant Assange asylum and would announce it at 1200 GMT Thursday.
Source: Times Live
"WikiLeaks condemns in the strongest possible terms the UK's resort to intimidation," it said in a statement.
"A threat of this nature is a hostile and extreme act, which is not proportionate to the circumstances, and an unprecedented assault on the rights of asylum-seekers worldwide."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, an Australian national, has been in the embassy since June in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over sex assault claims.
The Australian fears Stockholm will turn him over to the United States where he could face espionage and conspiracy charges over revelations by his website.
Ecuador Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino earlier said Britain had threatened to "storm our embassy if Ecuador does not hand over Julian Assange".
WikiLeaks said the embassy was currently surrounded by police "in a menacing show of force".
"Any transgression against the sanctity of the embassy is a unilateral and shameful act, and a violation of the Vienna Convention, which protects embassies worldwide," it said.
"This threat is designed to preempt Ecuador's imminent decision on whether it will grant Julian Assange political asylum, and to bully Ecuador into a decision that is agreeable to the United Kingdom and its allies.
"We remind the public that these extraordinary actions are being taken to detain a man who has not been charged with any crime in any country," it added.
A British Foreign Office spokesman has said police were ready to arrest Assange for breaching the terms of his bail granted in 2010.
"The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offenses and we remain determined to fulfill this obligation," the spokesman said in London.
WikiLeaks noted that the tougher stance by London coincided with British Foreign Secretary William Hague standing in for Prime Minister David Cameron while he was on vacation.
It claimed Hague's department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had overseen the negotiations to date with Ecuador.
"If Mr Hague has, as would be expected, approved this decision, WikiLeaks calls for his immediate resignation," it said.
Assange's mother earlier Thursday claimed the United States was behind the British threat.
"What the US wants, the US gets from its allies, regardless of if it's legal or if it's ethical or in breach of human or legal rights," she told reporters in Australia.
Patino said Ecuador "has made a decision" on whether to grant Assange asylum and would announce it at 1200 GMT Thursday.
Source: Times Live
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Amid Uproar, Graphic Painting of South African President Is Removed From Gallery
To the artist and a gallery director, it was a scathing piece of satire — a riff on Soviet-style propaganda aimed at a powerful president with a controversial sexual history who presides over a liberation movement-turned-political party that many here feel has lost its revolutionary appeal. But to that party, the African National Congress; many black South Africans; and, most of all, the man it depicted, President Jacob Zuma, the painting — which portrayed Mr. Zuma in a Leninesque pose with his genitals exposed — was a reminder of the pain and humiliation frequently visited on black bodies by white hands under apartheid.
On Wednesday, both sides agreed to disagree on the merits of the painting, “The Spear,” by the Cape Town artist Brett Murray, which was part of an exhibit at the Goodman Gallery here. But they agreed on one thing: It would no longer be on display. In exchange for the A.N.C.’s agreeing to drop a lawsuit, the gallery agreed to remove the work, which had already been vandalized, from the exhibition. The battle over the painting pit the right to free expression, which has been increasingly under pressure in South Africa, against what the A.N.C. argued was Mr. Zuma’s right to dignity. It demonstrated that even as the years tick by since apartheid’s end, the wounds of that brutal system remain deep.
The portrayal of the president’s genitals in a painting by a white artist outraged many black South Africans who argued that it harked back to apartheid-era humiliations meted out against them. The A.N.C. and its allies called for protest marches and a boycott of a newspaper that had published a photograph of the painting. After two weeks of resistance on free speech grounds, the gallery agreed to remove the painting. “The debate engendered by this work has been robust and rich and will continue,” said a joint statement released by the Goodman Gallery and the A.N.C. “But what is also clear is the real distress and hurt that this image has caused some people. The image has conjured up past historical hurts and humiliations for some people.”
Both sides claimed victory in a conciliatory but at times tense news conference at the gallery. “In this process, we have stood very firm with respect to our belief in freedom of artistic expression,” said the gallery’s director, Liza Essers, adding that the exhibition would continue without “The Spear.” An A.N.C. spokesman, Jackson Mthembu, said freedom of expression must be balanced against human dignity and shared understanding. “All of us have a duty to build a commonly shared geographic space called South Africa,” he said. “We cannot do so if we do not appreciate the humiliation of the past to some degree.” The agreement was an attempt to end a bitter public battle over the painting. Gallery staff members had received death threats. Vandals wrote “traitor” on the car of a black gallery employee, and two men defaced the painting, obscuring both the face and the genitals.
As often happens in post-apartheid South Africa, the arguments often broke along racial lines. White commentators tended to focus on the artist’s right to expression and the right of newspapers and other publications to show photographs of the painting. The gallery, which draws a largely white audience, and whose administrative and curatorial staff has only one black member, drew harsh criticism from unexpected quarters. Several black writers, some of whom are often harshly critical of the A.N.C. and Mr. Zuma, said the work tapped apartheid-era fears. “Regardless of the artist’s intentions, ‘The Spear’ became a proxy for the anger over the many unremedied injuries, large and small, that blacks have suffered at the hands of whites and for the lack of cognizance of these offenses,” wrote Osiame Molefe, a columnist for the news Web site The Daily Maverick.
Nudity in particular is a delicate issue. Under apartheid-era laws, black people who were not carrying a required pass were subject to strip searches by the police, and black miners were often stripped by overseers looking for gold hidden in their body cavities. The idea of a white man painting the penis of a black man, particularly the nation’s leader, struck many people as insensitive. Under apartheid, the columnist Justice Malala wrote for The Times of Johannesburg, “the black man was viewed as a sex-obsessed, lazy ... well, animal, really. We were not human here.”
In an open letter to one of Mr. Zuma’s daughters, Ferial Haffajee, the editor of The City Press, the newspaper that printed the photograph of the painting, said she regretted the decision. “Our common national dignity is a paper-thin one; a chimera in parts,” she wrote. “The exposure of black genitalia is still a raw and festering wound — its resurrection in any form a painful flashback to the various and many indignities inflicted on the black body from colonialism to its later manifestation as apartheid.”
Ms. Essers said such an interpretation did not occur to her or to Mr. Murray as they planned and designed the exhibition, which broadly satirizes the corruption and misrule that have plagued the A.N.C. in recent years. Mr. Mthembu said that while the party might not like the other images on display, it objected only to “The Spear.”
Mr. Zuma was acquitted in 2006 of charges that he had raped a young woman. He said the sex had been consensual, but was widely criticized for testifying that although he knew the woman was infected with the virus that causes AIDS, he did not use a condom.
He said he showered afterward in an effort to prevent infection, a statement that angered many AIDS activists and health officials here. A practicing polygamist, Mr. Zuma has four wives and more than 20 children.
Source: New York Times
On Wednesday, both sides agreed to disagree on the merits of the painting, “The Spear,” by the Cape Town artist Brett Murray, which was part of an exhibit at the Goodman Gallery here. But they agreed on one thing: It would no longer be on display. In exchange for the A.N.C.’s agreeing to drop a lawsuit, the gallery agreed to remove the work, which had already been vandalized, from the exhibition. The battle over the painting pit the right to free expression, which has been increasingly under pressure in South Africa, against what the A.N.C. argued was Mr. Zuma’s right to dignity. It demonstrated that even as the years tick by since apartheid’s end, the wounds of that brutal system remain deep.
The portrayal of the president’s genitals in a painting by a white artist outraged many black South Africans who argued that it harked back to apartheid-era humiliations meted out against them. The A.N.C. and its allies called for protest marches and a boycott of a newspaper that had published a photograph of the painting. After two weeks of resistance on free speech grounds, the gallery agreed to remove the painting. “The debate engendered by this work has been robust and rich and will continue,” said a joint statement released by the Goodman Gallery and the A.N.C. “But what is also clear is the real distress and hurt that this image has caused some people. The image has conjured up past historical hurts and humiliations for some people.”
Both sides claimed victory in a conciliatory but at times tense news conference at the gallery. “In this process, we have stood very firm with respect to our belief in freedom of artistic expression,” said the gallery’s director, Liza Essers, adding that the exhibition would continue without “The Spear.” An A.N.C. spokesman, Jackson Mthembu, said freedom of expression must be balanced against human dignity and shared understanding. “All of us have a duty to build a commonly shared geographic space called South Africa,” he said. “We cannot do so if we do not appreciate the humiliation of the past to some degree.” The agreement was an attempt to end a bitter public battle over the painting. Gallery staff members had received death threats. Vandals wrote “traitor” on the car of a black gallery employee, and two men defaced the painting, obscuring both the face and the genitals.
As often happens in post-apartheid South Africa, the arguments often broke along racial lines. White commentators tended to focus on the artist’s right to expression and the right of newspapers and other publications to show photographs of the painting. The gallery, which draws a largely white audience, and whose administrative and curatorial staff has only one black member, drew harsh criticism from unexpected quarters. Several black writers, some of whom are often harshly critical of the A.N.C. and Mr. Zuma, said the work tapped apartheid-era fears. “Regardless of the artist’s intentions, ‘The Spear’ became a proxy for the anger over the many unremedied injuries, large and small, that blacks have suffered at the hands of whites and for the lack of cognizance of these offenses,” wrote Osiame Molefe, a columnist for the news Web site The Daily Maverick.
Nudity in particular is a delicate issue. Under apartheid-era laws, black people who were not carrying a required pass were subject to strip searches by the police, and black miners were often stripped by overseers looking for gold hidden in their body cavities. The idea of a white man painting the penis of a black man, particularly the nation’s leader, struck many people as insensitive. Under apartheid, the columnist Justice Malala wrote for The Times of Johannesburg, “the black man was viewed as a sex-obsessed, lazy ... well, animal, really. We were not human here.”
In an open letter to one of Mr. Zuma’s daughters, Ferial Haffajee, the editor of The City Press, the newspaper that printed the photograph of the painting, said she regretted the decision. “Our common national dignity is a paper-thin one; a chimera in parts,” she wrote. “The exposure of black genitalia is still a raw and festering wound — its resurrection in any form a painful flashback to the various and many indignities inflicted on the black body from colonialism to its later manifestation as apartheid.”
Ms. Essers said such an interpretation did not occur to her or to Mr. Murray as they planned and designed the exhibition, which broadly satirizes the corruption and misrule that have plagued the A.N.C. in recent years. Mr. Mthembu said that while the party might not like the other images on display, it objected only to “The Spear.”
Mr. Zuma was acquitted in 2006 of charges that he had raped a young woman. He said the sex had been consensual, but was widely criticized for testifying that although he knew the woman was infected with the virus that causes AIDS, he did not use a condom.
He said he showered afterward in an effort to prevent infection, a statement that angered many AIDS activists and health officials here. A practicing polygamist, Mr. Zuma has four wives and more than 20 children.
Source: New York Times
Friday, April 6, 2012
Defiant Juju thumbs nose at ANC's bid 'to silence him'
In open defiance of the conditions of his suspension from the ANC, youth
league leader Julius Malema has addressed a church service in
Butterworth in the Eastern Cape. The SABC reported that Malema had spoken out against what he called
"individuals trying to silence him" at a second church service which he
had attended.
"I will never be silenced. There is nobody who has a right to silence me," the Dispatch Online quoted Malema as saying on Friday. "The right to speak was given to me from the day I was born." According to the Dispatch Online, Malema said he was not at the Last Move Ministries church to speak politics. "When everything is difficult out there, the only safe place is church because in church you don't discriminate. We are here to receive blessings. We want the church to pray for us because those that used to be our friends have turned against us. They have not only turned against us but plan our death," he was quoted as saying.
In a statement on Thursday, ANC Youth League spokesperson Floyd Shivambu said: "In celebrating Easter Friday and commemorating the life of Solomon Mahlangu, president Julius Malema will visit the Twelve Apostles' Church in Christ in Butterworth."
Mahlangu was an Umkhonto we Sizwe soldier hanged by the apartheid government in 1979. Malema was visiting the church in his capacity as the league's president, Shivambu said. He said Malema had not spoken at the Twelve Apostles' Church in Christ, but the embattled youth league leader had reportedly attended a second church service at Last Move Ministries, where he did speak.
This was Malema's first public appearance since the suspension. According to the SABC he was accompanied by members of the league's national executive committee, the provincial executive and National Youth Development Agency chair, Andile Lungisa.
On Wednesday, Malema was gagged and temporarily suspended by the ANC's national disciplinary committee (NDC), a move which forbids him exercising any duty as an ANC member, president of the ANCYL or member of the Limpopo provincial executive committee. Malema's temporary suspension from the party followed comments he made at a centenary lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand last Friday. Malema called ANC President Jacob Zuma a dictator and said he was suppressing the youth league. The ANCYL leader was informed on Wednesday morning of his immediate temporary suspension, and that the NDC would bring disciplinary proceedings against him. The NDC had instituted special measures because of Malema's repeated behaviour. Malema is appealing his expulsion from the ANC for sowing division in the party and for bringing it into disrepute. The appeals hearing was expected to take place on April 12.
The two disciplinary proceedings are separate.
Source: Mail & Guadian
"I will never be silenced. There is nobody who has a right to silence me," the Dispatch Online quoted Malema as saying on Friday. "The right to speak was given to me from the day I was born." According to the Dispatch Online, Malema said he was not at the Last Move Ministries church to speak politics. "When everything is difficult out there, the only safe place is church because in church you don't discriminate. We are here to receive blessings. We want the church to pray for us because those that used to be our friends have turned against us. They have not only turned against us but plan our death," he was quoted as saying.
In a statement on Thursday, ANC Youth League spokesperson Floyd Shivambu said: "In celebrating Easter Friday and commemorating the life of Solomon Mahlangu, president Julius Malema will visit the Twelve Apostles' Church in Christ in Butterworth."
Mahlangu was an Umkhonto we Sizwe soldier hanged by the apartheid government in 1979. Malema was visiting the church in his capacity as the league's president, Shivambu said. He said Malema had not spoken at the Twelve Apostles' Church in Christ, but the embattled youth league leader had reportedly attended a second church service at Last Move Ministries, where he did speak.
This was Malema's first public appearance since the suspension. According to the SABC he was accompanied by members of the league's national executive committee, the provincial executive and National Youth Development Agency chair, Andile Lungisa.
On Wednesday, Malema was gagged and temporarily suspended by the ANC's national disciplinary committee (NDC), a move which forbids him exercising any duty as an ANC member, president of the ANCYL or member of the Limpopo provincial executive committee. Malema's temporary suspension from the party followed comments he made at a centenary lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand last Friday. Malema called ANC President Jacob Zuma a dictator and said he was suppressing the youth league. The ANCYL leader was informed on Wednesday morning of his immediate temporary suspension, and that the NDC would bring disciplinary proceedings against him. The NDC had instituted special measures because of Malema's repeated behaviour. Malema is appealing his expulsion from the ANC for sowing division in the party and for bringing it into disrepute. The appeals hearing was expected to take place on April 12.
The two disciplinary proceedings are separate.
Source: Mail & Guadian
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Today they come for Malema…..
President Jacob Zuma is not a person who seems to take kindly to criticism (and neither is he someone who can take a joke at his expense). One might even claim that he seems a bit, well, thin skinned (if not, dare I say, dictatorial) in his attitude towards those who say things about him that he does not like. Not that Julius Malema has shown a lot of tolerance towards those within the Youth League who have dared to criticise him or who opposed his leadership at one time or another. In fact, these two leaders, may, ironically, be cut from the same kind of cloth.
A few years ago Zuma announced that he was going to sue Zapiro for R5 million because he claimed the cartoonist had defamed him after the cartoonist had published a cartoon in which he suggested Zuma was violating the justice system to avoid facing fraud and corruption charges.
It therefore comes as no surprise that the National Disciplinary Committee (NDC) of the ANC – ostensibly acting completely independently of President Zuma (yeah right!) – announced this morning that it was temporarily suspending Julius Malema from the ANC with immediate effect. The purported reason for this suspension is that Malema allegedly brought the ANC into disrepute. (Malema had already been expelled from the ANC earlier, but his appeal regarding the expulsion is to be heard only later this month.)
Apparently the ANC as an organisation is brought into disrepute if one of its members criticises the leader of the party in public. (Criticism might be the lifeblood of any democratic culture, but public criticism of leaders has now suddenly become alien to the culture of the ANC – at least if that criticism is levelled at President Zuma.) How any political party can remain democratic and how it can renew itself and correct mistakes, when its members are not allowed to criticise the party leader in public, is unclear. Maybe criticism can be communicated in secret messages with the assistance of the intelligence services?
Of course, this ban on any public criticism of a sitting leader is not based on a principle that was followed by President Zuma and his supporters during his fight with former President Thabo Mbeki. But I guess consistency and an abiding respect for high principles is not really what is in play here. What is at play is President Zuma’s future survival. Remember, he might well believe that he will either get a second term or he will go to jail for 15 years, so (in his eyes) there might not be time for niceties such as respect for democratic debate inside the party.
Malema now faces fresh disciplinary charges, which will obviously lapse once the ANC Appeal Committee confirms Malema’s expulsion – surely only a formality. This is after Malema criticised Zuma on Friday in the following terms:
It is under President Zuma that we have seen the youth of the ANC being traumatised, being expelled from their own home. It is under President Zuma we have seen a critical voice being suppressed We have seen under President Zuma, democracy being replaced with dictatorship. We have seen an intolerance….people, who become impatient with the youth….
The NDC did not say who complained about the utterances made by Malema. It did stipulate the following (once again rather draconian and probably not entirely enforceable) conditions that Malema will be required to comply with during his suspension:
Of course, the first thing to note is that this will bring the clash between the Youth League and the mother body of the ANC to a head, as Malema is forbidden from attending any Youth League meeting, which the League insists can operate free from the discipline of the ANC.
Members of the Youth League Executive (with or without Malema) will now have to decide either to defy this order of the disciplinary committee or face disciplinary charges and expulsion themselves. What happens if they continue arguing that the Youth League Executive members cannot be ordered around by the mother body and cannot say whether Malema should sit on the League’s Executive or not? What if the Executive continues meeting with Malema as its President? Surely they will all then have to be suspended as well and then ultimately expelled.
President Zuma seems to have learnt well from the “mistakes” of Thabo Mbeki and he is taking no chances with those who might oppose him. Cut off their heads before they can gather steam, seems to be his motto. Whether this is a democratic attitude or closer to the dictatorial style that Malema spoke about, I leave to the judgment of the readers.
Secondly, an order purporting to ban Malema from making any public statements on any matter pertaining to the ANC infringes on Malema’s right to freedom of expression. Our Bill of Rights can also bind private individuals, organisations and political parties and I am almost certain that when an organisation bans a member from making any statements about that organisation in public that organisation is in breach of the Bill of Rights. For this reason, the probably unconstitutional censoring of Malema by the NDC seems troubling, to say the least.
A further irony is of course that this immediate suspension and the draconian (and partially unconstitutional) nature of the “conditions” imposed on Malema during this latest suspension nicely seems to illustrate the point Malema was making in his speech about the intolerance of Zuma to dissent and the inability of the leadership to listen to and accept criticism of ANC leaders and policies.
By making these points I am not arguing that Malema was wise to make the statements that got him into trouble today. Neither am I claiming that I believe Malema is an eternal democrat who is saying these things because he really has the best interests of the ANC at heart. Yet, as I warned before, one must be careful to cheer on this silencing of debate and dissent inside the ANC merely because the person being silenced is someone with whose views one does not agree and whose downfall one might applaud.
Today they come for Malema. Tomorrow they might come for you or me.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
A few years ago Zuma announced that he was going to sue Zapiro for R5 million because he claimed the cartoonist had defamed him after the cartoonist had published a cartoon in which he suggested Zuma was violating the justice system to avoid facing fraud and corruption charges.
It therefore comes as no surprise that the National Disciplinary Committee (NDC) of the ANC – ostensibly acting completely independently of President Zuma (yeah right!) – announced this morning that it was temporarily suspending Julius Malema from the ANC with immediate effect. The purported reason for this suspension is that Malema allegedly brought the ANC into disrepute. (Malema had already been expelled from the ANC earlier, but his appeal regarding the expulsion is to be heard only later this month.)
Apparently the ANC as an organisation is brought into disrepute if one of its members criticises the leader of the party in public. (Criticism might be the lifeblood of any democratic culture, but public criticism of leaders has now suddenly become alien to the culture of the ANC – at least if that criticism is levelled at President Zuma.) How any political party can remain democratic and how it can renew itself and correct mistakes, when its members are not allowed to criticise the party leader in public, is unclear. Maybe criticism can be communicated in secret messages with the assistance of the intelligence services?
Of course, this ban on any public criticism of a sitting leader is not based on a principle that was followed by President Zuma and his supporters during his fight with former President Thabo Mbeki. But I guess consistency and an abiding respect for high principles is not really what is in play here. What is at play is President Zuma’s future survival. Remember, he might well believe that he will either get a second term or he will go to jail for 15 years, so (in his eyes) there might not be time for niceties such as respect for democratic debate inside the party.
Malema now faces fresh disciplinary charges, which will obviously lapse once the ANC Appeal Committee confirms Malema’s expulsion – surely only a formality. This is after Malema criticised Zuma on Friday in the following terms:
It is under President Zuma that we have seen the youth of the ANC being traumatised, being expelled from their own home. It is under President Zuma we have seen a critical voice being suppressed We have seen under President Zuma, democracy being replaced with dictatorship. We have seen an intolerance….people, who become impatient with the youth….
The NDC did not say who complained about the utterances made by Malema. It did stipulate the following (once again rather draconian and probably not entirely enforceable) conditions that Malema will be required to comply with during his suspension:
He will not exercise any duty in his capacity as an ANC member, President of the ANC Youth League and/or Member of the Provincial Executive Committee of the ANC Limpopo Province;
He will not attend any meeting of the ANC or any of its structures, including the Leagues, except for the purpose of the NDCA hearing and the pending disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against him.
He will not address any meeting of the ANC or any of its structures, including the Leagues, whether as an invited guest, in his capacity as President of the ANC Youth League and/or as a member of the ANC; and
He will not make any public statement on any matter pertaining to the ANC.
Of course, the first thing to note is that this will bring the clash between the Youth League and the mother body of the ANC to a head, as Malema is forbidden from attending any Youth League meeting, which the League insists can operate free from the discipline of the ANC.
Members of the Youth League Executive (with or without Malema) will now have to decide either to defy this order of the disciplinary committee or face disciplinary charges and expulsion themselves. What happens if they continue arguing that the Youth League Executive members cannot be ordered around by the mother body and cannot say whether Malema should sit on the League’s Executive or not? What if the Executive continues meeting with Malema as its President? Surely they will all then have to be suspended as well and then ultimately expelled.
President Zuma seems to have learnt well from the “mistakes” of Thabo Mbeki and he is taking no chances with those who might oppose him. Cut off their heads before they can gather steam, seems to be his motto. Whether this is a democratic attitude or closer to the dictatorial style that Malema spoke about, I leave to the judgment of the readers.
Secondly, an order purporting to ban Malema from making any public statements on any matter pertaining to the ANC infringes on Malema’s right to freedom of expression. Our Bill of Rights can also bind private individuals, organisations and political parties and I am almost certain that when an organisation bans a member from making any statements about that organisation in public that organisation is in breach of the Bill of Rights. For this reason, the probably unconstitutional censoring of Malema by the NDC seems troubling, to say the least.
A further irony is of course that this immediate suspension and the draconian (and partially unconstitutional) nature of the “conditions” imposed on Malema during this latest suspension nicely seems to illustrate the point Malema was making in his speech about the intolerance of Zuma to dissent and the inability of the leadership to listen to and accept criticism of ANC leaders and policies.
By making these points I am not arguing that Malema was wise to make the statements that got him into trouble today. Neither am I claiming that I believe Malema is an eternal democrat who is saying these things because he really has the best interests of the ANC at heart. Yet, as I warned before, one must be careful to cheer on this silencing of debate and dissent inside the ANC merely because the person being silenced is someone with whose views one does not agree and whose downfall one might applaud.
Today they come for Malema. Tomorrow they might come for you or me.
Source: Constitutionally Speaking
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
African National Congress Acts to Silence a Critic
Julius Malema, the polarizing leader of the African National Congress Youth League, was abruptly suspended from the party on Wednesday, effectively silencing him within South Africa’s main political body as he fights for his political life. The announcement came after a speech on Friday in which Mr. Malema accused President Jacob Zuma of becoming a dictator, and after a highly unusual news conference on Tuesday by the party’s top leadership to denounce divisive squabbles.
The decision to silence Mr. Malema, analysts say, is less about finishing off his waning political prospects than an effort by Mr. Zuma to quell serious speculation that one or more senior party members will seek to unseat him as president of the A.N.C. and the country at the party’s leadership conference in December. Mr. Zuma himself rose to the presidency by defeating his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, in a leadership fight in 2007 in which Mr. Malema and the Youth League played a central role.
“It was beginning to look as if Zuma wasn’t in charge of his own organization,” said Steven Friedman, director of the Center for the Study of Democracy. “He needed to show who’s boss.”
The suspension is the latest and in some way the harshest punishment meted out against Mr. Malema, who was once one of Mr. Zuma’s most ardent supporters but has become a harsh critic.
Mr. Malema was convicted at the end of February in an internal disciplinary trial of sowing division within the party, and was sentenced to expulsion. The A.N.C., which prizes its reputation for fairness, allowed Mr. Malema to keep his membership while he appealed the expulsion, a process that will continue despite the latest decision. In the meantime, he had been using A.N.C. events and the support of some top party leaders to press his case with the rank and file, casting himself as the victim of a stultified elite wary of his radical ideas to help the poor. With his suspension, he has lost access to that platform. He also faces multiple investigations into his personal finances: he has become a wealthy man while leading the Youth League, and has been frequently accused of corruption.
Mr. Malema is no stranger to outrageous remarks. He revived the anti-apartheid struggle song “Shoot the Boer,” a term for white farmers, leading him to be convicted of using hate speech. He called a BBC reporter a “bloody agent.” Back when he was close to Mr. Zuma, he declared himself ready to die for the man. But on Friday, Mr. Malema apparently went too far when he attacked Mr. Zuma at a Youth League event to celebrate the A.N.C.’s centennial.
“It is under President Zuma we have seen a critical voice being suppressed,” Mr. Malema told a cheering crowd at the University of the Witwatersrand. “We have seen under President Zuma democracy being replaced with dictatorship.”
Also on stage was Mathews Phosa, the party treasurer and one of six members of the A.N.C.’s national executive committee. Mr. Phosa has been a supporter of Mr. Malema and a critic of Mr. Zuma. Mr. Malema has also courted Kgalema Motlanthe, a former president and now Mr. Zuma’s deputy, who appeared at another Youth League event where Mr. Zuma was harshly criticized. But both potential rivals appeared at Mr. Zuma’s side at a news conference on Tuesday, which was held by Gwede Mantashe, the party’s secretary general, in an effort to project a united front. The fact that members of the executive committee who seemed to be at odds with the president could be compelled to show up demonstrated that Mr. Zuma, despite deep divisions within the party, is likely to be re-elected, said Karema Brown, a veteran political analyst.
“It was an important show of force,” Ms. Brown said. “And of course it wasn’t a show of unity. It was a real demonstration of power. If he didn’t have that power, he wouldn’t have been able to get them to sit there.”
The A.N.C., like any big political party, has always struggled to keep its diverse membership and ambitious leadership under one big tent, though not always successfully. The most acrimonious and public infighting was that which led to the ouster of Mr. Mbeki, Nelson Mandela’s chosen successor, as party president in 2007. He was soon pushed out as president of the country as well, temporarily replaced by his deputy, Mr. Motlanthe, and eventually by the man he had previously fired as his deputy, Mr. Zuma. Every attempt to undercut the party’s power by splitting it has ended in failure. The most recent effort, the Congress of the People, founded by disgruntled supporters of Mr. Mbeki, has struggled to attract votes and has been riven by rivalries.
Source: New York Times
The decision to silence Mr. Malema, analysts say, is less about finishing off his waning political prospects than an effort by Mr. Zuma to quell serious speculation that one or more senior party members will seek to unseat him as president of the A.N.C. and the country at the party’s leadership conference in December. Mr. Zuma himself rose to the presidency by defeating his predecessor, Thabo Mbeki, in a leadership fight in 2007 in which Mr. Malema and the Youth League played a central role.
“It was beginning to look as if Zuma wasn’t in charge of his own organization,” said Steven Friedman, director of the Center for the Study of Democracy. “He needed to show who’s boss.”
The suspension is the latest and in some way the harshest punishment meted out against Mr. Malema, who was once one of Mr. Zuma’s most ardent supporters but has become a harsh critic.
Mr. Malema was convicted at the end of February in an internal disciplinary trial of sowing division within the party, and was sentenced to expulsion. The A.N.C., which prizes its reputation for fairness, allowed Mr. Malema to keep his membership while he appealed the expulsion, a process that will continue despite the latest decision. In the meantime, he had been using A.N.C. events and the support of some top party leaders to press his case with the rank and file, casting himself as the victim of a stultified elite wary of his radical ideas to help the poor. With his suspension, he has lost access to that platform. He also faces multiple investigations into his personal finances: he has become a wealthy man while leading the Youth League, and has been frequently accused of corruption.
Mr. Malema is no stranger to outrageous remarks. He revived the anti-apartheid struggle song “Shoot the Boer,” a term for white farmers, leading him to be convicted of using hate speech. He called a BBC reporter a “bloody agent.” Back when he was close to Mr. Zuma, he declared himself ready to die for the man. But on Friday, Mr. Malema apparently went too far when he attacked Mr. Zuma at a Youth League event to celebrate the A.N.C.’s centennial.
“It is under President Zuma we have seen a critical voice being suppressed,” Mr. Malema told a cheering crowd at the University of the Witwatersrand. “We have seen under President Zuma democracy being replaced with dictatorship.”
Also on stage was Mathews Phosa, the party treasurer and one of six members of the A.N.C.’s national executive committee. Mr. Phosa has been a supporter of Mr. Malema and a critic of Mr. Zuma. Mr. Malema has also courted Kgalema Motlanthe, a former president and now Mr. Zuma’s deputy, who appeared at another Youth League event where Mr. Zuma was harshly criticized. But both potential rivals appeared at Mr. Zuma’s side at a news conference on Tuesday, which was held by Gwede Mantashe, the party’s secretary general, in an effort to project a united front. The fact that members of the executive committee who seemed to be at odds with the president could be compelled to show up demonstrated that Mr. Zuma, despite deep divisions within the party, is likely to be re-elected, said Karema Brown, a veteran political analyst.
“It was an important show of force,” Ms. Brown said. “And of course it wasn’t a show of unity. It was a real demonstration of power. If he didn’t have that power, he wouldn’t have been able to get them to sit there.”
The A.N.C., like any big political party, has always struggled to keep its diverse membership and ambitious leadership under one big tent, though not always successfully. The most acrimonious and public infighting was that which led to the ouster of Mr. Mbeki, Nelson Mandela’s chosen successor, as party president in 2007. He was soon pushed out as president of the country as well, temporarily replaced by his deputy, Mr. Motlanthe, and eventually by the man he had previously fired as his deputy, Mr. Zuma. Every attempt to undercut the party’s power by splitting it has ended in failure. The most recent effort, the Congress of the People, founded by disgruntled supporters of Mr. Mbeki, has struggled to attract votes and has been riven by rivalries.
Source: New York Times
Monday, April 2, 2012
National Security Secrecy and Surveillance: Defending the Public's Right to Know
The scale of government secrecy and surveillance has surpassed all previous boundaries—especially in the national security arena, where the budgets, size and scope of intelligence agencies have ballooned since 9/11. Unprecedented secrecy is largely evading traditional oversight mechanisms, leaving policy makers, the media, and the public in the dark.
What impact are secret governmental operations having on our democratic processes, and are the decisions that are being made behind closed doors helping or harming our national security? What tools are available to penetrate this secrecy, foster a new culture of government accountability, and impose enforceable constraints on intrusive surveillance of innocent Americans?
These questions will be explored by a distinguished panel consisting of high-profile government whistleblowers, key plaintiffs and litigators from headline Freedom of Information Act cases, and expert journalists who have followed the evolution of the national security state for years. Each will offer insights informed by their own direct encounters with national security secrecy and surveillance.
Source: Open Society Foundations
What impact are secret governmental operations having on our democratic processes, and are the decisions that are being made behind closed doors helping or harming our national security? What tools are available to penetrate this secrecy, foster a new culture of government accountability, and impose enforceable constraints on intrusive surveillance of innocent Americans?
These questions will be explored by a distinguished panel consisting of high-profile government whistleblowers, key plaintiffs and litigators from headline Freedom of Information Act cases, and expert journalists who have followed the evolution of the national security state for years. Each will offer insights informed by their own direct encounters with national security secrecy and surveillance.
Source: Open Society Foundations
Selling horse droppings as figs
In Afrikaans we have a striking saying describing rather accurately what the keepers of secrets (yes, the spies and double agents and professional liars in the intelligence agencies) are trying to do with its latest range of advertisements promoting the Secrecy Bill:
Apart from the fact that the government is not supposed to promote a Bill currently still serving before Parliament and not yet passed into law (as Parliament is currently seized of this matter, and the executive has no truck with the Bill until it is actually passed and becomes law), the advertisements are about as honest and truthful as your average Senior Manager at the Department of Public Works testifying at the Bheki Cele Inquiry.
The thing is, the Secrecy Bill has absolutely nothing to do with identity theft and neither has it anything to do with people fraudulently collecting pensions if they are not entitled to do so. Although section 8 and 9 of the Secrecy Bill deals with the protection of valuable information (which could include personal information about one’s ID held by the state), and although these sections state that such information warrants “a degree of protection and administrative control and must be handled with due care and only in accordance with authorised procedures”, the Bill does not actually criminalise the selling of your ID by a state official and is in no way dealing with identity theft. What a very small part of the Bill does (about 4 of the more than 50 clauses in the Bill) is that it prohibits any person from unlawfully and intentionally destroying, removing, altering or erasing valuable information.
A state official would therefore be punished in terms of this Bill if he or she deleted your ID information from the government database. What the Bill would not deal with at all is identity theft or pension fraud. The law already punishes fraudulent selling of your ID information to others as well as pension fraud, and this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. In other words this advert is deceitful and dishonest. This is perhaps not surprising, as the adverts were cooked up by the very spies who, we are told, we should trust with decisions about the need to classify state documents as secret or top secret. I would not trust these people when they tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow – let alone with these decisions that may well hide serious criminality and corruption. (General Mduli, are you there?)
Ironically, what the adverts do, is to illustrate beyond all doubt why this Bill is so dangerous. If these people are prepared to deceive the public so blatantly and openly, why would they not lie to us about the existence of wrongly and unlawfully classified documents which we might need to get access to in order to expose corruption or in order to expose the blatant flaunting of the law and undermining of our democracy by the intelligence services?
The “safeguards” in the Bill which the advert talks about are therefore illusory. If it is a criminal offense to be in possession of a classified document, and if one tries to get access to a wrongly classified document, the spies will merely claim that the document does not exist, finish en klaar. If one then claims to have seen the document, one will be arrested and charged for possessing a classified document and to admitting to having committed a crime and one could be sentenced to a long period in jail for possessing even an illegally classified document.
It is true that section 43 of the Bill states that a person who is protected by the Protected Disclosures Act may disclose documents despite any provisions in the Bill, which means that a very brave (some would say very stupid) state employee who discovers documents demonstrating criminal activity or corruption by the intelligence services, may leak such documents to, say, the Public Protector.
What the advert does not say is that the Public Protector will then immediately have to take the leaked documents showing serious criminal activity to the nearest Police Station where one of Richard Mduli’s cronies will be able to receive the document and “deal” with it to protect the intelligence services and those exposed as criminals or crooks in the documents. The Public Protector can then try and get access to the document via various means and after several years – and assuming rather optimistically – that the document had not been “lost” (in other words, destroyed), she might finally get access to that document – long after the crime was committed and the cover up effectively instituted, the witnesses “disappeared” or intimidated into silence or packed off to Tjikitjikistan as the undersecretary of culture.
Moreover, the advert seems to suggest that all active citizens are really no more than potential criminals, suggesting how the paranoid spies view us ordinary citizens. It says that the state has to protect its information from criminals, but it is exactly the kinds of information that we need as citizens that we will be “protected” from accessing. We will not ever again be able to know that intelligence services had concocted another Browse Mole Report to discredit the enemies of the sitting President. We will not ever again be able to know that the spies had taped telephone conversations between politicians or between NPA members. We will not know that senior ANC leaders have been spied on by the intelligence services because the President thought that these leaders might pose a threat to his political ambitions.
Of course, the adverts also display the kind of paranoia that is familiar to students of any fascist police state. Hence it suggests that we need to protect state secrets because if any of these secrets held by the state are ever released, our very freedom (the freedom curtailed by this Bill) will be threatened. Now, I for one cannot imagine what secrets the spies are keeping that are so earthshattering that it would threaten the very life of our nation and our Constitution if it were to be made public. Could it be information about financial donations made by foreign dictators to the President or the governing party? Information about the sex-lives of politicians illegally spied upon by the intelligence services on instructions from the President? Maybe there are documents proving that our spies are plotting to assassinate the President of the United States, which, if revealed, could lead to a US military invasion.
But I doubt that any of these documents exist and even if they did, we will be protected by its disclosure (and disclosure of the unlawful actions by the intelligence services who might have compiled these documents illegally), not by keeping them secret.
This Bill is about protecting the intelligence services and drawing a veil of secrecy over their often unlawful activities in order to enhance the powers of the spies, create a police state within a state and protect the leadership of the incumbent faction inside the ANC from embarrassment and from being ousted in quasi-democratic party elections. It is not about freedom but un-freedom, not about democracy but a threat to our democracy.
If you believe otherwise, I am sure you will also believe me when I say that you should please send me all your banking details (including password) immediately so that I can transfer a few million dollars into your account, which I will do because I need your assistance with transferring fabulous amounts of money into South Africa.
Source: Pierre de Vos: Constitutionally Speaking
“Hulle will ons nou wysmaak dat perdedrolle, vye is”. (“Now they want to convince us that horse droppings are really figs.”)
Apart from the fact that the government is not supposed to promote a Bill currently still serving before Parliament and not yet passed into law (as Parliament is currently seized of this matter, and the executive has no truck with the Bill until it is actually passed and becomes law), the advertisements are about as honest and truthful as your average Senior Manager at the Department of Public Works testifying at the Bheki Cele Inquiry.
Female Voice: “Are you following the whole debate about this new law everyone is talking about? Something about state information?”
Male Voice: “Yes. And I see why government worries. All this stuff about identity theft, people being long dead but collecting pensions, the list is endless.”
Female Voice: “But what about corruption? How will the government deal with that?”
Male Voice: “The bill makes it clear that if people try to cover up corruption they will go to jail for up to 15 years, and whistleblowers will be protected.”
Female Voice: “That’s good. But will we still be able to get the information we need from the government?”
Male Voice: “Yes. Our constitution gives us that right. As for the press, the bill doesn’t suppress press freedom at all. When you want information that is classified, you just have to apply for it. If you are still not happy, you can go to court and the judge will decide if it is in everyone’s interest.”
Female Voice: “Yes, sounds reasonable.”
Male Voice: “The thing is that government has to protect its information from criminals. There are spies out there that want to steal our information to develop their own countries at our expense.”
Female Voice: “I see. I want to familiarise myself with the bill more. There’s so much I didn’t know.”
Male Voice: “Great, ‘cause it’s really important that government protects its information. It is about protecting our country and its hard-won freedom. Ensuring that we all live in peace, security and prosperity.”
The thing is, the Secrecy Bill has absolutely nothing to do with identity theft and neither has it anything to do with people fraudulently collecting pensions if they are not entitled to do so. Although section 8 and 9 of the Secrecy Bill deals with the protection of valuable information (which could include personal information about one’s ID held by the state), and although these sections state that such information warrants “a degree of protection and administrative control and must be handled with due care and only in accordance with authorised procedures”, the Bill does not actually criminalise the selling of your ID by a state official and is in no way dealing with identity theft. What a very small part of the Bill does (about 4 of the more than 50 clauses in the Bill) is that it prohibits any person from unlawfully and intentionally destroying, removing, altering or erasing valuable information.
A state official would therefore be punished in terms of this Bill if he or she deleted your ID information from the government database. What the Bill would not deal with at all is identity theft or pension fraud. The law already punishes fraudulent selling of your ID information to others as well as pension fraud, and this Bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. In other words this advert is deceitful and dishonest. This is perhaps not surprising, as the adverts were cooked up by the very spies who, we are told, we should trust with decisions about the need to classify state documents as secret or top secret. I would not trust these people when they tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow – let alone with these decisions that may well hide serious criminality and corruption. (General Mduli, are you there?)
Ironically, what the adverts do, is to illustrate beyond all doubt why this Bill is so dangerous. If these people are prepared to deceive the public so blatantly and openly, why would they not lie to us about the existence of wrongly and unlawfully classified documents which we might need to get access to in order to expose corruption or in order to expose the blatant flaunting of the law and undermining of our democracy by the intelligence services?
The “safeguards” in the Bill which the advert talks about are therefore illusory. If it is a criminal offense to be in possession of a classified document, and if one tries to get access to a wrongly classified document, the spies will merely claim that the document does not exist, finish en klaar. If one then claims to have seen the document, one will be arrested and charged for possessing a classified document and to admitting to having committed a crime and one could be sentenced to a long period in jail for possessing even an illegally classified document.
It is true that section 43 of the Bill states that a person who is protected by the Protected Disclosures Act may disclose documents despite any provisions in the Bill, which means that a very brave (some would say very stupid) state employee who discovers documents demonstrating criminal activity or corruption by the intelligence services, may leak such documents to, say, the Public Protector.
What the advert does not say is that the Public Protector will then immediately have to take the leaked documents showing serious criminal activity to the nearest Police Station where one of Richard Mduli’s cronies will be able to receive the document and “deal” with it to protect the intelligence services and those exposed as criminals or crooks in the documents. The Public Protector can then try and get access to the document via various means and after several years – and assuming rather optimistically – that the document had not been “lost” (in other words, destroyed), she might finally get access to that document – long after the crime was committed and the cover up effectively instituted, the witnesses “disappeared” or intimidated into silence or packed off to Tjikitjikistan as the undersecretary of culture.
Moreover, the advert seems to suggest that all active citizens are really no more than potential criminals, suggesting how the paranoid spies view us ordinary citizens. It says that the state has to protect its information from criminals, but it is exactly the kinds of information that we need as citizens that we will be “protected” from accessing. We will not ever again be able to know that intelligence services had concocted another Browse Mole Report to discredit the enemies of the sitting President. We will not ever again be able to know that the spies had taped telephone conversations between politicians or between NPA members. We will not know that senior ANC leaders have been spied on by the intelligence services because the President thought that these leaders might pose a threat to his political ambitions.
Of course, the adverts also display the kind of paranoia that is familiar to students of any fascist police state. Hence it suggests that we need to protect state secrets because if any of these secrets held by the state are ever released, our very freedom (the freedom curtailed by this Bill) will be threatened. Now, I for one cannot imagine what secrets the spies are keeping that are so earthshattering that it would threaten the very life of our nation and our Constitution if it were to be made public. Could it be information about financial donations made by foreign dictators to the President or the governing party? Information about the sex-lives of politicians illegally spied upon by the intelligence services on instructions from the President? Maybe there are documents proving that our spies are plotting to assassinate the President of the United States, which, if revealed, could lead to a US military invasion.
But I doubt that any of these documents exist and even if they did, we will be protected by its disclosure (and disclosure of the unlawful actions by the intelligence services who might have compiled these documents illegally), not by keeping them secret.
This Bill is about protecting the intelligence services and drawing a veil of secrecy over their often unlawful activities in order to enhance the powers of the spies, create a police state within a state and protect the leadership of the incumbent faction inside the ANC from embarrassment and from being ousted in quasi-democratic party elections. It is not about freedom but un-freedom, not about democracy but a threat to our democracy.
If you believe otherwise, I am sure you will also believe me when I say that you should please send me all your banking details (including password) immediately so that I can transfer a few million dollars into your account, which I will do because I need your assistance with transferring fabulous amounts of money into South Africa.
Source: Pierre de Vos: Constitutionally Speaking
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Chairman stops info bill submission
An oral submission on the Protection of State Information Bill was stopped on Wednesday afternoon because it contained "political statements". Mark Weinberg, from the Alternative Information Development Centre, was interrupted when he mentioned "the rise of securocrats" and "the tendency towards greater conservative authoritarianism" in his presentation.
Raseriti Tau, the chairman of the ad hoc committee on the bill, told him: "Now, you are giving me problems now. I know that I am going to be accused of having denied you an opportunity to speak. We can't continue with this." He added: "There are serious political statements now that you are making now. You are making reference to the Polokwane conference and all those sorts of things. "Can we stop this presentation. We are not going to allow you to continue with this presentation."
Weinberg had said that the tendency towards greater conservative authoritarianism in South Africa had to be understood in terms in the context of the battle between various factions and groups fighting for influence in the ruling party and the state. "We also see the rise of securocrats," he said. "This so called... alliance of the wounded cobbled together pre-Polokwane is weakening and its fissures rupturing..." Tau then stopped Weinberg from continuing. "It would have been good if you were a lobby group and there is someone who was seeking funding for a protest," Tau said.
Source: Times Live
Raseriti Tau, the chairman of the ad hoc committee on the bill, told him: "Now, you are giving me problems now. I know that I am going to be accused of having denied you an opportunity to speak. We can't continue with this." He added: "There are serious political statements now that you are making now. You are making reference to the Polokwane conference and all those sorts of things. "Can we stop this presentation. We are not going to allow you to continue with this presentation."
Weinberg had said that the tendency towards greater conservative authoritarianism in South Africa had to be understood in terms in the context of the battle between various factions and groups fighting for influence in the ruling party and the state. "We also see the rise of securocrats," he said. "This so called... alliance of the wounded cobbled together pre-Polokwane is weakening and its fissures rupturing..." Tau then stopped Weinberg from continuing. "It would have been good if you were a lobby group and there is someone who was seeking funding for a protest," Tau said.
Source: Times Live
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Malema vows to take fight against expulsion to court
Embattled ANC youth league president Julius Malema will seek redress in the courts if he is expelled from the party, he said on Sunday. Malema remains president of the ANCYL pending his appeal against a decision to expel him by the ANC's national disciplinary committee. Until now he has consistently rejected the idea of taking legal action against the ANC. "I said I would not go to court, but now I have decided to do so," Malema said. "I need no mandate and act as an individual whose rights have been violated." This would not contradict the principles of the ANC, as he would no longer be an ANC member.
Malema was speaking at an ANCYL centenary rally at the Nkowankowa Stadium, outside Tzaneen. He called on the crowd not to abandon the ANC, calling it the only hope for the country's poor. He reminded the crowd that while individuals would come and go, the ANC would continue. "I will never be welcomed in the ANC. I have been fired in the ANC. But I have no problem with that," he said.
He did not regret anything he had done, Malema said. "I did what I believed in and I did it on my own. I was not told by anyone to do anything. "I have not been chased from heaven, but from the ANC by a faction that can only do so as they currently have power."
The ANCYL was being victimised by its own leaders, Malema said. "They are trying to punish anyone associated with the ANCYL as if we are an illegal association." He would not accept being victimised by anyone, he said. Those who are supposed to support and protect the ANCYL were scared to do so. "We are orphans standing alone. Our leaders are scared. They prefer their positions above speaking out for what is right," he told the crowd. "There is no longer a youth league of the ANC. We are a former self. They have succeeded in killing us."
Also speaking at the rally, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe said revolution was deliberate and methodical, and never accidental. He could barely be heard in the stadium above the conversations of the crowd. "The ANC has no use for a passive youth league. We need our youth league to be militant, creative and determined. When the call is given, the youth must answer rapidly," he said. The youth had to be afforded space to generate new ideas.
The ANC expected the ANCYL to recruit youth and remain relevant to the youth. "It is the ANC's duty to show and lead the ANCYL if it strays from the path. We must guide them all the time. They can't stray off the path and go off on their own," Motlanthe said. The ANCYL had been formed by the ANC to feed and form the youth in preparation for becoming ANC members, said Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula, himself a former ANCYL president. "No one will destroy the ANCYL," he said. "You are here to create new ideas. Once the ANCYL ceases to think we will be in danger. Once they suffer political dwarfism the revolution will be in danger."
Messages of support for the ANCYL were sent by the ANC Women's League and the ANC Veterans' League, as well as youth organisations from all over Africa, including Zimbabwe, Ghana, Namibia and Ethiopia.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Malema was speaking at an ANCYL centenary rally at the Nkowankowa Stadium, outside Tzaneen. He called on the crowd not to abandon the ANC, calling it the only hope for the country's poor. He reminded the crowd that while individuals would come and go, the ANC would continue. "I will never be welcomed in the ANC. I have been fired in the ANC. But I have no problem with that," he said.
He did not regret anything he had done, Malema said. "I did what I believed in and I did it on my own. I was not told by anyone to do anything. "I have not been chased from heaven, but from the ANC by a faction that can only do so as they currently have power."
The ANCYL was being victimised by its own leaders, Malema said. "They are trying to punish anyone associated with the ANCYL as if we are an illegal association." He would not accept being victimised by anyone, he said. Those who are supposed to support and protect the ANCYL were scared to do so. "We are orphans standing alone. Our leaders are scared. They prefer their positions above speaking out for what is right," he told the crowd. "There is no longer a youth league of the ANC. We are a former self. They have succeeded in killing us."
Also speaking at the rally, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe said revolution was deliberate and methodical, and never accidental. He could barely be heard in the stadium above the conversations of the crowd. "The ANC has no use for a passive youth league. We need our youth league to be militant, creative and determined. When the call is given, the youth must answer rapidly," he said. The youth had to be afforded space to generate new ideas.
The ANC expected the ANCYL to recruit youth and remain relevant to the youth. "It is the ANC's duty to show and lead the ANCYL if it strays from the path. We must guide them all the time. They can't stray off the path and go off on their own," Motlanthe said. The ANCYL had been formed by the ANC to feed and form the youth in preparation for becoming ANC members, said Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula, himself a former ANCYL president. "No one will destroy the ANCYL," he said. "You are here to create new ideas. Once the ANCYL ceases to think we will be in danger. Once they suffer political dwarfism the revolution will be in danger."
Messages of support for the ANCYL were sent by the ANC Women's League and the ANC Veterans' League, as well as youth organisations from all over Africa, including Zimbabwe, Ghana, Namibia and Ethiopia.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
'Secrecy bill' united many in defence of Freedom
On March 17 an extraordinary thing in our remarkable politics occurred in Khayelitsha, Western Cape: 11 opposition political parties took to the stage in a visible show of solidarity against the Protection of Information Bill. They did so because of the ANC government's refusal to include a most necessary public interest defence clause in the bill.
As momentous as this solidarity was, the real high point was the readiness of the people in the audience, from different political parties, to collectively own leaders such as Robert Sobukwe, Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Helen Zille, among others. Important living and deceased leaders, for once, became common property associated with the common good.
The trivialisation of politics through a territorial, factional or racial attitude was overcome by people seeing the larger canvas. How exhilarating it was to leave the confining boxes and for once be free in the greater expanse of open political space. Here, for the first time, South Africans were willing to accord the kind of reverence to all leaders of the kind that the PAC exclusively gives to Sobukwe, Azapo to Biko, the IFP to Buthelezi and the DA to Zille. All distinguished leaders committed to democracy, the existential struggle of the people and to unadulterated freedom were acknowledged and given recognition.
The forging of a national spirit and willingness of the assembled politicians and supporters to accept the great leaders of our democracy, not in the division of segmented parties where they exist or existed but in the unity of a common matrix of freedom, is a turning point in our glorious history and augurs well for the preservation of our democracy.
May the light of freedom never dim in our country and may moral courage glow bright to show us the way to a safe and secure future. What the leaders and their parties did in Khayelitsha will reverberate through history.
Source: Times Live
As momentous as this solidarity was, the real high point was the readiness of the people in the audience, from different political parties, to collectively own leaders such as Robert Sobukwe, Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Helen Zille, among others. Important living and deceased leaders, for once, became common property associated with the common good.
The trivialisation of politics through a territorial, factional or racial attitude was overcome by people seeing the larger canvas. How exhilarating it was to leave the confining boxes and for once be free in the greater expanse of open political space. Here, for the first time, South Africans were willing to accord the kind of reverence to all leaders of the kind that the PAC exclusively gives to Sobukwe, Azapo to Biko, the IFP to Buthelezi and the DA to Zille. All distinguished leaders committed to democracy, the existential struggle of the people and to unadulterated freedom were acknowledged and given recognition.
The forging of a national spirit and willingness of the assembled politicians and supporters to accept the great leaders of our democracy, not in the division of segmented parties where they exist or existed but in the unity of a common matrix of freedom, is a turning point in our glorious history and augurs well for the preservation of our democracy.
May the light of freedom never dim in our country and may moral courage glow bright to show us the way to a safe and secure future. What the leaders and their parties did in Khayelitsha will reverberate through history.
Source: Times Live
Monday, March 19, 2012
Zimbabwe Convicts 6 Who Viewed Revolt News
Six political activists in Zimbabwe who gathered last year to watch and discuss television news broadcasts of the Arab Spring protests were convicted on Monday of conspiring to commit violence in an effort to overthrow the government. The penalty could be 10 years in prison. They are to be sentenced on Tuesday.
About 45 activists, students and trade unionists were arrested last February while attending a meeting convened by Munyaradzi Gwisai, a lecturer at the law school at the University of Zimbabwe and a former member of Parliament for Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, to discuss the antiauthoritarian uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr. Gwisai and the others were planning to start a similar uprising in Zimbabwe aimed at toppling President Robert G. Mugabe, who has been in power for three decades. Most of the defendants were later released, but six, including Mr. Gwisai, were charged with serious crimes. Lawyers for the accused said the meeting was an academic discussion, not a planning session for a revolution.
The judge in the case, Kudakwashe Jarabini, said in court that while watching videos of the Arab uprisings was not a crime, the organizers had intended to incite hostility toward the government by playing them, according to people in the courtroom.
Mr. Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party has been in a tenuous unity government with the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, since the 2008 election. Mr. Tsvangirai won the most votes but dropped out of the race because of violence against his supporters. International pressure led to the creation of a unity government. But Mr. Mugabe retained the most crucial government posts, particularly those that control the police and the army.
Mr. Mugabe’s party has been pushing hard for new elections, hoping to retake power while Mr. Mugabe, 88, whose health has grown more fragile, remains alive. But the Movement for Democratic Change and many activists and analysts have argued against holding elections before a new constitution is drawn up and crucial institutions, like the election commission, are reformed. An estimated 350 people died in violence during the 2008 election.
Shortly after the 45 activists were arrested last year, a lawyer working for them reported that a dozen had been tortured to try to force them to testify for the state and that six had been lashed. The accusations prompted a letter of concern from the United Nations torture investigator, Juan E. Méndez.
Dewa Mavhinga of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, a collection of hundreds of civic groups, said it appeared that the window for change in Zimbabwe was closing. “It is an indicator that we are really going towards elections and that the democratic space that was previously somewhat open is quickly closing down,” Mr. Mavhinga said. “There is no crime that has been committed. It is a political issue that is being dealt with by a politicized and severely compromised judiciary.”
Source: New York Times
About 45 activists, students and trade unionists were arrested last February while attending a meeting convened by Munyaradzi Gwisai, a lecturer at the law school at the University of Zimbabwe and a former member of Parliament for Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, to discuss the antiauthoritarian uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.
Prosecutors claimed that Mr. Gwisai and the others were planning to start a similar uprising in Zimbabwe aimed at toppling President Robert G. Mugabe, who has been in power for three decades. Most of the defendants were later released, but six, including Mr. Gwisai, were charged with serious crimes. Lawyers for the accused said the meeting was an academic discussion, not a planning session for a revolution.
The judge in the case, Kudakwashe Jarabini, said in court that while watching videos of the Arab uprisings was not a crime, the organizers had intended to incite hostility toward the government by playing them, according to people in the courtroom.
Mr. Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party has been in a tenuous unity government with the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, since the 2008 election. Mr. Tsvangirai won the most votes but dropped out of the race because of violence against his supporters. International pressure led to the creation of a unity government. But Mr. Mugabe retained the most crucial government posts, particularly those that control the police and the army.
Mr. Mugabe’s party has been pushing hard for new elections, hoping to retake power while Mr. Mugabe, 88, whose health has grown more fragile, remains alive. But the Movement for Democratic Change and many activists and analysts have argued against holding elections before a new constitution is drawn up and crucial institutions, like the election commission, are reformed. An estimated 350 people died in violence during the 2008 election.
Shortly after the 45 activists were arrested last year, a lawyer working for them reported that a dozen had been tortured to try to force them to testify for the state and that six had been lashed. The accusations prompted a letter of concern from the United Nations torture investigator, Juan E. Méndez.
Dewa Mavhinga of the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, a collection of hundreds of civic groups, said it appeared that the window for change in Zimbabwe was closing. “It is an indicator that we are really going towards elections and that the democratic space that was previously somewhat open is quickly closing down,” Mr. Mavhinga said. “There is no crime that has been committed. It is a political issue that is being dealt with by a politicized and severely compromised judiciary.”
Source: New York Times
Thursday, March 15, 2012
ANC tries to muzzle critic of ‘secrecy bill’
The ANC has attempted to exclude the most vociferous opponent of the "secrecy bill" from the list of organisations to be invited to make oral submissions on the draft law. The African National Congress (ANC) yesterday attempted to exclude the most vociferous opponent of the "secrecy bill" from the list of organisations to be invited to make oral submissions on the draft law, and only relented when opposition parties strongly opposed the move.
The Right to Know campaign is made up of a host of civil society groups opposed to the Protection of State Information Bill. Its often strident criticism has earned it the ire of the ANC in Parliament. The organisation has consistently argued that the bill should include a public-interest defence for whistle-blowers and investigative journalists, as well as criticising the harsh penalties which the bill provides for those who publicise classified information.
The National Council of Provinces ad hoc committee dealing with the bill was yesterday busy compiling a short list from the more than 260 written submissions to be invited to make oral presentations to the committee. ANC MP Buoang Mashile said the Right to Know campaign should not be invited. The organisation was at all the public hearings held recently in all nine provinces and its views had been heard many times — "what is the necessity of inviting them back?" Mr Mashile was supported by other ANC MPs on the committee, who asked if there was anything new the group could add.
Congress of the People (COPE) MP Dennis Bloem and Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Darryl Worth objected. Mr Bloem said many of the organisations chosen by the ANC were also unlikely to bring anything new to the hearings. If the same standards were applied, then they too should be excluded, but COPE supported their inclusion. Mr Worth said the issue was the quality of the contribution that the Right to Know would be able to make, and "the DA supports their inclusion". ANC MP Nosipho Ntwanambi eventually relented, saying "they can come".
The committee also took the astonishing decision to exclude some organisations on the basis that they had the word "media" in their names. Committee chairman Raseriti Tau said all parties had supported this, including the South African National Editors Forum, and that this was enough representation for the media on the short list. This failed to recognise that some of the organisations the committee excluded were engaged in monitoring the media, rather than representing it. It was by this logic that Prof Jane Duncan of the Media and Information Society: Highway Africa, as well as Media Monitoring Africa, were excluded from the list.
In another key ruling, the committee decided that no political parties with representation in either the National Assembly or the National Council of Provinces could make oral submissions. In this way both COPE and the African Christian Democratic Party were excluded from getting invitations. The rationale was that political parties had a chance to express their views during parliamentary proceedings.
Organisations and individuals that all political parties agreed should be invited include Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, George Bizos of the Legal Resources Centre, the Human Rights Commission, the Nelson Mandela Foundation, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Catholic Bishops Conference and the Jewish Board of Deputies.
Source: Business Dau
The Right to Know campaign is made up of a host of civil society groups opposed to the Protection of State Information Bill. Its often strident criticism has earned it the ire of the ANC in Parliament. The organisation has consistently argued that the bill should include a public-interest defence for whistle-blowers and investigative journalists, as well as criticising the harsh penalties which the bill provides for those who publicise classified information.
The National Council of Provinces ad hoc committee dealing with the bill was yesterday busy compiling a short list from the more than 260 written submissions to be invited to make oral presentations to the committee. ANC MP Buoang Mashile said the Right to Know campaign should not be invited. The organisation was at all the public hearings held recently in all nine provinces and its views had been heard many times — "what is the necessity of inviting them back?" Mr Mashile was supported by other ANC MPs on the committee, who asked if there was anything new the group could add.
Congress of the People (COPE) MP Dennis Bloem and Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Darryl Worth objected. Mr Bloem said many of the organisations chosen by the ANC were also unlikely to bring anything new to the hearings. If the same standards were applied, then they too should be excluded, but COPE supported their inclusion. Mr Worth said the issue was the quality of the contribution that the Right to Know would be able to make, and "the DA supports their inclusion". ANC MP Nosipho Ntwanambi eventually relented, saying "they can come".
The committee also took the astonishing decision to exclude some organisations on the basis that they had the word "media" in their names. Committee chairman Raseriti Tau said all parties had supported this, including the South African National Editors Forum, and that this was enough representation for the media on the short list. This failed to recognise that some of the organisations the committee excluded were engaged in monitoring the media, rather than representing it. It was by this logic that Prof Jane Duncan of the Media and Information Society: Highway Africa, as well as Media Monitoring Africa, were excluded from the list.
In another key ruling, the committee decided that no political parties with representation in either the National Assembly or the National Council of Provinces could make oral submissions. In this way both COPE and the African Christian Democratic Party were excluded from getting invitations. The rationale was that political parties had a chance to express their views during parliamentary proceedings.
Organisations and individuals that all political parties agreed should be invited include Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, George Bizos of the Legal Resources Centre, the Human Rights Commission, the Nelson Mandela Foundation, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Catholic Bishops Conference and the Jewish Board of Deputies.
Source: Business Dau
Monday, March 12, 2012
Bizos: Secrecy Bill 'threatens values' of Constitution
Veteran human rights lawyer George Bizos argued in a submission to Parliament that the Protection of State Information Bill is unconstitutional on several counts. "The current draft of the Bill, as it stands, runs contrary to and indeed threatens many of the fundamental values and principles enshrined in the Constitution," he wrote.
Bizos, from the Legal Resources Centre's constitutional litigation unit, prepared the submission on behalf of human rights organisation Passop. It is one of 293 written presentations sent to the National Council of Provinces' ad hoc committee processing the Bill after it was passed by the National Assembly last year amid a public outcry. Nelson Mandela's former defence lawyer enumerated seven flaws in the Bill, starting with the absence of a public interest defence. "We view a public interest defence as imperative. Such a defence would exempt from prosecution certain individuals in limited and appropriate circumstances where the disclosure has been made in public interest."
In Bizos's view, the Bill would undermine the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) of 2000 and its status as the supreme law giving effect to section 32 of the Constitution, in which citizens' right to access to information held by the state is enshrined. Paia makes disclosure in the public interest mandatory in cases where the information would reveal the commission of a crime, or the existence of imminent public safety risk or environmental risk. Section five of Paia also states that it applies to the exclusion of any act that restricts disclosure or is materially inconsistent with its provisions. Yet, the Protection of State Information Bill in section 1(4) explicitly states that "despite" section five of Paia, it trumps any other law relating to classified information.
Bizos wrote: "Any proposed legislation that seeks to displace the clear provisions of Paia also violates section 32 of the Constitution and is thus unconstitutional. "The Bill's attempt to trump Paia, a constitutionally-mandated statute, is a further indication of the Bill's overall unconstitutionality." He notes that those who defend the absence of a public interest defence have argued that such a clause was unnecessary because the Bill criminalises wrongful classification.
The argument is wrong, Bizos said, because the draft law does not allow those prosecuted for disclosing state information to argue in defence that it was wrongly classified to begin with. "This further ignores the practical reality that improperly classified information will be difficult, if not impossible, to detect and challenge without the efforts of investigative journalists and whistleblowers who will be hamstrung in their ability to bring these illegal classifications to light if they fear lengthy jail terms."
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos said he agreed with Bizos because the Bill was drafted in such a manner as to criminalise disclosure of classified information, regardless of whether the classification was lawful. Bizos also faulted the Bill for allowing the minister of state security to confer the power to classify information on other ministers. This usurps the principle of accountability enshrined in section one of the Constitution because it removes the oversight of a particular function from Parliament, and places it with the delegating minister. He went on to say that the legislation runs counter to criminal law by basing liability not on the accused's intention, but on the far lower standard of proof that he or she "ought to have known" they were disclosing a secret.
Bizos also said that imposing prison sentences of up to 25 years for the offences in the Bill is excessive and that the Classification Review Panel it seeks to establish will not be seen as independent or impartial. This was because a member of the panel could be removed by a majority vote in the National Assembly, raising a reasonable suspicion of political bias.
Finally, he said the Bill flouts the constitutionally-mandated Promotion of Just Administration Act by potentially ousting the jurisdiction of the high court to review classification -- which is an administrative act.
The submissions include a 20-page letter from public protector Thuli Madonsela, who warned that it jeopardises freedom of expression and her ability to do her job by preventing journalists and whistleblowers from reporting abuses.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), in its contribution, calls for the inclusion of a public interest defence and foresaw the Bill would "worryingly" have the effect of "entrenching authority through a security state". Cosatu has, along with rights groups, media houses and opposition parties, threatened to challenge the Bill in the Constitutional Court if it is signed into law in its current form.
The ad hoc committee will meet on Wednesday to schedule further hearings on the Bill.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Bizos, from the Legal Resources Centre's constitutional litigation unit, prepared the submission on behalf of human rights organisation Passop. It is one of 293 written presentations sent to the National Council of Provinces' ad hoc committee processing the Bill after it was passed by the National Assembly last year amid a public outcry. Nelson Mandela's former defence lawyer enumerated seven flaws in the Bill, starting with the absence of a public interest defence. "We view a public interest defence as imperative. Such a defence would exempt from prosecution certain individuals in limited and appropriate circumstances where the disclosure has been made in public interest."
In Bizos's view, the Bill would undermine the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) of 2000 and its status as the supreme law giving effect to section 32 of the Constitution, in which citizens' right to access to information held by the state is enshrined. Paia makes disclosure in the public interest mandatory in cases where the information would reveal the commission of a crime, or the existence of imminent public safety risk or environmental risk. Section five of Paia also states that it applies to the exclusion of any act that restricts disclosure or is materially inconsistent with its provisions. Yet, the Protection of State Information Bill in section 1(4) explicitly states that "despite" section five of Paia, it trumps any other law relating to classified information.
Bizos wrote: "Any proposed legislation that seeks to displace the clear provisions of Paia also violates section 32 of the Constitution and is thus unconstitutional. "The Bill's attempt to trump Paia, a constitutionally-mandated statute, is a further indication of the Bill's overall unconstitutionality." He notes that those who defend the absence of a public interest defence have argued that such a clause was unnecessary because the Bill criminalises wrongful classification.
The argument is wrong, Bizos said, because the draft law does not allow those prosecuted for disclosing state information to argue in defence that it was wrongly classified to begin with. "This further ignores the practical reality that improperly classified information will be difficult, if not impossible, to detect and challenge without the efforts of investigative journalists and whistleblowers who will be hamstrung in their ability to bring these illegal classifications to light if they fear lengthy jail terms."
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos said he agreed with Bizos because the Bill was drafted in such a manner as to criminalise disclosure of classified information, regardless of whether the classification was lawful. Bizos also faulted the Bill for allowing the minister of state security to confer the power to classify information on other ministers. This usurps the principle of accountability enshrined in section one of the Constitution because it removes the oversight of a particular function from Parliament, and places it with the delegating minister. He went on to say that the legislation runs counter to criminal law by basing liability not on the accused's intention, but on the far lower standard of proof that he or she "ought to have known" they were disclosing a secret.
Bizos also said that imposing prison sentences of up to 25 years for the offences in the Bill is excessive and that the Classification Review Panel it seeks to establish will not be seen as independent or impartial. This was because a member of the panel could be removed by a majority vote in the National Assembly, raising a reasonable suspicion of political bias.
Finally, he said the Bill flouts the constitutionally-mandated Promotion of Just Administration Act by potentially ousting the jurisdiction of the high court to review classification -- which is an administrative act.
The submissions include a 20-page letter from public protector Thuli Madonsela, who warned that it jeopardises freedom of expression and her ability to do her job by preventing journalists and whistleblowers from reporting abuses.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), in its contribution, calls for the inclusion of a public interest defence and foresaw the Bill would "worryingly" have the effect of "entrenching authority through a security state". Cosatu has, along with rights groups, media houses and opposition parties, threatened to challenge the Bill in the Constitutional Court if it is signed into law in its current form.
The ad hoc committee will meet on Wednesday to schedule further hearings on the Bill.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Global Media Watchdog Names Enemies of Internet
PARIS (AP) — The Arab Spring is changing the face of Internet freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders, which released its latest “Enemies of the Internet” list Monday. The annual report classifies as “enemies” countries that severely curtail freedom of expression on and access to the Web. It also draws up a list of states “under surveillance. The group added Bahrain to its enemies list, citing a news blackout and harassment of bloggers in an attempt to quell a yearlong Shiite-led rebellion against the Sunni monarchy. The country had previously been under surveillance.
Reporters Without Borders criticized Australia for persuading Internet service providers to create a national content-filtering system, which blocks access to child pornography sites and others deemed inappropriate. The group is concerned that the government is still also pursuing a system of mandatory content-filtering whose criteria are “very broad.”
France landed on the surveillance list last year for a series of criminal indictments of journalists for stories they wrote. It remains on the list this year because of a law that could punish people who repeatedly illegally download content by cutting off their Internet access.
Source: Time
“Bahrain offers a perfect example of successful crackdowns, with an information blackout achieved through an impressive arsenal of repressive measures: exclusion of the foreign media, harassment of human rights defenders, arrests of bloggers and netizens (one of whom died behind bars), prosecutions and defamation campaigns against free expression activists, disruption of communications,” the Paris-based group’s report said.But the Arab Spring – the name given to a cascade of revolts across the Arab world – has also led to the opening up of some regimes. Libya, where the repressive rule of Moammar Gadhafi was thrown off in a violent revolt, was removed from the list of countries under surveillance.
“In Libya, many challenges remain but the overthrow of the Gadhafi regime has ended an era of censorship,” the report said.The group said that the Arab Spring had also highlighted the importance of the Internet – and therefore the importance of protecting access to and expression on it.
“The Internet and social networks have been conclusively established as tools for protest, campaigning and circulating information, and as vehicles for freedom,” the group said. “More than ever before, online freedom of expression is now a major foreign and domestic policy issue.”The enemies list contains countries that are well known for blocking Internet content, like China, Myanmar and North Korea. But the list of those under surveillance contains some surprises like Australia and France.
Reporters Without Borders criticized Australia for persuading Internet service providers to create a national content-filtering system, which blocks access to child pornography sites and others deemed inappropriate. The group is concerned that the government is still also pursuing a system of mandatory content-filtering whose criteria are “very broad.”
France landed on the surveillance list last year for a series of criminal indictments of journalists for stories they wrote. It remains on the list this year because of a law that could punish people who repeatedly illegally download content by cutting off their Internet access.
Source: Time
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Trade Union Group, A.N.C. Ally, Holds Strikes in South Africa
Tens of thousands of South Africans marched in the streets of the nation’s major cities on Wednesday in a national strike called by Cosatu, the powerful group of trade unions, a crucial ally of the governing African National Congress that is growing increasingly critical of its policies. The stated reason for the strike was to protest new highway tolls and the practice of contracting out jobs through temporary-employment firms, at lower pay and with fewer benefits than permanent workers get, a practice known here as labor broking. But the strike tapped a deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the A.N.C., which has governed South Africa since white minority rule ended in 1994. “We voted for the A.N.C., but we can’t even send our children to school because of their corruption,” said Thabiso Bopape, 30, a contract worker for the postal system who earns much less than regular government employees doing the same work.
Mr. Bopape and thousands of others gathered in downtown Johannesburg on Wednesday, wearing the T-shirts of their unions and waving placards denouncing corruption and capitalism. Zwelinzima Vavi, the secretary general of Cosatu, said in a fiery speech that racial apartheid was increasingly being replaced by economic apartheid. He said there would be civil disobedience if the government went ahead with its plans to charge tolls on highways that were built with tax money. “We have fired our first warning shot,” Mr. Vavi told the cheering crowd. “There are still many bullets in our chamber.”
The marches come at an important moment for the A.N.C., which is celebrating its centennial this year. The party faces growing doubts from a public that has historically returned it to power with huge majorities. The party will hold its conference to choose a leader in December, and in June it will hold a policy conference to discuss ideas for how to tackle some of the country’s most bedeviling problems, like unemployment that reaches 40 percent among young people.
South Africa is often roiled by protest. Demonstrations, sometimes violent, happen almost daily in the townships where the poor struggle to live without basic services like electricity, water and toilets. But the outpouring on Wednesday came from working people, not the destitute, and their protests took place not in distant townships but in the heart of South Africa’s cities. The toll issue was a flashpoint for their anger. “We already paid once, why should we pay again?” said Busi Harishe, 34, a shop clerk who joined the protest. “Petrol prices are already high. Working people are suffering too much.”
Julius Malema, the contentious former leader of the A.N.C.’s youth league, also spoke to strikers on Wednesday. Mr. Malema was expelled from the party for breaking rules and espousing controversial positions contrary to party policy, like calling for mines to be nationalized. He also faces an investigation into his personal fortune, which has expanded along with his political influence.
Young marchers like Mr. Bopape said Mr. Malema, who is appealing his expulsion, should stay in the party. “He is the voice of the youth,” Mr. Bopape said. “No one else is speaking for us.”
Source: New York Times
Mr. Bopape and thousands of others gathered in downtown Johannesburg on Wednesday, wearing the T-shirts of their unions and waving placards denouncing corruption and capitalism. Zwelinzima Vavi, the secretary general of Cosatu, said in a fiery speech that racial apartheid was increasingly being replaced by economic apartheid. He said there would be civil disobedience if the government went ahead with its plans to charge tolls on highways that were built with tax money. “We have fired our first warning shot,” Mr. Vavi told the cheering crowd. “There are still many bullets in our chamber.”
The marches come at an important moment for the A.N.C., which is celebrating its centennial this year. The party faces growing doubts from a public that has historically returned it to power with huge majorities. The party will hold its conference to choose a leader in December, and in June it will hold a policy conference to discuss ideas for how to tackle some of the country’s most bedeviling problems, like unemployment that reaches 40 percent among young people.
South Africa is often roiled by protest. Demonstrations, sometimes violent, happen almost daily in the townships where the poor struggle to live without basic services like electricity, water and toilets. But the outpouring on Wednesday came from working people, not the destitute, and their protests took place not in distant townships but in the heart of South Africa’s cities. The toll issue was a flashpoint for their anger. “We already paid once, why should we pay again?” said Busi Harishe, 34, a shop clerk who joined the protest. “Petrol prices are already high. Working people are suffering too much.”
Julius Malema, the contentious former leader of the A.N.C.’s youth league, also spoke to strikers on Wednesday. Mr. Malema was expelled from the party for breaking rules and espousing controversial positions contrary to party policy, like calling for mines to be nationalized. He also faces an investigation into his personal fortune, which has expanded along with his political influence.
Young marchers like Mr. Bopape said Mr. Malema, who is appealing his expulsion, should stay in the party. “He is the voice of the youth,” Mr. Bopape said. “No one else is speaking for us.”
Source: New York Times
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Zuma 'disconnected from reality' on corruption: DA
President Jacob Zuma's remarks about corruption show he is "completely disconnected from reality", the Democratic Alliance says.In his reply on Thursday to debate on his state of the nation address, Zuma said "most of the corruption you read about in the media is exposed as a result of the work of government and its agencies", DA spokesman Dion George said. "These are the words of a president who is completely disconnected from reality."
South Africa's major corruption scandals had not been broken by government, but by the media, and the opposition. These included the arms deal, to which former president Thabo Mbeki, Zuma, and then defence minister Joe Modise were all linked, he said. Another was the so-called travelgate scandal, involving a number of high ranking ANC MPs misusing parliamentary travel vouchers. George said others included the so-called oilgate scandal, which traced the involvement of an ANC-linked company in diverting money from a state contract to the coffers of the ANC. There was also the SA Police Service lease scandal, in which former public works minister Gwen-Mahlangu Nkabinde and suspended national police commissioner Bheki Cele were involved. Another was the Chancellor House/Hitachi controversy, which saw the ANC's front company landing lucrative contracts with the state.
"Nowhere is the government's attitude towards exposing corruption more clear than in its determination to see the Protection of State Information Bill pushed through Parliament in its current form," George said. Should this law be passed, journalists and whistle-blowers who reported on what government deemed secret would face up to 25 years in prison. It would be illegal to expose corruption and serious crime and the poorest of the poor would continue to lose out as government resources were redirected away from service delivery. "Government is not the last line of defence against corruption. The media and the opposition are."
This was why the DA continued to fight against the bill as it currently stood, and would fight for a strengthened public interest override to ensure that ordinary citizens and the media retained the right to know, George said. On Thursday, Zuma told the National Assembly South Africa was the only country with a "programme" to fight corruption. Zuma said it was "important to emphasise that most of the corruption you read about in the media is exposed as a result of the work of government and its agencies".
Amid laughter from opposition benches, he continued: "What we should remember is that South Africa is the only country that has a programme to fight corruption. It's not being fought anywhere else."
Source: Times Live
South Africa's major corruption scandals had not been broken by government, but by the media, and the opposition. These included the arms deal, to which former president Thabo Mbeki, Zuma, and then defence minister Joe Modise were all linked, he said. Another was the so-called travelgate scandal, involving a number of high ranking ANC MPs misusing parliamentary travel vouchers. George said others included the so-called oilgate scandal, which traced the involvement of an ANC-linked company in diverting money from a state contract to the coffers of the ANC. There was also the SA Police Service lease scandal, in which former public works minister Gwen-Mahlangu Nkabinde and suspended national police commissioner Bheki Cele were involved. Another was the Chancellor House/Hitachi controversy, which saw the ANC's front company landing lucrative contracts with the state.
"Nowhere is the government's attitude towards exposing corruption more clear than in its determination to see the Protection of State Information Bill pushed through Parliament in its current form," George said. Should this law be passed, journalists and whistle-blowers who reported on what government deemed secret would face up to 25 years in prison. It would be illegal to expose corruption and serious crime and the poorest of the poor would continue to lose out as government resources were redirected away from service delivery. "Government is not the last line of defence against corruption. The media and the opposition are."
This was why the DA continued to fight against the bill as it currently stood, and would fight for a strengthened public interest override to ensure that ordinary citizens and the media retained the right to know, George said. On Thursday, Zuma told the National Assembly South Africa was the only country with a "programme" to fight corruption. Zuma said it was "important to emphasise that most of the corruption you read about in the media is exposed as a result of the work of government and its agencies".
Amid laughter from opposition benches, he continued: "What we should remember is that South Africa is the only country that has a programme to fight corruption. It's not being fought anywhere else."
Source: Times Live
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)