This letter refers the piece by Jared Sacks (Reports of CPT homeless 'work camps' alarming, April 11 2014).
The City of Cape Town takes great exception to the perception that has been created around its position on street people and the implied strong-arm tactics to get people off the streets.
There can be no doubt that the issue of street people is a complex one that requires a comprehensive response that is fair and inclusive, but most importantly balances the rights of street people and the rest of Cape Town's residents. The city's approach to dealing with street people is not an ad hoc one either, but is informed by our street people policy.
Firstly, let me say that this administration cannot and indeed would not force anyone off the streets. We have indicated many times before in the media that the fieldworkers employed to offer assistance to street people can do just that – make an offer. It is up to the individual to decide if they want to accept. However, if people choose to stay on the streets they are expected, like all other citizens, to adhere to the city's various by-laws. In particular, the city's streets, public places and prevention of noise nuisance by-law states that anti-social behaviour; drinking, urinating, defecating, starting fires and sleeping in public places; creating a noise nuisance; and aggressive begging are offences. This by-law applies to each and every one of us – not just street people.
On the issue of the much talked about 'community villages' – I have been at pains to point out that this is currently a concept that has been tabled as an additional avenue to complement existing street people programmes and services. The city is in the process of looking at best practice internationally, including the potential pros and cons of such a centre. This includes costs, logistics and how it will fit into our existing street people programme. Once we have completed this process, and before making our decision, we will discuss the matter with all registered non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community-based organisations, churches and other concerned groups on the way forward. Also, should we decide to implement this concept, it will be on a purely voluntary basis as we cannot force anyone to enrol in diversion programmes.
We are also not in the business of making decisions without consulting all interested and affected parties. Just a few weeks ago, we hosted the latest interaction with street people in association with the Tygerberg Association of Street People. Many of those at the session indicated a desire to get off the streets, but are being held back by a number of challenges – some of these challenges are things that the rest of us take for granted; for example, not having identity documents which makes securing employment difficult. It also makes it very difficult to access social grants. Several people also made the point that their families will not accept them into their homes unless they can make a financial contribution. For others, the price of a bus ticket home is what's keeping them on the streets.
The challenges highlighted during this interaction form part of the basket of interventions outlined in the city's street people policy. It is for this very reason that the city has contracted the services of NGOs to run a number of assessment centres across the metropole. The assessment centres are run by various NGOs who provide street people with access to emergency shelter and professional assessment of their needs, so they can have access to services which will help in their rehabilitation. This includes counselling, creating job opportunities, life skills programmes and reunification with their families.
The city is spending nearly R1.8-million on funding for assessment centres in this financial year and currently it has contracts with eight service providers to operate centres in Central Cape Town, Maitland, Muizenberg, Mitchells Plain, Bellville, Strand, Table View and Atlantis. Since January, 135 people have been through the assessment process, with 25 of them successfully reintegrated into their communities.
It is of course true that not everyone living on the streets wants to leave, because there are benefits to begging at intersections and going door-to-door in communities. These actions, benign as they may seem, aggravate the problem and entrench a culture of dependency. We need to move away from the mind-set of hand-outs and start thinking, "how can we give people a hand up?". That's why the city has introduced its Give Responsibly campaign to dissuade members of the public from making donations directly to street people and to rather support established organisations working with street people.
The City of Cape Town is being unfairly vilified because its intentions are misunderstood. This administration is committed to serving the best interests of all its citizens – irrespective of where they call home. – Suzette Little, City of Cape Town mayoral committee member for social development and early childhood development
Sarah Wild states "South Africa plans to eradicate malaria inside its borders by 2018, but the changing climate may be one of its greatest obstacles" (Climate change clouds SA's plans to eradicate malaria, April 10 2014). Claims that climate change will increase the spread of malaria are not new and have been made countless times. Repeatedly making the claim, however, does not make it true. There is ample evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature to refute the simplistic idea that climate change leads to more malaria.
Oxford University scientists Simon Hay and Peter Gething compiled data on the incidence of malaria in 1900 and 2007 and found that despite rising temperatures during the twentieth century, malaria has lost ground. Renowned expert on insect borne diseases Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute has also exposed serious deficits in the thinking behind climate change and the spread of insect borne diseases. Professor Reiter demonstrated that some of the worst malaria epidemics in Europe occurred during the coldest winters of the Little Ice Age, and only began to decline as temperatures warmed. Professor Reiter states, "Future changes in climate may alter the prevalence and incidence of the disease, but obsessive emphasis on "global warming" as a dominant parameter is indefensible; the principal determinants are linked to ecological and societal change, politics and economics".
Continued financial and political support for South Africa's excellent malaria control scientists and public health professionals, and ongoing use of insecticides and effective medicines is the key to ridding the country of malaria. Though it may be fashionable to cry "climate change" in response to any and every challenge, South Africa's public health community and the politicians that appropriate funds for malaria control should not be distracted from the task at hand. – Jasson Urbach, director at Africa Fighting Malaria
One finds it difficult to understand the hostile and hysterical reaction to the proposed challenge to the public protector's report ("Lawyers rush to bring comfort to Number One", April 11). We live in a constitutional democracy where decisions of the courts and Chapter 9 institutions can be taken on appeal and review.
You quote unnamed "top legal figures" believing that this legal challenge is "a travesty of justice" and "undermining Madonsela and the office of the public protector", but they don't say how approaching a court of law undermines the public protector. Another "respected attorney", feels that the concerned lawyers must "feel obligated" in some way, but lays no basis for alleging this. Does the "respected attorney" know if these lawyers do human rights work or not?
In any event, what difference does it make if the lawyers who are mounting the legal challenge, do human rights work or not? As for staff at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) being "appalled" about the involvement of comfort Ngidi in the challenge, it will be interesting to know why they are appalled. Ngidi believes, like some others, that aspects of the public protector's findings are reviewable – what is appalling about that? One cannot see what concerns they have because he undertook an investigation into alleged irregularities in the office of the KwaZulu-Natal director of public prosecution's office.
Was one the requirements of the investigator were that such a person was to agree to the findings of the public protector? Are only those that agree with her findings that are deemed to be fair and impartial? Did anybody doubt the bona fides of advocate Mike Hellens, who, as an acting judge, found for the Democratic Alliance (DA) in the "Zuma stole" SMS case, despite the fact that he deposed to an affidavit in support of Glynis Breytenbach, who is now on the DA's parliamentary list? What is the basis then for questioning the bona fides and integrity of Ngidi?
It is unclear why public protector Thuli Madonsela believes that their legal challenge or campaign would "cheapen the dialogue" about the report and one would have thought that she would welcome a review of it by the courts.
We must eschew an alarming tendency that is developing, that holds Madonsela's decisions as beyond question and sacrosanct as, she, like judges will on occasions make mistakes and render incorrect decisions. Ngidi and others have a right to challenge the report in a court of law and it is for a court to decide whether their arguments have legal validity or not.
We live under the rule of law and a bill of rights and the courts are the final arbiter to hold all of us, private citizens, government, and the public protector to account. – The Progressive Professionals Forum, eThekwini region.
-
The story about Ngidi and Concerned Lawyers and Education sits for Equality before the Law (Cleeblaw) reminded me of a an old joke. A man goes into the town hall in a small town and asks: "Is there a criminal lawyer in town?" The receptionist replies: "Yes, but we can't prove it, yet."
It is cold comfort that Cleeblaw is canvassing people around the country, claiming various "glaring flaws, inaccuracies … in the report" (of the public protector, titled Comfort in Security). As a lawyer, Ngidi should be respecting the office of the public protector.
The prescribed legal course is being followed, so Cleeblaw's campaign is mischievous. It is behaviour that transgresses Ngidi's duty to uphold the law and respect the Constitution.
The Cleeblaw members do not think much of Zuma's ability to defend the indefensible if they continue this rabble-rousing. The ANC hierarchy and the NPA will protect him. So this campaign can be seen as currying favour with Number One. Coming from KwaZulu-Natal, it's a good way to get noticed to get a leg-up after the May elections. The question is: Will Comfort bring out the best of the whitewash being attempted? – Tom Morgan