The line between affirmative action and racism is a narrow one, which has arguably been crossed by the Road Accident Fund’s new policy to promote black
professionals.
As we show in this newspaper, the rule is quite simple: no whites can be used in the legal defence of the fund, unless formal permission is obtained.
Since 1994 the government and its satellite institutions have naturally had
to be at the forefront of affirmative action, setting an example for the still
overwhelmingly white corporate world to follow.
In this case, however, we would argue that the fund has hatched a policy that
goes beyond affirmative action and into the realm of unfair discrimination.
The fund has gone even further than stipulating that previously disadvantaged
doctors must be used by compiling lists of selected specialists from this stratum in each of the fields regularly involved in accident cases.
Considering the fund’s massive case load, the interim lists composed so far are
self-evidently ridiculous, with between one and three specialists in each category. The fund is preparing to do the same with law firms, whose criteria
for entry include a telephone and one year’s experience.
It is difficult to understand why the fund deemed the lists necessary. As there
are only a handful of blacks who have beaten South Africa’s discriminatory past
to become medical specialists or lawyers, why do they need to be flagged thus?
The scope for nepotism and favouritism is considerable already the draft currently circulating lists the daughter of one of the fund’s senior officeholders as one of the chosen few.
The preparation of a third party claim is a complicated and sophisticated business, requiring experience and the best witnesses possible. The bureaucracy
accompanying the fund’s new policy will obviously make such preparation considerably tougher the search for available lawyers and doctors on the list,
and the formal application if, for any reason, the fund’s representatives believe they have no option but to recruit a white. The fund’s policy obliges
representatives to avoid using the services of the (predominantly white) medical
and legal specialists who have been steeped in this field for many years.
Our concern about the new policy is exacerbated by the possibility that some
officeholders of the fund may have a conflict of interest when, acting as lawyers, they represent plaintiffs suing the fund. With their plaintiff’s caps
on, it may be in their interests to have the fund represented by less experienced legal teams. But that is another story.
For many years the fund has been steeped in controversy, with allegations that
lawyers both black and white bled it improperly. This, coupled with the problem of the fund’s immense financial obligations, prompted an attempt by former transport minister Mac Maharaj to change the way accident claims were
paid out so as to avoid expensive legal preparation.
While white lawyers initially led the charge against this initiative, it was the
lobbying of the black legal community that persuaded the government to drop its
plans for reform. The point is that for some years now accident work has been
the mainstay of many black law firms.
A judicial commission of inquiry into the matter is widely expected to recommend
replacing the current system with no-fault liability. The fund’s current policy
is in some ways therefore academic the entire accident industry is in for an
imminent shake-up that could conceivably result in the state paying out smaller
damages claims to all victims, without requiring lawyers and doctors to prove
whose fault it was in court.
This makes the policy appear somewhat desperate. Those blacks who have, against
all odds, fought their way into the legal and medical professions, should naturally be favoured. But that is not what is happening here. We get the impression that the policy is not being motivated by altruism but by a spirit of “stuff the whites. Now it’s our turn.”
Save the children
It is not hard to believe the allegations by the owner of one of South Africa’s
most notorious brothels Andrew Phillips of The Ranch that senior policemen
enjoyed the services of his prostitutes. They are men, and common sense suggests
hundreds of thousands of men pay for sex. A drive through Hillbrow in Johannesburg, Point Road in Durban or Main Road, Kenilworth, in Cape Town, shows
that the oldest profession is booming in South Africa.
Disturbingly, however, thousands of children are among those selling their bodies. Because what they are doing is illegal, they receive no protection from
the police.
The religious right have come nowhere near a solution in suggesting, as they
have in recent weeks, that strong enforcement of a ban on prostitution will solve the problem. It never has, and it is highly unlikely ever to do so.
Similarly, their belief that gay tourists visit Cape Town only in search of sex
is distasteful in the extreme. Do gay tourists not also visit Table Mountain,
Robben Island, the wine route, the restaurants and beaches?
The religious right is correct in worrying that Cape Town may become another
Bangkok. Yet they offer no concrete suggestions on how to regulate the booming
sex industry in a way that will protect children from exploitation within it.
The solution is simple. Decriminalise prostitution and regulate it. Institute
harsh penalties for people who seek, or pay for, sex with children. Lay down how
often sex workers should undergo medical tests. Issue free femidoms and condoms
to help curb sexually transmitted diseases.
Let’s not be coy about sex. We all do it. Most of us enjoy it. And some prefer
to pay for it.