Truth is weighed, not counted
Moe Shaik expresses his belief that justice was not done in the Harms judgement in the Supreme Court of Appeal (”Justice has not been served”, January 23). This is a fundamental issue in our present history.
There is no such thing as neutral justice, argues Shaik. I agree wholeheartedly. But there is also no such thing as a neutral observer, whether journalist, political commentator or academic. Or does he claim a completely ”neutral” position — completely different from the position he openly proclaimed in his evidence before the Hefer Commission?
Shaik asserts that Harms implied that ”possible executive interference matters not”. As I understand it, he (and his four fellow judges) argued that the efficacy of the warrant cannot be set aside simply by arguing that the motive for getting the warrant in the first place was false.
Shaik argues that ”the legal precedents established in a different and oppressive period of our society’s history [should no longer] shape the legal outcomes in our democratic era”. That is indeed a mouthful. The principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty comes from a fairly oppressive period of history — yet all Zuma’s supporters eagerly employ it. Furthermore, the principle may stem from an oppressive period, but it was confirmed by a full Bench of five Supreme Court of Appeal judges, four of whom really cannot be said to share the sentiments characterising that period.
Many do indeed ”believe in Zuma’s innocence”, as Shaik says. There are also many who harbour serious doubts about his innocence. But is this really any means with which to measure the standard of the judgement? There is an old saying in hermeneutics, philosophy and also jurisprudence, that truth is weighed, not counted. Shaik’s argument says something about the mood in our country, but not about the validity of the judgement.
I fully agree that a judicial civil war is in nobody’s interest. Why then do Shaik and, seemingly, the other Zuma advisers, persist in trying to stretch it out as much as possible? The civil war can be ended rapidly, either by stopping further appeals and going to court, or by proposing a credible plea bargain. The choice is theirs — not that of the courts or the NPA. — Willem Saayman, Pretoria
![]()
Moe Shaik’s obvious bias is noted. The SCA was asked to judge and evaluate the Nicholson ruling because it had ruled and made comments on issues not raised during the proceedings. We take matters to court precisely to avoid the process from being contaminated by speculation, innuendo, hearsay and other irrelevant issues.
When Zuma was found not guilty of rape, he did not consider the rules of evidence to be ”established in a different and oppressive period”, as they were. These are universally accepted legal norms and have no political bias.
Nobody but Zuma and perhaps the NPA know whether he is innocent or guilty and that is why society, over thousands of years, devised the legal system so that all would have their day to defend their innocence.
If we accept his ”truth-seeking rather than conviction-seeking approach”, what does he suggest should happen if it comes out that Zuma was indeed guilty of some or all the charges? I suspect what Shaik is actually saying is: give Zuma complete amnesty and only then is he willing to state his side of this sordid story.
Saying that pursuing Zuma does not serve national or legal interests is the view only of staunch Zuma supporters. — R Albers, Stellenbosch
![]()
Moe Shaik argues that a ”truth-seeking rather than [a] conviction-seeking approach should be the way forward. It seems many agree with him, so why doesn’t Zuma get the ball rolling by telling us everything that he knows about the arms deal? — Pieter Wolvaardt, Grahamstown
![]()
![]()
Your type breeds anti-Semitism
The blind hypocrisy of Immanuel Suttner’s letter, ”Your coverage is dripping in hatred” (January 23), makes me want to weep. I am one of a small but growing number of Jews who recognises the madness of Israel’s brute force against the rockets fired out of desperation by Hamas or whoever.
While believing such provocation is wrong and only plays into Israel’s hands, the latter’s grotesquely disproportionate response is what makes my blood boil. To try to deny and defend the war crimes carried out by Israel’s onslaught on Gaza as anti-Semitic propaganda is not far removed from denying the Holocaust.
Suttner’s schmaltzy and absurd comparison to Jews being forced to listen to abusive medieval sermons betrays a refusal to see or accept any wrongdoing by Israel. Such is his narcissistic vision of the Promised Land that he can see righteousness only in Israel. His and other Zionists’ defence of Israel’s Nazi behaviour helps me at last understand the massive support of many thousands of Germans who blindly idolised Hitler.
After the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression, they saw themselves as economically oppressed by Jews. They thought of themselves as the Ayran chosen people, were swept up in their national-socialist pride, saved at last by their psychopathic leader. The similarities in 50 short years send a shiver down my spine.
Tragically the modern state of Israel was born out of the ashes of Hitler’s evil actions, given by colonial Britain as an intended balm to our wounded souls. We Jews should have accepted this settlement with humility and should have shown love and brotherhood to those already living there. Instead, Israel has become a Âmiddle-eastern superpower, its nuclear arms a threat to world peace, and has created a ghetto out of the West Bank and Gaza.
Yes, Hamas has said it wants to destroy Israel. The response? Israel destroys Palestine. It is flattened like Guernica and the Warsaw Ghetto. Suttner, your type has bred an anti-Semitism worldwide that terrifies me. Can your blind love not extend to the hundreds of Palestinian families trapped and blown to pieces by the Israeli war machine? — William Epstein, Cape Town
![]()
![]()
MaMbeki is no Barbie
The desperation of the Congress of the People (Cope) to hog headlines with the hope of garnering votes would be laughable if it was not so tragic.
First it claimed that Fatima Meer, who was on her sick bed, and Saki Mofokeng had joined it. This was preceded by announcing, in a trickle, resignations from the ANC — a ploy that has passed its sell-by date. Then followed the reckless utterances on affirmative action and BEE. Now Cope has stooped to the most scandalous of levels: climbing on the back of a pensioner to woo crowds to its planned manifesto launch and hopefully turn these into votes. I would have thought that Cope would be smarter than this, given its overstated commitment to morality. To then heartlessly abuse Epainette Mbeki in its unquenchable thirst for power is beyond me.
I hold MaMbeki in high esteem. She has made great sacrifices for our freedom and continues to play an invaluable role in community development. She has a right to freedom of association and speech. But for Cope to opportunistically draw her into its election campaign is insensitive, if not utterly disgraceful. Very few of those claiming to be concerned about her today ever took time to find out about her wellbeing in the past. But suddenly they have discovered MaMbeki.
Does she represent a lucky charm? Is she a commodity that can be paraded like a Barbie doll by those craving power? Cope is resorting to abuse of the elderly. — Mogomotsi Mogodiri, Jo’burg
![]()
![]()
A biased viewpoint
Jos Kuper’s article The rise of anxiety in South Africa (January 23) offered a horribly skewed description of South African mindsets.
First, the article was quick to label all pessimists ”apathetic”. This is rubbish. I find myself pessimistic about South Africa’s current status and our future. Considering the sorry state of our politics and our status as the country with the second-highest murder rate in the world, I feel I am somewhat justified in this. Does such a mindset automatically mean I am ”apathetic” and ”not prepared to do [my] bit to help”? According to Kuper, it does.
Furthermore, the article insists that all enthusiasts have ”realistic attitudes”, flattering them blatantly while conveniently ignoring all those who have taken enthusiasm for this country to excess. I have come across more than a few fellow South Africans who openly refuse to acknowledge our status as a troubled country, labelling anyone who does so a ”traitor” or something similar. Such blind patriotism is not merely apathetic, it is detrimental.
In short, I would like to see an analysis of South African mindsets that does not so openly present them from a patriot’s biased viewpoint. — Simon Hyslop, Cape Town
![]()
![]()
No offence
Rather than celebrate having Zapiro to offer unparalleled cartoon commentary, Butch Hannan (Letters, January 16) finds a Zapiro observation offensive to his religious feelings. It takes the brilliance of Zapiro to use the birth of Christ to highlight the current South African perversion of what Christ represents, to both believers and atheists. What ought to be offensive to Christians is the takeover of Christianity by callous, commercial interests. What I, as an atheist, find offensive to God is the idea that the claimed creator of the universe would be so small-minded as to take the slightest offence to Zapiro’s cartoon. — Jeff Rudin, Woodstock
![]()
![]()
Tell us more
Professor Steve de Gruchy (Letters, January 23) seems to imply that there are different ethnic varieties of knowledge and that the ”Anglocentric” kind is not appropriate to Africa; further, that the M&G relies too heavily on the ”religiously illiterate” Shaun de Waal to interpret matters religious to your readers.
You should grant De Gruchy space to expound the merits of the Afrocentric religious knowledge that seems to carry so much weight with him.
Is it possible that any ”knowledge” that relies on ”truths” beyond the reach of scientific evidence can carry greater authenticity on account of its ethnic source? — Oliver Price, Cape Town
I agree with Jonathan Jackson’s view (Letters, January 23) that the scientific method is not really suited to verifying religion in general and the existence of God in particular, though for somewhat different reasons.
There is and arguably can never be a satisfactory operationalisation of God as a scientific concept open to conventional inductive scientific tests. What Dawkins calls the ”God hypothesis” is not amenable to testing in a conventional scientific manner. The fact that there may be, at least in Dawkin’s and other atheists’ views, overwhelming inductive evidence that God does not exist does not rule out the possibility of his existence. In much the same way as overwhelming inductive evidence (substantially greater than that produced by Dawkins regarding the non-existence of God) indicating that the sun rises in the east can logically prove that it will rise in the east tomorrow morning. There is no (can never be a) demonstrable logic of induction. So we are left much where we have always been: at core, religious conviction remains an article of pure faith, not pure reason. -ÂProfessor DAL Coldwell, University of the Witwatersrand
![]()
![]()
In brief
Since the third week of December my M&G is a substantially thinner paper. I can understand this when staff are off for holidays (yet it would have been great if Not the M&G were carried on, despite Robert Kirby’s passing). Now, in the third week of January, your paper remains positively rake-thin and without a music listings in the Friday section. As a reader of some 15 years’ standing, I am not happy. — Travis Lyle, Durban
![]()
Until last week’s edition of the M&G I had thought South Africa’s ”first black finance minister” was Trevor Manuel. Your ”analysis” was thumb-sucking with a conservative political bent. Next you’ll start calling people ”non-white”. — Mothobi Mutloatse, Johannesburg
![]()
South Africa, you must be so proud of your cricketers. They have done their country proud. Here in Australia they have put our bunch of arrogant yobbos to shame. Your boys are great sportsmen, always polite and cheerful gentlemen, not to mention good-looking. — Elizabeth Cullinane, Sydney
![]()
Barack Obama’s Democratic Party inspired the American people by reminding them: ”Yes, we can!” Evita’s People’s Party will inspire the South African electorate by reminding all our politicians: ”No, you can’t!” — Evita Bezuidenhout, Darling