New Sanhedrin?
The official local Jewish community has deigned to allow Richard Goldstone to assert his right to attend a simcha (celebration) that should have been a day of pride and joy for him and his family.
It seems to us that the community leaders grant themselves the status of a “Sanhedrin” (in biblical times the highest judicial and ecclesiastical council of the ancient Jewish nation) over Jewish affairs. What is astounding is that they believe that they can remove from an outstanding and compassionate Jewish international jurist what is not simply a right but rather a religious obligation to participate fully in the coming of age of a young Jew who is his grandson.
What these leaders seemingly fail to understand is the crucial point that being Jewish is not at all the same as being Zionist. Further, the Zionist Federation, Jewish Board of Deputies and Chief Rabbi do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of all those who either consider themselves culturally Jewish or who are practising Jews, but differ on the question of Zionism and on the treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government.
If leaders of the Jewish community in South Africa disagree with the findings of the report by Judge Goldstone these should be debated and discussed and opponents of their views should not be bullied into silence. The official institutions of the organised Jewish community need to revive a foundational Torah value and tradition of tolerance and inclusivity regarding diverse positions, particularly because excluded (and increasingly demonised) opinions hold the equal sanctity of all human life as non-negotiable
.
Given that Rabbi Goldstein has recently assumed the mantle of being a moral voice for South Africans, we would have expected that he should have vociferously supported Judge Goldstone’s attendance at his grandson’s bar mitzvah. Whatever happened to fundamental democratic rights such as freedom of expression?
Do those who claim leadership of the Jewish community not subscribe to this fundamental right that is central in our Constitution? — Jewish members of the Palestine Solidarity Group (PSG): Bradley Bordiss, Brian Ashley, David Sanders, Heidi Grunebaum, Jeff Rudin, Judy Favish, Leslie London, Linda Cooper, Mirna Lawrence, Roger Etkind, Sheila Barsel, Steven Robbins, Suzanne Hotz
Here’s your answer, Ms Raphaely
Vanessa Raphaely asks why women, intelligent or otherwise, would sing the praises of a sleazebag such as Lolly Jackson, who so demeaned women (“Giving Lolly-lovers some stick”, May 7).
The answer, Ms Raphaely, in part, is that women have been bombarded with the dangerous rubbish that you peddle, which happens to be the worst form of sexism.
Magazines such as Cosmopolitan not only reinforce stereotyping, but warp and poison the psyches of women so that they think their existence is solely predicated on pretty faces, hot bodies, sex appeal and how best to please men. Every cover screams: “I’m a sex object! I’m a sex object! If I have a brain, I promise to hide it real well!”
Too bad that women exploit the vanity and insecurities of other women; and all in the name of the enlightenment and entertainment of women.
At least Jackson exploited women in an obvious and direct manner, so that there was no mistaking the fact. Conversely, many “women’s magazines” perniciously entrench sexist ideas and ideals on a subliminal level. They encourage women to aspire to be the stereotype, thereby enriching amoral publishers and advertisers.
Yes, what Lolly did was not great, but neither is what you do. — Liz Lewis, Vermont, Western Cape
‘Telkom story was wrong’
In the interests of accuracy and transparency, allow me to clarify some matters raised in “Telkom’s tender trouble” (April 30) by Lloyd Gedye.
First, the article states that “last week Bihati filed a R1.7-billion legal challenge against Telkom” and that “in its founding affidavit, Bihati Solutions claims that …” No claim for R1.7-billion was filed by Bihati against Telkom. The only application served on Telkom was one in which Bihati seeks to review and set aside Telkom’s decision to apply to the High Court to set aside its original decision to make an award to Bihati.
Telkom’s decision to apply to court to set aside its own decision was the result of an administrative error on its part in making an award after the expiry of the validity period of the tender concerned, and not as a consequence of any tender irregularities.
Telkom cannot set aside its own administrative decision and is required to apply to a competent court for an appropriate order. Accordingly, Telkom denies that it is liable to any party for any damages arising from the setting aside of the award.
Contrary to the impression given in the media, all the successful bidders, including Bihati, were advised continually about the legal issues (including legal challenges by unsuccessful bidders) surrounding the award.
Court papers will be served shortly on all the relevant parties concerned (including Bihati Solutions) and they will be given an opportunity to use the legal process to protect their interests in this matter.
Second, with regard to the Maredi Telecoms case, there appears to be confusion on Gedye’s part regarding the status of this matter.
In April 2009, the Pretoria High Court dismissed Maredi’s urgent application to interdict Telkom from continuing with its awarding of the tender, pending a review application by Maredi. The court awarded costs against Maredi in this application.
Because of Maredi’s failure in its application for an interdict, the awarding of the tender to the successful bidders has continued. Maredi is proceeding with its review application in accordance with the normal legal processes and this application is being opposed by
Telkom.
Maredi has, however, thus far failed to pay Telkom’s legal costs arising from the urgent application.
Third, on the allegations regarding Marius Mostert, Telkom has continually emphasised that an independent forensic audit and an internal process audit conducted by KPMG, as well as the findings of the court in the Maredi judgement, revealed no wrongdoing on Telkom’s or Mostert’s part.
We are disappointed that the article fails to emphasise that the allegations by third parties are, in light of the aforementioned findings (which are referred to in the article), possibly no more than sour grapes.
In addition, it must be stated that the parting of ways with Telkom’s former chief of operations had nothing to do with tender-related issues, as is now disingenuously claimed by Motlatsi Nzeku. The true reasons for his dismissal were widely communicated last year (including to your newspaper).
The issues regarding his challenge to his dismissal are the subject of a private arbitration. Telkom has no intention of breaching the confidentiality of those proceedings, notwithstanding the allegations now being levelled against Telkom.
It is evident that your report is fraught with inaccuracies, despite elaborate responses being provided to your reporter.
Although Telkom holds its media stakeholders in extremely high esteem, one has to question your agendas when deliberate untruths about the company continue to be proliferated by your newspaper.
An apology, retraction and correction in your newspaper is requested. — Ajith Bridgraj, senior specialist: media relations, Telkom Group Communications and Brand
Constitution vs ‘National Democratic Revolution’
Section 2 of the Constitution, which establishes its supremacy, introduces an epochal break with our previous discredited constitutional experience since the inception of political unification of South Africa in 1910.
Constitutional supremacy has effected an entirely new political dispensation that requires a paradigmatic shift in politics and law in South Africa. A metamorphosis has occurred that introduces the philosophy of constitutionalism and everything that it entails. Parliamentary sovereignty and the exercise of concomitant executive power in a virtually unrestrained manner are now part of our defunct and little lamented constitutional and political history.
Therefore by virtue of section 2, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Parliament is no longer sovereign as is the position used in our previous oligarchical constitutions of 1910, 1961 and 1984. The Constitution creates a new basic norm for the state and the body politic.
This marks a radical departure from the Westminster paradigm that was distorted by institutionalised racism. As a result a momentous change has occurred in our law with profound consequences for government and the administration of justice.
Bearing this in mind, the nature and consequences of the “National Democratic Revolution” (NDR), to which the ANC recommitted itself at the Polokwane Conference, must be carefully examined. The application of the ideas encapsulated in the NDR have resulted in manifest political controversy and the involvement of the courts to ensure that the Constitution is complied with. A political saga is unfolding in South Africa, which is really a struggle for supremacy between the Constitution and the NDR.
The NDR is the motivating political force for cadre deployment, through which the ANC endeavours to monopolise all the levers of state power, not only in the public service, but, inter alia, in the judiciary and the National Prosecuting Authority.
This kind of deployment is in conflict with the letter and ethos of the Constitution, since cadres of the party are to be accorded advantages and privileges in relation to appointment and employment over and above those who are not party members. This was the position with members of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
The NDR facilitates unfair affirmative action and elite black empowerment policies that favour a small and privileged group of persons with strong political ties to the ANC. The purpose is not merely to redress the wrongs of past, but to effect demographic representivity in a manner that is incompatible with the Constitution.
When the application of these policies are successfully challenged in the courts, judges who give decisions in favour of litigants are verbally assailed.
This endorses a pattern, reflected in a statement in January 1995 made by the national executive of the ANC marking the organisation’s 93rd anniversary, to the effect that some judges do not see themselves as “part of the masses” and consequently that there is a challenge to “transform the collective mind-set of the judiciary to bring it into consonance with the vision and aspiration of millions engaged in the struggle to liberate our country from white minority domination”.
Such an approach is in manifest conflict with the Constitution which protects the independence of the judiciary.
Cadre deployment and related policies of unfair affirmative action and elite black economic empowerment are also having a serious effect on the quality of service delivery in all spheres of government, particularly in relation to local government where widespread and in many cases violent protests have occurred.
This kind of deployment also facilitates incompetence, corruption and nepotism in relation to the awarding of government tenders with prejudicial consequences for service delivery.
South Africa faces a legion of problems, which can only be resolved by optimally using all the human resources that are found not only in the ranks of the governing party, but in all the diverse communities, regardless of political affiliation, that make up our nation.
If we exclude them from appointment and employment, by virtue of the policy of cadre deployment and unfair affirmative action, we immeasurably impoverish the process of rehabilitation of the entire nation and prejudice the kind of nation-building that is essential for the healing of our land and its people.
Institutionalising a form of discrimination in favour of ANC cadres is the very antithesis of the ethos and spirit of the Constitution.
What is so patently lacking is effective political leadership. Jacob Zuma sees himself essentially as the most important cadre of the ANC, whose chief function is to advance the cause of the NDR.
We require a president whose loyalty must be to the entire nation and its welfare, which must be promoted with enthusiasm. As a nation, we are in dire need of political leaders and civil servants of competence and integrity who desire to serve the nation and not their own selfish personal and financial interests.
Sixteen years after the inception of our cherished but fledgling democracy, our leaders appear to have lost the plot and abandoned the legacy and kind of moral and statesmanlike leadership of Nelson Mandela, who promoted a broad-based national unity involving all our people.
The NDR and it policy of cadre deployment is in manifest conflict with this legacy and must be exposed for what it actually is, namely de facto discrimination. In effect it is akin to apartheid in the manner in which it operates in relation to persons who are not card-carrying members of the ANC. — Professor George Devenish, Democratic Alliance councillor in the Ethekweni municipality
The wisdom of baboons
According to your story “Cape Town on alert for baboon-jackers” (online, May 4), peninsula baboons “will fight — using canine teeth that are longer than a lion’s — for raided food, to protect their young or if trapped” and 90% of human-chachma conflicts occur directly beneath warning signs the city council has erected.
World Cup visitors ought to be very afraid that baboons on South Africa’s southernmost tip have evolved to the point where they can not only read but can also give politicians the middle finger. — Brad Zembic, Vancouver, Canada