Historically speaking

IWeek
Wednesday, 13 April 2011 10:55Written by Bart Henderson


The issues of a media tribunal, the nationalisation of the mines, and other burning issues may serve to elicit reams of diatribe and a stream of divisive vitriol and impassioned debate, but that is all it will ever be.
The recent defeat in the Constitutional Court suffered by the state vs Hugh Glenister, on the issue of the disbanding of the Scorpions, rams a few truths home. For all the bleating and hate speech – and the debates around these issues are, if not hateful in content, hateful in posture – there is no way any of these “dreams” will ever see the light of day.

That is unless the issues are left to a reactive process of challenges “after the fact”. In the case of Koala v Minister of Safety and Security 1994 (4) SA 218, the court held that the Bill of Rights element of the Constitution calls for generous and purposive interpretation.

Section 9, as read with Section 8 (4) of the Constitution, provides that everyone, including juristic persons such as companies, are equal before the law, which provides to such persons all rights and freedoms, as well as the protection of the law under the Constitution. Companies are protected by the same Constitutional rights as individuals and one such right is the right not to be dispossessed of one’s property.

Calling for the nationalisation of the mines and actually passing a law that achieves this belies a “minefield” of laws that I at least am satisfied are sufficiently cogent, coherent and rational to ensure that the whole issue is merely, and will remain so, political posturing and rabble rousing.

Just so, the issue of the media, the media tribunal and any attempt to curtail and punish free speech outside the current legislative framework will be met with a constitutional challenge and failure.
It is amusing, however, to observe the hypocrisy inherent in the calls for control over the media by the very groups who use the media for the purpose of abuse.

A case in point is Fikile Mbalula, who wrote in October 2009, in regard to criticism from Kader Asmal: “It is a sad day when those relegated to the rubbish bin of history want to make a comeback through populist tendencies that they decried yesteryear, and rumblings of a raving lunatic.”

This posture by Mbalula, published by Ray Hartley, might be argued does not constitute hate speech. However, that it drips hate is patent.

The question the statement begs is: does one accept then that our history belongs in a “rubbish bin”? Or does this suggest that parts of our history belong in the “rubbish bin”? Who else from the liberation struggle that dares question the current crop of political leadership will be relegated to the “rubbish bin” of history? A few weeks ago, in his column, Asmal wrote in judgement of the current ANC leadership when referring to the spat between Jimmy Manyi and Trevor Manuel.

“Planning Minister Trevor Manuel has done a public service by drawing attention to the latest outpourings from a senior public servant, who qualifies for strike number III, but like the other two, he seems to have got away with it. Jimmy Manyi is head of the government communications office and attends Cabinet meetings.”
Manuel himself drew attention to the fact that this latest foray into “employment relations” by Manyi was against the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Yet, there hasn’t been a peep from the President or Cabinet ministers.

It matters not a jot how you wish to interpret these very public statements, they are in simple English; Mbalula calling Asmal and his contribution to the emancipation of the majority of our nation “historical trash” and Asmal’s current contribution to popular discourse “rumblings of a raving lunatic”.
Asmal also refers to “some” in the current ANC leadership as having “slithered from under stones” and Manuel likens others as being in the league of Adolf Hitler.

What I find fascinating in all of this is the fact that the media is being used so passionately, in print and electronic format, by the very people wishing to curtail its freedom, to abuse one another.
I also find it fascinating that the ruling party is itself admitting publicly that it is a party sprinkled with historical trash, rumbling raving lunatics, Hitler-types, and snakes and other nasties crawling out from under or still living under rocks.

It seems that the purpose of any media tribunal is to protect the ruling party from itself.

What is emerging, for this individual at least, firstly is that the ANC that came out of exile, the one I admired, is a far cry from what it is today... according to the ANC.

Secondly, information technology is the new superpower and cannot be curtailed, irrespective of attempts to muzzle free speech. I couldn’t have written this column in the context I have, if the information I quote wasn’t readily available in all its glory on the ‘net.

Finally, all this bollocks about nationalising this or that can only happen if the Constitution allows it and the Constitution can only allow this if its changed.

Somehow, I can’t help believing this will happen without a two-thirds majority and, as far as this is concerned, I also simply don’t believe there are enough reasonable thinking rambling, raving lunatics left to prevent it both from within and outside the ANC.