na'eem jeenah blog

Free Alan!

2007-06-20T03:18:00.000+02:00

A few seconds ago, a global 2 minutes of silence in support of Alan Johnston ended. Alan is the BBC correspondent who was abducted 100 days ago in Gaza by an unknown group called "Army of Islam".

The abduction is cowardly, disgusting and does the Palestinian cause no good.

Journalists around the world are under threat in various kinds of ways and they pay a high price to bring the news to the global public. This is not a good time for journalists as the freedom of the media continually is eroded.

Hamas, now in control of Gaza, has promised to ensure the release of Alan. It needs to be a release that is tirelessly pursued and secured as soon as possible.

Please sign the petition for the release of Alan Johnston on bbcnews.com.

I join journalists and others around the world, including the protestors in Gaza today, who are calling: FREE ALAN!!

Viva PSC-Wits Viva!

2007-05-20T02:11:00.000+02:00

I just read the latest edition of the South African Jewish Report. (No, it's not my Sunday newspaper of choice; I just wanted to see whether the tabloid covered the Al-Nakba conference (see previous blog posting).) I was thrilled to see the following letter:

SAUJS ‘unprepared’ for Israel debate
I AM writing to you as a deeply concerned
member of the Christian Zionist community
who was present at the embarrassing debate
held between the South African Union of
Jewish Students (SAUJS) and the Palestinian
Solidarity Committee (PSC) at Wits on May 4,
on the very emotive topic of “Is Israel an
Apartheid State?”
First of all, the Jewish students handled
themselves in a manner that seemed extremely
unprepared, disorganised and, indeed, unintelligent,
while the speakers from the
Palestinian Solidarity Committee (while I do
not agree with their sentiment) were very
knowledgeable and managed to have a massive
impact on the crowd that sat before them.
More than that, I was also very concerned to
see how relatively few Jewish students attended
the debate, as it made Israel appear weak
and outgunned. Did the Jewish students just
not care, or were they simply not campaigned
properly?
I sincerely hope that the Jewish student
leadership of the future will come better prepared,
better supported, more able to connect
with the audience they appear in front of and
simply more captivating when it comes to the
use of a term that is so often abused by the
detractors of Israel to delegitimise the state.
Johan Pieter Coetzee
Johannesburg

Well done, PSC-Wits. But before their heads become too swollen, let me remind the Wits PSC that they were only able to perform this well because they have truth on their side. I guess half the debate is won when your argument is actually true, verifiable and cold hard fact as opposed to spin and propaganda. So, the SAUJS students performed badly even though they were coached by members of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (as another article in the SAJR attests).

Ethical journalist, less than ethical editor

2007-05-14T04:46:00.000+02:00

I felt a tad uncomfortable with the whole discussion. I was a speaker at the Al-Nakba Conference in Cape Town, commemorating the 59^th anniversary of the Catastrophe visited on the Palestinian people in 1948.

I was to speak on the third and last day of the conference, on the “Founding myths of the State of Israel”. But, just after all the speakers had been introduced and just before we could start speaking, one of the organisers asked for the mike to raise an issue.

Apparently, a reporter of the South African Jewish Report was present in the audience and some conferees had complained to the organisers that they did not feel comfortable about this. The organiser who announced this asked the conference what their feeling was about what should be done.

Now before any accusations of “anti-Semitic” start flying around, let me just mention that there were a number of Jews that had been present at the conference from the first day. In fact, most also participated very strongly in the discussions and one Jewish person facilitated the crucial “Way Forward” session at the end (and did a damn good job of it too). So the complaint from some members of the audience had nothing to do with the fact that Moira Schneider was a Jew. Rather, they were concerned, as it emerged in the discussion, about what she would write and whether the organisers would have the right to reply if they felt that her report contained certain falsities.

I sat there somewhat bemused as I observed the debate. Being the Director of Operations of the Freedom of Expression Institute, I knew what my position was on the issue. But this was not my conference; I was just a speaker. So I watched and listened.

Fortunately, conference made the correct decision: it decided to allow Ms Schneider to stay in the conference and to do her report. This followed her assurance to the conference that she would not submit her report to the SAJR until she received a guarantee from the editor, Geoff Sifrin, that he would allow the conference organisers – the Friends of Al-Aqsa – the right to reply if they felt aggrieved by the report. Conferees accepted her “journalistic ethic”, believed she was sincere in her assurance, everyone seemed to relax and we were finally allowed to speak.

I began my presentation by informing the audience of my position in the FXI and telling them that if they had decided to ask the journalist to leave the conference, I would have issued a media statement the next morning condemning the conference for its stance. Fortunately, the right decision was made and I was spared the tediousness of writing yet another media release.

Everyone seemed happy, so this story should end here. I cannot allow it to, however. Accepting Ms Schneider’s assurance was the right thing to do. However, the conference was also implicitly accepting another assurance – that of the SAJR editor, who wasn’t even there to give it. If recent events are anything to go by, Mr Sifrin does not have the best reputation for giving people the right of reply.

At the end of last year, the SAJR ran an article which was a direct challenge to Minister Ronnie Kasrils, asking him to answer a number of questions. Sifrin had assured Kasrils that the paper would publish Kasrils response. However, when Kasrils submitted his reply, Sifrin refused to publish. Not only did Sifrin deny Kasrils the right of reply, he also went back on his word. Not a very trustworthy editor, in my opinion. I’m sure the Friends of Al-Aqsa are waiting to see what Schneider’s article will say. And then they will probably wait to see whether the editor will make good on his promise. People do change, sometimes.

For some background on the SAJR-Kasrils issue, see "On Jewish Report's censoring of Ronnie Kasrils"

Human Rights Day irony in Cape Town

2007-04-26T11:05:00.001+02:00

What an irony! On Human Rights Day, demostrators in Cape Town were denied their right to proceed with a march in the city, a right guaranteed by the South African Constitution and given legislative effect through the Regulation of Gatherings Act (RGA).

It is not an unusual occurrence for arrogant local authorities to "refuse to give permission" to marchers based on no reason in particular. Of course, according to the law, they do not have the right to "give permission"; "permission" is not even mentioned in the RGA.

But on the streets, it is not the constitution and the law that triumph, it is raw force. When I, representing the Freedom of Expression, spoke to the policeperson in charge and attempted to explain the constitution and the RGA to her, her response was, simply: "Let them just try me! I will arrest them all."

Just another day in South Africa...

Human Rights Day

2007-04-26T11:00:00.001+02:00

"My mother was a kitchen girl;
And my father was a garden boy;
That's why, I'm a socialist, I'm a socialist, I'm a socialist!"

The song blared from loudspeakers on a truck as protestors started a march through the streets of Johannesburg. More than a thousand protestors toyi-toyied through the city today to celebrate / commemmorate Human Rights Day. The march was organised by the Social Movements Indaba (SMI), which also organised actions in Durban and Cape Town.

It was an emotional and heartwarming demonstration of people's being able to take over the streets. It was also a sad reflection of the fact that, 13 years after democracy finally came to South Africa, millions of people still suffer under the yoke of poverty, lack basic services like water and electricity and fall as victims to Aids.

Speeches at the end of the march included those from various social movements dealing with privatisation, access to water, fighting evictions, landlessness, etc. There were also speakers from the Anti-War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Save Zimbabwe Campaign.

Motley bunch confronts the SABC

2007-04-26T10:53:00.001+02:00

Today, a strange mixture of people assembled, at the behest of the Freedom of Expression Institute, in front of the headquarters of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to protest the SABC's lack of movement towards becoming a true public broadcaster.

In an amazing show of covergence of forces on the issue, members of the Socialist Party of Azania, Pan Africanist Congress, Anti-Privatisation Forum, a hawkers' organisation, the Traditional Healers' Organisation, Muslim Youth Movement, Palestine Solidarity Committee, a Gauteng Council member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (who was also billed to speak but left early for another appointment) and various other groups took over the streets, ululated and toyi-toyied in their opposition to the SABC.

"We are going to kick Snuki out of here," demonstrators chanted, referring to the SABC's head of news, who has been implicated in the recent blacklisting scandal that confronted the Corporation.

For more information about the campaign to transform the SABC, visit the website of the Freedom of Expression Institute.

Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun

2007-03-19T00:57:00.000+02:00

Professor Tanya Reinhardt breathed her last in New York on Saturday, 17th March 2007. Numerous obituaries have already been written for her and, no doubt, numerous others will follow. This is just meant to be a brief remembrance.

An Israeli, Tanya was a strong, outspoken critic of successive Israeli governments and a strong defender of Palestinian rights. Despite the euphoria from many quarters at the time, she opposed the Oslo Accords, arguing that it would perpetuate and strengthen the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

One of her important contributions to international solidarity with the Palestinian struggle was her contribution to the debate on the academic boycott of Israeli academics and academic institutions. Favouring a boycott, she nevertheless differentiated between institutions and individual academics, offering a nuanced perspective on the boycott question. (See, for example, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6700.shtml)

Tanya Reinhardt is among those who, being part of a privileged oppressor class by accident of birth, is able to transcend that and fearlessly articulate themselves in favour of justice and in opposition to their privilege. Like a number of other Israeli Jews and a number of White South Africans under Apartheid, she chose the difficult path of spaking truth to power, despite the uncomfortable and, often, frightening personal consequences, isolation, etc.

Long live your spirit, Tanya!

And, in the Muslim tradition, when one hears of a death, I conclude with: "Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji'un - To God we belong and to Him is our return."

Gilder's comments can lead to Islamophobia

2007-03-16T11:14:00.000+02:00

Barry Gilder, the Coordinator of South Africa's National Intelligence Coordinating Committee (NICOC) recently made certain comments about Muslim "terrorists" in South Africa that have been widely reoprted in the media (see, for example, an article on iol). Gilder was making the comments in a briefing to senior government officials.

He said that a number of foreign Muslim "terrorists" were using South Africa to hide out in. The attractiveness of South Africa, according to Gilder, is mainly because of this country's well-developed banking and communications infrastructure.

The most concerning aspect of Gilder's comments is the focus on South African Muslims as potential terrorists and the implication - whether intended or not - that the notion of "global terrorism" is an Islamic phenomenon. If, as Mr Gilder says, there have been foreign "terrorists" (of whatever hue or religion) that have been using South Africa either as a transit point, to "lie low" or "to settle" and if, as he adds, South African intelligence agents have had such people under surveillance for years, why is it that they have not been arrested or otherwise acted against?

South Africa is a constitutinal democracy and the rule of law must be applied. If there are known criminals present in our society, they must be dealt with according to the law. Why then, if the allegations about the presence of terrorists on South African soil is correct, would such people be only monitored by our intelligence services but not dealt with through the legal system?

Further, despite Gilder's comments that South African Muslims are by-and-large "not susceptible" to being recruited by terrorists, it is very discomforting the manner in which South
African Muslims are being referred to - by Gilder and sections of the media - as if we are objects that need simply to be analysed for whether we will participate in terrorism. Such injudicious references assist in stigmatising the Muslim community, sowing the seeds of Islamophobia and in pushing the Muslim community into a defensive corner. None of these is
healthy for us as a South African society.

Comments such as these serve slowly to create a fearful climate within South Africa where citizens begin to become suspicious of each other and begin to speculate about who is or is not a terrorist. Such suspicion has destroyed the fabric of many communities in Western countries; we do not want to follow suit. Finally, the statement about "terror training camps" in South Africa is highly problematic. Again, if such camps exist, they should be closed down and those involved with them should be subjected to the criminal justice system. But throwing out such accusations as media soundbites can add to the climate of suspicion and the concern for terrorism among South African citizens, a concern which has no basis in reality.

Quietly now...

2007-03-13T03:56:00.000+02:00

Zimbabwe has been on slow boil for years. But, this past weekend, the lid just blew off the pot!

Numerous reports tell of the assaults and torture of opposition members - including the head of the Movement for Democratic Change, Morgan Tsvangirai, the raiding of trade union offices, the breaking up of a prayer meeting, the killing of Gift Tandare...

A hastily-called demonstration outside the Zimbabwean consulate in Johannesburg today drew more than 100 protestors - mostly Zimbabwean. If people are not angry at what is happening under the brutal dictatorship of Robert Mugabe, at least there should be some concern. And I am pretty sure that many South Africans are very concerned.

I'm not sure, however, how much concern there is in South Africa's Department of Foreign Affairs. Spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa insists: "We have constantly maintained that the solutions to the problems of Zimbabwe will be resolved by the people of Zimbabwe."

Excuse me!! If that was the attitude that the world had taken in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, we would have still been languishing under apartheid - while the rest of Africa and the world waited for "the problems of South Africa" to be "resolved by the people of South Africa."

I have to agree with Cosatu's Patrick Craven: this response by the DFA is "shamefully weak" and "disgraceful"! Add "pathetic" and "disgusting" to the list.

Now, more than ever, Zimbabweans need South African support so that they can "resolve the problems of Zimbabwe". We, as a people, and our government, must come out strongly in support of the democratic rights of the Zimbabwean people and against the tyranny of Mugabe. With the fault lines showing within his own party, such support from their southern neighbour might be all that is necessary to tip the scale and force Mugabe out - once and for all! Away with quiet diplomacy! Action now!

South African Muslim organisations on Bush’s war of terror

2007-03-08T01:38:00.000+02:00

At the end of last year, the Bush administration attempted to include the names of two South Africans on the UN list of terror suspects that is maintained by the “1267 Committee”. The two – cousins Junaid and Farhad Dockrat – were spared by the intervention of the South African government which objected to the inclusion and demanded evidence before accepting such charges against its citizens.

The US claimed that it had “three trolley loads of evidence” but that revealing these trolley loads would compromise its intelligence-gathering techniques. With no evidence forthcoming, the 1267 Committee – which can only make decisions on consensus – placed the names on its list of “holds”.

The US, nevertheless, went ahead and included the Dockrats’ names on its own terror list. The result is that any assets of the two in the US would, by now, be frozen, they would not be able to travel to the US (why anyone would want to, these days, is beyond me) and their assets in South African banks linked to the Swift network could also be in jeopardy.

In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, only one South African organization issued a condemnation of the US actions. After much discussion and negotiation, a group of 15 organisations last week held a media conference where they issued the following statement (the organisations’ names are at the bottom of the statement).

Statement by Muslims of South Africa
27th February 2007
JISS Centre, Mayfair, Johannesburg

We, South African organisations representing the Muslims of this country, declare that:

• We believe that no single country has the unilateral right to define terrorism or to coerce other countries to support their viewpoint;

• We condemn the Bush administration for listing some South Africans as “terrorists” and for threatening to list more South Africans without due process and without any consideration for the need to provide substantial and credible evidence;

• We support the stance of the South African government in its insistence on securing credible evidence for such listings and for subscribing to the principle of administrative justice before acting against any of its citizens;

• We further reject with contempt the decision by the Bush administration and some of its allies for imposing travel restrictions on South African religious and community leaders, academics, activists and their families;

• We condemn the Bush administration for detaining prisoners of war indefinitely and without fair trial in violation of the Geneva Conventions, such as those in Guantanamo Bay, and call for their immediate and unconditional release;

• We are strongly opposed to unlawful acts of rendition of so-called suspected “terrorists”;

• We proclaim that, as believing Muslims, we are opposed to all acts of injustice and acts of indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians perpetrated either by individuals, organisations or states;

• We advocate that any effort aimed at curbing unconstitutional or criminal activities by individuals or organisations should not undermine our hard-won fundamental human rights and infringe on our civil liberties;

• We reserve the right to express solidarity with all peoples living under the yoke of colonialism, national oppression and foreign occupation and to assist such peoples both materially and financially in their struggles for national liberation and freedom.

• We urge all countries, including our own, to respect the rule of law when dealing with the rights of their citizens and others.

Muslims, as South African patriots, have contributed actively to the struggle for national liberation and against apartheid. We commit ourselves to continue with this tradition and to work with our fellow compatriots in order to:
+ struggle for the socio-economic development of our nation;
+ fight poverty, crime and HIV/AIDS ;
+ intensify the campaign for the moral regeneration of all our people; and
+ to promote respect, tolerance and peace among all South Africans.

This statement is supported by:
• Association of Muslim Schools
• Call of Islam
• Eastern Cape Islamic Congress
• Eastern Cape Ulama Council
• Islamic Council of South Africa
• Islamic Forum – KZN
• Islamic Medical Association
• Jamiatul Ulama / Council of Muslim Theologians (formerly Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal)
• Murabitun South Africa
• Muslim Judicial Council
• Muslim Vision 2020
• Muslim Youth Movement
• Sunni Jamiyat-e-ulama
• Sunni Ulama Council
• Union of Muslim Students’ Associations

South African Muslims are moving targets

2007-01-31T10:38:00.000+02:00

So South Africa’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, expressed concern about the fact that there might be more South Africans added to the US list of “terror suspects”. Recent developments, he said, could have “fundamental negative effects on individuals who are on the list”. Damn right!

He was responding to a statement by an unnamed US official who said on Monday that the Dockrats might not be the only South Africans to be placed on the list.

Well, of course the South African government should be concerned! No country should stand back while the very persons and dignity of its citizens are violated by a foreign government which doesn’t care to publicly provide any evidence. And to say, as US officials have said about the Dockrats, that there are “thousands of pages of evidence” is not enough! We want to see the evidence; we want to know that it exists; we want to be able to verify that it is true. Otherwise we should oppose any attempt to have our citizens attacked and demonised in this way.

Pahad also, a few days ago, expressed concern that a number of South African Muslims were being harassed, interrogated and even deported when they travel to various destinations around the world. The most famous recent example of this was the case of Professor Adam Habib of the state agency, the Human Sciences Research Council, when he attempted to gain entry to the US – for which he had a valid visa. Not only was he deported from JFK International Airport in New York City, his visa was subsequently revoked. Along with those of his wife and his two young children.

But Habib is not the only one. Over the past few years, a number of South Africans have been deported or otherwise harassed at airports in the US, Europe, United Arab Emirates and some African countries. Farhad Dockrat – who is now on the US list of “terror suspects” – was kidnapped and held incommunicado for about four days when he crossed the Gambian border in November 2005. To budget time for lengthy airport interrogations has become normal for South African Muslims travelling abroad. Students on holiday, clerics, academics, politicians… no one is spared.

Then there are those who are just not granted visas. I have been waiting for a US visa from 2003. In the two-year period starting June 2003, I repeatedly applied for a US visa. Twice it was to speak at United Nations conferences; once to speak at an academic conference; once as keynote speaker at another academic conference; once to take up a prestigious 3-month fellowship at Northwestern University. I was also due to speak at a church in Washington DC and teach classes at Duke University. Officials at the US embassy could not tell me why I was not being given a visa. I was simply told that my “status” on the Homeland Security Computer had been set to “Pending”. I now simply refuse invitations from the US – like one I received last week – on the basis that there is no chance I will get a visa.

South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs does the right thing?

2007-01-29T10:02:00.000+02:00

I’m generally not a great fan of many of the policies of the South African government – particularly its foreign policy.

The latest gaffe – South Africa’s first vote in the UN Security Council – reinforces my scepticism. The case of Burma – like that of Palestine – is one of those foreign policy issues that should require no great thought or debate. It’s a clear case of military dictatorship, massive repression and unashamed denial of human rights. It should be one of the easier issues to cast the “correct” vote on. But South Africa got it wrong. They voted against the resolution condemning the Myanmar military dictatorship. (I must say that I really don’t care that it was the Americans who introduced the resolution; that’s irrelevant to the issue.) Explanations and excuses by Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad don’t cut it. I can understand and agree with the South African perspective on the need to restructure the UN, to reduce the power of the undemocratic Security Council, etc. And I can understand the argument about matters such as this resolution needing to be dealt with by some or other UN committee rather than by the Security Council. But South Africa could forcefully have made these points after it voted to condemn the Myanmar dictatorship.

But I stray.

Despite my general cynicism about South African foreign policy, I think the Department of Foreign Affairs actually got it right on the issue of the Dockrat cousins whose names have been placed on the United States list of terror suspects. When the US attempted to have those names added to the UN list of Taliban and Al-Qaeda suspects, the South African government objected, saying they required convincing evidence that the cousins were involved with Al-Qaeda, had sent funding to the organisation and had recruited for it as alleged. Until such evidence was provided, the DFA said, the names should not be added to the list.

Since the UN 1267 Committee which makes decisions on who to add to the list works on the basis of consensus and since South Africa is a member of the committee by virtue of its membership of the UNSC, the names have gone onto the “hold” list.

Bush’s war of terror against the world has, frankly, gone out of control. And the “terrorist” label is becoming a convenient way for various power elites across the world – including some of the worst dictatorships – to demonise its opponents. Is it not a joke when states that are themselves involved in terrorism – like Israel, India, Pakistan and the US – or are guilty of gross denial of basic human rights – like Saudi Arabia – suddenly are seen to be at the forefront of fighting terrorism? It needs to be stopped!

I’m not naïve enough to believe that South Africa – or any other state – objecting to the names of its citizens being put on the list will stop this war of terror, but it does make a statement that not everyone will simply go along with the American neo-cons’ vision of the world. (Of course, that point is made much more strongly by braver governments and leaders than ours – like Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.)

Whether there are suspicions about the Dockrats or not, no one has the right to so thoroughly ruin the life of another person based on suspicion, war agendas or bullying. The South African government has done the right thing!

But the DFA went further. If, it said, convincing evidence is produced of the involvement of the Dockrats as alleged, then the South African government will be obliged to follow through on its international law responsibilities and take the necessary action against the cousins. Of course, one shouldn’t expect anything different. If they are guilty, they should face the music. (Now if only South Africa would follow through on its other international law responsibilities in respect of Israel…)

Bad scholarship and devious agendas

2007-01-28T11:42:00.000+02:00

Recently, someone on a mailing list that I belong to posted an article by a researcher named Anneli Botha, supposedly a “terrorism expert” at the Institute for Security Studies based in Pretoria. The article is called “Pagad: A Case Study of Radical Islam in South Africa” and was published in September 2005.

Botha contends that there is a real threat of “Islamic terrorism” to South Africa. There are a number of indigenous South African Muslim networks and organisations, she claims, which have the inclination and potential to engage in terrorist activities in South Africa either on their own or in conjunction with foreign groups. And to prove her point she presents a case study of the (now-dead) organisation, People against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad).

The article is a pathetic attempt at an academic piece. But its policy implications are worse. With scant research, she argues that a threat exists to South Africa and implies that it this threat needs to be dealt with.

I don’t want to do a detailed deconstruction of the article. But I need to say that I was shocked at the paucity of references in the article. It was particularly shocking because she makes extremely serious allegations but states them as fact. An example is her contention, stated as fact, that the Cape Town-based organisation, Qibla, is manipulated by Iran’s intelligence services and that it is used by these Iranian agencies as a cover for espionage purposes. It is unbelievable that people can so glibly and easily spout such nonsense without any evidence whatsoever and then can be regarded as serious academics. It’s an insult to academics everywhere. Botha provides only three references in her almost-1,600 word article. One is my article on Pagad from 1996, another is a booklet by Qibla leader Achmat Cassiem from 1992 and the third is an article from 1997. And we are then expected to believe that she is writing about the state of Pagad today?

Why, someone on the mailing list asked, should we believe that Pagad is a threat to South Africa when it, in fact, “died an ‘unnatural death’”.

It’s the usual story: Pagad has now suddenly become a threat because some “security” or “terrorism” experts say it is. Sometimes these “experts” write such nonsense because of their particular agendas: they actually might want to create a climate of fear. Sometimes they do it because it keeps them in business (I’m sure the ISS that Botha works for needs such articles to help them in their fundraising efforts and, from what I hear, her terrorism unit brings in lots of money to the ISS). Sometimes such a person would get asked to write about “Islamic fundamentalism” in South Africa (or Africa) and s/he feels the need to make something up without having to do detailed and proper research (a.k.a. academic laziness). So, s/he will dredge up old articles and present the stuff (spiced with some “predictions” and “Moslem gevaar” for good measure) as if it’s current. Sometimes it helps such a person to seem to be on the “right side” – which has all kinds of benefits: conferences, funding, access to “important people”, etc.

There are lots of reasons why people write crap like this. And through the manufacturing of consent between these “terrorism experts”, there is a developing conspiracy being painted for the public and for policy-makers. Most appalling are the Muslims within this group of “terrorism experts” who write such nonsense. Their fanciful pieces are then also regarded by outsiders as having some degree of “authenticity” and they can pass off virtually any lies as serious analysis.

Anneli Botha is not the only such person. There are a number of others (and, as I said, this list includes some Muslims) who have suddenly made "Islamic extremism", "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic fundamentalism", “Islamic militancy”, etc their specialities. And, often, these specialities are based on a mixture of ignorance and some devious non-academic agenda.

One such person is someone who has co-authored a number of articles with Anneli Botha is an academic from the University of Pretoria, Hussein Solomon.

They co-wrote an article called “Terrorism in Africa”. In reality, however, it is not about terrorism in Africa but about what the authors call "Islamic extremism" in Africa. It has more references than Botha’s Pagad article but it is clearly a political agenda packaged as academic writing. Some choice quotes will show what the article is like.

The very first lines of the article are:

"Terrorism, in particular Islamic extremism, presents a real threat to regional and international security. On a global scale, the biggest threat presented by Islamic militancy does not necessarily lie in a temporary hold on political and economic power in a particular country, but rather in the formation of a transnational terror network that has disastrous consequences as witnessed in the Kenya and Tanzania US Embassy bombings followed by the 11 September incidents."

Other quotes:

"Despite the moderate spread of the religious principles of Islam focussed on peace, tolerance and good moral values, Muslim influence has been insidious in it's spread and often accomplished by the ‘behind-the scenes’ supply of finance and arms to various tribes and factions that are already in conflict. Islamic ‘advisors’ from Iran and Lebanon have been providing weapons and explosives to various African groups since at least 1990, and have ingratiated themselves in the inner circles of a number of African regimes."

"Islam as a threat to the internal and external security of countries in Africa is binomial:

i) The Islamic revival has led to the establishment of more radical Muslim groups, which according to authorities, are aimed at subverting their rule.

ii) The second phenomenon to emerge in Africa over the last year has been clashes between rival Islamic groups that, with the formation of transnational terror networks, become a secondary threat to national security."

"South Africa's internal security (as part of a transnational phenomenon) is threatened by both Islamic and right wing motivated extremism."

"Although some of these [Muslim] NGO's [doing relief and welfare work] have legitimate objectives, those in control of it use it as a vanguard for destabilizing activities. These objectives include the destabilization of regimes or the determination to change the composition of regimes."

Admittedly, there is some reference in the article to "terror" in Africa that is not Muslim: the Zimbabwean government and the South African right-wing are the only two mentioned. (Incidentally, Zimbabwe is the only country mentioned as perpetrating “state terrorism”.)

The authors mention the Lord's Resistance Army thrice in the article. The LRA is probably the most brutal terrorist organisation on the African continent, with its signature being the mutilation of its mostly-civilian victims (cutting off of noses, limbs, etc) and child kidnappings. Its purpose, essentially, is to set up a Christian state in Uganda. However, there is no mention in the article of the Christian orientation of the LRA. It is referred to as a "cult" group and the only mention of it as a threat to the continent’s security is in the context of funding it allegedly receives from Sudan. So even the phenomenon of the LRA is presented as an "Islamic extremist" problem, not a Christian one. Indeed, if any reader had not heard of the LRA, s/he would be forgiven for thinking that it was an “Islamic fundamentalist” organisation.

Retrogressive understanding of citizenship

2007-01-23T02:18:00.000+02:00

“It’s a very retrogressive understanding of citizenship,” said newspaper owner Trevor Ncube, of the attempt by the Zimbabwean government to strip him of his citizenship of that country. Ncube owns two newspapers in Zim – the Zimbabwean Independent and the Standard – and the Mail & Guardian in South Africa.

He addressed a media conference today, ahead of tomorrow’s Harare High Court hearing where his lawyers will be fighting to save his citizenship rights by contesting the governments decision to strip him of his citizenship. He, unfortunately, will not be present at the hearing. As soon as he enters Zimbabwe, his passport will be impounded. He will then have just one one-way trip left on his passport – to any country willing to give him a visa. For someone with business interests outside of Zimbabwe and a family based in Johannesburg, that would be disastrous; he will be under “country arrest” in the land of his birth.

The reasons for Mugabe’s government wanting to strip Ncube of his citizenship can be debated at length: he is regarded as an enemy of the state for giving the opposition (and anyone else) a platform to express themselves; he owns the only two independent newspapers still surviving in Zim; etc. These reasons will likely be debated in court tomorrow and have been and will continue to be in the international media. But what this issue also highlights is the manner in which African governments s readily wield the citizenship stick either to bring their citizens into line or to marginalise them. Remember how then Zambian president Frederick Chiluba attempted to make former Zambian president, Kenneth Kaunda, into a Malawian in order to prevent him from running in the elections? Kaunda had to go to court to prove that he, in fact, was Zambian. What a ridiculous situation!

It is strange, as Ncube pointed out, that African leaders regularly and frequently “decry colonialism” while adhering so strongly to “colonial boundaries of the colonists”. African leaders passionately defend the boundaries of the nation states – it is one way of protecting their power. Not only do they defend these borders verbally and legally, they also go to war for them and are willing to kill or be killed for them.

No matter how patriotic one might be, as Ncube says he is, once one seeks to threaten those whose power relies on the existence of the nation state, one is enough of a threat somehow to be silenced. In December 2005, Ncube’s passport was seized. He went to court and won that one. Now it’s his citizenship.

What does a person do without citizenship of any country? Most Palestinians, of course, know about this only too well, being officially “stateless”. Being a permanent refugee, not being allowed to return to one’s homeland? This is the possibility that confronts Trevor Ncube. He has never held the citizenship of any country besides Zimbabwe. He was born in Zimbabwe and does not desire to be a citizen of any other country. But because his father was born in Zambia and moved to what was then Southern Rhodesia – before Trevor’s birth, this is being used as an excuse to strip him of his rights. In a number of countries – notably many Arab countries – the foreign birth of one’s parents means that one can never be a citizen of that country. That is why in countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, huge proportions of their populations consist of non-citizens. Even people who have lived in these countries all their lives will be regarded as foreigners and can never become citizens!

The issue of citizenship is an important one. What does being a citizen of a country mean? What are the rights and responsibilities associated with being a citizen? Should a born citizen of a country have more rights than a naturalised citizen? Should there be impediments to people changing their citizenships if they so desire? And, as in Ncube’s case, can someone be presumed to have a citizenship of a country even if that person doesn’t, never has and has no desire to do so? It is these questions that need careful answers which should be used to force these African despots (and their Arab counterparts) to understand the meaning of human rights.

But not understanding what “citizenship” means is also a problem faced by many Muslims living in majority non-Muslim countries. Many of them who immigrated to these countries still do not understand the concept of citizenship and the responsibilities entailed by being a citizen, by having a compact with a society and a state. The responsibilities to live within the law, to contribute to the development of the society, to be part of the debates within that society, to participate in the political decision-making of that country, etc.

At the same time, as we South Africans know too well, citizenship also means struggling to build a just society. And this could imply struggling – even fighting – against an unjust state, as was the case in Apartheid South Africa.

Pheko leaves a bad taste in the mouth

2007-01-22T01:51:00.000+02:00

Mohau Pheko (see the full article below) commits a serious flaw in her eagerness to accuse the South African government and, more generally, South African society, of giving Muslims ‘preferential treatment’. That flaw results in an argument that is unsustainable and based on a patent lack of knowledge.

The flaw is in Pheko’s first sentence: ‘South Africa is considered a secular state that is officially neutral in matters of religion.’ Firstly, ‘officially neutral in matters of religion’ is but one understanding of what a secular state is. The hinge is how one understands the word ‘neutral’. In the South African context, our secular state is one that positively engages with religion, while not favouring any particular religion over another. Can we truly say that the South African state is one ‘that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs’ when the President has a Religious Leaders’ Forum that he consults with or when numerous state functions open with multi-faith prayers?

Pheko also contradicts her fundamental thesis by later claiming that ‘Christianity is the de facto official religion of this country’. That statement certainly does not engender confidence among adherents of all other religions – in particular, adherents of religions that that were deliberately marginalised under Apartheid (a Calvinist Christian ideology), especially followers of African traditional religions. So which is it, Mohau? Is South Africa a secular state ‘neutral in matters of religion’ or is it a ‘de facto Christian country’?

But Pheko’s problem is not just with her imagined preferential treatment of Islam by the state; she fantasises that the entire South African society has this attitude towards Muslims. Hence her objection to supermarkets having ‘halaal’ biscuits among other biscuits that might not be ‘halaal’. Such labelling is a private sector concern, not a state one. Or is Pheko is suggesting that the secular state should outlaw this practice?

Pheko’s accusation is that this ‘preferential treatment’ discriminates against citizens that are not Muslim. How? Because they are forced to look at biscuit boxes on which are printed tiny symbols that say halaal (or kosher, for her argument applies equally to kosher foods). Packages marked with halaal or kosher symbols do not imply any kind of preferential treatment (by the state or anyone else). They simply satisfy the peculiar needs of a section of the consumer public. If a Muslim wants to be sure that pork products, for example, are not contained in the chocolate bar she wants to purchase, she will be confident of this if she sees the halaal label. It really means nothing to those who don’t believe in the halaal idea and is in no way an imposition on them. To suggest that halaal and kosher foods should be ghettoised in labelled sections of a supermarket is ridiculous.

‘Should,’ Pheko asks, ‘some religions have more rights than others to impose their practices on the unsuspecting public?’ Absolutely not. That would not only be inconsistent with the notion of our secular state; it is, quite simply, unjust. Besides, that’s where we come from as a society; it is not where we would like to see ourselves again.

If Christians feel that they want a cross on foods to indicate suitability, then there certainly should be no barrier to them being able to do so. Neither Muslims nor anyone else should object. And if atheists want a symbol on foods to indicate that no religious ritual was performed in its production, they have the right to ask for that too. Why should anyone be offended by any such requests?

Her second issue about the state’s preferential treatment towards Muslims (the first had nothing to with the state, as I have shown) is the issue of Radio Pulpit’s losing its licence. This example is even weaker than the previous one. Clearly Pheko doesn’t follow Icasa developments closely. She probably has not heard of the Johannesburg Muslim radio station which wasn’t given a four-year licence after having been on air for seven years. Or the Cape Town Muslim station which was found guilty by Icasa of hate speech. Or the Lenasia Muslim station that was forced to allow women on air (and correctly so). Where’s the preferential treatment, Ms Pheko? Oh, and by the way, the government does not renew broadcasting licences, Icasa does; it’s an independent structure from government.

Her ignorance extends to the issue of land. A large number of mosques are built on privately-acquired land. Secondly, Muslims in African townships face an uphill battle having religious sites allocated for mosques because, quite simply, too many councillors are as blinkered and ignorant as Pheko is.

It is patent that Ms Pheko has done no research for her article and has been influenced, rather, by her box of shortbread biscuits.

Religion must be a matter of individual taste

by Mohau Pheko

Sunday Times, 14 January 2007

Its role is neither to support nor to oppose any religious beliefs or practices. It can not give unfair preferential treatment to any faith.

Theoretically, a secular state has a dual role: it protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It is described as a state that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs, controlling the government or exercising political power. Laws protect each individual, including those from religious minorities, from discrimination on the basis of religion.

I had no idea that a simple biscuit would force me to question whose religious rights and freedoms are more important in a secular state such as South Africa.

In a grocery store there are designated areas for various foods. This enables the consumer

to make choices about which brands to buy and so forth. Diabetic or low- to no-sugar-

content items are clearly marked, there may be a kosher section to fulfil the needs of the

Jewish community and one will probably find a section that contains sauces, noodles, rice

and spiced items from Asia. Increasingly, some restaurants distinguish themselves as halaal by putting up a visible sign for their Muslim diners.

A well-known store that used green shopping bags over the festive season fulfilled my requirement of a perfect shortbread biscuit. I happened to turn the packet over, only to discover a halaal symbol. Unless I missed it, there was no notice in the biscuit section of the store that informed me that I was buying halaal biscuits.

Why should citizens of diverse faiths be subjected to halaal food without their knowledge? I have no problem with those who eat halaal food. However, those who choose not to should be given a choice with clearly designated sections for such food items in all grocery stores. I was informed by one of the store managers that a number of food items in stores are halaal.

Most people do not take time to read labels and stores do not go out of their way to clearly mark food sections accordingly.

Should some religions have more rights than others to impose their practices on the unsuspecting public? I thought religious freedom was about the right to choose. Should Christians insist on having a cross on food items to signify that it has been appropriately sanctified for Christian consumption?

Perhaps the debate the nation should have is whether labelling food along religious preference is dogma rather than religion.

In this Islamophobic era, some may argue that I have no religious tolerance.

Some will argue that the challenge in a country like South Africa, where the Christian faith has dominated, is gradually to take away positive discrimination in that direction with the view to equal treatment of other religions and beliefs. In so doing, proponents of this idea believe, a new generation of Muslims and Christians may become the vanguard of the next decade, offering their co-religiosity as a new vision of faith.

A second issue that made me wonder whether freedom of speech is a universal human right was over the renewal of Radio Pulpit's broadcasting licence. Apparently after many years of broadcasting to the Christian community, it has been struggling to get its licence renewed by the government.

The separation of church and state is a key component of South African democracy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we live in secular state. Freedom of religion means that the government tolerates the fact that citizens practice the faith of their choice and, while there is no official religion here, Christianity is the de facto official religion of this country. Coupled with this, a number of churches are having difficulty securing state land on which to build churches. Yet there is a proliferation of mosques and radio stations for the Muslim community.

What does religious freedom mean in a secular state? Should minority religions have the same rights as majority religions? How does the state avoid promoting one religion or faith group over another?

What criteria can be used in practice to promote a religiously based life over a secular life? Should religion retreat from the public sphere or can it find a place in the public sphere in a purely secular state?

It is said that the South African state should be neutral between the religious and secular parts of society. When the discussion turns to policy making, however, it seems that this neutrality disappears.

I would argue that no policy should be supported without adequate secular justification since these are the only types of arguments that are acceptable to all. What has happened to neutrality in South Africa?

South Africa is a politically alert society, aware of the role that religious rights play in public life. It is clear that if the state provides more concessions to one religion, members of other faiths will feel alienated since such values would be imposed upon them. They may be prohibited from practising the rituals of their religion. In this respect, I am not in favour of the values of any one religion being imposed on members of different religions that are present in our country.

Iraqi Kurds on US attack of Iranian embassy

2007-01-16T01:41:00.000+02:00

Amazing how an event as serious under international law as the invasion and raiding of a foreign embassy goes by with as little fuss as this has. But the "Presidency of the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)" in Iraq issued a statement condemning the attack. Their statement says:

The Presidency and the Kurdistan Regional Government express their dismay and condemnation of the American action against the official consulate of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Erbil, capital of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The consulate was opened by agreement between the governments of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and enjoys immunity and protection under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Unlike other parts of Iraq, the Kurdistan Region enjoys safety, security, stability and the rule of law. The US action does not conform to the policy of attempting to spread security and stability throughout all of Iraq. No military action should be taken in the Kurdistan Region without consultations with security authorities here.
The people of the Kurdistan Region protest against and reject this action which violates our internal sovereignty. We do not accept that disputes with our neighbouring countries should be brought onto our soil. We call for the immediate release of those arrested. - http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=13877

The Kurds in Iraq are, we are told, supposed to be the allies of the US occupiers. No nation enjoys living under occupation, even if the occupiers might be able to pretend to be liberators, bringers of democracy, civilisation, etc.

Nauseating US propaganda on SABC

2007-01-09T01:13:00.000+02:00

I listened to a number of SAfm news broadcasts today and am quite disgusted at the reporting on Somalia. From the terminology (“Islamic extremists”, “terrorists”, etc) to the analysis, the story is completely an adoption of American government propaganda. The Union of Islamic Courts people are not “terrorists”; indeed, they have been the only ones to have brought some peace and stability to Somalia in the past decade and a half. (See the article below. It is just one article (that landed on my desk today) of a number of such articles by respected journalists, scholars and analysts that show that the role the UIC played is different from what the US and Ethiopian governments would like us to believe.) The UIC is also not Al-Qaida. The US would love to convince the world that it is; the SABC is serving as a conduit for that propaganda.

Also, the uncritical way in which the SABC is referring to “the Somali government” is equally problematic. It is a “government” that hasn’t been elected but imposed; it relies on warlords and the US to give it legitimacy; it has been able to do nothing to bring peace and governance to Somalia; in fact, for much of its life, it hasn't even been IN Somalia! For the rest, it has been confined to the town of Baidoa, leaving the rest of the country to the warlords to ravage.

Now, let me make it clear: I have little sympathy for the ideology of the UIC. As a Muslim I don’t agree with some of what they claim is Islam or Islamic; I don’t agree with a number of their rulings. However, I do expect knowledgeable and unbiased reporting from the SABC. This kind of uncritical repetition of US propaganda as if it were fact is seriously problematic. Basically, it points to lazy journalism, something I wouldn't like to associate with the SABC.

Destabilizing the Horn: American-Backed Warlords Invade Somalia

By Salim Lone, TomPaine.com
Posted on January 8, 2007, Printed on January 8, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/46424/

The stability that emerged in southern Somalia after 16 years of utter lawlessness is gone, the defeat of the ruling Islamic Courts Union now ushering in looting, martial law and the prospect of another major anti-Western insurgency. Clan warlords, who terrorized Somalia until they were driven out by the Islamists, and who were put back in power by the U.S.-backed and -trained Ethiopian army, have begun carving up the country once again.

With these developments, the Bush administration, undeterred by the horrors and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, has opened another battlefront in this volatile quarter of the Muslim world. As with Iraq, it casts this illegal war as a way to curtail terrorism, but its real goal appears to be to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic area of the world through a client regime. The results could destabilize the whole region.

The Horn of Africa, at whose core Somalia lies, is newly oil-rich. It is also just miles across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through that waterway. The United States has a huge military base in neighboring Djibouti that is being enlarged substantially and will become the headquarters of a new U.S. military command being created specifically for Africa. As evidence of the area's importance, Gen. John Abizaid, the military commander of the region, visited Ethiopia recently to discuss Somalia, while Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Horn countries a few months ago in search of oil and trade agreements.

The current series of events began with the rise of the Islamic Courts more than a year ago. The Islamists avoided large-scale violence in defeating the warlords, who had held sway in Somalia ever since they drove out U.N. peacekeepers by killing eighteen American soldiers in 1993, by rallying people to their side through establishing law and order. Washington was wary, fearing their possible support for terrorists. While they have denied any such intentions, some Islamists do have terrorist ties, but these have been vastly overstated in the West.

Washington, however, chose to view the situation only through the prism of its "war on terror." The Bush administration supported the warlords -- in violation of a U.N. arms embargo it helped impose on Somalia many years ago -- indirectly funneling them arms and suitcases filled with dollars.

Many of these warlords were part of the Western-supported transitional "government" that had been organized in Kenya in 2004. But the "government" was so devoid of internal support that even after two years it was unable to move beyond the small western town of Baidoa, where it had settled. In the end, it was forced to turn to Somalia's archenemy Ethiopia for assistance in holding on even to Baidoa. Again in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, Ethiopia sent 15,000 troops to Somalia. Their arrival eroded whatever domestic credibility the government might have had.

The United States, whose troops have been sighted by Kenyan journalists in the region bordering Somalia, next turned to the U.N. Security Council. In another craven act resembling its post-facto legalization of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Council bowed to U.S. pressure and authorized a regional peacekeeping force to enter Somalia to protect the government and "restore peace and stability." This despite the fact that the U.N. has no right under its charter to intervene on behalf of one of the parties struggling for political supremacy, and that peace and stability had already been restored by the Islamists.

The war came soon after the U.N. resolution, its outcome a foregone conclusion thanks to the highly trained and war-seasoned Ethiopian army. The African Union called for the Ethiopians to end the invasion, but the U.N. Security Council made no such call. Ban Ki-moon, the incoming secretary-general, is being urged to treat the enormously complex situation in Darfur as his political challenge, but Somalia, while less complex, is more immediate. He has an opportunity to establish his credentials as an unbiased upholder of the U.N. Charter by seeking Ethiopia's withdrawal.

The Ethiopian military presence in Somalia is inflammatory and will destabilize this region and threaten Kenya, a U.S. ally and the only island of stability in this corner of Africa. Ethiopia is at even greater risk, as a dictatorship with little popular support and beset by two large internal revolts by Ogadenis and Oromos. It is also mired in a military stalemate with Eritrea, which has denied it secure access to seaports. It now seeks such access in Somalia.

The best antidote to terrorism in Somalia is stability. Instead of engaging with the Islamists to secure peace, the United States has plunged a poor country into greater misery in its misguided determination to dominate the world.

Salim Lone, a Kenyan whose last assignment in his U.N. career was as spokesman for the U.N. mission in Iraq immediately after the 2003 war, is a columnist for The Daily Nation in Nairobi.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/46424/

Just another day of thuggery

2006-12-30T07:31:00.000+02:00

How does one respond to today’s news about the execution of that brutal monster, Saddam Hussein? Many of the questions I have been asked – mainly by media – about the issue have focussed on the day on which the execution took place – an irrelevancy in my opinion. “How do you respond to the fact that the execution was on the day of Eid,” they wanted to know.

The journalists ask that question because that seems to be a big preoccupation of a number of Muslims – including certain Muslim governments. Frankly, I don’t really care that he was executed on the Day of Sacrifice. The obsession around the day simply serves to divert attention from much more important issues surrounding the execution. And these are what I want briefly to focus on.

But first, I must say that I am surprised at Muslims who shed crocodile tears for this erstwhile dictator. Whatever punishment Saddam could get in this world could not be close to what he really deserves for his brutality and ferocity. I remember when we were protesting the 1991 war against Iraq by the US, a coalition of organisations in Durban published a pamphlet wherein we referred to George Bush (senior) as the “Big thug” and to Saddam Hussein as the “Little thug”. A few Muslims were very unhappy. How can we call the man a thug? After all, he is a Muslim. And besides, when a Muslim is under attack we should rally to his defence, not help in attacking him.

Sorry, but that just doesn’t seem like the Islamic thing to me. Bush was the global thug and Saddam was a neighbourhood thug. And, like a typical neighbourhood thug, he was also sometimes generous (remember the money he sent to families in Palestine), sometimes warm, sometimes approachable, sometimes protective. Like a mafia boss. But, basically, a thug. (In fact, I think “thug” was too mild a word for Saddam (just as it was too mild a word for Bush).)

Now we have the local thug being brought to his knees (and worse) by the global thug, that American son-of-a-Bush. But there are serious issues around this execution that deserve our careful reflection.

· The whole process has been a travesty of justice. The court case was a travesty of justice, a kangaroo court. In what decent, democratic society do you have a judge trying someone who he has been personally harmed by? Oh wait, Iraq is not a democratic society; it’s a country under occupation. Why, even Iraqi police can’t do anything without the power they receive from the occupation forces.

· Following on the mockery that was called a court case was the mockery that was called an execution. Where do you find state executioners that have personal axes to grind with the prisoner and, in grinding them, taunts the prisoner as he is led up to the noose? (Let us forget for a moment the question of whether capital punishment is a decent thing for a decent society; it’s a debate for another day.) So Saddam was executed, in the true style of a gangland revenge attack.

· Isn’t it interesting how quickly Saddam was brought to the execution chamber? Why? Would justice not have better been served if he were protected for a while longer? Justice would definitely have better been served if, instead of a sham trial, there had been some kind of a truth investigation which sought to reveal all the monster’s crimes and atrocities. That would have helped to bring closure to thousands of families who had been victims of Saddam’s thuggery. Families whose family members had disappeared, been tortured, been maimed, been killed. What would have served the justice more: a cover-up execution or the truth? As a family member of someone that was assassinated in a political killing, I certainly believe it’s the latter.

· Of course, from the American perspective, there are good reasons for aborting Saddam’s life as quickly as possible. In the current case that Saddam was being tried for (the trial started in August 2006), Saddam and six others were facing genocide charges for their attacks against Kurds in Northern Iraq. The most famous of these was the March 1988 Halabja massacre where Saddam used chemical weapons against the entire village of Halabja. The pictures of the aftermath remain in my mind. This was also the period when the Iraqi war against Iran was in progress. And, it was the time when Iraq was a US ally. Indeed, Saddam got his chemical weapons’ technology from the US and Europe. Remember the three meetings Saddam had with Donald Rumsfeld around this time? Or the CIA operative who said of Saddam: “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” The US had been supporting Saddam from the 1960s when he overthrew the communist government and Iraqis witnessed communist bodies hanging from lightpoles. Saddam had threatened, soon after he was captured, that he would reveal all regarding the role of the US in propping up his dictatorship: its support of his war imposed on Iran, its acquiescence with his invasion of Kuwait, etc. Removing him from the equation protects that information and protects the US, the UK and the Gulf states which also used him as a proxy to fight the Iranians.

· Back to the issue of the date… as much as I think the date is irrelevant, the fact is that there is great symbolism attached to the day. It is the day of sacrifice; the day when hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world celebrate the acceptance by Abraham, his wife Hajar and his son Ismail of God’s command on him to sacrifice his son. Did no one from the American and Iraqi power structures consider that executing Saddam on that day was making him into a sacrifice, a modern-day Ismail? Was no one concerned that the thug was going to become a martyr? I am pretty sure that in a few centuries (maybe even decades) Saddam will be remembered by the Muslim masses for the fact that he was executed on Eid, for his approaching his death with dignity, not for his atrocities and crimes against humanity. Saddam has been very good at using Islam for his political ends – even adding “Allahu Akbar” to the flag when Iraq was at war so as to get support of the Muslim world and going to the gallows with a copy of the Qur’an in his hand. Fools create heroes because of symbols.

· And, of course, there’s the sectarian aspect. Did no one realise that he was being executed on the day when Sunnis were celebrating Eid – while Shi’as were to celebrate on the next day? Or that his executioners seemed all to be Shi’as (if the taunting and sloganeering is anything to go by)? Or that this could lead to sectarian violence in a very volatile part of the world? Or, was that the plan?

· Finally, with Saddam gone (and another two henchmen due to go soon), the Ba’ath Party which he headed can finally reinvent itself – sans the Butcher of Baghdad. It doesn’t have to accept responsibility for the crimes of the past, blaming all of that, instead, on Saddam. Dead men, after all, tell no tales. Another thuggish party given a new lease on life.

I say: good riddance to Saddam; insha Allah, the world will be a slightly better place. But, if he was kept alive, it could have been a much better place.

‘This enemy of my enemy stuff doesn’t work’

2006-12-15T10:24:00.001+02:00

Just over half a century ago, the world saw one of the most despicable events – lasting more than half a decade – in contemporary history being perpetrated from within the heart of Europe and dragging much of the world into a war. That “event” was more than a decade of Nazi rule in Germany, the Second World War (or the Second European Tribal War, as Malcolm X preferred to call it) caused by that rule and, most especially, the deliberate, planned and systematic genocide of a number of groups of people: Jews, Roma (commonly called gypsies and persecuted all over Europe for centuries), homosexuals, etc.

The scale of the genocide and the systematic nature of it is what makes it one of the greatest tragedies of our time. It is a tragedy that must be remembered, commemorated and learnt from. The message of “Never again” that is a favourite refrain of Jews – especially survivors of the attempted genocide and their families – must become a driving force in international politics. Never again to genocide, never again to holocaust, never again to ethnic cleansing, never again to the driving of people out of their homes and the creation of refugee populations, never again to the attempt to wipe out entire groups of people on the basis of their ethnicity, “race” (a fallacious concept in itself but one which is used to delineate people nevertheless), class, sexual orientation, religion…

Of course, the “Never again” call and commitment has not seized all people around the world. Hence we have seen or continue to see the genocide in Rwanda or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (see http://electronicintifada.net or http://psc.za.org), among others. History is also witness, of course, to holocausts and genocides before the mid-20^th Century: those against native Americans (or First Nations as many prefer to call themselves) and Australian aboriginals being just two examples. Some of these were worse in scale than that perpetrated by Nazi Germany (80 million First Nations people killed, for example).

However, whether there were genocides before or after 1945 does not detract from the enormous tragedy of the Nazi holocaust. Nor should there be any detraction by the fact of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (even if the holocaust in Germany was used as an excuse for this ethnic cleansing). Nor should there be any detraction by the fact that the Nazi holocaust has become an “industry” that is abused by a number of people for various agendas (see Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering).

The fact is that a holocaust took place in Europe in the middle of the 20^th Century. The fact is that there was an intention and attempt by the Nazis to destroy the entire Jewish nation. These facts are sufficient for us all, today and forever, to stand on the side of those opposing holocaust, genocide and all forms of injustice. Jews should be the foremost in these struggles – as they have been in many other struggles.

That I am a religious Muslim who takes the Qur’an extremely seriously, forces me to want to have nothing to do with those who – for whatever reason or agenda – seek to deny these facts. And, let me add, it really doesn’t matter to me whether it was 5,999,999 or 6,000,001 Jews that were killed by Hitler and his murderous followers. It was a genocide against Jews (yes, and others too) and that is enough for me to be repulsed by it.

That is why I find the conference that just ended in Iran to be so odious to my sensibilities. It is not just stupid, silly, untactical, not good for the cause of the Palestinian people and insensitive – as many have said. All these are true. But, more importantly, it is a denial of a historical fact and a moral truth. And, being so, it is a psychological rejection of the “Never again” that should be inspiring us. This conference should not have happened. The people that were brought together (and I don’t deny that there might be some good people, even some people who are not holocaust denialists, but that is besides the point) should never have been brought together in this manner. What moral, spiritual, legal or political purpose can be served by bringing together people who insist that the number of Jews murdered was not 6 million and people who are arch-racists?

A friend wrote to me a few days ago about an interview on CNN by Wolf Blitzer (former lobbyist for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)) with David Duke, former head of the Ku Klux Klan who spoke at the Iran conference. She said:

[David Duke] is not just a “former” klansman, he’s still an avowed racist and Americans, especially African Americans, know this. You don’t just wake and decide one morning that you’re not a racist anymore, that takes years of hard work even for soft racists like your average Joe who has beers with his black neighbor and once dated a Latina in high school… Those agreeing with [Duke] are the same people who call us islamofascists. This enemy of my enemy stuff doesn’t work. This conference was counterproductive, reactionary and damaging.

My friend is an African-American Muslim who knows very well what emotions the name of David Duke evokes among African-Americans.

Struggles for justice are important; they are what make us human. Passion against injustice is crucial in order to continue to maintain that humanity. But these struggles themselves must be based on truth, on justice and on moral high ground.

“Stand out firmly for justice,” the Qur’an says, “even as against yourselves…”

Sorry, no moderates here

2006-12-13T00:56:00.000+02:00

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) is on some kind of a crusade against the Freedom of Expression Institute, where I work. They have, thus far, sent three letters to the FXI with various complaints, and have been rewarded by three letters in response, from the FXI's chairperson Mabalane Mfundisi. (See the series of six letters on the FXI's website.) I will write a blog posting at some point about these letters. However, I want to focus in the current posting on one issue raised in the first SAJBD letter.

SAJBD's Associate Director David Saks tries (he doesn't do it very well, though) to make the case that the FXI is engaged in a campaign against Israel and against “Jewish communal institutions” which have been the target of an FXI “special attack”. “By contrast,” Saks accuses, “the FXI's silence on cases where Muslim organisations and activists have suppressed freedom of expression has been truly deafening.” (The accusations are a load of hogwash, but that is not the point of this post.) In attempting to illustrate the latter point, Saks says:

Mention should also be made of another FXI statement released in 2002, when the organisation decided to condemn the reputed death threats that Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, Ronnie Kasrils had received because of his anti-Zionist views… However, one finds no comparable statements of condemnation of the far more pervasive intimidation of Muslim moderates that has taken place in South Africa, something that has since led to the emigration of such eminent clerics and academics as Ebrahim Moosa, Faried Esack and Dullah Omar.

(As an aside, we must note that the SAJBD has, as yet, not condemned the death threats against Kasrils.) The point of this post is the last part of the above quote, that the FXI has not condemned the “far more pervasive intimidation of Muslim moderates”. (Of course, SAJBD builds what it thinks is a significant argument based on fallacious research: Dullah Omar, former Minister of Transport and, before that, Minister of Justice in South Africa, did not emigrate; he died of cancer in South Africa.)

Professor Farid Esack, when he read the SAJBD letter, seemed to be less than pleased about the use of his name in this manner. He sent the following email to Saks:

Dear David Sacks

It has recently come to my attention that you alleged that I am a “moderate Muslim” and stated that I have emigrated from South Africa.

a. I view the term moderate Muslim with disdain. It is a term used to denote Muslims who acquiesce to injustice and occupation and who view the world through the lenses of Pax Americana. There is no particular virtue in moderation towards anti-semitism, sexism, racism, occupations and all forms of apartheid (including Israeli apartheid) or the machinations of the empire, led today by the United States. Basically, it is a loaded term used for Muslims who have nothing to say to injustice and are desperate to fit in with the games of the powerful.

b. I am very much a South African, enjoying my teaching here in the United States, but I am a migrant labourer. I live in South Africa, and incidentally, take a rather dim view of those who emigrate.

I am not unaware of an insidious streak of anti-Jewishness among Muslims; it is something that I find despicable and have consistently spoken about and condemned. My commitment to oppose all forms of oppression, though, lead me very much into the camp of the Kasrils and the FXIs of this world. I would thus appreciate it if you kindly refrain from invoking my name in your battles against them. They are my comrades from the days when it was not nearly as sexy as it is now to claim to be against racism and discrimination.

I must second Esack's comments about the term “moderate Muslim”. Having been (and still being) a fellow ideological traveller with Esack and Moosa, I, like them, hate the term and refuse to have it linked to me. To me, like to many others, it is disdainful and insulting. Whenever I hear the term, I recall the repeated assertion in the 1980s by the Apartheid bittereinder, former president PW Botha, that the South African Muslim community comprised of law-abiding and “moderate” people and that it was just a handful of “radicals” that were the troublemakers. The troublemakers, of course, were us Muslims who were involved in the anti-apartheid struggle, who argued that the Qur'an demanded from us a jihad against the apartheid state and who vigorously engaged in that jihad in various ways.

To PW, in the 1980s, “moderate Muslims” were those who wanted to live peacefully with apartheid. To George Bush and his ilk and the SAJBD today, “moderate Muslims” are those who want to live peacefully with imperialism, Zionist racism and apartheid in Israel. I refused to be a “moderate Muslim” in the 1980s, I refuse to be one today. I will not be sold on this understanding of “moderate Muslim” which seeks to strip away any notion of struggling for justice. There can be no co-existence with injustice and oppression; I will not be moderated into believing so.

Give them niqabs and let them cover their shame!

2006-12-07T09:48:00.000+02:00

The disgusting Norman Mashabane saga should be embarrassing for a number of politicians. Indeed, some of them, including the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, should be so ashamed as to hide their faces for a whole year – or, at the very least, until the “16 days of activism against violence against women and children” ends.

Having followed the case from when allegations of sexual harassment were made against then Ambassador Mashabane (South African ambassador to Indonesia at the time), my own disgust reached new depths today when I heard that he has resigned his new position “to focus on the problems he is currently experiencing” according to Limpopo provincial premier, Sello Maloto.

Perhaps I should start at the beginning – or the beginning as some of us know it; there might be a beginning before this one. To quote from a South African Press Association report:

The incidents took place when he was South Africa’s ambassador to Indonesia.

Several complaints of sexual harassment was (sic) laid against Mashabane.

He was found guilty at an initial hearing in 2001 on a battery of charges that included stroking the buttocks of an employee, molesting a staff member in a lift and making suggestive motions with his tongue to another.

The panel recommended he be fired, but he appealed the judgement and was allowed to continue in his post pending the outcome.

In June 2003 another charge was laid against him, and he was again found guilty.

The findings were reversed by Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, acting as the appeal authority, who suggested that Mashabane was being dragged through the mud for exposing motor vehicle fraud at the embassy.

Lara Swart, a Foreign Affairs employee who made the allegations in Indonesia, ensured that the matter went to the High Court which, this week, overturned Dlamini Zuma’s ruling, thus confirming Mashabane’s guilty verdict and his dismissal.

Last month, November 2006, Mashabane was given a job as political advisor to the Limpopo Premier Sello Maloto. Maloto, of course, knew there was a court case pending, but – amazingly – chose to appoint the sex pest anyway. And Maloto’s response after the High Court’s ruling? Well, nothing really. Mashabane resigned and he accepted the resignation – even appearing together with Mashabane in a media conference. “He has asked to be relieved of his duties to focus on the problems he is currently experiencing,” said Mogale Nchabeleng, the premier’s spokesman.

That’s it??!? A man confirmed by the High Court to be guilty of repeated sexual harassment simply has his resignation accepted in a face-saving measure? Where is the moral outrage of our politicians – during these “16 days of activism” – for such crimes against women? Why didn’t Maloto kick Mashabane out on his backside with a warning never to show his filthy paws in that province ever again? Why even allow the thug to resign and act as if he is the aggrieved party? Heck, if anyone deserves to be treated with respect it is Lara Swart and the others he attacked, not their harasser and assaulter.

And the Minister? Well, she is pleased that she didn’t oppose Swart’s right to take the matter to court, said her spokesperson on the radio this morning. And when asked whether the Minister will apologise, the spokesperson responded: “Madam, you are pushing this too far.” Huh?

Woman gets molested.

Woman makes complaint against molester.

Molester found guilty.

Minister overturns verdict.

Court finds Minister was wrong and molester is guilty.

Shouldn’t Minister apologise to woman?

As long as South African politicians and officials continue protecting each other in this kind of vile manner – violating, in the process, any national sense of decency – we have no hope of overcoming the problems of crime and immorality in our society. No moral regeneration movement will help; no number of speeches from President Thabo Mbeki will make a difference. Mbeki should have this Mashabane clown taken out to the front of the Union Buildings in Pretoria and publicly whipped (a tongue-lashing, of course) by Ms Swart and his other accusers. Then Mbeki should sentence Dlamini Zuma to wear a niqab until the next election!

Glad to be rid of them but pity the Palestinians

2006-11-23T11:51:00.000+02:00

I’ve been reading the comments to the article in the Jerusalem Post (referred to in my last post) about the South African Jewish Report’s refusal to publish Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils’ rebuttal of an article against him.

And I’m astonished! I know I shouldn’t be. But I am.

I’m astonished at the racism in those comments. They are nauseating and disgusting. Of course, being a South African and knowing what racism is, I suppose I shouldn’t feel this way. Being a Palestine solidarity activist and knowing about the racism perpetrated against the Palestinians by the Israelis, I shouldn’t feel like this. But I still do.

As I read the comments – particularly ones from ex-South Africans who now live in Israel, I thought to myself, “Thank God! We are rid of them!” And then I thought about how we are dumping our rough, unpolished and ugly exports on the poor Palestinian people – as if they didn’t have enough problems already. So I should apologise to all Palestinians for having to put up with these racists that gave us hell and now are giving them hell.

A few examples of racism and paranoia will illustrate my point (and for anyone that still doesn’t believe that Zionism is a form of racism, maybe this is an eye-opener?):

“South Africa is gradually slipping down the same slope as Mugabe's Zimbabwe. The writing is on the wall as the land grabbing process is beginning to take effect. The real South African, the Afrikaaner, laid the foundation for a prosperous country. However, the reverse is now occurring as the descendants of the pioneers withdraw to their laagers in order to survive.” - joel joseph – England

“The Irony is that SA is full of racial discrimination based on nothing but skin colour and this is enshrined in law. An educated black man from the USA could find a top job , the white man struggles. The current regime in SA, Kastril's regime has more in common with the Apartheid regime than Kastrils will admit. A genocide is taking place in SA where citizens with AIDS are left to die on a diet of Garlic & Onions. More people die every day in this genocide than in 50 years of Apartheid.” - RH – Israel

“Both the SABC and the complaints commission are run by Jihadists.” - Erwin W. - proudly anti -islam - South Africa

“Can you honestly say that any Black ruled African state is better off than when Whites ruled there. Yes, Colonialism was evil - it only brought education, training, trade and promise of a better future to the poor Black African. Yes, Apartheid was rotten. Remember, Simon, I fought it. But not for Mandela to bring Stalinazis like Kasrils and Jew-hate into their governments; nor an innocent pet killer like Mugabe. Better Ian Smith than the Black racist scum who now rule Zimbabwe.” – Amnon

“I used to oppose Apartheid, and was very vocal about it. Now, after Mandela and Tutu broke bread with the Nazis, oops, Communists and Arafat; after Mugabe's murderous excesses in Zimbabwe, I am truly sorry white rule ended. Even the Blacks were better off than having Mandela and this Jewish Kapo in charge. If the Boers were racists, then what do you call a Kapo and Judenrat servile servant of Stalin like Kasrils?” – Amnon

“Kasrils a communist like Joe Slovo (burined in a non-Jewish cemetry) chose the black cause and abandoned the Jews… I left South Africa 10 years ago.” - leah amdur – Israel

“the writing is on the wall for Jews in S. Africa. Get out while you can. You will never win against those who hate you-especially those in power.” - Choni Davidowitz

“Kasrils, Israel is and always will be a JEWISH state, for Jews first and anyone else second, period. Israel is not a nation of nations like USA. The palestinians are not our responsibility. You should be excommunicated.” - SCOTT KABAKOFF – USA

“Ronnie maybe you should rather work to stop the first real genocide of the 21st Century in Darfur....oops I cant see you taking on your Islamic fundamenatlist friends in the SA govt. You are just a coward and a disgrace to your fellow brethren.” – anton – Ex SA
"kasrils is a stick drek always was & still is he has the gutsper to call himself a yid he will be buried in soweto with the shochadica that he is" - dov ben slomo - south africa

Not much intelligence

2006-11-23T10:18:00.000+02:00

What started as a fairly-typical Zionist attempt to silence criticism of Israel in South Africa has turned into an international scene. Perhaps the editor of the South African Jewish Report, Geoff Sifrin, should have realised that publishing an article that called on a third party to answer specific questions through the newspaper would result in the third party actually wanting to take up the challenge; perhaps he should have realised that issuing such challenges to a government minister will not end at the issuance of the challenge; perhaps he should have realised that agreeing (promising) to allow the aggrieved minister the space to respond and then not publishing the response will make some people unhappy.

Perhaps. But no one said that Zionists are supposed to be smart.

They certainly don’t seem smart when they, after such stupidities, decide to also take on the respected Freedom of Expression Institute and accuse it of all kinds of nasty things.

Anthony Posner, a correspondent of the Jewish Report, wrote an article attacking Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils, in an article entitled “Some Pertinent Questions to Kasrils”. He ended the article with the challenge: “So Mr Kasrils... now is your chance to engage in ‘civilized discussion’. But perhaps this ‘kitchen’ is too hot for you? I am sure that the readers of the SAJR will be interested to see whether you have the ability to respond in a rational manner to all the points I have raised in this letter.”

When Kasrils expressed his intention to respond, Sifrin promised he would publish the response. Except that when the response landed on his table, he spiked it and, instead, published an editorial where he accused Kasrils of hate speech and said that his readers would be offended by it.

When the Mail & Guardian contacted the Freedom of Expression for a comment, the organisation’s Executive Director, Jane Duncan, responded with essentially two arguments; 1) that “no newspaper worth its salt” would refuse the right to reply in such a case, and 2) that Kasrils’ comments did not constitute “hate speech” by the standards of the South African constitution.

That comment signalled an attack on Duncan by Zionists in South Africa. Posner himself sent numerous emails to Duncan, everything from silly anti- Semitic cartoons to calling her an “Islamofeminist” (she isn’t Muslim). On a South African Zionist blog well-known by Israeli apologists, she and the FXI were also severely attacked. What really irked the Zionists was the FXI’s comment that the SAJR “comes out of this incident looking like a mere extension of Zionism's repressive project” and its wondering, if a government minister was treated in this way, then “what chance [do] ordinary members of the Jewish community have to be heard if they voice dissent against the Israeli state’s policies of forced colonial occupation of Palestinian land.”

For such comments, a Zionist blog headed a post “Jihad by proxy”. Presumably, Kasrils – the atheist and communist from a Jewish background – is the jihadist and Duncan is his “proxy”.

Posner and the bloggers read a number of Duncan’s articles (hopefully they might learn a thing or two about human rights, freedom of expression and gender) and quoted from it to show that she was anti-Israeli, anti-American and all other kinds of anti-. Her organisation was also “leftist” and probably “Islamist”.

The brouhaha prompted the Jerusalem Post to do an article on the issue. Duncan gave the Post a lengthy statement explaining her initial comments. It’s worth reproducing her statement here.

The FXI is independent of any government or political party. As an NGO committed to freedom of expression, we are devoted to fighting for and defending freedom of expression. Our attempts at doing so are done without fear or favour and we often find ourselves in the position of defending an individual or organisation on one day and severely criticising the same on the next. We are driven by our principled commitment to freedom of expression and by our particular mandate.

We also recognise that freedom of expression is heavily mediated by power and politics. So in interpreting this mandate, we have taken a strategic decision to adopt a pro-poor bias, prioritising marginalised communities who are resisting censorship, repression, colonial occupation, racism and sexism. This is because it is in these communities or sections of our populations where the bulk of freedom of expression problems generally lie. It is for this reason that the bulk of our work in South Africa is with poor peoples' movements, as they are least able to exercise this right. Emerging out of the anti-apartheid movement, we also read freedom of expression with our context and history in mind.

Struggling for freedom of expression in South African in the past meant taking a principled position against apartheid, because it was apartheid that gave rise to the censorship of the media, the banning of gatherings, etc. Similarly, we cannot take a pro-freedom of expression position without taking a position against any ideology or power structure that is used to justify the denial of rights (including the right to freedom of expression) of people. Zionism is one such ideology in that it denies various rights of Palestinians and Arabs in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Needless to say, the definition of Zionism is contested, but one constant thread is the assertion that Jews constitute a nation, and therefore have a right to national self-determination on what was Palestinian land. The Israeli nation is therefore not constituted by all those who live in that particular geographic area, or who have historic claim to the land in spite of the fact that they may have been rendered stateless. Israel, not being a state of its citizens but a Jewish state, is thus an exclusive, not an inclusive, form of nationalism, and therein lies the problem. In Israel, this has translated into policies that have denied many people the right to coexist and enjoy equal rights on the basis that they fall outside the definition of who should constitute the nation.

While I am alive to the complexity of the debate about equating Zionism with apartheid, both share the common characteristic of having constructed a system of inclusion and exclusion, rights and privileges, based on ethnic exclusivity, and institutionalised this system through the state. Both have involved the dispossession of land and the repression of indigenous peoples. The policies can be compared credibly, and to the extent that they can, they should also be condemned as inherently censorious. South Africans see the comparisons quite starkly.

To support freedom of expression is to support a democratic solution to the national question in Israel/ Palestine; it therefore means opposing the exclusive nationalist solutions that Zionism has represented. We see no contradiction between calling ourselves independent, and espousing this position. Perhaps others do, but that is their problem, not ours.

Predictably, she is now “anti-Semitic” and all kinds of other nasty things, according to Zionist readers of the Post.

South Africans should be glad that NGOs like the FXI exist to protect the rights of the country’s citizens. And, actually, many are. Those from poor, marginalised communities who get bashed by the rich and powerful and have their rights to freedom of expression (like the right to protest) compromised, undermined and denied and whose rights are championed by the FXI. Or academics who face the brunt of university administrations attempting to silence them and deny them their academic freedom and free expression. Or community newspapers who get sued by wealthy businesspeople or politicians because they vigorously seek the truth and for whom the FXI is their only support. Or poor communities who are part of the FXI’s telecommunications rights campaign and who look to the FXI’s campaigns to fight for a reduction of telecommunications costs, greater access, etc. These are the kinds of South Africans the FXI serves.

"Trust me" is all it takes to convert "religious leaders" into wimps

2006-11-21T12:42:00.000+02:00

Yesterday, members of South Africa's "National Religious Leaders' Forum" asked President Thabo Mbeki to establish a commission of enquiry into the relationship between Glenn Agliotti (arrested last week for the high-profile murder of mining magnate Brett Kebble) and National Police commissioner Jackie Selebi. A very laudable call from the "religious leaders".

Mbeki's response, according to Ashwin Trikamjee, the head of the NRLF, was: "Trust me, be assured I will take action if anything has been done wrong." Yawn, yawn. Most South Africans now cease to be surprised when ANC politicians go out of their way to protect their own. What caused me to stand up and take notice when I read the report about this, however, was the response of the "religious leaders".

Seems that is all it takes to make our "religious leaders" happy.

Trikamjee was convinced! "If the president says 'Trust me,' am I going to question him?" he asked.

Well, you should, Mr Trikamjee! And so should all those other "religious leaders"! What is it that makes the statement of the president of South Africa beyond question? Is he some kind of prophet that religious people have to explicitly and unquestionably accept whatever he says without even the thought to challenge it? What wimps?!

Have these "religious leaders" read the articles in the media about Agliotti's alleged crimes? Do they know that he has the media reputation of being known as the "Landlord" in the drug and smuggling world, that two wives dumped him for bigamy; a divorcée after two wives dumped him for bigamy; and a police informer? Does that matter to them at all? Does it matter that our Police Commissioner - whose responsbility it is to reduce crime and put criminals behind bars - has admitted to having a strnog friendship with this alleged criminal? I guess not. It's sufficient that the president said, "Trust me". That confession by Commissioner Jackie Selebi wasn't enough for Mbeki who, according to Trikamjee, found no reason to suspend Selebi with the information he had at his disposal. Disgusting!