February 6 to 12 2009

It’s none of your business!

Madam,

The best riposte to the silly nonsense in your editorial (January 30) is a routine I once heard an Australian comedian perform. It went something like this:
”In April 1961 President John F Kennedy sent a force of secretly trained Cuban mercenaries to mount an illegal invasion of Cuba. Some of the exiles were killed and many Cubans lost their lives. The US Congress discussed the matter, but nothing came of it.

”In September 1964 President Johnson staged a provocation in the Gulf of Tonkin that resulted in a North Vietnamese gunboat being sunk. As a result of this illegal act Congress passed a resolution that enabled Johnson to escalate the war in Vietnam, leading to the deaths of thousands of young Americans and millions of Vietnamese. Congress discussed the matter, but nothing came of it.

”In July 1971 President Nixon used a group of Cuban exiles to break into the headquarters of the Democratic Party at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. Congress discussed the matter, but nothing came of it.

”In 1995 President Clinton was given a blowjob in the White House by Monica Lewinsky. The US Congress wanted to impeach him.

”Phew! Thank God they sent us the convicts and not the Puritans!”

It is only in repressive, puritanical societies that the private lives of politicians make headlines. In France, Germany, Italy and a host of other places in the world the extra-marital affair of a president would not even register on the radar. And, as the Australian comedian’s lines indicate, his private life has nothing to do with either morality or the moral standing of an individual. Catholic monks, like Pope Pius XII, an anti-Semitic bigot who signed a concordat with Mussolini, were not morally correct because they never enjoyed sex. The prurient interest taken by our editors and their journalists in Kgalema Motlanthe’s sexual life tells me more about their voyeurism than of Motlanthe’s lack of moral sense.

It is one thing to fault President Motlanthe on the policies he is pursuing. But for journalistic voyeurs to turn to his private life is scandalous. Of what interest is it to anyone, other than peeping-tom gossips who take pleasure in discussing the private lives of others?

As a society we would do well to ask ourselves just how far we want to take this. Are the private lives of all South Africans now fair game for the media? Or is it, as your former editor insists, only the lives of politicians? What of the private lives of newspaper editors who presume to sit in judgement over the ”morals” of others? What of the private lives of big businessmen and women, whose decisions affect the lives of millions of their fellow citizens? What of the private lives of military officers, whose orders can send thousands to their deaths?

Once we descend this slippery slope there is no knowing where it might lead. And let us remember that what is sauce for the Motlanthe goose is sauce for the everyone-else gander! To the extent that we permit an intrusive media to pry into the lives of our political leaders, to that extent are we opening up our own lives to such voyeuristic examination!

Moralistic, puritanical terminology, like ”sugar-daddy” adds nothing to the argument. Neither the editor of the Mail & Guardian nor anyone else knows the quality of the relationship between Motlanthe and his alleged 24-year-old lady friend. It is the height of presumption to characterise it one way or the other. It plumbs the depths of prejudice that you even dare to write about a matter you know absolutely nothing about. The barely concealed suggestion that this younger woman is involved with Motlanthe for personal gain (”to be filleted for a cellphone”) sails so close to libel I am surprised your legal department did not advise you against it. And whose rule book says an older adult man may not have a sexual relationship with a younger adult woman or vice versa?

Incidentally, gender equality entails precisely the right of women, young, middle-aged and old, newspaper editors and ordinary citizens alike, to make their own choices in life, to choose which man/men they wish to be involved with, when and why. What is involved here is the right of choice, which neither secular nor clerical authorities, let alone moralising editors, should have the power to restrain. Our Constitution explicitly disallows this.

Nobody questions the reality that historically (and in the present) men have been in a position to make such choices more freely than women. But it is precisely one of the tenets of patriarchy that women’s sexuality and sexual behaviour must be controlled: by clerical authority, secular authority or, as the editor of the M&G would have it, by voyeuristic public opinion instigated by the media. You mention a French female minister, but can’t even see that you are as guilty of the double standard you are apparently condemning.

The Aids epidemic is a public health problem, essentially no different from other sexually transmitted illnesses, except that there is no cure for it. To invoke the threat of Aids as a platform to make ex cathedra pronouncements that prescribe behaviour for others is conceited in the extreme. What additional prescriptive powers would our editors like to have? Perhaps how we should dress? Or perhaps what we should eat and drink? Or is it where we should live? Maybe where we should work? After all, these too have public health implications.

Kgalema Motlanthe’s private life is his own business and, as long as it does not prejudice his performance of his official duties, should be of no concern to the public. It is shameful that the South African media seem to have nothing better to do. — Z Pallo Jordan, chair of the ANC communications subcommittee

Your type breeds anti-Semitism

The blind hypocrisy of Immanuel Suttner’s letter, ”Your coverage is dripping in hatred” (January 23), makes me want to weep. I am one of a small but growing number of Jews who recognises the madness of Israel’s brute force against the rockets fired out of desperation by Hamas or whoever.

While believing such provocation is wrong and only plays into Israel’s hands, the latter’s grotesquely disproportionate response is what makes my blood boil. To try to deny and defend the war crimes carried out by Israel’s onslaught on Gaza as anti-Semitic propaganda is not far removed from denying the Holocaust.

Suttner’s schmaltzy and absurd comparison to Jews being forced to listen to abusive medieval sermons betrays a refusal to see or accept any wrongdoing by Israel. Such is his narcissistic vision of the Promised Land that he can see righteousness only in Israel. His and other Zionists’ defence of Israel’s Nazi behaviour helps me at last understand the massive support of many thousands of Germans who blindly idolised Hitler.

After the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression, they saw themselves as economically oppressed by Jews. They thought of themselves as the Ayran chosen people, were swept up in their national-socialist pride, saved at last by their psychopathic leader. The similarities in 50 short years send a shiver down my spine.

Tragically the modern state of Israel was born out of the ashes of Hitler’s evil actions, given by colonial Britain as an intended balm to our wounded souls. We Jews should have accepted this settlement with humility and should have shown love and brotherhood to those already living there. Instead, Israel has become a ­middle-eastern superpower, its nuclear arms a threat to world peace, and has created a ghetto out of the West Bank and Gaza.

Yes, Hamas has said it wants to destroy Israel. The response? Israel destroys Palestine. It is flattened like Guernica and the Warsaw Ghetto. Suttner, your type has bred an anti-Semitism worldwide that terrifies me. Can your blind love not extend to the hundreds of Palestinian families trapped and blown to pieces by the Israeli war machine? — William Epstein, Cape Town

Zuma vs Obama

Unless tragedy strikes, South Africa will soon have a Zuma moment just like the United States recently had its Obama moment. The emotional symbolism of the Obama moment is, to many South Africans, comparable with the Mandela moment in 1994. For Ferial Haffajee in ”We had one of those” (January 23) the joy turns into wistful desolation about the coming Zuma moment. Her point is that Zuma represents mediocre leadership while the US has ”a fine African grandson who can end its era of terror” and restore its idealism. Obama understands the complex issues that besiege his nation, whereas Zuma is ”a loud nothing”.

Moe Shaik’s concurrent article, ”Justice has not been served”, disputes Haffajee’s pessimistic view. For Shaik, Zuma has ”repeatedly demonstrated a profound understanding of the challenges that confront South Africa”.

Haffajee and Shaik display personal vendetta and personal loyalty respectively, and have nothing to say about the serious problems faced by poor, homeless and unemployed South Africans.

It’s a pity Shaik’s fervour for justice is so circumscribed by Zuma’s legal woes. Similarly, Haffajee should accept that the Zuma presidency will not be the first to betray the idea of justice. The two preceding presidencies laid the foundation for that. John Pilger, in ”Apartheid’s legacy” (January 23), showed that some of our admired politicians have dashed people’s hope for justice.

Apart from the discrepancy in formal education, articulacy and the size of the country each man will be leading, Zuma and Obama are not so dissimilar. Both will preside over states whose basic structures and institutions are de facto white supremacist, where black people languish in misery. Under Zuma, South Africa-based corporations will continue to loot Africa; under Obama, the US will ensure that global dictatorship, state and corporate, persists. These two men represent continuity, not change. The hope they inspire is postponed despair.

Yet, as Andile Mngxitama posits, a Zuma presidency poses a revolutionary possibility: Zuma will have a huge pay-back obligation to his supporters. He is likely to be the first leader to be forced to account for the lack of service delivery — or to unleash force against people’s demands for a better life. -­Nkosinathi Mzelemu

Fear ignorance rather than God

Jonathan Jackson’s question ”And what is wrong with being God-fearing?” (Letters, January 23) deserves a reply. To fear something one needs first to believe in its existence. It may help if we clarify what we mean by belief.

I believe, for example, that should I relax my fingers the pen I’m holding will fall and not float up to the ceiling. I believe there has almost certainly been corruption in the arms deal. I draw my conclusions from what I’ve read, discussion and extrapolation.

Belief is informed by empirical observation and cross-referenced by anything else we’re familiar with. Beyond that we surmise and extrapolate, but to arrive at a reasonable certainty we need to follow a discernable logic.

This brings us to the famous parable of the Red Teapot.

I assert that somewhere between earth and Mars is a Red Teapot orbiting the sun.

”I don’t believe you. Prove it,” you demand.

”Can you prove that it’s not?” I counter.

You would have to concede that despite the improbability of its being there, you couldn’t prove that it’s not.

”Therefore I’m right!” I smugly conclude.

Now apply that reasoning to the concept of ”God”.

We live in a country where we’re free to fear whatever we like. I suggest we may do better to fear ignorance. — Darryl van Blerk, Cape Town

Jik facts

Your ”Jik for Zim” article (January 30) is inaccurate. The Jik for Zim Campaign was started by South Africans deeply concerned about our sisters and brothers in Zimbabwe. After a discussion with Health Minister Barbara Hogan about what simple actions could be effective, she said ”Jik”. One teaspoon of Jik will purify 25 litres of drinking water overnight. Jik will kill the cholera bacterium and save hundreds of thousands of lives. Catholic Welfare and Development in Cape Town agreed to receive donations. Catholic, Anglican and Methodist parishes have asked for donations, as have friends who sent out appeals through emails from December 13 2008. — Sally Timmel, Cape Town

In brief

Under current legislation South African citizens living and working outside the country are not allowed to vote in the 2009 election. I moved to the United Kingdom in 2005 for work reasons and plan to return in 2011. South Africans in the UK are passionate about our country and its political future, but are denied the right to cast our votes. I read that the Constitutional Court has declared that ”legislation dealing with the franchise must be interpreted in favour of enfranchisement rather than disenfranchisement”. I support the call to change the appropriate section of the Electoral Act. — Robin Dixon, UK

The article about the letter by 14 prominent South African Jews concerning Gaza (January 30) implied I was involved in efforts to stop young South African Jews serving in the Israel Defence Force (IDF). I am involved in ongoing work in opposition to occupation and human-rights abuses, but I have no knowledge of an initiative to do with South Africans serving in the IDF. — Doron Isaacs, Cape Town

There have been objections to the shower Zapiro depicts on Jacob Zuma’s head. New thought: a rubber stamp on his head. Think of the arms deal, Mugabe’s legitimacy, Pikoli, the Scorpions, Judge Hlophe — — Barbara Harmel