Monday, July 13, 2009

UK journo lambasted for speaking the truth

We at ILSA are about telling the truth about South Africa warts and all. It give us no satisfaction to do so but we believe embarrassing the ANC regime is the only way to get it to care about the plight of ordinary South Africans.

On July 8, we posted a Guardian (UK) article written by Louise Taylor titled Why going to South Africa for the World Cup terrifies me
that subsequently led to a torrent of abusive comments (584 and counting) aimed at the journalist, some from our friend Rooster (KillAllWhitey blog). If you feel inclined, click on the link above and add your two cents' worth. Journos like her that venture to tell the truth are rare and deserve our support.

19 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

The liberals will never face the facts. They created a monster.

FishEagle said...

My comment in the Guardian, in support of the turth:

People from the First World countries just don't have a clue about the level of violence that ordinary South Africans are experiencing. I don't think I know of a SINGLE person here in South Africa that has not been a victim of some sort of crime! Tourists are wealthy. Do you really think the criminals don't know that? I say bring it on, come and look for yourself. Just don't say you weren't warned. Take care.

Viking said...

This article presents the facts, and the opinions of one journalist. But there's an underlying issue.
Facts aside, we will never be able to dissuade hundreds of thousands of fans from descending on South Africa next year. And why should we?
Every nation that has hosted the tournament has benefitted financially. In all cases, the boost to the economy has run on for years. There are many naysayers who argue and moan about taxpayers' money being spent, but the revenue will be far greater than the investment, and will have knock-on effects.
Sure, white South Africans aren't interested in soccer, and it's they who are the taxpayers, but it is also they who owned all the guesthoues and hotels last time I checked, not to mention pubs and bars.
Journalists need to be responsible, like this one, and warn people about the dangers. But it's going to happen and it's going to be a success. There will be victims of crime, but as long as they know the dangers, they take on the responsibility themselves (aside from the responsibility of the criminals of course).
So, enjoy the World Cup and get behind it. Make money out of it. When the attention of the world is on South Africa next year, the money in your bank account is worth more.

FishEagle said...

And some more:

Regarding my previous comment, in the last 4 years I've had a laptop stolen during a break in; a GPS, a camera and other odds and ends stolen out of my vehicle on an occassion; another camara stolen out of my vehicle on another occasion; I've survived an attempted highjacking; and I've been injured in my vehicle when a bunch of youngsters hurled fist sized rocks through the window while I was driving. I'm an average income South African. I've lived in South Africa my entire life. I know I had it very good, so far, compared to other people's experiences. My work colleague left her position as a farm manager in the Limpopo region to live in the Cape after she was involved in 7 shootout incidents with criminals. She's much happier in the Cape so obviously some areas are much more dangerous than others.

FishEagle said...

Getting into a debate with THE Rooster himself now. Should I even bother. This guy must love the attention he's getting with the Guardian's post. W*nker.

FishEagle said...

Jees, I just learnt a new trick about blogging. When you are getting your ass kicked, just delete your own comments! Rooster must be a mighty fine character. Mighty fine!

Anonymous said...

FE, deleting own comments is still OK, but if Vanilla Ice verbally abuses some reader's mother's genitals and censors other comments that set the record straight and expose his disgusting and false accusations, THAT is the reality exercised and promoted on this very blog. Talk about double standards; criticise the mainstream media for being biased, yet engaging in slander, blasphemy and spewing out pure filth...

FishEagle said...

The moderators deleted Rooster's comments! Ha! Very good.

FishEagle said...

Anon, VI was provoked when he responded with those comments. VI is part of the heart of this blog so you will have to make a choice whether you want to continue to read it or find an alternative source of information. I don't feel so offended by blasphemy. All that matters to me is that God is not offended. I like to think that God has a much greater purpose than to be offended by VI.

Black Coffee said...

I skimmed the article in question. It appeared to me also that the writer exaggerated the crime and danger to tourists. Once again, I am not for second denying the seriousness of crime in SA nor that it is higher than in UK, US etc. despite statistics. However, the one statistic that SAPS are likely to NOT falsify is murder rate. That stands at about 38/100,000 give or take a couple points. That is about same as Washington, DC used to be in late 1990s. Not good, but certainly not the highest in world. Ever since I came back from SA people ask me is it safe to walk around in Jozi? I tell them it all depends on where they go, do you want to go walk around in Rosebank or in Hillbrow? The risks of encountering crime exist in both, but in the latter it is much more than in the former area. My gut feeling is that as long as WC2010 visitors get advice about which areas are Ok and which are not, follow sensible precautions (like not walking through Hillbrow or similar area with cameras swinging around their necks) and not treating the Durban beachfront as an area where one can just take a stroll at night, they will be fine.

Anonymous said...

Going back to Black Coffee's proposed career as a professor in liberal sciences in South Africa: I bet you anything he's writing his thesis on something really naff like anthropological psychology, which waffles on about abstract concepts like ubuntu. I had the very temporary misfortune of meeting a professor of anthropological psychology years ago. What a bloody bore. Divorced three times, he was also into porn in his considerable spare time. Lived in a rented flat in Braamfontein.

Anonymous said...

@FE: I had the good luck to get the hell out of Joburg earlier this year. It's taken me months and months to come right.

One friend and her husband beaten up inside their house, friend's husband beaten up at work with other staff members, another friend tied up with coat hangers and beaten up by burglars in her home, immediate neighbour shot in driveway, another neighbour around the corner shot in driveway, work colleague shot dead in driveway, stressed out neighbour commits suicide to end it all.

If you manage to stay alive you develop situational paranoia to such a chronic degree that eventually you will go mad with it.

You can't live in Gauteng or Limpopo, no way. Western Cape is still the safest place, for obvious reasons.

FishEagle said...

Dach, most South Africans defending the horrific crime situation in the Gaurdian's post comments section are Capetonians. You would think these people had a little compassion and care for the safety of others. No way! I'm actually starting to get very worried for the soccer fans, having read about the actual number of people that will arrive.

Anonymous said...

Ah BC, it has already been reported that the murder stats proffered by SAPS are significantly lower than those reported by Interpol, the Medical Research Council or Department of Home Affairs. Also, it is now known that SAPS engages in the fudging of stats.

Anonymous said...

Dear Vanilla Ice,

I knew that you wouldn’t post my last comments, and to do the poll on your blog (for obvious reasons).

Surely you will understand that I am determined to expose your filth, and the people that give you the platform (and participate) to spew out your hate speech.

Laws against hate speech
In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence and prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.

Even though there are international laws regarding this, only high-profile cases will be tried in the Netherlands. Others will be dealt with in the countries of origin, including:

South Africa (take note 10.(1) sec. 12(c)
Act No. 4 of 2000: Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. contains the following clause:
10. (1) Subject to the proviso in section 12. no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to -
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) promote or propagate hatred.


The Commonwealth of Australia
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people (or their mothers); and the act is done because of the religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.” An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. If the complaint is validated, the Commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the Commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the Federal Court or through the Federal Magistrates Service.
Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914 makes it an offence to use the Internet to disseminate material intentionally that results in a person being insulted or menaced. This offence includes material communicated by email. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present.

You probably gathered by now that I am a legal practitioner, and won’t give you too much detail (go hire another lawyer). If the relevant authorities have investigated the evidence, and they find it to be in contravention with the above laws, and they are able to trace you via your ISP address, I wish you a comfy Pollsmoor room with mountain views, and lots of pleasant cellmates.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 12:08.

"You probably gathered by now that I am a legal practitioner."

Shiver me timbers, golly gosh what now?

No, actually all I have gathered is that you are a moronic dickhead that has no grasp of the term hate speech, nor that Freedom of Speech is a Fundamental Right in the countries you listed.

Do your damndest, arsehole. You aren't the first, and won't be the last. I suspect, after this vacuous threat, we won't be corresponding much anymore.

FishEagle said...

Anon, I regret that I wasted my time giving you a response. You don't seem to be someone that has any principles. Why didn't you research the legislation about hate speach when you came onto this site if you were so offended by it? It seems that only now, that your comments aren't published that you found your morals. We all have our ego's bruised from time to time. Learn to deal with it like an adult.

Anonymous said...

@ VI, FE, both well said. Heh heh, the cretins that frequent the blogosphere...I don't know, where do they come from? VI will tell you about some of the shite we don't let through.

Having an opinion is "hate speech" to some as you've deduced by now. Having a differing opinion to theirs is even worse. Unbelievable.

Makes me wish they'd hurry up and event the PC that lets you zap the fu*ker on the other side every time he/she spews his/her shit. 99% of these people wouldn't open their mouths if they stood next to you. They know they'd get a smack on the nose. But the web, now that makes the meek feel mighty. Suddenly they are ten-foot tall and have super powers - and notice how everybody is a "legal practitioner" as if that is meant to mean something other than they belong to a profession society views as greedy, good-for-nothing scum-sucking bottom-feeders.

SuSa said...

The prove is in the pudding...let the fans come and enjoy the crime wave here. How does the libbers feel when someone dies because of their lies ? O sorry forgot they have no heart. Crime is way out of control this weeks report of a baby been shot while suckling on her mother !! Don't find that happening in Britain.