Saturday, October 24, 2009

Tutu praises UFS for reconciliation move

Pror. Jonathan Jansen showed leadership when he made the decision to stand up for the Reitz students. Who would have guessed Desmond Tutu would support his decision? Bravo!

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu has come out in support of the new Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Free State for what he calls a "magnanimous gesture" of forgiveness and reconciliation.

Professor Jonathan Jansen came under fire for announcing in his inauguration speech that the university would not pursue further action against the four students responsible for the much publicised racial scandal in the Reitz student hostel in 2007.

Jansen has since clarified that criminal charges by the Directorate of Special Prosecutions in the province, and the human rights charges by the Human Rights Commission were still underway against the four.

However, the UFC has withdrawn its own charges and invited the students back to complete their degrees. Jansen called this "a gesture of racial reconciliation, and the need for healing".

He emphasised that deeper issues of racism and bigotry could not be resolved in courts. "Whoever wins and loses in the Reitz case, I will still wake-up on Monday morning dealing with the same social, cultural and ideological complexities that stand in the way of transformation - unless we do something differently."

According to Jansen the move to withdraw charges was in recognition of the institutional complicity of the UFS. He said the UFS would not only pursue forgiveness, but also pay reparations to the staff members involved in the case for damages to their dignity and their self-esteem.

He also pledged to re-open the Reitz residence and transform it into a model of racial reconciliation and social justice, to show the commitment of the UFS to the urgent task of reconstruction.

Tutu in turn has told the professor in an open letter to count him among his admirers and supporters for his "outstanding and courageous" inaugural speech. "It is people like you who will make our beloved country the great land it can become."

According to Tutu, South Africa would have been reduced to dust and ashes if a policy of revenge instead of reconciliation had been pursued after 1994.

He added that he hoped the culprits and their families would ask forgiveness "for the sake of their own spiritual health, for without forgiveness this incident will corrode their souls".

The four students accused in the Reitz saga, RC Malherbe, Johnny Roberts, Schalk van der Merwe and Danie Grobler will appear in the Bloemfontein Regional court on charges of crimen injuria. The case is expected to start on October 26.

32 Opinion(s):

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

FishEagle,

Are you suggesting that you think either Tutu or Jansen are being sincere?

FYI: On the Monday, prior to Jansen's 'startling' 'reconciliaton revelations', in the Reitz crimen injuria matter.

I filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission (Complaint Number WC-2009-0455BS), against De Lille, Mandela, Mbeki et al; accusing them of among others, breaching their Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act 34, 1995, social contract duties & responsibilities (PDF), and the crime of apartheid.

My complaint was supported by among others, Brad Blanton, Ph.D., former 2004 and 2006 United States Congressional candidate for US Congress, the founder of Radical Honesty (www.radicalhonesty.com); who agrees with me, that the South African goverment's 'TRC' was fake... i.e. not sincere, just manipulation of the masses.

Then all of a sudden, on Friday, Mr. Jansen (and subsequent thereto, Mr. Tutu) has a fit of more fake reconciliation? Interesting synchronicity; if that is what it was.

How much fake reconciliation do we need dispensed, before people realise that it is, exactly that fake reconciliation; that is the oxygen to racial hatefest, providing the subconscious and conscious fodder for everything from the motivations of those who commit farm murders and torture.. to the actions of those four Reitz Students…

Proudly South African Hypocrisy on Steroids indeed…

Vanilla Ice said...

@Andrea. You are correct. I don't think anybody really believes that there has been any reconciliation. They are pandering to the masses, that is all. A kind of "We have extended our hand; it is whitey who can't reconcile."

Anonymous said...

Yup - agree - there's more to this than meets the eye. My take on it is that there really is insufficient evidence against these 4 and rather than waste their time and money they've decided to look like the bigger hero's. It's going to be interesting to see if these 4 return the the UFS. I think not.

FishEagle said...

Anon, as far as I know two already completed their studies. I am very happy for the remaining two that they will be able to complete theirs too.

Andrea, it is not possible to identify and separate the sincere or insincere actions of our political and public figures, unless you know them personally or unless you followed them for a very long period of time. Jansen is new on the scene so I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. I liked what he did.

You and I had a run in on this site in the past so it will come as no surprise to you that I seriously question whether your actions were sincere. I'm not really interested to know more about it and I'm not going to engage in any further debate with you. Other contributors might disagree with me on this one and they are free to continue the discussion.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Jansen is new on the scene so I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. I liked what he did.

Okay. I guess if he is new to you, and you liked what he did (although I am not sure what you liked about it, but thats okay; I don't have to know). Fair enough.

You and I had a run in on this site in the past so it will come as no surprise to you that I seriously question whether your actions were sincere.

I have never had a run in with you FishEagle. In my interpretation, we had a few different intepretations of events. I concluded we agree to disagree. You concluded, 'we had a run in'. Accordingly the little difference of interpretation has been made quite a large issue for you. Not for me.

I am glad you think 'benefit of the doubt' is something worthy of Jansen, a coloured man you never met. Pity, a white woman, who showed sincere concern for you, does not receive any of your 'benefit of the doubt'. Anyway, your choice.

It was not clear to me from your post, whether you considered Jansen sincere or not, looked like it, but I couldn't believe that could be true. So I thought I would first ask first. Thanks for answering my question.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Vanilla,

Brad and Radical Honesty's 'dummies 101' test, for whether reconciliation was sincere, and has actually truely and sincerely occurred by two people who disagreed on any issue, is that, if they cannot both laugh about the exact same issues, they previously disagreed or fought about; then there has been no sincere forgiveness.

In his view, when white and black south africans, can laugh at apartheid and make jokes about it, as a previous era; with each other, about 'that time, we hated each other, blah, blah'; then and only then, will reconciliaton truly have occurred. But it cannot while any group is coercing the other to pretend reconciliaton has occured. a fundamental principle of sincere forgiveness, is that you encourage the other to admit they have not yet forgived, not pressure them to pretend they have forgived.

Anyway... thats his view, from a lifetime of dedication to study and understand the science of truth telling and real, as opposed to fake (intellectual) forgiveness.

Also, his view as an expert is that the worst thing anyone can do is bullshit themselves that fake intellectual forgiveness is 'forgiveness', in their being. He advises to rather just admit to yourself, forgiveness is not a priority for you, rather than bullshit yourself, which will only make you more pissed off, about the hypocritcal intellectual fake forgiveness process.

But of course, others may, and will disagree; so i shall call his forgiveness radical honesty forgiveness; to clarify the difference! Ces't la vie!

FishEagle said...

Andrea, you pulled the race card when all else failed.

I don't have time for this bull shit.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Fish Eagle,

I pulled the race card!

Man, that is hilarious! thanks for the laugh, I almost fell off my chair! Holy c'moly!

So, sharing with you my observation that you grant a black/coloured man, you have never met the benefit of the doubt, and myself a white woman, not the benefit of the doubt, is playing the race card?

Should I pretend that there ain't any racial difference, between me and Jansen?

I don't get the benefit of the doubt with you Fish Eagle; thats okay; just don't bullshit yourself that you give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Four students committed what, for them was a prank. Others interpreted it differently, and thats fine; I am focussed on their intentions. They do NOT think they did anything wrong, which is why they have so far refused to apologise. I agree, I don't think they should apologise to anyone, if they do not think they did anything wrong! Good for them, for having the balls to be true to thsmelves..

Along comes Jansen, and decided that as a coloured man, he does not care if none of the Reitz four have apologised for their 'racial actions'; he is going to SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF, and APOLOGIZE TO THE COUNTRY FOR THEM; and then say he has forgiven them! Accordingly he has not given them the benefit of the doubt, he has found them guilty, without any fucking trial, and then sanctimoniously decided, he will apologise for them, to the entire country!, and inform the country he has forgiven them!

If that is what Jansen and Tutu consider forgiveness; they can shove it so far up their asses, till they choke, as far as I am concerned.

That kind of bullshit, twofaced hypocrisy 'forgiveness', is only forgiveness, in propaganda distributed by organisations who should Orwellian aptly be named the Ministry of Truth.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Andrea. Thanks for the input on reconciliation. It makes sense. It reminds me of a chat I had with a Russian recently, who spent time in Angola. We joked about who killed who (I know it seems macabre). In hindsight, yes, it seems we had moved on.

As for the UFS issue, I am with you on this one. There has been an assumption of guilt; I doubt they could get a fair trial anyway and they will forever be considered the Reitz Four. It is absurd that Tutu can praise reconciliation, when they haven't even been found guilty yet. reconciliation for what? Also, they have been charged with Crimen Injuria. How can your honour and dignity be intentionally and maliciously be impaired, when you willingly partake? These kids are being railroaded.

Moreover, there is the outright assumption that only whites are racist, and therefore require change. This isn't a two way engagement. We have to bend over and take it up the arse, just a little bit more. That is what the whole reconciliation gig is about. Perhaps Jansen is being sincere, but then he believes they are guilty, which shows his bias.

Viking said...

The details of this case are unclear- at least to me. I have been able to find information on how the black staff members saw the prank, whether or not they willingly participated (it seems they did), and whether or not they've since been bought off and used as political tools to effect "transformation".
The prank was f*cking stupid, but if 22 year olds want to act like kids, let them, if it's part of university life - don't then treat them like adults and take them to court. Crimen Injuria is just a stick to beat whites, not to protect anybody. what a load of b*llocks.

on forgiveness: my grandad spent six years having Japs take pot shots at him in the jungle, torturing and murdering his fellow soldiers in prison camps, and otherwise being little yellow bastards. In 1976 he bought a Toyota. True story.
That's forgiveness!

FishEagle said...

Andrea, my different perceptions about you and Jansen are not just about race. You made it a race issue.

I did give you the benefit of the doubt when I had no reason to question your sincerity. But you fucked up.

My interest in this case is the media hype around the issue. It was so blown out of proportion that it immediately caught my attention when it happened. These guys were made scape goats for much bigger issues that they had no control over. It doesn't matter anymore what they said or did. As far as I'm concerned, all their actions have been vindicated, regardless of whether they were guilty or not. The media made sure of that. I believe Jansen realizes that because he said, "Whoever wins and loses in the Reitz case, I will still wake-up on Monday morning dealing with the same social, cultural and ideological complexities that stand in the way of transformation - unless we do something differently."

I like this man.

FishEagle said...

@ Viking. There is that great sense of humour of yours again. Love it!

Exzanian said...

The state of so called "reconciliation" has been reduced to these two people, Jansen and Tutu. My impression reading MSM opinions and blogs is that even whites are baying for the blood of these "lighties" and are angry with Jansen for dropping the investigation. Transformation is a national disgrace and an insult to whites. Fuck the whole lot. Just leave...

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Vanilla,

Indeed.

It is duality of our existence; which is -- in my view -- one of those limbic brain things. Without war, the concept of peace would be totally meaningless.

I also doubt they can get a fair trial, but the entire issue is just such a joke: (i) UFS is known for its harsh initiation pranks; nobody has made a big issue of that before; (ii) everyone was having a ball, laughing and nobody was coerced into participating; (iii) at yale univ., the skull and bones initiation rituals involved sex in coffins, masturbation and who knows what else; and both John Kerry and GW Bush are Skull and Bones graduates.

Point: We all do stupid things when we are drunk and young at uni, acting like idiots. Its not a crime.

I find it difficult to believe Jansen is sincere, when he apologises, on behalf of the Reitz 4, who have not nominated him as their lawyer, or spokesperson, and who have refused to apologize. Appears to me, he is acting as Judge, Jury and 'Media Trial Executioner'.

But thats just my observation... and interpretation..

FishEagle said...

Exzanian, this is not a race issue. As you've pointed out, both whitey and blacks are calling for the Reitz 4 heads. It is a media issue.

This is all the more reason I have respect for Jansen. And even Tutu, in the context of this discussion. Take Jansen and Tutu out of the picture and we'll still sit with the same darned issues. But if that was the case, the Reitz 4 would have a much bigger problem.

Jansen and Tutu are doing the right thing.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Viking;

Very funny! Thanks fro the laugh!

============

Fish Eagle,

Andrea, my different perceptions about you and Jansen are not just about race. You made it a race issue.

Fish Eagle, you are more than welcome to your perceptions; I don't take your perceptions about me remotely serious. I was simply pointing out an observation to you, you can -- as you have before -- make an issue of it, or consider it, as a hypothesis, or discard. No worries.

Long time ago, I used to give whites and blacks equal benefit of the doubt. As time evolved, I found that was a very dumb thing to do. Now it depends on the circumstances involved. Even Jesse Jackson admits he crosses the street at night, if he is being followed by a black man.

Anyway, I was simply very very surprised, when I read what you said, about Tutu and Jansen. I couldn't believe it; so thought I would first ask you, whether i was correctly interpreting what you were saying.

I did give you the benefit of the doubt when I had no reason to question your sincerity. But you fucked up.

You had no reason to question my sincerity! Exactly, you never questioned it, you never made any enquiry. When you were faced with multiple interpretations as to my sincerity, you assumed the negative one!

there are some very interesting sociological studies, on how people choose to make decisions about whether other people are 'sincere'; particularly when they are making a decison as to the sincerity, in terms of to themselves, or to someone else.

Clearly we have a very different process for what we mean by 'benefit of the doubt'. fair enough. Hope I never get you as a juror in a jury trial.

I imagine, to the Reitz 4 it matters whethter they get their day in court, to face their accusers; instead of being tried in the media, and by their rector.

You, are more than welcome to like Jansen. I hope he lives up to your expectations.

To conclude: We clearly disagree, and I am happy to agree to disagree. Thats my two cents.

Exzanian said...

FE, I'm gobsmacked, of course it's a race issue. The media has nothing to do with it except fanning the flames! This storm in a tea cup has blown into a tornado because it exposed the naked underbelly of the faux state of "transformation" in SA. There is no "transformation" it does not exist, never has. Tutu and Jansen are trying to hark back to a dodo. The TRC was a circus, too late, it's gone.

FishEagle said...

Exzanian, I made the comment that this is not a race issue in the context of the previous discussion:

".....I am glad you think 'benefit of the doubt' is something worthy of Jansen, a coloured man you never met......" and "..............So, sharing with you my observation that you grant a black/coloured man, you have never met the benefit of the doubt.............." and "........"Along comes Jansen, and decided that as a coloured man, he does not care if none of the Reitz four have apologised for their 'racial actions'; he is going to SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF, and APOLOGIZE TO THE COUNTRY FOR THEM; and then say he has forgiven them!............. "

The media witch hunt has put the Reitz 4 through enough hell to vindicate them of all their sins. They have everything to do with this issue. In that context, the Reitz 4 were crucified because they were white and in that context, it is a race issue.

I agree that transformation hasn't happened. Transformation in the South African political context has many meanings, but do we agree that it is something that needs to happen? Just not at the expense of the whites.

Exzanian said...

FE, see my latest post. Explains everything.

FishEagle said...

@Exzanian, thanks.

Tell me what you mean with transformation because I don't understand, please.

Also, your title was unfair. That's just my opinion.

Exzanian said...

A person such as Luke Watson embraces "transformation" I need say no more.
The title is apt, Jansen is back-peddling.

FishEagle said...

@Exzanian, he's not back peddling yet. If he goes back on his decision then I say fuck him too. But it could be a strategy to get people to vent their frustrations - a bit like Zuma's failed strategy of the government helpline - which makes no difference to the end outcome anyway. Time will tell. Your conclusions are premature.

You are still going to have to explain transformation and the context that you used it in.

Exzanian said...

Jansen is back peddling. In SA, it's called "engaging" that is what he is doing.

FishEagle said...

If your argument was correct then Zuma would also be back peddling. Do we have a reason to celebrate to something?

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...

@ Andrea,

"I was simply pointing out an observation to you"

Jansen's race has nothing to do with you personally.

"...you never made any enquiry..."

I didn't have to ask you why you patronized me. I just told you what I thought about it.

"there are some very interesting sociological studies, on how people choose to make decisions about whether other people are 'sincere'; particularly when they are making a decison as to the sincerity, in terms of to themselves, or to someone else."

So when I think Jansen may be sincere and you may not be, what am I when I make my own decisions? Sincere or insincere? Your observation is obsolete.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Jansen's race has nothing to do with you personally.

Que??? Is this a Mexican Tequila statement?

Where doubt exists, on any issue someone who is committed to 'benefit of the doubt' generally makes an enquiry; or suspends final judgement, by working with a working hypothesis.

You did not have to ask questions, but that is generally what people do, who are committed to giving another the benefit of the doubt. You did not. You are not obliged to at all. But when you don't, your decision making may lack certain information, which if you had further enquired would have enabled you to make a more fully informed, impartial decision!

This is a fundamental principle of law, particularly in Administrative Law. Generally in Admin Law, people who make decisions, without making an attempt to make an impartial enquiry, so as to make a fully informed decision, are considered to have made biased, or uniformed decisions and conclusions.

Re: "Patronized"

Patronized is a conclusion you made. Generally to make an impartial conclusion, examining all the evidence; you would -- before you make your conclusion -- make an enquiry! You chose to avoid making the enquiry, and to go straight to your 'patronizing' conclusion.

It is my opinion, that given the choice, between hearing someone give you some constructive feedback advice, and interpreting such 'advice' as 'patronizing'; i.e. to feel offended/insulted/patronized; you generally opt for the latter.

o Sociologists suggest that insults are often an indicator of flawed reasoning about the character or motivation of others. Though insults are common, and often used in jest, a fundamental axiom of sociology recognizes that derogatory forms of speech make erroneous attributions about the motivation of a person. Scholars classify the erroneous assumptions as the fundamental attribution error.

You are welcome to make your decsiions about me, based on very little information, or without much enquiry (i.e. with very little comitment to impartiality), just don't expect me to take them serious, as constructive criticism/feedback.

I was not questioning your sincerity. I was informing you, it appears that you make decisions based upon very little information, without much commitment to making further enquiries.

Your observation is obsolete.

Definition of Obsolete:
No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected; as, an obsolete word; an obsolete statute; -- applied chiefly to words, writings, or observances. [1913 Webster]

My observation:
I am white, don't get the benefit of the doubt from FE; Jansen is black/brown, gets the benefit of doubt from FE

Observation is no longer in use/disused

Que??? ;-)

FishEagle said...

@Andrea, I will spell this out for you because you are so dense (now THAT was an insult):

FE: Andrea, my different perceptions about you and Jansen are not just about race. You made it a race issue.
Andrea: .....I don't take your perceptions about me remotely serious. I was simply pointing out an observation to you, you can -- as you have before -- make an issue of it, or consider it, as a hypothesis, or discard...
FE: Jansen's race has nothing to do with you personally.
FE: You made it a race issue . I say if it was about the race issue then that had nothing to do with you personally.

Andrea: Where doubt exists....
FE: There was no doubt that you were patronizing.

Andrea: Patronized is a conclusion you made. Generally to make an impartial conclusion, examining all the evidence; you would -- before you make your conclusion -- make an enquiry! You chose to avoid making the enquiry, and to go straight to your 'patronizing' conclusion.
FE: You don't get more patronizing than that!!!

Andrea: You are welcome to make your decsiions about me, based on very little information, or without much enquiry (i.e. with very little comitment to impartiality)...
FE: If I were you I wouldn't have such a high regard for myself. My opinion of you hardly makes a difference to the issue around the Reitz 4.

Andrea: I was not questioning your sincerity
FE: I never said you questioned my sincerity

Andrea: "there are some very interesting sociological studies, on how people choose to make decisions about whether other people are 'sincere'; particularly when they are making a decison as to the sincerity, in terms of to themselves, or to someone else."
FE: So when I think Jansen may be sincere and you may not be, what am I when I make my own decisions? Sincere or insincere? Your observation is obsolete.
Andrea: My observation: I am white, don't get the benefit of the doubt from FE; Jansen is black/brown, gets the benefit of doubt from FE
FE: You need to read.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Andrea, I will spell this out for you because you are so dense (now THAT was an insult)

Que???

Sense of humour failure, FE?

If you are saying your intention is to insult me, and that just cause your intention is to insult me, I should feel insulted. Good Luck!!.

You are going to have to try alot harder, it is impossible to insult me; cause I choose not to get insulted.

I consider it a useless waste of time victim emotion. What would be the point?

YOur decision to choose to insult me, is based on flimsy kneejerk ego response! Thats okay, enjoy it.

But, should you someday decide to amend your 'benefit of the doubt' decision making standards and raise them to a higher more impartial bar; then you may actually find, that I will take your criticism, as constructive criticism to take seriously.

Till then, Que??? :-)

[Said in Manuel's tone of voice, "'Good Morning, I speak English; I learn it from a book. How are you? I am dense!!" (Moose episode, of Fawlty Towers)!]

Viking said...

This comes via SAS:


http://www.volksblad.com/Content/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/2114/017012f7317d4ea6879fcc168147147d/24-10-2009-04-12/UV-meisies_glo_met_stene_gegooi_en_gevloek

What will these two gentlemen, Jansen and Tutu, do about those responsible - forgive them too?

FishEagle said...

Viking, they could but we'll never know because the media does not consider the issue of rape and violent crime news worthy. But pissing on bread (with Oros?), feeding it to a bunch of workers and making a video tape of it is so news worthy that it makes international headlines.

Jansen did the best he could under the circumstances and cut the poor guys some slack. They get to graduate.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

FE,

Appears I may owe you an apology; I was not aware of the following:

Reitz four expressed remorse
or Reits four want to say sorry.

If Jansen was aware of how the Reitz four felt, then that changes his possible intentions; although it is strange that he did not mention it (not that I am aware of).

Anyway, I was under the impression from what I had read in the media, the four had not apologized and thought they hadn't done anything wrong. So, not sure if this was recent, or just recently revealed, but anyway. Just wanted to say that puts Jansens actions in a slightly different light; which puts me at neutral: benefit of the doubt now; whereas he was in the dogbox before.