Thursday, July 26, 2012

MEC ignores report on corrupt cops and gang members

from The Cape Times:

Dan Plato






A three-year study for a doctoral thesis by a city criminologist has revealed the relationship between corrupt cops and gang members which enables gang warfare – but though the findings have been sent to politicians and heads of police, no action has been taken.

In a section titled “The murky symbiosis of dirty cop and gangster”, Liza Grobler’s study found:

  • Police members are known to steal drugs from court exhibits and act as couriers by using police vehicles to transport drugs for dealers.
  • Corrupt members do route clearance with their private cars, acting as “spotters” for gangs, driving in front of and behind a car carrying a shipment of drugs. If they see a police vehicle they inform the car carrying the drugs to divert.
  • Police members resell confiscated drugs, often outside their area. For example, they sell drugs from Hanover Park to merchants in Grassy Park.

These findings were part of Grobler’s PhD thesis, “A criminological examination of police criminality”, published in 2006.

Grobler interviewed police detectives, members of organised crime, police legal services, and branch commanders.

One police officer quoted in her report said corruption was common. He said there was a “big drug dealer” in Hanover Park who had police connections at a station Grobler describes as “station X”.

“When people had bought a lot of drugs from him, he phones these members and tells them what cars they are driving and that they have just bought such and such. The police officers stop the cars, take the drugs and sell them back to the merchant who alerted them.

“I was with these cops when they did this – it was common,” he told Grobler.

The Cape Times has decided not to reveal the name of the police station, pending comment from the police.

In 2006 Grobler sent the report to then Community Safety MEC Leonard Ramatlakane and his successor Lennit Max. It was also sent to former Western Cape police commissioner Mzwandile Petros.

In February, Grobler sent her findings to Community Safety MEC Dan Plato. Other than an acknowledgement of receipt of the report, there was no communication about her study, she said.
Police bosses were not “facing up to police criminality”, she said. “I never heard from them, not even to hear where Station X is or to appeal for more research. Their whole attitude was extremely strange and they didn’t seem to be interested in scratching it open and healing it,” Grobler said.

Other sources for her research included police researchers from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, the Institute for Security Studies, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate and the National Prosecuting Authority.

Grobler also spoke to the head of the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau and the director of investigations for the Independent Police Complaints Commission in London.

The study also revealed:

  • Some corrupt members do illegal search and seizure operations to obtain drugs, not to arrest individuals for possession or dealing, but to use the drugs themselves or to offer them for sale to drug lords.
  • SAPS estimates that only 5 percent of the market value of drugs is ever confiscated.
  • Corrupt police members would make firearms disappear from evidence stores. These were sold to gangsters.
  • Helping gangsters get firearm licences was also common practice.
  • Another common type of “assistance” offered to gangsters was selling them classified information, dockets, information from dockets (such as the names of witnesses) and making dockets “disappear”.

Greg Wagner, spokesman for Plato, confirmed that chapters of the study had been sent to the MEC this year.

“Minister Plato receives many reports from NGOs, civil society organisations, state entities and members of the public, and reads the reports as a way to gain further knowledge of the criminal justice system and related environments. External research documents are also considered when drafting our own documents, for example when drafting the Community Safety Bill, published earlier this year for public comment.”

Wagner said Grobler’s study “identifies numerous systemic problems within the police, many of which fall under the direct control of SAPS management. The department through the Community Safety Bill is trying to improve oversight over the police to identify and improve on this kind of systemic problem. “The department conducts numerous research projects throughout the year. We also receive and monitor reports from various NGOs such as the ISS, universities, state entities, as well as complaints and suggestions from the public.”

Asked about action taken against members accused of corruption, Wagner reported:

  • During 2010/11, 485 cases of misconduct by police officers in the Western Cape were reported to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate.
  • In the same period, 438 cases of criminal conduct by police officers in the province were reported to IPID.
  • IPID received 5 869 complaints in the 2010/11 year. Gauteng and the Western Cape received the largest number of complaints.

Weldon Cameron, spokesman for the Hanover Park Community Policing Forum, said: “These accusations come from the community but there must be proof so we can do something about it. Police management will also say they know about these allegations, but if people cannot come with hard proof then they remain allegations.”

Jacques Sibomana, spokesman for the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (Nicro), said: “It’s not the first time we’ve heard about these allegations, especially police tipping off drug lords about raids. These relationships are the cause of the huge lack of trust in police in the communities affected by gangs and drugs. The community needs to know that police are cleaning up their house.”

Grobler added: “We need to do something about this problem, it is a major weakness and we need to deal with it. Community Safety needs to face up to this and look into (it) properly.”

Related links:

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

So these bastards are “robbers”?

Praag posted an article earlier today about the court case of black men who stand accused of murder of the Viana family in October 2011.  At first this did not appear in the English media at all, but only in Afrikaans newspapers.  We have spoken about this before, the fact that many brutal black-on-white murders are not reported in English media to limit international exposure and outcry.  Then News24 eventually reports on this in English, undoubtedly because word is getting around of how the news is manipulated.

So they settle for the next best thing, describing these murdering bastards as “robbers” in their typical psyops fashion, taking care to describe the motive for attack as revenge, if you believe these bastards that they were poorly treated by their employer.  The same bull shit excuse used so often for black-on-white farm murders – the employees were treated poorly.

We post the Praag article first, followed by the News24 one.  Note the difference in detail supplied.


Two blacks drowned white child in boiling water

The 3 accused in the Walkerville massacre and torture. Mbele is on the left and Radebe on the right. Photo: Jorge Henrique Martins, VOZ PORTUGUESA








Two young black males gagged a crying 12-year old white boy and afterwards drowned him in a bath filled with boiling water. The accused yesterday admitted guilt to the murder with smiles as they appeared in the Vereeniging regional court, reports the Johannesburg Afrikaans daily, Beeld.

In a typical South African black-on-white atrocity, the boy and his entire family were massacred on 1 October 2011 in Walkerville, south of Johannesburg. Amaro Jose Viana, of Portuguese descent, his mother Geraldine (42) and father Tony (53) were killed in an attack by the family’s gardener Petrus Radebe (24), Sipho Mbele (21) and Sphiwe David Motaung (20). A fourth black person, a minor whose name was not published and appartently the son of Petrus Radebe, also participated in the attack. All four admitted their guilt on all charges against them.

According to the accused, “we mutually raped Geraldine Viana”. Sipho Mbele raped her first while Petrus Radebe helped to restrain her by standing on her face. Afterwards Radebe raped her too.

Beeld reports that Charmaine Castleman, an attorney appearing for the accused, read a statement in court explaining that the three men burgled the Viana residence to rob them of their possessions and “to get Geraldine Viana back” for the way she had treated them.

The white family’s dog apparently barked tremendously during the burglary. The animal was killed by disembowelling him.

According to Beeld’s court reporter, 12-year-old Amaro’s dad Tony Viana first arrived at the burgled home. The three black men attacked him from behind with a machete and a golf club, after which he was forced to unlock the family safe. He was then tied up.

The boy and his mother arrived later and were tied up in separate rooms. Then the raping started. When Radebe and Mbele had finished raping Geraldine, Mbele placed a cushion over her face to muffle her screams and shot her with a pistol obtained from her husband.

The accused stated: “Afterwards Sipho took the gun and shot Tony in the head.” Mbele and Radebe then went to Amaro’s room and realised that the boy would be able to recognise them.

The Viana family in happier times: From left, Geraldine Viana, Amaro, Gabriela Correia, Tony's daughter from a previous marriage, and Tony Viana. Photo: Facebook







“We went to the bathroom and turned on the tap. We went to fetch him and gagged him because he was crying. We forced him into the bath face down, knowing that he would drown.”

From forensic evidence tendered in court, it was clear that the boy was held down in boiling water. The exact cause of his death has however not yet been determined by state pathologists. The boy’s hands and feet were tied.

According to Beeld, “Mbele and Radebe admitted guilt on charges of burglary with the intent to steal, robbery with aggravating circumstances, the possession of an unlicensed firearm, the illegal possession of ammunition and intentional damage to goods.”

The accused will be sentenced on 6 September. As the death penalty was abolished in South Africa, they will probably get lengthy prison sentences but could be out on parole within five to ten years.

The vast majority of South Africans, black and white, support the reinstatement of the death penalty, but the liberal Constitutional Court has stated that it would be unconstitutional. The ruling ANC and liberal opposition DA are also opposed to the death penalty.

A search of South African newswires in English for this story has returned an empty result. Until now, only Beeld has reported on the court appearance of the three murderers – in Afrikaans, which is only spoken in South Africa, although easily comprehensible to Dutch-speakers.



Robbers drowned boy, 12, in boiling water

Sipho Mbele, David Motaung and Patrick Petrus Radebe stand in the dock at their murder, rape and robbery trial. (Beeld)

Sipho Mbele, David Motaung and Patrick Petrus Radebe stand in the dock at their murder, rape and robbery trial. (Beeld)


Johannesburg - Horrific evidence has been heard in the Vereeniging Regional Court where three men pleaded guilty to several charges of murder, rape and robbery - before walking back their cells, laughing.

Beeld reported that the men’s lawyer told the court that they had broken into the home to steal possessions and get revenge on the way they had been treated by their employer, Geraldine Viana, 42.

The family’s gardener, Patrick Petrus Radebe, 24, their domestic’s son, Sipho Mbele, 21, and David Motaung, 20, broke into the house in Walkerville, assaulting and shooting dead Tony Viana, 53, and brutally raping and killing his wife, Geraldine.

They then tied up and gagged the crying Amaro Viana, 12, and pushed him into a bath of boiling hot water to drown him because he would be able to identify them.

It was not clear what had caused the boy’s death.

The family dog was killed by having his stomach cut open.

The men would be sentenced in September. 

Friday, July 20, 2012

Corrupt police chief Jackie Selebi released on medical parole

First, it was Shabir Shaik, financial “advisor” to showerhead Zuma, to be released on medical parole.  He was later spotted assaulting a photographer on a golf course.  Amongst other things.  Now Jackie Selebi is released, the former police commissioner of the Banana Republic and president of Interpol.

Rainbow nation 2from Praag:

Pretoria – Corruption-convicted former police commissioner Jackie Selebi will be released from prison on Friday, Correctional Services Minister Sibusiso Ndebele announced in Pretoria.

“Mr Selebi will be going home today [Friday],” he told a media briefing in Pretoria.

“The department has limited capacity to provide for palliative care needed by some offenders,” said Ndebele.

Palliative care meant he would be kept comfortable until his death, as there was no hope of him recovering.


An 11-member medical parole advisory board met on June 20 and recommended the release of six offenders, including Selebi, who needed dialysis for kidney failure.

Three of them had since died, said Ndebele.

Selebi was the president of Interpol at the time of the investigation into claims that he received money from convicted drug trafficker and police informer Glenn Agliotti.

He was convicted of corruption on July 2, 2010, and handed a 15-year jail sentence.

Selebi appealed against the corruption conviction in the Supreme Court of Appeal. His appeal was denied.

In December 2011, he collapsed at home in Waterkloof, Pretoria, while watching the judgment on television.

The appeal outcome meant he had to begin his 15-year jail sentence for corruption. It was decided he would stay in Pretoria Central prison’s medical wing indefinitely.

At the time he had not instructed his medical team to apply for medical parole. Selebi had also been trained to administer his own treatment. He suffered from diabetes and kidney disease. – Sapa

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Blacks can be racist

What do you know?  Finally, an admission.  Apparently this one didn’t go down well with the brain dead crack-head crowd, forever trying to tell us we are racist for exposing the ANC.  Just like the useful idiots in the States going nuts whenever whitey dares to criticise Barack aka the “Foreign Occupier” aka “Little Mugabe” (coined by the Great Frank of Queens).

Zombie chicken

from Citipress, by Nkul Mabasa:

I usually have a response to everything but I choked in two instances:

These statements made me realise that maybe we – black people – are racist but society has never allowed us to view it as racism.

When Tshidi Thamana tweeted: “@tshiditee: Dear Peter Mokaba ... I wish All White people were killed when you sang ‘kill the Boer’ we wouldn’t be expressing @JessicaLeandra’s racism right now”, I found the tweet funny but Jessica’s tweet uneased me.


Is this a case of conditional racism – only acceptable when practised by fellow blacks?

What Tshidi said is nothing new; from Twitter users to politicians we have heard similar statements, without remorse from the speakers.

This includes me. I once tweeted: “@FanaThePurp: when Mandela dies, we are going to kill you white people and eat you.”

Perceptions differ – some may view my tweet as a racial slur or a joke or an attention-seeking stunt but has anyone looked past those things?

Back to the matter at hand: Blacks decline the notion of us being racist because we are still acting like victims of slavery and colonialism.

Fair enough, our racism is historically influenced thus we are bitter and still angry.

Our leaders have asked us to forgive, yet reality does not allow us to do so.

This fake rainbow nation and this apparent unity we claim as South Africans have only shown that we are tolerant of each other but vastly segregated.

The matter of unity versus racism in South Africa is dangerous.

When the demons of, for instance, Julius Malema, Steve Hofmeyr and Jessica Leandra came out, a chain racist reaction occurred.

The perception is that blacks are not racist and whites are racist – hence there was less aggression from black people when Tshidi Thamana made that racist comment, compared with the reaction to Jessica Leandra’s tweet.

There is a belief that white people have to end all racist tendencies and association: we do not expect them to utter or act out in a racist manner.

As blacks, we tend to have an agenda when interacting with white people – we listen selectively in order to pick up anything that may seem racist so we can justify why we do not like and/or trust white people.

We (blacks) are ignorantly defensive, we demand everyone to pity us, and we enjoy playing victim.

When “blacks are fools” hit the scene, the first to jump were blacks, instead of engaging on the content, the focus was on the title.

This country has modern and typical black people.

As modern blacks we are a major contributor to our racist ways as we fail to educate the typical black person that racism is wrong in all forms.

Overall, as long as you see colour in others, you are racist. As long as interaction and perceptions of others is limited/based on race, you are racist – this applies to blacks, whites, Indians, coloureds and so on.

It’s not about who is the most racist but who will be the better man and end racism.

Monday, July 09, 2012

Zimbabwe?....No, Hazyview…

A boring subject, I guess.

“The police stood idly by while all of this was happening, and later ordered the security company to leave the land….”

Pretoria - A Hazyview man who was paid R700 000 to leave tribal land earmarked for a luxury hotel complex next to the Kruger National Park is to be evicted, the High Court in Pretoria ruled on Monday.

It granted an urgent eviction order against 60-year-old Frank Mhlongo, three of his children and other “farmers”, who forced their way onto the land and started erecting dwellings last week.

Judge Natvarial Ranchod ordered Mhlongo and the others to immediately vacate the property, to stop interfering with the developer's use of the land and to remove the structures they had erected.

They were also interdicted from having any contact with trustees of the local Hoxane tribe and inflicting any bodily or other harm on members of the tribe and employees of the developers, The Elephant Corporation (Pty) Ltd.

The police, sheriff of the High Court and the security company employed by the developers were authorised to use force, if necessary, to get rid of the illegal occupants.

Peter Foaden, of the developers, said in an affidavit his company had. in 2006, concluded a 50-year-lease agreement with the state, which holds the property in trust for the Hoxane tribe.

This was after the tribe agreed that the property would be developed to establish a hotel and a tented camp business from which the tribe would benefit and derive an income.

When a previous lease agreement was concluded in 1998, no one was living on the land, but when the developers took possession, Mhlongo had moved in and told them he would only leave once his crop had been harvested.

Even though the tribal chief confirmed that Mhlongo had never lived there and had moved in to opportunistically benefit from the land, he stayed put and even convinced other “farmers” to move in and act as a human buffer to his “strategic occupation”.

In 2006, the developers obtained an eviction order against Mhlongo and the other farmers, but he left only after a group of locals marched on the area to evict him.

Mhlongo was soon back, further delaying the development.

Foaden said even a ministerial inquiry, which found that Mhlongo had no claim to the property, could not shift him and the developers were eventually forced to pay R300,000 to 23 of the “farmers” and R700,000 to Mhlongo as a goodwill payment to ensure that they permanently left the land.

Although Mhlongo eventually moved out in 2009 and undertook not to occupy the property again, he first delivered a demand to the developers claiming that he had been promised “five percent shares” and then forcibly invaded the land again last week.

Foaden said Mhlongo and his sons intimidated the guards who tried to stop them. They stormed at the manager of the security company with a shovel and tried to hit him, and backed off only when pepper spray was used.

One of his sons produced a firearm and threatened to kill the security guards.

The police stood idly by while all of this was happening, and later ordered the security company to leave the land. - Sapa

Thursday, July 05, 2012

SA–a very sick society in massive denial

Rainbow Nationby ProJusticio from MyNews24:

There is no disagreement that South Africa is a very sick nation.

Zwelenzima Vavi, of COSATU, has just opined that we have no less than 20 demonstrations a day now about failed delivery of services. We all know about the crime statistics and that over two (2) million households are now headed by a child … just for starters. It is now nearly two years since Vavi correctly observed that a situation has been reached where the new elite was “spitting in the faces of the poor”.

What we don’t ever seem to agree on is the reason(s). The ANC support camp is always vociferous in blaming everyone and everything else “Whites, colonialism, imperialism …” except our ANC government.

Black political commentators, and the media, are more objective in correctly ascribing responsibility to government. However this is always done “gingerly” and with good dollops of political correctness.

White commentators, like Prof Pierre de Vos, are even more tactful. 

As a people we are just not identifying, admitting and addressing the fundamental drivers of why we are a very sick society. On Redi Tlhabi’s 702 talk show this morning (4 July 2012) struggle stalwart Dr Saths Cooper, very eloquently said as much labeling, SA as a very “abnormal” society. Society we are; nation we are not. Why?

Like everything else, whether it be a house, a dam, a bridge, a road or a society, it must start with the “fundamentals”. These are always critical. So let us confront the main fundamental with brutal candour ... for the first time I dare say.

On day one of our new democracy, in 1994, the dominant majority decided to define its members, not as human beings, but as a colour; the colour “black”. It did this, despite the fact that this “label’ came with really terrible credentials. It is no more, no less a racist social construct conceived in the cause of oppression.
It was conceived and nurtured in the old slave owning, plantation owner dominated USA to lump everyone, not of pure Caucasian genes (Negroid, Hispanic, mulatto, quadroons, octoroons .. etc), into one grouping. The infamous Jim Crowe “one drop” rule was a natural by-product. 

Of course the label “black” had great utility during the Civil Rights era. Since all non-whites were rejected by the dominant White group, unity of purpose to rebut racism was unavoidable.

However such utility was simply not indicated once liberation was won in 1994. It has little relevance in the USA to-day, where a whole people have voted in a colour blind way to install a man to the most powerful position in the World, purely on merit!

That people should be seen and treated as humans, and NOT as colours, was long overdue in South Africa. It was also at the heart of the struggle against apartheid, because treating human beings as colours was at the heart of the that culture.

However, instead of dumping the apartheid culture, and this racist social construct, we adopted it, embraced it and embedded it in our transformational model.

So we posted this as central to Affirmative Action, and we gave our socio-economic empowerment model the label “black”, i.e. Black Economic Empowerment.
In the result we can now post this plaque in the very heart of South Africa- “On this farm, as regards jobs and contracts, a Black MUST be favoured; a White MUST be discriminated against; a Coloured/Indian/Chinese MUST be discriminated against unless defined as Black”. Now for the apartheid model, just reverse the colour coding!
Our transformational model is an EXACT mirror image of the apartheid model. That is the grim reality. You cannot deny it. You cannot wish it away. We have the same absurd, immoral racist approach as that of one of the most evil political systems in history. We all know it. But NO ONE is saying it. No one will go there. We are a truly cowed nation. 

In this model the black majority has become “us”. The White minority has become “them”. The rest have become “the other”.

After 18 years we do not have a nation. We have groupings of people whose psyche is pre-occupied with difference, and the notion “black good, white bad, coloured not too bad/good”. It is like a growing cancer, eating away at the very fabric of society. 
Instead of making “subsisting disadvantage” the criterion, in a drive towards social justice, we made the colour “black” the criterion, in a drive towards “transformation”. Instead of saying that “a person who is still disadvantaged on account of apartheid will be affirmed/empowered” we say that advantage MUST accrue to even a multibillionaire, if he/she is black, and disadvantage MUST accrue to a White, even if he/she is a pauper, had nothing to do with apartheid, and might even have opposed it.
The same disadvantage MUST accrue to a Coloured or Asian person if he/she rejects the label “black”. This is vomitus stuff! We know this. But we are silent. 

BEE was gratefully accepted, by a new Black connected elite, as a wonderful present from the same sector that propped up apartheid. The colour “black” became a commodity/currency to be traded in for fabulous person gain. We have a plethora of entities that have labeled themselves as “black”, e.g, Black Management Forum, Black Lawyers Association … etc.

We have companies that specialize in certifying the level of your “blackness” under BEE accreditation. This is ludicrous. We know this. But we say nothing. 

Obviously evil begets evil. So it is not at all surprising that it has not worked … not at all. That is why we are still a very sick society 18 years after liberation was supposedly won, at terrible cost and human sacrifice. Given the fatally flawed model its objective too was fatally flawed.
That is why we have no mention of social justice in the national discourse. If social injustice was the evil of apartheid, social justice is the reversal. A government that is obsessed with race/colour/ethnicity is divested from even starting to understand that the real objective is social justice. We don’t know that this is the objective.
We don’t know it because we are stuck in an apartheid mentality. We are stuck there because we choose to deny the obvious. 

It was Joe Slovo who stated that “the effectiveness of freedom vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege” , i.e., BEE.

But you cannot understand people are not free if they are defined as a colour. You cannot understand that social justice is “colour blind”. When you define human beings as colour you are doing it for a perverse motive, not justice. When you attach rights and privileges to that colour you are being racist.

We all know this. For God’s sake, we should, as victims of apartheid! But we are silent. We are in a state of denial, massive wholesale denial.

That is why social justice is not within our understanding. It is not an objective. It is not in our discourse. We divested ourselves of this level of understanding on day one. 

There are consequences for this lack of understanding of social justice. We can name a few. It is why we are “comfortable” with our President taking as many wives as he likes, even though this is certain proof that women are still unequal.

It is why we all gleefully celebrated the 2010 World Cup, even though the country could not afford it and it meant squandering scarce resources needed for our poor and homeless. It is why not one person will even suggest that the deaths of some 320,000 victims of HIV/AIDs on account of the willful, arrogant, purposeful denial of drugs was a crime against humanity.

To suggest this of such an important member of the “Black” majority is taboo. It is why so many are happy at the singing of the song “Dubula ibhunu”.

It is why we acquiesce in the fact that a woman or child is raped every 20 seconds. It is why we connive and collude at the miles and miles of shacks and shanty towns in which human beings live like rats. It is why the Khoi San’s rights to reparation are not even mentioned.

It is why the deaths of 62 people on account of xenophobic violence has no official acknowledgement. It is why the police have become militarized. It is why the ruling party locked horns over “economic freedom” instead of social justice.

It is why the wise counsel of Dr Mamphela Ramphele that we need to “walk together” has been ignored with seeming contempt. It is why right now there is a conference, named “a social cohesion summit”, about the future of SA and no mention is made of social justice in the pitch.

The President is quoted as saying that “it is time to build an inclusive society”. The statement is irreconcilable with a society that is defined in terms of colours. No one is saying it! 

We need to understand that Lady justice is blindfolded for very good reason. She was not always so. Mankind took centuries to realize that she needed a blindfold.

What we have done in South Africa is to take the blindfold off. We ask her to see difference. We ask her to make her sacred call on the basis of colour. 

It is not justice, It is madness. We need to stop denying this! The so called “Social Cohesion Summit” is already fatally flawed.
"When in doubt, just tell the truth"
. Mark Twain.

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Smoke and mirrors

from Moneyweb:

zim flag bobRoy Bennett's assessment of the Zim situation and warnings for South Africa.


Distinguished guests, Rhodes scholars, ladies and gentlemen—

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this venue tonight. I do so in the knowledge that some will wince—and others will rub their hands together—at the sight of a former white Rhodesian farmer addressing an audience that benefits from the largesse of Rhodesia’s founder and colonial overlord, Cecil John Rhodes. But these connotations and associations constitute the main reason why I accepted the kind invitation to speak to you. I intend to tackle these issues head-on. I do so in the expectation that some will disagree violently with what I have to say, while others—both black and white—will distort my words for their own ends. I also recognise that Zimbabwe’s history and politics are complex and that I have been a participant rather than a neutral observer. However, I will try to be honest and to speak the unvarnished truth as I see it.

The central thesis of my talk is that Robert Mugabe and Zanu-PF have, since independence in 1980, consistently used ethnicity and other smokescreens to disguise brutal political and material objectives. But before I get started, I need to make clear that I am not denying the colonial wrongs upon which they hang many of their obfuscations. There can be no denying the arrogance, exploitation, violence and humiliations that accompanied much of white rule in Rhodesia. Land was stolen, people were brutalised, basic human rights were denied and the system was rigged to promote the interests of a minority. At the same time, I do refute deliberately simplistic interpretations and manipulations of that history, particularly where these are used to justify the unjust and defend the indefensible.

There are, I think, two misconceptions that need to be uncovered if we are to disentangle the twists and turns taken by Zanu-PF over the last 32 years. The first is the fallacy that Zanu is, in effect, a victim of history and of various invisible forces that seek to undermine the party’s ongoing role as liberator. Certainly, every government faces various constraints, but Zanu-PF frequently presents itself as confronting only two options: that of capitulating to subversive, usually imperialist, forces or that of bravely fighting against them. Yet it must be remembered that when Mugabe was given the legal power to govern the country, he and his party quickly consolidated their control over the state apparatus. They have retained that control ever since. They have been in a position to make a range of choices—and they have used this discretion to pursue an agenda that has nothing to do with national liberation or freedom. I will illustrate my point in a minute.

The second misconception, related to the first, is that Zanu-PF grapples sincerely with the legacies of colonialism and the realities of north–south inequality. In the views of some, they have done so wrong-headedly, but they have nonetheless done so with good intentions. This view is prevalent among Africa’s ruling classes and is shared, with a few reservations, by some in the West. But it is to buy into the stereotypes propagated by Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith, who represented black people as simpletons, with the slightly more intelligent political types capable only of subjecting themselves to communist puppeteers. It is ironic that Zanu-PF should continue to broadcast a colonial view of themselves as sincere imbeciles. They are far from that. Mugabe and his lieutenants have deliberately, cynically and strategically acquired and defended power. They have deliberately, cynically and strategically used propaganda to disguise their purposes. When the history of Zimbabwe is more fully written and understood, this point will become even more clearly visible than it was at the time to those of us who have experienced the depredations of the regime. Zanu-PF have been cunning and calculating—and to a degree and level of detail that would astonish many outsiders. I respect Mugabe for very little, but as an intellect from hell he is outstanding. And he is not alone.

In highlighting Zanu-PF’s freedom to make choices and the cunning self-awareness with which they have done so, I am not suggesting that the colonial experience left Mugabe and his comrades without scars, nor am I saying that nothing has ever been done in Zimbabwe with the intention of reversing historical disparities. What I am asserting is that the primary agenda has always been the pursuit of wealth and power—and that basic human rights, let alone the national good, have always been thrown out the window when they impinge on that agenda. The Big Lie is found in the contradictions between rhetoric and reality: the ‘liberators’ enslave, the ‘avengers’ steal, the ‘defenders’ murder and rape.

Whites were not the first object of Mugabe’s wrath. In the early years of independence, it was the Ndebele people who bore the brunt of Zanu-PF’s ambitions while the world lauded Mugabe for a supposed policy of reconciliation and for a non-aligned foreign policy. The Ndebele stood solidly behind Joshua Nkomo’s party, Zapu—and they were relentlessly repressed, oppressed and bludgeoned until 1987. We were told that Zapu were plotting against the government. We were told the Ndebele had not accepted their minority status and sought to reverse the will of the majority. We were told they were a clear and present danger to democracy, that they were orchestrating bandits to make the country ungovernable. We were told lies. This was the first of the smokescreens blown at us after independence. The real reason was that Zapu was the main obstacle on the road to a one-party state. It stood in the way of Zanu’s desire to rule in solitude and so it had to be knocked over. Zapu was attacked mercilessly, both directly and indirectly. Its officials were arrested, tortured and ‘disappeared’— and its supporter base, civilians—were treated to a medievel-style pogrom in 1983 and 1984. Many thousands died in what was the crudest of crude attempts to force Zapu into capitulation through the screams of its supporters and families. There remains much to be said and much to be done about that period.

There were other events in this early period that show how the supposed objectives of national liberation were subordinated to political imperatives. One of the most striking is the handling of the land issue in Matabeleland while Zapu was being persecuted. Land was the centrepiece of Zanu’s wartime platform. As in most African countries, most of Zimbabwe’s population lived in the rural areas and Zanu had tapped into resentments over the large tracts of land that had been occupied by white farmers, some of which had been seized in living memory. During the war, Zanu promised that this land would be taken back and redistributed among the black peasantry after independence. Therefore, in 1980, when Zanu-PF took power, there was a burden of expectation on the government and it sought donor aid to design, fund and implement land resettlement schemes. In Matabeleland, the United Nations Development Program funded World Bank personnel to conduct research and come up with a scheme appropriate for Matabeleland’s climate and demography. After four years of extensive survey work and community consultation in both Matabeleland North and South, a resettlement plan dubbed ‘Model D’ was ready. Custom-designed for the region, it had been approved by the Zapu leadership, the chiefs and the people on the ground. All that remained was for government to give it the go-ahead. Instead, it was unceremoniously dumped in the bin. This had nothing to do with a lack of money, an excuse that the government rolled out repeatedly when questions were asked about the slow pace of land reform. At the time, Zanu-PF was more interested in murdering the Ndebele than developing them. Indeed, at the very moment Model D was tabled, the government was using the military to block food aid reaching drought-stricken Matabeleland South. Thousands were starving as a result. So much for agrarian reform. So much for liberation promises. I repeat my point: in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, when politics and greed collide with the national good, it’s politics and greed that win—and usually with more than a touch of brutality.

Fast forward to Zanu-PF’s ‘Fast-track land reform program’—the internationally famous land invasions that began in 2000. If the media version was to be believed, this was when Mugabe ‘turned bad’ and turned on the whites after 20 years of moderate government. (Of course, the Ndebele had long told a different story, but few had been listening.) At the other end of the spectrum, we now have a revisionist school in academia that seeks to correct what it sees as different media distortions—the notions that all the land was taken by Mugabe’s cronies and that peasant agricultural production has collapsed. But this is to attack a straw man. It is to miss the point. Both the media and this revisionist school have a poor understanding of the primary colours of Zanu­PF’s rule since 1980.

The key to understanding the land invasions is to look at motive. Why did Zanu-PF endorse and organise the land seizures? The rhetoric of land reform and the constant harping about race and inequality was another smokescreen. The fundamental reason was political—Zanu’s grip on power had been threatened. The party had become deeply unpopular after trashing the economy and it was under immense pressure from a new opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change, or MDC. The land invasions were a way of hitting back and the thinking here was twofold. First, it was an electoral gimmick. Zanu-PF hoped that a free-for­all on white farms would help it recover some lost support. It was a deliberate attempt to appeal to base instincts—and to cash in on some cheap gratitude. The evidence is more than circumstantial. In private conversations, Zanu leaders made explicit reference to this rationale. In one document from a sensitive source, Eddison Zvobgo, a senior member of the party, says that he regretted the economic chaos that would result from the invasions but remarks that it had to be done for electoral reasons. Note the juxtaposition here. This was not mere populism. It was a last-ditch effort to pull back support in spite of the massive damage it would do to the country. Zvobgo was one of the few in Zanu-PF who had shown a flicker of genuine interest in development, especially in his own province. On this issue, he was as moderate as you would get in the ruling party, but the attitude was: we need to do this to stay in the driving seat—and the consequences be damned. Again, politics and greed over the national good.

The second rationale was that some of the MDC’s key support structures were on the white farms. Zanu-PF’s propaganda machine made a hullabaloo over whites who had donated money to the MDC in an attempt to portray the party as a front for white interests. That was a lie, but away from the spin, the Zanu-PF security machinery did have a keen awareness of the importance of white farmers and their workers to the MDC. Many farmers had become involved with the new party and were putting finances, logistical support and their knowledge of the rural areas toward the building of MDC structures. Similarly, a very large proportion of the million-strong white farm workforce were anti-Zanu-PF and were working closely with their employers. This rural constituency threatened not only to make inroads into Zanu-PF’s traditional rural support base but it was merging with the MDC’s strong urban labour structures in what was looking to be a powerful and well-balanced opposition. Zanu decided that it had to break these linkages. The white farmers had to be disrupted or driven off the land and their workers scattered.

My own experience is a case in point. When it became clear to Zanu-PF that I was going to stand on an MDC ticket in the rural seat of Chimanimani, I was summoned to the local country club in May 2000, one month before the elections. There I was met by a member of Mugabe’s intelligence organisation, Zanu-PF officials, the police and an assortment of thugs. It was not the colour of my skin that was the topic of conversation. Rather, I was told that my involvement with MDC was a problem. The message was that if I persisted, I would lose my farm and possibly my life. But if I desisted, everything would be ok. It was also at this time, when our collective determination was becoming evident, that my workers and party helpers began to be beaten and harassed. This was in every sense of the word a political operation. It was one that was repeated in thousands of locations across the country.

In 2012, there are but a handful of white farms left. The enemy has become less and less visible. The whipping boys are few and far between. And so the mirrors and smokescreens become more and more absurd. The latest is the drive toward ‘indigenisation’, a bastardisation of South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment program. Having freed the land from the British kith-and-kin, it is time, we are told, to free the remainder of the economy from the clutches of white capital and return it to real Zimbabweans. The official definition of an indigenous Zimbabwean is overtly racist. ‘Vir gebruik deur nie-blankes’—‘for use by non-whites only’ as the Apartheid government would have put it. But I’m not going to dwell on this. It is another facade—another hall of mirrors. Again, the gap between rhetoric and reality shows the lie. Some of Zanu­PF’s most important partners, co-sponsors of the current economic anarchy, are whites. There is a relatively small but very significant network of whites that work closely with the ruling party. Behind closed doors, Zanu-PF is infinitely pragmatic. The message will come down from on high: ‘He is one of us; leave him alone’.

The relationships are hidden, but the reasons for them are simple. These men help push the gravy train and grease the wheels of the party machine. Greed was an important sub-theme of the land invasions, with many of the best farms going to Zanu-PF functionaries. But ‘Fast-track Land Reform’ was in the first place an election stunt, a desperate and particularly perverse form of pork barreling. Indigenisation has flipped the order of priorities. The propaganda is still populist in its presentation, but Zanu-PF knows that no-one is listening. There is no chance of pulling back electoral support. The talk now hides, very barely, sheer gluttony and rampant avarice. This is a disease, an addiction unhinged and uncontrollable. Many of Mugabe’s acolytes have become unimaginably rich. But, now, in Zimbabwe, enough is never enough. Mining companies are squeezed for shares, backhanders and chunks of land. Others are bounced from their claims once they have paid upfront. These are the endless line of victims— gullible at best, but generally complicit, prepared to ‘play the game’ to survive. The perpetrators, the white and black mafia, Zimbabwe’s Cosa Nostra, connive, steal, smuggle and murder together, shifting the country’s resources out the back door and trampling the people underfoot.

The hypocrisy of Zanu-PF’s racial rhetoric is shown most clearly in the history of the individuals with whom it chooses to couple. Among those who became ‘one of us’ are people who used to bust sanctions for Ian Smith during the war, while others were closely connected to South African intelligence during Apartheid. Still others include former members of the Selous Scouts, the Rhodesian special forces unit that Zanu charges with more wartime atrocities than any other. Roy Bennett, too, could have been ‘one of us’ if he had helped milked the cow. Race and history are not barriers but screens to the good life in Zimbabwe.

These people some the most important comrades of Zanu-PF, men from the ranks of the Rhodesian enemy, a phantom, a Zimbabwean version of the Jewish world conspiracy whose representitives are, in reality, often closer than brothers. Yet they are not alone. Sadly, this is not a show just for the scum of black and white Zimbabwe. Foreigners are welcome to join the fun, as long as they play by Zanu’s rules, such as they are. Many of this hodge-podge of international brigands and profiteers also come from places and backgrounds denounced by Zanu-PF propaganda. White South Africans play a substantial role, collaborating with Zanu in ripping off our resources—a case in point being the exploitation of diamonds from claims that were acquired through theft and carnage. The Russians were given the cold shoulder in the 1980s because of their historical support for Zapu, but now they are more than acceptable because they have useful skills and a common disdain for human rights and the rule of law. Among other ventures, the Russians are now mining diamonds on my farm. These relationships are not limited to corrupt politicians and businessmen, but active members of Zimbabwe’s security services are increasingly involved. The Central Intelligence Organisation, or CIO, cooperates closely with Russian intelligence in what is both an offshoot and buttress of mutual commercial interests. CIO also works with Sam Pa, a Hong Kong businessman whose company trades $20 billion of oil with Angola each year. Pa and CIO run a joint venture in the diamond fields, among others.

What we have, then, is the exaltation and ruthless pursuit of mammon, a god whose worshippers come from all shades of life and who are supported by regional and international bandits and shoplifters. This criminal syndicate is laying waste to what remains of the nation’s body and soul. But it’s not just a problem for Zimbabwe. We are not just breeding and importing disease and destruction, we are exporting it as well. Most strikingly, the Zimbabwean cancer is spreading to South Africa. Bottom feeders from South Africa, many of them outwardly respectable companies like Old Mutual, have trampled on ethics and human beings in the stampede for the Zimbabwean carcass. Arrogant and hard-hearted, they have shown no hesitation in standing on the heads of the Zimbabwean poor as they cavort with the Zimbabwean rich. They believe they are untouchable, practicing, as they see it, their own cunning brand of worldly-wise expediency—and now practicing it, judiciously they think, at home in South Africa. ‘TIA’, they say— ‘This is Africa’; ‘walk in with the bowler’. What they do not realise is that they are bringing with them the people and practices that will annihilate the very foundations upon which their comfortable lives are based.

South Africa is ripe for the Zanu-PF variety of national liberation. Ethnic and racist propaganda will work a treat for those whose mouths have been fed by the same corrupt corporates and whose appetites have been whetted yet further by the feeding frenzy across the border. Already there is a dialogue between the demagogues in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The president of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, visited Zimbabwe to learn some of the tricks of the trade from our Minister for Indigenisation, the ironically-named Saviour Kasukuwere. Malema probably thought he had to give them something back, so he taught them the song, ‘Kill the boer’, which was banned in South Africa—though they changed the lyrics to ‘Kill Roy Bennett’. Malema has since been expelled from the ANC, partly for his refusal to tone down racist and extremist rhetoric and partly for his overt challenge to the authority of President Jacob Zuma. Zanu-PF has apparently encouraged and funded both aspects of the Malema circus. I doubt very much whether South Africa has seen the last of Julius Malema—and I have no doubts at all that the Zanufication of South African politics is taking root.

I have digressed somewhat in making the point that Zanu-PF’s anti-white, anti-imperalist and pro-poor rantings obscure the deification of greed in Zimbabwe. The populist appeal of mob rule is now hardly worth the candle, so the smokescreen is now largely to conceal the activities of the new Cosa Nostra. But does this mean that ‘Indigenisation’ and economic ‘liberation’ is not being used to hide the pursuit of political power? Has that other god of the Zanu pantheon slipped from view? Far from it. The mirage of electoral support may have disappeared, but strategic calculations remain. It is possible to get filthy rich and to stay in control. In fact, the one depends on the other. The syndicate have put aside a portion of the loot so as to thump the people at the next elections. People may not be persuaded to vote for the party but they can sure as hell be coerced into doing so. It’s a routine that Zanu-PF knows only too well. And it’s a routine that costs a bit of money; this is tithing, Zanu-style. The security services must be paid, the bullets must be bought, the militia must be dispatched. Already, the tried and tested methods are being dusted off for the next elections. Meanwhile, some of the lucre must be distributed to members of the opposition whose eyes have become bigger than their heads. This is the largely untold story of the last four years, since MDC has entered the so-called government of national unity. The mafia lives by the adage that every man has his price—and in Zimbabwe this has too often proven true. Some have effectively changed sides and joined the kleptocracy. Principle dissolves into a grey mass of voracity and covetousness. It is a problem that manifests itself from bottom to top, from councillors to leaders. It is now fashionable among Western diplomats to speak positively about a post-Mugabe future based on an informal alliance between the MDC and supposed Zanu-PF moderates. What they are really talking about is an undeclared merger with kleptocracy. If the vision of the future has come to that, then God help us. There are some who stay strong, some who have kept their hands clean. I am thankful for them. Certainly, the people of Zimbabwe want something new. Yet they are less aware of these realities—and largely unable to do anything about them in the absence of democracy. I fear that we stand on the edge of a precipice.

This brings us to the nub of the problem—and to my dreams for the future. I could plead for the acceptance of whites and Ndebeles as full citizens. I could appeal for a multi-ethnic, non-racial nation in which whites are not whites and the Ndebele and not Ndebele, but are, first and foremost, Zimbabweans. Yet I would be entering a debate whose parameters have been set by Zanu-PF’s propagandists. It is a debate some of my colleagues have been suckered into, feeling the need to make excuses for why they did not fight with Mugabe’s guerrillas or why there are whites in MDC or why they oppose indigenisation. The real problems in our country are more basic than Zanu-PF’s convoluted, deceptive and hypocritical sound bites would have us believe.

Looking back, I see a Zimbabwe destroyed by the worst instincts of human nature, by the extremes of ambition, power-lust and greed. The dividing lines here are not black and white but good and evil. Looking forward, I hope and pray that truth, justice and integrity will win the day. Their presence or absence, strength or weakness, signals life or death for the nation. We will never come to terms with our past or future without them. Painful they are, but utterly necessary. For those who lived it, our history will never be buried without truth, justice and integrity. Too often it has been used as a political tool or a personal excuse. If the past, back to 1980 and beyond, needs to be dug up and dealt with, so be it. I speak as one who participated in the war. And I speak as a victim of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. I have views, but I do not have all the answers. Let the truth come out. The truth is cleansing and it is good. We must shine the light and we must do it humbly. Perhaps I am a fantasist. We are far from truth and justice in Zimbabwe. Perhaps the past will only be buried with those who made it.

Time will tell. But we will certainly fail if we do not try. And what of the present and its own tragedies? We need Zimbabweans to choose principle over expediency. We need them to know that values matter, morally and materially. We need them to choose those who stand on values and we need to fight against those who don’t. If these choices are not made, if the fight is not fought, the nightmare can and will get worse. I give the same message to outsiders—at least to the ones who are prone to listen. I appeal today to a group of people who will become influential global leaders in government and business. Will your country or company operate amorally and immorally? Will you cut corners for money and self-interest? When you die, you will take neither wealth nor prestige with you, but you can surely leave the world a worse place than it was. Or a better place. It is the daily, sometimes small, choices that make for a life and a legacy. What will yours be?

I thank you.

Mr President, you’re in charge, not white men

from the Cape Times:

President white men

Sunday, July 01, 2012

If you’re not strong, you’d better be smart

We have received reports that a certain demented chicken entered the grounds frequented by Mike Smith after the chicken boasted that Mike’s site had been taken down (something he has bragged about in the past as having accomplished himself, when in reality the politically correct lunatic left just did what they always do best, which is kill free speech).

It must have been a huge surprise for the two legged creature so loved by the ANC and their murdering tribes to find out that Mr Smith was merely taking some time off from his distinguished blog.  We assign it to a case of pure short-sightedness and utter stupidity that the poor demented fellow didn’t observe Mr Smith’s own post that he is taking a time-out.  Others even reported on it.

It is said that if you’re not strong, you’d better be smart.  Sadly, both virtues not possessed by our demented friend or his crack-head following.  The reports are not very clear, but we can only conclude that the wandering chicken came across something he didn’t expect when wandering onto grounds were he would be out of his league without Mr Smith’s presence, let alone the great one being in the vicinity, casually clearing his mind.

It wasn’t really a fair fight.  In fact, only in the mind of the chicken is it ever a fight.  It seems the chicken only strolled onto the path of the great one.  Quite unfortunate for him, at the time the great one was walking down it.  Bystanders reported a dust cloud and plumes of feathers emanating from the intersect.  When it all settled, Mr Smith was nowhere to be seen.  One report indicated that Mr Smith was spotted strolling further down the path some time after, seemingly unaware of the commotion.

We only have some photos supplied by an admirer of Mr Smith who spotted the celebrity and had his camera on hand.  He was only prepared to give us photos of the chicken and clearly attached a significant value to the photos of Mr Smith, which we couldn’t argue with.

Before the incident:

rooster before



Another bystander took a series of photos of one of the demented chicken’s followers apparently attempting to haste to its rescue, but due to some unfortunate characteristics of her own, physically unable to reach the impact zone.  That is the chicken’s impact zone and not the one she created herself.




Warning after Briton raped in South Africa

It seems that English South African media is not only censoring out uncomfortable news like black-on-white farm murders (obviously to limit international exposure), but also other incidents of brutal crimes when foreigners are victims.  Incidents like these are only reported in Afrikaans or not at all.

blood_spattered_rainbowfrom Daily Mail:

The Foreign Office today urged UK visitors to take extreme care in South Africa following the rape there of a 29-year-old British woman.

A local motorist who tried to help the woman was shot dead by the attackers before they fled on Sunday morning.

The incident was at Mpumalanga - not far from Pilgrim's Rest in KwaZulu Natal where British woman Diane Conway was shot dead last month in a robbery.

"We are repeating our warnings about vigilance in certain parts of South Africa, particularly in KwaZulu Natal where there have been incidents of hi-jacking and robbery," said a Foreign Office spokesman.

"We have not, as yet, changed our South Africa travel advice, but advice such as this is under constant review."

In the latest incident, the British woman was repeatedly raped after she and a male South African friend were hijacked by four men after the couple had stopped at a beauty spot.

The attackers forced the pair into their own vehicle, raping the woman several times over a period of 14 hours.

A passing motorist who tried to help was shot dead by the assailants who then ran off.

The South Africa friend was knifed in the leg and suffered wounds to his back.

Both victims were being treated in hospital.

"We are offering all possibly consular assistance", said the Foreign Office spokesman.

So Zuma wants a new jet!

by Sunette Bridges:


Click in extract to view complete article

Civil war called crime

from MyNews24:

anc_dees-300x266On 28 June 2012, my stepdaughter with many others, were victims of violent crime in South Africa.

After taking her toddler son to crèche at 8:30am in Randpark Ridge, Johannesburg, she stopped at a traffic light. Since she smokes her window was slightly open & in an instant an attacker pointed a handgun at her head. She was ordered to turn and park while the gun was pointed at her, she complied. She was told to exit the car and the three armed and glove wearing men stripped her of valuables, pistol whipped her to the back of the head and threw her in the boot of her car, a Ford Figo.

She then was held captive in the boot of her car as the hijackers drove around while ransacking her possessions. Once the bank cards were found she was threatened with her life to give the pin codes which she did and the daily limits were drawn from her accounts. More driving around in terror in the boot, one can only imagine what goes through the mind of a woman alone with 3 armed male perpetrators that had already assaulted and robbed her.

Finally they asked if the car had a tracker installed, she said she didn’t know as it was a hired car and they then abandoned the car. This statement certainly saved her. As soon as they left she opened the parcel shelf, folded the back seatback and found herself at the point on a road where it turned from tar to dirt. Not having any idea where she was she made her way in the direction of the tar and came to a road where she flagged down a truck and the driver made contact so that help in the form of family got to the scene as quickly as possible. Where was she? Along a farm road, just 300 metres from Diepsloot off the R114 near Northern Farm.

We retrieved the vehicle, got her to trauma counselling at a police station where a volunteer was very helpful as was the trauma counsellor, but unfortunately the uniformed police officers could not have cared less.

Today is Saturday, 30 June and she is completely broken from her experience and the sad fact is this family has been hijacked before, an attempted hijack of myself and two passengers in 2000 near Uitenhage, my granddaughter during a driving lesson in 2008 and then her & I two weeks later in an attempted hijacking the day before she took her licence and passed. Both failed attempted hijackings involved high speed chases, I’m grateful to have had advanced tactical driver training. There are more incidences not mentioned, the saddest part of this is that this type of account can be heard in just about any suburban or rural family in South Africa.

The fact is we are, whether or not we recognise it or not, are in a nation where a civil war is being waged by criminals against the rest of the nation and right now they are winning. The victims of crime need to know since we don’t seem to have retaliated, instead correctly believing that the authorities we have appointed through our votes must do the job through the structures of the nation to protect the people. Problem is they haven’t and there is little hope of that changing any time soon.

Taking a look at some statistics:

South Africa has the 3rd highest murder rate in Africa after Angola and Lesotho and only the drug war states of Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Columbia have higher murder rates, that makes us the 7th most murderous nation on the planet.

Here is a sample of murder rates written as murders per 100 000 people:

Japan – 0.45

China – 1.21

Australia – 1.23

UK – 1.57

Canada – 1.67

India – 2.77

Palestine – 3.85

USA – 5.22

South Africa – 36.54, unless you are one of our 12000 commercial farmers where the murder rate is 3300 per 100 000, with a death toll of around 3811.

In 2011, there were 142 397 violent crimes reported in South Africa.

15 940 murders, 15492 attempted murders, 14 667 armed robberies of businesses, 16889 armed robberies at homes, 10 627 hijackings, 56 272 rapes in a total of 68 332 sexual offences.

The Vietnam war took place from 5 August 1964 to 28 March 1973, a total of 8 years & 8 months. The Americans lost 47 359 personnel to hostile deaths and 10 797 personnel in non hostile deaths, a total of 58 156. This is a total of 6710 people per year on average.

South Africa’s murder rate is therefore 237,6% greater than the average death rate of Americans fighting in the Vietnam war which resulted in a huge protest movement.

So we are at war against crime, like it or not and it seems the authorities are taking a wide berth of their responsibility with police being more of a form filling and reference number providing service for insurance claims rather than law enforcement and the judiciary being ineffective as a deterrent.

Surely this is the big issue that has affected most honest, decent South African citizens of all races and creeds that could unite and engage us to restart the dream of 1994 of a better life for all? It is time for the good people of South Africa to stop doing nothing so that the evil will not prevail, to paraphrase a cliché.

Let's not get all vigilante about it, but surely we need to start demanding protection?