Is South African law too liberal for its citizens?

The issue came up out of literally nowhere. I was contemplating the South African Constitution and the various civil rights statutes and whether or not the populous is truly up to date on these and concur with the sentiments contained therein.

Of course the vast majority will laud the Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 which effectively ended legalised exploitation of employees and those most vulnerable in our society. This statute is heavily in favour of the employee and several rather old-school captains of industry consider this act a thorn in their flesh. Not only because it necessitates fairness, and equality but because it effectively prevents those shrewd businessmen from exploiting, harassing, coercing and intimidating their employees and getting away with it.

We also have the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000 which provides for redress in cases of discrimination based on a very wide selection of criteria. I am sure many are very happy that they are not exposed to wanton discrimination and systemic inequality. How many of those are just as happy that the LGBTIQ population is also protected?

Do not even get me started on same-sex marriage or capital punishment. Heck, here I go nonetheless ;)

When the shocking statistics were revealed in 2008 that up to 80% of the South African populous are not in the slightest bit in favour of same-sex marriage I was quite annoyed, disgusted and terrified at the same time. It clearly shows that the Constitution is quite very far ahead of the proletariat.

The middle classes have endless gripes about the illegality of capital punishment. I suppose I will not really know what drives people to seeking the blood of another. A very wise person said that resentment is a poison you feed yourself thinking (or hoping) it is going to kill someone else. For some reason those family members affected by a homicide will hardly ever do the execution themselves. They place that responsibility in the hands of the state. Not a person but a supposed objective and abstract construct. The executioner is obviously a human. I wonder how those people lived with themselves and continue to do so in the many uncivilised countries where capital punishment is still carried out - par example the entirely backwards USA. The public stoning to death of people in horrid countries still ires and nauseates me to this day. It must be very fulfilling to have blood on your hands...

The vast majority of South Africans lack the compassion, understanding, and empathy to embrace the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and harbour mountains of resentment, anger, frustration and a lack of emotional intelligence. How elitist of me to utter such obvious westernised ideals here...

Yet I remain a Westerner in spirit, raison d'être and core philosophy.

I am by definition an astute individualist. I do not give a rat's-behind who or what my neighbours are or what they do as long as they do not hassle me. I may have read too much Ayn Rand but I believe our most important right is to not infringe on the rights of others and it is reciprocal by nature. Idealist, yes.

I am not because of other people as the popular African saying goes.

I stand with Descartes: "Je pense, donc je suis" (I think, therefore I am)

Being stuffed in a pigeonhole

To start - I am an Afrikaans dissident who absolutely refuses to be referred to an "Afrikaner". In fact that term conjures up images and memories of our fascist past, stuffy old boys clubs like the nefarious Broederbond and the equally disgusting Jong Dames Dinamiek, and who can forget the Afrikaans churches who wholeheartedly preached Apartheid from the pulpit? I refuse to be called that and I inform everyone of it. By pure chance I happened to have been born into an Afrikaans family of French Huguenot origins, who gave up le francais for practical reasons since they lived in a Dutch colony in 1688. They discarded their language and most of their culture for a place to live free of religious persecution. (Of the 400 000 Huguenots that fled France only 200 came to Afrique du Sud.) I happen to be a descendant of those 'heretics'. The Dutch mingled with Malay, German, French and English and became known what is the language of Afrikaans today - mere more than a century old.

My ancestors of the 1800's were not Voortrekkers and they were not party to the great exodus out of the Cape. They arrived in what is now known as the North West Province about 50 years later. Uncannily one of my direct ancestors were one of the Afrikaans bible translators of 1933 - his monument declares Dr. Fourie - co-translator of the first Afrikaans bible - and the tomb is on the premises of the Reformed Church in the rustic town of Groot Marico, 40km from where I grew up. Nevertheless, despite all of this, I have no sentiments regarding my linguistic heritage since it is in fact not my antecedent language. I have expunged that language from my written communications and speak it only as it is easy, but I am by no means a puritan and those will have aneurisms when they hear how I speak it. I do not do the Cape-dialect with the disgusting accompanying accent - I just intermingle a lot of jargon which is English, French, German, and Latin.

I have more of an allegiance to the LGBTIQ community than my supposed stuffy linguistic fraternity. I do not wish to live in an Afrikaans "bantustan". In fact I have often only contempt for those who just happen to speak the same language. I hate their patriarchal and fundamentalist culture, I hate their culture. Period. I have been to the Voortrekker momument but it was no emotional experience. I often make jokes at their expense and laugh at them when I happen to drive by Loftus and curse at the road closures, obscene detours and ubiquitous over-zealous car guards all because they want to indulge in some biltong, klippies & coke, testosterone and rugby. Puke. So, if you want to hear how dysfunctional this group of people are, ask a dissenter who by some similarity are grouped with these fools.

I was thus quite perturbed when a friend of totally different heritage made a comment that it is in the Afrikaans populous' DNA to want autonomy and independence since they are from Dutch, French and German descent and fled to claim their own republics in the north of South Africa.

Even though I have no allegiance towards the supposed "Afrikaners" I completely understand why they did not want to live under Colonial/Imperial British rule where the Brits came and usurped which was not theirs. This was the same raison d'être behind the American revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Federal Republic known as the United States of America. It is also the raison d'être of the French revolution where the first modern democracy was instituted. I find the system of government in Britain very antiquated and not befitting our Zeitgeist. It is a vulgar remnant of the Medieval Feudal system which in fact should be phased out. The class system is even manifested in parliament - they have a House of Commons and a House of Lords. They have a jury system where the proletariat play amateur judges. But hey, what can we expect from a country with no Constitution. Yes, you heard right, I was equally flabbergasted, they have no written Constitution.

Identity politics is always a sticky issue. People within certain demographic and psychographic groups are by no means homogeneous in their outlook on life, philosophy, and other aspects which makes identity.

I could probably be classified into three categories: Afrikaans, Gay, South African. And I am the quintessential of neither.

I am not quintessentially Afrikaans since I don't braai, I do not label myself an Afrikaner and I harbour no sentiments regarding our history and heritage. I see my heritage as French. I am not a puritan when it comes to verbal language use and I do not correspond in it. I find the Cape-dialect and accent horrible and would rather die than speak like that, which makes for a puritan contradiction. People from the Free State and the Cape often have no clue when I am speaking Afrikaans since I have the habit of speaking with the pompous Pretoria East accent. People have asked my mother why I speak Afrikaans with an English accent (I don't). When I say 'a' they hear 'o'. When I say 'ek' they hear 'ak'. Both my brothers also speak like that.

I am far from being quintessentially gay. I do not do interior decorating. I am often unconcerned about how I look. I am not obsessed with dance music and I do not listen to Barbara Streisand. I also refuse to follow some convoluted protocol just because I happen to be gay.

I am not quintessentially South African. I do not particularly like the country as a whole and dislike the Republic of Cape Town. I identify as a citizen of the world rather than a South African citizen. I do not really feel 'African' and I am more than often dismayed by the flagrant human rights abuses in the continent. I am not a formal member of a political party and I will definitely not die for my country. I am not very patriotic, have no idea what the lyrics of the national anthem is and frankly do not care enough to know.

Maybe I'm one of the grumpy old white people that one of my friends wrote about...

I have friends the world over and globalisation has lead to a confluence of culture and the commercialisation thereof. We also have a culture of disposability. We have disposable nappies, disposable cameras and cellphones, disposable music (especially dance music which has a very very short shelf life, same for pop) and disposable relationships.

Do we know who we are? Maybe more or less but it doesn't bother us much. And frankly should it matter?

Unfreedom of speech in South Africa

Americans often laud themselves on their Constitution and its over-glorified First Amendment.

In essence the First Amendment is a free-for-all get-out-of-jail card which causes the country (and world by proxy) much harm.

Bigots use it to incite hatred against their imaginary cultural war foes, they use it freely, without restraint and in the worst way possible. Lies, deceit, propaganda and defamation is virally spread through mass media with the fervour that you will not encounter in any other country.

If Doctor-Charlatan Paul Cameron wants to say that: "gay men consume a sizable quantity of faeces, are more likely to be involved in incest, bestiality and paedophilia," he does so without the slightest possibility of being arraigned or any restitution happening.

This makes the United States of Bigotry (America) the haven of the stark raving mad, the fundamentalist and the racist, neo-Nazi, heterosexist and panderer of any unfathomable trite.

LGBTIQ advocates from that very unfortunate fool's paradise have confessed to me with a sigh that since preposterous hate is given a free pass by government and the judiciary that their only rebuttal is to counter lies and hate with truth and counter-arguments.

Some astute LGBTIQ advocates even laud the farce of the First Amendment themselves. Jim Burroway from Box Turtle Bulletin for whom I have a lot of respect even 'defends' this antiquated get-away-with-murder amendment in his post of 16 July 2006 called "Lying about the Hate Crime Bill, #2: 'A danger to Religious Freedom'" (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/)

He further states that in Europe hate speech and hate crimes are criminalised because their Constitutions allow for it. The same will probably never happen in the US. Sad state of affairs...

In South Africa we have a Constitution lauded as the most progressive and liberal in the world which outlaws hate speech and hate crimes by in effect placing a caveat on freedom of speech. I would not have it any other way. We are fortunate, but we must realise where this doctrine originates.

For many years a lot of people had to suffer for us to have the rights and freedoms that we have today, and were our history different we would have had a completely different Constitution. After the fall of Apartheid we decided in what kind of country we wanted to live in. The Constitution makes this a moral pluralist and egalitarian country with no group formally having the upper hand and no remnants of the fascist regime to be found. We had to endure fascism to get what we have. If only social justice didn't come at such a high price.

The South African Constitution doesn't codify the Separation between Church and State doctrine but states that no religion shall be superior to another. In the event of the religious right stymying the rights and freedoms of the LGBTIQ community we can simply argue that our religion is one of Egalitarian Non-Fascist Humanism and that it is equally valid thus negating their claims. Lovely concept this moral pluralism...

We would have been a riotous, violent and hate-ridden country (like the US) if we had a carbon copy First Amendment, no change would have been ushered in. Militants and fundamentalists would have reigned supreme and there would have been no such thing as human rights and only martial law.

Luckily we had visionaries (like Nelson Mandela - whose birthday it is today coincidentally, and Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu) who placed a high value on the power of forgiveness and redress in a non-violent manner. These two persons were amongst many who knew how important basic human rights are and are the quintessential figures of virtue, forgiveness, rationality, compassion and coincidentally they are both Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. In fact it is no coincidence at all. At a time they both lived on Vilakazi Street in Soweto, they both were instrumental to this county's healing and both are respected worldwide. We owe them much.

The Stonewall Riots sparked the modern LGBTIQ rights movement and yet ironically the US lags far behind in LGBTIQ rights. There it is perfectly legal for someone to get fired for just being gay or trans. Is that a moral country? No.

NARTH, Exodus International, Scott Lively and Paul Cameron churns out so much hateful trash to the detriment of everyone and they are allowed to do so unhindered.

Human rights are put up for public auction (proposition (H)8).

Lovely. Let the people decide.

Even in a court of law your fate my be in the hands of plebs with no legal background and nothing but their prejudices to make decisions. Is that justice? The jury system is a bloody sham.

A bar gets raided on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, one man is seriously injured with subdural haemorrhage. A doctor performing abortions gets shot dead in front of church. A couple get harassed and manhandled for kissing in public - a piece of open street which is the property of the Mormon Church. And the list is both endless and very depressing.

I would rather live in a country where I am barred from hate speech than live in one where rampant hate flourishes. Would you not?

The Ex-gay fraud and religious fundamentalism - exploring the origins

I had the particular pleasure of spending two hours and twenty minutes in my car with my two straight brothers on our way to the weekend retreat far away from the city. We do this quite often and we often have philosophical or religious debate much to everyone's annoyance with the soundtrack of oh-so-gay music playing - hey it's my car, I'm driving so I call the shots and coincidentally I am the eldest, most cynical, by far the most liberal and the only gay sibling.

My brother of second birth had a fairly recent religious rebirth of such and is in essence a huge fundamentalist, bigot and conservative. He maintains that the term 'liberal theologian' is a contradiction in terms. I have not the faintest clue what sparked this spiritual revival and subsequently bestowed upon him the title of His Excellency Pious III.

I am on the other hand quite ambivalent and uninterested in mainstream religious thought and have a pet hate for self-righteousness and religious fundamentalism and radicalism. I am not very tactful when it comes to conversations with Pious III and very often invoke his ire and raise his blood pressure. I see the religious texts as an allegory where it is not designated as historical narrative. I am completely confounded by the very selective applications of the plethora of antiquated and stuffy laws contained in Leviticus. Frankly those laws are the embodiment of sexism.

My baby brother of 19 did not say a word but got more agitated the more we debated. He is slightly more liberal than Pious and not a fundamentalist but a real wise-ass, and is very patronising, rigid and throws temper tantrums not befitting someone approaching 20. I call him petty and infantile and his ranting is often fraught with an obsession with rules and routine and structure, adherence to the most futile and inconsequential doctrines.

I think they both strive to be the complete antithesis of what I am and while I see myself as conscientious, kind, and compassionate they make me seem a reckless, carefree, hedonist, indulgent, and manipulative creature.

I have little or no holy cows and almost anything is fair game. I am adept at getting Pious contradict himself and prove my point for me which I very quickly point out, I am adept at nudging the conversation in a certain direction which with some interjecture leads to my intent - refuting the opposing argument. I am adept at doing it with not anyone but only specifically with those that I know very well - like Pious in this instance.

Since science and the medical fraternity has proven the innate and immutable nature of sexual orientation and gender identity and issued stern warnings and denounced reparative therapy as lacking efficacy and producing intense harm - the sole basis and premise of reparative therapy lies in the doctrine of the almighty nature of god and the dogma that nothing is impossible for him. You know, that's why the earth is six thousand years old, mortals rise from death and miracles happen and that the whole world was under water.

Pious believes the good book by letter in a literal sense. I told him that the story of Adam and Eve, the snake and the tree of wisdom is a meme just like the great flood which coincidentally is also in what is known as the Gilgamesh Epic. Pious was not impressed by my outlook.

The more contemporary examples of such allegories or memes are the so-called fables from midieval Europe - the most uncanny the story of little red ridinghood which is said to trace back to the tenth century in Romania. The girl symbolizes defiance and her red apparel denotes her promiscuity with the wolf being a sexual predator such as a rapist - these were manifestations of the oral history told by wise elders and all of the fables have been mutated over the years just as the religious texts more than likely also mutated over the years with the early Roman church having a vested interest in using memes to prevent defiance, provide for subservience and the quelling of freedom of speech and freedom of individual thought. The Roman church saw the efficacy of spreading guilt feelings as a measure to control and manipulate society. Hence the notion of 'inerrancy', the 'sinful nature' and using all these emotional manipulations to achieve their goals.

It is very easy to control a society of people too afraid to question things and take things at face value with no independent thought. It is also then very easy to impose prejudices en masse.

This, I think, is the gist of it, the origins and motivations. And sadly people are fooled to this day.

The old French adage is very true: plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same)...