Part 2 of Bonfire of vanities: limp-wristed liberals burn public protector at the stake.
This brings me to the John Maythams et al, the limp-wristed liberals gunning for the public protector Busisiwe Mkwebane.
Their irritating sanctimony is partly derived from the fact they’re of the class of mostly educated white liberals in academia and media who aggressively display their civil rights principles as a challenge to anyone who might think otherwise or less of them. Their black and brown peers share this trait but one already thinks of them as leftwing and their attitudes are expected.
The other part is they think they know everything, that only they can address the world’s big questions.
They’re really to the left and not true centre liberals. Theirs is not a modest, tempered liberalism, but leftwing zealotry. While they purportedly espouse liberal principles of freedom of speech, association and the fearless and fair application of the law, they brook no opposition if their worldview, which can be as narrow and self-serving as extremists on both ends, is contradicted. Examples (of many):
Throughout history, accusations of witchcraft started with whispers by the ignorant, envious, superstitious and those who had nefarious aims. In modern times those spreading rumours have a powerful tool: the media. The media and the like-minded the media favours control and are the sole arbiters of what information is disseminated. Putting aside for the moment the tech giants’ monopoly on information, the Internet has made information sharing more egalitarian. Unfortunately, social media platforms have enabled news as well as lies, misinformation and conspiracies to spread exponentially.
Journalist and publisher Maria Ressa said “a lie repeated on social media a million times becomes the truth”. If not lies then misinformation about Mkwebane was spread by the media and social media a million times until it became the truth. I tried but otherwise didn’t see one voice of reason, even among the rightwing who hate her because she’s ANC and Julius Malema defended her, to counter the prevailing views about her alleged guilt and that put the facts as we knew them objectively and fairly.
Even when writers and so-called experts pretended to be objective, their conclusion inevitably was that Mkwebane was unethical and incompetent, in their thinking the latter a lesser charge against the unproven primary one, because she had been overturned on review once or five times. But even those with a legal background never considered that losing and getting overturned on appeal is a fact of life of legal life. It was only a damning factor with her.
Is Mkwebane incompetent and does she have too high an opinion of her power and authority? Arguably. But as I wrote Maytham, incompetence is no hindrance to public or for that matter private office. In fact, in South Africa mediocrity is a requirement.
Was she the best candidate for the job? Probably not, but her appointment is typical of the ANC appointing unqualified blindly loyal cadres over merit. Ramaphosa is not the sharpest knife in the block but the difference is his white limp-wristed liberal followers adore him because, like Gordhan (and their other hero, Trevor Manuel), he has the appearance – western-style urbanity and culture, if you will, “civilisation” – whites relate to. And by investigating Gordhan, Mkwebane inadvertently attacked their vicarious interests (Zuma was fair game, though, because his avaricious venality and unapologetic black, Zulu culture set him far apart from white sensibilities).
What has not been proven is she’s unethical. (This cannot be said of Judge John Hlophe who despite his scandals and allegations of misconduct is still on the bench, though.) Of all senior office bearers, only she has been subjected to an extraordinary level of vilification and trial by media when others who deserve censure are left unscathed. No charges have been brought against her by her professional body, the Bar Council.
The Public Protector Act says a PP can be removed on grounds of incapacity. Incapacity is failure to perform. But she has performed although her office’s findings in high profile cases are often controversial. Controversy, including when she’s overturned on review, is not incapacity, though.
Mkwebane is her own worst enemy, though. Many of her findings, especially high profile cases, were suspect leading one to question the quality of the office’s investigative and legal staff. She overstepped her authority making recommendations she had no power to make. She appealed judgements when she should have accepted the court’s decision. However, her opponents are no different because they too appealed, using the courts and taxpayer’s money to fight personal battles. This is known as “lawfare”, which the DA, among her severest detractors, elevated to an art.
The Maythams, De Voses et al, by no means exclusively limited to whites but who by accident or design are among the prime movers of the witch hunt, are the sui generis of the limp-wristed liberal brigade. They’re filled with hubris, so sure they’re right and their conviction their perception is reality. They won’t consider alternatives to their entrenched views.
I emailed Maytham that Mkwebane is being subjected to a trial by media based on whispers started before there was prima facie evidence of genuinely unethical conduct. I said the agendas of those behind this must be interrogated. And the dire, often unethical and unprofessional ought to be last to light bonfire.
Instead of considering what I said, or at least not commenting, true to his type of presuming to having all the answers, Maytham replied I must “read the report of the three jurists. QED”. And further, “If you’d read the procedures that govern the possible removal of the head of a chapter nine institution [as he did], you’d know the parliamentary process must follow the legal committee’s report.”
I replied if the report, which I haven’t read, is as cut and dried of her guilt as he’s implying, why is there the need for a formal inquiry? “Isn’t the purpose of an inquiry to investigate allegations and determine innocence or guilt? And isn’t one presumed to be innocent, a right her detractors, which includes Maytham, haven’t granted her?”
But, I continued, “The witch hunt mob doesn’t have time or need for legal minutiae”.
The other characteristics Maytham’s genus shares with extremists are absence of introspection, complete conviction they’re always right and dismissal of opposing opinions even if they’re sound. Like the outcry against Mkwebane which is based on speculation and hearsay and in the absence at the time of a process to remove her, his response, despite his definitive QED – quod erat demonstradum – paradoxically indicates an ignorance of basic legal procedure.
I’m not a lawyer, but (as I wrote him) I know what “inquiry” means, the understood and accepted definition he intended with his pre-news statement: a hearing or trial. Committees like the one he mentions offer an opinion as to the prima facie evidence of guilt. They don’t replace a trial whatever Mkwebane’s critics’ strong feelings on the matter. The committee acts as prosecution or counsel for the prosecution. In such cases, the defence can and do present opinions on innocence, which they often present as motions to the inquiry or court to dismiss the case.
And since when are prosecutors unbiased and apolitical without one eye on the preponderance of public opinion?
Maytham and those who think like him ought to know none of the opinions referred to are proof to a legal certainty one way or the other. Remember the infamous and discredited and later withdrawn Steenhuisen Report convicting Patricia de Lille in the court of public opinion (Steenhuisen’s a good example of lack of competence for high public office). The exact same is happening again, from outset led by gossip and hearsay from people who have an axe to grind.
If one looks past his smugness, Maytham is one of the most erudite media personalities in the country. So it’s unfortunate even intelligent and well-read people (as he reminded me he is) have fallen victim to the witch hunt fever. The Mkwebane hysteria swept the community until with the exception of the few immune, everyone is affected.
This brings me to the John Maythams et al, the limp-wristed liberals gunning for the public protector Busisiwe Mkwebane.
Their irritating sanctimony is partly derived from the fact they’re of the class of mostly educated white liberals in academia and media who aggressively display their civil rights principles as a challenge to anyone who might think otherwise or less of them. Their black and brown peers share this trait but one already thinks of them as leftwing and their attitudes are expected.
The other part is they think they know everything, that only they can address the world’s big questions.
They’re really to the left and not true centre liberals. Theirs is not a modest, tempered liberalism, but leftwing zealotry. While they purportedly espouse liberal principles of freedom of speech, association and the fearless and fair application of the law, they brook no opposition if their worldview, which can be as narrow and self-serving as extremists on both ends, is contradicted. Examples (of many):
- When Stephen Grootes was host of CapeTalk/702’s Midday Report he questioned Gareth Cliff’s lawyer after Cliff won a lawsuit against MNET for unfair dismissal following unfounded allegations of racism. Grootes insisted asking about Cliff’s “racism”. At the time I put to Maytham Grootes’ editorialising during a news programme – breaching the Chinese wall. He defended Grootes’ and CapeTalk/702’s practice, which in this case was spreading conspiracies, fake news and alt-facts.
- CapeTalk morning host Kieno Kammies spoke about alleged racism as fact at San Souci Girls School despite there been no confirmation that the incident in question – pupils’ hairstyles – had to do with race and admitting he had no information. When a UCT lecturer phoned in that she knew first hand her white students were victims of racism from blacks, he replied it was “rumour”. He had no problem spreading unconfirmed rumours, though.
- In The Conversation a Stellenbosch University sports science lecturer wrote MNET rugby programme presenter Ashwell Prince was subjected to “racial patronage”, i.e. racism from co-presenters Nick Mallet and Naas Botha. Even after an independent inquiry, led by a black advocate, dismissed the complaint, the lecturer insisted Mallet and Botha were racist. When I and another reader, a university lecturer, criticised the writer’s incorrect, biased and racist views, the editor cautioned us to be civil. Later The Conversation banned me after I complained about another article where the writer invented hitherto unknown neologisms that promoted and is sympathetic to the left’s racial ideology.
- Most of the media, in particular Daily Maverick.
Throughout history, accusations of witchcraft started with whispers by the ignorant, envious, superstitious and those who had nefarious aims. In modern times those spreading rumours have a powerful tool: the media. The media and the like-minded the media favours control and are the sole arbiters of what information is disseminated. Putting aside for the moment the tech giants’ monopoly on information, the Internet has made information sharing more egalitarian. Unfortunately, social media platforms have enabled news as well as lies, misinformation and conspiracies to spread exponentially.
Journalist and publisher Maria Ressa said “a lie repeated on social media a million times becomes the truth”. If not lies then misinformation about Mkwebane was spread by the media and social media a million times until it became the truth. I tried but otherwise didn’t see one voice of reason, even among the rightwing who hate her because she’s ANC and Julius Malema defended her, to counter the prevailing views about her alleged guilt and that put the facts as we knew them objectively and fairly.
Even when writers and so-called experts pretended to be objective, their conclusion inevitably was that Mkwebane was unethical and incompetent, in their thinking the latter a lesser charge against the unproven primary one, because she had been overturned on review once or five times. But even those with a legal background never considered that losing and getting overturned on appeal is a fact of life of legal life. It was only a damning factor with her.
Is Mkwebane incompetent and does she have too high an opinion of her power and authority? Arguably. But as I wrote Maytham, incompetence is no hindrance to public or for that matter private office. In fact, in South Africa mediocrity is a requirement.
Was she the best candidate for the job? Probably not, but her appointment is typical of the ANC appointing unqualified blindly loyal cadres over merit. Ramaphosa is not the sharpest knife in the block but the difference is his white limp-wristed liberal followers adore him because, like Gordhan (and their other hero, Trevor Manuel), he has the appearance – western-style urbanity and culture, if you will, “civilisation” – whites relate to. And by investigating Gordhan, Mkwebane inadvertently attacked their vicarious interests (Zuma was fair game, though, because his avaricious venality and unapologetic black, Zulu culture set him far apart from white sensibilities).
What has not been proven is she’s unethical. (This cannot be said of Judge John Hlophe who despite his scandals and allegations of misconduct is still on the bench, though.) Of all senior office bearers, only she has been subjected to an extraordinary level of vilification and trial by media when others who deserve censure are left unscathed. No charges have been brought against her by her professional body, the Bar Council.
The Public Protector Act says a PP can be removed on grounds of incapacity. Incapacity is failure to perform. But she has performed although her office’s findings in high profile cases are often controversial. Controversy, including when she’s overturned on review, is not incapacity, though.
Mkwebane is her own worst enemy, though. Many of her findings, especially high profile cases, were suspect leading one to question the quality of the office’s investigative and legal staff. She overstepped her authority making recommendations she had no power to make. She appealed judgements when she should have accepted the court’s decision. However, her opponents are no different because they too appealed, using the courts and taxpayer’s money to fight personal battles. This is known as “lawfare”, which the DA, among her severest detractors, elevated to an art.
The Maythams, De Voses et al, by no means exclusively limited to whites but who by accident or design are among the prime movers of the witch hunt, are the sui generis of the limp-wristed liberal brigade. They’re filled with hubris, so sure they’re right and their conviction their perception is reality. They won’t consider alternatives to their entrenched views.
I emailed Maytham that Mkwebane is being subjected to a trial by media based on whispers started before there was prima facie evidence of genuinely unethical conduct. I said the agendas of those behind this must be interrogated. And the dire, often unethical and unprofessional ought to be last to light bonfire.
Instead of considering what I said, or at least not commenting, true to his type of presuming to having all the answers, Maytham replied I must “read the report of the three jurists. QED”. And further, “If you’d read the procedures that govern the possible removal of the head of a chapter nine institution [as he did], you’d know the parliamentary process must follow the legal committee’s report.”
I replied if the report, which I haven’t read, is as cut and dried of her guilt as he’s implying, why is there the need for a formal inquiry? “Isn’t the purpose of an inquiry to investigate allegations and determine innocence or guilt? And isn’t one presumed to be innocent, a right her detractors, which includes Maytham, haven’t granted her?”
But, I continued, “The witch hunt mob doesn’t have time or need for legal minutiae”.
The other characteristics Maytham’s genus shares with extremists are absence of introspection, complete conviction they’re always right and dismissal of opposing opinions even if they’re sound. Like the outcry against Mkwebane which is based on speculation and hearsay and in the absence at the time of a process to remove her, his response, despite his definitive QED – quod erat demonstradum – paradoxically indicates an ignorance of basic legal procedure.
I’m not a lawyer, but (as I wrote him) I know what “inquiry” means, the understood and accepted definition he intended with his pre-news statement: a hearing or trial. Committees like the one he mentions offer an opinion as to the prima facie evidence of guilt. They don’t replace a trial whatever Mkwebane’s critics’ strong feelings on the matter. The committee acts as prosecution or counsel for the prosecution. In such cases, the defence can and do present opinions on innocence, which they often present as motions to the inquiry or court to dismiss the case.
And since when are prosecutors unbiased and apolitical without one eye on the preponderance of public opinion?
Maytham and those who think like him ought to know none of the opinions referred to are proof to a legal certainty one way or the other. Remember the infamous and discredited and later withdrawn Steenhuisen Report convicting Patricia de Lille in the court of public opinion (Steenhuisen’s a good example of lack of competence for high public office). The exact same is happening again, from outset led by gossip and hearsay from people who have an axe to grind.
If one looks past his smugness, Maytham is one of the most erudite media personalities in the country. So it’s unfortunate even intelligent and well-read people (as he reminded me he is) have fallen victim to the witch hunt fever. The Mkwebane hysteria swept the community until with the exception of the few immune, everyone is affected.
Comments
Post a Comment