Saturday, October 07, 2006


A good idea gone so very wrong

There is no doubt about it that White South Africans are feeling the rising tidal wave of crime in that country. In response, several websites have opened to protest this crime and bring it to the attention of the world. Sadly these people don't realise that it's very hard to bring anything in Africa to the attention of the world. The wars, famines, droughts, brutality, misgovernment, natural disasters and outbreaks of diseases seem unrelenting, no matter how much money the west gives, no matter how many peace accords are brokered, pop concerts held, or how many summits are attended. Furthermore on the list of disasters wreaking their havoc in Africa, the rising crime in South Africa is very low on the scale of emergencies.
Now that South Africa is going to host the 2010 soccer world cup, however, there is a window of opportunity for change. Tourism is a large industry in the country and tourists have been murdered, raped and robbed along with the citizens. This is obviously something the South African government does not want publicised as it gears up for a lucrative international event. But these rebel websites are doing their utmost to ensure the world does know, exactly what is going on in the country. That it is not the peaceful paradise Mandela sold it as.
What a great pity, then, that sites like run by Niel Watson allows its message boards to be filled with racist comments and empty rehtoric.
When first directed to the site I was pleased to see promises of "freedom of speech" but noticed that the only people given such freedoms were those that propegated racism. Don't get me wrong, it allows publication of letters from blacks, but mostly those that spew hatred and abusive language.
I chalked this up to teething problems. It appeared Watson was a good man, trying to do what was right but had been overwhelmed by the response from South Africans eager to have a voice over the most pressing issue in their lives.
A request for an interview with Watson went unanswered.
The site claims to "moderate" comments, but I have not been able to discover the criteria they use for moderation.
Still as the racism grew and members questioned whether or not this hurt the site's image no effort was made to curb it. One supposes this was under the "freedom of speech" tennet. But on the other hand, my postings were, in fact censored. I was surprised at this because in no way had they been abusive. In the absence of any explanation from the powers that be, I can only assume this was for two reasons:
Firstly, as a journalist I have certain ethic and moral, not to mention legal restraints on what can and cannot be published. It appears - not unexpectedly - that crime expo feels no such restraints or responsibility. They saw fit to publish a picture of a rape victim, without saying the victim had given permission for her picture to be published. One of my emails took them to task for this.
Second, Jackie Selebi's comments that people who complained about the crime in the country were welcome to leave drew the expected outrage - across the world. The point being debated on the site was that Selebi had said he would take resources from previously white areas and deploy them in previously black areas as needed. The general feeling was, of course, that whites seemed to deserve better policing protection than blacks. My email pointing out that protection of the law was something all citizens needed was deemed not fit to publish.
Under the current conditions it's easy to see why these activist sites fail so miserably. If they were more ethical, if they were indeed not racially biased, businesses in South Africa and citizens across the colour divide would be clamouring to support them. Instead the opposite is true, and their credibility is so bad that no one wants to associate with them.
It's de ja vu of the apartheid government.
Christ, how deluded you are! I am a White male, proud of my race and heritage, and disgusted by the de facto genocide of my people in South Africa. So I put up a blog at
and have had in excess of 30 000 (that's THIRTY THOUSAND) hits in little over a month. People overseas care a bit more than what you suspect, over what goes on in Africa. Go see for yourself, there's an independent hit counter to prove this.

As for you, why don't you come back to SA and spend a night or two in a black township? Too shit-scared, little missy goody two shoes? What's the matter, don't fancy being raped, sodomised and murdered by a gang of your beloved stinking, diseased black savages lest their typically simian actions divest you of your deluded, false beliefs hmm? I thought so. Grow a back bone, you silly little girl, and if you have nothing to contribute, then shut the fuck up!
30 000 hits world wide? Sorry but I live in a tiny area in the world - Hong Kong - and I have over 180 000 readers A DAY.
I agree with you, I will not go back and live in a township because I would be inviting crime. I did not say crime does not happen. What I do say is that people who have to live in townships deserve policing just as much as those living in Sandton or Constantia or Hillcrest.
I have recently returned and I saw what was going on. Nowhere in my blog do I deny that crime is happening. I just don't think that you can tackle it along racial lines. Take a look at what's happening in Zimbabwe. When was the last time you heard Zimbabwe mentioned by the International Herald, the New York Times, The Guardian, etc etc etc. The only stories coming out of Africa at the moment are about Somalia. No newspaper is going to take up the "fight" for a bunch of Nazis.
You are right, no one care about these dinosores. Why waste your time and talent on these people? I have been waiting for you to say something about Litvinenko. I know you have your ideas. Come on. All that fight about right to life for Terry Shiavo and you waste your energy with people too fucking stupid to get off their own arses to help themselves.
The other thing I am wanting to hear from you is about the chinese satelight missile. What is this, do you think? A lose of face for the Chinese or a bite in arse for UKUS?
Hi Wolf. Of course I have theories about Litvinenko and a lot to say about China's shooting down of the satellite. I'm just a bit crunched for time right now. I don't remember if you recall the wee brown man from the days of eyesred. I'm starting lessons with him tonight and he's a hard task master, plus involved in a criminal case (no I'm not the criminal) and trying to get a foothold in another department at work.
Wolf, why do you think this is a loss of face for China? They did nothing wrong, just shot down one of their own satellites.
A warning to the US... for sure. Who would not want to warn those bastards if they could.
VV I think it is a loss of face for China because China is always telling everyone how good she is and how she is not building her military and how her rise to power is to be peaceful. All with the open check book. You know I mean to buy oil and what ever they are needing all over the world.
But now the whole world can see this is a lie. They are moving very fast their military technology to catch and maybe even to pass the UKUS.
So weren't you the chick that go knocked up by one of the "Soviet Advisors" that was helping to fuck your country over... and you..?
I think I would remember if I had any children
interesting to read your views on South Africa.
Have you read Lester Venter's book "When Mandela Goes" ?
statistic from Jonny Steinberg, one of the more sane voices on crime: Whites constitute one in 11 of the population (just over 9%) but only one in 33 of murder victims. Your best chance of being a murder victim is if you are black, male and young.
Anonymous said...
interesting to read your views on South Africa.
Have you read Lester Venter's book "When Mandela Goes" ?

February 09, 2007

Hi Anon, and welcome. I have not read with Mandela goes. I'm still battling through his biography, that should take me er... two years I reckon.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?