FIX THE FXI is calling upon Na'eem Jeenah (director of the Freedom of Expression Institute) to demand the immediate release of Delaram Ali in Iran.
Na'eem Jeenah is particularly interested in "Islamic Feminism' and has produced a MA political science thesis on the subject so he should, of course, be demanding the release of a 24 yrs old Iranian woman who is fighting for women's rights.
Delaram Ali has been sentenced in Iran to a 2yrs 6mths prison sentence and a flogging for campaigning for women's rights.
In the circumstances Na'eem Jeenah and Jane Duncan of The Freedom of Expression Institute should immediately ask deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad to contact the Iranian ambassador with regard the imprisonment and flogging of Delaram Ali.
Na'eem Jeenah is also interested in Islamic jurisprudence and he should immediately consider whether a "flogging" is an appropriate punishment.
If both Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah remain silent, it will be further evidence that the organization that they represent should be renmamed The Freedom of Censorship Institute.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
DELARAM ALI AND JANE DUNCAN
FIX THE FXI alerts Jane Duncan of The Freedom of Expression Institute to the case of Delaram Ali.
FIX THE FXI hopes that The FXI, together with Prof Adam Habib, joins Amnesty International and other human rights groups in condemning the Iranian regime.
Of course, it is possible that Jane Duncan will remain silent as freedom of expression for Muslim women in Muslim countries is not usually on her anti-western agenda!
BBC WEBSITE
Iran 'must free' woman activist
Many Iranian women say their rights have been stamped on
Seven human rights groups including Amnesty International have urged Iran to set aside a prison sentence for women's rights activist Delaram Ali.
She has been ordered to begin her sentence of two-and-a-half years in prison and a flogging on Saturday.
Ms Ali, 24, joined a protest last year calling for greater legal rights for Iranian women.
Dozens of journalists and activists have been detained or jailed recently, accused of acting against the state.
Police broke up the demonstration Ms Ali was part of last year which called for greater rights for women in Iran's Islamic legal system.
Ms Ali says the security forces broke her left hand when they beat up the demonstrators.
Chilling warning
Delaram Ali has been free while awaiting the result of an appeal.
But she has now been told to give herself up by Saturday so the sentence can be implemented.
She says she has not been allowed to file a complaint against the police.
Instead an internal inquiry recently exonerated the police even though foreign journalists witnessed them beating the women who were singing feminist songs while sitting peacefully on the grass in a public square.
What is notable about Delaram Ali is that she is not a well-known leader of Iran's feminist movement who has repeatedly challenged the government.
The BBC's Frances Harrison says her punishment will be a chilling warning to anyone thinking of dabbling with politics.
It comes as the Iranian Writers Association has talked of the increasing suppression of the press - with writers, journalists, academics, labour and social activists being arrested and newspapers closed down one after another.
One of Iran's most outspoken human rights activists, Emadeddin Baghi, was arrested last month and there has been no news of him since.
He was a man who tirelessly campaigned for the rights of political prisoners - only to become one himself, our correspondent says.
Courts have also recently upheld jail sentences for the leaders of Iran's bus drivers' union and teachers' organisations after protests over low pay.
FIX THE FXI hopes that The FXI, together with Prof Adam Habib, joins Amnesty International and other human rights groups in condemning the Iranian regime.
Of course, it is possible that Jane Duncan will remain silent as freedom of expression for Muslim women in Muslim countries is not usually on her anti-western agenda!
BBC WEBSITE
Iran 'must free' woman activist
Many Iranian women say their rights have been stamped on
Seven human rights groups including Amnesty International have urged Iran to set aside a prison sentence for women's rights activist Delaram Ali.
She has been ordered to begin her sentence of two-and-a-half years in prison and a flogging on Saturday.
Ms Ali, 24, joined a protest last year calling for greater legal rights for Iranian women.
Dozens of journalists and activists have been detained or jailed recently, accused of acting against the state.
Police broke up the demonstration Ms Ali was part of last year which called for greater rights for women in Iran's Islamic legal system.
Ms Ali says the security forces broke her left hand when they beat up the demonstrators.
Chilling warning
Delaram Ali has been free while awaiting the result of an appeal.
But she has now been told to give herself up by Saturday so the sentence can be implemented.
She says she has not been allowed to file a complaint against the police.
Instead an internal inquiry recently exonerated the police even though foreign journalists witnessed them beating the women who were singing feminist songs while sitting peacefully on the grass in a public square.
What is notable about Delaram Ali is that she is not a well-known leader of Iran's feminist movement who has repeatedly challenged the government.
The BBC's Frances Harrison says her punishment will be a chilling warning to anyone thinking of dabbling with politics.
It comes as the Iranian Writers Association has talked of the increasing suppression of the press - with writers, journalists, academics, labour and social activists being arrested and newspapers closed down one after another.
One of Iran's most outspoken human rights activists, Emadeddin Baghi, was arrested last month and there has been no news of him since.
He was a man who tirelessly campaigned for the rights of political prisoners - only to become one himself, our correspondent says.
Courts have also recently upheld jail sentences for the leaders of Iran's bus drivers' union and teachers' organisations after protests over low pay.
Friday, November 9, 2007
DIPLOMATIC FALL-OUT ?
The Freedom of Expression Institute must be aware that Pretoria and Washington are heading for a major fall-out when The American Civil Liberties Union case on behalf of Prof Adam Habib reaches court.
Prof Habib is certainly not an ivory tower academic. It seems that he has been highly influential in moulding South African foreign policy and as a result the ACLU case has important diplomatic ramifications. The ACLU have, after all, named Condoleeza Rica as a defendant. This is not Mickey Mouse stuff.
South Africa has recently been jumping into bed with Iran and Hamas and it is unlikely that Ms Rice applauds such wayward proclivities.
FIX THE FXI believes that South Africa will ultimately pay an extremely heavy price for taking on the US govt by ACLU proxy.
Perhaps the South African anti-US lobby, of which The FXI is a vocal part, will find that taking pot-shots at Ms Rice might be fun, but comes at a high diplomatic price. A price that South Africa can ill-afford to pay ?
ACLU Sues Over Exclusion of South African Democracy Scholar from U.S. (9/25/2007)
Ideological Exclusion Violates First Amendment Rights, ACLU Says
BOSTON – The Departments of State and Homeland Security are illegally blocking South African scholar Adam Habib from entering the U.S. under circumstances that suggest it is because of his political views, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts. Censorship at the border prevents U.S. citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment, the ACLU charges.
“Once again, the Bush administration is stifling debate by preventing U.S. audiences from engaging prominent scholars face-to-face,” said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Security Project. “When the government excludes scholars from the U.S. – particularly scholars who frequently traveled to this country without any problems in the past, but who happen to be vocal critics of U.S. policies – it sends the cowardly message that our government is afraid of opposing voices. This kind of political litmus test is both unconstitutional and un-American.”
The ACLU’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to speak in the U.S. in the near future, including the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights (BCPR). The lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff as defendants, seeks the immediate processing of Professor Habib’s pending visa application and a declaration that his exclusion without explanation since October 2006 Habib violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. organizations, citizens, and residents.
Habib is a renowned scholar, sought after analyst, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg. He is also a Muslim who has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and certain U.S. terrorism-related policies. Until the government suddenly revoked his visa last October without explanation, he never experienced any trouble entering the U.S.; in fact, Habib lived in New York for years while earning a Ph.D. in Political Science from the City University of New York.
The October 2006 revocation of Professor Habib’s visa prevented him from attending a series of meetings with representatives from institutions such as the National Institutes for Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Bank, Columbia University and the Gates Foundation. When he landed in New York in advance of these meetings, Habib was detained for 7 hours and interrogated about his associations and political views. Armed guards eventually escorted him to a plane and deported him back to South Africa. The State Department later revoked the visas of Professor Habib’s wife and two small children, again, without explanation.
“I find it profoundly disturbing that the U.S. government continues to deny me the opportunity to participate in the kind of robust academic and political debate that is central to the American democratic system,” said Habib. “Now more than ever, people from around the world recognize the consequences of American isolation within the global community. By letting in outsiders who represent ideological diversity, the U.S. can make good on its democratic ideals.”
Last May, Habib applied for a new visa that would allow him to travel to the U.S. to attend speaking engagements, including the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in August 2007. However, on the eve of his scheduled departure to New York, the State Department informed Habib that his visa application would not be processed in time for the meeting. As a result of the State Department’s unexplained visa denial, Habib was prevented from speaking to the ASA and its members. His visa application continues to languish.
Professor Habib’s exclusion is part of a larger pattern. Over the past few years, numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists, and writers – all vocal critics of U.S. policy – have been barred from the U.S. without explanation or on unspecified national security grounds.
“Immigration officials should not be in the business of blocking our borders to people with political views they dislike,” said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Silencing critics and forbidding Americans the right to hear dissenting voices harms academic and political freedom in the United States.”
In 2006, the ACLU filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of U.S. academic groups and Professor Tariq Ramadan, a widely respected Swiss scholar of the Muslim world. When the government revoked his visa in 2004, Professor Ramadan was prevented from assuming a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. The Ramadan lawsuit challenges the legality of his exclusion and the constitutionality of the Patriot Act provision under which he was initially excluded. He remains excluded from the U.S. today.
Today, the ACLU launched a new interactive web feature that tells the stories of the artists, scholars and politicians the U.S. government has kept out of the country since the inception of ideological exclusion in 1952. It is available at: www.aclu.org/passportflash
A copy of today’s complaint is available at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31921lgl20070925.html
More information about ideological exclusion is available at:
www.aclu.org/exclusion
Attorneys in the case are Goodman, Jameel Jaffer, Nasrina Bargzie, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU, and Wunsch and John Reinstein of the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Prof Habib is certainly not an ivory tower academic. It seems that he has been highly influential in moulding South African foreign policy and as a result the ACLU case has important diplomatic ramifications. The ACLU have, after all, named Condoleeza Rica as a defendant. This is not Mickey Mouse stuff.
South Africa has recently been jumping into bed with Iran and Hamas and it is unlikely that Ms Rice applauds such wayward proclivities.
FIX THE FXI believes that South Africa will ultimately pay an extremely heavy price for taking on the US govt by ACLU proxy.
Perhaps the South African anti-US lobby, of which The FXI is a vocal part, will find that taking pot-shots at Ms Rice might be fun, but comes at a high diplomatic price. A price that South Africa can ill-afford to pay ?
ACLU Sues Over Exclusion of South African Democracy Scholar from U.S. (9/25/2007)
Ideological Exclusion Violates First Amendment Rights, ACLU Says
BOSTON – The Departments of State and Homeland Security are illegally blocking South African scholar Adam Habib from entering the U.S. under circumstances that suggest it is because of his political views, according to a lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts. Censorship at the border prevents U.S. citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment, the ACLU charges.
“Once again, the Bush administration is stifling debate by preventing U.S. audiences from engaging prominent scholars face-to-face,” said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Security Project. “When the government excludes scholars from the U.S. – particularly scholars who frequently traveled to this country without any problems in the past, but who happen to be vocal critics of U.S. policies – it sends the cowardly message that our government is afraid of opposing voices. This kind of political litmus test is both unconstitutional and un-American.”
The ACLU’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to speak in the U.S. in the near future, including the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights (BCPR). The lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff as defendants, seeks the immediate processing of Professor Habib’s pending visa application and a declaration that his exclusion without explanation since October 2006 Habib violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. organizations, citizens, and residents.
Habib is a renowned scholar, sought after analyst, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg. He is also a Muslim who has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and certain U.S. terrorism-related policies. Until the government suddenly revoked his visa last October without explanation, he never experienced any trouble entering the U.S.; in fact, Habib lived in New York for years while earning a Ph.D. in Political Science from the City University of New York.
The October 2006 revocation of Professor Habib’s visa prevented him from attending a series of meetings with representatives from institutions such as the National Institutes for Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Bank, Columbia University and the Gates Foundation. When he landed in New York in advance of these meetings, Habib was detained for 7 hours and interrogated about his associations and political views. Armed guards eventually escorted him to a plane and deported him back to South Africa. The State Department later revoked the visas of Professor Habib’s wife and two small children, again, without explanation.
“I find it profoundly disturbing that the U.S. government continues to deny me the opportunity to participate in the kind of robust academic and political debate that is central to the American democratic system,” said Habib. “Now more than ever, people from around the world recognize the consequences of American isolation within the global community. By letting in outsiders who represent ideological diversity, the U.S. can make good on its democratic ideals.”
Last May, Habib applied for a new visa that would allow him to travel to the U.S. to attend speaking engagements, including the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in August 2007. However, on the eve of his scheduled departure to New York, the State Department informed Habib that his visa application would not be processed in time for the meeting. As a result of the State Department’s unexplained visa denial, Habib was prevented from speaking to the ASA and its members. His visa application continues to languish.
Professor Habib’s exclusion is part of a larger pattern. Over the past few years, numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists, and writers – all vocal critics of U.S. policy – have been barred from the U.S. without explanation or on unspecified national security grounds.
“Immigration officials should not be in the business of blocking our borders to people with political views they dislike,” said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Silencing critics and forbidding Americans the right to hear dissenting voices harms academic and political freedom in the United States.”
In 2006, the ACLU filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of U.S. academic groups and Professor Tariq Ramadan, a widely respected Swiss scholar of the Muslim world. When the government revoked his visa in 2004, Professor Ramadan was prevented from assuming a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. The Ramadan lawsuit challenges the legality of his exclusion and the constitutionality of the Patriot Act provision under which he was initially excluded. He remains excluded from the U.S. today.
Today, the ACLU launched a new interactive web feature that tells the stories of the artists, scholars and politicians the U.S. government has kept out of the country since the inception of ideological exclusion in 1952. It is available at: www.aclu.org/passportflash
A copy of today’s complaint is available at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31921lgl20070925.html
More information about ideological exclusion is available at:
www.aclu.org/exclusion
Attorneys in the case are Goodman, Jameel Jaffer, Nasrina Bargzie, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU, and Wunsch and John Reinstein of the ACLU of Massachusetts.
ADAM HABIB AND THE UNITED NATIONS
The Freedom of Expression Institute may find that South Africa pays a heavy price when encouraging a diplomatic fall-out with The United States...
I wonder whether the US will support South Africa in its goal to get a permanent seat on The United Nations security council.
Interesting to also consider whether Prof Adam Habib might have helped to influence South Africa's appalling voting record at The United Nations.
On Jan 26th 2007, Prof Habib wrote the following in The M&G:
"Our role in the Security Council, temporary though it may be, is not to mindlessly follow the dictates of great powers, but to engage them and provide an example of responsible international leadership."
"An example of responsible international leadership"??? Is that Prof Habib's euphemism for South Africa's dismal voting record at The UN ? ( Remember South Africa used its inaugural vote at the United Nations (UN) Security Council earlier in January to vote against a resolution demanding an end to human rights abuses in Myanmar.)
If Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad takes up Adam Habib's case with Condoleeza Rice, South Africa will probably only alienate the US even further and might well negate her dream of a permanent seat on The UN security council.
The US has given detailed consideration regarding Prof Habib's recent attempts to gain entry to the US. As a result, the refusal to admit him does seem to suggest that the US might be indicating that it is extremely unhappy about the direction of South African foreign policy. It is quite clear that Prof Habib's inability to enter the US is more than an administrative mistake. The following excerpts from the case being brought on his behalf makes it quite clear that Prof Habib's visa application was considered at the highest levels:
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS; AMERICAN-ARAB ANTIDISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE; BOSTON COALITION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS, and ADAM HABIB, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; CONDOLEEZZA RICE, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, Defendants.
Oct 21st 2006
Upon arrival at JFK airport, neither Professor Habib’s wife nor any member of the HSRC delegation encountered a problem entering the country. Professor Habib, however, was detained for more than seven hours, questioned by U.S. Customs.
During his detention, Professor Habib was questioned about his political views and was asked whether he belonged to or had supported any terrorist organizations. 32. Eventually, border officials told Professor Habib that his visa had been revoked by the Department of State, specifically by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Affairs Tony Edson, and that he could either withdraw his application for admission or be deported to South Africa. Professor Habib chose to withdraw his application. He was escorted by armed guards to a return flight to Johannesburg. He arrived back in South Africa approximately 40 hours after he had left for the U.S.
On August 1, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to Mr. Jones, asking whether he would be willing to pass along another inquiry to the State Department and expressing hope that “this problem will be resolved and that the State Department will act on Professor Habib’s visa before the New York conference date.” Mr. Jones agreed to convey the message and inquiry to the State Department.
On August 3, 2007, Mr. Jones’ colleague, Assistant United States Attorney Kristin Vassallo, called plaintiffs’ counsel and reported that the State Department was aware of Professor Habib’s August conference date and travel plans and that the Department was still processing the visa application.
47. On August 7, 2007, 48 hours before Professor Habib was scheduled to depart to New York, consular officials informed Professor Habib that officials in Washington were still processing his visa application and that it would not be adjudicated before his scheduled departure to the U.S. That next day, Professor Habib informed the ASA that he would be unable to speak at his scheduled panel on August 11, 2007. Professor Habib, who was in Italy at the time, flew back to Johannesburg, instead of to New York, as he had planned.
I wonder whether the US will support South Africa in its goal to get a permanent seat on The United Nations security council.
Interesting to also consider whether Prof Adam Habib might have helped to influence South Africa's appalling voting record at The United Nations.
On Jan 26th 2007, Prof Habib wrote the following in The M&G:
"Our role in the Security Council, temporary though it may be, is not to mindlessly follow the dictates of great powers, but to engage them and provide an example of responsible international leadership."
"An example of responsible international leadership"??? Is that Prof Habib's euphemism for South Africa's dismal voting record at The UN ? ( Remember South Africa used its inaugural vote at the United Nations (UN) Security Council earlier in January to vote against a resolution demanding an end to human rights abuses in Myanmar.)
If Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad takes up Adam Habib's case with Condoleeza Rice, South Africa will probably only alienate the US even further and might well negate her dream of a permanent seat on The UN security council.
The US has given detailed consideration regarding Prof Habib's recent attempts to gain entry to the US. As a result, the refusal to admit him does seem to suggest that the US might be indicating that it is extremely unhappy about the direction of South African foreign policy. It is quite clear that Prof Habib's inability to enter the US is more than an administrative mistake. The following excerpts from the case being brought on his behalf makes it quite clear that Prof Habib's visa application was considered at the highest levels:
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS; AMERICAN-ARAB ANTIDISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE; BOSTON COALITION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS, and ADAM HABIB, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; CONDOLEEZZA RICE, in her official capacity as Secretary of State, Defendants.
Oct 21st 2006
Upon arrival at JFK airport, neither Professor Habib’s wife nor any member of the HSRC delegation encountered a problem entering the country. Professor Habib, however, was detained for more than seven hours, questioned by U.S. Customs.
During his detention, Professor Habib was questioned about his political views and was asked whether he belonged to or had supported any terrorist organizations. 32. Eventually, border officials told Professor Habib that his visa had been revoked by the Department of State, specifically by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Affairs Tony Edson, and that he could either withdraw his application for admission or be deported to South Africa. Professor Habib chose to withdraw his application. He was escorted by armed guards to a return flight to Johannesburg. He arrived back in South Africa approximately 40 hours after he had left for the U.S.
On August 1, 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to Mr. Jones, asking whether he would be willing to pass along another inquiry to the State Department and expressing hope that “this problem will be resolved and that the State Department will act on Professor Habib’s visa before the New York conference date.” Mr. Jones agreed to convey the message and inquiry to the State Department.
On August 3, 2007, Mr. Jones’ colleague, Assistant United States Attorney Kristin Vassallo, called plaintiffs’ counsel and reported that the State Department was aware of Professor Habib’s August conference date and travel plans and that the Department was still processing the visa application.
47. On August 7, 2007, 48 hours before Professor Habib was scheduled to depart to New York, consular officials informed Professor Habib that officials in Washington were still processing his visa application and that it would not be adjudicated before his scheduled departure to the U.S. That next day, Professor Habib informed the ASA that he would be unable to speak at his scheduled panel on August 11, 2007. Professor Habib, who was in Italy at the time, flew back to Johannesburg, instead of to New York, as he had planned.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
MY IRANIAN VISA
Dear Jane Duncan,
I might need the assistance of The Freedom of Expression Institute...
I am applying for an Iranian visa having been invited to speak by the revolutionary guard at Tehran University on the reasons why Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy should be reversed. I am also hoping to lecture various Ayatollahs in Ishfahan and Qom.
Like you, I do not believe all the nonsense about political dissidents, or anyone else, being thrown into jail and tortured in Iran.
If for any reason I am refused a visa to Iran, will The FXI take up my case, as you have just done for Prof Adam Habib re the US, with deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad ?
viva etc
blacklisted etc
I might need the assistance of The Freedom of Expression Institute...
I am applying for an Iranian visa having been invited to speak by the revolutionary guard at Tehran University on the reasons why Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy should be reversed. I am also hoping to lecture various Ayatollahs in Ishfahan and Qom.
Like you, I do not believe all the nonsense about political dissidents, or anyone else, being thrown into jail and tortured in Iran.
If for any reason I am refused a visa to Iran, will The FXI take up my case, as you have just done for Prof Adam Habib re the US, with deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad ?
viva etc
blacklisted etc
ADAM HABIB, SOUTH AFRICA AND THE US
The Freedom of Expression Institute is calling upon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad to intervene on Prof Adam Habib's behalf regarding the refusal to give him a US entry visa. Although it appears to be based on the notion that Habib might be involved in terrorist activities, The FXI believes that the real reason is that Habib is a leading Muslim South African critic of US foreign policy.
However, it seems strange to exclude Prof Adam Habib on either basis when President Ahmadinejad was recently given entry and a platform to speak at Colombia University.
Perhaps the real reason is more complicated. Prof Adam Habib has been influential in moulding South Africa's foreign policy and this might be why The US has decided to exclude him from their shores. Following this logic, the US might, in fact, be informing South Africa that it does not, like most of the western world, approve of its close links to Iran and Hamas. After all, Minister of Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils has recently done his best to foster good relations with these regimes on visits both to Tehran and Gaza.
Pretoria has inevitably made enemies in Washington and, like it or not, Prof Adam Habib has paid the price. It might be that The US believes that Habib has indirectly used his position of prominence within South Africa to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, emanating from Iran and Hamas, and as a result should be excluded.
Of course it would be wrong to fall for The FXI's argument that this issue is really all about freedom of expression. The FXI is, once again, following a narrow political agenda; it recently backed Prof Habib as a nominee to The SABC's board and it is evident that The FXI implicitly supports Prof Habib's foreign policy ideas.
Would The FXI come to my aid if I ever had an opportunity to apply for an Iranian visa in order to attend public meetings in Tehran criticizing Ahmadinejad's foreign policy? Would The FXI take the matter up with Aziz Pahad? And if I ever actually gained access to such forums (non-existent!) in Iran, inevitably ending up in a Tehran Jail, would Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah of The FXI fight at the highest levels for my release ?
FXI WEBSITE
FXI on US government's ideological exclusion of Adam Habib
Tuesday, 06 November 2007
The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) is concerned about the reasons given by the United States (US) Department of State to University of Johannesburg Deputy Vice Chancellor, Professor Adam Habib, for his being denied entry into the US. Habib is a political scientist and prominent political commentator.
The reasons were sent to him by the US Consulate General in Johannesburg on October 26, 2007, following an application from Habib for a waiver of his ineligibility to enter the US.
In its letter to Habib, the US government upheld the ban on his entry into the US, citing a section of the US Immigration and Nationality Act which relates to terrorist activities.
The section states that any 'alien' who has engaged in a terrorist activity, or who the US believes to be a terrorist threat or who has signalled an intention to engage in terrorist activity, can be denied entry.
The section adds that anyone who is a representative of a foreign terrorist organisation, or an organisation that endorses terrorist views, or who has used his/ her position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, can also be excluded. The letter does not make it clear how Habib is supposed to have violated this section.
Habib was denied entry to the US last year, after having been invited to participate in a panel discussion on globalisation and South African social movements by the American Sociological Association (ASA).
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) also invited him to its 2008 Annual General Meeting, to discuss US travel bans on international scholars who are critical of US foreign policy.
The ban prevents Habib from honouring these speaking engagements. This in turn denies US citizens the right to hear him, which interferes with their US first amendment right to freedom of speech.
The FXI further believes that the banning of Habib is part of a pattern where the US government denies entry to prominent individuals who have criticised US foreign policy. This practice has been termed 'ideological exclusion', and amounts to censorship of views it does not agree with, in the process ensuring that critical debate amongst academics cannot take place.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has taken up Habib's case in the US, has argued that the above mentioned section of the Immigration Act is nominally aimed at those who 'espouse or endorse terrorist activity', but it is vaguely written and easily manipulated to exclude the US government's critics, who are branded terrorists simply by virtue of being critical.
In fact, according to the ACLU, the State Department's foreign affairs manual interprets the section to apply to foreign nationals who have voiced 'irresponsible expressions of opinion'. The practice of ideological exclusion is therefore a violation of freedom of expression and academic freedom.
Recently, Swiss academic Professor Tariq Ramadan was denied entry to the US under its ideological exclusion programme, which cited the same provision in the above mentioned Act.
It is also noteworthy that Habib is Muslim, and this combined with his critical stance on aspects of US foreign policy may well have contributed to his being 'profiled' as a potential terrorist.
A further concern in this case is that Habib’s wife and two children have also been banned from entering the US. Even if any legitimate reason did exist for the US to rule Habib’s entry into that country inadmissible, it is alarming that the US authorities then extend a ban onto his family as well, while they have been innocent of any wrong-doing.
The FXI calls on the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take the matter up with the US government, and to seek a review of the ban. If Habib has been banned on the basis of ideological exclusion, then the Ministry has a duty to protect the freedom of expression of its citizens, including in the international arena.
The FXI is also seeking a meeting with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad, to make representations to him in this regard. The FXI also supports the attempt by the ACLU to have the decision reviewed.
However, it seems strange to exclude Prof Adam Habib on either basis when President Ahmadinejad was recently given entry and a platform to speak at Colombia University.
Perhaps the real reason is more complicated. Prof Adam Habib has been influential in moulding South Africa's foreign policy and this might be why The US has decided to exclude him from their shores. Following this logic, the US might, in fact, be informing South Africa that it does not, like most of the western world, approve of its close links to Iran and Hamas. After all, Minister of Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils has recently done his best to foster good relations with these regimes on visits both to Tehran and Gaza.
Pretoria has inevitably made enemies in Washington and, like it or not, Prof Adam Habib has paid the price. It might be that The US believes that Habib has indirectly used his position of prominence within South Africa to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, emanating from Iran and Hamas, and as a result should be excluded.
Of course it would be wrong to fall for The FXI's argument that this issue is really all about freedom of expression. The FXI is, once again, following a narrow political agenda; it recently backed Prof Habib as a nominee to The SABC's board and it is evident that The FXI implicitly supports Prof Habib's foreign policy ideas.
Would The FXI come to my aid if I ever had an opportunity to apply for an Iranian visa in order to attend public meetings in Tehran criticizing Ahmadinejad's foreign policy? Would The FXI take the matter up with Aziz Pahad? And if I ever actually gained access to such forums (non-existent!) in Iran, inevitably ending up in a Tehran Jail, would Jane Duncan and Na'eem Jeenah of The FXI fight at the highest levels for my release ?
FXI WEBSITE
FXI on US government's ideological exclusion of Adam Habib
Tuesday, 06 November 2007
The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) is concerned about the reasons given by the United States (US) Department of State to University of Johannesburg Deputy Vice Chancellor, Professor Adam Habib, for his being denied entry into the US. Habib is a political scientist and prominent political commentator.
The reasons were sent to him by the US Consulate General in Johannesburg on October 26, 2007, following an application from Habib for a waiver of his ineligibility to enter the US.
In its letter to Habib, the US government upheld the ban on his entry into the US, citing a section of the US Immigration and Nationality Act which relates to terrorist activities.
The section states that any 'alien' who has engaged in a terrorist activity, or who the US believes to be a terrorist threat or who has signalled an intention to engage in terrorist activity, can be denied entry.
The section adds that anyone who is a representative of a foreign terrorist organisation, or an organisation that endorses terrorist views, or who has used his/ her position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, can also be excluded. The letter does not make it clear how Habib is supposed to have violated this section.
Habib was denied entry to the US last year, after having been invited to participate in a panel discussion on globalisation and South African social movements by the American Sociological Association (ASA).
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) also invited him to its 2008 Annual General Meeting, to discuss US travel bans on international scholars who are critical of US foreign policy.
The ban prevents Habib from honouring these speaking engagements. This in turn denies US citizens the right to hear him, which interferes with their US first amendment right to freedom of speech.
The FXI further believes that the banning of Habib is part of a pattern where the US government denies entry to prominent individuals who have criticised US foreign policy. This practice has been termed 'ideological exclusion', and amounts to censorship of views it does not agree with, in the process ensuring that critical debate amongst academics cannot take place.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has taken up Habib's case in the US, has argued that the above mentioned section of the Immigration Act is nominally aimed at those who 'espouse or endorse terrorist activity', but it is vaguely written and easily manipulated to exclude the US government's critics, who are branded terrorists simply by virtue of being critical.
In fact, according to the ACLU, the State Department's foreign affairs manual interprets the section to apply to foreign nationals who have voiced 'irresponsible expressions of opinion'. The practice of ideological exclusion is therefore a violation of freedom of expression and academic freedom.
Recently, Swiss academic Professor Tariq Ramadan was denied entry to the US under its ideological exclusion programme, which cited the same provision in the above mentioned Act.
It is also noteworthy that Habib is Muslim, and this combined with his critical stance on aspects of US foreign policy may well have contributed to his being 'profiled' as a potential terrorist.
A further concern in this case is that Habib’s wife and two children have also been banned from entering the US. Even if any legitimate reason did exist for the US to rule Habib’s entry into that country inadmissible, it is alarming that the US authorities then extend a ban onto his family as well, while they have been innocent of any wrong-doing.
The FXI calls on the South African Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take the matter up with the US government, and to seek a review of the ban. If Habib has been banned on the basis of ideological exclusion, then the Ministry has a duty to protect the freedom of expression of its citizens, including in the international arena.
The FXI is also seeking a meeting with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad, to make representations to him in this regard. The FXI also supports the attempt by the ACLU to have the decision reviewed.
Monday, November 5, 2007
THE FXI AND ZIKALALA
Dear Jane Duncan,
I note that The SABC has today carried a report stating the The Freedom of Expression Institue is worried about the prospective take-over of The Sunday Times by Mbeki's mates.
Do you think that The SABC would carry a similar report stating ... "SACK SNUKI. NO ANC AT THE SABC" ?
Viva etc
Blacklisted etc
SABC NEWS WEBSITE
FXI distressed by R7bn Johncom bid
November 05, 2007, 08:30
Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) executive director Jane Duncan says the proposed takeover of Johnnic Communication by Koni Media Holdings is very worrying. Johnnic Communication owns the Sunday Times, The Times, Sowetan and Daily Dispatch.
The bid has been tainted with criticism. The DA said the move is a "bold manoeuvre " to put the Sunday Times and Business Day in the hands of the President and would be detrimental to media freedom.
Duncan says some individuals at Koni are very closely connected to the Mbeki administration. She says the bid must be seen in the context of these newspapers reporting on government issues.
"For me this really can't be seen out of context of the government's unhappiness with the Sunday Times' reporting on the Health Minister. But also we should bear in mind that there are other (sides) to the issue here. For instance, Johncom owns the Daily Dispatch, and we know that government has been desperately unhappy with the Daily Dispatch's reporting on the Frere Hospital baby deaths incidents.
I note that The SABC has today carried a report stating the The Freedom of Expression Institue is worried about the prospective take-over of The Sunday Times by Mbeki's mates.
Do you think that The SABC would carry a similar report stating ... "SACK SNUKI. NO ANC AT THE SABC" ?
Viva etc
Blacklisted etc
SABC NEWS WEBSITE
FXI distressed by R7bn Johncom bid
November 05, 2007, 08:30
Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) executive director Jane Duncan says the proposed takeover of Johnnic Communication by Koni Media Holdings is very worrying. Johnnic Communication owns the Sunday Times, The Times, Sowetan and Daily Dispatch.
The bid has been tainted with criticism. The DA said the move is a "bold manoeuvre " to put the Sunday Times and Business Day in the hands of the President and would be detrimental to media freedom.
Duncan says some individuals at Koni are very closely connected to the Mbeki administration. She says the bid must be seen in the context of these newspapers reporting on government issues.
"For me this really can't be seen out of context of the government's unhappiness with the Sunday Times' reporting on the Health Minister. But also we should bear in mind that there are other (sides) to the issue here. For instance, Johncom owns the Daily Dispatch, and we know that government has been desperately unhappy with the Daily Dispatch's reporting on the Frere Hospital baby deaths incidents.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
UP THE ROAD IN HARARE
The shenanigans at The ANCB are not a million miles away from the censorship of the press in Zimbabwe. It is a tragedy that The Freedom of Expression Institute, together with Anton Harber, are not more outspoken about these issues.
Four years after being banned, newspapers still in legal battle to resume publishing
Country/Topic: Zimbabwe
Date: 12 September 2007
Source: Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Person(s):
Target(s): newspaper(s) , publisher(s)
Type(s) of violation(s): banned , closed
Urgency: Bulletin
(MISA/IFEX) - On 11 September 2003, the Supreme Court passed its "dirty hands" judgment against Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ), publishers of the banned "Daily News" and "Daily News on Sunday" newspapers.
Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku's judgment led to the closure of the publishing company on 12 September 2003, when police armed with automatic rifles burst into the newspapers' offices in central Harare at about 5:00 p.m. (local time) and ordered all staff to leave. Nqobile Nyathi, the editor, and Simon Ngena, the production manager, were arrested and taken to Harare Central Police Station. They were later released.
Dr Tafataona Mahoso, chairman of the governmental Media and Information Commission, was quoted as saying he would have been surprised if the police had not taken any action because "the 'Daily News' does not exist in terms of the laws of the country" (quoted in "The Herald" of 13 September 2003). These actions were widely condemned by both local and international actors as a serious violation of media freedom.
Four years later, the matter is still pending before the courts as the ANZ continues its fight to be duly registered and licensed to resume publication, as required under the restrictive Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), in what can easily pass as one the longest unresolved court cases in Zimbabwe's judicial history.
Many a reader of the popular "Daily News" look back with nostalgia to the reportage by its dedicated editorial team as they fulfilled their journalistic roles as the thermometers and stethoscopes of the country's daily socio-economic, political and cultural temperature and pulse. Their role was simply that of telling truth to power without fear or favour.
What is certain, though, is that some day in the future, the "Daily News" and "Daily News on Sunday", together with other publications which met with a similar fate - such as "The Tribune" and "Weekly Times" - will, like the proverbial phoenix, rise again to afford Zimbabweans increased access to alternative views, opinions and ideas that foster democracy and spur Zimbabwe's socio-economic development.
MORE INFORMATION:
For further information, contact Zoé Titus, Programme Specialist, Media Freedom Monitoring, MISA, Private Bag 13386 Windhoek, Namibia, tel: +264 61 232 975, fax: +264 61 248 016, e-mail: research@misa.org, Internet: http://www.misa.org
Four years after being banned, newspapers still in legal battle to resume publishing
Country/Topic: Zimbabwe
Date: 12 September 2007
Source: Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Person(s):
Target(s): newspaper(s) , publisher(s)
Type(s) of violation(s): banned , closed
Urgency: Bulletin
(MISA/IFEX) - On 11 September 2003, the Supreme Court passed its "dirty hands" judgment against Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ), publishers of the banned "Daily News" and "Daily News on Sunday" newspapers.
Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku's judgment led to the closure of the publishing company on 12 September 2003, when police armed with automatic rifles burst into the newspapers' offices in central Harare at about 5:00 p.m. (local time) and ordered all staff to leave. Nqobile Nyathi, the editor, and Simon Ngena, the production manager, were arrested and taken to Harare Central Police Station. They were later released.
Dr Tafataona Mahoso, chairman of the governmental Media and Information Commission, was quoted as saying he would have been surprised if the police had not taken any action because "the 'Daily News' does not exist in terms of the laws of the country" (quoted in "The Herald" of 13 September 2003). These actions were widely condemned by both local and international actors as a serious violation of media freedom.
Four years later, the matter is still pending before the courts as the ANZ continues its fight to be duly registered and licensed to resume publication, as required under the restrictive Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), in what can easily pass as one the longest unresolved court cases in Zimbabwe's judicial history.
Many a reader of the popular "Daily News" look back with nostalgia to the reportage by its dedicated editorial team as they fulfilled their journalistic roles as the thermometers and stethoscopes of the country's daily socio-economic, political and cultural temperature and pulse. Their role was simply that of telling truth to power without fear or favour.
What is certain, though, is that some day in the future, the "Daily News" and "Daily News on Sunday", together with other publications which met with a similar fate - such as "The Tribune" and "Weekly Times" - will, like the proverbial phoenix, rise again to afford Zimbabweans increased access to alternative views, opinions and ideas that foster democracy and spur Zimbabwe's socio-economic development.
MORE INFORMATION:
For further information, contact Zoé Titus, Programme Specialist, Media Freedom Monitoring, MISA, Private Bag 13386 Windhoek, Namibia, tel: +264 61 232 975, fax: +264 61 248 016, e-mail: research@misa.org, Internet: http://www.misa.org
"BLACK FEMALE RAGE IS SABC'S BURDEN ?"
SABC board approved despite bitter protests
Michael Hamlyn | Cape Town, South Africa
I3 September 2007 04:10
Dene Smuts (DA) was especially upset by the inclusion of Christine Qunta.
"She's the long-standing Africanist associate of our president," Smuts said. "We cannot support her. We have never supported the racial prism through which she views all criticism -- criticism of the president, criticism of corruption against black South Africans covered in the general media and now, upon our questioning, all criticism of the SABC."
Under two hours of questioning by the committee, Qunta confirmed that all criticism of the SABC by the commercial media had a racial bias, Smuts said.
"Further she confirmed ... her confidence in the man we are convinced is the source of much of the trouble at the SABC, the news head, Mr Snuki Zikalala."
This is a better board, Smuts admitted, but to include Qunta in it is to deny the crisis at the SABC.
"It is our fear that the honourable sitting president will appoint her as the chair, and in doing so will perpetuate some of the crisis," Smuts said.
FIX THE FXI writes:
The odds are that Christine Qunta (Mbeki sycophant) will get a second term as chair of The ANCB (African National Congress Broadcasting).
Whatever you think of the following article, it is undeniable that we are, as Qunta writes " living in truly interesting times."
Like Manto, Qunta is contemptuous of The TAC, but I suppose that is just a bizarre feature of our.... "truly interesting times."
So.. for those of you who missed it first time round, here is the heroine of The ANCB....
WHITE MALES' RAGE IS BLACKS' BURDEN
By Christine Qunta (Business Day, 23 May 2003)
WATCHING white male rage is a truly unedifying spectacle. Being a victim of such rage is even worse.
And it seems as if unrestrained white male rage is back in vogue. All one has to do is to open a newspaper or listen to a radio station.
Health Minister Manto TshabalalaMsimang recently had a taste of some righteous white male rage, courtesy of one German businessman.
After verbally abusing her, he rushes from the plane and contacts a radio station and speaks to another white male whose greatest contribution to this country was breaking the sports boycott as an Irish rugby player during the wonderful old days when everyone knew their place and life was much simpler than now.
Our brave and fearless German man was lucky. He could have ended up with a bloodied nose if it had been a white male or for that matter an African male no doubt a fact that he was keenly aware of at the time of choosing his victim.
Then we have Mark Heywood and Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), current media darlings who seem congenitally angry and quite excited about the prospect of doing outrageous things while trying to get Zackie Achmat declared an international martyr with a little help from the University of Natal and Time magazine.
It seems as if white male rage is the black man's (and woman's) burden.
My apologies to those white males who are positive and are rolling up their sleeves to fashion a new society from the ashes of the old. They are, of course, too boring to be courted by the media.
Sometimes amid the anguish and rage about affirmative action and the numerous bogeys white males terrorise themselves with, even I feel some stirrings of compassion.
That is, until I am reminded of the reality we live in when I read, as I did about two weeks ago, about the labour department's employment equity report for 2001 and 2002. It shows that 75% of top management positions in companies in SA are occupied by white males.
At one level one can sympathise with the culture shock they have had to go through since 1994. One minute the only black women they interact with are those who clean their houses and the next minute they have to share their workplace with them, sit next to them in business class, have them make policies that affect their lives and, even worse, have them as bosses.
However, if the black middle class can observe white male rage at close quarters, the poor people of this country are in the paradoxical situation of suddenly having acquired white male champions in Parliament, at Afrikaans universities and on the streets.
As to the cause of the poverty and their role in creating it, they assume black people's memories are short and their hearts big.
It's interesting seeing these recent converts to the cause of poverty get their three minutes of fame, sometimes with Africans in the background like extras on a movie set. They do not speak. They are spoken for in the proud white liberal tradition of this country.
If the issues facing poor people in this country were not so serious, the situation would be quite comical.
As the election gets closer we might even see some stranger sights, such as Tony Leon and Douglas Gibson of the Democratic Alliance toyi-toying. Who knows, the TAC might even become a political party and join forces with Patricia de Lille.
The real business of managing SA and attending to the needs of the poor in a serious, systematic way will go on regardless of these entertaining sideshows.
If you are white and male, you can scream marginalisation, even extinction, while holding sway in the economy and smiling all the way to the top of the corporate ladder (and the bank). This can be done all at once, with a straight face. We are living in truly interesting times.
Michael Hamlyn | Cape Town, South Africa
I3 September 2007 04:10
Dene Smuts (DA) was especially upset by the inclusion of Christine Qunta.
"She's the long-standing Africanist associate of our president," Smuts said. "We cannot support her. We have never supported the racial prism through which she views all criticism -- criticism of the president, criticism of corruption against black South Africans covered in the general media and now, upon our questioning, all criticism of the SABC."
Under two hours of questioning by the committee, Qunta confirmed that all criticism of the SABC by the commercial media had a racial bias, Smuts said.
"Further she confirmed ... her confidence in the man we are convinced is the source of much of the trouble at the SABC, the news head, Mr Snuki Zikalala."
This is a better board, Smuts admitted, but to include Qunta in it is to deny the crisis at the SABC.
"It is our fear that the honourable sitting president will appoint her as the chair, and in doing so will perpetuate some of the crisis," Smuts said.
FIX THE FXI writes:
The odds are that Christine Qunta (Mbeki sycophant) will get a second term as chair of The ANCB (African National Congress Broadcasting).
Whatever you think of the following article, it is undeniable that we are, as Qunta writes " living in truly interesting times."
Like Manto, Qunta is contemptuous of The TAC, but I suppose that is just a bizarre feature of our.... "truly interesting times."
So.. for those of you who missed it first time round, here is the heroine of The ANCB....
WHITE MALES' RAGE IS BLACKS' BURDEN
By Christine Qunta (Business Day, 23 May 2003)
WATCHING white male rage is a truly unedifying spectacle. Being a victim of such rage is even worse.
And it seems as if unrestrained white male rage is back in vogue. All one has to do is to open a newspaper or listen to a radio station.
Health Minister Manto TshabalalaMsimang recently had a taste of some righteous white male rage, courtesy of one German businessman.
After verbally abusing her, he rushes from the plane and contacts a radio station and speaks to another white male whose greatest contribution to this country was breaking the sports boycott as an Irish rugby player during the wonderful old days when everyone knew their place and life was much simpler than now.
Our brave and fearless German man was lucky. He could have ended up with a bloodied nose if it had been a white male or for that matter an African male no doubt a fact that he was keenly aware of at the time of choosing his victim.
Then we have Mark Heywood and Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), current media darlings who seem congenitally angry and quite excited about the prospect of doing outrageous things while trying to get Zackie Achmat declared an international martyr with a little help from the University of Natal and Time magazine.
It seems as if white male rage is the black man's (and woman's) burden.
My apologies to those white males who are positive and are rolling up their sleeves to fashion a new society from the ashes of the old. They are, of course, too boring to be courted by the media.
Sometimes amid the anguish and rage about affirmative action and the numerous bogeys white males terrorise themselves with, even I feel some stirrings of compassion.
That is, until I am reminded of the reality we live in when I read, as I did about two weeks ago, about the labour department's employment equity report for 2001 and 2002. It shows that 75% of top management positions in companies in SA are occupied by white males.
At one level one can sympathise with the culture shock they have had to go through since 1994. One minute the only black women they interact with are those who clean their houses and the next minute they have to share their workplace with them, sit next to them in business class, have them make policies that affect their lives and, even worse, have them as bosses.
However, if the black middle class can observe white male rage at close quarters, the poor people of this country are in the paradoxical situation of suddenly having acquired white male champions in Parliament, at Afrikaans universities and on the streets.
As to the cause of the poverty and their role in creating it, they assume black people's memories are short and their hearts big.
It's interesting seeing these recent converts to the cause of poverty get their three minutes of fame, sometimes with Africans in the background like extras on a movie set. They do not speak. They are spoken for in the proud white liberal tradition of this country.
If the issues facing poor people in this country were not so serious, the situation would be quite comical.
As the election gets closer we might even see some stranger sights, such as Tony Leon and Douglas Gibson of the Democratic Alliance toyi-toying. Who knows, the TAC might even become a political party and join forces with Patricia de Lille.
The real business of managing SA and attending to the needs of the poor in a serious, systematic way will go on regardless of these entertaining sideshows.
If you are white and male, you can scream marginalisation, even extinction, while holding sway in the economy and smiling all the way to the top of the corporate ladder (and the bank). This can be done all at once, with a straight face. We are living in truly interesting times.
DALI MPOFU CEO ANCB
The following is from the SABC's website and refers to the appointment of Dali Mpofu. It is Zikalala Klassick.
New SABC GCEO takes firm stance against corruption
Dali Mpofu, the SABC's newly appointed GCEO
August 01, 2005, 19:15
"Dali Mpofu, the new Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) of the SABC, took up his new job today with a firm stance against corruption. Mpofu takes over management of the national broadcaster from Peter Matlare who resigned earlier this year.
Day one in the hot seat and Dali Mpofu is clear about his vision for the SABC. He says he hopes to bring values like team building, integrity and respect to the corporation. He made it clear that corruption and mismanagement will not be tolerated.
"For anybody to steal even one cent from the people of this country with resources stretched as they are, is an unforgivable crime. The issue of zero tolerance is going to be practiced. The first person that is caught will be used as an example," Mpofu said.
The SABC board has expressed confidence in Mpofu's track record - with a career path that meanders through law and business. Eddie Funde, the SABC board chairperson said: “He understands what needs to happen with the external stakeholders and what needs to happen with the internal stakeholders, staff and management. It's a dynamic combination for us."
SABC man resigns but CEO Mpofu keeps mum
Sue Blaine Business Day 27 August, 2007
SABC CEO Dali Mpofu was tight-lipped yesterday about whether his friend and business partner,Mafika Sihlali, resigned or was suspended on Friday.
SOUTH African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) group CEO Dali Mpofu was tight-lipped yesterday about whether his friend and business partner, Mafika Sihlali, the SABC’s legal services chief, resigned or was suspended on Friday.
It is alleged Sihlali defrauded the SABC of up to R2m, although no criminal charges have been laid.
Sihlali apparently resigned before he was suspended on Friday but Mpofu said he had seen no resignation letter, and refused to comment on the SABC decision to suspend Sihlali with immediate effect and on full pay, months after the fraud allegations were made.
“I have not seen the letter. I am on the South Coast (of KwaZulu-Natal),” Mpofu said.
Mpofu was apparently advised to let Sihlali go in April, three months before the Mail & Guardian published allegations that Sihlali and his attorney Barry Aaron had defrauded the SABC of about R1,8m. The newspaper’s story was based on a leaked audit report.
“I can’t comment about my friendship. This is about the SABC, not me,” said Mpofu.
Mpofu, however, also refused to comment on Sihlali’s allegation, in the Sunday press, that his suspension had to do with a “scramble” for SABC board seats.
Sihlali was not available for comment yesterday.
His lawyer, Barry Aaron, said he had not heard from Sihlali “for two weeks” and he had no idea what his intentions were.
“I was never really doing a labour matter. I got thrust into it when I did the urgent application,” Aaron said.
Earlier this month Sihlali lost an urgent application in the Johannesburg High Court to stop the SABC from discussing his suspension.
Mpofu apparently has business links with Sihlali in at least nine companies whose interests range from mining to investment and financial services.
SABC spokesman Kaizer Kganyago said there was no date yet set for Sihlali’s disciplinary hearing and could not even say whether it would be this year.
Sihlali’s suspension followed a “comprehensive” investigation commissioned by the SABC board’s audit committee after allegations of corruption and abuse of power were levelled against him, Kganyago said.
The SABC viewed the allegations “in a very serious light” but respected Sihlali’s right in law, and under SABC policy, to have his version of events heard before any further action was taken against him, Kganyago sai
What Dali Mpofu didn't say ...
Stefaans Brümmer and Adriaan Basson
07 September 2007 08:08 (M&G)
When South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) boss Dali Mpofu led the public broadcaster to quit the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) last week in protest against the “profit-driven” media’s treatment of Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, he neglected to mention a commercial interest that might have clouded his own judgement.
Mpofu, chief executive and editor-in-chief of the SABC, outlined the SABC’s reasons for quitting Sanef in a four-page letter to its chairperson, Jovial Rantao, last Friday.
He has outside interests, not least in Deutsche Bank and in the Elephant Consortium that bought into Telkom.
It was Martin Kingston, Tshabalala-Msimang’s son-in-law, who gave Mpofu the leg-up in the Deutsche deal some months before he started at the SABC two years ago.
Kingston was Deutsche’s chief country officer at the time.
Mpofu chairs empowerment ve-hicle Uthajiri, which gained a 15% stake in Deutsche’s local operations. He was appointed and remains a director of Deutsche....
Mpofu and four partners, including now-disgraced SABC legal head Mafika Sihlali, formed the Uthajiri group in 2004. Its first, and perhaps only, significant deal came in February 2005 when Deutsche announced its empowerment deal, which Kingston drove. In an interview with the Mail & Guardian late last year Kingston said it was among his proudest achievements in BEE.
Kingston is married to Pulane Kingston, Tshabalala-Msimang’s daughter from an earlier marriage. Tshabalala-Msimang is now married to ANC treasurer general Mendi Msimang. After Kingston left Deutsche in June last year he formed his own investment advisory firm, Longcross Capital, with his wife and the ANC treasurer as co-directors.
Mpofu said in response to M&G questions that he had declared his interests to the SABC and that the M&G “either does not understand the concept of conflict of interest or it is dishonestly clutching at straws in a typical attempt to trivialise the important issues raised by the SABC in the Sanef letter …
“To contrive a conflict based on a son-in-law who used to, but no longer works for a company in which I was part of a BEE deal in 2004 as a reason for the decision taken by the entire group executive and supported by the board of the SABC in 2007 is nonsensical and stretches credulity beyond acceptable limits.
“It is not exactly clear what commercial benefit I might possibly gain from this ‘conflict of interest’ by writing the Sanef letter.”
The M&G, meanwhile, has obtained a copy of Pauw’s letter of resignation. It states: “I did not intend to resign today, but after the publication of [Mpofu’s letter to Sanef], I have no other option but to offer my resignation … I take offence against a statement that the SABC is ‘not prepared to associate with the enemies of our freedom and our people’ …
“It is false to describe newspapers like the Sunday Times and Mail & Guardian as ‘enemies of our freedom and our people’ … The letter smacks of political jargon and could just as well have been written by the Presidency. I have lost any confidence in the leadership of the corporation. It is clear that the SABC has deteriorated into nothing less than a state broadcaster.”
Pauw confirmed his resignation, but referred other queries to the SABC.
New SABC GCEO takes firm stance against corruption
Dali Mpofu, the SABC's newly appointed GCEO
August 01, 2005, 19:15
"Dali Mpofu, the new Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO) of the SABC, took up his new job today with a firm stance against corruption. Mpofu takes over management of the national broadcaster from Peter Matlare who resigned earlier this year.
Day one in the hot seat and Dali Mpofu is clear about his vision for the SABC. He says he hopes to bring values like team building, integrity and respect to the corporation. He made it clear that corruption and mismanagement will not be tolerated.
"For anybody to steal even one cent from the people of this country with resources stretched as they are, is an unforgivable crime. The issue of zero tolerance is going to be practiced. The first person that is caught will be used as an example," Mpofu said.
The SABC board has expressed confidence in Mpofu's track record - with a career path that meanders through law and business. Eddie Funde, the SABC board chairperson said: “He understands what needs to happen with the external stakeholders and what needs to happen with the internal stakeholders, staff and management. It's a dynamic combination for us."
SABC man resigns but CEO Mpofu keeps mum
Sue Blaine Business Day 27 August, 2007
SABC CEO Dali Mpofu was tight-lipped yesterday about whether his friend and business partner,Mafika Sihlali, resigned or was suspended on Friday.
SOUTH African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) group CEO Dali Mpofu was tight-lipped yesterday about whether his friend and business partner, Mafika Sihlali, the SABC’s legal services chief, resigned or was suspended on Friday.
It is alleged Sihlali defrauded the SABC of up to R2m, although no criminal charges have been laid.
Sihlali apparently resigned before he was suspended on Friday but Mpofu said he had seen no resignation letter, and refused to comment on the SABC decision to suspend Sihlali with immediate effect and on full pay, months after the fraud allegations were made.
“I have not seen the letter. I am on the South Coast (of KwaZulu-Natal),” Mpofu said.
Mpofu was apparently advised to let Sihlali go in April, three months before the Mail & Guardian published allegations that Sihlali and his attorney Barry Aaron had defrauded the SABC of about R1,8m. The newspaper’s story was based on a leaked audit report.
“I can’t comment about my friendship. This is about the SABC, not me,” said Mpofu.
Mpofu, however, also refused to comment on Sihlali’s allegation, in the Sunday press, that his suspension had to do with a “scramble” for SABC board seats.
Sihlali was not available for comment yesterday.
His lawyer, Barry Aaron, said he had not heard from Sihlali “for two weeks” and he had no idea what his intentions were.
“I was never really doing a labour matter. I got thrust into it when I did the urgent application,” Aaron said.
Earlier this month Sihlali lost an urgent application in the Johannesburg High Court to stop the SABC from discussing his suspension.
Mpofu apparently has business links with Sihlali in at least nine companies whose interests range from mining to investment and financial services.
SABC spokesman Kaizer Kganyago said there was no date yet set for Sihlali’s disciplinary hearing and could not even say whether it would be this year.
Sihlali’s suspension followed a “comprehensive” investigation commissioned by the SABC board’s audit committee after allegations of corruption and abuse of power were levelled against him, Kganyago said.
The SABC viewed the allegations “in a very serious light” but respected Sihlali’s right in law, and under SABC policy, to have his version of events heard before any further action was taken against him, Kganyago sai
What Dali Mpofu didn't say ...
Stefaans Brümmer and Adriaan Basson
07 September 2007 08:08 (M&G)
When South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) boss Dali Mpofu led the public broadcaster to quit the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) last week in protest against the “profit-driven” media’s treatment of Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, he neglected to mention a commercial interest that might have clouded his own judgement.
Mpofu, chief executive and editor-in-chief of the SABC, outlined the SABC’s reasons for quitting Sanef in a four-page letter to its chairperson, Jovial Rantao, last Friday.
He has outside interests, not least in Deutsche Bank and in the Elephant Consortium that bought into Telkom.
It was Martin Kingston, Tshabalala-Msimang’s son-in-law, who gave Mpofu the leg-up in the Deutsche deal some months before he started at the SABC two years ago.
Kingston was Deutsche’s chief country officer at the time.
Mpofu chairs empowerment ve-hicle Uthajiri, which gained a 15% stake in Deutsche’s local operations. He was appointed and remains a director of Deutsche....
Mpofu and four partners, including now-disgraced SABC legal head Mafika Sihlali, formed the Uthajiri group in 2004. Its first, and perhaps only, significant deal came in February 2005 when Deutsche announced its empowerment deal, which Kingston drove. In an interview with the Mail & Guardian late last year Kingston said it was among his proudest achievements in BEE.
Kingston is married to Pulane Kingston, Tshabalala-Msimang’s daughter from an earlier marriage. Tshabalala-Msimang is now married to ANC treasurer general Mendi Msimang. After Kingston left Deutsche in June last year he formed his own investment advisory firm, Longcross Capital, with his wife and the ANC treasurer as co-directors.
Mpofu said in response to M&G questions that he had declared his interests to the SABC and that the M&G “either does not understand the concept of conflict of interest or it is dishonestly clutching at straws in a typical attempt to trivialise the important issues raised by the SABC in the Sanef letter …
“To contrive a conflict based on a son-in-law who used to, but no longer works for a company in which I was part of a BEE deal in 2004 as a reason for the decision taken by the entire group executive and supported by the board of the SABC in 2007 is nonsensical and stretches credulity beyond acceptable limits.
“It is not exactly clear what commercial benefit I might possibly gain from this ‘conflict of interest’ by writing the Sanef letter.”
The M&G, meanwhile, has obtained a copy of Pauw’s letter of resignation. It states: “I did not intend to resign today, but after the publication of [Mpofu’s letter to Sanef], I have no other option but to offer my resignation … I take offence against a statement that the SABC is ‘not prepared to associate with the enemies of our freedom and our people’ …
“It is false to describe newspapers like the Sunday Times and Mail & Guardian as ‘enemies of our freedom and our people’ … The letter smacks of political jargon and could just as well have been written by the Presidency. I have lost any confidence in the leadership of the corporation. It is clear that the SABC has deteriorated into nothing less than a state broadcaster.”
Pauw confirmed his resignation, but referred other queries to the SABC.
HARBER'S VIEWS ON BLOGS
I wonder whether the following quote might apply to The Harbinger ?
(Evens money Prof Anton would tell his students that it applies to.... FIX THE FXI !)
"The strength of blogs," writes journalism professor Anton Harber in his column "The Harbinger" on www.journalism.co.za, "is that they are relaxed, unedited, unmediated and are not bound by many of the standard limitations of journalism -- and it is also their greatest weakness."
(Evens money Prof Anton would tell his students that it applies to.... FIX THE FXI !)
"The strength of blogs," writes journalism professor Anton Harber in his column "The Harbinger" on www.journalism.co.za, "is that they are relaxed, unedited, unmediated and are not bound by many of the standard limitations of journalism -- and it is also their greatest weakness."
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
IS ANTON HARBER A NEO-CONSERVATIVE ?
Does The Freedom of Expression Institute think that Anton Harber is a neo-conservative?
FIX THE FXI posted the following on Anton Harber's blog (The Harbinger) re his article "Are these the thoughts of a neo-conservative?"
September 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I think you are an old style ANC leftist. I am not fooled by your attempt to distance yourself from the neo-conservative label. All “old style ANC leftists” are neo-conservatives. It is a particular breed that identifies with the ANC establishment and has to toe the party line either to keep employment or to get rich quick. That, of course, is the awful irony of the New South Africa. Dali Mpofu should be astute enough to realize this.
Anton, give us a straight answer to a straight question..Do you think Snuki Zikalala should be sacked?
http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/
Why doesn't Harber call for Snuki's sacking in the following article? Surely, Zikalala's role as head of news and current affairs at The ANCB (AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS BROADCASTING) should be mentioned? Harber has clearly backed off at a time when he should be sharpening his pen. So... it might be best to take Harber's "beliefs" with a large pinch of politically correct salt. In his position as head of journalism at Wits, Harber is now very much part of the establishment.
Actually, having thought about it a bit more, Harber is a "left-wing ANC neo-conservative". According to the latest edition of The DSM ( The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), this political shizophrenia is not treatable and ultimately leads to censorship and national insanity.
WHAT DOES ANTON HARBER REALLY BELIEVE ?
(1) He believes that he can gently criticize govt but he must not rock the boat.
(2) he believes that if he rocks the boat he will not have a long-term future in South Africa.
(3) He believes that he should be politically correct.
(4) He believes that he should support Ronno Einstein’s anti-zionist escapades.
(5) He believes that Zikalala should be sacked but he doesn’t believe that he has the guts to shout it from the rooftops.
(6) He believes he should have a public spat with Dali Mpofu so that he can underline that his "beliefs"
do not threaten Mbeki's government.
(7) He believes that it is not even worth discussing what a "right wing neo-conservative" actually believes.
(8) He believes that any beliefs he once had must be flushed down The ANC's democratic toilet.
(9) He believes that it is not worth fighting tooth and nail for freedom of expression in South Africa.
(10) He believes, when he turns off the light at night, that he doesn't have any beliefs.
Are these the thoughts of a neo-conservative?
by Anton Harber
September 3rd, 2007
SABC boss Dali Mpofu called me a rightwing neo-conservative in the weekend papers. It is the second time he has done that. But you can judge for yourself.
Let me spell out a few things about myself.
I believe in a public broadcaster, and I would like it to get greater state support and become less dependent on advertising so it can make editorial decisions with greater freedom than the commercial media. The public broadcaster should be able to do more things which commercial media can’t do - those things that may not make commercial sense but make for good journalism, education and public debate. I believe the public broadcaster should be setting the standards for journalism in this country.
I believe the government should, through the Media Development and Democracy Agency, be putting more resources into growing community media. Small, local media is the bedrock of media diversity and will feed the bigger national media. We need more of it, and the government’s role should be to enable and stimulate it.
I support local content regulations and would like to see them gradually increased to promote local drama, music and our indigenous cultural industry.
I believe we need more media in more of our official languages and the government should be subsidising this through channels such as the Pan-Language Board.
I believe the government should be closely watching the development or potential development of media monopolies, or over-powerful media groups, in order to protect and encourage diversity. I believe the state should be ensuring that we have an equitable and accessible newspaper distribution system which is open to all and encourages new and more voices, and is not controlled by the big at the expense of the small players.
I believe we need to strengthen the broadcasting and telecoms regulator and take the power of appointment of councillors away from the Minister, who has too great an influence on this body. I believe we should encourage them to license more television and radio stations.
I believe the state should be much more aggressive and interventionist in promoting cheap broadband access for all South Africans. We cannot fully exercise our economic and political rights without it.
I believe the state should stop taxing books and spend a lot more on libraries and related services.
I believe in a journalism which is fiercely independent, critical and outspoken. I don’t care much whether stories are positive or negative, but I do care if they are insightful, probing, informative and thought-provoking. I believe journalists are there to prod us into thinking about things, to cause trouble for the complacent, and to get up the noses of anyone with power and authority. I believe that patriotic journalism is when we play our proper role in ensuring that power is not abused and that political and financial power is wielded with accountability and transparency. I believe that we practice developmental journalism not when we spend our time telling everyone what government, business or NGOs are doing, but when we ask tough questions on behalf of those who can’t ask themselves, and demand proper answers.
These are all views I have expressed from time to time in my writings. You can decide whether these are the views of a neo-con.
ANTON HARBER BIOGRAPHY
In 1996, Harber helped put together a consortium to bid for privatised radio licences, a group which was the only one to win two licences. In March 1997, Harber was appointed CEO of Kagiso Broadcasting, owners of a number of media interests, and in October 1997 an executive director of Kagiso Media Limited, listed on the JSE. He served as a member of the boards of East Coast Radio (Pty) Ltd, Jacaranda 94.2fm (Pty) Ltd; Ofm (Pty) Ltd, Systems Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Radmark (Pty) Ltd and Kagiso Exhibitions (Pty) Ltd.
He was chairperson of the National Association of Broadcasters for two years (1999/2000), a member of the board of South African Advertising Research Foundation and a trustee of the Media Industry Trust. He has served as a media adviser to the Nelson Mandela Foundation, and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Fellowship for Journalists programme of the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, a trustee of the Phil Harber Jazz Education Trust and the Anthony Sampson Foundation and he is a member of the board of directors of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalism. He is convenor of judges for the Sanlam Financial Journalist of the Year Awards and the Taco Kuiper Awards and Grants for Investigative Journalism.
FIX THE FXI posted the following on Anton Harber's blog (The Harbinger) re his article "Are these the thoughts of a neo-conservative?"
September 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I think you are an old style ANC leftist. I am not fooled by your attempt to distance yourself from the neo-conservative label. All “old style ANC leftists” are neo-conservatives. It is a particular breed that identifies with the ANC establishment and has to toe the party line either to keep employment or to get rich quick. That, of course, is the awful irony of the New South Africa. Dali Mpofu should be astute enough to realize this.
Anton, give us a straight answer to a straight question..Do you think Snuki Zikalala should be sacked?
http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/
Why doesn't Harber call for Snuki's sacking in the following article? Surely, Zikalala's role as head of news and current affairs at The ANCB (AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS BROADCASTING) should be mentioned? Harber has clearly backed off at a time when he should be sharpening his pen. So... it might be best to take Harber's "beliefs" with a large pinch of politically correct salt. In his position as head of journalism at Wits, Harber is now very much part of the establishment.
Actually, having thought about it a bit more, Harber is a "left-wing ANC neo-conservative". According to the latest edition of The DSM ( The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), this political shizophrenia is not treatable and ultimately leads to censorship and national insanity.
WHAT DOES ANTON HARBER REALLY BELIEVE ?
(1) He believes that he can gently criticize govt but he must not rock the boat.
(2) he believes that if he rocks the boat he will not have a long-term future in South Africa.
(3) He believes that he should be politically correct.
(4) He believes that he should support Ronno Einstein’s anti-zionist escapades.
(5) He believes that Zikalala should be sacked but he doesn’t believe that he has the guts to shout it from the rooftops.
(6) He believes he should have a public spat with Dali Mpofu so that he can underline that his "beliefs"
do not threaten Mbeki's government.
(7) He believes that it is not even worth discussing what a "right wing neo-conservative" actually believes.
(8) He believes that any beliefs he once had must be flushed down The ANC's democratic toilet.
(9) He believes that it is not worth fighting tooth and nail for freedom of expression in South Africa.
(10) He believes, when he turns off the light at night, that he doesn't have any beliefs.
Are these the thoughts of a neo-conservative?
by Anton Harber
September 3rd, 2007
SABC boss Dali Mpofu called me a rightwing neo-conservative in the weekend papers. It is the second time he has done that. But you can judge for yourself.
Let me spell out a few things about myself.
I believe in a public broadcaster, and I would like it to get greater state support and become less dependent on advertising so it can make editorial decisions with greater freedom than the commercial media. The public broadcaster should be able to do more things which commercial media can’t do - those things that may not make commercial sense but make for good journalism, education and public debate. I believe the public broadcaster should be setting the standards for journalism in this country.
I believe the government should, through the Media Development and Democracy Agency, be putting more resources into growing community media. Small, local media is the bedrock of media diversity and will feed the bigger national media. We need more of it, and the government’s role should be to enable and stimulate it.
I support local content regulations and would like to see them gradually increased to promote local drama, music and our indigenous cultural industry.
I believe we need more media in more of our official languages and the government should be subsidising this through channels such as the Pan-Language Board.
I believe the government should be closely watching the development or potential development of media monopolies, or over-powerful media groups, in order to protect and encourage diversity. I believe the state should be ensuring that we have an equitable and accessible newspaper distribution system which is open to all and encourages new and more voices, and is not controlled by the big at the expense of the small players.
I believe we need to strengthen the broadcasting and telecoms regulator and take the power of appointment of councillors away from the Minister, who has too great an influence on this body. I believe we should encourage them to license more television and radio stations.
I believe the state should be much more aggressive and interventionist in promoting cheap broadband access for all South Africans. We cannot fully exercise our economic and political rights without it.
I believe the state should stop taxing books and spend a lot more on libraries and related services.
I believe in a journalism which is fiercely independent, critical and outspoken. I don’t care much whether stories are positive or negative, but I do care if they are insightful, probing, informative and thought-provoking. I believe journalists are there to prod us into thinking about things, to cause trouble for the complacent, and to get up the noses of anyone with power and authority. I believe that patriotic journalism is when we play our proper role in ensuring that power is not abused and that political and financial power is wielded with accountability and transparency. I believe that we practice developmental journalism not when we spend our time telling everyone what government, business or NGOs are doing, but when we ask tough questions on behalf of those who can’t ask themselves, and demand proper answers.
These are all views I have expressed from time to time in my writings. You can decide whether these are the views of a neo-con.
ANTON HARBER BIOGRAPHY
In 1996, Harber helped put together a consortium to bid for privatised radio licences, a group which was the only one to win two licences. In March 1997, Harber was appointed CEO of Kagiso Broadcasting, owners of a number of media interests, and in October 1997 an executive director of Kagiso Media Limited, listed on the JSE. He served as a member of the boards of East Coast Radio (Pty) Ltd, Jacaranda 94.2fm (Pty) Ltd; Ofm (Pty) Ltd, Systems Publishers (Pty) Ltd, Radmark (Pty) Ltd and Kagiso Exhibitions (Pty) Ltd.
He was chairperson of the National Association of Broadcasters for two years (1999/2000), a member of the board of South African Advertising Research Foundation and a trustee of the Media Industry Trust. He has served as a media adviser to the Nelson Mandela Foundation, and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Rosalynn Carter Mental Health Fellowship for Journalists programme of the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, a trustee of the Phil Harber Jazz Education Trust and the Anthony Sampson Foundation and he is a member of the board of directors of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalism. He is convenor of judges for the Sanlam Financial Journalist of the Year Awards and the Taco Kuiper Awards and Grants for Investigative Journalism.
CHANGE "SABC" TO "ANCB"!
Well, it seems that the new SABC Board will support Snuki Zikalala.
FIX THE FXI believes that Dene Smuts's assessment is over-optimistic. Dene Smuts said: “You can see the hand of Luthuli House in those appointments, but there are enough good people on the board to counteract the Luthuli House agenda.”
Until Zikalala is sacked the SABC will remain the ANCB (African National Congress Broadcasting). Perhaps it should get with the times and jettison the old "apartheid" nomenclature ? if place names can be changed why can't it apply to the SABC?
ANC backs Qunta, dumps Ginwala for SABC board
Brendan Boyle Published:Sep 12, 2007 (THE TIMES)
TRUSTED: Christine Qunta
Hand of Luthuli House seen in nominations.
ANC MPs rejected former Speaker of Parliament Frene Ginwala’s bid for a seat on the SABC board, but handed controversial lawyer Christine Qunta a second term.
Parliament’s portfolio committee on communications made 12 nominations from a list of 142 names yesterday , returning six former members and adding to the board a prominent businesswoman and President Thabo Mbeki’s former spokesman.
The board, which has played a key role in positioning the state- owned public broadcaster as a consistent supporter of the ANC , must be formally approved by the national assembly on Thursday. It will serve for up to five years from January.
It is now up to Mbeki to appoint a chairman and deputy chairman of the SABC board from the portfolio committee’s nominations.
Ginwala, who declined to take up her seat in parliament after she was dumped as Speaker, was not supported by her own party, though several opposition members thought she would be a useful addition to the board.
She is a trustee of the Reuters news agency, sitting on a panel that guards the editorial objectivity of the company.
The current chairman of the SABC board, Eddie Funde, was one of 37 candidates selected for an interview, but withdrew from the process.
Speculation among some MPs and candidates was that he had been told that he would not be reappointed as chairman.
Dene Smuts, the DA’ s communications spokesman, said the selection included eight people on her party’s own short list. She said: “This is definitely a better board.”
Smuts said the DA had opposed the appointment of Qunta, of former member Andile Mbeki and of Gloria Serobe.
Smuts said: “You can see the hand of Luthuli House in those appointments, but there are enough good people on the board to counteract the Luthuli House agenda.”
Qunta has supported SABC news chief Snuki Zikalala, who banned a number of commentators from the state airwaves and has accused the commercial print media of a racist campaign against the broadcaster.
Serobe is a shareholder in the Elephant Consortium, which owns a major stake in Telkom, which is bidding for a broadcasting licence that would allow it to compete with the SABC.
The candidacy of Mbeki’s former spokesman, Bheki Khumalo, now a general manager at Sasol, was supported by the ANC and DA, but not by the IFP.
Khumalo has written many articles supporting Mbeki recently, but said during the selection interviews he would be impartial on the board.
Members reappointed to the board are Alison Gilwald, Fadila Lagadien, Andile Mbeki, Khanyi Mkhonza, Qunta and Ashwin Trikamjee.
The new members are Nadia Bulbulia, a former broadcasting regulator, Mpumalanga 2010 World Cup chief Desmond Golding, Khumalo, Serobe, Pansy Tlakula, chief electoral officer of the IEC, and advertising veteran and banker Peter Vundla.
FIX THE FXI believes that Dene Smuts's assessment is over-optimistic. Dene Smuts said: “You can see the hand of Luthuli House in those appointments, but there are enough good people on the board to counteract the Luthuli House agenda.”
Until Zikalala is sacked the SABC will remain the ANCB (African National Congress Broadcasting). Perhaps it should get with the times and jettison the old "apartheid" nomenclature ? if place names can be changed why can't it apply to the SABC?
ANC backs Qunta, dumps Ginwala for SABC board
Brendan Boyle Published:Sep 12, 2007 (THE TIMES)
TRUSTED: Christine Qunta
Hand of Luthuli House seen in nominations.
ANC MPs rejected former Speaker of Parliament Frene Ginwala’s bid for a seat on the SABC board, but handed controversial lawyer Christine Qunta a second term.
Parliament’s portfolio committee on communications made 12 nominations from a list of 142 names yesterday , returning six former members and adding to the board a prominent businesswoman and President Thabo Mbeki’s former spokesman.
The board, which has played a key role in positioning the state- owned public broadcaster as a consistent supporter of the ANC , must be formally approved by the national assembly on Thursday. It will serve for up to five years from January.
It is now up to Mbeki to appoint a chairman and deputy chairman of the SABC board from the portfolio committee’s nominations.
Ginwala, who declined to take up her seat in parliament after she was dumped as Speaker, was not supported by her own party, though several opposition members thought she would be a useful addition to the board.
She is a trustee of the Reuters news agency, sitting on a panel that guards the editorial objectivity of the company.
The current chairman of the SABC board, Eddie Funde, was one of 37 candidates selected for an interview, but withdrew from the process.
Speculation among some MPs and candidates was that he had been told that he would not be reappointed as chairman.
Dene Smuts, the DA’ s communications spokesman, said the selection included eight people on her party’s own short list. She said: “This is definitely a better board.”
Smuts said the DA had opposed the appointment of Qunta, of former member Andile Mbeki and of Gloria Serobe.
Smuts said: “You can see the hand of Luthuli House in those appointments, but there are enough good people on the board to counteract the Luthuli House agenda.”
Qunta has supported SABC news chief Snuki Zikalala, who banned a number of commentators from the state airwaves and has accused the commercial print media of a racist campaign against the broadcaster.
Serobe is a shareholder in the Elephant Consortium, which owns a major stake in Telkom, which is bidding for a broadcasting licence that would allow it to compete with the SABC.
The candidacy of Mbeki’s former spokesman, Bheki Khumalo, now a general manager at Sasol, was supported by the ANC and DA, but not by the IFP.
Khumalo has written many articles supporting Mbeki recently, but said during the selection interviews he would be impartial on the board.
Members reappointed to the board are Alison Gilwald, Fadila Lagadien, Andile Mbeki, Khanyi Mkhonza, Qunta and Ashwin Trikamjee.
The new members are Nadia Bulbulia, a former broadcasting regulator, Mpumalanga 2010 World Cup chief Desmond Golding, Khumalo, Serobe, Pansy Tlakula, chief electoral officer of the IEC, and advertising veteran and banker Peter Vundla.
"SOMETHING IS STIRRING... "
Will other blogs emerge in South Africa, fighting for freedom of expression and demanding that The Freedom of Expression Institute is fixed?
According to the latest research it could just be a matter of time....
SA BLOGS ON THE RISE
Zahira Kharsany | Johannesburg, South Africa (M&G)
06 September 2007 05:00
"Something is stirring in the South African blogosphere. This year will probably be remembered as a time when blogs came of age, with more than 600 000 internet users visiting blogs by their fellow South Africans in just one month.
Electronic-media analyst Arthur Goldstuck has provided the online world with relevant South African statistics on the number of bloggers in South Africa for the month of August 2007.
In a blog entry posted this week on the Mail & Guardian Online's Thought Leader, Goldstuck says he believes that by August next year, "blogs will not only be a mainstream component of most online media in South Africa, but they will also be a dominant component".
According to the latest research it could just be a matter of time....
SA BLOGS ON THE RISE
Zahira Kharsany | Johannesburg, South Africa (M&G)
06 September 2007 05:00
"Something is stirring in the South African blogosphere. This year will probably be remembered as a time when blogs came of age, with more than 600 000 internet users visiting blogs by their fellow South Africans in just one month.
Electronic-media analyst Arthur Goldstuck has provided the online world with relevant South African statistics on the number of bloggers in South Africa for the month of August 2007.
In a blog entry posted this week on the Mail & Guardian Online's Thought Leader, Goldstuck says he believes that by August next year, "blogs will not only be a mainstream component of most online media in South Africa, but they will also be a dominant component".
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
MBEKI, THE PRESS AND 2010
From: amposner
Subject: ATT; SOPHIE RICHARDSON
Date: 11 September 2007 11:37:52 AM
To: hrwnyc@hrw.org
Cc: jduncan@fxi.org.za
Hi Sophie Richardson,
Interesting that FIFA is now visiting Zimbabwe to check out accommodation for 2010 World Cup. Amazing that FIFA can even contemplate involving themselves with Mugabe !
I wonder whether the IOC and FIFA are really bothered about press freedom ?
regards
http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/
As The Freedom of Expression Institute is reluctant to confront Mbeki's attempts to muzzle the South African press, perhaps Human Rights Watch and Fix The Fxi will have to intervene as South Africa heads towards 2010.
"The Chinese government seems to see a free media as an enemy rather than a watchdog of public safety and social stability." (HRW)
A sentiment that could equally apply to Mbeki's government ?
\
Attacks on media freedom continue despite government assurances to International Olympic Committee
Country/Topic: China
Date: 07 September 2007
(HRW/IFEX) - The following is a Human Rights Watch press release:
China: Media Freedom Attacks Continue Despite Pledges
11 Months Ahead of Beijing Olympics, Journalist Harassment Ongoing
(New York, September 7, 2007) - The Chinese government continues to violate the rights of journalists in spite of assurances to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would foster improvements in human rights and of specific pledges of wider media freedoms, Human Rights Watch said today.
Just 11 months before the 2008 Beijing Games begin, journalists in China continue to face physical abuse and harassment from police and plainclothes thugs who appear to work at official behest.
"The continuing harassment and physical abuse of journalists in the countdown to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing raises serious questions about the sincerity of government pledges to greater media freedom," said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "The Chinese government seems to see a free media as an enemy rather than a watchdog of public safety and social stability."
As part of its 2001 bid for the 2008 Olympics, the Chinese government expressly assured the IOC that it would loosen its long-held grip on the media during the Olympic Games. That commitment is consistent with the obligation of Olympic host cities to comply with Article 51 of the Olympic Charter, which stipulates that the IOC should take "all necessary steps in order to ensure the fullest coverage by the different media and the widest possible audience in the world for the Olympic Games." Moreover, Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China specifically guarantees "freedom . . . of the press."
Subject: ATT; SOPHIE RICHARDSON
Date: 11 September 2007 11:37:52 AM
To: hrwnyc@hrw.org
Cc: jduncan@fxi.org.za
Hi Sophie Richardson,
Interesting that FIFA is now visiting Zimbabwe to check out accommodation for 2010 World Cup. Amazing that FIFA can even contemplate involving themselves with Mugabe !
I wonder whether the IOC and FIFA are really bothered about press freedom ?
regards
http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/
As The Freedom of Expression Institute is reluctant to confront Mbeki's attempts to muzzle the South African press, perhaps Human Rights Watch and Fix The Fxi will have to intervene as South Africa heads towards 2010.
"The Chinese government seems to see a free media as an enemy rather than a watchdog of public safety and social stability." (HRW)
A sentiment that could equally apply to Mbeki's government ?
\
Attacks on media freedom continue despite government assurances to International Olympic Committee
Country/Topic: China
Date: 07 September 2007
(HRW/IFEX) - The following is a Human Rights Watch press release:
China: Media Freedom Attacks Continue Despite Pledges
11 Months Ahead of Beijing Olympics, Journalist Harassment Ongoing
(New York, September 7, 2007) - The Chinese government continues to violate the rights of journalists in spite of assurances to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would foster improvements in human rights and of specific pledges of wider media freedoms, Human Rights Watch said today.
Just 11 months before the 2008 Beijing Games begin, journalists in China continue to face physical abuse and harassment from police and plainclothes thugs who appear to work at official behest.
"The continuing harassment and physical abuse of journalists in the countdown to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing raises serious questions about the sincerity of government pledges to greater media freedom," said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "The Chinese government seems to see a free media as an enemy rather than a watchdog of public safety and social stability."
As part of its 2001 bid for the 2008 Olympics, the Chinese government expressly assured the IOC that it would loosen its long-held grip on the media during the Olympic Games. That commitment is consistent with the obligation of Olympic host cities to comply with Article 51 of the Olympic Charter, which stipulates that the IOC should take "all necessary steps in order to ensure the fullest coverage by the different media and the widest possible audience in the world for the Olympic Games." Moreover, Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China specifically guarantees "freedom . . . of the press."
PLEASE VOTE
FIX THE FXI is running a poll about Mbeki's weekly ANC letter (www.anc.org.za) and hopes that all staff members at The Freedom of Expression Institute will find time to vote.
Of course, it would be 100% ubuntu if other visitors to FIX THE FXI also vote.
Of course, it would be 100% ubuntu if other visitors to FIX THE FXI also vote.
Monday, September 10, 2007
MBEKI LEARNS FROM LENIN ?
This is Mbeki's conclusion from this week's presidential ANC letter:
As we strive continuously to advance the national democratic revolution, determined to achieve successive victories, we must pay the closest attention to, and understand with no illusions, the domestic objective and subjective conditions we face, and the related objective and subjective conditions in Africa and the rest of the world. In this regard, as the actual vanguard of the democratic revolution, we must fully understand the meaning of the expression - if wishes were horses, beggars would ride!
Lenin concluded his 1918 article, "The Revolutionary Phrase", with these words: "In the summer of 1907 our Party also experienced an attack of the revolutionary phrase that was, in some respects, analogous. In St Petersburg and Moscow nearly all the Bolsheviks were in favour of boycotting the Third Duma: they were guided by 'sentiment' instead of an objective analysis, and walked into a trap. The disease has recurred.
"The times are more difficult. The issue is a million times more important. To fall ill at such a time is to risk ruining the revolution. We must fight against the revolutionary phrase; we have to fight it; we absolutely must fight it, so that at some future time people will not say of us the bitter truth that 'a revolutionary phrase about revolutionary war ruined the revolution'."
A century after 1907, in 2007, we should not, and will not fall into a trap, as a result of being guided by ill-informed revolutionary phrases rather than objective analysis, allowing ourselves to become victim to seduction by the repetition of revolutionary slogans irrespective of objective circumstances, leading to the ruin of the national democratic revolution.
Rather, given what has been happening, affecting our movement and revolution, we may very well have arrived at the moment when, as Lenin said, questions must be raised sharply and things given their proper names, the danger being that otherwise irreparable harm may be done to the Party and the revolution.
As we strive continuously to advance the national democratic revolution, determined to achieve successive victories, we must pay the closest attention to, and understand with no illusions, the domestic objective and subjective conditions we face, and the related objective and subjective conditions in Africa and the rest of the world. In this regard, as the actual vanguard of the democratic revolution, we must fully understand the meaning of the expression - if wishes were horses, beggars would ride!
Lenin concluded his 1918 article, "The Revolutionary Phrase", with these words: "In the summer of 1907 our Party also experienced an attack of the revolutionary phrase that was, in some respects, analogous. In St Petersburg and Moscow nearly all the Bolsheviks were in favour of boycotting the Third Duma: they were guided by 'sentiment' instead of an objective analysis, and walked into a trap. The disease has recurred.
"The times are more difficult. The issue is a million times more important. To fall ill at such a time is to risk ruining the revolution. We must fight against the revolutionary phrase; we have to fight it; we absolutely must fight it, so that at some future time people will not say of us the bitter truth that 'a revolutionary phrase about revolutionary war ruined the revolution'."
A century after 1907, in 2007, we should not, and will not fall into a trap, as a result of being guided by ill-informed revolutionary phrases rather than objective analysis, allowing ourselves to become victim to seduction by the repetition of revolutionary slogans irrespective of objective circumstances, leading to the ruin of the national democratic revolution.
Rather, given what has been happening, affecting our movement and revolution, we may very well have arrived at the moment when, as Lenin said, questions must be raised sharply and things given their proper names, the danger being that otherwise irreparable harm may be done to the Party and the revolution.
MBEKI LEARNS FROM KHAMENI ?
Following Ronno Einstein's visit to Iran.....
IFEX WEBSITE
Supreme Leader publicly condemns media; persecuted journalist allowed to leave country
Country/Topic: Iran
Date: 07 September 2007
Source: Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Person(s): Parnaz Azima
(RSF/IFEX) - RSF is concerned about a verbal assault on the media delivered by the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, during a speech to the Assembly of Experts on 5 September 2007.
"What is left of press freedom now in Iran?" the organisation asked. "Ayatollah Khamenei's comments have reinforced the climate of censorship that oppresses all journalists who do not toe the official line. The last time the Supreme Leader attacked the media, in the spring of 2000, a wave of repression was unleashed on pro-reform newspapers."
In his 5 September address, Khamenei accused the Iranian media of "malice" and of "collaborating with enemy media" and he condemned the way some newspapers hailed former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's election on 3 September to head the Assembly of Experts as a blow to the hardliners.
Khamenei's attack on the media came less than a week after the release of a joint statement signed by more than 150 journalists protesting against a decline in press freedom. They criticised Tehran prosecutor Said Mortazavi for summoning newspaper editors to ban them from referring to the case of three students who have been held for three months for allegedly publishing "anti-Islamic" articles. They also threatened to continue issuing joint statements if the situation did not change.
Meanwhile, Iranian-American journalist Parnaz Azima was summoned by intelligence ministry officials on 4 September and told that she would be given her passport back and would be allowed to leave the country. Azima's passport was confiscated when she arrived in Iran last January with the aim of visiting her ailing mother.
Azima is nonetheless still charged with circulating anti-revolutionary propaganda and engaging in activities against state security because she works for Radio Farda, an independent station based in Prague.
Mbeki's ANC newsletter
However, nobody, and nothing whatsoever, will persuade us to change our conviction that our two Ministers of Health during our years of liberation, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, are genuine heroines of our people and our democratic revolution. Our movement is fully conscious of the fact that because the health portfolio in any government deals literally with matters of life and death, it is one of the most difficult, challenging and controversial in all governance systems.
We will, constantly and without equivocation, with no exceptions, combat the evil attempt to present our Ministers of Health, past and present, as legitimate targets of personal vilification by those who made a minimal contribution to our struggle for liberation, which cost the lives of many of our people, and have made and are, at best, making a paltry contribution to the complex task of building a non-racial, non-sexist, prosperous and peaceful South Africa.
Recent events have brought to the fore the obligation our movement faces, to choose between either ecstatic media adulation, or the defence of the truth as it understands this truth. The decisive factor in this regard has been whether we would fight for the health of our people or sacrifice this to gain media popularity. In obverse, we confront the challenge whether to enhance our media approval or persist on a scientifically based pursuit of the goal of health for all.
IFEX WEBSITE
Supreme Leader publicly condemns media; persecuted journalist allowed to leave country
Country/Topic: Iran
Date: 07 September 2007
Source: Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Person(s): Parnaz Azima
(RSF/IFEX) - RSF is concerned about a verbal assault on the media delivered by the Islamic Republic's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei, during a speech to the Assembly of Experts on 5 September 2007.
"What is left of press freedom now in Iran?" the organisation asked. "Ayatollah Khamenei's comments have reinforced the climate of censorship that oppresses all journalists who do not toe the official line. The last time the Supreme Leader attacked the media, in the spring of 2000, a wave of repression was unleashed on pro-reform newspapers."
In his 5 September address, Khamenei accused the Iranian media of "malice" and of "collaborating with enemy media" and he condemned the way some newspapers hailed former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's election on 3 September to head the Assembly of Experts as a blow to the hardliners.
Khamenei's attack on the media came less than a week after the release of a joint statement signed by more than 150 journalists protesting against a decline in press freedom. They criticised Tehran prosecutor Said Mortazavi for summoning newspaper editors to ban them from referring to the case of three students who have been held for three months for allegedly publishing "anti-Islamic" articles. They also threatened to continue issuing joint statements if the situation did not change.
Meanwhile, Iranian-American journalist Parnaz Azima was summoned by intelligence ministry officials on 4 September and told that she would be given her passport back and would be allowed to leave the country. Azima's passport was confiscated when she arrived in Iran last January with the aim of visiting her ailing mother.
Azima is nonetheless still charged with circulating anti-revolutionary propaganda and engaging in activities against state security because she works for Radio Farda, an independent station based in Prague.
Mbeki's ANC newsletter
However, nobody, and nothing whatsoever, will persuade us to change our conviction that our two Ministers of Health during our years of liberation, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, are genuine heroines of our people and our democratic revolution. Our movement is fully conscious of the fact that because the health portfolio in any government deals literally with matters of life and death, it is one of the most difficult, challenging and controversial in all governance systems.
We will, constantly and without equivocation, with no exceptions, combat the evil attempt to present our Ministers of Health, past and present, as legitimate targets of personal vilification by those who made a minimal contribution to our struggle for liberation, which cost the lives of many of our people, and have made and are, at best, making a paltry contribution to the complex task of building a non-racial, non-sexist, prosperous and peaceful South Africa.
Recent events have brought to the fore the obligation our movement faces, to choose between either ecstatic media adulation, or the defence of the truth as it understands this truth. The decisive factor in this regard has been whether we would fight for the health of our people or sacrifice this to gain media popularity. In obverse, we confront the challenge whether to enhance our media approval or persist on a scientifically based pursuit of the goal of health for all.
WHO IS "RACING TO HELL" ?
Iran's foes racing to hell says Ahamadinejad
TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday lashed out at his Western foes which demand Iran halt its sensitive nuclear activities, saying they were "racing to hell".
"The Iranian people have climbed over difficult mountain passes on their path of progress. The enemies need to step aside from our path and give up their satanic ideas," he said, according to the semi-official Mehr news agency.
"One or two countries are refusing to accept that Iran is now mastering nuclear technology ... Some countries are racing towards hell. But this makes us sad and, for the good of their people, we will resist." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, reiterated yesterday that Tehran was not seeking to manufacture atomic weapons.
TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday lashed out at his Western foes which demand Iran halt its sensitive nuclear activities, saying they were "racing to hell".
"The Iranian people have climbed over difficult mountain passes on their path of progress. The enemies need to step aside from our path and give up their satanic ideas," he said, according to the semi-official Mehr news agency.
"One or two countries are refusing to accept that Iran is now mastering nuclear technology ... Some countries are racing towards hell. But this makes us sad and, for the good of their people, we will resist." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, reiterated yesterday that Tehran was not seeking to manufacture atomic weapons.
IS SANEF SANE ?
FIX THE FXI believes that Sanef should not be meeting either with government or The SABC. Now is the time for SANEF to tell both Mbeki and Zikalala to get lost. The press should not be bullied into even listening to their bankrupt agenda.
However if Sanef is insane enough is to meet them.... why not save travelling expenses and deal with "The ANC and The SABC" together in one session ?
The M&G
Following a debate on privacy and the public interest, Sanef's council agreed to a proposed seminar between editors and the government on the matter.
The council also supported a decision to meet with the South African Broadcasting Corporation to discuss a decision by the broadcaster's CEO, Dali Mpofu, to cut ties with Sanef.
However if Sanef is insane enough is to meet them.... why not save travelling expenses and deal with "The ANC and The SABC" together in one session ?
The M&G
Following a debate on privacy and the public interest, Sanef's council agreed to a proposed seminar between editors and the government on the matter.
The council also supported a decision to meet with the South African Broadcasting Corporation to discuss a decision by the broadcaster's CEO, Dali Mpofu, to cut ties with Sanef.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)