Wow! so much has changed, I’ve changed, many people around me have changed since my last post 2 years ago. https://uncensoredopinion.co.za/struggle-evil-ovarian-cancer/I just want to share how lm coping.Experimental treatment going as well as any drug treating a cancer with 17 % survival rate. A friend of mine who works with statistics begs to differ and as he said “unless you have all the facts and figures how do you know how they relate to you”. He asks many questions: “How old are these figures? What state were the patients in? Are they just U.K. or worldwide? Do they include people who opted not to have treatment, etc?”From then on I decided that it’s best to ignore the statistics as we are all different. It’s a scary road we are on and so I try not to worry about numbers and concentrate on me and my recovery.After my diagnosis l couldn’t talk for a while. There is one thing I have always maintained about getting cancer that still holds true today. You will find out who your real friends are, and you will find out who has been faking. Let the fakers go and stick to the people in your life who truly care. Remembering this every day since my diagnosis has helped me to have so many more wonderfully awkward conversations with people I never knew cared so much about me.After initial “blockout” I’m now one of those people who wants to talk about cancer because I know how it scares people. I can see by the looks in people’s eyes that they are scared for me, but I make them laugh and tell them not to be afraid. Some don’t listen. When you are faced with a disease like cancer, your mind immediately puts in defence mechanisms that are natural to your personality.After my fear started to subside, I turned to my sense of humour to keep a level head. To this day, that sense of humour has allowed me not to have to take any medication for depression or anxiety stemming from my cancer. Some still want to hold me like a little baby and stroke my skin until they feel better. But it doesn’t work that way. Just talk to me about cancer, and I will talk back. It is the best way for both of us to get through it. People fear cancer because of the unknown. That is why I talk openly about my experience. If I can help just one person take on their cancer fight with an air of defiance instead of fear because I told them in my experience what to expect, then all of that talk was worth it.I found people manipulate the conversations so that l avoid the topic of cancer altogether. Instead of letting the patient guide the discussions about his/her disease, treatment options, and physicians. My sister in law (Thandi) would say, “How do you feel today?”I usually say something like “I’m doing okay, (she knows that’s code for lm ok but I don’t want to talk about sickness today). At other times, she will ask how lm feeling, l may go into great detail about my treatment options and ask her what she thinks about each of them.After trying three different chemotherapies in an attempt to shrink the tumour that is pressing on bladder nerves that in-turn affecting the sciatica nerve — and having no success — now they are simply focusing on preventing the tumour from growing. This will hopefully prevent loss of mobility in my leg. I fall all the time but l laugh it off now. I pull muscles in my legs l never knew could be pulled very easily and always in great pain. I recently got back into running to stop me getting stiff but boy! do those runs hurt.Cancer steals control away from the victim. We often feel helpless and isolated. By allowing me to have power over when l discuss the disease, I feel Thandi is giving me a gift. People with cancer often have triggers that make us feel angry or hypersensitive at certain times, in my case l can’t get angry even if l tried so those days l just cry and cry and cry.One of the most important things I realised is that showing up isn’t just the best thing to do: it’s the only thing you can do. You can’t cure cancer. You can’t make anyone come to terms with their own mortality. You probably can’t even make anyone feel better. All you can do is be there. Bear witness and be there. That’s all.In the journey with your loved one who is battling cancer, I wish you all the compassion and sensitivity in the world, for the road is rocky and filled with potholes. When you start feeling like your cancer patient friend or family member doesn’t want you around, remember: it’s not you, it’s cancer. When your loved one becomes irritated, don’t get defensive (it’s not you, it’s cancer). If your loved one happens to fall asleep in the middle of your story, tell yourself that it’s probably not you. (Though you may want to keep your stories shorter and sweeter from now on).Please don’t patronise. If I had a dime for every time someone told me I looked great after they knew I had cancer, I would be able to drink myself silly. When people think of cancer, they think of bald, frail people attached to IV bottles. The reality is that most cancer patients do not look like they have cancer.I try to avoid making people feel uncomfortable, but I could not resist when a relation of mine told me I looked great. I said, “For years you never commented on how I looked. Now I look great? Cancer is a beautifier!” she got the joke, but she also got the message. Then come the questions and advice:“Are you sure you should be drinking that, you know, what with your cancer?“I know herbal medicines that can cure you.“Did you know going vegan will increase your life expectancy?“I hear cancer is a result of being very unhappy and so on….”Again l try not to be mean to people because some actually mean well but this was my favourite, a cousin sister who attends these spiritual (cult) churches that think if we don’t join them we are all destined for hell, sat me down once and told me my church SDA wasn’t good at all that’s why l needed to attend their church so l could be healed from cancer. To which l replied but how come your husband died of cancer and he attended your church? She’s never spoken to me since.Then there are those random messages that come from strangers with chronic ailments asking: “How do l manage to keep smiling and cope with all the pain?” Those make my day because they remind me that cancer doesn’t define who l am. The days l can’t walk or get out of bed because of the pain l choose happy thoughts because l refuse to stress.Please remember pain isn’t normal. Get your smear test done, your breast cancer screening booked, insist on having scans done when you have pains you can’t explain or your body feels different, it’s the only way to perhaps save your life or prolong what’s left of it.
PRAVIN GORDHAN is a pharmacist who was deployed to the South African Revenue Services (Sars) to collect business and personal tax and then later dispensed budget allocations as Finance Minister. His endeavours were for the good health of our economy or so we thought!! Gordhan is a villain who comes across as a Saint to those too lazy to take an endoscopic look into his character as master conspirator.
Post ’94 general election Gordhan was sent to Parliament on the ANC ticket and was instrumental in producing the white paper on local government. In 1998 he was appointed Sars Deputy Commissioner, in November 1999 he was elevated to Commissioner. This is a position he held for the next decade until he was has appointed Finance Minister in 2009. His decade long career at Sars turned out to be a convoluted tale of conspiracies, spying and political machinations. In 1999 Gordhan recruited his comrade Ivan Pillay as Chief Compliance, Risk and Enforcement. Both Gordhan and Pillay date way back from the ANC’s underground network (Operation Vula). In 2007 Gordhan established an investigative unit which later became known as “Rogue Unit.” This is the same unit that planted spy cameras and bugs at National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and now defunct Scorpions offices. The focal point was to keep abreast of Zuma’s corruption case. This unit consisted of self-confessed apartheid spies like Johann Van Loggerenberg who used to spy on comrades.
In 2008 Pillay was appointed as one of the four Deputy Commissioners to Gordhan despite his lack of higher education qualification. Pillay further appointed Yolisa Pikie as his Advisor accumulating R900 000 per annum with a fake B.Com degree. In August 2009 Oupa Magashula was appointed Sars Commissioner after Gordhan was appointed Finance Minister. On 12th August 2010 Pillay submitted a memorandum to Magashula imploring him to recommend his early retirement and re-employment on a three-year contract. Pillay further requested revenue service to pay his R1.2m penalty for early retirement. Pillay desperately needed cash to settle his children’s school fees. Magashula bent over backwards and went along with Pillay’s request which was later approved by Gordhan. Finance Minister then approved appointment of British national Robert Head as Magashula’s Advisor with R3m salary per annum. As part of his appointment, Head demanded his wife’s appointment (Elizabeth Hargreaves) as Sars website manager at an annual R2m salary. Gordhan remarked that both appointments were above board.
Sars Commissioner Oupa Magashula later appointed 28 year-old Chartered Accountant without following recruitment process. Indian drug-lord Panganathan Marimuthu was in possession of Magashula’s telephone recording when the Commissioner made the job offer. Marimuthu used the recording to blackmail Magashula so he could get away with tax compliance. Gordhan appointed Judge Zak Yacoob to investigate Magashula’s conduct and the outcome was adverse. Magashula was cornered to resign. Pursuant to his resignation, Gordhan appointed Pillay as Acting Sars Commissioner. This essentially meant that a man with only matric to his name was now in charge of a trillion rand state institution. Gordhan was at peace with this appointment and media didn’t make noise. What I find rather fascinating is that Magashula was blackmailed by Indian drug-lord (Marimuthu), an Indian Minister (Gordhan) appointed an Indian Judge (Yacoob) to investigate and he was replaced by an Indian Commissioner (Pillay).
After Jacob Zuma had appointed Gordhan as Finance Minister, Julius Malema questioned the rationale behind his appointment. Suddenly Sars went after Malema. His tax non-compliance was laid bare and assets attached. Adriano Mazzotti was exposed as a cigarette smuggler and tax dodger who donated R200 000 to enable EFF’s registration as a political party. Malema settled R1.8m with Sars and had to put up a fierce battle against Sars which was pushing for sequestration to force him out of parliament.
Between March 2014 and December 2015 Gordhan was Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) Minister. This was at a time when most ANC-led municipalities were in distress and some dysfunctional. Most notably, it was at a time when municipalities were flouting Municipal Finance Management Act by investing money into VBS Mutual Bank. Nobody grilled Gordhan for his lack of critical oversight during his term as Cogta Minister. On the flip side, Ministers Bathabile Dlamini and Nomvula Mokonyane are still being lambasted for shenanigans which took place in their previous departments of Social Development and Water Affairs respectively.
In March 2017 President Jacob Zuma dismissed Pravin Gordhan as Finance Minister, seven months later the controversial journalist Jacques Pauw launched an explosive book called “The President’s Keepers.” Inter alia, the book contained Zuma’s personal tax information which Sars Spokesperson Sandile Memela had said was obtained under questionable circumstances. Sars filed papers against Pauw in Western Cape High Court for Contravention of Tax Administration Act 2011 for disclosing confidential taxpayer information without a court order. Sars mysteriously withdrew litigation against Pauw. I couldn’t help but notice Jacques Pauw surreptitiously obtained Zuma’s confidential tax information from the same institution once headed by Gordhan and Pillay. It’s also worth noting that the book was launched seven months after the same Zuma had fired Gordhan as Finance Minister. Incidentally, Gordhan graced the launch of The President’s Keepers with his presence.
Gordhan’s daughter Anisha was a Non-Executive Director of several companies. Most conspicuously, she was Non-Executive Director of Vox Telecommunications which received tenders from Department of Agriculture while her father was a cabinet minister. Whether she benefitted personally or not, is immaterial. What matters is Anisha represented a private company which did business with government while her father was a minister.
In 2016 Gordhan told Parliament he never met any member of the Gupta family. In a bizarre turn of events, his leaked affidavit to the State Capture Commission revealed that he had actually met Rajesh and Ajay Gupta at two separate occasions. The media didn’t make much ado about his lying like they did with former Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene. The focus was not on the substance of the affidavit but, how it leaked to the public.
When news broke that Ranjeni Munusamy had lobbied EFF to support Gordhan as interim President when Zuma was recalled, he neither denounced nor distanced himself from the notorious journalist. When Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane announced she would be investigating Gordhan over Pillay’s pension saga, Munusamy questioned Public Protector’s timing. In this instance too, Gordhan never questioned why a balanced journalist was casting aspersions on the Public Protector’s intentions. The jury is out on whether Pravin Gordhan is a Saint that the media makes him out to be. In Pravin Gordhan’s famous words………please connect the dots.
In a document titled, “No to the Destruction and Cessation of South Africa’s Strategic Nuclear Capabilities,” NEHAWU wrote, among other things, that:
“South African involvement with nuclear energy and technology started in 1948 and South Africa was a founding member of the IAEA in 1957. South Africa remains the only country in Africa that for decades has been in possession of the strategic nuclear capability which reached its zenith with the possession of nuclear weapons and was the first country in the world that voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons programme in early 1990s, and instead chose a path of a peaceful use of nuclear energy and technology”.
The document raises pertinent issues and suggesting that President Ramaphosa is trying to move away from the nuclear energy policy.
All what NEHAWU raised is understandable. My problem is the false statement that South Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons programme in the early 1990’s…”
Quite the contrary, South Africa transported its nuclear warheads to Israel. The apartheid government claimed it had six nuclear warheads when they had twenty-four nuclear warheads all taken to Israel. NEHAWU needs to correct that falsification for the record and for posterity.
The apartheid South African government began nuclear cooperation with the Zionist state of Israel from the 1960’s.
Former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden says the Saudis used Israeli spyware to track down Jamal Khashoggi. This spyware offers unlimited access to mobile phones. This is loss of personal freedom and invasion of privacy.
We may not do much about this. However, it is worth knowing even if we are powerless since if we know, we can have choices to either abandon mobile phones or require of our subservient government to manufacture mobile phones that are 100% surveillance proof.
On October 2, 2018, a Saudi Arabian national Jamal Khashoggi was murdered inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. His body was cut into pieces and dissolved in a chemical by a fifteen member team of assassins flown in from Saudi Arabia.
Turkey’s head o state, Recep Tayyip Erdogan says he has given tapes of Khashoggi’s murder to the governments of the US, Britain, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia itself.
On the 17th January 1961, the US, Britain and Belgium murdered Congolese head of state, Patrice Lumumba and dissolved his body in concentrated acid. There were no tapes of Lumumba’s murder, we only know of his murder from declassified CIA and FBI documents. His killers will never be persecuted as most of them are dead and even if they were alive the US would protect them.
Iran believes the murder of Khashoggi could not have been committed without the sanction of the US government.
It is worth revisiting the founding of the Zionist state of Israel. It was established in 1948 the same year the Apartheid government under DF Malan came to power.
There were four factors that forced the creation of the Zionist state of Israel in Palestine.
(a) Pressure from powerful and influential political Zionists in Europe and America in the 1800’s.
(b) The people of England feared for the future of their country should Jews become the dominant force in its political structure.
(c) The Zionist Congresses the first of which was in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland organised by Theodor Herzl and sponsored by the Rothschilds.
(d) England had conquered Turkey’s Ottoman Empire under whose control Palestine and other countries in the Middle East fell.
(a) The Zionist Congresses the first of which was in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland organised by Theodor Herzl and sponsored by the Rothschilds.
The Balfour Declaration did not create the Zionist state of Israel. It just endorsed or justified it. The League of Nations, the United Nations’ forerunner also gave a seal of approval to the creation of the state of Israel.
In Descent into Slavery, Des Griffin writes that, “From late in the 1800’s another potentially powerful force (political Zionism) had been developing in both Europe and the United States. History records that Zionism was heavily financed by the Rothschilds and their associates on both sides of the Atlantic”.
British people were reluctant to elect Jewish people as their political representatives in parliament even after the Rothschilds emerged as the predominant financial power in Britain in the early 1800’s. There were also the leadership of the British government early in World War 1 who were not in favour of the Zionist state becoming the responsibility of the British government, men who were not controlled by the Zionists such as Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, commander-in-chief in France Sir Douglas Haig and Sir William Robertson, Chief of Staff in France and later Chief of Imperial General Staff.
The rejection of the Zionist proposal by Asquith in effect signed his political death warrant. Griffin writes that it was clear that Asquith would have to be removed from his high office if the Zionist plans were to be brought to fruition during the course of the war.
Griffin says backstage manipulators then launched a national campaign to discredit Asquith and create conditions that would lead to his departure from office. The Times and The Manchester Guardian sowed seeds of doubt about their leader’s competence in the minds of the British public. Such was the power of the Zionists in their unjustifiable mission to establish a Zionist state in Palestine.
Lloyd George succeeded Asquith as prime minister in December 1917 and immediately reduced the strength of the British army in France and sent massive numbers of British troops to Palestine. The British had in 1916 requested the Arabs to be on their side in the war against Germany in exchange for Arab independence which included Palestine. There erupted the Arab revolt against the Turkish rulers which quickly spread. Turkish troops soon became engaged in the struggle against the Arab uprising. Pressure eased on the British forces and created a chance for the British army to take the city of Jerusalem with less opposition. Lloyd George and the British government betrayed the Arabs, including the Palestinians, after an agreement that was entered into with King Hussein of Jordan.
The US government under Woodrow Wilson also supported the Zionist cause. Wilson is quoted as having said to Rabbi Stephen Wise, “Have no fear, Palestine will be yours”. Woodrow Wilson wasn’t part of the Balfour Declaration written by Britain’s Foreign Secretary at the time, Author James Balfour to Lord Lionel Rothschild. One may ask why a letter that purported to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people was addressed to a non-Jew, Lionel Rothschild, from the Khazar people who originated in Turkey. The letter that came to be known as the Balfour Declaration mentioned “establishing a national home for the Jewish people” not “a Jewish state”. Those Zionists have now established a racist Zionist state which has become an outpost of western imperialism in the Middle East. It has been revealed that, in fact, the Rothschilds wanted possession of Palestine to set it up as a conduit for oil from Iran and the region. This explains why successive US administrations have been hostile to Iran with the exception perhaps of two or three administrations. However, Donald Trump’s administration, which is sympathetic to the Zionist state, has escalated the conflict and raised tensions. It has finally imposed sanctions on Iran.
In The New World Order and the Throne of the Antichrist by Professor Robert O’ Driscoll et al, the first Zionist Congress was organised by Theodor Herzle in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland and was sponsored by the Rothschilds to chart a way forward for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. This book also reveals that in his Complete Diaries, Herzle reveals the modus operandi of the Zionists in Palestine which is tantamount to committing genocide against the Palestinians after the state of Israel has been established. Herzle openly writes that the Palestinians were going to be driven out of Palestine and they were bombed out of their homes long after his death. He died in 1904. Herzle’s Complete Diaries are available for everybody to read should they so wish. The Zionist movement is a racist white supremacist movement and the state of Israel is a racist state.
Israel was set up by Europeans who have no connection to that land just like white South Africans who came in this country about four centuries ago. That is why the state of Israel collaborated with the apartheid government in nuclear technology in the 1960’s and laid a red carpet for JB Vorster in 1974 when he visited Israel. Israel also helped he apartheid government built nuclear weapons. The UN’s Special Committee Against Apartheid reported that in the early 1990’s, the apartheid South African government was said to have dismantled its six nuclear warheads but were not dismantled, they were transported to Israel and they were not six they were twenty-four. Israel supplied the South African army and police with weapons and ammunition including dum-dum bullets that were used to suppress as an oppressed indigenous African people. The ANC government should have severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 1994 but they wouldn’t since the Rothschilds and Rockefellers funded Nelson Mandela and the ANC in the run up to the 1994 elections and the ANC are poodles of the West.
In the 1940’s and prior to the establishment of the terrorist state of Israel, the Zionist movement’s terrorist organisations, Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang carried out terrorist activities even against the British soldiers in pursuit of establishing a Zionist state. By 1948, the same year that the racist, apartheid National Party led by DF Malan came to power in South Africa, the racist, apartheid Zionist government came to power in Israel.
What I find interesting is that the EFF recently marched against the centenary of the Balfour Declaration. However, their leader Julius Malema addressed the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) two years ago under the Chatham House Rule which means his speech can’t be accessed by the public. Yet RIIA was created by individuals who supported the creation by violent means of the state of Israel such as the Rothschild’s. This is hypocritical of Malema and the EFF hierarchy. Arthur Balfour, against whose declaration the EFF marched, was in the Rothschilds’ inner circle as well as Cecil John Rhodes and Alfred Milner. Malema’s and the EFF’s duplicity knows no bounds.
The PAC which should be spearheading the revolution such as supporting the Polisario Front in Western Sahara and the Palestinian people’s struggle and that of people of African descent in the diaspora but leaves it to novices is organising itself. It’s no longer consumed by petty factional battles. Next month there is going to be one PAC national congress in Kimberley. PAC branches, regions and provinces that were involved in unity initiative deserve a pat on the back.
The PAC must lead the revolution against injustice because its founding President Robert Sobukwe said the PAC was about the liberation of humanity.
WHEN Europe invaded our land, they told us through their missionaries, that our christianity was superstition and that theirs was scientific. And they made it impossible to adopt their christianity without abandoning our culture and tradition hence we are where we are today, fully western christianised and culturised.
Religion should not serve to pacify black people so that they can rest in landless peace.
The gospel speaks of freedom and many other things. It does not only focus on individual sins, but national, communal, racial and global sins.
You will not get your land back because you have not stolen, or committed adultery. Do not steal, do not commit adultery are well and good to keep morality in check but it is not the end but a means to an end. Apartheid was not only a crime to humanity, it was a sin to mankind. Colonialism was the biggest sin because it was the foundation of other sins to follow like apartheid.
Lets say you do live clean, i.e you dont commit adultery, you don’t steal, etc. Will you have land??? Will racism and poverty crawl back to their cracks? Will inequality be a thing of the past?? Will blacks be finally financially liberated??
The promised land in the context of black people is,
1)the return of their land
2)benefiting from their God given minerals
3)participating meaningfully in their economy with own banks, asset management firms, insurance firms, etc
5)independent black political party that will champion the mandate of the masses, not of capital/the establishment.
6) create a constitution that is based on African values and our way of life.
-reform the judiciary system
The word of God should never be isolated from reality. The church should not be an escape from reality, it should help deal with reality.
Stop limiting the word of God to ”do not steal, do not commit adultery” or’ ‘we are living in the last days repent” or ”in 3 days you’ ll receive a miracle”
May you also prophesy that in 3 years Blacks will get their land back, there will be 3 black owned banks, Black owned mining firms, education will be decolonized, unemployment will be at 3%.
God gave us this African land and deposited minerals in it so that we may not suffer and never know poverty. Genesis 2:15 refers.
More than 2000 years ago Deutoronomy warns us if we rest on our laurels, it says ” the foreigners who reside among you will rise higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower. They will lend to you but you will not lend to them. They will be the head, but you will be the tail”. Deutoronomy 28:43-44 refers.
Leviticus 25:23-28 puts it so clearly how we should be dealing with land in particular.
Other relevant verses for people who dispossess indigenous people of their land and create a constitution to protect stolen property are as follows, Micah 2:2-3, Deutoronomy 19:14.
May the God of Abraham, Jacob and Moses give you courage to contribute in the true liberation of the masses of our people, for you have a bigger responsibility.
Eskom has possibly violated Section 33 of the constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No.3 of 2000 for having cut off electricity for a week now without prior notification. A handful of people say they received smses which state different reasons for electricity disruptions.
The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of 2000) (“PAJA”) gives effect to the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair as well as to the right to written reasons for administrative action as contemplated in Section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. It seeks to make the administration effective and accountable to people for its actions. Together with the Constitution it embraces the Batho Pele Principles and promotes South African citizens’ right to just administration. This section of the Constitution also ensures that people have the right to ask for written reasons when administrative action has a negative impact on them.
In applying PAJA, administrators achieve the following:
• Facilitate the ability of citizens to access their constitutional rights to just and fair administrative action;
• Enable citizens to actively participate in the decision-making process;
• Ensure that organs of state are accountable and transparent; and
• Promote lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair decision making processes.
Eskom has cut off electricity in Masibi-Langa without prior notice. There was no just and fair administrative action because only a few houses – about ten – out of 72 houses were targeted yet others were not inspected apparently at the behest of Ward 9 Councillor who told a gathering of residents that he has no role to play in matters involving Eskom and residents. According to PAJA he is dead wrong. He is reported to have told some residents that residents in my area have not voted for him so he thinks he is not obliged to serve them. Again he is dead wrong and clearly demonstrates that he doesn’t understand what a councillor is there for.
There was no meeting between Eskom and residents. The last meeting with Eskom was before the last local government elections.
There was no accountability and transparency because there was an email that was apparently sent to the Councillor about Eskom’s intentions which he denies ever receiving.
Eskom may have acted lawfully but not reasonably and procedurally fair as I have already pointed out that only a few houses were targeted and there are areas in Kagiso known as Batswaneng and Zulu Jump where Eskom personnel do not tread including the hostels. This cannot be reasonable and procedurally fair.
There is an arbitrary penalty of a R6000 fine imposed by Eskom and payable in full before electricity can be restored irrespective of whether or not a person is a pensioner or indigent.
Eskom must inspect all the houses.
The Sunday Times has cast serious doubts over the publication of stories under my editorship in 2011, saying it will return prize money won by the journalists and that it fully apologises for the stories. In the face of a week of shrill criticism, I opted not to publicly challenge this view, but to rather write a carefully considered response in the newspaper. To my astonishment, The Sunday Times editor declined to publish my response. As someone whom I hold in high regard, I urge you to read the response I wrote before making up your mind about this matter. This is the full text of what I submitted. – Ray Hartley
It sickens me to think that those intent on abusing state power for corrupt purposes used articles published by the Sunday Times on irregular police killings and the rendition of suspects to Zimbabwe for their nefarious ends.
This was also the case with the lamentable reporting on the SARS rogue unit. But I was not editor at the time the SARS “rogue unit” stories were published, and it does not follow that because errors were made there, they must have occurred in all preceding stories.
The public discussion of the reporting on the Cato Manor killings has roused anger, and I have felt it intensely over the past week.
This anger is good. It comes from a good place. Readers love this newspaper and expect it to maintain the highest standards, and when they are told that it has fallen short, they are disappointed.
And readers are angry at state capture. They are right to be.
As the editor who was on duty when the decision was taken to publish these stories, I have been the focus of this.
I share the anger at state capture, and my record of exposing it in countless stories before this became fashionable stands for itself.
But I have to account for the stories which were published under my watch.
Sunday Times editor Bongani Siqoko did as much in his article published last Sunday.
He wrote: “As reporters and editors we have an ethical and journalistic duty to interrogate suspicions of abuse of power, accusations of wrongdoing, and any other incidents that are in the public interest. We did just that in these stories, basing our decision on news value, professional judgment and the public’s right to know.”
He went further to state: “We were in pursuit of nothing but the truth and we were not motivated by political, commercial or personal interests. We stood to gain nothing from reporting on these issues but merely fulfilled our constitutional obligation to inform you.”
For a moment it seemed he had taken the courageous step to stand up to the mounting noise over the stories to oppose the tide of criticism.
Then Siqoko’s article took an inexplicable turn for the worse.
He took issue with the headline – it was actually the secondary headline – which used the words ‘death squad’, saying that was going too far. This I am prepared to accept. Perhaps the old journalistic fig leaf ‘alleged’ ought to have been used.
He points out that only 12 of the killings, not 18, were suspicious. To his mind, this makes a difference. To mine it does not. One killing would have been too many.
Imagine that a unit of the police in Birmingham, Alabama, was linked to the irregular death of 12 black suspects? All lives matter, even those of suspected criminals.
Siqoko says the articles suggested that General Johan Booysen was somehow directly responsible for the killings.
The articles did no such thing. They said the police accused of the killings fell under “the ultimate command” of Booysen.
General Booysen phoned me, saying he wished to share his views on the Cato Manor article. A reporter was dispatched to interview him in person.
He was quoted prominently in the article.
This is what he said when asked if the Cato Manor unit had committed crimes: “I would strongly disagree with you. Their lives were at stake, they defended themselves in a shoot-out.”
“Cato Manor only investigates murder, armed robbery, ATM bombing, serial killing and serious rape cases. They made 437 arrests in the last two years. The facts are, they do arrest very violent people.”
He is later quoted as saying he had no objection to an official investigation because “it may prove once and for all that the picture created about Cato Manor is totally wrong.”
It is a great pity that the authorities did not share his view and institute such an inquiry.
I happen to believe that Booysen did not order killings, commit killings or witness them. No such allegation was made in the articles, and it is shameful that the National Prosecuting Authority – clearly pursuing an agenda – subsequently chose to attack him over this.
The suggestion by Siqoko that the newspaper ought to have anticipated that the NPA would act in this manner and publish the outline of a vast criminal conspiracy to capture the state is naive.
This was a story about the excessive use of force by a police unit which resulted in lives being taken, not a speculative blog post about a conspiracy.
If this approach were taken, there would be no investigative journalism, just a large cloud of tobacco smoke in which conspiracies swirled about.
The essence of Siqoko’s article is that the Sunday Times under my stewardship fell victim to “peddlers of fake news”.
One such peddler was apparently one Toshan Panday, who was under investigation by Booysen.
You may recognise the name. Panday was the subject of a damning and detailed front page expose in the Sunday Times. Who wrote this article? The same journalists who are now described as doing his bidding in the interests of state capture.
I was shocked to read Siqoko’s conclusion that the Sunday Times would return the money paid for the awards that this story won. The effect of this was that he believed the stories were illegitimate and wholly false.
No such demand has been made by those who gave the awards. Perhaps they should politely decline Siqoko’s offer until this matter has been conclusively investigated.
How did he make that leap from his earlier statement, which, let me remind you, read: “As reporters and editors we have an ethical and journalistic duty to interrogate suspicions of abuse of power, accusations of wrongdoing, and any other incidents that are in the public interest. We did just that in these stories, basing our decision on news value, professional judgment and the public’s right to know.”
I and the reporters involved in these stories spent many hours with Siqoko openly and fully divulging the sources and the process which this year-long investigation took. None of this was reflected in his article. Perhaps it would have chimed badly with his astonishing conclusion.
Make no mistake, these journalists put their lives at risk tackling this story. They waded knee-deep through the blood of KwaZulu-Natal’s killing fields, and that deserves to be honoured not dismissed. Did they make errors? Yes, they did. Were any of these errors fatal to the conclusion that irregular killings occurred? No they were not.
Many allegations by hucksters, charlatans disgraced journalists and, tragically, some doyens of the media profession have been made against the reporters on the Cato Manor story. Not one shred of credible evidence has been produced to back this up. If such evidence were ever produced, I would be the first to insist that the very harshest punishment be forthcoming.
Since the publication of Siqoko’s article, my 30-year reputation as an ethical, fair and accurate journalist and editor has been severely damaged. I am greeted in the street with looks of pity and, sometimes, anger.
Those who know me have stood by me, and I am grateful for that.
My record speaks for itself. I joined the dots while Thabo Mbeki was still president, predicting that Jacob Zuma would seek to destroy the prosecution service, cow the criminal justice system and cause the economy to tank by damaging the country’s financial rating.
The Sunday Times felt Zuma’s attempt to capture the media more keenly than most. One of our reporters was bundled into a police van and transported to Mpumalanga in secret. When I confronted Zuma with this in the one and only interview he ever granted the newspaper under my stewardship, he laughed while staring at me with cold eyes. It was spine-chilling. I knew we were at war with a very powerful enemy.
Sunday after Sunday we exposed Zuma’s gradual grasping of the state by the throat. “State capture” was not how we described it back then. But it was not hard to see that this grim empire of corruption was growing into a monster. It was going to end badly.
The idea that has been floated by some – admittedly, mostly out on the fringes – that I deliberately sought to assist with the capture of the state is not borne out by my many articles, editorials and commentary which have been consistently heavily critical of the creeping cronyism of the Zuma presidency. I recall praising Zuma’s administration for finally rolling out comprehensive Aids treatment. Other than that, not a single word was written which in any way supported Zuma’s assault on the integrity of the state.
I am pleased that Sanef has chosen to fully investigate this matter. It needs to be a thorough, independent and unsparing effort to get to the bottom of what happened.
I am confident that the conspiracy theory that the Sunday Times deliberately sought to assist with state capture will be disproved.
There is a great danger that this episode will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting as journalists fear they may become the victims of public campaigns against their stories. If that happens, the road will be paved for a new round of state capture, this time free of the irritation of probing, independent criticism.
Since August , The Board of Transnet has intimated that they wished to suspend Mr Gama pursuant to certain continuing investigations they were undertaking . At all material times either personally and in writing to the Chairperson and acting on the advise of his Attorneys, who also wrote to Transnet , Mr Gama advised and urged Transnet to respect the employment contract that exists between him and the company . The employment agreement states clearly that any dispute between the parties must be referred to arbitration. Transnet contravened its own disciplinary code that states that employees are entitled to a disciplinary hearing.Speaking after Justice Graham Moshoana handed his Judgement at the Labour Court, Mr Gama has this to say …”I had no choice but to approach the Labour Court to stop Transnet from terminating my employment contract in breach of its terms and provisions. We have today succeeded in persuading Transnet that they must apply my employment contract and the Transnet disciplinary code in my case, that the parties must refer any dispute to an arbitrator. It is unlawful and illegal to dismiss an employee without providing them with the right to a proper hearing and falls counter to our bill of rights and the constitution. I invite the Transnet Board to honour the contract that I entered into with Transnet SOC LTD.”We reiterate that as an organ of state, The Transnet Board cannot choose and is not entitled to opt to unilaterally dismiss an employee without a proper hearing. The contract is clear that an employee is entitled to a hearing. The judge was very clear today in granting an order that the employment contract must be respected. In terms of the contract, the parties must take the arbitration route to resolve any dispute that they might have .Statement Issued by MSMM Attorneys Inc
THE recording from which UnCensored reported the racist rants by Angelo Agrizzi and his offer to help “clean up” Bosasa, now African Global Operations, in return for removing the Black directors and replacing them with himself as chief executive officer, are authentic. A City Press report mentions the authenticity of the the one recording in which Agrizzi calls his former Black colleagues, kaffirs who are lazy and who’ve done nothing for the company. In those discussions Agrizzi boasts of having cultivated media contacts which include News24 editor Adriaan Basson, who has refuted the claims. http://uncensoredopinion.co.za/the-racist-whistleblower-with-his-ferraris/
There are more recordings which were also authenticated by the South African Police Services (SAPS) and a private company. I’ve also spoken to some of the witnesses who were present during these discussions. Frankly, Agrizzi cant say it is not him on those recordings.
Basson says Agrizzi, who has been the main source of the stories of Bosasa corruption recently published on News24, has lied on the recordings with regards to their relationship. Agrizzi boasts of Adriaan being at his house with his children…”they play here…”. Basson says its a lie. http://uncensoredopinion.co.za/news24-editor-adriaan-basson-named-in-plot-to-destabilise-bosasa/
The conversations between Agrizzi and his group who want a hostile take over of the company, on one hand, and CEO Gavin Watson’s children and nephew, on another, spanned a period of about three days starting on 22 August 2018. In the process of “mediation”, of trying to ascertain why Agrizzi released a statement about the alleged corruption at Bosasa where he’d worked for almost 18 years, and which went against his exit settlement agreement, which included a hefty financial figure but also tied him to a restraint of trade and confidentiality of company secrets, it emerged this move was not about ‘public interest” as he’d alleged but was personal.
We have clips of the recording which we will publish when there are enough people who will donate towards the safety of the writer and legal fees given that there was a threat by Adriaan Basson two days ago that we bring down the article or else….
We have continually asked for readers to donate to UnCensored to keep this platform going. We have unfortunately not been able to solicit donations beyond a handful. As we’ve said previously, we didnt want to block access to the stories and put a paywall as other outlets do. But we must have our readers contribute something to the platform.
We dont have the money to put up technological pay walls and we will simply ask you to donate to our account and we shall open the entire article when we have enough to pay the writer for their security and that of the site and other operational costs.
Let’s see if this works:
Our Bank Account is:
Uhuru Press, FNB Bedford
Account Number: 62583256625
Once you’ve paid send us proof of payment by email and we shall send you the complete story. It’s only fair.
Our email address is email@example.com
During the past year, I have grown increasingly uneasy with a fairly common bit of semantic slippage: in headlines, in think pieces, and on social media, many people use the phrases “#MeToo movement” and “#MeToo moment” interchangeably, without acknowledging the gulf between them. Is #MeToo—this jagged, brutal, contentious, and profound collective reckoning with the extent to which men have been allowed to abuse their power—an epochal shift toward a better and more equal society? Or is it fleeting—a piece of time that we can record and later revisit, but that we could never, in this country, under a twenty-times-accused-of-sexual-misconduct President, make last?
In recent weeks, as we neared the first anniversary of this moment or movement breaking into the mainstream, signs of a new narrative—or perhaps a very old one imbued with a new reactionary fervor—began to emerge, offering one possible answer to that question. Louis C.K., who has admitted to cornering multiple women who worked in the comedy industry and masturbating in front of them, started performing again, to the delight of supporters who seemed to believe that C.K. has been victimized by the Zeitgeist. Harper’s and The New York Review of Books published lengthy first-person essays by disgraced menwho painted themselves as martyrs. The Republican Party pushed Brett Kavanaugh into a seat on the Supreme Court, despite multiple credible allegations of sexual misconduct made against him and his string of lies under oath about matters related to that alleged sexual misconduct. (Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.) At a rally in Mississippi, Donald Trump mocked the public testimony of Kavanaugh’s first public accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, who claims that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her while they were in high school. Trump’s supporters, who had earlier chanted “We want Kavanaugh,” roared and laughed and cheered. “A man’s life is shattered,” Trump said, suddenly faking solemnity. He added, “They destroy people. They want to destroy people. These are really evil people.”
The underlying principle here is that the men who have been accused are the heroes, and that those who accuse them, and listen to the accusations, are the villains. This revanchism is not a sign of #MeToo’s overcorrection, or even of its success—it is merely evidence of its existence. This sort of backlash, as Susan Faludi wrote nearly thirty years ago, is “set off not by women’s achievement of full equality but by the increased possibility that they might win it. It is a preemptive strike that stops women long before they reach the finish line.”
When Ford spoke publicly, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in late September, she was unfailingly polite and deferential while being interrogated at length about a traumatic experience. She spoke like a woman who had understood since childhood that survival requires anticipating and accepting the displeasure of men. Kavanaugh, in contrast, who spoke after her, yelled and wept, behaving like a man whose entitlement had never before been challenged, and who believed that male power outweighs women’s personhood as naturally as a boulder outweighs a pearl. The hearing was a vivid illustration of the precise problem that #MeToo has helped to expose, and of the fact that many men consider the exposure of the problem to be the problem itself. At one point, Kavanaugh traded lines with an equally furious Senator Lindsey Graham about how the delay in his confirmation had put him “through hell.”
The anger crackling through Kavanaugh and Graham—and the thrum of vindictive satisfaction that I could feel passing through the base they were playing to—shut me down for the evening. I grasped, for the first time, the extent to which the past year has made some men crave the poisonous high of feeling wrongfully endangered. I also grasped the scale of the consequences that women and other sexual-assault victims will face as a result. Like the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, these men are borrowing the rhetoric of the structurally oppressed and delivering it with a rage that is denied to all but the most powerful. “I’m a single white male from South Carolina,” Graham said, at a meeting the morning after the hearing, “and I’m told that I should just shut up, but I will not shut up.”
The past year has been full of sweeping pronouncements. “Time’s up for these men.” “The silence is breaking.” The inflexible triumphalism of this language, like the cheerful pink emoji attached to the #MeToo hashtag, has always left me cold. It is often assumed that women like me, feminists who have argued for a redistribution of power, have been steadily rejoicing—that we’ve blown trumpets after every ouster—when in fact many of us have been exhausted and heartbroken and continually reminded of situations in which our ability to consent had been compromised or nullified in any one of a thousand ways. I don’t know a single woman who has permitted herself to be as openly furious about being sexually assaulted as Kavanaugh allowed himself to be, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, when speaking about being accused of sexual assault. Like Ford, we have had to be painfully careful about how we speak.
Women’s speech is sometimes wielded, in this #MeToo era, as if it were Excalibur—as if the shining, terrible truth about the lives of women will, by itself, vanquish the men who have exploited and controlled them; as if speech were a weapon that protects those who wield it from hurt. Supporters of #MeToo have, on occasion, adhered to this idea in a sort of delusive optimism. Opponents have brandished it, too, in bad faith, acting as though women’s speech has far more social and political and legal power than it has actually been granted. Until the nineteen-eighties, many jurisdictions required an alleged rape victim’s testimony to be corroborated before a conviction could be issued—even though, for nonsexual crimes, guilt could be established on the basis of a victim’s testimony alone. We saw a replay of this in the Kavanaugh hearing. Although the burden of proof should not have been as high as it would have been for a criminal trial—and though Ford’s testimony was widely regarded, even by many of Kavanaugh’s most powerful supporters, as credible—that testimony was described, again and again, as not enough.
It will be said that Kavanaugh was confirmed despite the #MeToo movement. It would be at least as accurate to say that he was confirmed because of it. Women’s speech—and the fact that we are now listening to it—has enraged men in a way that makes them determined to reëstablish the longstanding hierarchy of power in America. By imagining that they are threatened, men like Kavanaugh have found the motivation to demonstrate, at great cost to the rest of us, that they are still the ones who have the ability to threaten others.
And yet this awful truth will not stop women from speaking, and I do not think that it will turn a movement into a moment. It has become clear that there is not nearly enough left to lose.
Mxolisi Ka Nkomonde: South Africa’s basic education is controlled by corporations that benefited from apartheid and questions their motives.
Who controls South Africa’s basic education?
South African education has for centuries been controlled by the state with a few private schools which controlled themselves. Matriculation was under the Joint Examination Board from 1918 to 1989 but this changed when private schools established the Independent Examination Board (IEB)  which regulates private schools. The issue of private education evokes an intense and controversial debate which raises issues of exclusivity and elitism. The IEB regulates the education of children of upper middle class and wealthy whites with a few Blacks who could afford private education under Apartheid.
In 1992 the Joint Education Trust now called JET Education Services(JET) was setup as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) with the sole purpose of “reforming” the public education system. The founders of JET include Anglo American, First National Bank (now First Rand), Sanlam, Gencor (now BHP Billiton) and other corporations which benefited greatly from Apartheid’s ‘slave labour’ policies largely driven by Native Education later Bantu Education after 1953.
Some of the partners in JET include African National Congress (ANC), Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), Inkatha Freedom Party and Azanian Peoples Organisation (AZAPO) together with labour formations including the South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) .
JET had little influence on South Africa’s public education until 1996 when the education budget was reduced significantly leading to closures of technical collages, teachers colleges, nursing colleges and the merging of higher education institutions for “efficiency”.
NGOs and private companies took over the education system through outsourcing and partnerships since the state had little resources in building internal capacity for curriculum development, teacher training and efficient administration.
The main input in any education system is the curriculum since it influences both the teacher and the learner hence it can be described as the genome of education. Effectively, whoever drives the curriculum controls the minds of learners and teachers and the society at large. The weakening of state capacity in developing curriculum and teacher training in South Africa has led to a situation where multinational companies such as Pearson run the education system through outsourcing and textbook publishing – which was its main business until recently when it added “education services” as part of its services to different governments including SA’s Department of Basic Education .
Countries such as the United States of America  and United Kingdom have raised the alarm over this phenomenon of companies like Pearson, running their education systems through the outsourcing of critical state functions.
Statistics South Africa’s latest report on unemployment in September states that youth unemployment is 65.6% and the question that must be asked is why young people arent finding ways of utilising the collaboration between government, multinationals such as Pearson and NGOs such as JET, which is funded by major corporations in SA, to gain employment?
Why are the biggest beneficiaries of Apartheid heavily involved in the public education system? Is there a deliberate dumbing-down of the education of Black children who are heavily dependent on public education as a way of creating a pool of low skilled workers who can be paid low wages? Why are parents not worried about corporate influence on public education?
Sources http://www.ieb.co.za/AboutUs/backgroundhistory.php  http://www.jet.org.za/about-jet/history  Report on the National Review of Academic and Professional Programmes in Education,August
2010,Council on Higher Education,Page (9 to 14) https://za.pearson.com/textbooks/grade-r-12.html  http://thecrucialvoice.com/2016/10/16/foreign-influence-americas-choice/  https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/16/pearson-multinational-influence-education policy