You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa Subsaharan
South Africa bans publication of cartoons
2006-02-06
The ban on the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in former First World nation South Africa was worrying and conflicted with press freedom, the Media Institute of Southern Africa said on Sunday. Misa's Raymond Louw said the Johannesburg High Court's ruling on Friday stated that the right to dignity outweighed the right to freedom of expression.
That means that no mockery of anyone is allowed. Notice how easy it is to go from being governed to being ruled...
Judge Mohammed Jajbhay concluded that the cartoons were offensive and an affront to the dignity of the Muslim people.
We can guess where Mohammed Jajbhay goes to church, too. Nothing like getting an unbiased ruling from a neutral party...
"Misa regards the ban as an unacceptable intrusion on media freedom and freedom of expression by the courts and believes it is unconstitutional," Louw said.
Not that constitutions count for much in Third World countries...
Meanwhile, the Democratic Alliance said it was dismayed by the decision. "Media freedom is explicitly constitutionalised in South Africa as part of the right to free speech and expression.
It was up until now, anyway. Now it's not. Get used to it. And don't forget to vote ANC.
"This means that the media decides without prior restraint by other organs of state what it will publish, and how," said spokesperson Dene Smuts.
Now your friendly neighborhood holy men do...
The Jamiat-ul Ulama Transvaal sought the interdict late on Friday.
If I ever become a counter-terrorist, I'm going to begin my career by firebombing the offices of the nearest Jamaat-e-Ulema.
Publication in Europe of the set of Danish cartoons has given rise to protests, flag-burning and commercial boycotts across the Middle East.
And South Africa doesn't want any of that...
The DA welcomed the resolve shown by the SA National Editors' Forum and the newspaper groups affected by the ruling to resist prior restraint when the matter returns to court at the end of the month. "The interdict must be lifted - thereafter matters of substance such as the relative importance of the rights to free speech and dignity can be considered," said Smuts.
You achieve dignity by being strong and steadfast, not by foaming at the mouth in response to every little nit-noi happenstance...
The Union of Muslim Students Associations said the publication of the cartoons would be offensive. "Freedom of speech is an inalienable right of all South Africans, enshrined in our Bill of Rights after centuries of struggle to free our land of the oppression of one by another", the students said. "Another freedom enshrined in our constitution, after this same struggle, is that of religion, belief and opinion. Further, the Bill of Rights enshrines that everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected. Tainting and mocking the character of the Prophet Muhammad and any other prophet of Islam or revered Islamic figure, such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and/or Mary, is tantamount to degrading the dignity of those who follow Islam. All freedoms have limitations...
"And our religion limits all your freedoms."
"We call for a national dialogue through institutions such as the parliament of the Republic of South Africa, and the media, to promote an understanding of this issue, especially focusing on the reasons why it provokes such a passionate response from the Muslim community."
Posted by:Dan Darling

#15  So turning the tables is the key? Trying to find employment in SA today is like attempting to enroll an Irishman into Howard University. The most sought after document in SA is an INS Green Card. What you are seeing in ZIM, SA, and many of the cesspools you listed is reverse aparthied with tribal, communist focus. Nothing to celebrate I'm afraid. At least with the Afrikaner there was rule of law.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-02-06 22:25  

#14  It was more than 'unpleasant aspects and excesses'. It was evil. There's no defense of apartheid.

There's also no defense of what's going on today in SA, Zim-bob-we, Congo, Darfur, south Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Chad, Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea ...

... oh hell, it gets tiresome just to list all the countries where mankind is being absolutely shitty and evil.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-02-06 22:09  

#13  Agree with it or not, apartheid (seperation and documentation) kept SA from being totally overrun with imigrants from the north and from crumbling from within. Yes there were unpleasant aspects and excesses, but none like we've seen throughout the balance of Africa. Lets not remember that the SADF kicked Castro out of Angola at a time which was very conventient for us. Our thanks to SA was a boycott and support for the ANC - a black vs Cuban communist structure.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-02-06 21:29  

#12  LH - that was a pathetic attempt - you know better
Posted by: Frank G   2006-02-06 19:45  

#11  Cmon. We dont have to like this. But saying its the same as the end of all free speech, and that it proves that trying to end apartheid was wrong, is as silly as the Bush=hitler loonies.

Nobody said ending apartheid was bad. What is despicable is all those Concerned who campaigned to end it now blithely ignore the after effects. Same as in Cambodia. Same as in Viet Nam. Same as in Rhodesia.

Where are the protests? Where is the outrage, the angry celebrities, the boycotts, the Cause Celebre?

Or are the Concerned now content that the "little brown people" got to make their choice, and so the Concerned can go on to a new cause?
Posted by: Fordesque   2006-02-06 19:21  

#10  Holdout cartooning Dutch colonialists again making trouble. Torch the Vortrekker Monument AT ONCE!


Posted by: Besoeker   2006-02-06 19:02  

#9  Gaaaaaaaaaaaareeeeeeeee Larsooooooooooon!
Posted by: Snaggle P   2006-02-06 17:13  

#8  "...the Bill of Rights enshrines that everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected."

If dignity is indeed an inherent right bestowed upon all humans it therefore must be a uniquely human condition. However, whatÂ’s at issue here is humans displaying a lack of reverence for a particular religion or God. (In a word blasphemy) In this case humans are defending the integrity of a deity not human rights. Furthermore it seems to me, no matter what the creator of the materials intent was, it is the beholders conceptualization that generates the offensive connotation not the other way around. But for the sake of discussion say the material is in fact an affront to ones dignity, deferential regard for another religion must be reciprocal. And the adherents to ShariÂ’ah are anything but respectful of the other world religions. IÂ’ll give you your inherent dignity but you have to earn my respect.
Posted by: DepotGuy   2006-02-06 14:09  

#7  I'm *not* an apartheid supporter, I'm just terribly sorry on how it all turned out to be.
Just like Algeria was given to the national-arabism, for the worst of both its french and indigenous people, SA's keys were given to a bunch of race-baiting commies, basically.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-02-06 12:51  

#6  Or the ones who put an argument in your mouth that was never made. Who ever cane out for retaining Apartheid?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-06 11:50  

#5  "Did all theses people who protested against apartheid and felt good about it (remember, "Lethal weapon II"?) expect such a turn of event???"

Did the people who expected post Apartheid SA to become a totalitarian state like so many in Africa, really expect that in a situation like this thered be protests by a group like MISA, or a party like DA running for office?

Cmon. We dont have to like this. But saying its the same as the end of all free speech, and that it proves that trying to end apartheid was wrong, is as silly as the Bush=hitler loonies. Ya know, the folks who think that a technical violation of freedom from unwarranted search is the beginning of dictatorship.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-02-06 11:42  

#4  I will wager that they do not even think about it. It is in the past, like Cambodia, Rhodesia, and the Viet Nam boat people. "Secret prisons" is the cause to be concerned about now.
Posted by: Fordesque   2006-02-06 11:21  

#3  It is simply a reversion to pre-colonial rule. What else did anyone expect? Why?
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-06 11:14  

#2  I'm on a ML that provides great insight into today's South Africa... sad, sad, sad, truly a country gone down the gutter; yesterday it was a 13 years old black girl gangraped by 18 teens on her way home back from the school, and it was her second gangrape in a week... today it is a white woman explaining why she and her family leave SA, as she was beaten to a pulp and gangraped in 2005 by four men aged 10 to 24 who also tried to suffocate her (that same year, there was two carjackings, attempted or successful, one break-in in the room of one of her daughters, the attempted kidnapping of her 4 years daughter by a group of black kids who wanted "to make her their girlfriend", several armed robberies of relatives,...).

All this in a rotten, racially-driven political climate marred by marxism and corruption; the owner of the ML is south-african himself, and he really fears a possible genocide of whites in the near future, as some threaten to do as soon as Mandela is dead (RKBA and right to defend oneself are already taken away from white citizens).

And there is also the links to organized crime, the hardcore islamists, the antiwestern posturing,...

Did all theses people who protested against apartheid and felt good about it (remember, "Lethal weapon II"?) expect such a turn of event???
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-02-06 11:08  

#1  So now it is clear that to defend your rights to free speech in SA, you *must* publish these cartoons. The streets must be so flooded with them that no government effort at censorship will work.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-02-06 09:59  

00:00