Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 02/06/2006 View Sun 02/05/2006 View Sat 02/04/2006 View Fri 02/03/2006 View Thu 02/02/2006 View Wed 02/01/2006 View Tue 01/31/2006
1
2006-02-06 Africa Subsaharan
South Africa bans publication of cartoons
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2006-02-06 02:22|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#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||   2006-02-06 09:59|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 11:08|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 11:14|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 11:21|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 11:42|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 11:50|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 12:51|| Front Page Top

#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, what’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 Shari’ah are anything but respectful of the other world religions. I’ll give you your inherent dignity but you have to earn my respect.
Posted by DepotGuy 2006-02-06 14:09||   2006-02-06 14:09|| Front Page Top

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

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


Posted by Besoeker 2006-02-06 19:02||   2006-02-06 19:02|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 19:21|| Front Page Top

#12 LH - that was a pathetic attempt - you know better
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-02-06 19:45||   2006-02-06 19:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 21:29|| Front Page Top

#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">Steve White  2006-02-06 22:09||   2006-02-06 22:09|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-02-06 22:25|| Front Page Top

15:28 Common Sense
11:19 Common Sense
07:44 wxjames
08:31 Chereng Uluper3625
23:12 Alaska Paul
22:57 Capsu78
22:52 trailing wife
22:51 Jake
22:50 Frank G
22:49 bigjim-ky
22:47 Frank G
22:47 Jomort Flainter5376
22:33 Jules
22:33 Capsu78
22:29 Besoeker
22:25 Besoeker
22:21 Jonathan
22:16 C-Low
22:15 RD
22:09 RD
22:09 Steve White
22:08 Jackal
22:06 MacNails
22:02 Besoeker









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com