Media 'pawns' in plot to get Zuma
2006-04-03 11:27
Quite amazing how certain people will needlessly provoke others till an unpleasant confrontation surfaces. Then
when they meet their match they shout: "Wolf!"
They probably do such crazy things because they know that the gutless media in this country will never, not even
just once on a proverbial blue moon, side with truth and fair play but always do their best to campaign against
decency - in the hope to sell more newspapers.
It was very silly of the publicity-seeking bunch, the so-called pressure groups, that attempted to impose
themselves on the hearing of the alleged rape case of former deputy president Jacob
Zuma, by claiming to want to lead so-called "expert" evidence.
To make sure they received as much publicity as
they could garner, they appeared on television to state their "case" before having the common decency to present
it to judge Van der Merwe, as they should have done.
This was not surprising, considering their chief cheerleaders,
the newspapers and television crews, are quite adept at conducting trial by media.
Coup plotter and financier Mark Thatcher's former lawyer, Peter Hodes, came to the court and, representing the
three NGOs, stated that they wanted Zuma to be found guilty.
To my mind, this was very clearly what prosecutor
Charin de Beer accused them of - to "take over the function of the court".
I was quite impressed by prosecutor Charin de Beer who took a firm stand against the do-gooding publicity
mongers. Judge Van der Merwe too was firm but very polite to the do-gooders, some of whom, as I said last week,
are hopelessly out of touch with the womenfolk at grassroots level.
The top quality posters they brandished outside the court on Monday attested to the wads of money they have at
their disposal. Their well-heeled leaders and "spokespersons" have clearly no idea what the alleged rape victim
and her female friends are thinking.
True to my expectations, the venomous letters have been pouring in, and some cowards have falsified their
e-mails to me, signing themselves, "Jon Qwelane@News24", and "Bill Gates@Microsoft". They did not have
the balls to stand up and be counted.
Hoax e-mails
One "academic" - I have to presume him to be one, because he uses the website of the University of
KwaZulu-Natal - is a Rip van Winkle of sorts; he accuses me of mentioning my defence of uMsholozi only now
because he appears likely to win the case. Call in the spooks, Mr Kasrils, I have at least two cases of hoax e-mails
here.
One S Williamson said I must not take sides but must also presume Zuma innocent!
Luzuko Mbane claimed I wish the media to "censor" what it reports. I think this person is quite incapable of
reading and understanding simple language.
Then two correspondents, South African-based Riaan Swart and Anton Thiem writing from Britain, each claimed
that I am implying that Zuma should be above the law, "just because he fought for liberation!"
Truly, it is this sort
of muddled thinking that often forces me to disregard many letters that I receive, because I see no point in
responding to mindless "logic".
Someone using the website of the African Bank asked me two questions; first, whether I believe Zuma should be
the next president, and what my views are regarding his self-confessed unprotected sex with an HIV-positive
woman.
This was one of the more interesting letters that came into my mailbox, because it posed two very pointed
questions.
Whether or not Zuma should be the next president is a matter that will be decided on by the people of South
Africa.
Speaking for myself, I have no problem at all with Zuma becoming president of the country, but I will wait
until the courts have cleared him of rape and corruption charges, and only once he has had his good name restored
will it make sense to entertain the question.
I refuse to be swayed by the untrustworthy media of this country, and I
refuse completely to buy into the fallacy that Zuma's name is synonymous with rape and corruption, just because
the media have long ago labelled him as such.
On the second question of his having unprotected sex with an
HIV-positive woman, I do not recall any account where the court was told either by the woman or by Zuma himself
that he was fully aware of her status on the night of coitus. He may only have discovered this when it was
publicised during the trial. And why should I sit in judgment of anybody's morals?
I still firmly believe that the chief propagators of the anti-Zuma political conspiracy are firmly located within
the national executive committee of the ruling party. They are cleverly using gullible scoop chasing journalists and
newspapers as their hand maidens.
Jon Qwelane's column is published each week on News24, courtesy of Jon Qwelane and the editor of Sunday Sun, which originally carried the article.
Send your comments to Jon.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
- Sunday Sun