Malema's latest comments should be taken seriously

This is the latest from South Africa's Julius Malema: "When we were fighting against the apartheid regime, they promised us a land of milk and honey. We don't know [the land of milk and honey]. We see it on TV. We see it by looking at people with big bellies that there is a land of milk and honey. We also want to live like white people. If we can be given food a bit, maybe we can also grow some bellies like them."


Read more here:


http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2011/10/21/nathi-mthethwa-roasts-julius-malema


There is unfortunately a point that Malema has here, and that is the gaping chasm that separates the country's minority wealth holders (Malema being one of them) and those living in poverty. Quite how anyone can take Malema seriously when he of all people is the making these comments, I don't know. But as another Facebook friend of mine pointed out, until the gap between rich and poor in South Africa is closed you will ALWAYS have opportunistic politicians using it for their own political gain. 


The anti-white sentiment echoed here meanwhile should not be laughed off as nothing more than a buffoonish rant by a publicly acknowledged idiot.  I think there is a danger of not taking this kind of sentiment seriously. We've seen in Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa how dictators cling to anti-Western rhetoric, using the colonial and racism card as the scapegoats for their behaviour. And of course, its easy to accuse your detractors and your opposition of being Western puppets, because in Africa, is there a bigger insult or slur? 


But how can any country progress when its leaders continue to blame long dead regimes for its current failures? 


If you are a poor, black, underprivileged and mostly uneducated South African whose political leaders will not take any form of blame for the current state of the country, naturally you will keep blaming the white apartheid regime, as the current government and youth leaders still do. But how long does the blame last for? Zimbabwe  for example came to Independence in the 1980s and ZANU PF STILL blames the Ian Smith regime for the current problems in the country. Was it the Smith era that destroyed the economy? Destroyed agriculture in the country? Force millions of Zimbabweans to flee into exile? 


We ALL need to wake up! The damage done by past racism should not be forgotten, but it also should not be allowed to dictate the future of a country. 


South Africa in particular should be leading the way by living the spirit of Ubuntu and not just preaching it on the world stage. There should be REAL equality, REAL tolerance, REAL change. And someone needs to start leading the way. 

Whose rights are more important?

The BBC is reporting this week that an 88 year old Zimbabwean woman, living in the UK with her daughter, has been notified by the UK Border Agency of her impending deportation. To precis: the woman's farm was seized by the Robert Mugabe regime about eight years ago, she was threatened with death (as so many have been in the chaotic land seizures) and fled for her safety.

The UKBA is arguing that there is no basis for her to remain in the UK, and that she would not be in danger if returned to the country. Read the details here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-15366632

Now, a British friend of mine immediately dismissed this as "another sensationalist story by the BBC," and perhaps the crediblity of the story is compromised by this perception of the Beeb.

But here is some context setting:

The UK has offered asylum to a self-confessed former agent within Robert Mugabe's notoriously brutal CIO, because he could face persecution on returning to Zimbabwe. Phillip Machemedze ADMITTED to a court that he was involved in shocking acts of violence and torture. He was also working in the UK illegally, but an immigration court ruled in May that he could remain in the UK to protect his human rights.

http://www.swradioafrica.com/news310511/zpftort310511.htm

In the meantime, two activists with the protest group, the Zimbabwe Vigil, (which has been protesting outside the Zimbabwean Embassy in London for NINE years) have been threatened with deportation this year. Josephine Chari had to, literally, fight her way off the plane and she is being held at Yarls Wood detention centre. Shamiso Kofi too is being held at Yarls Wood after a trauma-filled attempt by UK immigration to deport her last month. Both women have expressed real fears about being recognised as anti-Mugabe protesters.

http://www.swradioafrica.com/2011/10/18/fears-rise-for-zim-activist-facing-deportation-from-uk/

So whose rights are more important? Surely the merits of every immigration case need to be treated with the right human rights context in mind, as was done in Machemedze's case? Why does a self-confessed human rights abuser like Machemedze have more claim to human rights protection than anti-Mugabe protesters?

And where does the 88 year old granny fit in to this all? Or are her rights automatically shrugged off because of her age?

I hope this is not what has become of the human rights debate, because surely no criminal should have preferential treatment no matter what the context.