The Global Community Tribunal

At the eve of fresh Middle-East negotiations it would only be right to call into remembrance Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli leader who most probably came closest to resolving that crisis.  Also read the Economist of Nov 2007, p18.

 
During 1993 his contribution was vital in finalizing the Oslo Accords. Most of us will remember the images of him shaking hands with Yasser Arafat in the presence of Bill Clinton. This placed the Middle-East on a new course which could well have ended in a solution of this conflict. Unfortunately negative forces would not allow this and he was assassinated on 4 November 1995 by a right-wing Orthodox Jew named Yigal Amir.

 
Although the divisions amongst Israelis in the lifetime of Rabin were already running high, this has escalated to such an extent that the assassin, Yigal Amir, is today hailed as a hero by a large percentage of Israelis. He represents a growing Israeli faction who believes that Jews have been granted a divine right to biblical Israel, which includes most of the West Bank. This naturally leaves no room for Palestinian aspirations of an independent, Palestinian homeland.

 
Against this background its seems highly unlikely that the combination of Condi Rice, Ehud Olmert and Abbas will succeed except for producing a nice group photo. None of them possess either the ethos or the character to bring about any miracles.

 
The one who could have done it, had been eliminated by evil. After his death his daughter declared  “You were the pillar of fire before the camp and now we are left only as the camp, alone and in the dark”.  The truth of this painful thought  will again be experienced in Annapolis.

 
Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, we salute you.  

   
J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

In Saudi Arabia a woman gets sentenced  initially to 90 lashes which is  later increased to 200. Her male companion is sentenced to 90 lashes. Their crime: ‘Illegal mingling’. This ‘mingling’ lead to, presumably both, being gang raped by 7 men. The rapists were also found guilty and sentenced to between 1 and 10 years in goal.  The lawyer who represented the woman in court, later criticized  the decision of the court in public as a result of which his license to practice was withdrawn.

 
This is Sharia Law at its best and, in terms of civilized standards, a miscarriage of justice at its worst. Wikipedia defines Sharia Law as follows:

“Sharia (Arabic: شريعة transliteration: Šarī‘ah) is the dynamic body of Islamic religious law. The term means “way” or “path to the water source”; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence and for Muslims living outside the domain….. There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of devising laws, based on the Qur’an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad), (sayings and doings of  the early followers of Muhammad), ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.”

 
Sharia Law is the outward manifestation of Islam, proofing that it is a religion that runs counter to everything  civilized humanity stands for. The UN should really consider declaring it a crime against humanity in par with Apartheid and anti-Semitism.

 
An interesting tail to this story is the United States’ reaction. In response Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US state department, said: “This is a part of a judicial procedure overseas in the court of a sovereign country.” What hypocrisy! Notwithstanding  Mark Steyn insists that, at the occasion of Thanksgiving,  the world gives thanks for America, the Defender of Human Rights.

This just goes to show that oil and justice do not mix!

J.C.Grobler

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

Anonymity makes people very brave. They do and say things that they would never have  had the courage for in a person to person conversation.  Sitting in a car in the traffic, for instance,  affords people a certain anonymity.  A little geek counts on it that the driver in the other vehicle, to whom he has flashed all kinds of signals, would not recognize what inbred little wimp he is. While hiding behind his steering and tinted windows, he’s a macho man, afraid of no one.

 
Should the driver of the other vehicle suddenly and unexpectedly make a U-turn to clarify the meaning of the signs with him, things change dramatically. He either succeeds in getting away due to the fact that a scared man knows only one kind of speed and that is the fastest kind. Alternatively  and when pulled over, he shrivels away in an attempt to hide in the car’s cubbyhole.

 
The same applies to some bloggers. The anonymity of cyber space makes a small wimp a fearless hero. An idiot with a totally inadequate IQ, disabled to write anything without gluing the incomprehensible clichés together with swearing and insult, becomes an authority.

 
One such instance and a perfect example can be found published under the name of Richard Catto.

 
When trying to read and comprehend what this individual was trying to say, I for a moment thought that I have encountered the worst form of hate speech which should be reported to the authorities. Maybe someone still will. Maybe his service provider should consider removing him from cyber space.  I however believe laying charges would not be worth the trouble as he would surely escape conviction on grounds of diminished liability. 

 
Just a last thought. Mr. Ricard Catto declares himself to be a churchgoing Christian. That explains to readers why there are Satanist about whom Deon Maas hoped to open an intellectual discussion.  People like this has given Jesus Christ a very bad name.

 
J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

I am for free speech on certain conditions. Take Deon Maas for instance. On TV and while I need to look at him, I can hardly bear him. He has the face and the attitude which many would rather smack than look at. So, allowing him to speak his mind on TV is much like pornography. You limit his right to free speech on the basis that it is contra bonus mores. You keep him out of the picture!

Allowing him to speak his mind in Rapport is however something totally different. You do not need to look at him and endure his “kom moer my” attitude. What he wrote – the short while that he had the opportunity – was rather enjoyable. He writes things to make you think and reconsider your traditional position. Unfortunately the Afrikaner has never been known as a nation of free thinkers. Well, many do not think. Others only think in the negative and the rest only think of rugby and braaivleis (BBQ). If you force them into the realm of the undiscovered thought, you get fired. I am lucky that I work for myself.

But now that Deon Maas is back on the streets looking for work, will some of the liberal newspapers not consider giving him a column to right? Just keep him off TV to prevent a SMS chain boycott.

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

It would seem that many people have become rather disillusioned with South Africa. Its foreign policy rings abhorrently false when measured against its proclaimed human- and civil rights score. The Sunday Times reports:  “South Africa’s human rights reputation is in tatters after a series of “sell-out” votes at the UN on issues ranging from rape and gay rights to tyranny.

This week the watchdog UNWatch ranked South Africa last, alongside China, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, on a human rights list. Human rights organizations have branded Pretoria “the chief human rights villain”.

SA is accused of shielding Sudan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Myanmar.”

 
At the “Miracle” ending of Apartheid the world expected a ‘wunder kind’, representing the good, just and fairness of which humanity is capable to rise up and shine for the rest of the world to follow. The release and appearance   of Nelson Mandela on the international scene in, a sense,  exemplified this expectation.

 
What a disappointment when the celebrations were over and Mandela retreated into the shadows of Africa. It was like walking behind a beautiful, sexy blond, just to see an ugly, pirate faced,  transvestite when suddenly ‘she’ turns around. 

 
Horrible, horrible, horrible …………. exclaimed British royalty when referring to Sherry Blair.

 
Now the world is utterly disappointed. In an pro-Israel/Jewish posting, discussing an article in the Sunday Times titled “SA now skunk of the world”  it says that the  “South African government’s foreign policy runs counter to South African human rights ethos.

 
What human rights ethos? This is the first mistake. South Africa has neither a democratic nor a human rights ethos. The institutionalized human rights found in South Africa is a product of negotiation. It is the price that had to be paid for the transition of power from White Apartheid South Africa to the elitist black South Africa.  It was the cobweb ingredient  which went into the witch’s brew that created the ‘miracle’.

 
 It resembles a dead, white South Africa’s effort to rule its descendants from the grave by way of a last will and testament.

 
Being disappointed and disillusioned with South Africa only illustrates the total misunderstanding of what this new, psigopathic, true-to-Africa  regime represents. The point must be made that no one can understand apartheid and its origins before this illusion breaks down and the ugly reality of Africa becomes clear. It is a truth that liberal whites has feverishly opposed until now.

 
South Africa has become most probably the most racist country in the world. Whites have become free game for all with a diminished blameworthiness  and liability attached to the perpetrators of murder, rape and robbery. The lives of poor blacks means nothing. They are dyeing of AIDS in their thousands whilst the government  denies that the pandemic ever exists and doing very little to get anti-virals to them.

 
Yes, South Africa is not the ‘miracle’ the world has hoped for. It is a Zimbabwe-and-Rwanda-at-a-early-stage.  It’s a land of wasted opportunities.

 
In 1932 South Africa experienced its worst draught in history. The Bushveld was devastated with nothing for animals and humans to live on. It was totally barren. It is told that someone placed a notice board along the road to the Bushveld with the words “Van God en mens verlate” (This land has been forsaken by God and Man). I think it would be fitting that, when the last person able to escape this catastrophy, gets on the plane, that a notice board be set up at Johannesburg International Airport with the words “This Continent has been forsaken by God and Humanity”.

 
 J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

Just as I thought that John Bolton has left the White House to join the Boswell Wilkie Circus, he pops-up again. What need the world do to get rid of this modern day  von Ribbentrop?

 
In his newest appearance the White House used him to put some spin on the newly release IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program. In his customary style of making broad allegations without any limkage to reality, he followed the same old Iraq strategy.

During this interview a subject  again came up which crudely illustrated the bad faith of the Bush regime when it comes to countries like Iran. This subject was the diplomatic overture Iran made towards the US in 2003. The facts are as follow:

 
“Through a Swiss intermediary, the Iranian regime proposed the basis for comprehensive discussions. If accepted, it would have meant the Iranians would have put on the table ending its support for Palestinian terrorist groups; “action” on transforming Hezbollah into a “mere political organization within Lebanon”; “transparency” that Iran isn’t trying to develop WMD; and “enhanced action against Al Qaida members in Iran.” In return, the U.S. would ultimately lift all sanctions on Iran; ensure “full access” to nuclear technology (!); and provide, in general, a “halt in hostile U.S. behavior,” to include action against “anti-Iranian” terrorist groups.”

 
This story is based on fact.  Bolton’s reaction?  The interview is reported as follows:

John Bolton: Alan that 2003 story about an Iranian offer is a complete and utter fabrication. I think they …

Alan Colmes: So everybody is lying about this? The Iranian ambassador is lying about it. The UN is lying. Everybody is lying about it.

John Bolton: The ambassador to France. a former Swiss ambassador who was a busybody. I recommended to secretary Powell that we get the Swiss to fire that guy or we find a new protecting power in Tehran.

John Bolton: The Europeans have offered Iran virtually every carrot conceivable over the past four years and they’ve gotten one answer back from Iran: We’re not going to give up our Iranian enrichment program.

Alan Colmes: Didn’t Iran help us after 9/11? Didn’t they want to help us with Afghanistan? Didn’t they offer to help the United States?

John Bolton: The helped us for tactical reasons in Afghanistan in 2001 and today they are arming their former sworn enemy in al … (Qaeda?)

Alan Colmes: So there are common, there is common ground and common interests which we can use to develop a relationship and negotiate.

John Bolton: Not on the nuclear program. The Iranians are never going to give that up voluntarily. It’s their trump card.

 
Readers are reminded that John Bolton was the US ambassador to the UN. Although he may illustrate the peculiar kind of  logic and  an aversion for the truth, he’s not Robert Mugabe’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. This leads me to accept that George W Bush does not really think that anybody would believe him. That was never the idea. He is much rather used as a kind of decoy or a jester, required to make stand-up jokes  and somersaults to bring some light-heartedness into the remainder of George Bush’s tenure. In this I think,  he succeeded handsomely.

 
J.C.Grobler

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

I almost swallowed my tong. The reason for this was that I read the posting of Mark Steyn titled “World should give thanks for America”. His argument is “When something terrible and destructive happens – a tsunami hits Indonesia, an earthquake devastates Pakistan – the United States can project itself anywhere on the planet within hours and start saving lives, setting up hospitals and restoring the water supply.”

It does not stop at humanitarian aid. He continues: “Aside from Britain and France, the Europeans cannot project power in any meaningful way anywhere. When they sign on to an enterprise they claim to believe in – shoring up Afghanistan’s fledgling post-Taliban democracy – most of them send token forces under constrained rules of engagement that prevent them doing anything more than manning the photocopier back at the base.

If America were to follow the Europeans and maintain only shriveled attenuated residual military capacity, the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable. It’s not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U.S. soldier but all the Europeans grown plump and prosperous in a globalized economy guaranteed by the most benign hegemon in history.”

Son, you need to get out more! You are loosing track with reality.

“…..shoring up Afghanistan’s fledgling post-Taliban democracy.” Who the hell helped establish the Taliban (and Al Qaeda for that matter) in the first instance? America.

“…………. the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable.” Can the world become nastier, bloodier and more unstable than it has been the last 5 years?

“It’s not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U.S. soldier…….” This is really black comedy at its worst. I suggest that Mr. Steyn visits Iraq and go and tell the millions of displaced people there who has lost relatives and friends at the hand of American soldiers, to drop to the ground and thank Allah for America.

If Mr. Steyn was a Satanist I still may have understood his suggestion for, as far as I know, it is the only religion that will have any appreciation for so much evil. As far as Christians, Jews and Muslims are concerned, I would caution them not to tempt thy God ……!

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

Musharraf has said on BBC that the nuclear weaponry of that country will be safe as long as Pakistan is under his control.  In a related article in the New York Times  it is further reported that the US are secretly aiding Pakistan in guarding its nuclear arms. It is added that “While American officials say that they believe the arsenal is safe at the moment, and that they take at face value Pakistani assurances that security is vastly improved, in many cases the Pakistani government has been reluctant to show American officials how or where the gear is actually used. That is because the Pakistanis do not want to reveal the locations of their weapons or the amount or type of new bomb-grade fuel the country is now producing. “ This is a extensive report well worth reading.

But what do we make of all this? It would seem to me that Musharraf has the world at the short and the curlies. With a nuclear trigger in the one hand he can dictate the terms and conditions of what constitutional dispensation in Pakistan he requires. If Bhutto is not part of this, so be it.

 
He really makes it difficult to find the ‘honest, decent man with the heart and mind of a true democrat’.  In fact, I think what we have here - for the first time in history -  is a ruthless dictator yielding the ultimate power: nuclear weapons.  

 J.C.Grobler

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

Do you support freedom of religion unconditionally? Sure? Well, let’s test it.

Some time ago, just after an important rugby game and during the photo session, one of the players used the opportunity to promote his religious cause. He put on a T-shirt with the words ‘Jesus Lives’ printed on it and positioned himself right in the middle of the group photo. I found it distasteful but many people in the press defended his right on the bases of ‘freedom of religion’.

What would the position have been if he was a Moslem and promoted Islam? Better still, what about a T-shirt with a Red Devil with the words “To Hell with Jesus. Praise Satan”? Would everyone still have been so understanding and accomodating of his freedom?

Consider the present upheaval in regard to Deon Maas and the Rapport newspaper. The newspaper appointed Deon Maas as a columnist to stir controversy. Maas is a controversial figure, to put is mildly. It however appeared that Rapport’s readers do not do controversy. Kicking off his column he wrote about Satanism and suggested that it should be recognized as a religion, just like Christianity, Hindu, Islam, etc.

This was as good as playing with the Devil’s tail. Within something like two weeks a campaign was launched and driven with such ferocity against the newspaper that it had to choose between closing down or firing Deon Maas. Naturally the latter had to give way.

It is very easy to support rights that are in harmony with what you believe in. It is something else to be supportive of those who oppose you or believes in the opposite. It does not matter whether you have any clue of what Satanism, Gnosticism are or the faith in Satan or Lucifer ‘ entails (sic!). Freedom can only go so far and no further.

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This

I do not think that human rights come into play when we talk about the death penalty. When the rights of the criminal and the victim are weighed – when the life of a criminal and an innocent victim are valued -  surely the rights of the law-abiding victim should outweigh the other. But does this necessarily proof that we should bring the death penalty back?

 
It is not the human rights issue that bothers me. It is what the death penalty does to me and the nation that practices it. What if we hang an innocent person? With our degraded judicial system with judges swearing racial insults to whites, magistrates falling asleep, etc this is not by any means a remote possibility. What happens when racial prejudice result in the persecution of minorities?  If it is one of your loved ones – which you are convinced is innocent or at least not deserving of death - facing the rope, do you still support the death penalty?

 
We have a murder rate of almost 20 000 murders a year. I can’t remember what the rate is in regard to rape but let’s say it is 50 000 per annum. Can we as a nation live with  a hypothetical 70 000 executions a year?

J.C.Grobler.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Share This