Hit squads

[Bob Molloy]

Interesting stuff from Helen Zille. If it is even half true the media should be demanding answers. Oh, I forgot, the media has a sword of Damocles hanging over them too.
Reminds me of the remark by Pastor Niemoller about the Nazis:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."

    A NEW POLITICAL HIT SQUAD
   
Routinely, about a year before an election, the ANC's dirty tricks brigade gets to work.

With less than nine months to go before the 2011 local government election, the ANC's machine is in full swing.

By way of comparison, think back to 2008, in the run-up to the crucial 2009 election (when the DA won an overall majority in the Western Cape and grew its vote countrywide).

The ANC was determined to prevent this outcome.

So it manufactured a smear campaign, and set up a Commission of Inquiry, chaired by a judge, to give its investigation a veneer of independence.  The Erasmus Commission was, in fact, a political hit squad set up by the ANC to run a series of smear campaigns (with huge media coverage) in the months before the election. The plan was to damage the DA.

We stopped this plan in its tracks by exposing the ANC's motives in court.  The Court found that the Commission was unconstitutional and had been set up with a political motive. 

We thought this judgment would bring these kinds of dirty tricks to an end.

We were wrong.

The ANC came up with another idea.  It has turned the Human Rights Commission (HRC) into the equivalent of an "Erasmus Commission" under the veneer of constitutional independence. The Human Rights Commission is one of the Constitution's Chapter 9 institutions (like the Public Protector) that are supposed to be independent, and prevent power abuse.  But, through cadre deployment, the ANC has ensured that these institutions are headed by cadres who owe their first loyalty to the ANC.  Many of the Chapter 9 institutions have therefore become extensions of the ANC's power abuse (rather than limitations on it).

The clearest example of such abuse was the ANC's deployment of Lawrence Mushwana, a former ANC MP, to the position of Public Protector.  It did not take long before he was dubbed the "ANC Protector". His findings were widely ridiculed.  He could not even bring himself to make an adverse finding against the ANC in the "Oilgate" scandal when R11-million of taxpayers' money ended up in the ANC's bank account before the 2006 election.  Cadre deployment enabled the ANC to undermine the Constitution without changing a single word of it.

At the end of his second term as Public Protector, Mushwana received a R7-million payout, and a cushy new "redeployment" as chair of the Human Rights Commission.

It is now clear why.

The HRC is quickly becoming as discredited as the Public Protector was when Mushwana held that office.
     
One just has to read the extraordinarily biased and factually inaccurate report of the HRC on the Makhaza toilet saga to understand the agenda. The report's analysis and conclusions are impossible to explain rationally. The inevitable inference is that the report's purpose is to embarrass the DA and benefit the ANC. There is no other credible explanation in the light of the facts.

A few weeks ago, the DA submitted a complaint to the HRC on "toilets without walls" in an ANC-run province.  The HRC is certainly not falling over its feet to deal with this matter, as it did when it had the opportunity to embarrass the DA through the "Makhaza" toilet investigation.

Instead (and unsurprisingly), the HRC is, at its own initiative, undertaking another investigation that we believe is also politically motivated.  The HRC announced that it will investigate the recent events at Hangberg, where the Metro Police, backed by the South African Police Service, removed unoccupied, illegal shelters built in the firebreak and nature reserve.   

The removal of the unoccupied shacks came after years of working with the community to upgrade the informal settlement.  This included a commitment from the community to stop the further building of illegal structures.  They understood that if densities became too high, it would be impossible to install the infrastructure required for services. Despite this, more and more structures were built, not only in the settlement, but also in the abutting firebreak and nature reserve. 

After repeated (but unheeded) requests to remove the structures in the firebreak and nature reserve, the Metro Police acted. When they were ambushed by a group of residents hurling rocks, flares and petrol bombs, the Metro Police and SAPS sent for reinforcements. Tragically, three people lost an eye in the incident while others were less seriously injured. 16 Metro police officers sustained injuries.
     
Such action (and its consequences) is always deeply regrettable, and should not have been necessary. The point also needs to be made that when people attack the police with petrol bombs, flares and rocks, they should not be surprised at the retaliation.

The inevitable question now arises: did the HRC initiate investigations into incidents where ANC authorities sent in demolition squads? 

In Johannesburg, the Red Ants – the nickname given to the security firm the ANC employs to demolish illegally erected shacks – have gained notoriety for the brutal way they go about their business. Such is their reputation for ruthlessness that the DA decided not to employ their services in Cape Town.

In 2002 the Red Ants moved 6,000 people from the Mandelaville informal settlement in Diepkloof, and flattened their shacks.  In 2008 it was reported that the Red Ants guarding RDP houses in Ekurhuleni, assaulted a woman and killed her husband.  As recently as June this year, 55 shacks in Sandown were demolished by the Johannesburg Metro Police.

Examples of "Red Ant" demolitions have not gone unnoticed by the international media.  For example, in April this year, The Times of London carried the following report of the removal of shack dwellers near Ellis Park, in the run-up to the world cup:

"Waving iron bars and pick-axes, the Red Ants, a rented mob of thugs in bright red overalls and crimson helmets, used the half light of dawn for cover as they marched into the slum. Stamping out the first cooking fires of the day with heavy boots, they spread out in a long line. Then they attacked.  Bleary immigrant women dropped plastic water containers and ran in panic towards their corrugated iron homes.  'Grab the children!' they screamed.  By sunrise, their shacks on the outskirts of Johannesburg had been razed.  They were forced to watch as their few possessions were burnt."

This is an account of the destruction of occupied shacks, in contrast to the demolition of unoccupied shacks in the Hangberg fire-break.  If the HRC was genuinely interested in protecting human rights (rather than becoming a political hit squad for the ANC) they might show an interest in investigating the Red Ants' raid on the Ellis Park shack dwellers, among others.

So too, might COSATU. COSATU's provincial arch-opportunist, Tony Ehrenreich, has been squeezing every last drop of political advantage out of the Hangberg matter – but has never raised a peep about demolitions undertaken by ANC governments.   Furthermore, during the past week, no fewer than three ANC Cabinet ministers have blazed a political trail through Hangberg. 

Ironically, while they were protesting against the demolition of structures in Hangberg, Julius Malema was in Atlantis protesting against the erection of shelters for the destitute. The contradiction exposes the hypocrisy. The ANC fools no-one except themselves.

We can expect much more from this travelling circus of hypocrisy in the months ahead. We will keep on exposing it and people will increasingly see through it. In time, the media will too.

As Pieter Dirk Uys put it: hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse. The ANC and the HRC make fine bedfellows.

[Bob Molloy]

And don't you just love Pieter Dirk Uys. While it has satirists of this calibre the Rainbow Nation still has hope.

[SandyB]

Bob  .. all pretty much true ,, dirty tricks ,,,
They  were so desperate at that time  that they  even  allowed  the likes of Bhadi Shabaan  to join their ranks ,, and he now rewarded with a  mayoral position ..
the Shabaan character  had  links to  Uri  the russian  killed a couple of years ago  in a hit ,, and many other  underworld links , but seeing  as  he  was  a sworn  enemy of Ms Zille ,,   he  had potential to be useful to them ..so  despite his  very shady  character they  allowed him  in ,, I call  that being  morally bankrupt  and  politically desperate ...
We not saying that ms Zille  an  angel ,,  nobodys perfect  and yes bad decisions  do get made ..  for  one  on the toilet saga ,,  they should have  ensured they built to a decent standard .. knowing full well that  agreements get conveniently forgotten  in the  political arena ...

[SandyB]

SEEMS THE DIRTY TRICKS  WAR IS STARTING AGAIN ...  THE EDGE  IS  SANPARKS HAS TO ASK THE  PROVINCE TO REMOVE THE ILLEGALS ,,, THEY FIRSTLY  INITIATED THE COURT ACTION  WHICH THE PROVINCE ACTED UPON , NOW  THATS A MESSY RIOT THEY  SUDDENLY PULL OUT ,  ONE COULD ADD  1+ 1 AND ASSUME POLITICAL PRESSURE ,, WHO KNOWS , BUT YES ITS ALL RATHER  FISHY  ..  IT THEN PUTS THE PREMIER IN THE NEGATIVE LIGHT ,, THEIR MEALY MOUTHED COMMENTS  DONT WASH ,,,  AND  BOB YOU HAD  SOME CHOICE COMMENTS  ABOUT HOUT BAY  AND THE  INFLUX OF  PEOPLE ...  READ THE  CLIP FROM THE ARGUS ,,

SA National Parks (SANParks) has made the shock announcement that it is withdrawing from the Western Cape High Court application to remove illegal shack dwellers from the slopes of the Sentinel above Hout Bay – a move that Premier Helen Zille claims is as a result of political pressure from the ANC.
SANParks is the first applicant in this court action, and the decision – by chief executive Dr David Mabunda – has ratcheted up tension in an already fraught relationship with the City of Cape Town, the second applicant in the matter which is due to be heard in court again on October
Two weeks ago Hangberg residents and authorities clashed violently when the city attempted to dismantle more than 20 shacks on the slopes of the Sentinel above Hangberg.
The latest move led Zille to accuse SANParks of buckling under ANC pressure, with potentially dire consequences for the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) in particular.
Zille said she had it on good authority that direct political pressure at the highest level had been brought to bear on SANParks to abandon its legal mandate, which was to safeguard national parks.
Describing the pressure on SANParks as "unconstitutional and unlawful", she said: "This is outrageous political interference in an independent mandate to protect our parks.
"Ten days ago, SANParks argued that it was a matter of urgency. This U-turn is a direct result of the policy of cadre deployment. The ANC's political agenda trumps everything else – this time, the importance of conservation and our national parks."
Today provincial Cosatu leader Tony Ehrenreich admitted he had suggested to the government that SANParks' legal action was "not in the national interest".
Asked if a dangerous precedent was being set, he said he agreed with the principle of conservation but all matters had to be judged on their own merits. He believed the urban edge demarcations and the fire break at Hangberg were "arbitrary".
TMNP officials told their city counterparts yesterday about the decision to withdraw from the legal action.
Council spokeswoman Kylie Hatton said park officials had said Mabunda had instructed them to withdraw in the belief this would allow the situation to cool down and a settlement to be negotiated.
"Our position is that we believe we can still try to find an amicable solution, even if the court case continues," Hatton said.
"Advice from our legal representatives is that our application can go ahead, and the process is still under way."
In founding affidavits in the High Court application first heard last Thursday, SANParks made it clear why it wants the illegal shacks to go.
Part of the court order said: "(SANParks and the city) say that houses in this area pose a fire risk, are unsafe, that this area is not suitable for occupation, and that nobody should be permitted to live above the 'sloot'."
The sloot is a drainage channel built by the city to divert water from the occupied part of Hangberg into the sea.
In his affidavit, TMNP manager Paddy Gordon said SANParks had "statutory obligations" with regard to the land.
"The removal of the informal structures from above the sloot is imperative for reasons of health and safety...
"There are no dictates of justice or considerations of equity known to me which would militate in favour of the continued occupation by respondents of the erven in question, or – conversely – which would render their eviction unjust or inequitable..."
The acting mayor of Cape Town, Ian Neilsen, said today: "We are very unhappy with their withdrawal. They are required by law to take action against people who invade their property."
SANParks' media relations manager, Reynold Thakhuli, today denied any pressure had been applied. The organisation had pulled out of the court case in order to resolve the matter more "amicably".
"As you aware, there have been a lot of communication breakdowns, which has led the situation to have escalated."
It was pointed out to Thakuli that tensions had escalated long before the court action began. In response, Thakuli again denied any pressure.
Sputnik Ratau, spokesman for Environment Minister Buyelwa Sonjica, said on Wednesday: "The minister has not applied any political pressure on SANParks." He said no further comment was necessary. - Cape Argus
murray.williams@inl.co.za
john.yeld@inl.co.za