Tag: racist

Now Ehrenreich targets “racist fires”

Posted on

After his extraordinary claims that the new Cape Town cycle lanes were racist:

Cosatu is outraged that the DA in the Western Cape and the City of Cape Town prioritises bicycle lanes for the white wealthy citizens, while poorer communities on the Cape Flats are subjected to over-crowded and unsafe public transport

Cosatu provincial secretary Tony Ehrenreich has now gone even further, suggesting that wildfires in the peninsular “are only found in well off, white neighbourhoods”.

This follows last night’s huge blaze at Oudekraal between Camps Bay and Llandudno: two of Cape Town’s most exclusive suburbs. Ehrenreich stated:

Take a look at the Oudekraal fire yesterday. If we consider the location of that fire and we extrapolate it to the wider metropole, then it is clear to see that 100% of the veldfires in the Cape Town area are in or close to wealthy white areas. This is an appalling disparity and Cosatu is outraged that the DA in the Western Cape and the City of Cape Town prioritises wildfires to these areas while  poorer communities on the Cape Flats aren’t subjected to any fires at all.

Ehrenreich backed up his statistics by indicating that when considering the Oudekraal blaze, it could clearly be noted that there were no fires in areas such as Khayelitsha or Grassy Park – and this despite the fact that the latter was really very grassy and could have gone up at any time.

The Oudekraal fire was only in Oudekraal – in our view, the evidence is conclusive.

This dichotomy only existed, said Ehrenreich, so that the Provincial and Municipal DA could use fire-fighting equipment and personnel in these areas to “impress their white voters”:

They’ve got a shiny new helicopter and they want to show it off

When asked if he could provide any further examples of Provincial monies being used in supposedly racist ways, Ehrenreich was quick to point out that Cosatu had evidence that more than 98% of the Western Cape Provincial paper budget was spent on white paper.
Asked if Cosatu had looked into the stationery budgets of other (ANC-led) Provincial governments, he accused the reporter of trying to change the subject and then said that the interview had to end as he had to attend an(other) appointment at a local private hospital.

The Daily Mail quandary – sorted

Posted on

I can’t be arsed with the Daily Mail anymore.

Who could forget the infamous Peter Hitchens piece in the Daily Mail last year, covered so adequately in my “The Daily Mail Quandary” post? The quandary being that while the Mail is seventeen different sorts of crap and provides a platform to ill-informed and racist bigots, it also publishes pictures of Kelly Brook frolicking in the surf in a bikini. And while that reasoning may seem a little shallow, it was just enough to keep me clicking through in the vain hope of seeing some more pictures of Kelly Brook frolicking… well… anywhere, really.
This from the newspaper that stated after Diana’s death in 1997:

Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, have declared that any use of paparazzi pictures will have to be cleared with Lord Rothermere, the proprietor who, in turn, proclaimed that there would be a ban on “all intrusive pictures except where they are considered necessary”

Lord Rothermere has since considered tens of thousands of intrusive pictures “necessary” – whatever that means. It’s almost like the “ban” was just words to pacify middle England and AN had no plans to actually ever institute it. How odd.  

But I digress. Again.

Yesterday’s Daily Mail was back on the offensive (in more ways than one) with a stingingly crap article about Jacob Zuma, who is on an official visit to the UK at the moment. The catchy headline?

Jacob Zuma is a sex-obsessed bigot with four wives and 35 children.
So why is Britain fawning over this vile buffoon?

Feeding the  misinformation to Britain’s middle to right-wing idiots this time was Peter Robinson, the man who last year suggested that Britain should invade Zimbabwe (didn’t we do that once before already?) and even wrote 554 words documenting how it might happen (and in doing so, demonstrated why he should never be allowed near any sort of word processor ever again). 
Incidentally, the Tony Blair quote on Mugabe as being “a man has destroyed his country, many people have died unnecessarily because of him” in that article made me chuckle. Doctor Pot, I’d like you to meet Mr Kettle and Brigadier Black.

Robinson’s distasteful Zuma article pokes fun at the culturally-acceptable polygamous relationships of the President and – when passing judgement on Zuma’s exra-marital affairs – demonstrates hypocrisy and exceptionalism we’re so used to when foreigners write about SA. Because Britain’s MPs are hardly squeaky clean in any regard, now are they? And because while Robinson complains about Zuma’s lavish lifestyle while others are starving in his country, the Evening Standard is reporting:

In London 41 per cent of children, 650,000 in all, live below the poverty line (defined as less than 60 per cent of median income), the same as 10 years ago. In inner London the figure rises to 44 per cent.

This just a few miles down the road from the banquet which Zuma will be attending tonight thanks to the Queen.
Not, I hasten to add, that any of this necessarily makes JZ’s behaviour acceptable. But singling him out for abuse is a little unjustified.

And now Zuma has hit back – the Cape Times headline today:

British think we’re barbaric, says Zuma

President Jacob Zuma said he was not surprised by the UK press’s scathing criticism of his polygamous practices because Britons have always believed that Africans were “barbaric” and “inferior”.
In what could spark a diplomatic row, Zuma said those who did not understand his culture should engage with and not hurl insults at him.
“When the British came to our country, they said everything we are doing was barbaric, was wrong, inferior in whatever way. Bear in mind that I’m a freedom fighter and I fought to free myself, also for my culture to be respected.”

A little bit of generalisation on the whole “Britons” thing, – Peter Robinson certainly doesn’t speak for everyone in the UK – but aside from that, I’m in full agreement with him.

Although I wouldn’t have any issue with him being particularly barbaric towards Peter Robinson.

UPDATE: Nice work by Herman Wasserman on his Look South blog.
UPDATE 2: SA Good News describes “Britain’s disapproval of President Zuma’s polymagous ways”.
No – that was the Daily Mail not Britain! GWTP!
UDPATE 3: Murray Hunter’s “modest” (brilliant) addition to the Zuma debate.