Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s cat Paddles is dead after being hit by a car.
Ardern’s office confirmed the cat died on Tuesday.
Paddles, a ginger SPCA cat, had become a celebrity in its own right, and a Twitter account had been established in its name.
Ardern had joked that Paddles was a “polydactyl”, with extra claws that look like opposable thumbs, and ran the account itself.
…this is a double tragedy for the Labour Party as Paddles the Cat was the only one in the entire Caucus that could count…
Ummm, can you count Chippy? No, Jacinda, I can’t count. Grant, what about you, can you count? Well, it’s not really my thing Jacinda. Okay, is there anyone in the Caucus who can count? Paddles can count! Okay, get Paddles here…
There will be a memorial Twitter funeral later in the week.
Labour has begun to make its way through their list of promises for the first 100 days in office. So far we have been somewhat underwhelmed by the policy announcements made; you can see our thoughts on Labour’s minimum wage increases and their foreign ownership ban here. In general this Labour-led Government looks like a continuation of the red/blue duopoly we have seen in recent decades. They are keen to look like they are busy doing something but in essence are addressing symptoms without really dealing with the underlying issues behind them. In saying that, there is one policy in particular that gives us confidence that Labour’s coalition can be the progressive, forward thinking Government many had hoped for. That is their approach to what the Prime Minister called our generation’s “nuclear free moment”; climate change. Climate change was one area in particular that National completely and utterly dropped the ball, in fact they outright cheated. Between 1990 and 2015 our net emissions rose 64%, but the Government relied on forests planted in the 1990s and cheap, dodgy foreign credits to meet our international commitments. Contrast this with the UK where net emissions have fallen 38% and you can quickly see how deceitful the previous National Government has been. One of the main drivers behind the UK’s success was the creation of their climate act in 2008, which has seen C02 emissions fall to their lowest since 1894. Generation Zero have pushed for the Zero Carbon Act change since seeing the success of this approach in the UK and a number of other countries; Denmark, Finland, Mexico and Ireland. Labour have even adopted Generation Zero’s ambitious target to hit net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Of course it remains to see how serious the coalition is about achieving the reductions needed. A Climate Commission will only make recommendations about how to reduce emissions, achieving this goal will still require some big policy changes from this Government. The commitment to planting a billion trees is fantastic, but as a country we can’t escape the need to reduce our fossil fuel use. Hopefully they will honour NZ First’s pledge to not rely on buying overseas credits to honour our commitments.
On the the face of it then, it looks highly promising. Labour have followed what has worked overseas, and have drawn a line in the sand on something that all New Zealanders should care about. Kudos to them. Having taken the first big step, the ball now lies squarely in National’s court. By offering cross-party support, National can ensure that this initiative has the best possible opportunity at making a real difference to New Zealand’s action on climate change. We won’t hold our breath; its track record, and now handing the Climate portfolio to Todd Muller (who was 43rd on their list) makes it seem like lip service remains the extent of National’s commitment.
Of course the Green Party are claiming this new focus on climate change as a win, but in reality it isn’t. A Zero Carbon Act and independent Climate Commission was part of the manifestos for both Labour and even New Zealand First; it is something that all 3 parties agree on and so was an inevitable part of this new government.
The proof of this Government’s commitment will be in the pudding. The Climate Commission and the tree planting pledge are just words so far. At TOP we’d like to see Generation Zero’s Zero Carbon Act in place – and without reliance on buying foreign credit. And then there’s the matter of adaptation – the commitment to mitigation is what we sgned up to in Paris, steps to deal with the consequences of the already-inevitable climate change are quite another.
From hope to action – on both mitigation and adaptation – is the bar the new coalition has set. We have grounds to expect action, not just words.
This appalling mutation of colonialism is of such concern that the UN keep issuing reports critical of the Government’s increasingly punitive approach to law and order which simply sees more and more Māori locked up for longer and longer sentences.
How do we acknowledge this unjust unconscious bias against Māori so prevalent within the judicial system and replace that with a system of justice that learns and grows from kaupapa Māori values?
SHORT TERM:12 months
There needs to be a large injection of funding to bring together academics, community service providers and prisoner rights and justice activists to review the current situation we find ourselves in with our imprisonment rate and what solutions we need to adopt to serve justice and rehabilitation.
Ban torture – NZ prisons currently allow torture via solitary confinement which drives prisoners insane. Continuing a punishment method that causes mental damage seems utterly incongruous with the welfare of the prisoner.
Immediate review of Prisoner welfare and mental health – Many of the men and women inside prison have mental health issues, physical health issues and whose welfare has been allowed to deteriorate due to underfunding. An immediate score card to gain some base insight into the mental health and physical health of prisoners would give a snap shot of how dire and counter productive the punitive culture has become.
MEDIUM TERM:2 years
The Prison system needs to start adopting kaupapa Māori values based on the feedback from the reviews. The current culture is based on the punitive suffering of prisoners which makes punishment not redemption the over riding value. This results in prisoners more damaged coming out of prison than when they go in. We need a far more holistic approach in dealing with prisoners if we are to return to society men and women who can re-integraete within our communities.
Parol services – Speak to any community organisation who are involved in rehabilitating prisoners back into society and they always complain bitterly about Parole services. They are alienating, punishment focused and seem to add nothing but fear to keep prisoners in line with. Instead of being a hub of proactive services and programs to help reintegrate prisoners, they are seen as a stick with which to whack prisoners with.
Genuine rehabilitation services – Prisoners can’t get rehabilitation services if they don’t admit their guilt. This leads to prisoners never gaining any access to any rehabilitation service. This needs to change immediately.
Re-introduce early parole for first offenders – The Parole system was changed in the early 2000s making it far more difficult for prisoners to self moderate their behaviour in order to get out of prison early. This needs to be reversed.
Re-introduce prisoner rights – Stripping prisoners of their rights, locking them up for longer than they should be and forbidding torture need to be implemented and given the proper respect they deserve. Yes these prisoners have committed crimes, but they remain human beings and as such have the same basic human rights as we all do.
LONG TERM: 3 years
After reforming the prison system and re-funding the support services outside the gate and inside the gate, long term culture changes need to be considered.
Culture change – We need more use of alternative justice practices and cultures with a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment but this has to be communicated to the public with clear obligations and well resourced safeguards.
Impact of Māori education on cultural alienation and incarceration – Research needs to be conducted to see if there is any connection with Māori who have been raised exclusively within Māori education kaupapa and those who are alienated from their culture and their respective incarceration rates. Anecdotal evidence suggests that those Māori raised exclusively within Māori education kaupapa have a lower incarceration rate and if empirical evidence backs that up, expansion of those education values could be a crucial way to reduce Māori offending rates.
If Māori were imprisoned at the same rate as non-Māori, the prison population would half. If we imprisoned non-Māori at the rate we imprison Māori the prison population would blow out past 30 000.
We have no option but to front up to the truth of our racism, no matter how awkward that is.
Gideon Levy Public Lecture – Mount Eden Memorial Hall
NZ Palestine Solidarity Network is hosting Gideon Levy in Auckland New Zealand on 3 December @ 3PM.
Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. This will be his first time in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Levy joined Haaretz in 1982, and spent four years as the newspaper’s deputy editor. He is the author of the weekly Twilight Zone feature, which covers the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza over the last 25 years, as well as the writer of political editorials for the newspaper.
Levy was the recipient of the Euro-Med Journalist Prize for 2008; the Leipzig Freedom Prize in 2001; the Israeli Journalists’ Union Prize in 1997; and The Association of Human Rights in Israel Award for 1996.
His new book, The Punishment of Gaza, has just been published by Verso Publishing House in London and New York.
Ummm, can you count Chippy?
No, Jacinda, I can’t count.
Grant, what about you, can you count?
Well, it’s not really my thing Jacinda.
Okay, is there anyone in the Caucus who can count?
Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.
Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.
EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.
In a determination of the Employment Relations Authority released yesterday, it was held that Wendy’s was required to offer Rosemary Williams additional hours of work before it hired new staff. It had failed to do so over a 3-month period which disadvantaged Ms Williams and Wendy’s was ordered to pay over $3000 in compensation.
The Wendy’s store in Hornby, Christchurch suffered a downturn in business last year due to a competitor opening nearby. All the staff in the store had their hours reduced. As staff left their jobs at the store, Wendy’s hired new workers to replace them.
But Unite Union, who represented Ms Williams, argued that the remaining staff should have been offered more work to increase their hours to their previous level.
“It is standard in most of our collective agreements that workers have the opportunity to pick up additional hours before a company hires new staff” says John Crocker, Industrial Officer at Unite.
“Wendy’s was required to offer Ms Williams more hours and failed to do so. The determination is very clear on that. While this case was contractual, we believe it should be standard practice for all employers in New Zealand.
“Hours are worker’s livelihood, and the ability to keep those hours down is power over those workers.
“While the compensation to Ms Williams was modest, the principle that the union will enforce its employment contract, particularly on this issue, was vital and we hope it sends a message to the broader industry.”
National has forced Labour to back down on its plan to have 96 select committee places. There will now be 108 places – the number National had wanted.
Bill English confirmed the deal, saying his party would also get five chair positions.
“The Government came to Parliament disorganised and took the risk of losing the vote of Speaker.
…no one on the Government’s side had even bothered to check something as basic as what the rules on absent MPs voting rights were???
What level of fuckwitedness is this?
They ended up having to give National the power to stymie every single fucking Select Committee just as they threatened they would because someone from the Government couldn’t count!!!
Tell me this is a joke, some terrible, horrible joke.
So to get bloody Trevor Mallard his blessed Speaker role the new Government just handed over to National the rod with which they will spend the next 3 years beating them with.
Un-fucking-believable level of incompetence on day one.
National might just be the greatest Opposition ever if this is the level of the governments ineptitude.
Let me start with the glass that’s half full. At last a New Zealand government has recognised that, to quote Jacinda Ardern on Radio NZ, the system of investor-state dispute settlement in the TPPA is ‘a dog’.
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has become a standard demand of transnational corporations in so-called trade agreements. They allow foreign investors to enforce special protections that are not available to local firms, using private partisan offshore tribunals to demand massive compensation when governments regulate in the national interest. They are not just after the money. More often they aim to have a chilling effect on governments, as we saw with investment disputes by the tobacco industry over plain packaging of cigarettes.
In 2015 New Zealand First introduced the Fighting Foreign Corporate Control Bill to exclude ISDS from all new agreements. That mirrored similar moves in Australia and the US. National prevented it even going to select committee.
That move was part of a much bigger trend. Governments around the world are turning their back on ISDS, cancelling stand-alone bilateral investment treaties (BITS) and refusing to accept ISDS in new agreements. South Africa has replaced its BITS with a domestic law that treats foreign and local investors the same, with investor rights made subject to the post-apartheid constitution, and cases to be heard in the national courts.
Brazil has a new model investment agreement that has no ISDS, emphasises mediation, and excludes some of the most toxic investment protections. India’s model BIT tries to balance social and economic goals and gives preference to domestic courts.
The trend is not just in the global South. There is no state-state or investor-state enforcement in the investment protocol to the CER agreement between Australia and NZ. Australia said no ISDS in its FTA with the US and initially opposed it in the TPPA. The current Liberal government said it would take a ‘case-by-case’ approach. ISDS was excluded from Australia’s 2015 agreement with Japan. But South Korea insisted on it in the FTA with Australia, and with New Zealand.
In Europe, the backlash against ISDS has seen the European Union run a rescue mission by promoting a more formalised quasi-court system. That retains many of the same flaws of ISDS and enforces the same biased pro-investor rules. Our new government is already making favourable noises about this in the pending EU FTA negotiations.
Most recently, the Trump administration has turned its back on ISDS, proposing that governments should be able to opt out from ISDS in the current renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was scathing of US corporations for expecting the state to protect it from the risks of doing business:
It’s always odd to me when the business people come around and say ‘oh, we just want our investments protected.’ I thought, ‘well so do I.’ I mean don’t we all? I would love to have my investments guaranteed. But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way in the market. It does work that way when you’re talking about special interests…. Does anybody think it’s protectionist to say you buy your own political risk insurance? I mean I can show you what protectionism is if that’s…. But it certainly isn’t this.
That’s the good news and why the Labour-led government should refuse to accept ISDS in any agreement, full stop.
However, the glass is also half empty. There is no doubt the new government has been working hard to achieve some protection for NZ from ISDS in the TPPA. But is asking the other parties for side-letters, similar to the one signed by Australia and NZ, saying they won’t let their investors use the TPPA’s investor-enforcement mechanism against us a solution?
There are several major pitfalls in this approach.
First, the other countries have to agree. If they don’t, we are stuck with it and promises not to have ISDS in future agreements becomes largely symbolic. Foreign investors are notorious for incorporating themselves in countries that give them access to these mechanisms.
Second, a side-letter means the rest of the original agreement remains intact – despite the position of Labour, NZ First and the Greens that they would not support its ratification.
Third, simply removing ISDS would not alter the pro-investor rules in the TPPA, which the government is required to implement in good faith, and which the other countries can still enforce.
Fourth, the ISDS mechanism would remain in the agreement and apply to all the other countries, buttressing its legitimacy against the turning tide.
The only consistent and principled approach is for the new government to oppose the inclusion of investment in any ‘trade’ negotiation, including the TPPA-11, and to instruct negotiators to build a critical mass to achieve that.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN when otherwise intelligent people look at something – and don’t see it? How do people train themselves to misperceive – and therefore misrepresent – the reality before their eyes?
Paul Simon’s song, ‘The Boxer’, explains it like this:
I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles.
Such are promises, all lies and jest.
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.
Faced with the deepening humanitarian crisis on Manus Island, why is the New Zealand Government, like the boxer, only seeing what it wants to see, and disregarding the rest?
What should our new government be seeing?
First and foremost, it should see the Australian Government’s policy on illegal immigration by sea as an exercise in imposing immediate cruelty to achieve long-term kindness. Assailed by the victims of corrupt criminal enterprises: the desperate men, women and children being sent out in flimsy boats, foundering on the high seas and drowning; successive Australian Governments have embarked upon a programme of extreme deterrence.
Refugees and economic migrants attempting to circumvent Australia’s official immigration policies, by sailing there illegally, will be treated with the utmost harshness. Without the slightest regard for age or gender, they will be interned in fetid tropical concentration camps; brutally mistreated; and informed, coldly, that under no circumstances will the Australian Government ever permit them, or their offspring, to set foot on Australian soil.
And, it’s worked. The terrifying example presented to potential “boat people” by the inhabitants of the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres has had the desired effect. The criminal middle-men have found fewer and fewer individuals and families willing to pay them the huge sums of money they had previously been able to demand for a journey to Australian shores. People smuggling has become uneconomic. The leaky boats have stopped sailing and their passengers have stopped dying.
When criticised, the Australian Government simply points to the situation in the Mediterranean. The European Union’s “humanitarian” policy of rescuing and receiving boat people has resulted in a huge expansion of people-smuggling. Every week, thousands of refugees and illegal migrants set sail from North Africa for Spain and Italy. Of those thousands, many hundreds – men, women and children – drown at sea.
On 17 June 2017, the British e-newspaper, The Independent, reported that: “More than 2,000 migrants have died attempting treacherous boat crossings to Europe so far this year”. That number must now be approaching 4,000.
These are the numbers that the Australian Government points to as justification for the astonishing cruelty of its policies. The so-called “Pacific Solution” may not be pretty to look at, runs the official argument, but it saves lives. Mothers’ lives. Children’s lives. “If we gave in to the demands of our critics,” say the Australian authorities, “we wouldn’t just have detainees, we’d have blood, on our hands!”
In the authorities’ eyes, the actions of the Australian navy, in intercepting the people-smugglers’ vessels and towing them back to their departure points; and the harsh internment regimes subsidised by the Australian state; are not only the delivery mechanisms for effective policy, but they are also entirely morally defensible. By their reckoning, it is the “humanitarian” NGOs; the groups which insist on “saving” the boat people, that have thousands of drowned human-beings on their consciences – not the Australian Government. For every boatload of refugees and illegal migrants that are “saved”: ten, twenty, thirty more overloaded and leaking death-traps are encouraged to set sail.
Faced with an adamant Australian Government which is utterly convinced that it is doing the right thing vis-à-vis illegal immigration by sea, what should the New Zealand Government do?
If we engage the Aussies in a full-scale moral debate on this issue, can we even be sure of winning it? With the example of the EU’s policy before us; and with the Australians arguably blocking the people-smuggling routes to New Zealand as well as to their own country; might we not expose ourselves to the charge of allowing our kind hearts to get in the way of the higher moral good of breaking the people-smuggling trade?
Let’s assume, however, that we are capable of refuting the Australians’ moral arguments (their policies are, after all in breach of numerous international covenants to which New Zealand remains firmly committed) what, then, should be our course of action?
Some are arguing that we should negotiate directly with the government of Papua-New Guinea. But, that really would be evidence of our diplomatic blindness! The government of Papua-New Guinea is almost entirely in the thrall of the Australian Government – its former colonial master. Ostensibly a democracy, the country is, in fact, a corrupt kleptocracy whose senior ministers are pretty-much the bought-and-paid-for playthings of Canberra. Were we to ask Port Moresby if it was willing to allow New Zealand to take 150 detainees off their hands, its officials would simply pick up the phone and ask Canberra if that would be okay. Canberra would say “No!” – and that would be that. The same applies to the supposedly independent state of Nauru – another Pacific regime morally and politically compromised by the Australians’ Pacific Solution.
All of which should tell us exactly what we are looking at when we fix our gaze on Australia.
Because it’s not just big Papua-New Guinea, and tiny Nauru, who find themselves in no position to do anything other than obey without question the dictates of Canberra. Australia may not have purchased our politicians, the way it has in other parts of the Pacific, but that’s only because they don’t need to. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is quite capable of assessing this country’s strategic economic, military and diplomatic interests without the need for Canberra to spell them out for us.
What Jacinda saw when she arrived at Kiribili House on Sunday was what she wanted to see. Our good friend and ally, the Australian prime minister. She comported herself accordingly: joshing and joking; and reporting (politely) on her Government’s response to Australia’s latest policy decisions.
Had she seen anything else: a nation able to break the New Zealand economy at will, for example, or, a regime prepared to be almost unbelievably ruthless and brutal in the pursuit of its national objectives. Had she registered a nation arming itself to the teeth in preparation for projecting “Five Eyes” power north, into the Indonesian archipelago, east, into the Pacific, and west, into the strategically vital Indian ocean, and which looks upon its “little mate”, New Zealand, as a lucrative source of economic tribute, a handy supplier of skilled labour, a cheap holiday destination, and, at need, an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” fortuitously positioned to defend Australia’s eastern flank; then what, realistically, could she have done?
Other than josh, and joke, and hope like hell that Australia never decides to treat Kiwis the way it treats the detainees on Manus Island and Nauru.
“Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is”
– John Belushi as Bluto in Animal House
Now that we’ve finished setting off fireworks in celebration of an anarchist from 1605, let’s get ready to blow things up in 2018!!
Continuing the tradition of memorable gigs at The Kings Arms, Punk It Up returns to the “KA” on Saturday Feb 17 for the “last ever punk show” before the venue takes its rightful place in the history of Auckland live music venues.
We’re very happy to announce that for the first time in a long while, Wellington’s Flesh D-Vice are getting it together to join this explosive lineup of bands. In the tradition of Punk It Up, one of New Zealand’s finest punk acts, Proud Scum, are reforming especially for the event. Aussie punks Wolfpack are skyrocketing across the Tasman to join in the fun, up and coming Kiwi acts Mishap, and new addition to the bill – TheRocket Jocks, will provide flashy sets, with the first part of the “all-nighter” topped off by punk covers band bankRobbers (joined by some very special guests from the X-Features, The Terrorways, and others). You might even hear “Cherry Bomb”, a real cracker!!
Keeping you waving your sparkler between bands will be a bunch of Auckland’s finest “selectors” including Dubhead, Phil A, and Miss Dom, with your MC for the evening, Ms Labretta Suede, keeping everything popping like a bunch of double-happys in a barrel.
Then, after you’ve sweated out a couple of kilos in front of the stage in the main room, after pogoing like a bunch of Roman Candles, we’re moving the music to the front bar, where the bFM Gang of Four show host an After Party that will continue into the wee small hours with DJs Lise, No Tag’s Andrew Boak, The Terrorways’ Dean Martelli, and Miss Dom among others.
It’s a total venue takeover – bursts of bands in the main bar, the front bar hosting illuminating stalls selling and giving away heaps of punk paraphernalia from the bands performing (and a bunch of artists that aren’t), just because we decide when it’s “Over”
With musical acts performing a mixture of new material and old classics, the whole night is set to encourage community around the punk aesthetic, and expose you to some intelligent and positive alternative thinking, as well as a healthy dose of fast noisy punk rock’n’roll, and of course, seeing The Kings Arms off in a flash of style with the “last ever punk show”
About 60 demonstrators shouted and chanted as the South African rugby team, the Springboks, arrived in Albany. The team was scheduled to play, but New York Governor Hugh Carey, citing a possible riot, cancelled the game. Carey’s decision will be tested in court.
This article was written by South African sports activist Mark Fredericks and gives an interesting insight into South African rugby which continues in 2017 to be riddled with racism and hypocrisy.
The lifting of the sports moratorium between 1991 and 1992, and along with it the retention of the springbok symbol for rugby has effectively reduced apartheid to a footnote. The bread and circus Republic of South Africa encourages the celebration of the inherent and structural inequalities in the country through sport. The elite sporting system in the country, which is built upon the foundations of the apartheid system of exclusion has been democratised allowing ‘undesirables’ into the system, after a suitable period of apprenticeship has been served within the incubators that served apartheid sport so well. The spiralling unemployment rate, which feeds the high crime levels, is exacerbated by a government that spends money on itself, and not on the needs of the people. Sport and mega events merely distract from the crises of a failed South African experiment. The first circus arrived in 1995 with the IRB Rugby World Cup, in 2003 the ICC cricket World Cup came and went, followed in 2010 by the FIFA Soccer World Cup – the bread however, has not. Now South Africa stands on the brink of hosting another circus in 2023. This celebration of inequality must be stopped.
SA RUGBY’S BID TO HOST THE 2023 RUGBY WORLD CUP TOURNAMENT.
On the 15th of November 2017 the rugby nations of the world will vote on the hosting rights for the 2023 Rugby World Cup tournament. News reports indicate the South Africa has a good chance of becoming host for the second time, and expectations for success are high. Now it is no secret that the world rugby bodies strategically distanced themselves from the apartheid state, while supporting the racist South African Rugby Board. The SARB were never suspended from the International Rugby Board, and in 1989 the IRB even sanctioned an invitational team to play in the centenary celebrations of the SARB. During the apartheid era, the world rugby authorities ignored the legitimacy of the anti-apartheid rugby body in South Africa, choosing instead to work closely with Danie Craven’s SARB in efforts to normalise rugby relations in South Africa. In 1992 that normalisation was achieved, and upon Nelson Mandela’s personal petition, the reward was indeed great, and the 1995 Rugby World Cup tournament was awarded to South Africa. It was in this magnificent showpiece that the springboks were washed clean of all apartheid stains, and the green and gold emerged without apartheid blemish or racial taint.
The moment has been immortalised in John Carlin’s lopsided account of the tournament, and all that happened in uniting the nation in a memorable tournament of spectacular proportions. The world rugby authorities benefitted handsomely because it was the 1995 tournament that heralded the professional era, effectively killing the root of the game we all love. The tournament was the last time that rugby (any rugby) was to be seen on the public broadcaster in South Africa, as television rights deals had been sealed a year before the tournament even kicked off. Through this endorsement of the springbok, and the hailing of the apartheid heroes by the world rugby bodies – by inducting them into the World Rugby Hall of Fame (or is it hall of shame?) – World Rugby once again has displayed its disregard for the suffering of black people in South Africa. It regards the apartheid springboks as heroes, while totally ignoring the plight of those who struggled against apartheid through the game of rugby. And now, once again, the South African rugby hierarchy stands before the world presenting a case of mistruths, misinformation, and poverty pornography, as they bid for the rights to host the jewel of rugby tournaments in 2023 – the Rugby World Cup Tournament.
The World Rugby members would have watched a powerful 2 minute 25 second video clip which presented a vision of the country, that presents the face of South Africa as seen through the lens of Walt Disney. For those who missed the stirring presentation, here it is:
The video clip opens with a scene from a township – a common place of life and death for black South Africans. Originally designed as labour camps by Cecil John Rhodes, these cramped spaces are where black South Africans are mostly centred within urban areas. The normalisation of poverty and squalor is nothing to be ashamed of, and the way in which black faces are used when trying to sell rugby to the world brings back memories of 1995, when the face of Chester Williams adorned billboards all across South Africa.
As the video plays, the springboks bide their time before making their appearance, allowing for the sounds of Africa to call on the emotions of the viewer. The first scene, which shows a black player emerging from a shack, is accompanied by the sound of some African birdlife – a rarity in townships where there are no trees, and the most common sound would be the blare of hooters from thousands of taxis – and the sound of commuters on their way to work – even gunfire, but rarely birds. Without any shame, SA Rugby displays the lone rugby players’ stroll through the township, as he wends his way amongst dilapidated shacks. It is a place where he belongs, a township, surrounded by shacks, and death. The video clip does not show the recent call by the government of the Western Cape to have the South African army deployed in the townships, to combat gang warfare. The lone rugby hero thus faces a dangerous gauntlet if that scene was shot in Cape Town – our top tourist city. If you missed the news story, here it is:
The sound of an elephant in the distance heralds the arrival of a praise singer, as he stands on top of a mountain, crying out about Africa. The music and the visuals work together to tell an emotional story about a country that exists in the edit suites of the creators of the visuals, but not in reality. It is a projection of what is hoped for, not yet attained. The 1995 Rugby World Cup tournament yielded magnificent results for those upon whom the IRB/World Rugby body had already bestowed many blessings – the beneficiaries of apartheid. The promises of development faded as fast as a 5 – point lead against the All Blacks. The ZAR 2Billion television broadcast rights deal made the springboks and SA Rugby royalty wealthy, but it did nothing for rugby in the townships. The myth of white dominance of the game in South Africa was an easy myth to swallow, because the rugby unions of the world had always backed the white rugby horse in South Africa. For them the realisation that they had been playing in apartheid tests against an apartheid test team, which was sanctioned and recognised by the World Rugby body, was slightly discomforting. But the 1995 Rugby World Cup washed away not only the sins of the apartheid springboks, but also all of those teams who, through sporting contact, endorsed and supported apartheid rugby, and prolonged the life of apartheid.
The race to see the springboks back in international competition superseded any concerns or considerations of the deep physical and sociological aspects of apartheid. The race back into international competition even saw a smiling Nelson Mandela wave on team South Africa (Olympics, Barcelona 1992), months after the Boipatong massacre, as they marched without a flag, without an anthem, and with Mandela still unable to vote in any South African election.
None of these considerations are presented within the powerful video clip that everyone sat and swallowed emotional lumps over. The wording in the video declares:
Listen, listen…
Hear the sound of Africa.
It’s calling your name.
To a place where rugby is more than a game….
It’s a way of life.
Rugby is much more than a game. It is a tool that is used to conjure up fantastic social fantasies about a South Africa that does not exist in reality. The destruction of the social roots of rugby in South Africa, by the African National Congress and the rugby authorities in South Africa, coincided with the rebirth, or re-imagining of the springbok. The world rugby authorities threw their lot in with the elite establishments of South African rugby, no doubt mesmerised by the excellent track record of the integration of the game set by the racist South African Rugby Board. The players neglected by apartheid policies, who were never recognised by the international rugby bodies, have had their histories and cultures crushed under the weight of springbok mythologies. The townships depicted in the video clip, while used in a promotion of rugby as “a way of life”, are actually ghettos of death.
Where rugby united a nation,
And inspired the world.
Heed the call…
Come to the birthplace of humankind,
Wonderful words, wonderful sentiments, but far from being based in reality, these words are based within the realm of fantasy. Rugby did not unite the nation, it created the illusion of unity, and gave the media machinery enough visual fodder to repeat and reinforce the illusion, but unity was not attained. The birthplace of humankind actually holds the top spot as the world’s most unequal society, and this Monday past, there were protests against farm murders (actually a small percentage of the murder figures are from farm attacks), and it showcased the brittle nature of the rainbow nation. If any of you missed the story, here it is:
Where it all comes together.
Where rugby is number one.
South Africa.
Rugby World Cup 2023
What happened in 1995 was the normalisation of abnormality. It was the passing of the baton of inequality from white management to black management. The scenes from the video clearly showcase the pride with which our inequality is openly displayed. The Mandela years, which ran from 1994 to 1999, was the bloodiest in the history of the new South Africa with Interpol statistics recording 124, 564 murders (homicides) over that period (25,000 in 1995 alone). For some perspective, over the same period Ireland recorded 199 (1994 – 1999), and France recorded 5099. None of this has anything to do with springbok rugby of course, just as springbok rugby; despite being the flagship sporting symbol for an apartheid regime had nothing to do with apartheid. Sport and politics do not mix, except when the governments concerned are expected to dip into the coffers of taxpayer loot, and issue million dollar guarantees.
All, except the victims of apartheid, enjoys the post 1994 South African ‘sporting windfall’. Our disjuncture with reality, boosted by successes on the rugby fields in 1995 and 2007, further fuels the transformational delusion. As during apartheid, off field ‘tragedies’ rarely affected on-field performances; the weekend following the Marikana massacre the springboks faced off against Argentina in the Rugby Championship (18 August 2012) with no acknowledgement of the incident. A few days later, when facing Australia, the springboks observed a moment’s silence for slain boxing champ Corrie Sanders, (and Peter Maimane former Bok technical advisor) – despite not a single representative from SARU attending Maimane’s funeral.
Separating sport from other aspects of life in South Africa is an apartheid tactic, allowing for elite sport to be played in total isolation of the South African reality. The unification process was flawed through the assumption that ‘white‘ was right and better. The modality of the springbok production line has not changed. Springboks still come from the same elite schools, which produced springboks during apartheid, while township schools are routinely raided for the required racial quotas. The raided schools remain as squalid as they were under apartheid, these days just without their star rugby players, and the visuals are there in plain sight in the SARU visual presentation.
Judged on these criteria alone, the consideration of South Africa as a suitable venue for the 2023 Rugby World Cup tournament resembles the rebel tours of the 1980’s that prolonged the life of apartheid by giving the social order a semblance of normality. It is of further concern to consider that the IRB never apologised to the South African public for their endorsement of the racist South African Rugby Board, as well as their recognition of the racist springbok rugby team without any consideration of the players who were denied a playing and social space because of their unforgivable blackness. These endorsements gave then, as it does today, impetus to the continuation of the exclusionist nature of South African rugby development. It is utterly delusional to assume that the springboks are capable of holding the mantle of ‘Rainbow’ team, when the very ethos of the rugby system is based on excluding those denied by apartheid. Even the historical output in terms of books and biographies regurgitate the ‘glorious’ history of springbok achievement, while excluding crucial historical facts pertaining to the policies, which favoured ‘white’ players and denied ‘blacks’.
The IRB/World Rugby body has played its part in entrenching deeply rooted racial prejudices within South African society by recognizing apartheid sport, and the placing of apartheid heroes into a World Rugby Hall of Fame. The favorable consideration of South Africa as a preferred host candidate also showcases that it is indeed possible to enjoy ‘Normal Sport in an Abnormal Society’, as long as the abnormality does not affect the profits, and the glow of the social reputation of World Rugby. As the presentation video plays out, there’s a beautiful scene of a young girl running with a rugby ball under her arm as two young boys give chase. The video does not reveal that SA Rugby did not send a women’s team to the Women’s World Cup, which was held in Ireland earlier this year due to the state of the women’s game in South Africa. Not only that, but the state of the vulnerability of women generally in South Africa, whether a resident or a tourist, is cause for some concern. There are roughly 60 – 70, 000 rapes reported in South Africa annually. Many rapes are not reported because of threats, and the dismissive attitude of the South African police services. The little girl depicted in the visual does not point the viewer in the direction of the status of the female person in South Africa as a recent story about 87 young school girls revealed – for those who missed the story, here it is:
Now as we all know, this issue has nothing to do with rugby. The alleged molester was/is not a rugby player, but it depicts the normality, and daily reality of life far away from the pristine fields where the rugby matches in 2023 will take place. The tournament will lend credence to a social system that has failed the citizens this country on the whole, and after the tournament, as social conditions deteriorate further, those nation building springboks, as Pienaar and Venter did in 1995/6, will leave South Africa to further their careers abroad.
The entire post-apartheid society is built on the retention of apartheid privilege – as Mandela himself confessed:
“You must remember that the best way to introduce transformation is to do so without dislocating any aspect of our public life.
What is the role of the IRB/World Rugby body in recognizing the struggle against apartheid? Is it only to look after the welfare of the game at the extreme elite level? Does it not matter that the endorsement of racial and class divisions as embodied by the springbok and its overarching structure will inevitably lead to the downfall of the game in South Africa completely? And for that matter, in South Africa, the game is probably the least of our concerns. We have an economy that has been downgraded to junk status, yet our government has guaranteed millions for the tournament – as they did for the 2003 ICC Cricket World Cup, and the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup. The benefit has not filtered down to those depicted in the visuals, and yet the video presentation has leveled the playing field in a digital fantasy, bringing to life the vision of apartheid sages Verwoed and Malan, when they spoke about ‘separate but equal’, and allowing for the development of ‘each group according to their character and ability’ – in other words, ‘equality through separation’.
These are but some of the facts that I would like to bring to the attention of the World Rugby body members. I do so full in the knowledge that none of these issues have anything whatsoever to do with the game of rugby union, in the same way that the 2023 SA Rugby video presentation has nothing whatsoever to do with the realities of life and death, on and off the rugby fields in South Africa.
Mark Fredericks is a South African sports activist
Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.
Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.
EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.
