Zindzi Mandela racist tweet

SAguy

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
3,298
The difficulty imo with calling Apartheid a crime against humanity is that someone who is guilty of leading a crime against humanity would be tried for their part in it.

Crime's against humanity result in being on ICC's wanted list, such as Omar al-Bashir and Joseph Koney. Surely De Klerk should have been on trial and not elected as deputy president by the very party which represented the people against who his crimes were committed.

I'm not saying that Apartheid should not be called a crime against humanity, just stating why that label is potentially problematic in this case.

Still though - De Klerk saying what he said in that interview was always going to cause a world of pain. He should have had a better answer or reason for why he believes the UN's decision for calling apartheid a crime against humanity was wrong.
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
42,243
The difficulty imo with calling Apartheid a crime against humanity is that someone who is guilty of leading a crime against humanity would be tried for their part in it.

Crime's against humanity result in being on ICC's wanted list, such as Omar al-Bashir and Joseph Koney. Surely De Klerk should have been on trial and not elected as deputy president by the very party which represented the people against who his crimes were committed.

I'm not saying that Apartheid should not be called a crime against humanity, just stating why that label is potentially problematic in this case.

Still though - De Klerk saying what he said in that interview was always going to cause a world of pain. He should have had a better answer or reason for why he believes the UN's decision for calling apartheid a crime against humanity was wrong.
Elected as deputy president? He got a nobel peace prize.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
31,167
De Klerk’s interview didn’t do him any good,


Van Riebeeck's shoes are already set out on his porch, all de Klerk have to do is to step into them. The closer Zuma is moving to prosecution, the closer de Klerk is to put those shoes on. Now with this interview, de Klerk is willing to discuss and be heard on these pre-1994 matters, and he has apologised, explained, but is then continually questioned on the apology and have to give reasons he has already explained. It is like he is being lured into explicitly say or answer something.

Leave Zuma, Arrest de Klerk. This is the gist I get lately.
 

SAguy

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
3,298
De Klerk’s interview didn’t do him any good,


Van Riebeeck's shoes are already set out on his porch, all de Klerk have to do is to step into them. The closer Zuma is moving to prosecution, the closer de Klerk is to put those shoes on. Now with this interview, de Klerk is willing to discuss and be heard on these pre-1994 matters, and he has apologised, explained, but is then continually questioned on the apology and have to give reasons he has already explained. It is like he is being lured into explicitly say or answer something.

Leave Zuma, Arrest de Klerk. This is the gist I get lately.
That's politics for you, when the spotlight gets too bright on you... move the people's focus at all costs.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
31,167
Then fck him. I used to have respect for him. Cnt.
You can listen to the part in the discussion, it starts at 22:08.

It was a run-up to the point de Klerk explained that he changed the National Party into an inclusive party. The interviewer, in conclusion, asked de Klerk whether he agreed with the UN's stance that Apartheid was a crime against humanity (which is genocide under their wartime and peacetime acts). De Klerk argued that Apartheid wasn't a crime, not a genocide. This quote is selectively applied,

“I am not justifying apartheid in any way whatsoever… I profusely apologised for that but there is a difference between calling something a crime – genocide is a crime – apartheid cannot be [a crime against humanity]. More people died because of black-on-black violence than because of apartheid,” De Klerk told the SABC.
which is missing the basis on which the response was made. He also apologised to the interviewer, which is a black person, and also apologised as per the above. He also elaborated that to reduce black-on-black violence they established the Coldstone Commission, none which is mentioned by the media other than a small snip in a 25min long interview.

Say de Klerk did agree with the UN, then he would have agreed that Apartheid was a genocide.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,622
I do find it funny that people think one off the books torture farm with a small turnover doth a genocide make..... you have to do effort to be THAT stupid, it would mean half the middle east and most of africa are constantly busy doing genocide.
 

8....3....1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
192
Leave Zuma said:
De Klerk killed those 5 teenagers in 1993, Zuma has not killed anyone. We know De Klerk has done it and is unrepentant so he can be arrested. But the ANC would rather defend their hero De Klerk.

Let Zuma and all those who are accused of committing a crime have their day in court.
 

SAguy

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
3,298
Yeah, they forced poor De Klerk to do that interview.
Nope, but EFF spent the first, what, 15 minutes yesterday going on about it?
Instead of tackling more pressing issues they decided to argue over this.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
6,622
Nope, but EFF spent the first, what, 15 minutes yesterday going on about it?
Instead of tackling more pressing issues they decided to argue over this.
That was not an argument though.... it was a temper tantrum.... they looked close to fake tears
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
31,167
I do find it funny that people think one off the books torture farm with a small turnover doth a genocide make..... you have to do effort to be THAT stupid, it would mean half the middle east and most of africa are constantly busy doing genocide.
Back then at the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973/4), the UN declared South Africa's Apartheid as a crime against humanity under the acts which constituted as genocide under observation. They had no clear definition of Apartheid, forced segregation. This outlaw of Apartheid (in the South African context) wasn't prescribing individual criminal liability.

It was only in 1998 that the crime against humanity of apartheid was included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and defined as an international crime. That was 4 years after South Africa's Apartheid. The institution of this crime has also become a touchy law in other places where Apartheid is taking place, after the South African Apartheid.

There are loads of reading on this subject.
 
Top