From: shaze@cs.ubc.ca (Scott Hazelhurst)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: "Selective Quotations damage Jeffery's Credibility"
Date: 7 Oct 1992 10:04:46 -0700
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: pacific.cs.ubc.ca


"Selectibe quotations damage Jeffery's credibility"

By Dennis Davis and Gilbert Marcus. The Star 22 September 1992.

Considerable publicity has been given to Dr Anthea Jeffrey's
report "Spotlight on violence in South Africa", in which she 
accuses three human rights organisations of depcitng poltical
conflict in a selective and misleading manner.

Dr Jeffery's attack on reports by Amnesty, the International
Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Commission, was
published by the South African Institute of Race Relations.
It has been endorsed by the institute's director, John Kane-Berman.

She concludes that the reports of these groups on political
violence are, at best "one-sided and simplistic" and at worst,
"amount to disinformation -- deliberate attempts to mislead."

We suggest that Dr Jeffery is guilty of the same sins for
which she ciriticises others. But, more importantly, her
venture is largely irrelevant and unhelpful in addressing the 
current problems of violence.

Her main gripe is that all three organisations allegedly ignore
certian strategies of the ANC such as fostering "ungovernability"
through mass action, refusing to disband its armed wing
and refusing to cease establishing self-defence units.

She also argues that the methodology adopted by the organisations
evinces a disregard for the "rules of evidence and the safe-
guarding of due legal process".

It is important that reports of unfluential organisations be
subjected to scrutiny. Had Dr Jeffery's efforts been limited
to this, they would have had some value.

But other criticisms are trivial and speculative. In addition,
she proceeds from the erroneous premise that the legal rules
of evidence must govern reports of this nature. The suggestion
is ludicrous. International monitoring bodies do not purport
to be legal commissions of enqury. To expect them to operate
as such would render their work ineffective.

Dr Jeffery herself pays scant regard to the rules of evidence
that she suggests are so important. Her criticisms are often
unverified, based upon hearsay, and sometimes erroneous 
speculation. In courts of law, only relevant evidence is 
admissible and strict tests are laid down for the drawing of
inferences. Here Dr Jeffery fails miserably.

First, the question of relevance. In her report, the question of 
what is causing the violence is subservient to proving a 
conspiracy among three independent bodies. Accordingly, 
methodological precision gives way to infrential inexactitude.
Space constraints permit only two examples.
 
In dealing withe HRC's report on the Crossroads massacre, Dr Jeffery
writes: "The HRC ... attributes the Crossroads massacre -- in
which 23 sleeping members of the IFP (including a woman and
two children) were killed by Xhosa-speaking men, allegedly from
an ANC squatter camp -- to 'vigilante related action'. It defines
such action as attacks by (or in defence against) surrogate
forces of the State, in the form of 'vigilante' provate armies
formed by homeland administrations or black local authorities.
Deaths thus laid at the door of the State are said by the HRC
to include the deaths of these 23 supporters."

The least Dr Jeffery could have done is was to quote the exact
passage from the relevant HRC report. It reads: "The victims
were caught unawares by the attackers who were armed with guns,
petrol bombs, pangas and spears and some of the victims died
in their burning homes. The area waas forcefully taken over by
Inkatha supporters in August 1990 and has remained an Inkatha
stronghold since then. Among those killed were a woman and two
children. Witnesses reported that the attackers came from the
direction of the Holomisa camp. The ANC disputed this, reporting
that the attackers  had got off a train near Crossroads at 10pm
and had launched the attack at 10.45pm".

This is a far more factual account than Dr Jeffery would have 
the reader believe by her selective quotes from different sections
of an HRC report.

In dealing with intimidation, Dr Jeffery writes: "Opinion surveys
confirm the high percentage of black people in metropolitan
areas who have been coerced into participating in consumer
boycotts, stayaways and rent boycotts. These surveys also show
a strong correlation between coercion and political affiliation.
Thus, those who support the IFP or the Azanian People's Organisation
have been subject to intimidation far more often that supporteres of
the ANC and its allies."

When Dr Jeffery's references are examined,the surveys which she 
repeatedly refers turn out to be one study conducted by the 
Institute of Race Relations! On the basis of these "surveys",
she makes the following "scientific" claim: "If these survey
findings from the representative sample canvassed can be
extrapolated to the entire metropolitan populationm it can be
assumed that some 1,75 million metropolitan blacks experienced
coercion or intimidation in the context of mass action during
1990/1."

In the context of this tendentious reasoning the question remains:
What is the purpose of the exercise? is it merely to counter
what John Kane-Berman has claimed is a world-wide smear
campaign against IFP leader Mongosuthu Buthelezi.

The perception is fortified by a second aspect of Dr jeffery's
enterprise: her scarcely concealed attempts to fit her 
criticism into a conspiracy of disinformation. Here she would
do well to study the rules of inferential reasoning.

Some of her arguments are reminiscent of the evidence given
by "total onslaught" theorists in the heyday of the security
trials. For example, she claims "reports which are seen to
be one-sided can easily fan the flames of violence".
This was the kind of justification used by the PW Botha regime
to ban a range of publications and organisations in the 1980s.

Is Dr Jeffery suggesting township residents are so influenced
by the Amnesty report that, armed with a copy in their back pockets,
they proceed to engage in acts of violence which characterise
contemporary South Africa.

It seems extra-ordinary that so much energy can be used to legitimate
a particular political position rather than helping throw light on
the causes of violence. When it comes to apportioning blame it
is unhelpful to quibble about inaccurate reports of violence.
Surely the greatest responsibility must be borne by the 
Government whose policies Mr Kane-Berman concedes are at the
roots of the violence? Surely too, the resources of the SAIRR
are better utilised in formulating constructive suggestions
suggestions to curb the abuses of the state.

----------- END OF QUOTE


Dennis Davis is Professor of Law and Directors of the Centre for
Applied Legal Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Gilbert Marcus is a Johannesburg advocate. He has appeared in a 
number of civil rights cases, and been instructed on behalf of the
ANC, the ECC, the Black Sash and a number of other bleeding-heart
liberal organisations.