From: chowning@bestsd.sdsu.edu (Dr. Chowning)
Subject: Re: "Selective Quotations damage Jeffery's Credibility"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: San Diego State University - Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
Distribution: ua
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:23:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.210515.551@ucthpx.uct.ac.za>, gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux) writes...
>shaze@cs.ubc.ca (Scott Hazelhog) writes:
>: 
>: "Selectibe quotations damage Jeffery's credibility"
>: 
>: By Dennis Davis and Gilbert Marcus. The Star 22 September 1992.
> 
> 
>UCT thankfully managed to export the excitable Denis Davis to
>Wits some time ago. The report that follows is uninformed nonsense
>rivalled only by the said associate professor of COMMERCIAL law's
>(when he was here - at Wits the good Denis is into "applied legal
>studies" whatever that is) publications on political theory. 
> 
>Not that I'm replying ad hominem, everything
>Denis says can be refuted at will below, factually, which I will. 
>Love to get a dig in at him though.
> 
>: 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.
> 
>She makes no attempt to "address the current problems of violence"
>no more than Denis himself in this very article - as if writing
>articles and producing research on violence would ADDRESS the problem.
>As for the alleged sins of the good doctor we show below that Davis
>has not only misread the HRC reports but even misread Jeffery's report
>on the reports. A calamity of misreadings.
> 
>: 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.
> 
>That ISN'T her main "gripe" at all. Her main "gripe" is with the 
>innacuracy of reporting, the omission of critical facts established
>by judicial commissions of inquiry, and nonsensical classification
>of violence, not to mention inferential observation with no basis
>in hard fact. In fact the "ungovernability" stuff is only mentioned
>in passing. A sleight of hand by the Denis, attempting to diminish
>the FORCE of the research by IGNORING its chief conclusions. 
> 
>: 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".
> 
>"also argues" ?! Read it again Denis. Try the introduction where Jeffery
>states quite clearly that the key theme of the research is the shoddy
>methodology and contempt for natural principles of fairness. 
>That's why it's interesting and made so much of an impact, but that's
>obviously passed Denis by. Talk about misleading and innacurate commentary.
> 
>: 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.
> 
>Denis does this quite a lot, shares his valuation of things with
>us.
> 
>: But other criticisms are trivial and speculative. 
> 
>These go unmentioned. No doubt we must accept Denis' word on this.
> 
>: 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.
> 
>So much CRAP, she says nothing of the kind. Let me quote Jeffery 
>verbatim:
> 
>"The organizations responsible for these reports are not courts
>of law and may contend that they are not bound by rules of evidence
>and procedure. *This of course is true* [my emphasis]. Nevertheless,
>these organizations purport to make findings of liability for violence
>in a volatile climate .... It follows that these organizations have an 
>overarching responsibility to be circumspect, to hear and report both sides
>of the conflict .... " (page 9)
> 
>: Dr Jeffery herself pays scant regard to the rules of evidence
>: that she suggests are so important. 
> 
>As she is not attempting to assess liability for violence that's 
>not surprising. Nowhere does she do so in the report, just point out
>that there is CONTROVERSY, which she does NOT attempt to resolve.
>She shows how this CONTROVERSY is buried in sleight of hand by the
>organizations involved. 
> 
>: Her criticisms are often
>: unverified, based upon hearsay, and sometimes erroneous 
>: speculation. 
> 
>No examples, no argument, again we're supposed to simply
>accept Denis' word on this..
> 
>: 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.
> 
>Liars, damn liars and Denis Davis. There is NO MENTION of conspiracy
>in the report, nor even a hint. No argument is adduced to show any
>conspiracy either. Hence *Denis* is confused here about relevance. 
> 
>: 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 the first place Jeffery NEVER QUOTES the HRC here. If Davis had
>bothered to READ the report he would find the following
> 
>"... the words of the HRC will be described in sentence form, using
>the actual wording ... where possible" [page 39]
> 
>Er, that's called a *precis* or *summary* Denis. 
> 
>Now the ground on which Jeffery criticises the HRC is NOT their version
>of the attack, which is reproduced in toto by Jeffery on page 43 ALMOST
>identically to the quote Davis reproduces. But you see, I very much
>doubt whether Denis read that far. Let me prove this quickly, I quote
>Jeffery summarizing HRC:
> 
>"On 3 April 1992, in the Crossroads informal settlement near Kathlehong
>on the east rand, some 23 people were killed, at least 17 were injured
>and more than 30 attacks were razed in a surprise attack. Th eattack was
>allegedly perpetrated by a group of about 30 Xhosa-speaking men. The attack
>came at about 11PM and th evictims - mostly sleeping- were caught unawares
>The attackers came armed with guns. petrol bombs, pangas spears and some 
>of the victims died in theit burning homes."
> 
>"The area has been an IFP stronghold for some time and the victims were IFP
>supporters. Among those killed were a woman and two children."
> 
>"Witnesses alleged that the attackers came from the direction of the Holomisa
>camp. Th eANC disputed this, reporting that the attackers had got off
>a train near Crossroads at 10 pm and launched the attack at 10:45 PM."
>[page 43]
> 
>Yes, the least Denis could do is actually READ the report in question rather
>than fabricate nonsense about what it does and does not quote or summarize.
>Moreover, where is the supposed "inferential inexactitude"? This was
>supposed to be an example. "far more factual account"? What Jeffery disputes
>is the *classification* of this as a VRA and spends three full pages examining
>this. All of which slips Denis by. As does the fact that this is nowhere
>reported (since the relevant categories don't even exist) as ANC/IFP
>or ?/IFP violence, just as "VRA". THIS is what Jeffery is questioning.
> 
>: 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."
> 
>This evidence is adduced to show that there is REASONABLE doubt that
>blame for violence cannot simply be assigned to vigilantes and the IFP,
>and this is how is presented by Jeffery - NOT as an indisputable indicator
>of levels of intimidation. It is contrary evidence that is simply IGNORED 
>by the organizations in question. Nowhere does Jeffery attempt to present
>an account of responsibility for violence, in fact she repeatedly
>stresses the difficulty in asessing blame here.  
> 
>: 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.
> 
>Now on to questioning the MOTIVES behind the report. Suggests that
>Jeffery is an IFP plant etc. Yeah, rave on. Kane-Berman rises
>as a decoy - he shouldn't feature here at all since the report never
>mentions him and he did none of the research. But Denis is
>an old hand at this sort of crap.
> 
>: 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.
> 
>eh. Once again the mention of conspiracy, alleged nowhere and plainly
>made up the by ever fertile Davis imagination. I challenge
>the good practitioner of applied legal chicanery
>to find any mention of this. Maybe Scott Hazelwurst could try, but then
>he hasn't read the report either.
> 
>: 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.
> 
>Actually, she was quoting the Goldstone commission, widely respected
>and backed by the ANC publically. I quote Jeffery quoting Goldstone
> 
>"innacurate reports of violence frequently result in an escalation of
>violence". [page 51, way past Denis' bedtime]
> 
>This must have passed Denis by too - busy fabricating nonsense about
>PW and total onslaughts.
> 
>: 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.
> 
>Er, address the question to Goldstone, Denis. The sobering
>thought is that the ANC might place Davis in charge of some commission 
>some day, he's been their maltese poodle for so long.
> 
>: 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. 
> 
>Yeah, like the energy used to produce your crappy little newspaper article
>in a field that you bear no knowledge of. Every point made easily refuted,
>revealing your failure to even READ the report in question let alone take
>stock of its major findings. Findings I will continue to report given
>their significance.
> 
>Gavan Tredoux
> 
>"Do the Davis" club
>UCT