From: gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african,sanet.talk.politics,apc.reg.safrica
Subject: Re: Figures on Violence - Controversy Grows
Date: 13 Sep 92 13:52:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucthpx.1992Sep13.135229.18471
Organization: University of Cape Town
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

shaze@cs.ubc.ca (Scott Hazelhurst) writes:
: In fact, I have replied to the question of the SAIRR's bias. 
: Unfortunately (or  fortunately)  I don't have the whole wad
: of SAIRR stuff with me to go through and analyse, but let's start
: at the top.

A Freudian slip this. In point of fact, you haven't got an argument,
because you aren't even au fait with the controversy at hand, which is
about FIGURES on violence. So you try to convert this to some OTHER argument,
all about how Kane Berman (in recent years managing director of the SAIRR)
once took part in the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba.
 
: John  Kane-Berman's involvement as deputy chair of the Kwa Zulu/
: Natal  indaba hopelessly comprimised him as a "neutral"  person.

This isn't a question of NEUTRALITY (whatever that is) it's a question
of fact: is reporting by the HRC/CASE setup accurate or not, and whether
SAIRR criticism of that is justified or not.

Many people were involved
in the Indaba, including the entire Natal structure of the then PFP
now DP, and many prominent South Africans. That the ANC and others
criticised the Indaba (so did the Nats) means nothing. We want EVIDENCE
Scott that there is any transmission of supposed bias from the organization
to its data. Ah but then you have already admitted you don't have that data.
Moreover, attempting to characterize the SAIRR (established 1929) by it's
leadership is silly, and claiming it to be "the Transvaal branch of the Inkatha
institute" (your words) because it's managing director took part in the Indaba
is, frankly, infantile - but not out of character. 

: I am attacking the deification of the SAIRR and John Kane-Berman.

Nobody deified them, I just reported their findings, which are of utmost
importance, on CASE/HRC/ICJ figures. They have analysis and data to back
them up. You aren't even familiar with their argument, and reply by labelling
them as an Inkatha surrogate/branch. When asked for justification, and how
this nonsense could possibly be relevant, you reply that Kane-Berman took
part in the Indaba, neglecting to mention that hordes of people did.
The Indaba was very much like CODESA, except half the relevant people couldn't/
wouldn't take part. How on earth this demonstrates bias in SAIRR coverage of
violence defies all logic. 
 
: Nothing that K-B has done since then has changed my views - from
: the SAIRR newsletters I have read to the interviews on SABCTV
: I have seen, to his many  public statements.  

No argument once again, seems to expect us to take his word as some sort of
expert witness. Like to quote some for us Scott, or haven't you got them at hand
again? Maybe something from memory? The real problem here seems to be that you
take exception to the SAIRR attacking the ANC, and the only response fitting
your knowledge and maturity is simply to stick your tongue out and wail on
about Kane Berman being an Inkatha stooge or something equally silly (all
because he took part in the Indaba and you didn't like some unspecified
interviews etc). And I read this crap expecting some sort of ARGUMENT.
 
: Final shot: if my views are of so little interest, why do you spend
: two articles ripping them apart.

Because of the slight chance that someone might mistake your passing water
for valid comment. And because you amuse me. And because I would rather convert
you to a bleeding-nose liberal. And because you give liberalism - a fine
tradition - a bad name. And because I have met more than enough Scotts in
the corridors of UCT admin, all powder puff and no spunk. And because I am
deeply in love with you.

Gavan Tredoux
UCT
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african