Special Hearings — Political Party Hearings — 1996-08-19

MR GREEN: I think it would be correct in the process that if you have persons in authority who have been perpetrators of abuse and who have undermined human rights and who have killed others and tortured others, that I would see it highly inconsistent for the State to continue employing such persons.  For the simple reason is that the word of God clearly points out in the book of Romans that the State is seen in a sense as a servant of God.  But not as a servant of God in the same sense as the Church is being seen, but as a servant of God in maintaining justice.  Now you see the problem that you would have in maintaining persons in positions of authority after they have perpetrated horrendous acts of violence and so on, although there has been a reconciliation process or there has been some exposure, you would find that the victims would say that that is the person who perpetrated all these crimes and he is still in a position of authority.  He's still in the very same position to somehow would be able, we don't know if it could repeat itself but because he's in that position of authority he could possibly still abuse that position of authority to perpetrate the very same crimes.
 And I think there has been particularly organisations in the State and here particularly, National Intelligence, Military Intelligence, and many other organs of state where we have perpetrators who have been part of this abuse but who have, because they knew that they had to give an account of themselves, started to shred all the evidence, started to destroy all the evidence because they have not been removed from that position of authority.  They are still part and parcel of the whole apparatus and in that sense people will not get a sense of that there is true justice.  That it's merely a kind of power-play between the political parties and some people feel that there rights have been sold and they have been sacrificed and justice has been sacrificed in order to get a political settlement.  
 So I think one must look at things like pensions, you must look at things that the positions that the people will hold, you must look at all those things.  But I think what is very important is that the sense afterwards when we have the final outcome that perpetrators, particularly the perpetrators would feel that justice has been done.

CHAIRPERSON: Chris.

MR DE JAGER: Could I comment on the proposition that the perpetrator should say I'm sorry, I show regret.  Suppose that was a requirement of the Act.  I think every application would have a paragraph 3 saying I am sorry.  But now that is not a requirement.  In all the applications we had heard this far, I can't think of a single one that the perpetrator didn't come forward and say, I regret what I've done without it being a requirement.  Isn't that far better than having a legal requirement that people would fulfil by saying, I'm sorry whether he's sorry or not?  Rather have it coming from himself?

MR MESHOE: The reason we raised that issue was considering the fact that there are people that are applying for amnesty but yet to not say I'm sorry.  So if the majority of the people are saying they are sorry, then we'd agree with the amnesty they are receiving. The fact that it is not on paper is not the major issue, the major issue is the person accepting, acknowledging the wrong they have done and apologising for that.  And in such a case such people can be given amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  I am grateful I mean that I think we are at one with yourselves about the need for the establishment of a new moral order in our country.  Would you agree that one of the ingredients of such an order would be tolerance.  You know that we have had, as you know, people killed because they were holding a different point of view and we were at a stage where because someone disagrees with you, therefore this is my enemy, and the best kind of enemy is a dead enemy.  Now if you agree that it is a good, it is a virtue, the tolerance, because after all democracy is postulated on the premise that there will be differences of viewpoints, I would just want to know what your comments would be with regard to two instances of diversity.  One is within the Christian community that in the Christian family there are differences of points of view,  we probably would not have so many churches if there weren't.  How do you handle that?
 Second is where you have a plurality of religious faiths as is the fact of life in our country.  How do you ensure if you want that to do that that the right point of view prevails and which is the right point of view.

MR MESHOE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, in principle we agree, we've the need for tolerance in society.  In the home there needs to be tolerance for the home to function properly.  I society there needs to be tolerance but at the same time there is a need to look at how far one can use tolerance when it comes to things or issues that undermine the rule of law.  As an example, if there is a known rapist in the community and that rapist says you need to be tolerant of my presence.  Don't attack me or don't expose me, I'm your brother.  Although I'm a rapist I'm your brother.  Tolerate me as I am.  Now the victims would say this person has committed crimes.  Although we believe in tolerance this person must still appear before the law. So the issue of tolerance is a very broad one, I gave two sides to it but in principle I agree that in society there needs to be tolerance.
 Coming to different faiths and organisations, we agree again that all religions must tolerate one another.  And in promoting this tolerance, I do not understand that to mean that in the truth of what one's book is saying, in my instance of what the Bible says should not be undermined because I believe in tolerance.  I believe if we truly are tolerant of one anther, we should allow all faiths to teach what their doctrines are.  I must be allowed to teach what I teach and the person of another faith should be allowed to teach what they teach because we are tolerant of opposing opinions. 
 So in short, tolerance should not necessarily mean, do not teach what your book is saying or what your law is saying, those that are not comfortable with what is taught from a certain law book or certain bible or whatever religious book that is used, should tolerant towards those who are teaching that because it's found in the book.  
 Thank you.

MR GREEN: If I may add Chairperson.  Our understanding, particularly my understanding of the word and particularly the life of Jesus Christ, is that as a person He was a tolerant person, He tolerated persons, He was a person who moved among sinners, who spoke to prostitutes, who -  In other words He was a humble person and He tolerated the weaknesses of others.  But the one principle that I learned form the scripture is that He never compromised the word of God.  Now there's a difference between tolerance and compromise.  I can be tolerant without compromising my principles.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want, I mean I'm sure that there are very many wonderful insights.  One of the problems is that you will find that there are those who say, having gone to the same source propagate points of view that are diametrically opposed to one another, even from within the same faith community.  I don't need to remind you that apartheid was by certain justified biblically.  The same Bible that you have been using to uphold other teachings and that as you probably know, some of us walked the streets striving for justice arm in arm with people of other faiths against, if you like, fellow Christians.  When we were marching we were marching with Moslems and Hindu and Jews and others and the people often against whom we were marching said they had the same Bible that we were using but they were upholding those different points that you oppose, we oppose.