Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-10

MR VAN JAARSVELD READS STATEMENT INTO RECORD: ... van Jaarsveld became a victim of a gross violation of his human rights on 28th March 1979 when he, a respected and prominent historian, was tarred and feathered in front of an audience at the Senate Hall of Unisa.
	Eugene Terre'blanche who is applying for amnesty in terms of the abovementioned Act for this deed, has admitted freely to planning and executing the attack together with some of his colleagues in the AWB.
	We have decided as, not to formally oppose Mr Terre'blanche's application for amnesty and this decision has been made after lengthy consultations with our legal advisors and other interested parties.
	We have also come to the conclusion that the cross-examination of Mr Terre'blanche on the facts of the event and his reasons for planning and executing it, would not contribute him showing any remorse of the understanding of the affects of the deed but would merely serve to provide him with a political platform, a platform which he does not deserve, to further propagate to his pride and repulsive political ideologies.  We have however decided to place on record our disgust with that what Mr Terre'blanche stands for as well as what he has done in the past.
	In light of the nature of the violation of our father's human rights committed by Mr Terre'blanche, we can in no way support a finding that amnesty should be granted to him.  We do however feel that this decision should be left to the capable and experienced members of the Truth Commission Members, who we believe are more than qualified to achieve the purposes of the Act on the promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation.  One of the most important reasons for not supporting the application is that we are of the opinion that Mr Terreblanche's motive was not done with a political objective as much as it was done for publicity for his newly formed organisation.  The tarring and feathering incident was therefore rather a publicity stunt seeing that the organisation and its leader was at that stage still unknown.  This occurred at the expense of Professor van Jaarsveld, who overnight was transformed into a man who was looked upon with suspicion by his peers.
	I just want to add that, as Mr Terre'blanche alleges that my father was a member of the Broederbond, he was an enemy of the Broederbond and on various occasions he was quoted as having said that he was opposed to the Broederbond and showed his disgust in that organisation.  His actions were not as a result of the love for the Afrikaner people but it was a well planned and reckless deed by which various Afrikaans speakers were misled and led on a new Nazism false track with a total regard of freedom of speech.  It is also our opinion that at no time in his life my father could be labelled as an active supporter of the government of the day or any organisation left of the government at which Mr Terre'blanche's actions could possibly have been directed.
	Our father was essentially an historian.  He spent his days studying events of days gone by and from time to time he would transpose onto these events his own perspective and evaluation of history.  His viewpoint in 1979 on the Covenant of the Voortrekkers of Blood River should also be seen as a perspective in time.
	How the country has changed since, as well as the Afrikaner's perspective on the Day of the Covenant has ensured that my father was a pioneer.  This however, does not give Mr Terre'blanche, who is apparently unable to gain perspective on any situation the right to humiliate and belittle my father at a public conference in front of an audience of his academic peers.
	We do not believe that Mr Terre'blanche will realise the effect of his action on a man who was deeply rooted in the Afrikaner culture, who in fact lived and worked within the inner circles of the Afrikaner and then reached a stage in his life when he reflected and reconsidered some historical facts.  Mr Terre'blanche's deed effectively expelled my father from that same  community which he so dearly served.
	As regards my father's viewpoint on the Day of the Covenant, Mr Terre'blanche is still spreading lies.  It is clear that Professor van Jaarsveld took issue with legislation which effectively was forced upon South Africans other than Afrikaners, who felt themselves bound by the Covenant to celebrate the Day of the Covenant as a Sabbath, which legislation was enacted by the National Party in 1952.
	At that stage it was necessary to investigate this legislation seen in the light of the political changes which began to creep into the country.  It is clear that he does not want to or cannot understand the information in that paper.  Not all the facts surrounding the tarring and feathering incident are known, these include:
	No 1:   The financial loss suffered by Professor van Jaarsveld because of Afrikaans publishers like Perskor turning their backs on him after the tarring and feathering incident.  This was evident in their removing his popular and well known history text books from the market.
	In the second place, after the incident, Professor van Jaarsveld went into isolation.  Invitations to act as guest speaker dried up, while for more than a decade he was ignored by the SABC where previously he regularly participated in radio programmes, etc.
	Point 3:   A visit by the Security Police in 1980, to investigate a course regarding the history of communism in South Africa, is a clear proof that he was also a suspect in the government.
	Point 4:   Directly after the tarring and feathering incident as well as during the criminal case during which the AWB leader and supporters stood on charges, Professor van Jaarsveld was threatened with anonymous telephone calls, hate mail became part of his every day life.
	Shortly after Mr Terre'blanche and others were found guilty, there was an attempt made on his life and he was shot at with a crossbow.  A telephone call made to Mrs van Jaarsveld, in which she was told that if he did not keep his mouth shut the next crossbow arrow would be through his son's heart.  On occasion a huge stone was thrown through his window of his study.
	Point 5:   This incident made world headlines and the name of Afrikaans-speaking people was damaged further.  This contributed to the perception that Afrikaans-speaking people are violent racists.  Since this incident Terre'blanche has never expressed his sympathy and his pities and he keeps on defending it and we would like to point out the next aspects of his past.
	On the 29th of June 1979 he was convicted regarding this tarring and feathering incident on malicious damage to property.  In June 1976 he was found guilty of assault and attempted murder of a black man and sentenced to six years imprisonment.  It is clear after this incident, the last incident in September of 1997 that he submitted his application for amnesty.
	It is therefore clear that Mr Terre'blanche's attempt to wipe his slate clean is not an attempt to let the truth be known and to part with his violent ways of the past.  It is much more likely though that this application for amnesty is an attempt to save his own skin from a six year jail sentence after his violent assault on a black man who was left with permanent brain damage.
	Whether Mr Terre'blanche is granted amnesty or not, it will make no difference to the damage that has already been caused.  The pain which he has inflicted will stick to him as the tar had stuck to Professor van Jaarsveld until his death.  There is no place for Terre'blanche in the new South Africa and the community and society must be protected against people like him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Jaarsveld.  Mr Terre'blanche?