Heldeverering van Tsafendas ’n gevaarlike speletjie in ’n erg verdeelde land | LitNet
Gustaf Pienaar Menings 2019-04-04
Die bronne van die foto's van Demetrio Tsafendas en Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd is onderskeidelik https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AAer:DemetrioTsafendasfoto.jpg en https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%AAer:Dr_HF_Verwoerd.jpg. Albei foto's is in Suid-Afrika geskep en is nou in die publieke domein aangesien die kopieregtermyn daarvan verstreke is.
Ter agtergrond: lees Gustaf Pienaar se indrukke van Dousemetzis se boek en Dousemetzis se repliek op Pienaar se indrukke.
Ek glo nie Max du Preez [sien Max du Preez se kommentaar onderaan hierdie bydrae - LitNet] of enige redelike mens sal van my verwag om volledig op dr Dousemetzis (hierna “D”) se repliek op my lesersindruk te reageer nie. Dit ontaard nou in ’n steriele “Is. Is nie”-debat.
’n Leser van D se boek het ’n keuse: Enersyds kan hy/sy die uitkoms van die destydse ondersoek (nie ’n “trial” nie) voor regter-president Beyers aanvaar: Tsafendas was geestesversteurd; dus ontoerekeningsvatbaar en – soos dit in ’n beskaafde regstelsel hoort – ongeskik bevind om weens sy aanslag op dr Verwoerd vervolg te word. Vir so ’n mens het ek empatie. Immers: “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”
Andersyds kan D se teorie aanvaar word: Tsafendas was toe mooitjies hééltyd ’n volkome rasionele en koelbloedige moordenaar. Dié teorie se swak plek is dat dit grotendeels berus op Tsafendas se beweerde “selfdiagnose”, sielkundiges en psigiaters wat die pasiënt nooit persoonlik waargeneem het nie, en ook – en veral – hoorsê-mededelings deur mense wat vergete jare gelede vir Tsafendas geken het.
Sulke “getuienis” is kragtens die hoorsê-reël van die bewysreg ontoelaatbaar, maar dit lyk nie of D – of Max du Preez – dít begryp nie. (Of meen hulle regter Beyers se uitspraak kan gewoon met ’n administratiewe tjap ter syde gestel word?)
Die sentrale tema van D se boek is dat die ondersoek voor Beyers ’n “Soviet style show trial” was, want die “waarheid” oor Tsafendas se rasionaliteit en sy kommunistiese bande is in ’n reuse-“cover-up” (D se woordkeuse) van die publiek weggehou.
As jy in die regsaard van die ondersoek voor Beyers belangstel, lees my lesersindruk van D se boek op LitNet [skakel] en die artikel wat vroeër in Die Burger verskyn het – die verwysing is in die LitNet-artikel. Kortom: Kragtens die M’Naghten-reëls van die strafprosesreg – waaraan regter Beyers, die staat en die verdediging tydens die ondersoek gebonde was – was Tsafendas se politieke, morele en godsdienstige oortuigings volkome irrelevant by die ondersoek na sy toerekeningsvatbaarheid.
Wat meer is: die bewyslas wat op Tsafendas se regspan gerus het, is die “ligte” sivielregtelike oorwig van waarskynlikhede. Die regter het hom dus die voordeel van die twyfel gegee. Die alternatief was ’n skuldigbevinding aan moord – en die galg.
Klaarblyklik begryp D en sy pryssangers ook nie dáárdie sleutelaspek van die strafprosesreg soos dit in 1966 daar uitgesien het nie. Dit is trouens stééds die geldende reg.
Die feit dat Tsafendas deur ’n hof as geestesversteurd verklaar is, verklaar ook die daaropvolgende verrigtinge voor die Van Wyk-kommissie van ondersoek na die sluipmoord. Ook dáár was sy beweerde kommunistiese verbintenisse irrelevant, want hoe kan jy enige politieke, godsdienstige of morele oortuigings betroubaar aan ’n geestesversteurde toedig? Dis nie my persoonlike mening nie; dis wat die regsposisie is. (Maar hou hierdie spasie dop: nou gaan dit weer wemel van skimpe dat daar ’n samespanning tussen die ondersoek voor regter Beyers en die Van Wyk-kommissie was …
Dit is merkwaardig dat die gehate apartheidstaat álle getuienis – of dit nou relevant was of nie – in sy argief laat opneem het. As dit werklik so ’n reuse-“cover-up” was, sou die “kriminele apartheidstaat” (D se tiperings) sulke bewyse mos vernietig het, nie waar nie?
D roem daarop dat ’n span gerekende regslui hom ondersteun. Ek het vantevore na hulle as die “usual suspects” verwys, omdat hulle sonder uitsondering ver links en/of selferkende kommuniste is. Om ’n juigkommando vír of téén enige saak op die been te bring is geen kuns nie: Ek sou voor brekfis môreoggend ’n span van vyf gerekende regslui met die hand kon uitsoek wat D se opportunistiese petisie na die Minister van Justisie sou téénstaan.
D wil Tsafendas tot die heldedom verhef. Hy moet egter versigtig wees vir wat hy wens. As dit oplaas sou blyk dat Tsafendas inderdaad ’n rasionele kommunis was, is die resultaat – soos Leopold Scholtz daarop wys – dat hy dan ’n koelbloedige moordenaar was. Dit sal hom tuisbring tussen sulke historiese uitvaagsels soos Gavrilo Princip, John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald – en ja, Clive Derby-Lewis en Janusz Walus.
Om Tsafendas uit dáárdie modderkuil te kry moet D sy slagoffer – Hendrik Verwoerd – sover as moontlik demoniseer. Maar dan het hy nie die objektiewe geskiedenis aan sy kant nie.
Om Tsafendas tot die heldedom te verhef sal érg omstrede wees. Ek kan my voorstel dat ultraregses dan op hul beurt stappe sal doen om Walus en Derby-Lewis as helde erken te kry. Die kommunisme – waarvan Hani die Suid-Afrikaanse leier was – het immers dwarsoor die wêreld matelose menslike leed veroorsaak. Wat getalle betref, is miljoene méér mense deur kommuniste vermoor as wat die Nazi’s kon regkry.
Op dié punt: Ek vind dit pikant dat D een aspek van my lesersindruk totaal ignoreer – my vermoede dat hy met hierdie boek probeer om ’n Grieks-kommunistiese agenda te bevorder. Die kommunisme, het ek geargumenteer, het eintlik bitter min gedurende sy ganse bestaan in Suid-Afrika vermag. Hierdie stuiptrekkende beweging kan dus baat vind by ’n amptelike erkenning dat Verwoerd deur ’n rasionele kommunis uit die weg geruim is. D ontken dit nie.
D is met sy heldeverering van Tsafendas besig met ’n gevaarlike speletjie in ’n reeds erg verdeelde land. Die heftige reaksie op die onlangse oningeligte opmerkings van Jacob Rees-Mogg oor die konsentrasiekampe behoort vir ’n mens te wys hóé omsigtig daar met die geskiedenis omgegaan moet word. Ons het nie nóg ’n buitelander nodig om vir ons te kom vertel hoe ons ons geskiedenis moet verstaan nie.
Op ’n persoonlike noot: D spel my naam op die Duitse manier – met ’n “v”. Aangesien hy neig om Afrikaners wat net effense Duitse verbintenisse het met ’n Nazi-kwas te smeer, haas ek my om daarop te wys dat my naam eintlik met ’n “f” gespel word. Dit verraai die Sweedse herkoms van my liefling-oupa, Charles Alfred Gustafson, na wie ek vernoem is.
Ten slotte: D het my ingelig dat hy LitNet versoek het om die volgende sin uit sy repliek te verwyder: “Mr Pienaar admits that Verwoerd was a member of the pro-Nazi Ossewabrandwag (OB), but attempts to downplay this by referring to JJJ Scholtz’s hagiography of Verwoerd, which whitewashes his involvement with the pro-Nazi group.”
D erken dat dit onwaar is, en dat Verwoerd nóóit ’n lid van die OB was nie. Die sin was die skepping van sy mede-outeur, mnr Loughran, wat op ’n foutiewe vertaling (hy gebruik Google Scholar, nogal!) staatgemaak het.
D het hoflik teenoor my apologie aangeteken vir sy mede-outeur se lagwekkende mistasting met die vertaling van my lesersindruk. Ek waardeer dit, maar (en nou terg ek ’n bietije): Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes – “Ek vrees Grieke wat geskenke aandra …” – die Latynse digter Virgilius se beroemde woorde in sy epiese gedig oor die Trojaan Aeneas.
Harris Dousemetzis se omstrede biografie oor Tsafendas: nóg ’n leser se indrukke
Prof W J Verwoerd
2019-04-04 at 11:06
2019-04-04 at 16:30
Max du Preez gaan seker weer 'n eiertjie hieroor lê - en, dit, soos gewoonlik, op 'n taamlik beledigende manier. Hy sal egter moeilik by vriend Gustaf se ystersterk logika en regskennis verbykom. Douzemetsis laat hom in sy artikels duidelik deur sy Marxistiese benadering lei. Maar dit, aldus Max, mag nie uitgewys word nie.
Baie na hierdie repliek uitgesien. Nie teleurgesteld nie. Dankie, Gustaf met die "f"
2019-04-04 at 17:52
Ek het nog nie die boek gelees nie. Ek wil my nie uitlaat oor die wetlike en morele aspekte van die daad of regspleging daarna nie. Wat vrae by my laat ontstaan is, hoe kon 'n buitelander, erkende kommunis werk in die hoogste gesag van die land kry? Tsafendas was nie 'n RSA-burger nie. Enige persoon wat in die staatsdiens wou werk moes 'n RSA-burger wees. Wie het die magtiging gegee dat die ongewenste persoon die werk kry? Ek verontskuldig nie die man nie, maar daar is te veel onbeantwoorde vrae. Wat Britte se kommentare en opinies van die land betref, negeer ek alles in elk geval tot snert.
2019-04-05 at 12:26
Jou vrae is reeds in Desember 1966 beantwoord in die tweetalige "Verslag van die Kommissie van Ondersoek na die omstandighede van die dood van wyle Sy Edele Dr. Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd",R.P. 16/1967. (ook bekend as die van Wyk verslag, onderteken deur Appelregter J T van Wyk) wat beskikbaar behoort te wees in enige universiteitsbiblioteek onder staatspublikasies, of ook op die internet. Dousemetzis probeer tevergeefs om die verslag te diskrediteer.
1.	Mr. Pienaar, my sincere apologies for misspelling your first name, it won’t happen again. As for the rest of your comments; what a complete nonsense!
2.	Could you please tell me who did I smear being pro-Nazi? It is an undisputable fact and there is unquestionable evidence that those you are defending were pro-Nazi. If I smeared them, why don’t you take me to the court? I challenge you to do this if you dare and if I lose I will publicly apologise to you and go back to England by walking. Before you do this however, please have a look at a United Nations’ 1976 report entitled “Relations between Nazi Germany and South Africa;” the names and pro-Nazi activities of Verwoerd and Vorster feature prominently there. There are also several New York Times articles from that refer to Verwoerd and Vorster being pro-Nazi. Did the United Nations and the New York Times smear them? Of course there are thousands of other reputable and academic publications that make similar claims. Why don’t you or others like-minded take the New York Times and the United Nations and everyone else to the court for slander if they have smeared your pro-Nazi heroes?
Have you also heard the “Hitler, Himmler, Hendrik [meaning Verwoerd]” slogan? According to the New York Times (5 September 1959: 2, “South Africans class”) it was a slogan written in placards carried by university students in Durban protesting a Verwoerd speech in the City Hall on September 4, 1959. I have not included this information and several others like this in the book, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to bring it up. The truth is though that whether the apartheid leaders were pro-Nazi or not is not really relevant; their actions and their crimes cannot be contested no matter how hard you and other apartheid defenders try. In today’s legal language the apartheid leaders would have been accused of committing a crime against humanity, because in 1973 the United Nations promoted the UN convention on the prohibition of the crime of apartheid. So apartheid was defined as a crime against humanity in 1973. And clearly, Verwoerd, Vorster etc, would have been categorised as criminals, so if they had been brought before the International Court of Justice, they would have been charged with a crime against humanity, they would have been sentenced and they would have spent the rest of their lives in a prison cell in The Hague.
I’ve also read your article about Oswald Pirow where you presented him as a charming person, without of course revealing that he was also a Nazi supporter, very close to a number of important German Nazis before the WWII, and that he even sent his daughter to a Nazi youth camp (Furlong, P.J. (2010) “The National Party of South Africa: A Transnational Perspective.” In Durham, M., Power, M. (eds.) (2010) New Perspectives on the Transnational Right. Palgrave Macmillan. pp: 70).
3.	In your new article, and after I broke down to pieces your ridicules arguments, you raised a populist subject in order to find some support for your cause and to deviate the attention from your previous failure, referring to the dangers of worshiping Tsafendas. First of all, although I admit that I consider Tsafendas to be a hero of the anti-apartheid struggle, this is not an attempt to worship Tsafendas, but to tell the truth about him. You seem terrified to the thought that Tsafendas might be seen as a hero in the eyes of the people and you refer to South Africa as being a divided country. I don’t think South Africa is divided, at least the way you seem to mean it; the only people in South Africa who are divided with the rest of the country are a very tiny minority of apartheid dinosaurs, who refuse to acknowledge the crimes of the past, they insist defending them and cannot understand the values of democracy, human rights and justice. It is just you and the apartheid dinosaurs Mr Pienaar who are divided from the rest of the country; fortunately the vast majority of the country, including the whites, is not like you and it has embraced the new democratic South Africa. Fortunately, you and the apartheid dinosaurs, are a kind that sooner or later will extinct (I mean because you are all over 50-60 years old), and then South Africa would be a better place for everyone.
Going back to Tsafendas being a hero, nobody can force anyone accept someone as a hero; whether Tsafendas is a hero or not, and I make this clear to the book, depends on someone’s religious and moral values and whether someone agrees that the killing of a dictator or of a tyrant is justifiable (Verwoerd obviously was both). What is absolutely ridiculous and shocking is that you are comparing and equating Tsafendas to Janusz Walus and Clive Derby-Lewis among others! This is absolutely absurd and I am really astonished with your ignorance (to put it charitably). I can only think that either your knowledge of political sciences or that your intelligence is limited, or that you are so deeply deluded about apartheid that you cannot see beyond your nose. It is like comparing the violence of the Umkhonto we Sizwe with the violence of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, or this of the French resistance during the WWII with the violence of the SS. Have you heard of the term “state terrorism” and “resistance or freedom fighters”? Do you know the difference? I doubt it; for you it seems that all violence is the same. Have you heard of Jozef Gabcik and Jan Kubis who executed Reinhard Heydrich? Or of Walter Audisio who executed Mussloni? These acts, like Tsafendas’s, were acts of resistance against an oppressor. You can still dispute whether they were justifiable since they killed someone, but these were completely different types of violence than of Walus’s or of this of the apartheid assassins. Chris Hani was neither a dictator not a tyrant; his assassination, as well as those committed by apartheid assassins, were acts of state terrorism in a desperate attempt of the apartheid regime to maintain an oppressive rule. If you do not understand the difference between state terrorism and freedom fighting, well …
And by the way, in Czech Republic there are statues of Gabcik and Kubis, while in Greece several streets and a metro station are named after Alexandros Panagoulis, a man who attempted to assassinate a Greek dictator in 1968. The list of people who executed a tyrant or a dictator and were then recognized as heroes is endless.
4.	You said that all the jurists involved are far-leftists or communists and that is why they agree with my conclusions. You are 100% wrong and some of them are neither. Furthermore, apart from the five jurists I collaborated, in 2016, I offered the evidence for evaluation to three other judges and none of them is a communist as far as I know: Albie Sachs, Gerald Friedman (Judge President of the Cape High Court) and Robin Marais (who was also Judge Beyers's registrar); they all said that evaluating all the evidence I had in my possession was a massive job so they very kindly said no; nevertheless, they have all offered their opinions on a few matters and I have included them in my report to the Minister, but not in the book. Furthermore, on April 2016, Judge Friedman spent four hours in his house with me discussing the case, going through the evidence and offering his opinion. I was so certain for the evidence and my conclusions, and I still am, that I would have given them for evaluation to any subjective jurist. I am sure you can find five jurists who will contest the evidence, but they must be either blind or biased. You are also one of the very few people in South Africa that would question the integrity of the five jurists who collaborated with me; I think I should make them aware of your comments about them and see what they say. I also think you should read my report to the Minister; you will learn something about apartheid and how it operated because it seems that you are deeply deluded by it. If you think you can contest it, you can give it along with the evidence to any jurist you like.
5.	You are talking again about those who examined Tsafendas at the time and you insist that their diagnosis was accurate, even when three of these people have expressed their doubts! It is absolutely unbelievable! So, basically you are telling those who examined Tsafendas that they were correct with their diagnosis in the first place, even though when they themselves admit that a lot of things were not quite right. It is so unbelievable that I am wondering if it is your English that is limited or your intelligence (again probably both), as you seem to have missed the part in the book where Mr, Van Zyl, the psychologist who examined Tsafendas on behalf of the defense, admitted to me that his diagnosis would have been different if he had in his possession at the time the evidence that the police had collected. These were not hearsay, these were statements by people who knew Tsafendas and they were describing him as a completely different person as to the one who appeared in front of him. Tsafendas was described in the court as a man unable to follow a conversation after fifteen minutes, to function at a reasonable level who was also talking at a disjointed manner; nevertheless, none of the about 200 witnesses who were questioned at the time by the SA police and the Commission noticed any of these. Neither did one of the tens of students and colleagues Tsafendas had while working for six months as a teacher of English at the most prestigious and exclusive private language college in Istanbul in 1961. Van Zyl also told me and it is in the book “Yes. Look, obviously that is important information, and information that influences one’s findings in the end. There is no doubt about it.” it seems that you also missed the part that both Van Zyl and Dr. Sakinofsky (one of the psychiatrists who examined Tsafendas at the time) admitted to me that the way they examined Tsafendas was not ideal and that their diagnosis would have held no much weight in any civilized court today. You also missed the part about Dr. Cooper, the other psychiatrist who examined Tsafendas, admitting that he had several misgivings about the case etc. You also missed the part where Van Zyl, as well all the other psychiatrists I consulted, admitted that Tsafendas’s medical history is not compatible with what was heard in the court (for example that he appeared to have three completely different illusions within a year!). You also missed the part that the police at the time was aware that Tsafendas had twice pretended to be mad in the past and while he was in detention, but they did not give this information to those who examined Tsafendas; someone must be very dumb to not realize the importance of this information and the necessity to give it to the doctors who examined Tsafendas. For the last time, there isn’t any “hearsay” evidence Mr. Pienaar, the evidence is statements of people who knew Tsafendas and they were taken by the apartheid police immediately after the assassination.
6.	Although it is your right and I understand it, I personally think you are deluded to think that you understand the criminal law better than George Bizos, John Dugard, Krish Govender, Dumisa Ntsebeza and Zak Yacoob. Although you are right and this was not a trial, but an examination to see whether Tsafendas was fit to stand trial, Tsafendas’s political activism and ideas were very important. Although you have read the book, it seems that you have lost the plot. The judge asked all those who examined Tsafendas to tell him what his motive was for killing Verwoerd. All the witnesses said that Tsafendas was not able to give them a logical answer, that he was also unable to describe his movements prior to the assassination and that he had no political interests whatsoever. However, Tsafendas had given clear and logical political reasons for killing Verwoerd to the police and had described in perfect detail his movement prior to the assassination, while the police was aware that he had a long history of political activism. Now, in any civilized and independent court when the public prosecutor hears the psychiatrist saying all this which contradict the evidence that he himself has in his possession about the accused, the logical thing to do is to challenge the witness; thus, the prosecutor should have said “wait a moment, you said that he did not give you any motive, but I have two statements here in my possession, taken by the police while the accused was in custody, where he had given a political motive etc.”
Because I think I am not sure you understand what has happened, I will explain it to you with an example. Let’s say that one day you, Gustaf Pienaar, kill a Communist (remember it is only an example). The police would then question your friends and they would all say that you were fanatic anti-communist and a passionate supporter of apartheid. The police questions 200 people and they all say the same thing, while they all also say that you are perfectly sane. Then, during your summary trial, a psychiatrist who examined you says “Mr Pienaar is a schizophrenic. He told me that he killed the man because an elephant that was flying over his head told him to do it because it would be good for the communist cause. I have not been able to have a proper conversation with him because he talks in a disjointed manner, he is unable to follow a conversation and his answers are irrelevant to my question. He talks constantly to me and to everyone else who examined him about this elephant that he has been seeing since he was five years old.” Now, all your friends would understand that you adopted such stance in order to save yourself. However, the public prosecutor, who is in possession of all the evidence gathered by the police regarding your character, should challenge the witness by producing the evidence in his possession which show a completely different person to the one described by the witness; someone with different ideology, while none of the witnesses have spotted any of the symptoms noted by the psychiatrist. If he won’t do it, this means that he is either incompetent or that he covers up the case. This is exactly what happened with Tsafendas. I am very sorry, but I can’t explain it in a simpler way, if you are still struggling, I suggest you ask someone else to explain it to you.
7.	In one of your comments, that you have now deleted, you defended again apartheid’s legal’s system as fair etc. I am really, really shocked that in 2019 and after the dismissal and overturning of the findings of so many of apartheid’s Commissions of Inquiries (Sharpeville, Soweto, Langa etc) and Inquests (Biko, Timol etc) there is still someone who can defend apartheid’s legal system! I suppose you consider the overturning of Timol’s initial inquest and of all the other cases as miscarriages of justice or results of communist judges. If you do write a book about it, as you said, please send me a copy and I will write a review.
8.	In addition, you are wondering why the apartheid regime did not destroy the evidence regarding Tsafendas; they did destroy a large amount of evidence; for example the interrogation transcript from Tsafendas’s first interrogation by General van den Bergh has disappeared, as well as the two statements he gave to the Commission of Enquiry. The statements of 34 sailors from the Eleni tanker have also disappeared; only four can be found in the archives, when I have personal statements from 16 sailors stating that they were all (38 of them) questioned at the time by the apartheid police in Venice. The statements of these sailors were of major importance because they revealed what happened in the Eleni three days before the assassination, however, they have disappeared from the archives. Furthermore, the vast majority of the documents found about Tsafendas in the archives come from the Commission of Enquiry records and from PIDE, not from police records; however, despite the omissions, they are enough to reveal the truth about Tsafendas. As for the apartheid police destroying evidence, General Johan van der Merwe, Former Head of the Apartheid Security Police and Chief of Police, and Paul Erasmus, former Security Branch policeman, both admitted it on camera when interviewed by Liza Key. Erasmus said:
“In 89/90 the main filing system at John Vorster Square as I mentioned was destroyed. It took days, if not weeks. The filing system was sanitized but some of it remained intact. Probably ninety percent was gutted out by hard labour prisoners were brought in from Johannesburg prison. They parked the trucks in the Security Branch basement and the documents went … hundreds of thousands of files, sub files, all top secret. Secret or top secret files went to the Police Sports grounds at Arthur Bloch Park and were burnt with government diesel. They [the docs] were burnt next to the rugby which took days. Tons and tons of documents. The reason that so much documentation existed was - apart from an obsession to document everything - we didn’t have computers. One can only imagine the fear of these documents becoming public, because it wasn’t only what was happening on the one side, this was a record of what was happening on the other side.”
Asked by Liza Key “who gave the order for the destruction of files?” General van der Merwe replied, “That order actually came from the Minister Adriaan Vlok. He was not a Minister at that time. It was Heunis Kriel who was Minister at that time. Heunis Kriel last Minister of Law and Order.”
9.	Through your article I learnt that you received my email. I had the decency to send you an email acknowledging a mistake that was not even done by me. You did not have the decency to even reply in it. What is quite indecent though, even for the standards of an apartheid defender, is the manipulative and disgusting way you have used this incident. First, you have publicized contents of an email that was sent to you without the consent of the sender. Secondly, and more importantly, you have manipulated what I told you and that you have given an inaccurate picture of what happened in order to question my creditability with a mistake. I indeed wrote to you that the sentence about Dr Verwoerd and the OB was inaccurate and that it was a mistake made by my friend who edited the piece. However, you have attributed the mistake to Google scholar when this is not accurate. I told you clearly that in the original sentence I was referring to Mrs Verwoerd being a member of the OB etc and not Dr Verwoerd. My friend who edited the piece removed the word Mrs and this made the sentence inaccurate (the original sentence was “Mrs Verwoerd was a member of the pro-Nazi Ossewabrandwag …). Thus, the source of the major mistake was the removal of the word Mrs, but you failed to mention this because I presume you did not want to reveal Mrs Verwoerd’s membership with the Nazi organization, but also because it sounds better to say that the mistake was because of inadequate translation than because of the simple removal of one word. Really very low of you Mr Pienaar. I thought that instead of putting back the Mrs to remove the sentence all together as Mrs Verwoerd had no involvement in our argument; thanks to Mr Pienaar now though our audience knows that she was a member of the pro-Nazi organization. Also for the record, I had Mr Pienaar’s article translated by a friend of mine whose Afrikaans is his first language; my friend used Google translator, not me.
10.	I fail to see the relevance of your comment about Greeks bearing gifts as I haven’t given you any gift and certainly my email was not such.
Finally, I will leave you with some comments regarding Tsafendas’s ability to pretend that he was mad. Judge Jacques Theodore van Wyk, a racist and devoted supporter of apartheid, whom you praised, wrote in his Report of the Commission of Enquiry into Verwoerd’s assassination that Tsafendas is
“quite knowledgeable about mental disorders … and therefore [the Commission] adopted a somewhat sceptical attitude towards him. It is clear that his word cannot be relied upon, and that he is sufficiently intelligent to put on a fairly good act... (Chapter II D, Paragraph 18).”
Finally, Tsafendas’s file at the Prison Service, File: A5078, described him as, “A person of Colour, an extremely resourceful and cunning individual who is physically and mentally able to plan and execute escape.” Hardly the description of a man unable to function at a reasonable level and unable to sufficiently care for himself as it was stated in the court.
2019-04-05 at 14:07
Ek het selde 'n stuk gelees waar iemand se Marxistiese onderrok en sy totale onbegrip so duidelik uithang. Dit nog behalwe sy matelose arrogansie en beledigings. Nou ja, Dousemetzis het hom hiermee opgehang. Ek skryf hom af; 'n rasionele gesprek met hom is klaarblyklik onmoontlik.
2019-04-06 at 09:43
Prof Verwoerd, ja, die vraag kom by my op wat die aanhanger van Tsafendas eintlik probeer bereik met sy boek. Wat my kwel is daar is "verslae" en verslae. Die werklike motief van die moord sal ook seker nooit opgeklaar word nie. Daar is in die land meer politieke moorde gepleeg as wat ons van bewus is. Daar word nog steeds in vandag se tye politieke moorde gepleeg maar nie aan die groot klok gehang nie. In dieselfde asem vra ek ook wat het van die Robert Smit-moorddossier geword?
2019-04-06 at 18:17
Hoekom is nie een NP leier voor die hof in Den Haag gedaag oor ‘n misdaad teen die mensdom nie? (Gaan ook asseblief die lande wat daarvoor gestem het se menseregterekords op daardie tyd na - China, Rusland, Indië en lande in die Midde-Ooste.)De Klerk het tot Mandela se groot misnoë saam met hom eerder die Nobelprys gekry.
2019-04-08 at 12:11
Ek het nie die kennis om oor die Grieke se geskiedenis myself uit te spreek nie. Ek kan my slegs op hedendaagse ondervinding en waarneming oor die "ou volke" uitspreek. Wonder wat soek die Tsafendas skrywer nou eintlik met sy boek? Ek sou dink hy is as 'n geleerde man darem bietjie wys/slim ook, maar helaas hy het my nie verbaas nie. Ek dink hy soek seker bietjie aandag. Dit daar gelaat. Daar is sekere van die ou volke wat indien daar weer 'n oorlog sou uitbreek is dit beter om teen as saam met mense soos hy te veg. Die negatiewe van die boek is daar is mense wat die snert koop en as evangelie aanvaar. Mnr Pienaar die man gaan jou aanhou pla. 'n Dom persoon is erg, maar 'n domastrante is veel erger. Ek gaan my ook nie verwerdig om die boek te lees nie.
2019-04-08 at 13:16
Sjoe! Dinge raak nou rof. Ons bevind ons in die middel van ‘n Griekse tragedie.
Doktor Dousemetzis (“D”) het sy tirade hier bo voorafgegaan met ‘n persoonlike e-pos-brief aan my uit Engeland waarin hy my dreig en beledig. Onderaan sy ongure brief verbied hy my om dit met enigiemand te deel: “The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message (sic) only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender.”
Interessante regsvrae kom by my op: Kan iemand privilegie vir ‘n brief wat in ‘n vreemde jurisdiksie, soos Engeland, geskryf is, opeis en dit dan in die land van die ontvanger (in dié geval Suid-Afrika) regtens afdwing? Indien wel, op welke gronde?
Wat meer is: Mag die skrywer van ‘n ongure brief ‘n beperking plaas op die onwillige ontvanger se reg op spraakvryheid?
As iemand weet, vertel tog asseblief – sodat ons álmal kan weet.
Nietemin: ek waag dit tog om – danksy my reg op spraakvryheid – uit te lap dat D my as ‘n “beklaenswaardige ou man” (my parafrase van sy woorde) bestempel het.
Dit staan hom natuurlik vry om self die inhoud van sy brief aan LitNet-lesers te openbaar. Daarvoor het hy my toestemming.
D is reg: ek kon sy pa gewees het. Daarom neem ek die vrymoedigheid om vir hom twee brokkies vaderlike advies te gee.
Die eerste is: Die gevierde Afrikaanse skrywer CJ Langenhoven het gesê jy moet nie die kwaai brief wat jy vandag skryf, vandag pos nie. As jy dié reël nie nakom nie, eindig jou brief – of wat ook al jy skryf – dikwels in ‘n onsamehangende, irrelevante, ideologies-skeefgetrekte en beledigende ramp, soos wat hier bo te lese is. (Dit is op LitNet geplaas slegs enkele ure nadat my stuk eweneens geplaas is.)
Die tweede brokkie advies is: D moet tog maar seker maak dat hy van betroubare vertalings van Afrikaanse tekste gebruik maak. Dit was duidelik nie die geval met die vertaling van my antwoord op sy repliek nie: Ek word menings toegedig waarvoor daar géén gronde in my teks is nie. Daarom verwys ek na die tirade hier bo as ‘n “ramp”.
Hier is die kern van alles: Stééds ontken D nie my stelling dat hy met sy veldtog rondom Tsafendas ‘n Grieks-Kommunistiese agenda probeer bevorder nie. Wat D wél oplaas erken is dat sy boek gebore is uit ‘n onvermengde – en langstaande – bewondering vir Tsafendas. Dit is sy goeie reg, maar daarmee trek hy nou self ‘n streep deur enige aanspraak op wetenskaplikheid: dié boek is toe mooitjies heeltyd ‘n hagiografie.
As D ‘n ruimte vir ‘n rasionele gesprek tussen ons wil skep, sal hy eers – sonder voorbehoud – moet erken dat die kommunisme se wêreldwye nalatenskap net so verwerplik is as dié van die walglike Nazisme. Sonder so ‘n erkenning het ek en hy regtig niks vir mekaar te sê nie.
O ja, Oswald Pirow: Kwit, ek het al vergeet dat ek jare gelede in Regsalmanak vir LitNet oor dié kleurryke politikus – en skerpsinnige senior advokaat (my eintlike belangstelling) – geskryf het. My bron was ‘n reeks artikels in die South African Law Journal (SALJ) deur die gevierde regsproffie van Wits – wat apartheid vurig teengestaan het – Ellison Kahn. Dit is later gebundel in sy kostelike boek Law, life and laughter (Juta, 1991).
Hoewel Joods, het Kahn (soos ek) dit óók nie nodig geag om hoegenaamd by Pirow se Nazi-verbintenis stil te staan nie, want dit was per slot van rekening volkome buite konteks.
Die skakel na my stukkie waarin ek – volgens D – Pirow toentertyd sou “verheerlik” het, is: https://www.litnet.co.za/advokaat-oswald-pirow.
Die leser sal sien dat die kern daarvan enkele komiese insidente is waarby Pirow betrokke was. (D het klaarblyklik géén begrip vir satire in ‘n teks nie, anders sou hy dit raakgesien het in my teks waarop hy hier bo so met heilige verontwaardiging antwoord.)
In Arthur Barlow (die destydse Arbeider-parlementariër, joernalis en sakeman) se semi-outobiografie, Almost in Confidence (Juta, 1952) lees ek dat Pirow vir hom vertel het dat hy kort voor die uitbreek van die Tweede Wêreldoorlog ‘n amptelike reis (in sy hoedanigheid as minister in die Hertzog-kabinet) na Europa onderneem het.
Pirow het verskeie Europese leiers ontmoet – en, ja, Hitler twéé keer aangedoen. Met sy tweede besoek het daar ‘n ernstige meningsverskil tussen hom en Hitler ontstaan. Hitler het op Pirow begin skree. Barlow vertel: “Pirow shouted back. Immediately the door opened and one of the staff was abruptly told by the Fuehrer: ’Show Herr Pirow out!’” (Op cit, bl 298).
Dat die Duits-gebore Pirow Nazisme vurig ondersteun het, is natuurlik waar. Dit strek egter tot die eer van Afrikanerleiers soos DF Malan en JG Strijdom dat hulle hul polities volledig van Pirow gedistansieer het; hulle wou níks met hom te make hê nie.
Nou gaan D ongetwyfeld weer oor Barlow ‘n snuffeltog onderneem. Ek sal hom die moeite spaar: Barlow was die vader van Joyce Waring, eggenote van minister Frank Waring, wat een van die mense was wat ‘n waansinnige Tsafendas van Verwoerd afgepluk het.
Joyce het daarna ‘n venynige koerantartikel oor parlementariërs wat Verwoerd geopponeer het geskryf. Die speaker van die gehate apartheidsparlement het terstond ‘n komitee aangestel om ondersoek in te stel of Joyce nie parlementêre privilegie met haar artikel geskend het nie.
Dit is soos dit hoort in ’n beskaafde parlement. (Onder die hedendaagse ANC-bewind is “beskaafde standaarde” in die Nasionale Vergadering egter ‘n skaars kommoditeit.)
Die komitee van die apartheidsparlement het egter – tereg – besluit dat Joyce nie parlementêre privilegie geskend het nie, want sy was immers nie ‘n parlementslid nie. As sy egter ‘n parlementêre verslaggewer was, sou sy sonder twyfel haar akkreditasie verbeur het.
Lang storie kort: Haar koerantartikel het haar oplaas tóg voor ‘n apartheidshof laat beland. Dit was ‘n lastergeding. Die eerbiedwaardige regter Victor Hiemstra (skrywer van ‘n baanbrekerswerk oor die strafprosesreg) het téén Joyce – ministersvrou of nie – beslis.
D kan gerus dié en soortgelyke uitsprake gaan lees; hy sal hopelik daarin agterkom dat wat hy hier bo oor laster kwytraak, louter snert is. Miskien ontdek hy ook dat die Suid-Afrikaanse howe hul nie naastenby slegs met die vergoeiliking van apartheid (D se woorde) bemoei het nie. Selfs gedurende apartheid is ons rykgeskakeerde Romeins-Hollandse regserfenis uitgebou en verfyn deur van die skerpsinnigste regsbreine wat ooit op Suid-Afrikaanse regbanke gesit het. Daardie beginsels – op ontelbaar baie terreine van die reg – geld nou nog as die fondament van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg.
Ek het egter ‘n spesmaas dié insig sal D se begripsvermoë te bowe gaan; die grootste leemte in sy skryfwerk is immers sy onkunde van die reg. Hier is nóg ‘n brokkie vaderlike advies: D moet sy woorde oor die Suid-Afrikaanse reg en sy regters begin tel: daar ís nog in ons land ‘n misdryf soos minagting van die hof …
As jy wil, kan jy meer oor die Joyce Waring-sage lees by:
Arme Joyce – nou is sy seker óók ‘n Nazi.
2019-04-08 at 13:24
Jy vereer die strydvaardige Griekse heer met jou sagkense hantering en rustige antwoorde, Gustaf.
2019-04-08 at 14:15
Dear Mr Pienaar,
You are an outstanding example of a gradually disappearing bread-the apartheid defender.
I did not threaten you or insulted you in my email, and the message in the bottom of the email appears automatically. It had nothing to do with me preventing you from publicizing its content. If I have insulted you or threatened you, you should take me to the court. This was my email for everyone to see:
I am writing a response to your latest comments and I began feeling sorry for you because I am breaking down to pieces your arguments and comments. Thus, I thought to give you the opportunity to withdraw your new article on Tsafendas from Litnet; it contains inaccuracies and you have manipulated my words and my work once again in order to fit your purposes, while you have again made some ridiculous claims (including in Facebook although I now see that you deleted them, I remember them well). I am very sorry, but you are a much older man than I am and I feel really bad arguing with you, especially in such way in social media etc. However, I am happy to engage with you in a public or private debate wherever and whenever you like.
If I won't hear from you by tomorrow at 17.00 South African time, I take it that you do not accept my offer, so you are leaving me with no choice but to respond to your article. You can't win Mr. Pienaar; you are defending the indefensible and you are contesting unquestionable evidence that even Dr. Verwoerd himself would have accepted. In addition, I am quite well read on apartheid and a very good researcher, so I can very quickly and easily respond to you. I am going to send my response to Litnet tonight, but it won't get published for sometime, so this will give you time to think of my offer. If you remove it, I will remove mine.
Where is the threat or the insult? On the contrary, I gave you a chance to preserve any dignity you might have left. Confirm to your audience that this is exactly what I wrote.
As for apartheid's legal system you remain deluded and if you dare I challenge to take me to the court for what I have said and written about it. See below what others have said about apartheid’s legal system:
Professor John Dugard has expressed “outrage and shame” about the South African legal system during apartheid, characterising it as “abnormal.” He wrote:
“A legal system that excludes 70% of its population from the franchise, that excludes 70% of its population from owning land in 87% of the country, that arbitrarily deprives 8 million people of their nationality, that has forcibly relocated many millions of people on account of their race, that formally executes some 160 persons per year, that authorizes repression in the name of national security and that permits international aggression, [is] . . . a grossly abnormal one.”
In 1978, Professor Dugard had also characterised the judiciary during apartheid as an “old-fashioned, inquisitional system modelled upon a code produced by the Spanish Inquisition, one which bears little resemblance to the enlightened codes of procedure found in modern Western European countries.” On the subject of Commissions of Inquiry (COI) during the apartheid years, Professor Dugard said: “One of the most disgraceful things about South Africa during this period was the way in which judicial commissions were manipulated, and also the way in which inquest inquiries were conducted and the magistrates just ignored the evidence. (The judges) knew how to make a finding that would help the government. That was very clear.”
In 1986, Nicholas Haysom had exposed the bias and inaccuracy of the Kannemeyer Commission of Enquiry into the Langa shootings. Sydney Kentridge, QC wrote in 1998: “In South Africa, one after another inquest into deaths in detention found that ‘no one was to blame’ as the security police, the judiciary and district surgeons conspired to keep torture and murder under wraps.” Ahmed Kathrada wrote on the same issue in 2004, “In later years, inquest after inquest – in the cases of Imam Haron, Ahmed Timol, Neil Aggett, to name but a few – returned verdicts of suicide. I cannot recall a single case among the scores of deaths under 90-day detention in which an inquest magistrate held the security police responsible.”
According to Adam Sitze, Professor of Law (2013), Commissions of Inquiry under apartheid very often hid more than they revealed. A typical example, he wrote, was the Sharpeville Enquiry, which transformed itself from a fact-finding device into a “whitewashing machine.” Austin T. Turk, Professor of Criminology at the University of California, wrote in 1982 that apartheid South Africa may well have had “the world’s most elaborate legal structure for the repression of political resistance of all kinds.”
The COI into the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 speculated that the shootings might have contributed to a minimising the loss of life and whitewashed the role played in the massacre by the police and state, determining that it was a “tragedy” to which both the victims and their killers had contributed. The Sharpeville COI created a template for further Commissions of Inquiry. The 1976, so-called Cillie COI which investigated the Soweto uprising, was carried out primarily from the police’s perspective. According to Professor Sitze, it was a “sham and a charade,” that failed to account for missing bodies and attempted to shift blame from the police to their victims and their parents. According to Benjamin Pogrund, it was “… an effort to blame anyone except from the government.” In 1986, following violence in Langa after a local funeral, the investigating judge, Kannemayer, omitted evidence that he considered “background information,” but which included vital data about living conditions and police conduct in the townships in a clear attempt to whitewash the police.
The TRC’s findings regarding the role of the judiciary during apartheid were also very critical:
“Part of the reason for the longevity of apartheid was the superficial adherence to ‘rule by law’ by the National Party (NP), whose leaders craved the aura of legitimacy that ‘the law’ bestowed on their harsh injustice … In the intervening thirty years, however, the courts and the organised legal profession generally and subconsciously or unwittingly connived in the legislative and executive pursuit of injustice, as was pointed out by a few at the time and acknowledged by so many at the hearing. Perhaps the most common form of subservience can be captured in the maxim qui tacet consentire (silence gives consent). There were, nevertheless, many parts of the profession that actively contributed to the entrenchment and defence of apartheid through the courts.”
The TRC’s report contained some examples of how the judiciary had aided apartheid:
A.	Prosecutors who knew that police interrogators had used brutal means to extract information from suspects, but still protected them from being questioned too closely on their methods.
B.	Attorneys-general who too easily launched prosecutions or granted ‘no-bail’ certificates on flimsy evidence.
C.	Magistrates who uncritically granted police search and seizure warrants, and whose inquests conveniently found no one responsible for injuries and deaths in detention.
D.	Attorneys who failed to accept unpopular political persons as clients, perhaps for fear of social ostracism or the loss of lucrative commercial clients.
E.	Advocates who were willing to appear for the government in civil actions in which some of the basic building blocks of apartheid, such as racial classification, influx control or group areas, were being attacked as unreasonable and invalid exercises of executive discretion.
F.	Judges who, in the greatest injustices of all, too easily made sense of the illogical and the unjust in legislative language, and who too quickly accepted the word of the police or official witnesses in preference to that of the accused. Kathleen Satchwell in her submission dealt extensively with the case of her client Linda Mogale, who was assaulted and tortured in detention. Despite evidence to this effect, the judge nevertheless rejected “as impossible” the idea of a process of police violence and system of intimidation.
Are you going to take all these to the court too?
2019-04-08 at 21:49
Die heldeverering van Tsafendas deur "dr D" verbaas my glad nie. Die Grieke het nie juis mense in die afgelope paar dekades wat ek as helde kan uitmaak nie. Ek praat nie eers van die lotjie wat op die eilandjie neffens die Franse kus bly nie. Verwaandheidswaansinniges.
Laat my dink aan die Griek en Taljaner wat stry wie se lande die grootste bydrae tot die menslike ras gemaak het. Die Griek, ons het die Parthenon gebou. Die Taljaner ons het die Colliseum. Die Griek, ons het soflaki en baklava. Taljaner ons het spaghetti en pasta.
Die Griek ons het die grootse skeepsmaatskappye. Die Taljaner ons het Ferrari begin.
O sê die Griek, ons het seks uitgevind.
Ja sê Taljaner, ons het dit aan vrouens voorgestel
2019-04-09 at 06:52
"I personally think you are deluded to think that you understand the criminal law better than George Bizos, John Dugard, Krish Govender, Dumisa Ntsebeza and Zak Yacoob."
I know all of these lawyers and not one of them is a criminal law specialist, while I acknowledge Bizos as an expert in security legislation (of the apartheid era) and political trials. Dugard was a professor at Wits and didn't teach criminal law. Krish Govender was an attorney who briefed advocates for his criminal cases and Ntsebeza is an administrative and constitutional law specialist. If these men were criminal law specialists you would have seen them in the criminal courts defending the men and women now in the spotlight at various enquiries and investigations, or a common murderer or rapist here and there.
Pray Sir, mention one criminal trial in which any of these men appeared as counsel (or in the case of Yacoob, as judge) in the last 20 years. Or last 40 years, if you will. Or 50.
2019-04-09 at 08:30
Ek stem saam met Hennie, met respek. Soos Karl Popper dit gestel het:
2019-04-09 at 10:58
My dear immortal beloved Mr. Pienaar (pt. II)
1.	I am not going to start counting my words about apartheid jurists and apartheid's legal system. Apartheid's legal system was a tool in the hands of the NP in order to maintain its power and to conceal its crimes. I challenge you or anyone else to take me to the court if you dare for smearing it. Judge Van Wyk was an apartheid lackey who defended it in courts. In the early 1950s there was only one black member of the Cape Town bar, his name was Ndhlovu. Ndhlovu could not be accommodated in Temple Chambers because the Group Areas Act had just been enacted barring him from a building in a “white” area. Judge Van Wyk even refused to go to the common room if Ndhlovu was expected to be there (Friedman, G., Gauntlett, J. (2013) Bar, Bench and Bullshifters. Cape Tales 1950-1990. Siber Ink. pp: 8-9).
2.	Only ignorant and uneducated fascists and racists are equating communism with Nazism.
3.	I never said you are old enough to be my father and I never called you a miserable old man; you have lied about it and my email proves it. You cannot paraphrase my words and present them the way they fit your purpose.
4.	My book on Tsafendas is 100% objective and for everything I have written I have evidence to substantiate it. I am sorry it does not feel this way to you, but the book about Verwoerd or Vorster that you want to read is never going to be written by an objective author. The fact that Verwoerd’s portrayal in my book is not compatible with what you know about him is not my fault; this is who Verwoerd was and how he was perceived by the democratic world at the time. I have not demonized him as you claimed, everything I wrote about him is accurate; if it is not, then, you or his relatives should take me to the court for smearing him. If you keep on reading only pro-apartheid literature you will never learn about Verwoerd, Vorster and apartheid a lot of things you do not know, although you are a South African and you lived during apartheid. As Tsafendas said, “You can’t know its real extent [of apartheid] because you did not live here. Even if you had lived here, you would not have been able to tell of its real extent unless you had lived with Coloureds and blacks.”
Going back Verwoerd, I am aware that in some literature he appears as a world-wide respected and applauded leader by politicians, people and the press, but this is highly inaccurate. He was seen exactly as the racist criminal he was; for example the New York Times referred to him as “racist,” “anti-Semite,” pro-Nazi,” “prophet of racism,” “extremist,” “fanatic (New York Times, 3 September 1958: 4, “South African racist: Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd”; New York Times, 6 September 1958: 16, ‘Bad news from South Africa.’; Lelyveld (The New York Times), 7 September 1966, ‘A prophet of racism’).” After his death, the New York Times wrote that Verwoerd’s policies were “condemned by most of the governments of the world but hailed by racists.” In the same article he is described as “pro-Nazi and harsh racist … [he] believed that God made the black man to be in perpetuity a ‘hewer of wood and drawer of water’ for the white man (The New York Times, 7 September 1966: 16, ‘Dr. Verwoerd: Relentless advocate of apartheid’).” I used the New York Times because if I had used the British press you would have said they were biased because of the Commonwealth withdrawal etc.
All the major Western press referred to Verwoerd like this; have a look at the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, Time Magazine, The Times, The Guardian etc. Were these communists Mr. Pienaar? For my research, I read and used all the books about Verwoerd, even those in Afrikaans; I found useful things in all of them. As for books that you consider to be “balanced,” I do not really think they are, as they do not include a large amount of apartheid’s “achievements.” I suggest you read my report to the Minister; you might able to learn a few things about apartheid and your heroes you did not know before.
To conclude, any non-fascist, no-racists, non-biased, non-prejudiced, intelligent and democratic person who has read our “correspondences” can clearly see the validity of my book, my research and of your “impressions”. For those who do not belong to any of the above categories, frankly, my dear Mr. Pienaar, you know what …
2019-04-09 at 11:42
Ek stem ook saam met Hennie. Hy stel dit net baie beter as wat ek sou doen. Dit klink asof die vent nog dikvellig is daarby. Hy het beslis 'n minderwaardigheids gevoel aan hom wat sy gedagtegang erg beinvloed. Mnr Pienaar jy is beslis te beleefd so jy kan hom in sy peetjie stuur en hy sal dan uitsien na die "trippie".
2019-04-09 at 16:41
Dr D seems very fond of accusing other people -- in particular, Gustaf Pienaar -- of being deluded. One wonders why he is so fond of that accusation. Does it perhaps take one to imagine one?
By the way, Dr D, South Africa had a cabinet minister called Chris Heunis and one called Hernus Kriel, but never one called Heunis Kriel...
2019-04-10 at 09:18
Dear doctor Dousemetzis. You have completely lost the plot. Goodbye.
2019-04-10 at 09:20
I'm trying my best to make sense of all of this. Dr D is raling against apartheid. I get that. No one here, as far as I can see, is defending apartheid or its abuses and crimes. So far so good.
But it seems to me an impermissible leap in logic to say that because apartheid was bad, Tsafendas was not legally insane but a tragic Greek hero masquerading as a madman.
Two points: Justice Beyers was not an apartheid apologist - and Justice JT van Wyk certainly was. Beyers was known on circuit to disappear from the formal dinners arranged for him and his entourage to go and sit on the floor in the kitchen to chat with the brown people working there. As an aside, on at least one occasion he heard an opposed urgent application on a Satruday morning while at Graaff's Pool - counsel were Douglas Shaw QC from Durban and Lourens Muller SC of the Cape Bar. Beyers was not a man who dance to someone else's tune.
Secondly, the prison warder who was my source for my book about the goings on on death row told me many things about Tsafendas which I cannot disclose here. The fact is, although Tsafendas was an avid reader of the newspapers, he was not in touch with reality. (Although incarceration in that place could drive even the most balanced of us insane, I readily concede.)
And this really is the point, isn't it? Was Tsafendas insane according to the McNaghten test - as Gustaf points out?
That said, there are many unanswered questions about how Tsafendas got a job in Parliament when there was, and still is, no rational explanation as to how he got into the country in the first place, and then THAT job. The reason he gave to my source while on death row is disclosed in my book. But that sounds so farfethched than it canot possibly be true. Or can it?
I don't mind Dr D writing his book - but I do mind his attacking those who disagree with his conclusions. Knowledge only advances if the debate is impersonal and objective.
2019-04-11 at 15:09
Mr D says he did not insult Mr Pienaar and then he kicks off with insulting him (says he is a defender of apartheid - surely that can never be anything but an insult) ... immediately I wonder if he is capable of self criticism, and objectivity. not that he would be alone in this particular bubble, but it does undermine his credibility, which is crucial when writing a book like this.
2019-04-12 at 12:48
Wanneer iemand vanuit die onverantwoordelike, waarskynlik rassistiese, propagandistiese posisie van Pro-Duits = Pro-Nazi 'n rasionele argument voer hou jy op met luister?
Jy hou aan luister, tot die einde toe, is wat ek leer, want ingelig wees is deel van die kuns van politiek.
2019-04-12 at 16:12
Dr Verwoerd is gebore op 8 September 1901 in Amsterdam, Nederland. Hy sal vir altyd aan apartheid verbind word, nieteenstaande die feit dat die eerste stukkie apartheidswetgewing lank voor sy geboorte in werking gestel is.
Die Masters and Servants Acts of 1856 was bedoel vir alle rasse, maar howe het besluit dat dit slegs op ongeskoolde arbeid van toepassing is. Ongeskoolde arbeid is merendeels deur swart mense verrig.
Toe kom kuier Harold Macmillan in 1960 en spreek die parlement toe. Soos alle goeie politici swaai hy eers lof voordat hy by sy eintlike boodskap kom. Dit is goed om dit weer te lees en daarna te sien wat dr Verwoerd se reaksie daarop was.
”Wind of Change”: A speech made to the South Africa Parliament on 3 February 1960 by Harold Macmillan: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/harold-macmillans-winds-of-change-speech-verwoerds
Ek is nie hier om die verlede te regverdig nie, maar wel dit duidelik te stel dat myns insiens
Dr Verwoerd dieselfde vir alle volke in gedagte gehad het wat in Suid Afrika hul tuiste gevind het. Kan 'n mens werklik sê dat 'n rassis hier aan die woord was?
Dat dit klaaglik in praktyk misluk het doen myns insiens nie afbreuk aan sy visie nie.