Wednesday 19 February 2014

"Gangster party" issue has been set straight for good

We as the Patriotic Alliance would like to express our full gratitude for the ruling of the press ombudsman that it was highly inaccurate for Sapa to refer to us as a party that "consists of gangsters". He also went on to point what we ourselves have always emphasised: that we were formed in order to create a society that would help to eradicate gangsterism.

We are encouraged by this act of moderating the press through its own processes. As a party we are not entirely satisfied however that Sapa actually apologised in a fair and accurate spirit following the directive of the ombudsman, to which we have issued a further complaint. But the biggest victory remains ours.

Here follows the full text of the ombudsman's ruling:

Wed, Feb 12, 2014
Ruling by the Press Ombudsman
12 February 2014
This ruling is based on the written submissions of Mr Charles Cilliers, on behalf of Mr Gayton Mckenzie of the Patriotic Alliance, and Mark van der Velden, editor of Sapa.
Complaint
Cilliers complains about a Sapa story which was circulated to several online publications in December 2013.
The Patriotic Alliance (PA) complains the statement “of fact” in the story that it was a party that “consisted of gangsters” was inaccurate and damaging.
Analysis
The story said that the parole of Mr Rasheed Staggie, former Hard Livings gang leader on the Cape Flats, had been revoked because he had joined a political party, the PA, “which consisted of gangsters”.
The PA complains that this depiction was false. It says that the police in the Western Cape alleged that the party was made up of gangsters, but it could provide no evidence to this effect – and Sapa made a leap to present this unfounded allegation as fact.
Sapa replies that due to an editing error the word “reportedly” was dropped from the sentence. It argues, though, that Mckenzie (who co-formed the PA in November 2013) was a convicted criminal who said in a Metro FM interview that gangsters were joining his party, and also: “They can call me a gangster. They can call us a gangster party. But they’ll see me at the polls.”
The news agency offers to do an interview with Mckenzie “to tell us more about his political party, what it stands for and who its members are, which we will then storify and distribute on our wire as a fresh and relevant and interesting news report”.
The PA accepts this proposal on condition that the story should be written as an apology. It says that it was vitally important “that Sapa (does) not attempt to weasel out of an apology”.
Sapa takes exception to the use of the word “weasel”, and refuses to apologise.
I also find the use of the word “weasel” rather unfortunate.
The main issue, though, is the question if Sapa should apologise for its mistake, or merely correct it (with or without a new story).
The yardstick that I constantly use when deciding about the above, is the question how much unnecessary harm a mistake may have caused the affected party.
Therefore, I need to do some research into what the PA stands for.
According to an internet search:
McKenzie explained that the inspiration for the formation of PA came from the extraordinary levels of gang violence during 2013 in the Western Cape. He stated that he believed that the governments in the Western Cape had not done enough to eradicate the root causes of gangsterism and crime and that the only way to ensure that this could be changed would be if a new political entity was established to address this issue.
While the party has stated that one of its key aims is the eradication of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic conditions that cause gangsterism and crime, almost all criticism and satire levelled at the PA has focused on the perception that the PA is a “gangster party”. PA leaders have, however, countered that they have been open about their discussions with gang leaders and this group is merely one among many others that have been consulted in talks ahead of the formation of the party. The PA stated that calling the party an organisation exclusively for gangsters is an attempt to intimidate people into not joining the party.
Despite police sources claiming that most of the 250 people who attended the pre-launch event were prominent gangsters and businessmen with underworld links, and that it was being led by members of the notorious 26s numbers prison gang, no one in the party’s leadership structures is a confirmed gang member.
The PA has also stated they would not allow an active gang member to assume a leadership position in the party, though no South African citizen would be prevented from joining the party.
·         There is nothing on the PA’s website (www.paparty.org.za) that contradicts the information mentioned above.
From this (and I have no reason to disbelieve the information in the articles that I have read) it is clear that the PA wants to eradicate gangsterism, rather than be a party of gangsters. The description of the PA as “consisting of gangsters” therefore goes against a central conviction of the party and could only have caused it huge unnecessary harm. This was both inaccurate and unfair.
Based on all the information at my disposal I can accept that some members or supporters of the PA are gangsters. However, that probably goes for some other parties as well. The point is that nowhere does the PA encourage gangers to join its ranks because they are gangsters. Moreover, the fact that some of its leadership are convicted criminals, does in itself not mean that they are or were gangsters.
The fact that the PA is often described in the media as a party of gangsters should not serve as an excuse to perpetuate this description. Even the use of the word “reportedly”, which was edited out, would not have sufficiently rectified the matter.
This reminds me of an earlier ruling, where Mr Julius Malema complained that a newspaper erroneously stated that one of his houses was worth R16 million. One publication after the other merely quoted from each other, not bothering to find out the truth for itself. I then asked the architect for an official evaluation of the property, which amounted to R8.5 million.
The danger of this kind of reporting is that, if one repeats a false statement often enough, it becomes the truth in the eyes of the public.
Finding
The description of the PA as a party that consists of gangsters was in breach of Section 2.1 of the Press Code that states: “The press shall take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.”
Sanction
Sapa is directed to apologise to the PA and to send out the following text:
Sapa circulated a story in December 2013 in which we inaccurately and unfairly depicted the newly formed Cape-based political party the Patriotic Alliance (PA) as a body that “consisted of gangsters”, causing it unnecessary harm.
The party lodged a complaint with the Press Ombudsman, Johan Retief, who said that the PA clearly stated that it rather wants to eradicate gangsterism.
“The description of the PA as ‘consisting of gangsters’ therefore goes against a central conviction of the party and therefore it could only have caused it huge unnecessary harm. This was both inaccurate and unfair,” he said.
Retief stated that, based on the information at his disposal, he could accept that some members or supporters of the PA were gangsters. “However, that probably goes for some other parties as well. The point is that nowhere does the PA encourage gangers to join its ranks because they are gangsters. Moreover, the fact that some of its leadership are convicted criminals, does in itself not mean that they are or were gangsters.”
He added that, although the PA is often described in the media as a party of gangsters, this should not serve as an excuse to perpetuate this description. Even the insertion of the word ‘reportedly’, which was edited out, would not have sufficiently rectified the matter.
“The danger of this kind of reporting is that, if one repeats a false statement often enough, it becomes the truth in the eyes of the public,” Retief said.
We regret any unnecessary harm that this description may have caused the PA.
Visit www.presscouncil.org.za for the full finding.
End of text
The possibility of a separate story about the PA is left up to Sapa’s discretion.
Johan Retief
Press Ombudsman

Friday 7 February 2014

Secretary-General Kenny Kunene's open letter to the Public Protector

Dear Public Protector Thuli Madonsela

To start with, I want to commend you for the hard work you have done in the fight against state corruption. In many ways, you have shown what is possible when a Public Protector works hard and applies herself as you have done.
But over these last few days, while the circus of Mamphela Ramphele and the DA played out, I asked myself what you were making of it. Did you know something about it the rest of us didn’t?
Unhappy DA members are leaving that party. Many are joining the Patriotic Alliance or have already joined us. Those very same DA people told us months ago that Glynnis Breytenbach was being prepared to join the DA. They told us about the secret DA donor who was forcing DA leader Helen Zille to go into a coalition with Mamphela Ramphele. We struggled to believe it then. Now it’s all an accepted fact.
So when they told me the Public Protector is secretly part of the DA, and will become the head of the DA, I believed them. Crazy as it sounds, I realised it must be true.
Everything you have done, particularly in recent years, makes the point:
-       The speed with which you investigate cases reported by the DA is not the same as that reported by anyone else. It is as if you are on the DA’s speed dial.
-       You addressed a DA rally in 2012 and were unapologetic about it. You even tried to feign ignorance that you didn’t know it was a DA rally. Surely all those blue T-shirts would have been a giveaway. Don’t think we’re stupid. You’ve never spoken at another party’s rally. The Constitution requires that the Public Protector be independent, impartial and exercise her powers without fear or prejudice. Addressing the DA’s rally showed you are not impartial. You should have resigned if you are as ethical as you try to make out.
-       You investigated the DA government’s communications tender in the Western Cape and found them guilty in your provisional report. After input from Premier Helen Zille’s office, your final report absolved the Western Cape of corruption. How convenient for the DA. The Justice Factor on e.tv even called you the Loser of the Week when that happened.
-       Why have you not investigated the DA’s clear abuses of power in the Western Cape, such as the illegal evictions of the “Marikana” shack dwellers at Philippi? The DA is using state resources to protect privately owned land. That is illegal. But we don’t see any reports on that from you.
There are several other issues too; the facts show you are biased towards the DA. You are owned by white monopoly capital, which is protected by the DA. You are already secure in the knowledge that when your term ends, your next job will be at the DA.
We all agree there is corruption in the ANC-led government. It is right for you to investigate all of that corruption as per your constitutional mandate. But there have been times when you have been no better than the people you investigate. When your son crashed your state-owned BMW X6 into a wall, the media treated you with kid gloves, even after your daughter tweeted she was happy he did it because your new car was “so much sexier”.
The media is yet to complain about the hefty price tag of your state car, but we see angry headlines weekly about ministers and their cars. It is right to complain about government overspending, but why not when it applies to you?
Your son even arrogantly said: “Would you rather my mum travel in taxis while she’s waiting for her car?” The comments of both your children clearly show the principles (or lack of them) that they have been taught in your home and why they see state property as their playthings.
If the same thing had happened to any other person in government, they would have been ceremonially hung, drawn and quartered by the media; if you had investigated such a case, your recommendation would have been resignation.
The DA has many servants within the National Prosecuting Authority. We saw that with Breytenbach. They have also deployed many members within the upper echelons of the media; that much was clear when their party list came out. That’s why you are their PR project.
Just admit it, Ms Madonsela: You are a DA member. You will be heading up the party and be the DA’s presidential candidate for 2019. We know this is true, so stop hiding and just front up about it and tell us the truth. Resign and leave us in the hands of someone with integrity.
You have been used as a pawn and are a disgrace to the office of the Public Protector. You are no different from those who were used by the white apartheid regime to protect their own interests. I’m sorry if reading this letter has robbed you of time you would otherwise have dedicated to investigating those not liked by the DA or white monopoly capital.
When you incorrectly declared last year that you were not accountable to Parliament, you knew then what I know now: you are in fact only accountable to your secret masters. It’s now clearer why your deputy, Kevin Malunga, decided he wanted nothing more to do with you.
Many will question why I have written this. The answer is simple: My party and I are challenging the same DA-led government that you are protecting and defending in the Western Cape. I’m writing this because we will be in a direct election fight with the DA, and I can’t sit idly by and see their election plan come to fruition, with you an integral part of it.
For the first time, the DA has a credible challenger against them in the Western Cape. We beat them on the farms at the end of last month during the Vredendal by-elections. They’ve never been beaten by a small party like that before.
So yes, I’m happy to fight the DA. But I’d rather not have to fight you too. Please just give back the state’s “sexy car” and put on your blue T-shirt. I’m sure it fits you perfectly.

Kenny Kunene