That’s interesting

You reveal your moral bankruptcy: the law under which Mandela was tried was utterly immoral. Apparently you don’t recognise the fact

What law was Mandela tried under?

They actually admitted sabotage, didn’t they?

That the system as a whole was vile is entirely true. But taking up arms against a de jure government really is a crime.

69 thoughts on “That’s interesting”

  1. Mandela pleaded guilty to trying to overthrow the state.

    He wasn’t some sort of Ghandi figure. He was part of a gang of vicious communist-backed gangsters and terrorists who brutally murdered both white and black people to further their political goals.

    The South Effrikans should’ve hanged him.

  2. His blood pressure is rising:

    ‘ I haven’t suggested criminality

    I do know what criminality is

    I have suggested unethical conduct

    They’re not the same thing

    It’s you who created the claim of criminality

    I said the rules needed to be changed and explained that is happening

    Niow stop wasting my time’

    And even better:

    ‘With respect your last line says it all (I did read the rest: it is pure quackery)

    If you think I have wasted my time and that you are the holder of the one true light, dream on

    And I won’t ban you

    But please do not waste my time again’

    What a ‘shining light’ the man is…..

  3. Hadn’t we already established that Murphy’s knowledge of history and indeed law is no more or less profound than his knowledge of economics?

    It’s all about the narrative and to dispute the saintliness of Mandela is N.S. of the most flagrant kind.

  4. “taking up arms against a de jure government really is a crime.”

    Thus demonstrating that it is not necessarily crimes we should be concerned about when making moral judgements, but morality. It was legal to be a Nazi in Nazi Germany, but it was not laudable or moral.

    Dearieme>

    No, you must have been reading the wrong people, because that’s just racist claptrap.

  5. Let’s take Murphy’s argument on its own terms: Yes, Mandela was convicted under an unjust legal system.

    However, this comes in a thread all started by Ritchie insisting that those who have broken no law at all, either just or unjust, be prosecuted.

    So, even on his own terms, his invocation of Mandela is outrageous.

  6. Ironman

    When did that ever stop him? – he probably thinks of himself as on a par with Mandela – acting as a beacon of hope for ‘the poor and oppressed’ unable to articulate for themselves….

  7. Ironman>

    Given Ritchie’s spelling and general propensity for fist-typing, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt here. His utterances are logically consistent if he meant to type ‘persecuted’ instead of ‘prosecuted’.

  8. Dave: because that’s just racist claptrap.

    Please explain “racist” in that context. Or has Prof. Pavlov just rung your dinner-bell?

  9. “No, you must have been reading the wrong people, because that’s just racist claptrap.” it may be claptrap but it’s certainly not racist. Fuck off.

  10. @Steve

    “He wasn’t some sort of Ghandi figure.”

    You mean he wasn’t some mystic who slept with underage girls ?

    “The South Effrikans should’ve hanged him.”
    No, not just because the state should not be killing anyone. Mandela’s greatness was that after he was elected, he realised the hard truths (economic and political) and accepted them. Unlike the idiot there now, who is hell bent on turning SA into a racist’s wet dream (oh look, another failed black state)

  11. What Mandela was prosecuted are laws in this country today (except for the part about furthering communism).

    – recruiting persons for training in the preparation and use of explosives and in guerrilla warfare for the purpose of violent revolution and committing acts of sabotage
    – conspiring to commit the aforementioned acts and to aid foreign military units when they invaded the Republic,

    You can make the case for it having a higher moral purpose, but the law itself was perfectly fine. He wasn’t prosecuted for an equivalent of the Nuremberg laws or the pass laws or Jim Crow laws. The law regarding TV licenses is less moral than the one that Mandela was prosecuted for.

    And he, like MLK, took the punishment like a man (everyone should have read A Letter From Birmingham Jail before they’re an adult).

  12. You would think “attempting to overthrow the State” would be the worst crime imaginable in Richie’s ‘mind’.

  13. Gunker – to be fair to Mandela, I don’t think he ever drank his own pee.

    I used to be against the death penalty myself, but it’s funny how you get more right-wing as you get older. If they rounded up and shot a few student wankers next time they desecrate the Cenotaph, I’d send a congratulatory tin of biscuits to my MP.

    I also find myself looking wistfully at adverts in the Daily Express for comfortable beige-coloured slacks.

  14. Dearieme, Meissen Bison>

    Well done for correcting my grammar. What I meant was that it’s claptrap from racists. It’s a lie you’ve been fed in an attempt to vilify Mandela.

  15. Rob

    I think you’ll be told ‘not to waste his time’ – Lest we forget he memorably describes himself as:

    ‘A friend of the truth’

  16. Dave, I’ve not been fed anything. Nor have I corrected your grammar.

    I was simply intrigued at your sticking a label on a comment for which on the face of it there was no justification .

    I’m less intrigued than I was.

  17. Meissen Bison>

    If you don’t realise that racists hate anyone like Mandela, and do frequently push lies about them to credulous fools like you, then I’m not sure what I can possibly point out that will make you take your fingers out of your ears and your hands from over your eyes. (And you should probably see a doctor about those extra/oddly-shaped hands of yours.)

    The simple fact is that the original comment from dearieme was simply a regurgitation of the standard racist propaganda aimed at making Mandela out to be something he wasn’t.

  18. I was being too polite. It’s not that I’m less intrigued, it’s that I’m not remotely interested.

    dearieme put it better so be a good chap and obey his admonition.

  19. @Rob, it’s amazing isn’t it? The man who is quite happy to argue to prosecute on the basis of breaking the spirit of the law, of the intention of government, gets all het up about a man convicted on the letter of the law, according to the intention of government.

    Maybe he’ll be flogging a ‘Fair Government Mark’ next.

  20. Cue the “Fair Morality Mark”…

    Available, for a large fee, from your local tax efficient friendly society.

  21. Tim Newman>

    Utter bollocks. Just more claptrap made up by racists. Mandela was not non-violent, but he completely fails to meet the key criterion for being a terrorist, in that he never terrorised anyone. The tactics pursued were to damage property whilst minimising casualties. It’s certainly reasonable to argue that one would be misguided to think it’s possible to do that in an acceptable way, but terrorism it’s not, because terrorism involves deliberately terrifying people more than is warranted by the actual prospect of their death through horrific, random attacks.

    Despite not having any such intentions yourself, you need to be aware that their are people motivated by racism to make Mandela out to be something he wasn’t, and very carefully check your sources.

  22. ‘The simple fact is that the original comment from dearieme was simply a regurgitation of the standard racist propaganda aimed at making Mandela out to be something he wasn’t’

    And therefore what, in your all-seeing omniscience, would you say Mandela was – some kind of divine being?

  23. Any leader of any terrorist organisation is a terrorist.

    The only difference between Mandela and Martin McGuinness is that McGuinness hasn’t done enough jail time yet.

  24. Minimising casualties? Oh well, he wasn’t a terrorist then.

    Though non-terrorists in a political process tend to favour the ‘no casualties’ route.

  25. Steve

    I used to be against the death penalty myself, but it’s funny how you get more right-wing as you get older.

    The death penalty is social hygiene.

    I also find myself looking wistfully at adverts in the Daily Express for comfortable beige-coloured slacks.

    Now, that is rather extreme…

  26. @Dave

    You should have had a word with Mandela himself, for he admitted to co-founding Umkhonto we Sizwe, which was the armed wing of the ANC and which conducted various bombing and landmine campaigns which resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians. Of the 100 civilians whose deaths were attributed to these campaigns, 40 were white, 60 were black (the source of that particular statistic is the ‘Truth & Reconciliation Commission’ – set up, if you recall, by Mandela)

    It may have been a last resort, he may have completed a remarkable turnaround in later life and go on to achieve remarkable things but the idea that somehow his actions shouldn’t be called acts of terrorism because of who he was and what he did later is nonsense. Just nonsense.

    Why don’t you track down the relatives of the civilians who died and explain how the deaths were ‘ok’ deaths because Mandela was a lovely cuddly man in later life?

  27. Dave obviously never had to clean up the Soweto streets after a necklacing or stand down (because orders) while the ANC marched on a Zulu hostel to wreak havoc with the residents. Lovely chaps those ANC cadres.

    If Dave wants to speak to anyone, I would suggest Stompie Moeketsi’s mother and ask her if she is still a fan of Mandela FC. Albeit they were Winnie’s “bodyguards” a word from Nellie would have put a stop to their shenanigans. and while you are about it, Dave. Have a look who Mandela first visited overseas after being released from prison – Fidel Castro and Muammar Gadaffi. I doubt that it was to thank them personally for the nice Red Cross parcels they sent to Robben Island.

    It was Mandela that promised to make the country ungovernable and boy did he ever keep that promise.

  28. Can we also count against him his failure to condemn the actions of Winnie Mandela; well at least until he faced the prospect of having to live with her and she was inconvenient to his political ambitions.

  29. Dave is wrong, Mandela really was a terrorist. However, it is correct to say, as people have, that his transformation was very remarkable.
    We are none of us perfect and Mandela is a role model

  30. I struggle to understand why anyone would suggest even for a moment that Mandela was a terrorist, in light of my earlier comment, without suggesting some way in which he meets the definition.

    To call UwS a terrorist organisation is simply a complete perversion of that definition. They never attempted to terrorise, they attempted to overthrow the government with the least collateral damage possible.

    It’s beyond obvious that most commenters here have swallowed (or perhaps themselves created) a bunch of racist propaganda. The facts are so contrary to what is alleged that it’s hard to believe that anyone could accept them without checking unless they are harbouring a strong inclination to find something wrong with Mandela.

    ‘Andrew’ presents an outright twisting of the facts, for example. Mandela was in prison at the time of the campaigns he talks about – and if anyone thinks South Africa was letting him run anything from Robben Island, they might as well be thinking ‘hurrdurr’. And of course, the campaigns mentioned were abandoned early on precisely because they caused unacceptable human casualties.

    Similarly, the claim that Mandela was a terrorist because he founded an organisation that later went on to do things wrong (although it never became a terrorist organisation) is as ridiculous as claiming that the Etruscans started the Nazi party because they invented the symbol of the fasces.

    The reality is that the South African state used terror tactics, but the protestors against it did not. They are not perfect demi-gods, but they were overwhelmingly on the right side.

  31. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “However, it is correct to say, as people have, that his transformation was very remarkable. We are none of us perfect and Mandela is a role model”

    Remarkable. Like Mugabe. Who also went from being a terrorist and a murderer to being a statesman who was only interested in the well being of his country ….. oh wait.

    Mandela was just old. So the old Stalinist followed the Mugabe road of being “a statesman”. That is, destroying all effective political opposition, while pretending to be a democrat in order to transfer as much White wealth as possible into your own bank accounts. Mandela died a surprisingly rich man for someone who never had a real job.

    But he died before South Africa turned to sh!t and Mandela reverted back to his normal politics.

    You can judge the man by the people he supports though. Not just Gaddafi and Saddam. His picked successors. Didn’t he do a sterling job of providing sensible politics for South Africa?

    The ANC tortured and murdered more of its member than the South African government did. They were terrorists and Mandela wanted to be their Stalin. He did not get his way. He is a triumph of the Cult of Personality and nothing else.

  32. So who was it that planted the bomb in Johannesburg station? Who set off the car bomb outside air force HQ in Pretoria? Who intimidated township residents necklacing those suspected of being police informants? If that doesn’t define terrorism, then the Provost were a veritable peace keeping g force.

  33. So Much For Subtlety

    Gunker – “Mandela’s greatness was that after he was elected, he realised the hard truths (economic and political) and accepted them.”

    Did he? You mean like Mugabe did? People forget that for the first two decades Mugabe was about as moderate as Mandela. What you mean is that Mandela saw that his role models in Moscow had collapsed and he was happy to just transfer as much White money into his own Trust funds as possible without kicking up a fuss.

    If you want a definition of the bigotry of low expectations, it is when a Black leader is called a statesman just because he doesn’t eat anyone.

    “Unlike the idiot there now, who is hell bent on turning SA into a racist’s wet dream (oh look, another failed black state)”

    The idiot being put there by the support of Mandela’s party, picked by his successors, anointed by the man himself. The fact that Mandela had more plausible PR doesn’t change the fact that Zuma has not fallen far from the tree.

    Steve – “to be fair to Mandela, I don’t think he ever drank his own pee.”

    Wasn’t that Morarki Desai and not Gandhi?

  34. The ANC were supported by powers responsible for the deaths of 100 million people and South Africa has declined relentlessly since Apartheid’s fall – you can look over the border into Zimbabwe if you want a preview of its future. For anyone to say ‘they were overwhelmingly on the right side’ is a gross over -simplification – I think you could be a candidate for a visit to Eastern Syria based on that level of bias…..

  35. “Remarkable. Like Mugabe. Who also went from being a terrorist and a murderer to being a statesman who was only interested in the well being of his country ….. oh wait.”

    A feature of British idiots is how they regularly compare politicians with Hitler, or Stalin depending on your poison. It’s so good to see British idiocy travelling so well.

  36. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “A feature of British idiots is how they regularly compare politicians with Hitler, or Stalin depending on your poison. It’s so good to see British idiocy travelling so well.”

    Yeah because a British-trained Marxist who comes to power through a violent terrorist campaign like Mugabe has nothing in common whatsoever with a British-trained Marxist who comes to power through a violent terrorist campaign like Mandela.

    Chalk and cheese they are.

  37. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “A feature of British idiots is how they regularly compare politicians with Hitler, or Stalin depending on your poison. It’s so good to see British idiocy travelling so well.”

    Here is a fun little game for the whole family – name three policies that distinguish Mandela from Mugabe in his pre-Zaire moderate phase.

    Remember who Mandela chose to marry.

  38. So Much For Subtlety

    Dave – “I struggle to understand why anyone would suggest even for a moment that Mandela was a terrorist, in light of my earlier comment, without suggesting some way in which he meets the definition.”

    Your lack of comprehension is not our problem. The way Mandela was a terrorist is obvious – he launched and supported a terrorist campaign. He launched a campaign of murdering civilians in order to come to power. What is hard to understand about that?

    “To call UwS a terrorist organisation is simply a complete perversion of that definition. They never attempted to terrorise, they attempted to overthrow the government with the least collateral damage possible.”

    Explain to me how necklacing is not designed to terrorise? You think that burning people to death in public is meant in a kind and gentle way? Do tell.

    “It’s beyond obvious that most commenters here have swallowed (or perhaps themselves created) a bunch of racist propaganda.”

    The Cult of Personality is strong. Russians cried when Stalin died. You need to accept the truth.

    “Mandela was in prison at the time of the campaigns he talks about – and if anyone thinks South Africa was letting him run anything from Robben Island, they might as well be thinking ‘hurrdurr’. And of course, the campaigns mentioned were abandoned early on precisely because they caused unacceptable human casualties.”

    Oddly enough burning people to death was not unacceptable. Not to liberals like Dave either. Except when the Spanish Inquisition does it. The Left has fully embraced a truly mediaeval policy.

    Of course Mandela was still running the ANC from Robbin Island. Not day to day but in general. If he did not like necklacing he could have stopped it with an order. As he eventually did when the government started negotiating with him. But condemn it he did not.

    “The reality is that the South African state used terror tactics, but the protestors against it did not. They are not perfect demi-gods, but they were overwhelmingly on the right side.”

    The South African state killed virtually no one. They certainly burnt no one to death in public. They gave Mandela a trial, but he did not give his opponents – especially his Black opponents – even so much as a hearing. The ANC was Stalinists and terrorists. The South African state was the only morally justified participant involved.

  39. Dave: they attempted to overthrow the government with the least collateral damage possible.

    You’re a bit of a card, admit it!

  40. It is hard to decide who is more ignorant, Dave or SMFS

    Dave, you may find the accepted abbreviation is MK

    SMFS google Gukurahundi if you believe Mugabe was a statesman immediately after assuming power

  41. So Much For Subtlety

    gunker – “google Gukurahundi if you believe Mugabe was a statesman immediately after assuming power”

    And the first thing that Mandela did on getting out of prison was to murder as many Zulu supporters of Inkatha. In fact the largest bloodshed in the struggle against Apartheid was not between Whites and Blacks but between the ANC and the IFP for control of Natal.

    Not only did Mandela follow more or the less the same model as Mugabe in destroying rival Black parties, but both had the same ending – they bought off the rival leadership with some token jobs and money when it was clear that the rivals were going to lose.

    I am not defending Mugabe. That would be an unexpected position for me to take.

  42. Maybe the IRA weren’t terrorists either? After all they did phone in a warning before they blew up a shopping center or whatever.

  43. SMFS you cannot compare the two events. The Matabele genocide wad conducted by agents of the state as retribution after Mugabe took power

  44. So Much For Subtlety

    gunker – “you cannot compare the two events. The Matabele genocide wad conducted by agents of the state as retribution after Mugabe took power”

    Why not? The Natal killings were carried out by Party activists as retribution before, during and just after Mandela took power.

    Why do these differ?

  45. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “The thread is yours. Feel free to imagine you have bested all the non-idiots.”

    Indeed. You too.

  46. SMFS
    “gunker – “you cannot compare the two events. The Matabele genocide wad conducted by agents of the state as retribution after Mugabe took power”

    Why not? The Natal killings were carried out by Party activists as retribution before, during and just after Mandela took power.

    Why do these differ?”

    As I mentioned in my original point, Mandela showed greatness by his actions after he assumed power, when he had the powers of the state that he could have used for retribution and instead he didn’t. When he could have put in a ML stoolie in as finance minister and lavish money all round and instead he didn’t. When he could have introduced punitive taxes on whites and yet he didn’t.

  47. .. and when he did something that is extremely rare in African politics, he stepped down peacefully at the end of his term

  48. So, he had been a traitor, iin command of terrorists, had treated opponents terribly once he got power, but eventually saw the light, behaved well, and finally earned enormous respect by stepping down peacefully.

    So much for George Washington, but what about Mandela?

  49. Mandela won power in a free election, Mugabe did not. All of Mugabe’s rivals for leadership of ZANU fortuitously died: Mandela’s rivals did not . Mugabe destroyed 90% of food production by confiscating farms and instead of giving them to the farm workers gave them to his ZANU thugs who failed to grow food, South Africa is still growing most of its own food.

  50. So Much For Subtlety

    Gunker – “As I mentioned in my original point, Mandela showed greatness by his actions after he assumed power, when he had the powers of the state that he could have used for retribution and instead he didn’t.”

    As I said, this is the definition of the bigotry of low expectations. A Black politician doesn’t eat people and we are supposed to call him a statesman? Retribution for what? Making South Africa rich and prosperous?

    “When he could have put in a ML stoolie in as finance minister and lavish money all round and instead he didn’t. When he could have introduced punitive taxes on whites and yet he didn’t.”

    Sure. The Soviet Union had collapsed. So no point following his Masters in Moscow’s failed economic policies. He just allowed the ANC to transfer as much White wealth into ANC leaders’ bank accounts as they could without totally destroying the economy. Including his own. In other words, he did not give a flying f**k about poor Blacks. He just wanted power and money.

    Gunker – “.. and when he did something that is extremely rare in African politics, he stepped down peacefully at the end of his term”

    Without eating anyone. Great. Totally ordinary when Macmillan does it. Why is it such a big deal when Mandela does?

    john77 – “Mandela won power in a free election, Mugabe did not.”

    I am not sure that is true for the first ten or twenty years of Mugabe’s rule. Why do you think none of those elections were free and fair. For Africa anyway.

    “All of Mugabe’s rivals for leadership of ZANU fortuitously died: Mandela’s rivals did not .”

    That we know of. A lot of rivals in other parties died.

    “Mugabe destroyed 90% of food production by confiscating farms and instead of giving them to the farm workers gave them to his ZANU thugs who failed to grow food, South Africa is still growing most of its own food.”

    Sure. The ANC has not faced unpopularity yet. They will. I am willing to bet they won’t hand over power either.

  51. Dave is right on the facts about Mandela. The case against him depends on the ludicrous claim that he was running the ANC while held incommunicado on Robbin Island. If you believe that, you’re on the side of stupid.

  52. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “Dave is right on the facts about Mandela. The case against him depends on the ludicrous claim that he was running the ANC while held incommunicado on Robbin Island. If you believe that, you’re on the side of stupid.”

    Well that is the final nail in the coffin. Paul B agrees with Dave.

    He wasn’t held incommunicado. He spent his time studying for his law degree. What is more, whether he was running the ANC is irrelevant. As the ANC was just the Front organisation for the South African Communist Party. So the question ought to be whether he was on the Politburo of the SACP.

    The evidence seems to suggest he was. When the Boers gave up on Apartheid, they did not negotiate with the ANC. They let Mandela out and negotiated with him. When he told them to stop killing people, they stopped. When he told them to continue, they continued. He was running the ANC. And if you think otherwise, whose orders were the militants following? Who got displaced by Mandela’s release?

  53. Bloke in North Dorset

    @SMFS

    “I am not sure that is true for the first ten or twenty years of Mugabe’s rule. Why do you think none of those elections were free and fair. For Africa anyway.”

    I flew in to Zimbabwe a couple days after the election as p[art of the British Military Training Team to work on integrating the various armies. I worked with an Irish Guardsman who’d been part of the election monitoring team and got to know quite a few of them.

    I didn’t meet anyone, including the ZANU-PF soldiers in the class I taught, who thought the election was fair even by African standards. Mugabe would probably have won, but they left nothing to chance. After that it was downhill for elections as well as the economy.

  54. @ SMFS
    Mugabe sent thugs around terrorrising black voters ahead of the 1980 elections after Bishop Muzorewa had won the 1979 elections.

  55. So Much For Subtlety

    john77 – “Mugabe sent thugs around terrorrising black voters ahead of the 1980 elections after Bishop Muzorewa had won the 1979 elections.”

    Mandela came to power by burning to death any Black person who did not agree with him. Is your position that this did not have a terrorising effect on the voters?

    Social Justice Warrior – “He was permitted one visit and one censored letter every six months. Your case is that he directed ANC operations by means of two censored letters a year.”

    For a part of his sentence, that is. Not all of it. Day to day operations? No. The party as a whole, yes.

    Arnald – “Yep, I agree with Dave and SJW. There are facts, and there are the SMBSs of the world.”

    A perfect trifectta of wrongness then.

  56. “For a part of his sentence”.

    Mandela was held on Robben Island for 18 years, during which he plainly wasn’t running anything. The notion that he could resume effective control after such a gap under the still very restrictive conditions at Pollsmoor is not of this world.

    We know that the imprisoned or exiled leadership of the banned ANC was powerless on the ground to stop anything. On the other hand, we also now know that the man directly responsible for Winnie Mandela’s worst crimes, Jerry Richardson, was a police informer. So the one organization which could have stopped at least some of it was the South African police.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *