Grade 12 Mathematical Literacy Paper

Minister of Basic Education:

Angie Motshekga

The question reads as follows: State whether the following event is certain, most likely or impossible: Christmas day is on December 25 in South Africa.

No wonder education in South Africa has gone down the tubes..........Fire the idiot.....



http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page72308?
oid=369801&sn=Marketingweb+detail&pid=90389

On Zuma's Efforts To Blame Apartheid

PRESIDENT ZUMA'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE IMPACT OF APARTHEID ON SOUTH AFRICA'S PRESENT PROBLEMS

In comments that he made to mark the 20^th anniversary of Chris Hani's assassination, President Zuma alluded to the recent debate regarding the impact of apartheid on the current problems confronting South Africa.

He said that "to suggest we cannot blame apartheid for what is happening in our country now, I think is a mistake, to say the least. We don't need to indicate what it is apartheid did. The fact that the country is two in one - you go to any city, there is a beautiful part and squatters on the other side - this is not the making of democracy and we can't stop blaming those who caused it."

Jacob Zuma's "Nkandla" in the back ground and a simple mud house in the foreground.

"While wanting to see change happening fast in every corner of the country, we are under no illusion that South Africa will automatically and comprehensively change in only 20 years. That is impossible. The legacy of apartheid runs too deep and too far back for the democratic administration to reverse it in so short a period."

President Zuma's remarks were a repetition of what has become a central refrain in ANC communication: that the legacy of the past - i.e. apartheid or "colonialism of a special kind" - is responsible for the triple crisis of inequality, unemployment and poverty. The remarks are usually accompanied by simplistic comparisons between whites who live in the "beautiful part" and blacks who live "on the other side."

We are all the products of our past - and there can be no doubt that apartheid created serious distortions in the normal development process that black South Africans would otherwise have experienced. However, the roots of inequality and poverty are far more complex than that. They include, in particular, lack of access to decent education, employment and effective government services - all factors that have been within the sphere of government policy since 1994.

The inequality that characterised our society in 1994 may certainly be ascribed to the complex legacies of the past. However, the fact that, 19 years later, we are an even more unequal society is the consequence of the failure of government policy. Unacceptable levels of inequality have their roots - among other things - in:

• the dismal performance of our education system caused overwhelmingly by government mismanagement and the depredations of SADTU; 

• the fact that almost 40% of black South Africans are unemployed - primarily as a result of   rigid labour policies; policies and attitudes that discourage foreign and domestic investment and the refusal of COSATU to countenance competition in freer labour markets;

• the inability of government to deliver decent services - which is attested to by service delivery protests throughout the country almost on a daily basis; and

• the implementation of inappropriate policies to promote equality - which have greatly benefited the top 10% of the black population - but which have done nothing for the bottom 60%.

Attempts to blame these failures on "apartheid" will simply divert government and public attention from the urgent need to implement the kind of realistic solutions called for in the National Development Plan. They also serve intentionally or unintentionally to stir up racial animosities that we simply cannot afford. When President Zuma says that "we cannot  stop blaming those who caused it", he is playing the very dangerous game of making whites the racial scapegoats for the manifest failures of his own government.

The reality is that many of the beautiful parts to which President Zuma refers are now increasingly inhabited by the emerging black elite and middle class. In 1995 whites accounted for 69% of those in the top earnings decile. By 2007 their share had diminished to 43%. By now it will be even smaller. The nature of the squatter camps is also changing: several are now inhabited by impoverished whites. The country may be "two in one" as President Zuma observes but they can no longer be simplistically characterised as 'rich white' and 'poor black'.

Clearly we South Africans need to engage one another in frank discussions about the legacy of the past, the challenges of the present and  our vision for the future.

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page72308?oid=369560&sn=Marketingweb+detail&pid=90389

Return of the Poor White Problem

The ANC's policy has led to an increase in the poor White problem

The African National Congress (ANC) has assisted in ushering in a new democratic dispensation, but has failed dismally to create a non-racial and equal opportunity society. 

Whilst the ANC had a moral and constitutional responsibility to empower the previously disadvantaged, it should not have done that at the expense of the minority groups. You don't extend your house by building new rooms while at the same time destroying the old rooms. Otherwise your house will never be fully extended. The ANC government has become a master at solving problems by creating new ones.

Badly implemented empowerment policies have led to a rapid growth in poverty amongst our white people. The poor white problem is exacerbated by the sharp rise in unemployment of white South Africans by more than 200% since 1994. 

The government is very indifferent to the impoverishment of these citizens because, according to ANC thinking, they were previously advantaged. 

This kind of thinking is wrong and it leads to new forms of apartheid.

South Africa's overall unemployment rate is estimated at between 28 and 40%, and is most severe among poor rural blacks. On the other hand, more than 10% of the white population lives below the poverty line. South Africa is one of the world's most inequitable countries and the income gap is widening. The triple challenges of poverty, inequality and unemployment are increasing drastically while ANC leaders spend most of their time jostling for positions and accumulating personal wealth.

Way back in 2004, President Thabo Mbeki was traumatised after realising the white poverty problem. Prior to this Mbeki was not aware of the poverty amongst some of our white people and he had assumed the standard of life of white people was higher than the national average and thus every white person lives better.

Mbeki confessed to City Press (11/04/2004): "It has been quite disturbing where, for example, in Cape Town, young white women actually came to the minister and said: ‘Minister, we have to work as prostitutes because we can't maintain ourselves, we can't maintain our children, but the police harass us in the streets. Can't you please talk to the police to just leave us alone, for there's no other way to make a living?' You can see the level of poverty and desperation among whites". Unfortunately, poverty levels amongst whites have not subsided since 2004.

Had the ANC managed the economy properly, the unemployment and poverty levels amongst all our people would have been far less. Except for the services sector, the manufacturing and agriculture sectors have been declining steadily since 1994. Sadly, the South African economy still relies on its exports of raw minerals.

The exportation of raw minerals yields low financial margins and disadvantages South Africa in terms of beneficiation. This has led to unemployment, which in my own estimation is around 40% and, at the same time, 25% of the population depends solely on government grants. The ANC government failed to turn South Africa into the industrial hub of the whole African continent by reviving the manufacturing sector and creating millions of jobs.

South Africa has now become a net importer of food because agricultural production has also decreased under the ANC's government. Actually, this country needs an Agricultural Revolution before an Industrial Revolution. Personally, I would like to see several interventions being implemented concurrently. Be that as it may be, it is important to note that East Asian economic development was preceded by the freeing up of agriculture. Once productivity gains and food security were achieved, Asian countries moved to manufacturing.
This was the same trajectory in Europe where the Agricultural Revolution laid the base for the Industrial Revolution. Something good about agriculture is that, unlike manufacturing, it does not necessarily require huge investments in technology. Agriculture is also not capital intensive and thus it creates jobs. As long as the ANC is still in power it would be almost impossible to turn around the agriculture sector.

Through the process of land restitution, land that has been given to the ‘new owners' is largely redundant because the government didn't come up with any local economic development model that would make the acquired land productive. At the beginning of this year, the government regulated an exorbitant basic salary level for farm workers. This will force most farmers out of business and, by the end of this year, more than 2000 farm workers will be retrenched and will swell the ranks of those who live under extreme poverty.

The pre-campaign for the 2014 general elections is currently underway. There are more than 20 political parties registered with the Independent Electoral Commission in South Africa, but truly speaking, there are only two bulls in the kraal, the ANC and the Democratic Alliance (DA). 

President Jacob Zuma's dancing skills and Cyril Ramaphosa's charm will not eradicate the escalating poverty. The DA has published a well researched 8% Growth Plan which has huge potential to reduce poverty across all the races.

The DA has a proven track record of good governance and service delivery as demonstrated in the Western Cape Province and municipalities under its control. Be that as it may, the DA can only serve and save South Africa if voters put them into power through the majority of their votes.  Blind loyalty to the ANC, perpetual patience, and historical sentiments will give the ANC further license to dispense patronage to its few powerful elites while the majority of our people are swamped by poverty.

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page72308?oid=369561&sn=Marketingweb+detail&pid=90389

Arms Deal

The navy in Simon's Town boasts four of the [most?] sophisticated corvette *1 warships in the world, bought for a cool R6 billion *2. South Africa's 28 Swedish Gripen JAS-39 fighter planes costing R12 billion are still on their way. Then there are the other fighter jets, helicopters, submarines …

The hardware is all part of the controversial arms programme announced five years ago *3, the biggest in the history of our defence force. At the time South Africa signed away R30 billion for arms but by the time the debt is paid off in 2020 interest and inflation will have pushed the total bill closer to R100 billion, experts say.

An order for eight to 14 Airbus A-400M cargo carriers with a combined price tag of up to R14 million (sic - billion) has also been approved.

The defence force is spending like there's no tomorrow. But people are posing the question : does South Africa really need all this weaponry?

What about poverty? The need for schools, houses, new roads, medical care? Wouldn't it have been better to invest the money in communities?

YOU investigated what the arms deal entails and what we could have bought instead with the money. We also asked the experts for their take on our expensive shopping spree.

Of course we need arms :

We have to be prepared even though we're not at war or under threat, insists military expert Helmoed Romer-Heitman of the authoritative publication Jane's Defence Weekly.

"Most wars erupt within seconds, without warning. Arms and expertise can't be obtained overnight. A balanced defence force is like insurance … and takes years to put into place.

"You don't know when or from which quarter to expect an attack. Your opponent is unknown and you have to be prepared with everything from tanks to canons (sic - cannons) and fighter planes to submarines."

Contrary to popular opinion, Helmoed reckons we've acquired too little weaponry - especially as the country will increasingly be involved in peace operations in Africa".

Arms are also handy in times of peace, he says. Submarines are used to target smugglers in our coastal waters, while corvettes can be used in maritime disasters. *4

Asked who'd want to attack South Africa, political expert Leopold Scholtz says : "No one - but given the unstable nature of international politics you never know what wider conflict South Africa may be dragged into.

"Remember also, two thirds of our gross national product is generated by international trade and 90 per cent of our products are transported by sea. Which means we must be prepared to defend ourselves against foreigners who want to disrupt the maritime artery."

An additional advantage of the arms contract is the assurance of reciprocal trade the suppliers of the weaponry have given us as part of the deal.

They have promised to invest R110 billion in the country's economy within seven years, creating 65 000 jobs.

Arms are a waste of money :

Our biggest threat is not war but poverty and unemployment, says Terry Crawford-Browne, chairman of the SA branch of Economist Allied for Arms Reduction.

"Who's going to invade us? Not forces from Africa. And if it's a superpower such as America we don't stand a chance, even with all the new arms," he says. And look what good America's military might did during the 9/11 attack …

"A country's security depends much more on the health of its economy and people than on its military might," he says. Take Costa Rica, for instance, where the defence force tried to stage a coup but failed. In 1949 the country disbanded its defence force and since then Costa Rica has been a prosperous democracy for more than 50 years.

Its police force protects its borders and money that would have been earmarked for the military now pays for hospitals and education.

"Research shows world poverty can be eradicated in just 10 years with just a quarter of the money spent on defence," Terry says.

"We don't need arms to defend our fishing resources either," he adds.

Over the past six years hardly any of the promised reciprocal investments have materialised.

The German submarine suppliers started a steel project in the Eastern Cape which was supposed to have created 16 000 jobs. It was cancelled after three months.

Then a condom factory was built. It closed down after two weeks.

Meanwhile the Swedish suppliers of our aircraft were last week accused of failing to stick to the promises they'd made to South Africa. They promised investments to the tune of R67 billion. Twenty-one of the 26 promised projects have come to naught."

What we bought - and could have bought instead :

4 Corvettes (R6 billion *2)

These highly sophisticated vessels (delivered and fitted with weapons systems in Simon's Town) plays a reconnaissance and interception role. Helmoed reckons we need at least six. Because of its economic power South Africa will increasingly have to become involved in operations elsewhere in Africa, including peace operations, he says. We have not only to protect our own waters but also to fulfil our international obligations.

With R6 billion builders could replace 250 000 shacks (a quarter of the estimated one million informal homes countrywide) with RDP houses. According to the department of housing this would provide jobs for about 90 000 people in the building industry and 86 000 people in the building supplies industry.

3 German Submarines (R4,5 billion *5)

These modern conventional submarines replace the navy's Daphnes which were decommissioned at the end of 2003. The T209s are not in the same league as those of Britain, France or America but Helmoed believes they're a good buy and have a longer reach than the Daphnes. They were designed specifically for coastal patrols, protecting naval bases and anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare.

With R4,5 billion we could provide free education to all the kids of South Africa, which is what happens in countries such as Brazil and Argentina. Inadequate training is one of the cardinal contributing factors to our unemployment figure of 42 per cent.

28 Swedish Gripen Fighter Planes (About R15 billion *4) (These are expected to be delivered in 2008. *6)

Gripens can be used in peace operations mainly for reconnaissance *7 and as a deterrent. During SA's peacekeeping operations in Burundi, for example, where our troops were involved in skirmishes with rebel forces a few support Gripens could have been deployed from the Makhado (formerly Louis Trichard) air force base. The planes could have been necessary to use any other arms to deter the enemy.

The Gripens were ordered the same year Cheetah jet fighters became operational. The 50 Cheetahs' life expectancy was until 2012 but could be stretched to 2022 *9. According to an original report from the auditor-general a special government task team recommended the purchase of the 28 new Gripens be delayed because we had the Cheetahs and the air force had only nine pilots who could fly Gripens. The purchase was contrary to the advice of air force officials who said the Gripens would be superfluous, their price tag was too high, they hadn't been tested and were totally unsuitable to our conditions. At the time the late Joe Modise, then minister of defence, said they should leave the decision regarding the purchase to the politicians.

R15 billion could buy enough antiretrovirals for 30 years for all 400 000 HIV-positive South Africans. Every day about 1 300 people die of Aids and it's predicted by 2010 we would have lost close to six million people to the virus. Currently only 65 000 infected people have access to antiretrovirals and the government supplies only 20 000 of them with the medication because there isn't enough money for a comprehensive service.

24 Hawk Training Planes (R2,5 billion *10)

The official delivery date for these is mid-2005 to mid-2006. This aircraft will be used for training prospective Gripen pilots. It can even be used as an attack aircraft in situations where resistance is not too heavy.

The money could have been used to employ another 2500 policemen and policewomen over the next 10 years.

30 Augusta Helicopters (R2,5 billion)

The Augusta helicopter *11 is equipped with modern technology to fly in moonless and poor weather conditions. The air force can use it for emergency and rescue operations. These helicopters replace the light Alouette III helicopters.

With R2,5 billion we could provide healthcare to the poor in remote areas. We would be able to pay 1 700 doctors to work in rural clinics for 10 years.

4 Augusta Westland Super Lynx 300 Helicopters (R1,1 million (sic - billion))

These helicopters are for use on the four corvettes. They're the "eyes" without which the corvettes are useless *13. They replace the existing Oryx helicopters which are unsuitable for use on a moving ship.

Ammunition and teargas plants at Swartklip between Mitchell's Plain and Khayelitsha in Cape Town poison the air and have serious health implications for residents of the area, says Terry Crawford-Browne. Many Swartklip workers have lost hands, legs, their sight and/or hearing and have suffered brain damage. Others develop cardiac disease, arthritis and cancer. They are boarded, paid R1 000 compensation and then told to pay their own medical expenses. This pollution problem with its tragic consequences could be alleviated with R1,1 million.

8 to 14 Airbus A-400M Cargo Planes (R8-R14 billion)

The Airbus A-400M cargo planes replace the air force's nine Hercules C130 planes. They'll enable the air force to transport staff, resources and equipment as part of peace operations. Over the past three years South Africa has had to spend more than R100 million on outsourcing *14 these functions to private contractors.

With R8 billion to R14 billion the government could rehouse the country's estimated one million street kids in, for instance, self-catering communes where their physical, emotional and educational needs could be met for six months to a year. They could be absorbed into school so they'd eventually become productive members of society, says Linzee Thomas of Cape Town who works with street kids full time.

With acknowledgements to Carol Coetzee and the YOU magazine.

*1 Actually, frigate.
*2 Actually, R6,873 billion in 1998 Rands - just R872 million higher than the budget authorised by cabinet in September 1999 and announced on 1998-11-18.
*3 Actually, 1998-11-18.
*4 They can - theoretically, but at the most ridiculous cost-benefit ratio ever devised in the history of mankind.
It's cheaper to acquire specialised fisheries and coast guard patrol craft, such as the four brand-new fisheries patrol craft just acquired by the Department of Environmental Affairs.
*5 Actually, R5,531 billion in 1998 Rands
*6 Actually, R15,916 billion in 1998 Rands - both the Gripen and Hawk - about R11 billion for the Gripen and R5 billion for the Hawk.
*7 They can - theoretically, but at the second-most ridiculous cost-benefit ratio ever devised in the history of mankind.
*8 The first in 2008, the last in 2015.
*9 At least until 2017.
*10 Actually, about R5 billion in 1998 Rands.
*11 The Agusta helicopter is a light utility helicopter - unarmoured and very lightly armed (capable of carrying a brigadier a colonel, a lieutenant-colonel and their bellies), also great for quickly getting peacekeeping SANDF colonels to the local Congolese whorehouse *12 when a special is running.
It's a pity for traceability and transparency that the 1997 Force Design resulting from the 1995-1997 Defence Review identified a requirement for medium lift helicopters (armoured and armed and capable of carrying a stick [10 -12] of troops with their full gear).

*12 See : "5 SAI doesn't want sex scandal colonel back" 

The Natal Witness
16 March 2005 


One of the allegedly incriminating photographs of colonel Victor White in a DRC nightclub
PHOTOGRAPHER: BEELD

See "A crashing good cup of coffee"
The Natal Witness
18 March 2005







*13 Indeed, but more importantly the then cost of some R900 million was included in the Cabinet first approved R29 billion Arms Deal budget, but were dropped to account for the sudden and mysterious R872 million increase in the cost of the corvette, of which R699 million can be directly attributed to the selection of Schabir Shaikh, Chippy Shaikh and partners' combat suite.
*14 Sounds like a deal. At R33,3 million per year, this goes into R14 billion 420 times, i.e. for 420 years, and that's not even including the running costs which are sure to be at least R140 million per year (at just 1% of acquisition cost), maybe more, maybe alot more.
My Opinion (for what it's worth)
a. Light utility helicopters are always required by and are useful to a defence force, but there should be a formally identified need.
b. A squadron of light frigates (4 to 6) was required and was formally identified as such by the SA Navy, but we should have acquired 4 Spanish frigates at R3,3 billion with the specified combat suite at R1,9 billion (all 1998 Rands) (R5,2 billion in total).
c. A frigate without a maritime helicopter is like a blind person in rush-hour traffic with a guide dog.
d. The SAAF needed to replace the Impala jet trainers at some time, but still needed to finalise their training regime, but in any case should have acquired the Impala's younger brother the Italian MB339 and half the price of the ageing Hawk.
e. The biggest scandal is the acquisition of the Gripen as the SAAF's replacement of the Cheetah Cs and Es as light fighter aircraft. The SAAF had just taken the 38 Cheetah Cs into service in 1997 and there was no need to even consider theire replacement until 2007 at the earliest.
f. Coastal submarines make a small navy potentially militarily potent, but not if one cannot afford to man them, maintain them and put two out of three of them to patrol duties at any one time. If one cannot do this, then they actually cripple a navy and not enhances its effectiveness.
It would have been a pity to lose the country's subsurface capability - but was there not another way apart from making Joe Modise and the Sons of the Earth very wealthy in their lifetimes?
g. The SAAF's 12 C-130 Hercules have just been upgraded at a cost of many billions by Marshalls Aerospace, Thales (yes, them again) and Denel Aviation (yes, them again). It just cannot be that we need to throw them out and buy a clutch of EADS (remember them of Wa Benzi infamy) A400s.
Watch this space - if we do discard the C-130s, just see who'll be waiting to buy them from Armscor a bargain price.
Just like with the C-160 Transalls, where there were Ron Haywood, Joe Modise and their own financiers thrusting their snouts into the trough.

http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles07/war_machine.html

ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS I HAVE BEEN ASKED

From Shane's Blog........

So I received a email from a person who has been reading my blog asking me questions about various things and where I stand on them, so I have decided to answer them here then it is out there and everyone will know where I stand on most things?

1) am I pro-life or pro-choice?

Well, essentially I am both because I find it morally wrong that abortions are so easily available that they are becoming a means of birth control? I mean if you don’t want a baby or cant afford a baby then close your friggin legs!! Stop making children you cant raise!! I mean if you are that stupid that you don’t know how to use normal birth control you should not be having sex in the first place!! On the other hand I find it morally reprehensible to tell a woman who has been raped that she must carry the product of a violent episode inside her body for nine months?? And completely insane to think that she should raise the child of her attacker? So in effect I am sitting on the fence with a foot in each camp. What baffles me the most about the whole argument is that the people who shout the loudest about what women should be doing are men? Easy to talk when you are not the one who has to push an ostrich egg through a hole made for a chicken egg?

2) what are my religious views?

Well first and foremost I will not discuss my religious views with anyone as I believe they are a private and personal issue between me and my God of choice? I will however say this – I believe all people have a right to worship and serve the God of their choice, I do not however think that you should try and force the issue and make me see things your way, keep your religion to yourself and those that agree with you, we can not and should not judge people according to their beliefs because we are not God! I will also say that any religion that calls for the rape and murder of people who do not agree with it should be stamped out and does not need to exist in a normal society!

3) Am I a racist?

I was brought up not to judge people by the color of their skin but I am a racist in that I believe my people have a right to rule themselves and defend themselves against the onslaught of a government who will not defend or help them in the face of genocide! So yes if you are one of the people who are against my people then yes I hate you and will defend myself and my people against you and your criminals if that means that I hate my president and all he stands for then so be it!! I will not be pushed around by people who think they have power simply because they are the government. So if you don’t like me because of my skin color or nationality then I don’t like you either and you better be sure of yourself before you come for me and mine because I will have no compunction about killing you.

4) do I support violence as a means to an end?

I never used to consider violence a means to an end but I live in South Africa, which is possibly the most violent country on the planet, so if you don’t live here then don’t judge, because if you don’t meet the violence directed at you with violence you will be raped and tortured and ultimately killed! If you come to me to talk then we will talk, if you come with violence or murder on your mind I will kill you without any feeling of guilt. I am a free man and will defend what I love to my last breath regardless of any laws you make.

5) do I think the ANC will eventually get it right?

Are you serious? I would have to be a complete and utter moron to place any hope or trust in an organization that has proved over and over again that they are ruled and run by the worst kind of criminals known to mankind!! They are guilty of almost any crime you can think of including genocide – so no! They will never get it right and this country will continue to suffer until they are a thing of the past!!

So there you go Mr. Anon I have answered your questions. If you have more questions feel free to ask as I will answer them as honsetly as I can because I really don’t care what people think of my opinions – they are after all my opinions.

http://nubbi.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/answers-to-the-questions-i-have-been-asked/

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 36 – Sport as a weapon in Communist hands

OK. I know I said I won’t write anymore Pandora chapters, but I have been inundated with requests to write some more. So, because of public demand, I will write a few more as I get time to do the research. I will eventually readjust the chapters accordingly. Here goes... 

By Mike Smith
29th of June 2012

The Saudi Arabia and Arab hipocracy as a case study

Since Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on the 23rd June 1894 and the first Modern Olympic Games held in Athens 1896, Saudi Arabia has never sent a single female athlete to the games. Until now (2012), Saudi women were forbidden from participating in any public sporting events.

But it changed this year after King Abdullah announced that Saudi women will for the first time take part in the London Olympics. But three days ago the only female Saudi Arabian athlete to have qualified for the upcoming Olympic Games in London, show jumper Dalma Malhas, has had to pull out due to “an injury to her horse”. This followed after the fanatical Wahhabi school of Islam who run Saudi Arabia strongly resisted the participation of their women in the Olympics.

The oppression of women in Saudi Arabia is legendary as much as it is shocking. They have a “Gender Apartheid” called “Purdah” or a curtain between the male world and the female world that is so fanatical that private homes have separate entrances for males and females. One woman took 60 Minutes on a tour of her house, and showed a separate entrance and living room for men. 

Saudi women make up only 5% of the workforce. The lowest in the world. Sports events like football are strictly for men only.

Most offices, banks, and universities have separate entrances for men and women. According to law, there should be physically and visually separate sections for the sexes at all meetings including weddings and funerals. Companies traditionally have been expected to create all-female areas if they hire women. Public transportation is segregated. Public places such as beaches and amusement parks are also segregated, sometimes by time, so that men and women attend at different hours. Violation of the principles of sex segregation is known as khalwa.

Policy in Saudi Arabia is decided by King Abdullah who decides everything from what kind of clothes women may wear to whether they are allowed to drive cars, which is incidentally also forbidden although nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman is not allowed to drive a car. 

Political parties are banned and only men can vote, and then for only half of the seats. Any public criticism of the government is met with a sentencing of public lashings.

Women can be charged with prostitution for socializing with a man who is not a relative or husband.

In 2008 Khamisa Mohammad Sawadi, a 75-year-old woman, was sentenced to 40 lashes and imprisonment for allowing a man to deliver bread to her directly in her home. Sawadi, a non-citizen, was deported.

60 Minutes: Women speak out in Saudi Arabia
Gender Apartheid in Saudi Arabia
Saudis order 40 lashes for elderly woman for mingling

The regime in Saudi Arabia is every bit as oppressive as the Taliban, but because they own a vast deposit of that magical black liquid called Crude Oil, they are the allies and darlings of the West and the West turns a blind eye to the human rights abuses in that country. The MSM is almost completely silent about it and never has the world threatened to ban Saudi Arabia from participating in the Olympics due to discrimination and their human rights abuses. Neither have they banned Qatar or Brunei who also decided to let women partake in the Olympics for the first time in 2012.

But with South Africa it was a different story…

During the Apartheid era in South Africa, Saudi Arabia was one of our biggest critics, along with other champions of democracy and human rights such as Iraq, Syria, Kuwait and caste ridden India.

But how was it in other countries in 1960?

At the time of 1960 when South Africa was castigated for “racism in Sport”… Richard D. Mandell wrote in The Nazi Olympics about the treatment of blacks in sport in the USA:

“Negro athletes who were winning sometimes had to defend themselves against interference on the part of resentful spectators…When the negro amateur boxer travelled with his team, local mores in the United States usually required that he eat apart from his mates and, if he was allowed to use the same hotel as they, to use the back entrance established for cleaning women and garbage men. There were of course, no Negroes on any major league baseball team…the happy situation described above existed in the enlightened far North. Things were worse in the South.”

South Africa and the IOC

Due to the great climate, South Africans have always been outdoors people, fond of sports not only as spectators but as active participants.

South Africans of all races and backgrounds play everything from soccer, tennis, badminton to touch Rugby on the beach. School sports are big events and National sports such as Rugby, Football and Cricket have a following bordering on the fanatical.

South Africa became a member of the IOC in 1908. In that year she also won her first gold medal at the London Olympiad when Reginald Walker streaked across the finish line in the 100 meters ahead of James Rector of the USA and Robert Kerr of Canada.

Four years later in Stockholm, South Africa’s Kenneth McArthur and Christopher Gitsham finished first and second in a grueling marathon race.

Until 1960, when South Africa last participated before her ban, this would be the pattern. At every event, she would win a few golds, some silvers and some bronzes. Modest compared to the USA and Russia, but for such a tiny nation respectable when compared to her peers.

The Olympic Charter

What we need to remember is that it is not countries and their governments who belong to the IOC, but National Olympic Committees. 

The Charter of the Olympics states in Chapter 1, Article 6, page 19 that, “The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries.”

And under fundamental principle 6 (page 10)…

“Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.“

Yet South Africa’s sports administrators were expelled because of a vendetta against their government.

A history of political interference in the Olympics

Politics in the Olympics is not new and neither is the hypocrisy of the IOC to uphold their own moral standards.

In 1920, just after WWI, Germany and Austria were not invited. In 1936 some countries threatened to boycott the Berlin Olympics in view of Hitler’s exploitation of the event and his discrimination against Jews and Negroes.

In 1948, the vanquished Axis powers were snubbed again and at the same time the state of Israel could not participate because it was not yet a member and averted a walk out by the Arab states…those champions of democracy and human rights who supported the Black September Organization who killed 11 Israeli athletes and a West German policeman at the Munich Games in 1972. 

In 1952 in Helsinki several Western countries threatened with withdrawal if the Communist bloc countries were invited. 

The games of 1956 in Australia was a particularly good one. Communist Red China withdrew from the Melbourne Games when the flag of Nationalist China (Taiwan) was raised. At the same time Spain, The Netherlands and Switzerland withdrew in protest to Russia’s savage quelling of the Hungarian anti Communist uprising. Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq walked out in protest to the Israeli attack on Egypt and the British and French occupation of the Suez Canal area.

At the time, the fifth president of the IOC, Avery Brundage complained: “In ancient days nations stopped wars to compete in the Olympic Games. Nowadays we stop the Olympics to continue our wars.”

South African sports would soon become just another battle ground in the Communist onslaught against South Africa.

Isolating South African sports by bullying and blackmail

Membership of the Football Association of South Africa (FASA),was suspended by FIFA in 1961. White South Africans especially, were not too upset, because to them, Rugby and Cricket were National sports, not soccer, but it did make them think about the possibility of South Africa being barred from the Olympics and possibly International Rugby and Cricket games as well.

In 1962 South Africa had an officially recognized South African Olympic and National Games Association (Saonga)

Then came a Rhodesian born coloured teacher by the name of Dennis Brutus and launched the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee (Sanroc) in opposition to Saonga.

Brutus was a radical Trotskyist Communist educated at Fort Hare University and the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). He intended for South Africa a People’s Revolution and a Communist backed Socialist state at the height of a global Cold War that saw severe human rights abuses and mass murders in Communist run countries such as the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. 

Under the suppression of Communism Act he was imprisoned for 18 months in a cell next to Mandela on Robben Island. Upon his release he fled to the UK where he continued his campaign against South Africa and tried to get her booted out of the Olympics and international sports.

He left behind his deputy John Harris in Sanroc. Harris was a keen man who added his contribution by planting a bomb on the Johannesburg train station that killed a woman and maimed 23 innocent passengers.

Harris was tried, convicted and sentenced to death. His wife drew up a petition for clemency, but only about 300 people signed it and Harris was hanged at 5.30 am on 1 April 1965. His body was taken to the Pretoria West cemetery and cremated.

Harris was a family friend of the Liberal Hain family a bunch of leftist radicals who were imprisoned in 1961. Peter Hain’s mother, Adelaine, took food to the convicted terrorist, young Nelson Mandela in prison.

At the time, Peter Hain was a schoolboy of 15 years. Dressed in a school blazer and grey flannel trousers the pimply teenaged Hain spoke in a quivering voice at Harris’ funeral, saying farewell to the terrorist by quoting John Donne and Matthew 5, “blessed are they who are persecuted for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.”

The liberally brainwashed Peter Hain failed to see that the innocent victims of John Harris’ bomb were the real persecuted ones. The Hains and their four children left for England in March 1966.

Nevertheless, due to Dennis Brutus’ activities…South Africa was barred from taking part in the Tokyo Olympics. The charge was led in 1963 by Sanroc and its Afro-Asian Communist allies. 

South Africa’s Saonga was put to an ultimatum: Integrate or be banned. If the IOC’s demands were not met by 16th of August 1963, SA athletes would be banned from Tokyo. Saonga responded by including at least 7 non white athletes in its team of 62 Olympic hopefuls. But the IOC was not satisfied. It then insisted that Saonga publicly denounced the South African government before they could qualify for the Olympics. This was one demand Saonga could not comply with.

That is the problem with giving in to coercion, blackmail and paying Danegeld. Once you have paid the tribute, the Dane does not go away.

Can you imagine what would have happened if they asked the Russian sports ministry or the East German Dynamo Club to publicly denounce their governments? Yet these were the ones shouting the loudest for South Africa’s expulsion.

South Africa banned by IOC in 1964

In 1967 Saonga assured the IOC in Rome that it accepted the Olympic charter unconditionally and the IOC sent a fact finding mission to South Africa under Lord Killanin to investigate sports facilities available to blacks.

Remember that this was the time that the government of Verwoerd won an international court case in the Hague that South Africa was oppressing blacks. The world was upset that SA won.

How bad was the situation in SA at the time?

The mission to SA was critical on a few points but they noted for the greatest part that they were impressed with the steps the SA government took to ensure fully representative Olympic teams were selected. One thing they specifically noted was that most black sportsmen and administrators did NOT want South Africa to be banned.

When the IOC convened at Grenoble, France in February 1968, three representative of Saonga and four from Sanroc turned up. Saonga undertook to have mixed trials and select teams purely on merit and to have them travel, march and compete under one flag.

The IOC voted 38 to 27 for South Africa’s re-admission. The votes against came from the Afro-Asian Communist Bloc.

As we have seen so many times in the UN, the blacks simply refused to accept a vote that went against their wishes. So they applied their favourite trick that rarely failed at such international gatherings: Blackmail. They were backed by the Communists and many Western countries followed suit.

One after the other they announced that they would boycott the 1968 Mexico City games if South Africa Participated. Needless to say, come 1968, South Africa was not invited to the games. 

Instead the IOC decided to launch another vote to invite South Africa and with 46 votes to 14 and 2 abstentions decided to kick South Africa out.

As Les de Villiers said in his book “South Africa. A skunk amongst nations” (page 121)…about the kicking out of South Africa: ”Metaphorically speaking, it was a question of the church choir being led by the town harlot – and no one daring to protest for fear of being roughed up by the local mafia.”

In South Africa there was big disappointment especially amongst black athletes.

In Amsterdam on Friday, 15 May 1970, South Africa was finally expelled from the IOC. The charge sheet was drawn up by the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa and cited racial discrimination in sport and failing to provide adequate facilities for black athletes.

Most of these black countries had cruel and despotic regimes with one party states and atrocious human rights records. In their countries millions of dissenters were simply murdered en masse or citizens deported like the Indians in Uganda, and Kenya and their relatives murdered in Nigeria. 

As I have mentioned in Part 9 of Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box, At the height of Apartheid the city of Soweto, the biggest black city on the continent next to Lagos in Nigeria, had 115 Football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses…(source: Verrat an Südafrika, Klaus D. Vaque page 40)

…How adequate is adequate?

Still believe the liberal lies?

…If you still believe that the mass media, countless multinational church organizations and the anti-apartheid movements presented an objective view of Apartheid South Africa and that South African whites exploited blacks, then read further…

Let us look at the humanitarian aid from South Africa to black African countries during this period of time.

• In 1964 A South African Air Force Hercules C-130 landed in the Congo with urgently needed medicine and food parcels at the request of Prime Minister Tsombe.
• In 1965 at the request of Prime Minister Jonathan South Africa sent 100,000 bags of maize to Lesotho to fight the famine there.
• In 1966, when a famine was threatening Botswana, South Africa donated $50,000 to them. At the time enough to buy 50,000 bags of maize.
• At the time of the Biafra war in Nigeria, SA donated $3,000 to the International Red Cross to help victims there.
• In 1968, 12 South African farmers made 230 tractors available to plough the fields of nine black Lesotho border towns for the coming maize planting.
• In 1969 South African Airways Dakotas flew emergency supplies to 30,000 people facing starvation in the Kwagga’s Nek area of Lesotho.
• In 1976 South Africa sent highly qualified doctors and specialists to Zaire to help fight the feared Marburg disease.
• In 1977 South Africa sent a team of specialist to Moatize in Mozambique when the coal bunker suffered severe methane gas explosions.
• In 1979 South African firefighters were sent to Beira in Mozambique and Salisbury in Rhodesia to put out petrol fires at their depots.
• In 1976 after the civil war broke out in Angola, South Africa established 4 refugee camps in SWA and SA for 11,000 refugees who fled to the Apartheid country, at a cost of more than two million dollars. A further two camps were erected and maintained by the SA army in the south of Angola.
• In 1980 South Africa supported the Transkei with a donation of $3,5 million in drought relief and created jobs for thousands of families by letting them improve roads and dams.
• In 1987 South Africa was supporting 200,000 Mozambiquen refugees who fled the civil war there. Many of them Communist Frelimo soldiers who were supported by the World Council of Churches who hated Apartheid South Africa. About 2,000 refugees, most carrying malaria, were fleeing through our electrified border with the Kruger Park, facing wild animals and risking landmines to make it INTO the hated “evil” Apartheid country.
• In 1983 the total amount of aid to SA’s neighbouring countries was in excess of $200 million per year. The development programs were running to $300 million a year.

Source: Verrat an Südafrika, Klaus Vaque page 27,28

Spreading the liberal lies

But this is not what people like Dennis Brutus and Peter Hain told the world. They travelled the globe to tell their myths and fairytales to gullible uninformed liberal listeners who have never been to South Africa.

During the 1970’s South African golfer Gary Player invited many deserving black golfers like Lee Elder to come and play in South Africa while assisting black South African golfers like Vincent Tshabalala to participate overseas. In the South African PGA there were more black golfers to be seen than any comparable US tournament. Until 1974 the Augusta Masters in the USA was an all white tournament.

In 1969 Peter Hain and some supporters disrupted a cricket match between an English side and a visiting South African side. Later that same month he stopped play when he ran onto the tennis courts at Bristol between SA and England in a Davis Cup match. He obviously had no problem to trample on other people’s rights to push his fanatical leftist anti-South African agenda.

Peter Hain was also the father of the slogan “Kill the Boers!”

That is right. At Twickenham during the 1969 Springbok Rugby tour of Britain he and his hippie supporters, who have never been to South Africa, carried placards and shouted, “Get out”…”Go Home”…”Sack Vorster”…and “Kill the Boers”. Later they broke through a police cordon and harassed the Springboks.

In Swansea they managed to provoke violence between policemen and spectators in their “Bash a Boer” campaign. They blackmailed the UK government of Harold Wilson with threats of violence and disruption to call off the 1970’s cricket tour in public interest. 

They then set their eyes on banks, airlines, businesses and hotels that were dealing with South Africa, flying or accommodating her athletes…and threatened them with violence. Such were the tactics of these fanatical liberals…Mob Law rules and violence is justified when THEY use it. But when it comes to anybody else, they use clichés like, "Violence doesn't solve anything..."

Hipocracy Down Under

The next goal would be to disrupt the 1971 Rugby tour to Australia with the same threats and acts of violence. So bad were the demonstrations against the Springboks in Australia that Queensland declared a State of Emergency. The cricket tour the following year was cancelled.

Next was the 1973 Rugby tour of New Zealand. Threats of violence and even dynamite explosions forced Prime Minister Norman Kirk to ban the Springboks. In addition he also banned the women’s bowls team calling them “racists” for being all white. When it was pointed out to him that in South Africa and other African countries blacks simply do not play bowls and that Kenya and Zambia also fielded only white bowls teams, he refused to listen. Besides, New Zealand fielded no Maori, and Australia no Aborigines, in their line ups.

Kirk further had no problem to sanction a Maori Rugby team selected on racial grounds to tour Fidji. If a black Maori team was not racist how could a white Springbok team be?

It was pointed out to him that South Africa had a coloured Rugby team called the Proteas and a Black team called the Black Leopards. He was asked if such teams would be welcome in New Zealand. He said yes, because they would be the same as the Maori team.

It was clear that Prime Minister Norman Kirk considered a team only racist when they were white. A black team and a coloured team were non-racist, because racism is a white phenomenon.

At the same time in Australia (1974), Aboriginal football and cricket teams, selected purely on race, where sent to Papua New Guinea. 

Such was the hipocracy Down Under. Whilst being opposed to any non-integrated sports in South Africa, the leaders of Australia and New Zealand fully encouraged separate sports for different races in their own countries.

The rest of the world

Despite extreme protests by Peter Hain and company, the British Lions tour of South Africa went ahead. They played four matches against the Springboks, one against Rhodesia, one against the Coloured Protea Team and one against the Black Leopard team.

Willy John McBride’s rugby team was the first in almost a century to return undefeated from South Africa. Back in Britain they were heroes and when they returned they were met on the airport by Opposition Leader Edward Heath. Also waiting at the Airport Hotel was Hain and a few of his ultra radical liberal followers. His sister stepped forward and threw a flour bomb at Heath.

In the late sixties, American Negro tennis player, Arthur Ashe applied for a visa to play in South Africa. It was refused, because Ashe told his supporters he wanted to come to South Africa to “put a crack in the Apartheid Wall”. He added that “I would like to drop an H-bomb on Johannesburg”.

His visa refusal was milked by the anti-Apartheid lobby for every drop of propaganda to show how blatantly racist the South Africans were. It went on for months.

Colour had nothing to do with it. Can you imagine what would have happened if a South African tennis player made such a threat about Washington DC or New York?

In 1973 Arthur Ashe applied again. This time he was allowed in. He played, passed criticism and lost in the finals against fellow American Jimmy Connors. He quickly toured SA, loved it and then left. The next year he wanted to come back.

At the time South Africa had 60,000 registered white tennis players and 22,000 black, coloured and Indian players, 20,000 of which were affiliated to the White union. The famous Sugar Circuit and other major tournaments were open to all races. Davis Cup selection was strictly on merit.

At the same time that Ashe played in SA, the American black boxer Bob Foster came to defend his light-heavyweight title against Pierre Fourie whom he narrowly defeated. He enjoyed the hospitality amongst whites and blacks alike. When asked about South Africa he said: “Before I came here I was cold towards South Africans. I thought in a different way. Now I love this place. It’s great! I’ll be glad to come back.”

The Pakistani cricketer Billy Ibadulla said: “I have read much about the country in newspapers and magazines, but I don’t think you can get true impressions until you come here.”

He further said that foreign black visitors should be encouraged to come to South Africa. 

Nevertheless…The true impressions are what I think they were scared of.

There were many more violent demonstrations against South African sportsmen and women. In Australia at a surf-lifesaving contest a South African flag was ripped to shreds. In Stockholm demonstrators invaded the tennis courts at the Davis Cup tournament and in 1981 the Springbok rugby players who included a coloured player called Errol Tobias, were flour-bombed from airplanes in New Zealand and had to train in horse stables.

What were their true intentions?

Neither Brutus nor Hain were sportsmen deprived of participation in South Africa. They were leftist radicals backed by fanatical Communists who used sport to attack, isolate and bleed South Africa to death. They knew full well how fanatical South Africans were about sport and they would do anything to compete internationally.

As Abdul Minty of the Anti-Apartheid Movement summed up their true intentions: “Even when South Africa has integrated Sport, we would not be satisfied. What we want is a Black Government.”

Now I ask you…Who are the real racists here?

Nevertheless, the decision by whites to vote "yes" in the 1992 referendum to hand power over to the ANC was greatly influenced by their hopes to partake or see their teams partake in international sports again.

Their true characters

But in the end their true characters comes out. In 1975 Hain was arrested for a bank robbery and the Old Bailey later acquitted him after he claimed he was framed by the South African Bureau of State Security (BOSS). He said that they used a look-alike to pull off the job. 

Yeah right…

In 2008 as a politician he was charged for not declaring campaign funds to the tune of £103,000. After ten months his file was handed to the Crown Prosecution Services, who decided not to prosecute him after Gordon Brown personally intervened. Hain called his failure to declare donated funds an innocent mistake.

Hain’s past saved his job
Hain not charged over donations

I just wonder how Peter Hain can sleep at night,…now that his darlings the corrupt ANC government is in charge of South Africa and stealing the country into bankruptcy. Is he proud of their racist policies of racial quotas in sport and university entry? Is he proud of their racist policies such as Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment?

Or how about the 50,000 whites including more than 3,000 white farmers who have been murdered since 1994? Hain was the one who chanted "Kill the Boers", remember...?

Today the Springboks and other sports teams are permanently playing with a handicap. They can never put a full team together on pure merit. Racial representation is the first concideration, not merit. That the Springboks actually still win games is a miracle.

People like Peter Hain, Abdul Minty and Dennis Brutus were directly responsible for the situation in South Africa today. 

If Hain is so proud of his Rainbow Utopia that he helped to create why does he not come back to South Africa and live here? Why does he not buy himself a nice shack in the middle of Khayalitsha?

Main Sources: 
South Africa, A skunk amongst nations, Les de Villiers, 1975.
Verrat an Südafrika, Klaus Vaque, 1988.

http://mikesmithspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.de/2012/06/opening-pandoras-apartheid-box-part-36.html