FROM RAINBOW TO RACIST NATION

The obsession with race in South Africa has clearly not ended with the demise of National Party rule in 1994.

Despite all the verbal dross to the contrary the ANC remains, after 22 years in government as obsessed as even the strongest verkrampte in the long years of  Nationalist (White) rule.

Cricket is a case in point.

After a generation in the wilderness, from 1970, South Africa was readmitted to international cricket with a one day match against India in November 1991 and a test match against the West Indies in April 1992.

SA were clearly the best side in the world when they were excluded from international cricket after having smashed Australia 4-0 in four Tests, following Australia’s comprehensive victory over the Indians in the sub-continent.

If racial selection was the reason for South Africa’s isolation in 1970 then there has to be grounds for South African exclusion today.

The ANC seemingly want to run a slide rule over everything to ensure their ‘white minority’s noses are perpetually rubbed in it,’ and the latest quota system proves that fact.

Cricket South Africa (CSA) has determined at government urging that of the 11 players six must be black (that includes mixed race and Asians) and two of those must be African. In SA domestic cricket, at provincial level, three of the 11 must be African.

The rationale for this nonsense is ‘to make up for the grave injustices of the past,’ which means another generation of players will be judged on the colour of their skin rather than their ability.

In fact it has already happened. In 2007 Cricket World Cup squad, Loots Bosman and Roger Telemachus were selected over the much more deserving Dale Steyn and Albie Morkel, simply to make up a required quota of seven black players. In 2015 it was Vernon Philander who was preferred over the in-form Kyle Abbott.

Instead of making these disgraceful selection cases a cause célèbre the appeasers in the western media and sporting officialdom pass by on the other side, like those who preceded the Good Samaritan.

Some of us remember the media furore over the exclusion of the dignified and talented Basil D’Oliveria. Then the media , rightfully,‘ went into bat’ for ‘Dolly’ against the Vorster Government who did not want a Cape Coloured playing in the England team of 1968.

Today, there is, of course, nothing wrong in vigorously supporting a program to encourage African youth into the game as only seven of 90 players, since re-admission have come from this group (The Economist, 19/9/16).

Indeed, the nurturing program is essential to encourage African youngsters as only 4 -20 percent of black primary school pupils play the game. Cricket gear is more expensive and poor African schools do not have the financial resources to fund it, unlike soccer and rugby, sports that essentially just need a ball. This is the real challenge for CSA, not racial quotas.

However, by just giving a place to an African, at the expense of other black or white players, simply corrupts the selection process, demeans the playing worth of the African individual selected and creates team and social disharmony.

This new policy is a racially extended version of the quota regime, (1998-2007), where the national side had to field four black players minus any stipulation on the number of Africans.

Despite the political posturing of black administrators and politicians, racial quotas do not ‘cut the mustard’ with any section of the RSA populace. Some 77 percent of South Africans think quotas are wrong and that ranges from 70 per cent of Africans to 95 per cent of Asians (plus 87 per cent of Coloureds and 83 per cent of Whites also concurring), according to a survey by the SA Institute of Race Relations.

Former NZ All Blacks Rugby coach, Laurie Mains, who worked in RSA in 2000-1 said the Springboks days of being a top power were over because of their rules on ‘racial inclusion.’ In reality this is racial exclusion except in the Orwellian world of doublespeak which is the RSA.

Mains originally supported such a policy but said that was 15 years ago and that such a policy was never meant for the long haul.

Yet the ANC Sports Minister, Fikile Mbalula, saw fit to tell the SA rugby, cricket, athletics and netball bodies, in April, that their failure to meet transformation targets (read black privilege)  meant they were forbidden to bid for or host international competition.

Jacques Kallis rightly said he was ‘embarrassed’ by the decision but international bodies should impose bans on SA for their blatant denial of selection on merit.

This after all was the blow dealt to those magnificent cricketing Springboks, particularly of the 1963-70 period, because they were an all white side with other groups unable to be selected in that era.

The current system is just a watered down version of blatant racial preference.

Interesting too is just why the national cricket side is called the Proteas, whereas the national rugby side still is called the Springboks? But then logic and fairness has never been a strong suit of the ANC.

That is clearly shown by the disgraceful manner the the 1970 side has been treated by black officials.

The players were not politicians and a true rainbow nation would honour these greats from a bygone era.

However, the reverse was the case, particularly from 2000, when the then new chief of SA cricket, Gerald Majola, also became their tormentor- in- chief. He was to cricket what Robespierre was to French political life during the revolution.

Ultimately this disgraceful ‘administrator,’ with his snout in cricket’s trough, was dismissed by CSA for failing to disclose unpaid bonuses, misuse of travel allowances and lying.

Majola ‘s hated South Africa’s ‘Invincibles’ simply because they were white.

In a classic case of reverse racism Majola made sure the SA greats were snubbed in many ways as catalogued by that fine historian, RW Johnson. These slights included:

*ensuring privileges to ex-players and their wives were removed or reduced

* snubbing of white players who offered their expertise as coaches

* purging of honour boards and old photos of white cricket sides before 1992

* players from that earlier era had their numbers taken away and basically CSA started at one in 1992, despite SA being a foundation nation of Test cricket, first playing against England in 1888 and Australia, 1902

* waging an unsuccessful two year campaign to have South African Test matches expunged from the record books, pre 1992, instead it was he who was sent packing by Lords

* when the legendary batsman Graeme Pollock remonstrated with him about unfairness, Majola upbraided the greatest ‘Bok batsman in front of some old members with the words, “you guys had your day, now get lost.” That was akin to someone in Australian cricket telling Sir Donald Bradman to get lost.

* Majola, ever the puissant, followed that classless act up by renaming the SA national schools cricket week after his brother claiming he may have played for SA but for his colour

* brought in racial quotas favouring blacks but using weasel words like ‘targets’ to describe them.

Incredibly, Barry Richards had, at that stage, never been invited to a South African cricket function by the new regime; and neither he nor Pollock have been honoured by having grandstands, or entry gates named after them.

Anyone, like this writer, who was privileged to see Pollock (274 runs) and Richards (140) in the second Test at the Old Kingsmead ground, in 1970, will never forget the devastation wrought on Australia by those two great Springbok batsmen in one of the great partnerships of all time.

Basil D’Oliveria was similarly snubbed by the ANC because he refused to toe the line of the post 1994 government.

How quickly the ANC forgot President Mandela’s gracious and powerful symbolic reconciliation gesture of appearing at the Rugby in a Springbok jersey and cap and shaking hands with the SA captain Francois Pienaar.

 Instead, like the French Bourbons of old, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

The so-called rainbow nation is simply a myth, in reality South Africa is just another tawdry diminished, revenge nation with spiteful black racist rulers abusing the rights and traditions of the minority.

ANDREWS SIGNALS NEED FOR DEFENCE OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

In a recent visit to Perth, former Liberal minister, Kevin Andrews MP, warned that those opposing traditional marriage were engaging in emotion and a campaign of vilification at those who sought to defend marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Andrews, the Member for Menzies (Vic), who has held many portfolios, including Defence, Social Services, Immigration and Employment, was in Perth for a Christian Heritage seminar and also a fund raising event for Peter Abetz MLA.

Andrews argued that public policy needed to be founded on good principles and rationality.

“Essentially there are two competing views about marriage. The first is as a protective institution, especially for children, but also for adults, and society generally. The second view sees it as an affectionate relationship between individuals.”

While arguing that the two models were not polar opposites it was the former that should have primacy with policy makers.

“The first view has been favoured across cultures and centuries, although at times alternatives have gained prominence, amongst the Epicurean Greeks, in the late Roman era and in the Soviet Union between the Wars. “

Andrews said the traditional marriage had been successful because in both past and present eras because there was overwhelming evidence that it produced the best model for society and that it was a pre-political institution.

Traditional marriage has remained the inspirational model for most people and was the most reasonable for social institutions, such as the State, to deal with to promote social stability.

Andrews warned about stripping away the law of marriage being a union between man and woman and instead substituting ‘two people.’

Marriage was more than just love between two people yet attempts were being made to remove the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood from the law, governance and administration in favour of parenthood. As journalist Paul Kelly wrote, ‘once enshrined in law, the education systems, of primary schools upwards, will teach your children the ideology of marriage equality, namely equality of homosexual and heterosexual unions, as the foundations for cultural norms……’

Andrews said Kelly was right when he argued that ‘once the state authorises same sex marriage then religions will come under intense pressure and another campaign based on further application of marriage equality will begin.’

Indeed, pro-polygamy adherents may question why there should be a line be drawn at just same sex marriage?

The separation of faith and power is important as the Reformation, Lockean thought and the Declaration of Independence have proved. The State ultimately allowed diversity of opinion, belief and practice in the name of national peace, not of religious preference.

As Andrews noted the notion that law should not intrude into areas of common public morality has been challenged and undermined.

What was once ‘permitted’ has become a ‘right’ with demands of protection by law.

Andrews said when political liberalism is reconnected with morality and politics it does what liberalism seeks to avoid.

Rights are now being increasingly asserted for groups as opposed to individuals. Moral judgments against a group are now being deemed unlawful and punishable. Laws of defamation designed to protect the individual have now been subsumed by new star chambers seeking to protect group rights.

Thus, films like The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) while undoubtedly offensive to Christians in showing Jesus lusting after Mary Magdalene, do not constitute defamation. Ditto for offensive ‘art work’ like Serrano’s Piss Christ-Jesus on the cross submerged in the artist’s urine- and Ofili’s work, The Holy Virgin Mary, covered in elephant dung.

While these are certainly offensive to Christians, their strength is they accept that in a tolerant, liberal society such matters do not require the state to intervene.

Andrews contrasted the tolerance of Christianity with that of Islam, a cult that still has blasphemy laws and engages in religious persecution of others.

He said, surprisingly, many so-called liberals have failed to protest at this direction, instead championing hate speech laws at those directing legitimate concern of Islamism and the plight of those minorities persecuted in the Middle East.

The Andrews warnings are timely, particularly in the vicious attack on traditional marriage.

Bill Shorten’s intransigence in allowing a public plebiscite is matched only by his disgraceful denigration of those who want democratic rights to prevail. The Labor leader’s shriek of “homophobe,” flung at the principled conservative senator, Cory Bernardi, (Liberal SA), is a case in point. Bernardi was walking along a corridor in Parliament House, near where Shorten was holding a press conference, and he did nothing to prompt such an attack.

Even a constitutional conservative senator, Dean Smith (Liberal WA), argues, fatuously, that he cannot support a people’s vote as he claims that will create a precedent for popular votes on tough questions.

Oh, really? There have been only three national plebiscites since Federation (1901), hardly excessive, epitomising the lack of demand but does it matter if there are more?

The first two (1916-17) were both important, relating to military conscription in the Great War and twice the public opposed the Government so Australia, rightly, had an all-volunteer force. The third, 1977, was related to a choice for Australia’s national anthem with Advance Australia Fair emerging as the preferred model.

Therefore, as marriage pre-dates the state, any attempt to redefine marriage by way of a parliament majority only can expect public resistance. Traditional marriage is the accepted institution of the people and they rightly expect a say, as promised by the Government in the 2016 Federal election. Indeed, it was only a short time ago that Smith, Shorten and Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, were all in favour of the people being consulted. Verily, they are a confused and fluctuating troika.

Smith, in particular, should listen to the words of his Liberal lower house colleague, Andrew Hastie (Canning, WA): ‘where Smith invests authority in the parliamentary sovereignty, I choose to invest it in the people.’ Hastie is correct.

The fact is that plebiscites, and the more important referendum section of the Australian Constitution (S.128), are provided for and have every right to be used.

There is an argument that Australia should have citizens initiated referenda, as well as that proposed by the Parliament, thus following the example of Switzerland and many US states.

The public has had enough of Left wing haters traducing the language and seeing those who argue for traditional values being pilloried by the cacophony of rage by the spiritual heirs of the mob who supported Barabbas.

This Biblical analogy is certainly appropriate when the mild mannered, quietly spoken Director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Lyle Shelton, is labelled ‘a nauseating piece of filth,’ by a sour-faced media hack, Bernard Keane.

Shelton has had abuse rained down on him from a ‘twitterati’ whose ignorance is matched only by their vicious bile.

Bill Leak’s brilliant cartoon, in The Australian, of a goose-stepping rainbow hued army marching was telling. Leak’s comment under his cartoon simply had the words, ‘Waffen SSM.’

It followed the blatant attack on freedom of speech and assembly by SSM fanatics, threatening violence, and causing the cancellation of a Christian gathering at the Mercure Hotel at Sydney Airport. The hotel staff was subjected to a barrage of intimidation and abuse.

Also female members of the ACL have had pornography sent to their emails; the ACL receptionist has had constant threatening calls, including death threats; and a SSM activist bizarrely made a mess in the female toilet of the ACL.

As Shelton said, with the memory of the trashing of Senator Bernardi’s office by rainbow fascists in Adelaide, still fresh in mind, the ACL staff was more than a little unnerved.

Dr David van Gend, a Queensland GP and pro-traditional marriage advocate, also knows the experience of having his workplace defaced. In addition his recent book on marriage has been ‘spiked’ by the printing company being scared off by the apostles of intolerance.

Of course, the silence of the SSM leadership, on such tactics, has been deafening. Easier to postulate on imagined suicides, if a plebiscite is held, than actual acts of social and cultural hooliganism!

Labor politicians, such as Stephen Jones, cravenly say both sides are guilty. But he demeans himself, and the ALP, in failing to provide examples of the SSM crowd either being attacked or being denied a voice in the public square.

With this happening now, before any change to the Marriage Act, matters can only get worse if defending true marriage becomes ‘bigotry’ under new rules.

Kevin Andrews recent warnings are timely and continues his long-time interest in marriage as an institution, as revealed in his book Maybe I do-Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The former defence minister has been at his best in defending marriage.