Naive post-colonialist claptrap

Greg Castle responds to Irish journalist and writer, Kevin Myers’ article, in which he criticises left-wing opinion on Africa and the so-called “liberal consensus”.  His essay appeared in The Irish Independent.. To read the article that incited this response, see - http://africaunauthorised.com/?p=1311

As much as this article (see link above) was clearly a brave and controversial one to write, and there are undoubtedly many truths within it, it is still clearly a rather naive, post-colonialist approach. It conveniently omits the centuries of damage caused by the colonialists themselves, Britain being one of the worst, to otherwise very peaceful nations and tribes, living in harmony with nature and feeding themselves perfectly. The Egyptians, Malians, Ghanaians, Moroccans, etc, were way more civilised than the Dark Aged Europeans, and thousands of years earlier too. That was until they were trustingly duped and forced to grow crops for the Europeans that they didn't consume themselves. Tobacco, coffee, tea, wheat, and mine diamonds, gold and oil, none of which made their lives richer, just a few handfuls of colourful glass beads perhaps. 

Let's not forget the slave trade to the Americas, making those once culturally rich countries in Africa rather more and more dependent on their colonial masters.

So it suited the colonialists at the time to rape and pillage, leaving in their wake mayhem and devastation. That's why they feel a degree of guilt to this day. But the damage has been done. It'll take much more than Bob Galdorf, Bono, Bill Gates and the like's charitable handouts to correct.

A rather ironic article from someone who comes from a Nation where a third of the slobby, lazy and undisciplined population get weekly charity of a similar sort, from hard working individual tax payers in the form of the Dole..

Liberal defence of Islam may be a double-edged sword

There is undoubtedly a fine line between noble liberals who stand up for the disenfranchised Muslims, taking a stand against Islamophobes, and those who speak up for the many, particularly women, who feel completely oppressed by the religion of their birth.

As one who abhors religious fundamentalism of any form, and cannot honestly take any religion seriously, other than for its therapeutic and cathartic side effects, I have always attempted to be as true to my conscience as I possibly can when it comes to taking a stance of this nature.   Yet when it comes to arguing for or against much of the Islamic response to Western ideology I find myself somewhat betwixt and between.

Why?  Well simply because I can see the argument from just about all three dimensional sides (the naïve and narrow-minded West, the naïve though well intentioned liberal Islamic supporters and the downtrodden women and gays born into Islam).  I do not however see the argument for persecution and murder in the name of any religion; Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other.  After all they have been the main perpetrators throughout history and continue to be to this day, neither one better than the other.  Of course, always with the argument of, “but when it’s in the name of ‘my’ god, then it’s sanctioned by the Holy one and therefore justified”.  Interesting how ‘god’ appears to be the instigator of so much murder and mayhem from all sides throughout history, because ‘he’ is the justification for it after-all.  And all in the name of ‘peace’!  Rather, I am conflicted because I detest religious fundamentalism and their ‘black and white’ tinted spectacled view on the world around them, indoctrinated by parents, teachers and preachers during their most vulnerable years, as much as I’m appalled by the xenophobic blanket approach by many around me when it comes to Islam as a whole.

The truth as I see it is complex and yet very simple.  Islam is not that dissimilar to Judaism and much of Christianity, particularly Catholicism (Ooh, I know some will be angry with that statement..).  After all, they all have one ‘god’ (call ‘it’ what you will), dress has evolved from similar garb, traditions of bowing down, going on one’s knees, chanting, hypnotising, food restrictions at particular times, palatial places of worship, passing judgement, and of course passing the collection basket.  These are all common traits and yet certainly not an exhaustive list by any means.  But within each of those, moral guides and generally well intentioned religious books (not forgetting the major parts eliminated or bastardised to suit ‘the cause’ over time), there is too much room for human interpretation and misinterpretation.  Assuming of course that these ‘books’ were in fact written, or even inspired by ‘the holy one’ ‘himself’, ‘he’ did ‘himself’ no favours by allowing space for misinterpretation and prognostication to creep in.  As a result the sects that now exist, having felt disenfranchised or side-lined by the mainstream for whatever reason (as Jesus did 2000 odd years ago), have felt compelled to start their own version of the religion to suit their own means.  Of course, believe what you will, but man passed down these stories for centuries via word-of-mouth before others wrote the ‘books’ in the first place, and therefore much of the translation has been lost, and much has been misconstrued to suit the preachers of the day. 

I would argue that much like Workers Unions, all Religious Foundations are for the enrichment of the top dogs, who fleece the flock in the name of what is apparently all in the flock’s best interests.  The more naïve and downtrodden they are the better. Let the Vatican’s billions be a great example of that.  But it must be highlighted that it was ‘men’ who wrote these books (unless some of the bits left out were also penned by women), and therefore rather sexist and demeaning of women in general.  After-all, they were apparently the ‘temptresses of all things evil’ according to some interpretations.  I should know, my wife often temps me into partaking of yet another glass of wine..  Perhaps it could therefore be argued that ‘god’ was rather clumsy in his manufacturing prowess after creating ‘perfect man in his own image’, having also created the window of opportunity for ‘evil’ to creep in, in the first place.  Of course ‘he’ created everything, so there’s no room for being selective here to suit our cause is there?  But I digress..

On the other hand however, there are many women, particularly Muslim women and gay Muslims, who have absolutely no voice.  Many are oppressed, mostly out of ignorance and ‘tradition’, and ridiculous interpretations of Islamic laws and beliefs originally penned by men in the very first place.  Men on the whole have always preferred their women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, or else if they must go out, under wraps for fear of losing them to temptation.  Just because we are physically stronger (usually), doesn’t make us keepers and controllers of women, surely.  There has to be a place in society for Muslim women and others to openly and freely speak out for themselves and debate interpretations of their own faith.  Surely they should be able to sit beside men in the same section of their Mosque and wear whatever they wish to?  Why are Muslim men and many women so afraid of this?  Is it because their religion is so insecure it is perhaps treading on broken glass? 

Nevertheless, there is a strong argument for the fact that people like me, with our so-called liberal, well intentioned defence of Islam on the whole, that we are in the process in fact silencing the oppressed within that very religion.  The oppressed who are then muzzled by liberal sympathy for their religion as a whole, warts and all, and therefore left with no room to raise their voices of discontent.  Some may argue that it is a form of reverse racism that encourages ‘liberals’ to defend the downtrodden, even if some of the criticisms resulting in the 'putting down' are well founded.  That may be true.

That said, of course it is up to those oppressed within any religion to take a stance for themselves, given the right environment in which to do so.  But with Islam it is no easy feat, as one stands to lose one’s head in the process, or at best be condemned to stoning.  As barbaric as it may sound, and it is, don’t forget the Jewish stonings which took place not so long ago, or the pro-choice abortion doctors murdered by Christian fundamentalists with a ‘directive from God’ to sort out the ‘Devil’ on ‘his’ behalf.  None of those religions are in any place to throw stones within their own glass houses.

So my quandary remains.  Do I err on the side of supporting the rights of good Muslims so that they may continue to take pride of place in society amongst all of us without prejudice, and their understandable anger at many Western paradoxes and ambiguous ignorance?  Or do I err on the side of those very ideologies I find abhorrent and demeaning of the very people they profess to represent, by standing back in silence in order to allow the voiceless to use the now wide open debate forum to state their case from within?

As with most things in life, I suspect the answer lies somewhere betwixt and between..

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/10/25/comment/an-open-letter-to-ben-affleck/

Greg Castle's response to Noseweek's article 'What the Aussies can learn from us'..

Having travelled to Australia many times over the past two decades, spending time with my Australian born wife’s family and friends every couple of years, I found the recent Noseweek article by Sue Segar, titled ‘What the Aussies can learn from us’, along with the response letter from Sandra Devine of Queensland, Australia, ‘Right about Aussie bigotry’, most interesting and felt compelled to contribute. 

These issues are far more complex than they appear at face value, however I have often believed that if one gives people hand outs, one breeds lethargy and lack of ambition, and that goes for South Africa too.  It can also be a very good disguise for a form of keeping people in their place of birth and mindset (i.e. a form of Apartheid in itself, as is the case of the Aborigines in Australia). This in-turn inevitably leads to massive social problems, societal breakdown, substance abuse, etc., merely as a form of escapism from the realities of life.  And yet white Australians generally put that down to merely culture.

 Differently to Australia, in South Africa, despite Apartheid, people constantly mixed and interacted with one another across race groups, cultures and creeds.  It may have been primarily within the work environment, but most white kids grew up with black house cleaners and babysitters, farm labourers, office workers, shopkeepers, waiters, cleaners, neighbours, etc., etc., and interacted with their families daily.  Many of us grew up with mates of different races as kids, and were encouraged to do so.  White kids particularly on farms in Natal and E.Cape grew up speaking either Zulu or Xhosa respectively before their own family language of English.  

Although many private schools allowed the admission of black kids from as early as the ‘70’s, government schools didn't until the late ‘80’s.  Yet contrary to this, we had these draconian laws that prohibited me from inviting my black boyhood friend and coloured fellow Navy sailor during National Service, out for dinner at any restaurant in town, where it was regarded as 'whites only'.  We had to have dinner in hotels or out of the way establishments.  Yet we interacted and knew one another rather well, better than we even realised.  We had so much in common, including love for music and sense of humour, yet freedom of choice wasn't one of them.

My impression is that things are rather different in Aus when it comes to ‘true’ integration.  My summation is that Australians have never been forced to really understand their indigenous people other than from a selective, somewhat distant 'white settler' perspective.  Instead I have always got the impression, despite the best intentions and apparent well-meaning of most Australians, that society and government have approached it in a rather patronising, paternalistic manner, thinking that perhaps to be the best approach.  It may sound rather harsh, but there’s a remnant of the rather old fashioned way that the somewhat 'self-important' and 'pompous' Brits use to deal with the indigenous people in the colonies. "Nice but shame, they're simple folk with simple needs and wants".  

I think Nyunggai Warren Mundine (Executive Chairman of Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce)  summed it up rather well when interviewed recently, saying that "Poverty persists because we treat communities such as the Ampilatwatja like dependent children and smother them in bureaucratic mire.  Let's start treating them like adults."  

History books need to perhaps be rewritten by those from all sides of the spectrum as they have here now and continue to be.   The Islamic 'invasion' into Australia is a case in point.  It was somehow alright for there to have been a 'British/European/Christian' invasion a few centuries back and since, (although Italians, Greeks, Portuguese and the like were treated as second class citizens until very recently), and yet now it's just not 'cricket'.  Australians must apparently have an ‘Australian culture’ and set of values to 'fit in' and to be accepted, whatever that means?  But that's another discussion, yet very closely linked to the mind-set that I believe many very well meaning, relatively open minded Aussies still quietly have deep down, that Aborigines are just not the same as us. 

 This is certainly not finger pointing, it’s just how things naturally are unless there is a real appreciation and desire to truly understand the other perspective and to see how contradictory history can be when it comes to culture and religion.  Cultural affairs worldwide have moved on dramatically in the last few decades alone.  Ironically perhaps, South Africa had the advantage of having to shake a 'statutory', openly racist monkey off its back, which may have expedited things.  But more importantly, deep down, South Africans of all races knew one another rather well, which made the cultural, political and economic transition much easier than most of us thought it could ever have been.  There wasn't much to overcome culturally from an acceptance point of view.  Even with rather radically different approaches to marriage (e.g. acquiring wives for lobola, polygamy), herbal medicine, ancestral beliefs, tribal laws, etc.  

In Australia I perceive a real sense of general suspicion, even down to deep-seated hatred that I never experienced growing up in Apartheid South Africa, despite the atrocities. Although it may sound sanctimonious in saying, ‘What the Aussies can learn from us’, it appears it may be so.  Perhaps we should be proud of what we've become, despite all odds and much of the negativity that we may dwell on day-to-day.  This glass is half full..

Forwarded by Martin Welz (Editor of Noseweek Magazine) 

Article written by Greg Castle

Founding Managing Director of strategic management and marketing planning consultancy - Torquil Strategic Marketing, and boutique winery - Brothers Wines.

My Newly Established 'Have You Mugged A Vegan Today' Movement

I've decided to start a 'Have You Mugged A Vegan Today' Movement.  Although I'm not entirely sure it's not schizophrenia, like waking up and seeing giant spiders climbing the curtains, or believing you're Superman, only you're still wearing last night's kinky outfit you fell asleep in afterwards; I feel that I'm being pursued by angry Vegans.  Heavens, there are even people with surnames Veg, or Veggie.. 

Forget ISIS, this is a real threat to normal society and has to be nipped in the buds, so to speak. How can one but not feel harassed by indignantly pointed carrots and cauliflower padded boxing gloves waved in one’s face at every turn.  Oh and the bloody recipes they have to circulate in a desperate attempt to show their friends an almost delicious one they might wish to abuse their children with.  Hell, the only two people who've defriended me on Facebook (so far..) were angry Vegans who obviously felt limp and overcooked by my medium rare pokes of fun.  Oh, and just to show the even-handedness of my argumentative stance, there was a religious fundamentalist chap who felt that his Biblical quotes didn't warrant a response from the 'Dark Side' and clicked 'Unlike'. I do miss them terribly, as it's just not nearly as much fun without them being around.

I'm certainly not saying that all Vegans are bad.  Hell no!  Some of my best friends are vegans!   They just so happen to be people with a sense of humour and follow their diet in a quiet and dignified manner.  Like religious folk who drink wine and don't quote biblical verses outside of Church or Mosque in attempt to resolve the worlds ills.  The only person I know who shares his delicious meat recipes is the proud owner of South Africa's top steakhouse, the Local Grill, and that's understandable.  The rest of us Vegan-Atheists simply braai (bbq) quietly without fuss or recipe swapping bouts.  It's a sort of silent respect for the dearly departed I suppose.  Perhaps I embellish somewhat. 

So I feel I need to do something about this scourge before it gets out of hand.  You know, like Jehovah's Witnesses, 'reborn' fundamentalist religious types of any sect or religious order, badly behaved kids on planes, greedy politicians, Nigerian Lotto winning emails, insurance telesales people with no sense of humour (in fact, telesales people in general), and people who keep too many cats..   Who's with me..?

Food and wine - at times a ponsy affair

As a wine producer and lover of great food, I am often struck by the snobbery that surrounds certain wine tasting events and some of the tasters themselves, particularly outside of the Cape, Bordeaux, Tuscany, Borolo, Napa, etc.  Usually the less they know, the more important and knowledgeable they wish to appear.  In my experience, the most respected wine makers in the industry are almost without exception the most humble of people.  Many of the wine writers, and wine tasters living in the big cities however tend to ask the most obscure questions, seemingly to impress their friends.  Perhaps this has been induced by many food and wine journalists who have the tendency to write wordy, jargon filled drivel that is enough to put any prospective wine drinker off, merely due to the company he or she is likely to have to keep were they to join the ‘club’.

In the same vain, I find it rather extraordinary what restaurants such as the 'Test Kitchen' in Cape Town can serve up with much aplomb.  Yet many people applaud it and take pictures of their food and selfies taking bites (for they are just bites after-all), just because it's the 'Test Kitchen'.  Perhaps it's just me, but when I go out for dinner, I don't like to feel like I'm some guinea pig being dished up trial ‘infusions’ and mere whiffs of delicious ingredients.  Ingredients that have been mashed, moulded, patted, whipped, frothed, painted, manicured, overly positioned and re-positioned on large plates for 'so-called foodies' to mutter 'Oohs and aahs', and yet still honestly feel the need to go home via KFC to feel fully satisfied.  A ‘ponsy’ approach to food or wine is just not my scene and never has been.  Yet I really do appreciate magnificent food and superb wines. I don’t care what it costs, but leave out the fanfare and fuss, just real food, real wine and real people.  The only ones who appear to be impressed by ‘fussy’ haute or nouvelle cuisine restaurants in this day and age, are the overly pretentious and only rated highly by ‘wannabe seens’ and food journalists with Champaign corks up their own fundamental orifices.   It should be called ‘nouveau riche cuisine’.

Hell no! Rather serve me up the most magnificent 'peasant' foods from the likes of Chianti, Piermont, Central and Southern France (not Paris or the Riviera!), Basque Spain or the West Coast of Portugal and the like.  Little villages where simple, fresh ingredients and honest passion are still valued, yet without unnecessary artistic layout, over moulding, frothing, touching and re-touching.  I’m not buying a damn sculpture or an oil painting when I go out for dinner and the more people touch my food, the less inclined I am to appreciate it.  Furthermore, I can do without the ponsy waiters and waitresses who give one the impression that they hate their job and are doing you a damn big favour by letting you eat there in the first place.

 

A friend of mind when calling to book a table at the 'Test Kitchen' some time back, was told by the arrogant staff member on the other end, "You're lucky sir, we do have ONE table left for 4", to which he replied, "No my dear, YOU'RE lucky that I phoned to book at your establishment in the first place!"  That kind of sums it up rather nicely I think. After all, who exactly are we trying to impress here people?  

I think I might just rustle up a tagliatelle marinara tonight and share it with my real people..  Bon Appetit!

Sad State of Islamic Affairs

So World War III has begun it seems!  Although nice to see old enemies rallying together for the ‘common good’ it appears that this unusual set of bedfellows, now known as the ‘Allies’, are indeed a rather bastardised bunch of misfits.   The United States seems to me to have opened another can of worms that we’re all going to struggle to control in time to come.  In fact, that statement in itself may be extremely optimistic.  Have we not learned from the history of backing the wrong teams?  Well of course not. 

It wasn’t too long ago that the US endorsed and colluded with the corrupt and dictatorial  Shah Pahlavi of Iran (also our friend in Apartheid SA), in their financing and arming of Kurdish rebels in the Second Kurdish–Iraqi War  in the early ‘70’s.  That was until the Iranian people had had enough and opted for a radical about turn to orthodox fundamentalism through the Islamic Revolution and unceremoniously tossed the Shah and his family out of Iran.  We had already set up Marino Chiavelli’s mansion, Summer Place, in Sandton, for the Shah and his family to reside until he succumbed to cancer in the US whilst still in exile.  Within a few years, Iran had turned back decades of reform.  

Then the US and the French in particular, supported French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac’s close friend, Saddam Hussein, in his ambitions to topple the Iranian Islamic government. With the support of the Arab states, the United States and Europe, along with significant financial aid from the Persian Gulf states, Saddam Hussein became "the defender of the Arab world" against a revolutionary Iran.  It is often conveniently forgotten too that Saddam initiated Iraq's nuclear enrichment project in the 1980s, with French assistance.  That was until the Israeli’s got jittery and decided to destroy the enrichment facility as early as 1981 with a few air to ground missiles.  

The Israelis didn’t buy the ‘allied strategy’ from the start.  Despite this, the US, UK, France and other allies viewed Iraq as "an agent of the civilized world".  The fact that Iraq had tossed international law out of the window and increased violations of international borders; this too was simply ignored by the West.  Instead, Iraq received economic and military support from its ‘then’ allies, who conveniently overlooked Saddam's use of chemical warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians whilst he frustrated Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  These chemicals incidentally, having been developed from materials and technology supplied primarily by West German companies (just when you thought they’d been destroyed and dismantled after WWII), as well as the Reagan administration.  At the same time, the US also supplied Iraq with satellite imagery showing Iranian deployments, and encouraged Hussein to bomb civilian targets in Tehran and other Iranian cities.  In order to open full diplomatic relations with Iraq, the US removed the country from their little black book list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.  Ironically, they were allegedly developing their own nuclear stash, which turned out to be an embarrassing, bogus ‘mistake’ in the more recent ‘war on weapons of mass destruction’. 

Next there was Osama Bin Laden, who was quietly supported by the US in his war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.  It was believed that he and his al-Qaeda managed to "bring down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union in the late ‘80’s just prior to Perestroika.  I know differently.  And so it goes.

So now, in the apparent tunnel vision strategy to wipe out the Islamic State ‘ISIS or ISIL’ or however the CIA decides to spell it this week, we now have the US rallying old Middle Eastern enemies like a flock of tame sheep.  According to President Barack Obama and the Pentagon, only five countries; Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have joined the United States in this week's air-strikes in Syria.  Not surprisingly, that’s not the whole story, as US enemy, Syrian President Bashar Assad, is now a useful mate in-arms (or blind eye).  Although the US can't admit to working with him, because he's the dictator the US supported Syrian rebels are trying to overthrow, the US managed to hit at least 50 targets in three parts of his country, whilst Assad’s substantial and very capable air defenses stayed parked in their bunkers, with not even a radar being deployed against the noisy foreign incursion.  That’s perhaps a little too remarkable wouldn't you say?

Meantime the US also denies coordinating with Assad's ally, Iran. “Iran and the US!” I hear you scream.  Not only that, but all the Gulf states and Sunni tribes are now friends, despite John Kerry’s woeful attempts to say otherwise.  Surely only CNN believe him when he moves his lips.

Despite my relatively short stint in SA Naval Intelligence and regular interactions with NATO Intelligence in the mid ‘80’s, (mainly the CIA, MI3, MI5, MI6 and Israeli Intelligence), I find this strategic approach rather short sighted to say the least.  Surely the Americans and the European allies can see through the desire of some to be armed and supported in the short-term, in order to wreak havoc in the region in the longer-term?  The allies have been guilty of short-term strategic intent far too many times in the past, leaving mayhem and destruction in their wake (I can testify to that from ‘not so wonderful’ personal experience).  More often than not, ‘worse a devil you don’t know than the devil you do’, if one can bastardise the phrase.  

One cannot but abhor what is known as the Islamic State and their ridiculous fundamentalist agenda, in fact I don’t believe it is Islamic at all, and definitely needs to be brought under control very quickly.  Yet I cannot but foresee a melting pot of disaster in the Middle East in the years to come, not to mention the bombing of soft targets within each allied country becoming the norm.  This is no ordinary war and the repercussions are dire.  As I've said so often before, religious fundamentalists (Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other), are impossible to reason with, and yet not easy to identify from within.  It is just too easy for Islamic State militants and just ordinary, disenfranchised Muslim fundamentalists in the West, to pop up all over the world with the desire to seek revenge for whatever ails them.

What is needed here is a removal of the cause, and not the symptoms.

Is the Oscar Case Really an Abusive Wake-up Call?

Over the past few days I have been inundated with emails, Facebook messages, electronic news and good old fashioned newspaper articles lambasting the judgement by Judge Masipa in the Oscar Pistorius case.  What has intrigued me is that most of these have tended to focus on the apparent abuse of Reeva and the plight of abused women in general. Even the ANC Women's League ranted outside the court and took issue with the learned judge after the judgement was announced. She was after all a woman, and women should stick together, sisters! 

Don't get me wrong here, I absolutely abhor abuse of any sort, particularly that of women and children. However, is this case really the right case to attach such sentiment to, or merely an opportunistic window used to get exposure no matter the association, proof or lack thereof?

I have said before on a few occasions however, that I find it rather cheap journalism to have to turn this into a sexist or racist case.  Moreover, there are many ill-informed South Africans who are rubbishing their country and the legal system due to pure ignorance of the law. 

I most certainly don't agree with their sentiment, because it surely applies equally to women who murder their husbands and their children as much as it applies to men who murder other men, white or black. The point of law is not to be presumptuous or swayed by people with personal gripes or media hype, but to consider all the evidence and facts of the case very carefully. In this case there was never going to be clear cut evidence, as the only other witness is dead. Advocate Gerrie Nel did his best to throw insinuations and possible scenarios at the court, but that’s all it was.  There was no factual evidence to back it up.  There is a chance that Oscar’s explanation is true, although very unlikely, there is still a chance. Hence, where there is 'reasonable doubt' there cannot be a guilty verdict and that goes for presumptuous opinions about their allegedly abusive relationship too.

To give you an example. Years ago, whilst playing mixed doubles tennis with my cousin’s wife as my partner against my then girlfriend and cousin, I hit the ball, which hit the top of the net and shot up into my rather competitive girlfriend’s eye.  She was playing up at the net at time.  Needless to say, she ended up with a beaut black eye for the rest of the holiday.  What was interesting, and rather disturbing however, was the fact that when asked (and very few people did ask her directly, incidentally), she told them that I had given her a smack, thinking it rather amusing.  Needless to say, I am still convinced that those who didn’t get her Aussie sense of humour, may still believe that to be the case to this day.  After all, people love a scandalous story, especially when it’s least expected.  At least I hope it was least expected!

We must remember that many people were hung from the gallows in the past and later found to be innocent, hence the updating of the law to protect those innocent until proven guilty. Reasonable doubt is the saving grace.

There is no doubt that many people would have loved to have seen Oscar found guilty of first degree murder, merely because he came across as a bit of a bastard, not only to Reeva, but to others around him at times.  That does seem to be a little extreme it must be said. But it certainly doesn't make of him a murderer, nor a woman abuser necessarily. Sadly as with most things in life, perception becomes the onlooker's reality and therefore any conviction to the contrary is likely to spark discontent amongst the masses. People love to see justice done, even if it is unjust.

As much as it is always a possibility, I'm not sure about the 'clear' conclusion regarding 'violence against women' in this case however. Take the case of the woman in Jo'burg who arranged to have her husband killed by supposed house robbers when he went to check why the lights had tripped. Or the woman who arranged to have her judge husband murdered in Sea Point recently, etc. Is that something that indicates violence against men? I think not. It's murder, that's for sure.  Similarly I'm not certain that one can conclusively presume abuse against Reeva. Murder possibly, manslaughter, without doubt, as he admitted to that. Oscar may have some serious issues, that's for sure, but judging by the witness reports it appears he has issues from both a men's and women's perspective. 

I understand the plight of abuse against women who are not able to be independent, self-supporting, or have themselves had an abusive upbringing.  But surely Reeva must have been equally stupid to have stayed with Oscar, if what they say is true. After all, she was pretty, smart, financially self-sufficient and apparently very well liked. Why many women do this to themselves and blame men alone I have never been able to understand.  Surely women must learn to take some responsibility themselves for staying with abusive men, whether the abuse is induced physically or emotionally. I am sorry if I don't sound very sympathetic, as I regard myself, perhaps mistakenly, as a fairly considerate and open minded bloke who loves women dearly. However, I find behaviour such as this extremely hard to understand from both sides.  Perhaps society needs to rethink their approach to matters of abuse.  After all it is the mothers and fathers of sons and daughters who are clearly jointly responsible for getting the message through without any ambiguity.  Where that system fails we need it to be part of school curriculum, as sex education is already, and prevent this scourge from passing through to yet another generation.