Clive Simpkins

Are you unkind in Social Media?

 The Internet can be both a god and a demon. It serves to link us to people all over the world, to information, networks and social media sites. Unless you've been in a coma for 10 years you know just how vile un-moderated forum or website comments can be. Behind the veil of anonymity the most appalling behaviour takes hold of (I continue to hope it's a minority) disproportionately vocal and vicious people on the Internet.

As we regularly use social media, it's easy to forget that what we post or tweet is instantly and pretty much irretrievably in the public domain. It affects, sometimes immediately - and at other time incrementally, our reputation. Freudian slips, bad jokes, racist overtones, discriminatory comments, injudicious posts or tweets can come back to haunt us. They're there for future clients, customers, employers, friends and others to see. Image is not created only by advertising, marketing and PR. It's very much a result of the direct experience one has of a person or organisation. Yesterday was a reminder for me of just that.

Tanya Kovarsky, (@TanyaKovarsky on twitter) the editor of CLEO magazine in South Africa tweeted the following : 'Yay – Castor (sic) Semenya won. Good for him!' This was re-tweeted almost immediately by Nechama Brodie (@brodiegal). It elicited a series of nudge-nudge, wink-wink little jibes on Kovarsky's public timeline.

I replied on twitter by saying: 'Utterly disgusted by CLEO mag editor @TanyaKovarsky referring 2 Caster Semenya as 'he' and getting name spelling wrong.' As a magazine editor she cannot possibly be unaware of the deep embarrassment and emotional pain that Caster Semenya's had to endure over the last year as a result of her gender status being under international scrutiny. So for someone in the publishing industry and an editor to boot to make a statement like this is simply beyond the pale. For Brodie to re-tweet it when she's a business woman and regularly published feature and article writer is equally unacceptable. When people have access to media, they wield power. That power must I believe be exercised judiciously and with respect. Both Kovarsky and Brodie are involved with publications and businesses. There's no dividing line between what a brand-custodian says and the reputation of the organisation they own or represent. They're like Siamese twins.

Kovarsky claimed 'it was a typo', and implied I was taking her too seriously (the 'joke' cop-out). Yes, 'Castor' may have been a typo. But 'him' instead of 'her' ain't a typo. It was an inexcusable cheap shot in a public forum. My opinion is vindicated in that despite Kovarsky's posturing, bluster and bravado she went to the considerable trouble of deleting the tweet from her public timeline.

If it had in fact been a genuine error, a simple, 'Oops, sorry' and a correction would have let the matter go away. But Kovarsky and Brodie then bandied about a series of tweets with Kovarsky using the word 'test' (on spelling Caster's name) and having a personal go at me. A further demonstration of juvenile, socially unskilled, emotionally unintelligent, insensitive behaviour.

My final point is this. Both of these women are evidently Jewish. Coming from a tradition and a history in which their forebears might have been killed simply for being 'different' I would expect a higher level of sensitivity on matters like this. Yes, the anti-Semitic card will be played as it always is (it already has been obliquely used on twitter). I'm cool with that. The issue of using the 'Jewish' word and being vilified for it really doesn't trouble me.

Storm in a teacup? I don't think so. I believe it flags the dangers of thoughtless and painful jibes, jeers and discriminatory comments on the Internet. I also wonder if either woman would be proud to use this behaviour as an example for children?

 

SA Xenophobia – what can be done about it?

A black South African man in his mid-thirties in my social circle says that discussion centering around the topic of 'foreigners' is a big one among the poor, unemployed and as he puts it, 'people on the ground.' I don't believe that we employed, privileged (to whatever extent) white people can adequately relate to the perceptions surrounding makwerekwere – the derogatory term used by many black South Africans to describe those not from this country. He says that large numbers of non-South Africans are even colonising deeply rural communities as their safe haven. He claims that he and his friends 'can recognise the foreigners' working in Pickn Pay and other retail outlets. Are there? Can they? His vocal pitch rises along with the volume and he becomes highly animated when talking about it. His anger is palpable. His rural home still does not have electricity, sanitation or home-piped water and for this he blames, partially at least, 'foreigners' for over-loading the infrastructure. Is this the face of xenophobia?

Latest information indicates that there might now be some five million non-South African 'illegals', refugees and other (mainly) black people from all over Africa in the country. Many of them courtesy of 1) Corrupt officials at Beit Bridge and elsewhere, who take them into a private room to receive an 'incentive' to ignore their illegal entry to South Africa. In Botswana, border-hoppers go to jail. 2) The woefully inadequate, non-biometric Home Affairs green ID document which can be purchased for as little as R 400. That process has been shown many times on national TV. The five million figure constitutes a tipping point in the minds of many black South Africans. That's 5% or more of the total population. It's more, I am told, than all the South African born whites (Afrikaners and English-speaking) put together.

Play it how you will, grass-roots people (legitimately so, if one has empathy) see this steadily growing group as partially responsible at least, for absence of service delivery, paucity of housing, inadequate medical care, shortage of jobs and the like. One can understand the need for a focal point or target at which to direct one's discontent. Particularly after seventeen years of 'democracy' in which little has changed for the majority of black South Africans. The indisputable impact and legacy of Apartheid not even being factored into the equation. The paradox is that anger should be directed at the South African government for its total failure to resolve the matter on this front – not at the 'illegal immigrants' or 'aliens' themselves.

According to economist Mike Schussler, we've now reached a point (read comments) where there are more people on welfare and other grants in South Africa than there are taxpayers. That's clearly not a sustainable model. Let alone adding the burden of another 5% of the gross population competing for services and infrastructure.

Solution? There can clearly only be a sustained, multi-faceted approach which includes, inter alia:

1. Finally sorting out a biometric ID document which, like our passports and drivers' licences, becomes very difficult to reproduce.
2. Rotate the staff at immigration entry points and use 'mystery immigrants' to check whether they're on the take or attempting scams.
3. A crackdown on farmers and other employers paying exploitatively low wages to non South Africans and thus creating a demand pipeline for foreign unskilled labour.
4. Repair and switch on the electric fence intended to make illegal border breaches more difficult. 'Inhumane' though that might seem, can there be a greater inhumanity than not being able to care for your own population's basic needs? Other nations around the world (US-Mexico border as just one example) don't shrink from tough immigration controls. Why do we? If control is not exercised over the situation we are foolhardily trying to build a stable state on a flawed foundation. The issue will not 'go away'. It can and will only get worse. It's going to take political will and cojones to address and resolve it.
5. Draft in our grossly under-utilised army for border patrol duty.
6. Eliminate 'courier' and gangs helping people to access the country at poorly patrolled border areas, like rivers etc. Hammer the criminal gangs that prey on and fleece the hapless illegals on entry.
7. A cap perhaps on the number of people granted 'refugee' or 'temporary visa' status in any one period.
8. Development of community stakeholder forums, led by respected leaders or opinion influencers which openly discuss the fears and concerns of South Africans who feel threatened by the illegal immigration status quo. They must include 'illegals' and NGOs.
9. The South African government and Department of International Relations and Co-operation (formerly Foreign Affairs) Affairs team need to become more vocal in their criticism of governments and regimes causing an exodus from other African countries that negatively impact on us. Yes, I know deep-freezing hell might be easier, but we can make a start in the interests of future generations.
10. Maybe this is something 'the Elders' can tackle as a continent-wide problem.
11. Have the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) create a working group to address the issue of refugee migration across the African continent.
12. Involve the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees). They have global experience in these matters dating back decades.
13. If indigenous South Africans want to protest, they should be encouraged and indeed compelled to do so only through channels like the employment unions, civic representative bodies, protest marches or indeed strikes if that's what it will take to get government off its backside to properly address the issue. Taking the law into their own hands is totally unacceptable regardless of the level of frustration or resentment.
14. Finally, let's not have people like Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa trying to sweep these issues under the rug or calling them 'rumours' designed to damage our Soccer World Cup hosting success. What nonsense. Xenophobic stresses and strains will be reduced only when they are acknowledged and dealt with. Let's keep the issue top of mind so we don't indeed have a hate-driven explosion that undoes all our present international goodwill in one fell swoop. That way, you won't have to answer an awkward question from your children one day, when they ask, 'But why did you let it happen?'

Emotion isn’t change

I've experienced a rising apprehension during the weeks of the Soccer #WC2010. Almost despite our national low self-esteem expectations it's been a great success. Kudos to the amazing people involved in volunteering, policing, organising and maintaining the hosting process. The original negative sentiment of many nay-sayers notwithstanding.

 

I felt my first twinge of concern when I read tweets saying 'finally we are one' etc. from people on the bus en route to the opening match as they caught their first glimpse of Soccer City at night. Add in a few vuvuzela parps and the mood escalated to manic and euphoric levels without chemical assistance.

What we need to face very pragmatically in the next few weeks and months is this: emotion isn't change. It may act as a catalyst for change or lead to some change itself. But in and of its own a 'feel-good' mood is not a sustainable foundation on which to build anything. It's just one of many essential ingredients.

Post Soccer #WC2010, when the mall crowds thin out, the post mortems have been written and we're back to our daily routines with media reporting on divisions, corruption, Malema's mouthings and a potential return to 'nomal' levels of crime, the babelas won't feel nice.

No, I don't want to rain on any parade or be a killjoy. I'm just suggesting that we each contemplate the Vuvuzela dust in our belly buttons for a few moments and think, 'What will I do on a daily basis to make this goodwill and fragile sense of national closeness live on?' Events won't keep Saffers united. Gushing articles won't help. It's the tiny, daily things that each of us will commit to doing and sustaining, that may. Let's all try it.