• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« The Star Sticks to Old Lies To Support Kasrils | Main | The UN Racism Circus Continues »

April 16, 2008



double standards are what defines the PC Jew-hating media, the trick here is to hate and tell lies about the Jews, under the cover terms and code words of Israel, Zionism and its attendant structures and personalities - this then is not hatred and bigotry but non-racism and defence of human rights and liberalism. Modern day Jew-hatred is anti-racism so long as you employ the standard cover anti-Israel terminology.

If there were no double standards applied here, almost the entire editorial staff of SA's newspapers, e-tv, SABC etc would have to fire themselves. there would hardly be anybody left working at the Argus, the Star, Sunday Times, M&G, SABC.


Let's not forget Jon Qwelane and his mindless afro-babble


Why on earth did Mondli publish Bullard's piece if it was so offensive? The editor of the Sunday Times has now said that he didn't know what Bullard had written which proves that Mondli doesn't read his paper prior to publication. However as most of the paper is unreadable, I suppose that Mondli does have a reasonable excuse. Who could possibly wade through that stuff week after week?

Of course, Mondli had to ditch Bullard because his piece implicitly questions the underpinning of the African Renaissance as well as the existence of a thriving black "intelligentsia". This is tantamount to heresy in the new South Africa and as a result Bullard's bollocks were immediately chopped.


Re "double standards".. would The M&G dare to publish a similar blog about Muslims/Islam??

The following piece has just appeared...
"Let’s talk about the Jews" by Jarred Cinman.

"Despite their relatively small community in South Africa, and indeed their minority status in a lot of places around the world, the Jews have made a big mark. Hostile to outsiders, lavish in giving advantages to its own kind and filled with a persecution complex (all of which, it may be argued, have at least some rational basis), the Jewish community is a complex animal, as is the religion on which it is based.

(I was born to Jewish parents; however, regular Thought Leader readers will know that I am a firm enemy of all organised religion and religious beliefs, to which this is no exception.)

What makes Judaism complex is that it isn’t one thing: it’s not merely a religion, since many people who would call themselves Jews participate only nominally in the demanding rituals and practices prescribed by the religious texts. It’s not a race, per se, or even an ethnicity, since Jews after the so-called “diaspora” (Jews, I find, are fond of these proprietary historical labels) split off into quite distinct ethnic groups. It’s perhaps a cultural group, though what “culture” really means in this day and age isn’t easy to say.

Perhaps the closest thing one can say is that it’s a group that is linked by common ancestry and the self-defined boundary of the maternal line. The Jews, in what I have always found a supreme act of arrogance, state that a Jew is born with a “Jewish soul”. Try what you like (I offered to donate mine to a friend some years back), that’s what you are in their eyes. They might hate you for “assimilating” (another trendy catchphrase), but once a Jew, always one.

Judaism, I will say, is a religion with a strong scholarly and intellectual tradition. Unlike many strains of Christianity — particularly the abominable evangelical sects that have sprung up all over the place — that are based on the Bible alone, Judaism has countless secondary texts that are studied by the devout in depth and ad nauseam. The Torah — the Jewish scroll that contains the first five books of Genesis in Hebrew — is interpreted in many different ways.

Debate and discussion is deep and complex and engaging. The clever angle that Judaism has taken, however unconsciously, is that it can be an intellectually satisfying pursuit. This means that you will find scientists and philosophers and economists and all kinds of boffins poking around in the “yeshivas” (the religious colleges) marrying their core intellectual knowledge with their religious beliefs.

Let it be said that the underlying religious beliefs are no more inspiring or coherent than those of any other religion and, in many cases, sound more like the writings of JRR Tolkien than ancient spiritual practitioners.

There is still a God, the renowned Yahweh (sometimes called Jehovah), whose acts and attitudes in the Old Testament are a case study in brutality, xenophobia and cruelty. He routinely has entire nations slain, swallows up people into the Earth, drowns, burns, turns into salt and so forth. He is ruthless with even his most ardent disciples. (Example: Moses is denied entry into the “promised land” after countless years of wandering around looking for it with only God as his rather dodgy GPS, because he hits a rock instead of speaking to it.)

Leaving God aside, there are all kinds of bonkers stuff going on within the Jewish belief system. For example, they believe that the “oral law” was given to the people gathered at Mount Sinai by God via Moses and was memorised, word perfect, and then handed down through a gazillion generations until it was finally committed to paper thousands of years later.

Unlike their Christian descendants, the Jews don’t try to pretend that the writers lived concurrently with the key events. They insist that not one word was lost during all these years of broken telephone, and that this process itself proves that God exists because all the people at Sinai experienced this event. The circular logic here seems to trouble no one.

As one typical explanation goes: “Jews say that we have kept the Torah for thousands of years, not because of miracles or any other supernatural phenomena of Jewish history, but because we all stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak and for generation after generation that very fact was passed down.” Apparently shared delusions are inherently impossible, according to this logic.

Likewise, there is the shady concept of “Amalek”, the shady archetypal enemy of the Jews, who (some argue) are embodied by present-day Arabs. They are told they must take from them a ring of power, and throw it into a volcano … well, not really, but it does get pretty weird.

Jewish mystical books also state that one can fashion a person-shaped pile of mud into a walking monster (called a golem). They contain prophecy like crazy, including (supposedly) a built-in prophecy machine in the Torah, a complex system of numbers that predicts all kinds of stuff (like George Bush and Saddam Hussein, for example). This has been dubbed the “Bible Code” by popular authors.

In fact, they believe the Torah contains, somehow, the entire universe (the “word is God”). It is so magical an item that there is nothing that is not in there if you know how to read it.

As wild as this all sounds, the fact is, most Jews don’t spend a lot of time on this stuff. They have adopted a lighter form of Judaism that primarily involves family events and their particular choice of friends and social circles. Since Jews are honour-bound not to intermarry (this they share with other faiths, but it is particularly strong in this community) they tend to stick together — Jewish socials, Jewish dating sites, even primarily Jewish suburbs.

My most ardent criticism of Judaism has been, ironically, that there seems to be a profound hypocrisy at work. Again, nothing too unique there, but it’s always shocked me that there is a strong pressure to attend, say, synagogue on Friday nights or Saturdays, but that most of the time is spent chatting about business between recitals of Hebrew prayers only vaguely comprehended, if at all. In fact, all religious events seem about as devoid of religious or spiritual content as a night at the movies.

In fact, Jews have packaged Judaism into something that is doable and acceptable in the modern times. Not all — there is a worrying fundamentalist resurgence in Judaism too — but many. That means they have dropped whatever bits of the religion are just too inconvenient to follow, or too embarrassing, or frankly would contravene human rights. No more stoning of men who work on the Sabbath or adulterers, for example.

For all that, there are some primitive rituals and beliefs that have taken a firm hold. Not eating pork, for example, is something adhered to with almost maniacal sincerity. “Because it’s unclean,” comes the explanation, whatever that means. Chickens that are bred in the kind of filth and disease that is beyond compare are famously made into virus-healing soup, no problem.

And then there’s male circumcision: the so-called “bris”. A barbaric act from a different age that is not only tolerated but also actively celebrated with cakes and snacks and cheers of pride. Typically performed in the parents home by a “moyle”, he of the sip of red wine and a trusty pair of snippers (real anaesthetics are apparently not part of God’s plan), it is a frightening event to behold. And the truth be told, everyone knows it. The mother cowers in a corner or in another room, and the women look faint as the child screams its poor lungs out.

Judaism, however, is under threat, certainly in its true form, but even in its loosest one. Many Jews are simply abandoning the religion, intermarrying and moving on. They may retain a cursory link to their “tribe”, but this religion is struggling to reinvent itself for a post-modern age. In a way, it’s too smart for its own good. Unlike reborn Christianity, whose childish and simplistic message can rouse people into a frenzy of irrationality, Judaism tends to be altogether too serene and dull. And many intellectuals use it as a stepping stone toward a more personal spirituality that doesn’t oblige them to tie little wooden boxes to their heads.

Assimilation (intermarrying, basically), I’ve heard it said, is “finishing Hitler’s work”. If that’s not the frightened call of a belief system fading into obscurity, I don’t know what is.

I cheer on its demise, simply because I find its insistence on separateness self-defeating; its notion that Jews are “the chosen” insulting to others and at odds with the kind of integrated world we so desperately need; and the mindless support of the brutality and violence of the state of Israel unconscionable.

And because, despite all the intellectualising, it’s still a belief in a single God, who judges, who listens to our prayers, who punishes the wicked. And that quaint fairytale, dressed up however you like, is an idea whose time has passed."

Dear Ferial,

Would The M&G publish a similar THOUGHT LEADER blog about Muslims/Islam?

I have to conclude that your paper's "double standards" (silence re Muslim /Islam/ Iran etc, criticism re Jews/ Judaism/ "Nazi- Israelis" etc) are evidence of an underlying antisemitic editorial policy.

yours sincerely,
Anthony Posner


I am a Muslim and find this article about Judaism quite hateful and disgusting!


In a previous column, Bullard wrote:

"Personally, I find the whole racism debate extremely tiresome. I am frequently accused of being a racist and I always reckon that’s a good sign because it means I must have rubbed a raw wound in the column. Accusations of racism are as water off a duck’s back to me, as are taunts of being a pommy, rooinek, honkie or white trash. When you know you’re superior, none of this makes the slightest bit of difference."

Moving on fron the Bullard racist debate, the issue does raise important questions about the role of the satirist in the new South Africa. Why are there no satirical political shows on the SABC? Are South Africans too thin-skinned to laugh at themselves and their leaders? I can understand that South Africa is moving away from a painful racist past but does that mean that satire has to be politically correct?


Anthony that article is shocking!. I actually can not beleive it. How much say doesFerial have over the contents of Thought Leader.

Fatima, thank you.



Riaan Wollmarans is employed by Ferial to edit THOUGHT LEADER.

Ferial doesn't edit the blogs on a daily basis but she wouldn't give a blog to anyone espousing Zionism or anyone critical of Islamic fundamentalism.

Since Cinamanhas stated that he hates all religions, I have challenged him to write a blog that ridicules Islam. If he had the guts to do so, I doubt whether the M&G would publish it.


I have just posted the following on Jarred Cinaman's THOUGHT LEADER blog. It is awaiting editorial moderation...

You state that you are “a firm enemy of all organised religions”.
So lets assume that you now write a highly offensive blog entitled “Let’s talk about the Muslims.”
If you did submit it to THOUGHT LEADER, do you think that it would be published?


Anthony, your point about the absence of satire, particularly political satire is very true. Its a pity.

What I find most curious about Cinman's article is how he says Jews look at the Arabs as Amalek. Though certain rogue Rabbis have brought up the comparison, it is very very rare. (Any Rabbis who use it should be condemned over and over again)

But the commonly used Amalek simile is definitely with the Nazis and NOT Arab or Muslims. Why does Cinman mention Arabs and not the Nazis? Perhaps its suits his premise about Jews having a persecution complex (which we do have, but for good reason, one needs only to look back at our history).

Anyways, its more difficult to read due to the arrogance that waftes over it rather than the actual content.

I wouldn't worry about it. Its his blog - he should write what he likes.


I agree that Cinaman should "write what he likes". However his comment about Jews chatting incessantly about business in synagogue during prayers is standard antisemitic.
I have included his blog in the above discussion because Mike's piece is about "double standards" and I believe that THOUGHT LEADER'S editorial policy is a prime example.


Your point is taken. Never questioned its relevance.


He is really so ignorant about what he writes. For example, its a myth that we don't eat prok because its unclean in the physical sense.

You don't need any supproting texts to learn this - just the Torah itself.

We don't eat pork because although it has split hooves, it does not chew the cud. An mammal is Kosher if and only if it has split hooves and chews the cud. No other reason. Its got nothing to do with dirt.

I think it would be great for a knowledgable Rabbi to respond to the article - I don't think Jarred can support his opinions in a debate.

I would love for him to be really pressed into clarifying why a Bris (circumcision) is barbaric. Does it really harm us? Does he have some information that we don't have?


Cinaman posted this comment in reply to his critics>>
'Despite the free evaluatuions of my intelligence offered by the commentators on this post, I actually have my Standard Five.

To everyone else, I am checking out of this debate. I’ve said my bit. My views are personal, this is a blog, I’ve never claimed to be presenting the authoritative reference piece on Judaism. Everything can be debated, isn’t that wonderful?

If being anti-semitic (another oddly proprietary label) is a sub-set of being anti-religion, then I guess I am that. But the Jews needn’t feel special. I hate all religion equally."
Jarred Cinman on April 17th, 2008 at 11:32 am

I replied (although it is "awiting moderation"...

Massive respect from me and Sasha Baron Cohen for hating all religions equally.
I have noted that you have written about Judaism and Christianity. What will be next on your hit-list?? Hinduism or Buddhism ? Evens money it won’t be Islam!
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 17th, 2008 at 12:0


To be honest, I don't find Cinman's piece to be so offensive. He holds the same misconceptions as most secular/traditional Jews, especially those regarding a G-d given Torah and the laws of Kashrut. Jews are far too sensitive, and often respond to situations like this with a personal attack instead of intelligible debate. Cinman is entitled to his opinions, and his opinions are not hate-speech.

The problem I have, rather, is that the religious are a very exclusionist bunch and there is not nearly enough (and has not been enough) Kiruv or proper Jewish education, and thus the SA Jewish community is blessed with products like Jarred Cinman.


The standard leftist mantra of course has to be included : "and the mindless support of the brutality and violence of the state of Israel unconscionable".
Cinman says nothing , of course, about the mindless support of leftists and moslems for killings of Israeli women and children and for Ahmadinjad's genocidal threats.


Comrade Stalin,
Of course Comrade Cinman is entitled to his opinions and readers of his blog are fully entitled to respond. I don't think that anybody is suggesting that his opinions constitute "hate-speech."
However, I think that it is reasonable to expose the double standards that are, once again, operating on the M&G's THOUGHT LEADER. If Cinman really does hate all religions equally would he be allowed to ridicule Islam? This is an extemely important question.
I really couldn't care less what he thinks about kashrut, bris or the oral tradition etc. I have been circumcised and have managed to forget the pain but it is possible that Cinman has a better memory and is less forgiving.


BD, Fatima said "I am a Muslim and find this article about Judaism quite hateful and disgusting!"

I was disagreeing with her, and those that agreed with her.


Just to update the debate on THOUGHT LEADER for those who don't want to change channels....

"I am an Anglican and I think antisemitic views are bad enough when held by ignorant right wing skin heads, but it truly shocks me to discover that Jews themselves are capable of hating their own kind. That’s a special type of betrayal.

I’m also amazed that Cinman has decided that he no longer wishes to participate in a debate that he started.

How can any of us take this man seriously again?

I think he owes the Jewish community an apology."
Richard Catto on April 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Richard Catto,
The type of antisemitism that the M&G loves best is usually spewed forth by Jews. Cinman has descended to this level arguing that Jews ignore their prayers at synagogue to talk business. This is standard 16th century antisemitism, portraying religious Jews as Shylocks.
Of course, Cinman has two renowned Jewish mentors who regularly contribute to the M&G…. Ronnie Kasrils and Zapiro! Both use the “Nazi-Israeli” epithet which is, inherently, a vicious antisemitic slur.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm


it must be recognised (and I have said this before) that the anti-semitism of the Left is predominantly derived from the Jew as greedy Shylock nonsense. It is also necessary for the Left to employ self-loathing Jews to do their dirty work with their Israel=Nazi lies, since their predictable mantra is that one cannot be anti-semitic if one is saying the same things about Israel as some Jews do, the concept of self-loathing being beyond their tiny little minds to comprehend.

I think the M&G should just start serialising the Protocols of Zion, now that their anti-semitism is out in the open.


Bullard wasnt just fired, people have actually taken him to the HRC for hate speech. Bullard is distasteful, arrogant and his last colum was probably racist. However from what I have read of the constitution it doesnt count as hate speech. If it does then this guy should be given double whatever the punishment bullard is given.


Ya, its the same excuse that Kasrils uses to get away with his brand of hateful speech. Kasrils took himself to the HRC to get a ruling because he knews he was safe given our narrowly defined constitution. Its only hate speech if it incites violence.

I think I heard that the HRC was throwing the case against Bullard out immediately.

Has the FXI got involved at all? They went mad when a local Jewish paper refused a submission for Kasrils...Bullard's issue is far more public. If they were consistent...

I would be embarrassed if Cinman was taken to the HRC. He would probably love the attention.


Joe, I agree with the first part of your comment but disagree with the second.
The problem I have, rather, is that the religious are a very exclusionist bunch and there is not nearly enough (and has not been enough) Kiruv or proper Jewish education, and thus the SA Jewish community is blessed with products like Jarred Cinman.

I disagree with you that there has not been nearly enough Kiruv in SA. There has been a huge amount and the increasing levels of newly observant Jews in SA from the 80s to now is evidence of that (figures were provided in the 2006 Mendel Kaplan study of Jewry in SA).

Aish HaTorah, Ohr Someyach and Chabad have all led the Kiruv movement here since the 90s. Arachim seminars which target the non traditional totally secular occur twice a year in JHB. No amount of Kiruv would ever convince a guy like Cinman.


There are two questions...
(1) Should the M&G have published a THOUGHT LEADER blog that contains the "jews talking business, instead of praying" line?( I think that the editor should have deleted it because it is blatantly antisemitic.)
(2) Would the M&G publish a blog, in the same vein, which denigrated Muslims and Islam?? (no chance whatsoever!)

If one also takes into account that the use of the "Israeli-Nazi" slur is antisemitic, then it is reasonable to conclude that the M&G is an antisemitic newspaper.

If anybody has the inclination, please write a letter to the M&G including these points. Ferial should be confronted with your views.


There are two questions...
(1) Should the M&G have published a THOUGHT LEADER blog that contains the "jews talking business, instead of praying" line?( I think that the editor should have deleted it because it is blatantly antisemitic.)
(2) Would the M&G publish a blog, in the same vein, which denigrated Muslims and Islam?? (no chance whatsoever!)

If one also takes into account that the use of the "Israeli-Nazi" slur is antisemitic, then it is reasonable to conclude that the M&G is an antisemitic newspaper.

If anybody has the inclination, please write a letter to the M&G including these points. Ferial should be confronted with your views.


Bullard should make a formal complaint to The FXI.
I think that the Jane Duncan/FXI line would be that the FXI finds Bullard's views to be distasteful but that The FXI supports his right to publish them. As a result, The FXI should demand Bullard's reinstatement.
Question arises whether Bullard has taken his case to the FXI. Perhaps he doesnt rate the FXI too highly and has, therefore, decided to avoid Messrs Duncan and Jeenah.
However, I do believe that THe FXI should, even if Bullard does not want to be reinstated, make the point that he should not have been fired.


Interesting that Prof Anton Harber has crucified Bullard. The Prof at Wits School of Journalism backs freedom of expression!


Harber wrote about Bullard in Business Day.

"There is no freedom of speech issue here. A columnist serves at the pleasure of the editor, and there is a problem only if the editor abuses his privilege by sacking a columnist unreasonably, such as for offending an advertiser or shareholder.

Columns are an essential part of a newspaper, bringing opinion and debate to break through the tedium of news and provoking thought and discussion. A sensible editor carries a healthy range of challenging opinions, but makes it clear that there are certain views which go beyond the bounds and will not appear in the newspaper."

Can you believe that a Prof of Journalism writes that "this is not a freedom of expression issue"? A journalist gets sacked for a piece that he writes and Harber blithely states that this is "not a freedom of expression issue"! Has Harber lost his marbles?


Bullard has now apologized in Business Day. It will be interesting to see
whether he can continue to write satirical journalism in SA. My feeling is that even if offered a column, he will find it difficult to write satire due to self-censorship. Satirists tend to have a reactionary streak and as a result, his "satirical days" might well be over in SA.

Bullard writes:
"Over the years, the column has offended and amused and probably been regarded as a thorn in the side of authority, but one of the necessary evils of a democratic system and a free press.

I can’t claim to believe everything I have written because some columns were written purely for sensation. Readership of the column grew and I became heady with its success and pushed the boundaries. Last week I pushed that boundary too far.

The piece entitled, Uncolonised Africa wouldn’t know what it was missing, was intended to make the point that some black South Africans blame white colonialism for all the country’s problems.

It asked readers to envisage an imaginary SA, which hadn’t been colonised at all, in 2008. Then the Chinese arrive and lay claim to mineral rights, water, land and cheap labour and at last there is someone to blame. The article was never intended to offend, but it has, and that offence has caused the column’s permanent disappearance from The Sunday Times.

For that I offer sincere and heartfelt apologies to those who were offended, including Mondli Makhanya, my friend and former editor, whom I respect enormously. Particularly offensive to so many was the suggestion that a family who had lost a child would mourn for a week or so and then have another child.

Despite my claim that this is a fantasy SA, I realise that this was an insensitive remark to make and I humbly apologise.

The use of the term “simple tribesmen” was never intended to imply stupidity but to suggest an uncomplicated lifestyle. Nonetheless it offended my readers and therefore requires an apology.

Other critics referred to my cavalier disregard for ancestor worship and one even felt that my suggestion that huts were built to catch most of the day’s sun insinuated that black people are lazy. Once again, I am sorry to have caused so much offence to so many of my regular readers.

Just over a year ago, after I was shot while at home, many of my readers were generous enough to send messages of support. I have a bulging lever-arch file of those messages and at a rough guess I would say that 60% of them were from black readers.

I keep that file close by at all times and read it when I am feeling a little sorry for myself. The generosity of spirit and compassion of many of those messages bring home to me what really happened with that fateful column. I betrayed the friendship of so many unseen good friends and that is unforgivable. Even for an iconoclastic columnist."


If anyone doubts that theM&G is an antisemitic newspaper, please refer to the comments posted by "Consulting Engineer" on Cinman's Thought Leader blog. It should be remembered that Thought Leader's guidelines clearly state that "racist" comments will not be allowed but a whole load of antisemitic comments have appeared.


Hi Anthony

Re your complaint below – the post in question was very long. Can you please be specific?

Thought Leader’s editorial guidelines states:

6. Comments that contain racist, sexist or homophobic remarks — or that may be interpreted as such — won’t make it on to Thought Leader.

I believe that Consulting Engineer’s comment ( April 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm) is antisemitic and is in clear breach of the guidelines.
Riaan Wolmarans
Editor: Mail & Guardian Online

Hi Riaan,

The following extract from Consulting Engineer is, in my opinion, antisemitic and is, as a result, in breach of THOUGHT LEADER’S guidelines.

“It’s time to face the possibility that Jewish problems are sometimes due to Jewish attitudes and Jewish behaviour.
The popular verb jew would seem to bear this out. So do countless ethnic jokes about Jewish sharp dealing and devious conduct.”

“The Christian habit with Jews is simply to pretend not to notice obvious and distressing things. This, we assume, is just their nature; they aren’t going to change; maybe they can’t help being this way.”

Hard Rain

Some of the comments on that article are actually unbelievable. From someone challenging the very definition of the word antisemitism to another quite blankly disavowing antisemitism and in the same paragraph expressing it clearly.



Hi Riaan,

I think that you have allowed a whole load of antisemitic/racist comments to appear on Jarrred Cinman's blog "Let's talk about the Jews".

Are you following an antisemitic editorial policy instituted by Ferial Haffajee ?

In order to comply with THOUGHT LEADER's "non-racist" guidelines, you should immediately remove the attached comments.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The Thought Leader editor should also assess whether the following comments from Consulting Engineer are antisemitic/racist. If they are, they should never have been deleted from the blog, in accordance with Thought Leader’s guidelines:

“Killing millions apparently isn´t something that worries the minds of the Zionist leadership as their ideology teaches them that they are “the chosen people”, the master race - an ideology where the rest of the world are “goyim”, expendable sub-humans, i.e. non-Jews - to which the Jewish bible prophecises complete destruction if they resist the Jewish God´s promise of complete Jewish domination.”

“The perfidity of Jews who were some of the masterminds behind the ANC, Black Sash, ECC while also backing the Nats is also a case in point of how they always play all angles for self interest, using the ‘Chosen People’ mindset.”

“And these are the people who control the world media?”

“If Jarred says Jews discuss business in the synagogue, can anyone prove him wrong? His point cannot be dismissed only because some do not like it.I will not comment since I do not attend synagogues.”

“Henry Kissinger, a jew, once said a people who have been persecuted for 2000 years must be doing something wrong.”
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am


Typo re the above!
"they should never have been deleted from the blog" should read "they should never have appeared on the blog and should be deleted"


Dear Chief Rabbi,

As it is passover, I draw your attention to a re-occurring "plague" closer to home. I urge you not to ignore it as this particular "plague", has, in the past, led to the virtual annihilation of European Jewry.

The Mail and Guardian's "Thought Leader" blog guidelines unambiguously states:

6. Comments that contain racist, sexist or homophobic remarks -- or that may be interpreted as such -- won't make it on to Thought Leader

However, it is evident that this guideline was repeatedly ignored by the M&G on-line editor when blatantly antisemitic comments were recently posted on the following blog....

I think that this is quite a frightening development and, in the circumstances, I hope that you will write a letter of complaint to Ferial Haffejee or alternatively refer the matter to the SAJBD.


For the record, THOUGHT LEADER’S editor has now removed two antisemitic comments from Consulting Engineeer’s contributions.

(Having looked at the lines you post below, I can see how they can be perceived as anti-Semitic. We will remove these lines from the comment in question.
Riaan Wolmarans)

Consulting Engineer writes:
“It’s time to face the possibility that Jewish problems are sometimes due to Jewish attitudes and Jewish behaviour.
The popular verb jew would seem to bear this out. So do countless ethnic jokes about Jewish sharp dealing and devious conduct.”

“The Christian habit with Jews is simply to pretend not to notice obvious and distressing things. This, we assume, is just their nature; they aren’t going to change; maybe they can’t help being this way.”

Btw,I am also urging the editor to erase further antisemitic comments made by Jarred Cinaman and Consulting Engineer.


Cinman's piece is classic leftwing anti-Semitism, and Consulting Engineer's is classic rightwing anti-Semitism, but the anti-Semites/anti-Zionists are finding common ground, against Jews and Israel, more and more.


leftwing anti-Semitism is at bottom no different to right-wing anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. The difference being that far-right wing neo-Nazis are more honest about their Jew-hatred, which actually makes left-wing anti-Semitism more dangerous and sinister because it does not acknowledge what it is, and indeed cannot do so because you know leftwingers define themselves as "liberal" and thus anti-racist. They cannot admit that when they are endlessly blathering on about fascism esp re Israel it is mere projection, for them to admit their racism even to themselves is simply not possible, for they pretend to themselves that they are anti-racist. To face the truth here would lead to these people's total psychological breakdown.


M&G editorial policy falls within your "left wing" category.

The on-line M&G editor is still refusing to delete a whole load of antisemitic comments. If anyone has the time/energy to grab hold of the baton, please email THOUGHT LEADER'S editor....

[email protected]


Hi Riaan,
Why have you refused to publish the attached comment? It isn't repetitious and certainly doesn't break your guidelines.

"For the record, THOUGHT LEADER’S editor has now removed two antisemitic comments from @Consulting Engineeer ( April 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm)"
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:40 am

Bullard: Sorry, but I'm suing

April 19 2008 at 10:41AM
By Justine Gerardy

Canned writer David Bullard has apologised to readers of a column that got him axed for racism. But now he plans to sue the Sunday Times for breaching labour law.

"I couldn't comprehend that it would be offensive to so many people and that's what the apology was about," Bullard, 55, said on Friday.

"It's driven home that the days of apartheid, which I never suffered under, are still real to people. And one has to be sensitive to that."

'What I regret is that so many people took offence'
Bullard apologised in a national newspaper for his recent column on pre-colonial South Africa. The column cost him his 14-year contract with Sunday Times.

Three complaints have also been lodged with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC).

Bullard now plans to sue Sunday Times publisher Avusa in the labour court for two years of lost income.

"We believe we've got a strong case. We're up for a fight because we think we're going to win," he said.

The apology was a different issue and the legal case was due to belief that labour law had been breached, he said. "You can't sack someone over the phone, without a warning or calling them in. They zapped the middle finger to the Employment Act."

'That's how seriously we took the matter'
Sunday Times editor Mondli Makhanya called Bullard to tell him he was fired and his Out to Lunch column had been cancelled.

The newspaper apologised to readers on Sunday and Makhanya took responsibility for having allowed "poison to pollute" the newspaper.

The column heavily stereotyped black people, with references to "simple tribesmen" and suggestions that a family who lost a child would simply mourn for a week before having another child.

Bullard on Friday also apologised to Makhanya, whom he described as a friend and editor he enormously respected.

The past week had been ghastly, hectic, painful and expensive, Bullard said.

He also apologised in a televised debate on Wednesday and appeared on TV and radio shows. His column, racist attitude and firing were debated in the media.

However, Bullard said he did not regret writing a column that was meant to stimulate debate.

"I still stand by that. What I regret is that so many people took offence," he said.

Columnists were open to misinterpretation and South Africans needed to "grow up a bit" and "get a sense of humour", he said.

But a column should not offend the majority of its readers and the pre-colonial piece had been a calculated risk, which had not worked.

"Whether it was racist is open to debate but I have apologised to those who found it racist," he explained.

Bullard said he welcomed an open discussion in the format of the Forum of Black Journalists debate.

"I would like it to go to the SAHRC. I don't see them as the Spanish Inquisition - I think the debate should be out in the open."

SAHRC chief executive Tseliso Thipanyane, who spoke to Bullard on Friday, said the body might accept Bullard's apology if the three complainants did so.

"The hurtful remarks definitely violated the Equality Act and were racist in nature," said Thipanyane.

"Before we saw the apology we had decided to recommend that the matter be taken to the equality court. That's how seriously we took the matter."

The Sunday Times would have also gone to the equality court if they had not apologised, he said.

Since the column's canning, a fifth imprint of 2 000 copies of Bullard's book had been ordered and he was getting more speaking engagements.

"From a commercial point of view, it's been phenomenal - you couldn't have bought the publicity."

"hating all religions equally"

What about a religion that goes about "hating all other religions"?


It will be interesting to see whether Riaan Wolmarans (editor of M&G "Thought Leader") now, censors my following comment, for being "unacceptable".

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ Consulting Engineer,
You write:
“These phrases, “hate speech” and “anti-Semite”, are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms.”

The legitimacy of such “devices” is, of course, debatable. However, there are “editorial guidelines” with regard to racism that you have breached.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am

From: "Riaan Wolmarans"
Date: 23 April 2008 11:01:19 AM
Hi Anthony,
Our comment guidelines, which you have read, also state:

10. Unacceptable comments will be deleted without notification.
Riaan Wolmarans
Editor: Mail & Guardian Online
Tel: +27 11 250 7353
E-mail: [email protected]

Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Riaan Wolmarans
Hi Riaan,
Why have you refused to publish the attached comment? It isn't repetitious and certainly doesn't break your guidelines.
 "For the record, THOUGHT LEADER’S editor has now removed two antisemitic comments from @Consulting Engineeer ( April 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pm)"
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:40 am

Date: 24 April 2008 10:34:04 AM
To: [email protected]

Hi Jane,
For the record, some of "Consulting Engineer's" comments have been deleted for breaking the "Thought Leader" editorial guidelines in respect of racism; his rantings were actually deemed to be antisemitic.
Does The FXI believe that the M&G on-line editor was right to do so?

ps: Seems that "Consulting Engineer" is one of The FXI's biggest fans!
pps: Would The FXI employ him?


This comment was posted but not published....

"I wonder why antisemitic comments have been published by “Thought Leader”.
Is it because the on-line editor is unaware that they are antisemitic ? Or is it that he doesn’t care?"
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.