Secular doesn’t mean pure

CAPE Law society fails to abide by basic legal tenets

IN AN ENLIGHTENED society, the best person would get the job. Citizens would be socially responsible, crime and corruption would be manageable and sagacious people would govern. Unfortunately our society with its protracted history of racist brutality and exploitation is far from that ideal.

While I agree with some ideals in “Secular government best” (Weekend Argus, June 22) I have to correct several mistakes and views which the writer attributes to me. First, any lucid person knows that the 2001 census regarding the Muslim population is inaccurate.

Ironically Ben Levitas, the chairman of the Cape Council of the South African Zionist Federation in a letter to the newspapers claiming that ANC provincial leader Marius Fransman’s statements on Jews were divisive and racist, states that roughly 700 000 Muslims live in the Cape.

If Levitas’s words are no good, who is to be trusted? Many politicians have also noted the non-voting Muslim populace that could swing a local election. Alderman JP Smith some time ago suggested to me that because of migratory patterns, no one knows what the population of Cape Town is.

Second, that politicians appoint whom they please was my leading point. In this city, politicians with limited education and no experience have been appointed to senior positions. Claims emanating from within the DA have been discussed in the media. If merit and qualifications are not key essentials, what criterion besides WILLIAM Saunderson- Meyer was spot-on with his article on the Cape Law Society (Weekend Argus, June 8).

We have taken two cases to the Cape Law Society involving lawyers in George – with documentation, dates and details set out point by point.

We first consulted the law society’s charter and regulations, as available on the internet. sucking up to party leaders is used?

What happens to “fit for purpose” when the minister of education has a partial education? When masses of Muslims vote DA, is it decadent to expect Muslim DA councillors with some power? Is it rational that white DA councillors with doctorates are ignored when others with a matric certificate are appointed above them?

For 360 years the narrative has been a black and white chronicle. The ANC claims the DA represents white interests, and the DA claims the ANC represents rich black interests. Considering our racist history, what is wrong with Muslims and coloureds representing communal interests within varied political alliances? For example how many local Muslims and coloureds profit from BEE? Why does drug addiction affect mostly coloured and Muslim communities?

Third, I did not write for “the pro-

In one case, concerning alleged undocumented use of money (contrary to the law society’s regulations) deposited with a lawyer for a property purchase, the law society’s “disciplinary officer” dismissed the complaint, with no reasons given.

In the other case, involving a poorly handled civil matter, the disciplinary officer – the sole channel of communication – sent us a letter declaring that motion of parochial religious interests”. Also, I did not suggest that “governance be based on theological grounds”. I do, however support the influence of an Anglican interpretation of governing principles.

It is odd that Kevin Charleston suggests that secularism, which is essentially the political aspiration of atheism, is more meaningful in this majority Christian nation. My interpretation of political values implies that those who worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because of their expected ethical rearing, should be less inclined to corruption.

While Charleston adds that eight of the most corrupt nations have Muslim majorities, he seems blissfully unaware of the corrupting influence of his secular states. Is it coincidental that the nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, which he refers to, have been covertly or overtly occupied by the US? Have these regimes not been installed and maintained by the US? Does Kevin know that the Taliban and Karzai’s Afghan government, which are at war, are both funded by the CIA? When secular states – such as the US, Germany, China, Britain and Russia corrupt African and Muslim dictators, is this acceptable? RELIGIOUS freedom is the cornerstone of a democratic government.

Kevin Charleston makes some valid the lawyer had “not acted unprofessionally” and that the file was now “closed”.

We kept asking when the disciplinary committee met, who its members were, and so on, but to no avail.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the law society is there to protect its members.

Why is it that, of all professions, the legal profession does not abide by Nelson Mandela’s example and stop blaming apartheid and get on with education and health services, stop corruption and placing unqualified family and friends in positions they cannot do and for once think of the poor?

Watching the tributes showered on Nelson Mandela, by largely the previously disadvantaged people, and showing the recognition for the way he pointed the new democracy on the path of reconciliation and a principled way forward, I have to ask: how the hell have the same people allowed Zuma and the ANC to take the country to where it is today? comments except where he writes that “a consistent characteristic of the least corrupt and most secure nations is adherence to secular government”. I believe he should replace the word “secular” with “democratic”.

Hitler was leader of a secular government, elected by popular vote, but that did not make his government good. As a Christian, I would prefer a Christian government, but even that can be dangerous and lead to biased dogmatism and persecution.

One of the cornerstones of democratic values in a democracy, that is often overlooked, is religious freedom. The least corrupt and most secure nations are those that allow the greatest religious freedoms. Fortunately, this right is guaranteed and adhered to in South Africa.

In the Muslim countries in the Middle East one of the first things that was eliminated was religious freedom. During the era of secular dictatorships in the Middle East, there was a surprising amount of religious freedom. Religious persecution was minimal where dictators were overthrown. Since the uprisings, religious freedoms have largely been eliminated and minority religious groups have been persecuted.

A correct understanding of what the democratic principles are in a democratic government is one of the greatest needs. When religious freedoms are guaranteed, there is not a specific need for a religious government. such basic tenets of law as open hearings, equal representation for both sides, the leading of evidence and cross-examining of witnesses?

Why does it not apply these principles in its own profession?

We hope the media will continue to hammer this out, and win.