JEF tells the story of Helen Zille and one Colin Arendse
Decision makers turn to O!O first for what’s really happening in Eden
… You’re reading, aren’t you!?
Advertise on O!O – click here for details
Drewan Baird. Oudtshoorn. 7 April 2013. 09h15. The Justice and Equality Front (JEF) is running a story about Helen Zille threatening legal action against a critic.
Here is the story, but please click here too to comment on the story on the JEF page.
On March 4 one Colin Arendse, a fastidious scribbler to be sure, judged by his turn of vindictive phrase – if the oxymoronic depiction can be tolerated – wrote the president, and copied every man and his dog, and many women too, that “Otta Helene Maree (née Zille) is a pathetic, bare faced liar and for this reason, needs to be removed from her post.”
Arendse’s incandescent anger was sparked by an apparent Zille pronouncement on the bulk of ANC social development spokeswoman Zodwa Magwaza.
Magwasa called Zille’s silence on the much publicised closure of schools an “elephant in the room” and Zille retorted by lampooning the elephant banality with an invitation to Magwaza to manage her mass by cycling.
Arendse remains of the opinion that Zille mocked Magwaza’s lifestyle and weight (no shit! – Ed.), and hence the call to have Zille removed.
Arendse wrote, in reference to the tragic Parkwood case where an elderly pensioner was being held captive for dubious intentions: “I have proof that Zille is not only incompetent but has also peddled lies before – she is a disgrace to every other public servant in our constitutional democracy.”
Whatever one may make of such a full frontal attack, the irony of reporting it to someone so completely lacking in credibility as Jacob Zuma can hardly be lost on anyone with more than a single brain cell.
Yet Otta Helene Maree (née Zille) missed all possible inferences of importance and struck Arendse with a writ from the esteemed law firm Fairbridge Ardene & Lawton Incorporated (Fairbridges to paying clients and sued adversaries) on a letterhead warping under the names of 19 directors, 2 senior consultants, 6 consultants, 2 senior associates, 9 associates, and a practice manager, all cramped on a page headed by a designer logo leaving space only for a reference and the obligatory “dear so-and-so” before the reader is transferred to page two of legal speak such as…
“The… statements are wrongful and defamatory… insofar as they were directly and by innuendo calculated to mean that our client is a person of disreputable moral values, and guilty of conduct unbecoming to acceptable norms of personal behaviour… Aspersions are cast (‘aspersions are cast’, nogal! – Ed.) on our client’s competence, ethics, morality and integrity… accused our client of having no regard for the rule of law…”
Oy, vey is mir!
Despite Helen Zille’s prior pronouncements on freedom of speech…
“We may feel repelled by hurtful speech. But it must nevertheless be protected by the freedom of speech clauses in the Constitution. Otherwise political correctness soon determines what is ‘hurtful’. And then we are on the slippery slope to the point where a ruling party determines what we may or may not say. Julius Malema put it in so many words: We meant this law to be used against those being hurtful to us. Now it is being used against us! Exactly.”
Despite Helen Zille’s prior pronouncements on freedom of speech, the Fairbridges missive is much like loosing that fat kid with the lousy haircut from North Korea upon a single mosquito.
What is it with the DA and criticism?
First O!O was too much of a threat to feed information to.
Then JEF was singled out by self-styled strongman Theuns Botha as not worthy of DA answers.
Now an individual, irked by a reference he personally found objectionable, is threatened with legal action.
The heat in the kitchen – in the Marks Building; in Leeuwenhof, is on the up it seems!
DREWAN BAIRD COMMUNICATION – Sensaytional – 076 349 6316
Making sure they see it your way