DA's hypocrisy knows no bounds
DA leader John Steenhuisen interacts with US President Donald Trump and President Cyril Ramaphosa during a recent official visit to Washington.
Image: The Presidency
PRESIDENT Cyril Ramaphosa may have to think twice before including DA leader John Steenhuisen in official visits after his poor performance characterised by political posturing during the heated Oval Office meeting in the US last week.
Ahead of his visit to the US as part of Ramaphosa's delegation, Steenhuisen promised that the highest issues on his priority list would be securing trade relations between the US and SA, particularly in agriculture, to protect jobs, grow the economy and expand employment opportunities.
'This delegation to Washington DC represents all South Africans, who have entrusted us to put the shared national interests, and desire for economic growth and job creation first, ahead of any party, or ideological positions.
As a proud member of this GNU delegation, I will endeavor to ensure every effort is made to mend, and improve relations between the US and SA.'
When presented with a rare chance to do so, Steenhuisen bungled it spectacularly.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Instead of dispelling Trump's false narrative of white genocide in South Africa, he continued his party's tired claim that there were farm murders here, indirectly confirming the fake news that farmers were specifically targeted.
How affirming would it have been for him to inform the world that Julius Malema's chants were nothing more than that; and quite frankly the courts have taken the position that they remain part of our painful history.
But he would not dare say this because it would be against every effort his party had made to win back the Afrikaner vote from the Freedom Front Plus.
Steenhuisen, with the help of his colleagues in the DA, just has to study the recent crime stats to see why his argument of farm murders is problematic.
A breakdown of the stats shows that only six murders linked to farms were recorded in the first quarter of 2025, with five of the victims being black.
Compare that with the murders taking place daily- not over three months- in Mitchells Plain, Manenberg, Nyanga, Inanda, Umlazi and Mamelodi, then you see why it's difficult arguing against criticism that Steenhuisen and the DA are hypocrites.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Discussing BBBEE redress policies effect on the economy
JOHANNESBURG - The critique of South Africa's so-called "racial policies" by the United States has again put BBEE in the spotlight. READ: Ramaphosa defends BEE policies in Parliament Broad-based economic empowerment measures were put in place to counter apartheid policies that disadvantaged different groups of South Africans through poorer education, a lack of promotion and confiscation of their assets and rights. Many have argued it's not working. An academic says that the complex problems affecting the country's economic growth cannot be reduced to policies aimed at redress. Dr Khwezi Mabasa, the Economic and Social Policy Lead at Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung South Africa, discussed this with eNCA.
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
New documentary shines a light on the environmental damage caused by Elon Musk's tech ambitions
In the broiling shadow of rocket flames and broadband dreams, the inconvenient truths of Elon Musk's techno-utopia are being tidily shuffled out of frame. Canadian director Julien Elie's haunting new black-and-white documentary film, Shifting Baselines, does not shout its message. It doesn't need to. The scorched landscapes of Boca Chica, Texas, where Elon Musk's SpaceX has set up shop, speak for themselves. They whisper of seabirds gone silent, of beaches turned to junkyards, and of a natural world redrawn by a billionaire's imagination. Back in South Africa, the airwaves have been thick with chatter about Musk's Starlink satellite network finally getting a potential regulatory green light to operate here after sustained pressure from Musk himself and the Trump administration. Some have hailed the prospect of Musk's high-speed internet in rural areas as a form of digital salvation for South Africans marooned, in a communications sense, in the hinterland. That there could be benefits, in particular, for rural schools and rural police stations seems clear. It has also been notable how many voices have been happy to overlook the reality that there already exist alternatives, some of which have been pioneered by local businesses at considerable expense; and that the projected costs of a Starlink terminal (around R6,000) and the monthly fee (at least two or three times the average internet contract) will put it far beyond fantasy for the vast majority of South Africa's rural citizens. But amid the enthusiastic flag-waving for this latest piece of technological deliverance, there has been an even more deafening silence about its environmental cost. Starlink junk burning up ozone layer Shifting Baselines' title refers to a concept coined by the marine biologist Daniel Pauly, who explains how each generation accepts the ecological degradation of its lifetime as its new normal. Over time, we forget what the planet of our ancestors once looked like, smelled like, sounded like. It is a quiet kind of erasure. The documentary shows us the once-thriving ecosystems around Musk's rocket launch sites reduced to industrial debris, and the community of Boca Chica transformed into a workers' colony for Musk's Starbase operation. The birds are dwindling in numbers. The fish are tiny. And the sky, once a canvas for stars, is now obscured by satellites and space junk. SpaceX's satellite constellation, Starlink, makes up more than 60% of all satellites orbiting Earth. According to the UK-based space firm Space Forge, about 40% of the material now burning up in Earth's atmosphere comes from Starlink satellites, which are designed to last only five years and disintegrate on entry. That translates to at least 500kg of incinerated hardware every day. Harvard astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell told in October 2024 that there is now a Starlink satellite re-entry almost every day. Some days see multiple burn-ups. These are not elegant, imperceptible disappearances. They contribute to atmospheric pollution in ways that are only just beginning to be studied. An October 2024 letter to the US Federal Communications Commission, signed by more than 100 top space scientists, warned urgently that the effects of these satellites have yet to be adequately researched. Their concerns were unequivocal: the pace of satellite deployment has vastly outstripped the regulatory frameworks meant to assess their environmental impact. 'Over just five years, Starlink has launched more than 6,000 units and now make up more than 60% of all satellites. The new space race took off faster than governments were able to act. Regulatory agencies review individual licences and lack the policies in place to assess the total effects of all proposed mega-constellations,' they wrote. 'Until national and international environmental reviews can be completed, we should stop launching further low Earth orbit satellites as part of constellations that provide consumer internet connectivity.' Meanwhile, light pollution from the Starlink array is already interfering with astronomers' work. It affects projects like South Africa's own Salt telescope, a major scientific facility — and genuine national treasure — whose vision of the stars is now often smeared by the unintended signatures of broadband ambition. If Starlink comes to South Africa, the astronomer Federico di Vruno told Reuters this week, 'it will be like shining a spotlight into someone's eyes, blinding us to the faint radio signals from celestial bodies'. Tech-optimism is eclipsing climate change realities Elie's film returns often to scenes of spectators in lawn chairs, watching Musk's rocket launches with misty eyes. Most are Boomers clearly nostalgic about the Space Race of their youth. Some describe the spectacle of a SpaceX launch as their 'Apollo moment'. SpaceX employees scrawl 'We are explorers' on bollards. But the documentary carefully strips away the romance to reveal a more uncomfortable truth. The rockets and satellites rise and return from land and skies now scarred by the vehicles of Musk's monomaniacal, megalomaniacal ambition. This is the paradox at the heart of the Musk myth. His obsession with space colonisation is sold as a response to climate collapse on Earth. Yet in pursuing that dream, he accelerates the very forces he claims to resist. The rockets that might someday touch down on Mars are poisoning the skies of Earth today. Each new satellite that promises to bridge digital divides also quietly widens the environmental ones. All the while, climate change — once seemingly the moral rallying cry of a generation — appears to be quietly slipping off the agenda. The inevitable reports are now emerging, a veritable flurry this past weekend alone, about the jobs that are already being lost to AI. What is virtually absent from the discourse is the ruinous environmental impact of the Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT: a November 2024 study found that just 16% of respondents were aware of the huge amount of water required to cool AI servers. Shifting Baselines invites us to look beyond the dazzle of innovation from the tech industry with which we are all bombarded daily to the dull, persistent erosion of the real world. It asks us to consider what we are losing in our quest to win the future — as the sky fills up with ghosts. DM here.
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Chief Rabbi Goldstein abuses legal and religious concepts in attack on Ramaphosa
On 21 May 2025, President Donald Trump's Oval Office was yet again turned into the set of a reality television show livestreamed into the homes of many millions of viewers all over the world. The meeting between the US president and South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa quickly shifted gear from the initial pleasantries to spectacular political theatre as Trump played video material purporting to be evidence of a 'white genocide' in South Africa. This included footage of Julius Malema in a packed football stadium chanting 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' and a 'cemetery with 1,000 white crosses' that turned out to be a memorial commemorating the murder of two farmers. As this political theatre was taking place in the White House, a real-time genocide was unfolding in Gaza with Israel's relentless bombardment, its humanitarian blockade of food, water and medical aid and its refusal to comply with international court rulings. In the face of these developments, and an intensification of international pressure and criticism of Israel, South Africa's chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein, decided it was time to respond. In his Facebook video message Goldstein accused Ramaphosa of many things, including allowing a 'South African genocide' to take place. Although the chief rabbi refrained from using the term 'white genocide', and acknowledged that all South Africans are victims of violent crime, he appeared to endorse the key talking points of Trump's Maga movement and South African right-wing, white nationalist agendas. This played right into the accusations of 'white genocide' plied by right-wing Afrikaner organisations to discredit the South African government's transformation policies, especially its land reform and employment equity programmes. But the chief rabbi went much further than these white nationalists. In his relentless attack on the South African President, he insisted that the 'shame' and 'humiliation' that Ramaphosa had experienced in the Oval Office on 21 May 2025 was 'divine retribution' for South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is how the chief rabbi described how God choreographed what happened in the White House meeting: 'As I watched the White House spectacle unfold, as I watched President Ramaphosa literally squirm in his seat, visibly uncomfortable, humiliated, as President Trump accused him of genocide in his own country, I couldn't help but think, I'm not a prophet and I do not presume to know the will of God, and yet the thought kept crossing my mind – this moment, this humiliation, felt biblical. It felt like divine retribution. It felt like justice for a different earlier sin. 'Because Ramaphosa and the ANC stood on a different international stage and falsely accused the Jewish state, the State of Israel, of genocide, a lie, a libel, a defamation of an entire nation. And now, in front of the whole world, they themselves are being accused of genocide. This time a true genocide demonstrated by the cold, brutal facts of a murder rate spiralling out of control. The blood of countless victims on their hands and their total inability to protect South Africans of any race or background.' In this wide-ranging video message Goldstein held Ramaphosa personally accountable for Malema's chants of 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer', claiming that he 'has never publicly condemned the chant as hate speech, not even in the Oval Office when he had every opportunity and motive to do so'. This was followed by an assault on the South African Constitutional Court for not ruling that Malema's chants are hate speech: 'This judgment casts a shadow on the integrity and legacy of the Constitutional Court and makes a mockery of their role as the guardians of human rights in South Africa.' Although the violent crime statistics in South Africa are truly shocking, Goldstein's claims of a 'South African genocide' radically dilutes and relativises the legal definition and meaning of the term. This constitutes a dangerous trivialisation of genocidal catastrophes, including the Holocaust. It thereby threatens to undermine the very precise meaning of genocide, a concept which was introduced into international law after the Holocaust by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish Polish lawyer. Lemkin's concept helped establish the 1948 Genocide Convention, which legally defines the act of genocide. As the son of a German Jewish refugee whose entire family was murdered in Auschwitz and Riga, I appreciate the importance of Lemkin's precise definition of genocide. Using the notion of a 'South African genocide' to refer to a violent crime crisis undermines this precision. Most international law experts would agree that Hamas perpetrated horrific war crimes against civilians in Israel on 7 October 2023. At the same time, there is currently a growing consensus among Holocaust and genocide scholars that the Israeli military is indeed perpetrating genocide in Gaza. This assessment draws on the very specific criteria that Lemkin used to define the crime of genocide which, according to the Genocide Convention, consists of any of five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. These acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births and forcibly transferring children out of the group. In terms of this very precise definition, genocide is a crime of special intent (dolus specialis) that deliberately targets a protected group. How can the unacceptably high violent crime levels that impact on all South Africans possibly constitute genocide in terms of this definition? Just as legal concepts need to be used with precision, one would also expect that the use of religious concepts needs to meet stringent definitions. It is therefore surprising to discover the flagrant abuse of religious concepts by the chief rabbi when he claimed that the shame and humiliation experienced by Ramaphosa in the White House was 'divine retribution' for an earlier sin – taking Israel to the ICJ. I will quote a lengthy passage from the video that conveys the lengths to which the chief rabbi was prepared to go to stretch the meanings of both 'genocide' and biblical notions of divine justice: '… It felt like what our sages called Midah Keneged Midah, measure for measure, a precise justice, a reckoning. And as that thought took hold, another verse came to mind. I kept hearing the words of Genesis in 12:3: 'Those who bless you will be blessed, and those who curse you will be cursed.' 'President Ramaphosa and the ANC cursed Israel, and now it feels as though they are being cursed. You can feel it in the air, in the sense of decay and despair, you can feel the weight of a divine curse settling on this Presidency… In the heavenly court, you will stand accused of presiding over the human suffering of all those who were murdered on your watch. The King of All Kings will ask you what you did to stop the carnage, the genocide… and you will be held eternally accountable for every moment of human suffering you caused through your callous neglect, through your omissions and commissions…' What is happening here? Why is the chief rabbi, the spiritual leader of South African Jews, so brazenly abusing the specific definitions and meanings of legal and religious concepts to denounce the President and the Constitutional Court? Is it simply to score political points? How will such divisive speech, which is uttered on behalf of the whole Jewish community, make Jews any more secure in South Africa? It is quite conceivable that the chief rabbi – like so many other defenders of Israel's actions in Gaza – is becoming increasingly defensive and desperate as international public opinion and Western governments become more critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. The chief rabbi's false and unconsidered accusations and condemnations appear to be a radical displacement and distraction from the horrific realities of a genocide unfolding daily in Gaza. DM
