Comments on: Update 5: Bullard burns at the stake

By: Cicero

Cicero — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:26:25 +0000

Has David Bullard been vindicated? You might consider this web-site opinion.
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/05/zimbabwe-model-of-cause-and-effect.html

By: Carla

Carla — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:17:44 +0000

Hank Small, you took the words right out of my mouth but ever so much more succinctly. Excellent comment and it is indeed sad that we can be called any manner of racist names as whites, without any repercussions.

By: Hank Small

Hank Small — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:02:50 +0000

Bullock was fired because he dared to write a satire with large elements of truth. His column contained satitircal references to Africa’s inablity to make technological or civilisational advances, as well as the endemic externilasation of blame which is so characteric of Africans.
Secondly, he focused on crime, and he did it as a white. Could he be so stupid? Had he been black, he could for example have followed in Jon Qwelane’s footsteps when he wrote:
“What actually happened was that Mugabe, being the true revolutionary that he is, decided to follow the actual spirit of the liberation struggle to the letter by repossessing every inch of Zimbabwean soil from the marauding invaders and, in most cases, refused to pay them for the land because, quite logically, ‘the white people did not pay a cent for the land which they now claim is theirs in a country which they do not recognise, and to which many refuse to owe loyalty’.”
Note: Qwelane calls whites “marauding invaders”, but his black skin in effect a “get out of jail free” Monopoly card – he may write what he wishes, whether it is factual or not (and without reverting to satire, which he is incapable of).
Once again I must bow to the words of Orwell, a person who showed amasing insight into the workings of a Marxist, totalitarian state which Zimbabwe and South Africa in fact has become. He wrote: “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” Bullard made the mistake of coming too near to the truth in his satire. He wrote what most thinking people know, therefore the thought police had to get rid of him.

By: tlotlo

tlotlo — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:43:30 +0000

i was really sad when i heard that dave got fired so in support of dave i stopped buying that newspaper because without dave who else will i read? the column was provoking and my sunday mornings are going to be boring without him, i really loved your column even if i never i agreed with what you said. someone said this ‘i do not agree with what you are saying but i will fight to death for the right for you to say it’and i cannot wait for you to be back doing what you do best; making me so mad every sunday morning
tlotlo

By: Cam Silver

Cam Silver — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:47:03 +0000

Check out the funny take on Bullardgate from South Africa’s best satirical website Hayibo.com

They suggest Minister Shabangu now wants to kill Bullard! http://www.hayibo.com/articles/view/752

By: Ivo Vegter

Ivo Vegter — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:12:38 +0000

Nonsense. I spoke to David Bullard by e-mail, and he said, “Oh, how I suffer unjustly, a martyr to the cause. Wish I were a lowly, obscure, underpaid and ultimately irrelevant columnist like you, young Vegter. The burden of popularity is so heavy. The responsibility of fame so great. All that traffic my name is driving to your blog is a curse, my lad, mark my words. Nothing but a vile curse. I think I’ll go change my name now.”

I haven’t heard from him since. Not as David Bullard, that is.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:49:27 +0000

How David Bullard must be enjoying all the fuss over this.

Given that his departure from the Sunday Times was on the cards anyway, and that his future income is based upon his face-time in the media, all this support/criticism must have done his career no end of good. He must be positively wringing his hands with delight, as supporters undoubtedly outweigh his detractors in terms of media buying power, and that can only be good in the eyes of his next paymaster.

One might even suggest that given that the Sunday Times probably also knew that he was going (either by jump or by push), playing the race card and stirring up a storm was less about actually caring for the perceived racism, and more about selling more newspapers in the eye of the hurricane. For why else would the editor risk his credibility in public when clearly we all know that the very first bullet point on his employment contract refers to his requirement to edit what is to be published. Which he clearly didn’t. Was it really an oversight (I’ve known editor’s fired for oversights of far smaller magnitude) or intentional?

Either way, one has to question the general South African public’s ability to appreciate irony and satire, particularly given the columnist’s clear and obvious brief to stir up controversy in this manner. Must be the same bunch that get infuriated with Ben Trovato each week (every Tues in the Cape Times and on IOL).

Sometimes the irate (ignorant?) masses are even more humorous than the article itself. And that’s probably the second reason that David Bullard is chuckling through is English muffin this morning…

By: sheila

sheila — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:01:08 +0000

There is absolutely no doubt that colonists brought expertise to sub saharan africa – there were casualities but also benfits in the long term. Would Africa have rather preferred to be left alone and isolated from the global village? As David said, they were living an idyllic simple life. There will always be cultural differences, which we must strive to accept, not necessarily like or feel comfortable with e.g – I feel uncomfortable watching “praise singers” and ululating women.

By: Grandpa Edison

Grandpa Edison — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:57:47 +0000

The powers that be, must take a very close look at what freedom of speech means. If a race or individual are feeling compromised by someone’s statement use your brain to argue against it. Use the kindergarden advice from parents to their child – “sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never harm you” As soon as there is physical actions, then this is unacceptable. While there is a word war – grow up and learn to argue or at least pay someone to argue on your behalf. Quit taking offense and get on with life!!

By: Ivo Vegter

Ivo Vegter — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:24:49 +0000

Responsibility? Lemme check.

16. Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
freedom of the press and other media;

freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;

freedom of artistic creativity; and

academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
propaganda for war;

incitement of imminent violence; or

advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Nope, don't see anything about responsibility in there. Even if you agree his comments are racist, it's hardly hate speech as contemplated in section 16.2.3. Besides for the responsibility to comply with laws (which are meant to be well-defined and narrow in scope, such as the statutes on libel), what do you mean by "responsibility"? Who gets to define it? Responsibility for what? And what responsibility would Bullard have had that he failed to meet? I have argued in a column in Maverick magazine why I don't believe excluding hate speech from the right to freedom of expression has merit. It is subjective and open to abuse, and the repression of perceived hate speech is more likely to be counter-productive than beneficial. It's not like those people heed that restriction among themselves. I'd rather they make themselves known in public rather than plot in dark pubs or shebeens among like-minded buddies. A restriction based on some undefined "responsibility" is even broader. As I quoted above, the right to free speech is not just threatened, but ceases to exist without the right to offend. Any restrictions on the right to free speech are dangerous, and the more easily they can be abused for political ends, the more dangerous they are. Let me ask it this way: what "responsibilities" do you think Robert Mugabe would consider reasonable to expect from a journalist? Such a demand is wide open to political abuse, which is exactly why we have a right to free expression in the first place. PS:HTML/CSS gurus, I implore thee, speak unto me. How does a mere mortal, fallible and short of patience, insert a (nested) ordered list into a blockquote without losing the blockquote's background style? I could use preformatted text, but that makes assumptions about screen width that I don't want to make.