David Bullard’s column in Empire
The editors at Empire have bowed to the clamour of the unwashed hordes on the internet, and have posted the now-infamous column in Empire, in which David Bullard throws a haymaker at Sunday Times publisher Avusa, online. Nifty layout when you click through to the story. Very classy-magaziney. (Click on the image to the right to skip the front page and go directly to the column.)
I and several other people, including Bullard himself, have speculated that this column, rather than the one published in the Sunday Times last weekend, is the real reason for his summary dismissal.
(For the record, I write a regular series on media hoaxes for Empire. I claim no credit for its design, nor do I claim responsibility for its columnists.)
Thanks for this background. I have a question though. Is it now a case of ‘one (sufficiently)racist remark and you’re fired’. What’s interesting about this attitude it the extent to which it is open to abuse. If you want to get rid of a colleague you don’t like, you can potentially record some dialogue on your phone and then convey the damning evidence. You can also search the entire archive of someone’s blog and see what gems you can come up with… This may sound like possible paranoia but in the last 2 weeks my sister’s Facebook profile suddenly changed, with her political view amended to: F#@k Ka**%@$. Her picture was changed to a large, naked black women masturbating. When I called my sister she said someone at an internet cafe must have taken over her profile (I presume she didn’t log off or something). But if someone hacks into your Facebook and puts up questionable content, think how lame it is going to sound to say ‘I didn’t do that’ in this spirit of point and fire. Some well known writer predicted that the future will become increasingly tribal. It’s happening here and internartionally.
It is worrying, indeed. Getting framed is one thing, but if your view really is racist, so what? I think it’d be a lot better to just let people say so, rather than suppress the public speech so hatred can fester in private. That’s far more likely to create harmful undercurrents among the outcasts. I may dislike racist speech, but I oppose the constitution’s ban on it. And I agree that it can far too easily be abused as a convenient excuse to silence or get rid of someone, whether in the workplace, in politics, or in public debate. I don’t fear such obviously indefensible speech. It’s easy to counter. Why ban it? That turns the invidious into the insidious.
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