EDITOR'S NOTE: On 27 May 2007 the ABC's Background Briefing program broadcast certain allegations concerning Mr Reason Wafawarova who has migrated to Australia from Zimbabwe. Those allegations were that Mr Wafawarova had been a senior figure in the Zimbabwean National Youth Service with significant responsibility for the training of Zimbabwean youth who have committed atrocities.
As we reported, these allegations came from various sources, but Mr Wafawarova denied the claims. As noted in the program, the ABC did not intend to suggest that by positions Mr Wafawarova may have held in the NYS he was personally responsible for atrocities. If any listener thought otherwise, the ABC wishes to correct that impression and regrets any hurt that impression may have caused.
Reason Wafawarova v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWSC 1212 (30 October 2007)
Last Updated: 2 November 2007
NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT
CITATION: Reason Wafawarova v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2007] NSWSC 1212
JURISDICTION:
FILE NUMBER(S): 20211/07
HEARING DATE{S): 10.10.07, 11.10.07
JUDGMENT DATE: 30 October 2007
PARTIES:
Reason Wafawarova - plaintiff
Australian Broadcasting Corporation - defendant
JUDGMENT OF: Nicholas J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable
COUNSEL:
R K M Rasmussen - plaintiff
A T S Dawson - defendant
SOLICITORS:
Carters Law Firm - plaintiff
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Legal Services - defendant
CATCHWORDS:
DEFAMATION - pleadings - objections to imputations on grounds of capacity and form - principles considered
LEGISLATION CITED:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 28.2
CASES CITED:
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158
Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 221 ALR 186
Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 175
Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Gacic (2007) 81 ALJR 1218
Malcolm v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 254
Robinson v Brighton [2007] NSWSC 1125
Whelan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 148
Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255
DECISION:
para 39
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
Nicholas J
30 October 2007
20211/07 Reason Wafawarova v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
JUDGMENT
1 His Honour: The plaintiff has sued the defendant for the broadcast on ABC Radio National of the radio programme “Background Briefing”, on or about each of 27 and 29 May 2007. The transcript of the programme is annexure “A” to the amended statement of claim.
2 At the commencement of the hearing on 10 October 2007 counsel for the plaintiff stated that it was proposed to plead a new set of imputations in a further amended statement of claim as amendments to paras 3 and 5 of the present pleading. These imputations are set out in paras (a) to (l) inclusive in a list which became exhibit A. During submissions imputations (a), (b), (c), (j) and (k) were amended, and imputations (d) to (i) inclusive were abandoned. The imputations in their final form were set out as paras (a), (b), (c), (j), (k) and (l) in the list which became exhibit B when tendered on 11 October 2007.
3 The defendant applied to strike out the imputations in exhibit A on grounds that they were not reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of (the programme) and/or that they were defective in form, in that their sense was ambiguous and uncertain, and made submissions in support of its objections. Following the tender of exhibit “B” the defendant challenged the imputations therein listed on the same grounds. The questions raised by the objections proceeded as separate questions for decision under r 28.2.
4 It is noted that the evidence of the programme consisted of the transcript annexed to the amended statement of claim, and the court was not asked to listen to an audio recording.
5 The principles applicable to the correct approach of the court on a strike out application on a question of capacity are too well known to justify repetition. It is sufficient to refer to Malcolm v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 254 (para 30) in which it was held that, in circumstances where reasonable persons may differ as to their understanding of the publication, the matter is one that must, in accordance with authority, be left to the jury.
6 In Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158, with reference to a transient publication such as a radio or television programme, Hunt, CJ at CL said (p 166):
“Although (a listener or viewer of matter published in transient form) ... must be assumed to have heard and/or seen the whole of the relevant programme, he or she may not have devoted the same degree of concentration (particularly, I would say, where it is the radio) to each part of the programme as would otherwise have been given to the written article (Morosi v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 418(n) at 420), and may have missed the significance of the existence, earlier in the programme, of a qualification of a statement made later in the published material: Gordon v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1980] 2 NSWLR 410 at 413.
The trial judge in a transient publication case will therefore more readily leave it to the jury to decide whether an imputation affected by any of those circumstances, or any similar circumstances peculiar to such type of publication, was in fact conveyed than he or she would in relation to a written document case: Brown v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (at 12-13).”
7 The exercise of discretion in deciding whether or not an imputation should be struck out is to be undertaken with great caution. In Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 52; (2005) 221 ALR 186 (para 6) it was said that if reasonable minds may possibly differ about whether or not the matter complained of is capable of carrying a defamatory meaning, that would be “... a strong, perhaps an insuperable, reason for not exercising the discretion to strike out”. Relevantly, in Favell, Kirby, J said:
“21. In considering the imputations pleaded alongside the matter complained of, it is important that courts, deciding issues such as the present, should keep in mind the practical burdens and consequences that flow from excessive refinement in such matters. They should remember that the tribunal established by law (whether a jury or a judge) to decide claims in defamation will normally have a large capacity of its own to deal with far-fetched and remote imputations in a commonsense way. It is a mistake to consider that this capacity is confined to the practice court and appellate judges, stimulated by imaginative pleaders "armed with a bank of dictionaries and a Thesaurus".”
8 Objections as to the form of an imputation require consideration of the relevant pleading principles. These principles are also well known. For the defendant to succeed it is necessary to show that the imputations fail to specify the act or condition which the plaintiff claims was attributed to him by the matter complained of. “The issue which has to be decided in the particular case is whether there is likely to be confusion either at the pleading stage or at the trial in relation to the meaning for which the plaintiff contends”. (Whelan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 148, p 155; Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255, para 124.)
9 Ordinarily, the sense in which an imputation is to be understood will be clear from its terms considered with regard to the context provided by the publication. Relevantly, in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Gacic (2007) 81 ALJR 1218, Callinan, Heydon, JJ said:
“194. ... To say that because the words of an imputation may reasonably convey more than one defamatory meaning or impression, or that because implications, inferences and imputations suggest more than one meaning or successive meanings, they must be rejected, would be to introduce unnatural and excessive refinement to the basic factual question whether the words (or the imputation) have defamed the plaintiff. Published matter may well convey a duality of meanings and impressions, not necessarily exclusive of one another, and sometimes with one leading to another, successive, inevitable or almost inevitable one.”
10 Consistently with the emphasis given in the cases to the relationship between the terms of the pleaded imputation and the matter complained of, Ipp, JA in Gacic v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 175 in a passage approved of by the High Court of Australia in John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (2007) 81 ALJR 1218 (para 174) said:
“119. ... The question as to the meaning that the words convey to the ordinary person should be a simple and straightforward one, as befits a law that governs the everyday life and actions of all levels of persons in the community. The question should not be obscured by overly complex and subtle metaphysical distinctions that stand as a formidably esoteric barrier to what should be an easily comprehensible reasoning process akin to common sense."
11 It was common ground that the relevant part of the programme is that recorded in paras 1-95 inclusive of the transcript. The programme opens with the revelation that the plaintiff, who is described as a leading figure in President Mugabe’s youth militia in Zimbabwe, is living in Australia. It proceeded to refer to the training programme of the National Youth Service under which young people were trained to be used for political purposes, particularly to keep Mr Mugabe and his party in power by whatever means necessary including torture, rape, murder, and arson. The plaintiff was said to be a director of the National Youth Service, responsible for the training of the youth militia to carry out violent activity. The programme reported allegations that he was a director of the National Youth Service, and a spy for the Central Intelligence Organisation, and the plaintiff’s denials of those allegations. It also included an interview with one Job Sikhala who said he knew the plaintiff, and gave details of the plaintiff’s activities as a supporter of Mr Mugabe’s government, including as a director of training.
12 Imputation (a) is:
“The plaintiff as director of training was responsible for the training programme of Zimbabwe’s youth with the aim of inculcating blatantly anti democratic, racist and xenophobic attitudes.”
13 Objection as to form was on grounds that the phrase “was responsible for” was imprecise in that the plaintiff’s responsibility was not specified beyond the fact that he acted as a director of training; that it was unclear whether the aim referred to was the plaintiff’s aim, or that of the training programme; and that it was in a “rolled-up” form by the use of the words “anti democratic, racist and xenophobic attitudes”.
14 The objection is rejected. Reasonably read, the imputation meets the test of precision without the need for further specificity. Any reasonable doubt evaporates when it is read in context with the programme, particularly paras 13, 22, 46, 52, 58-63, 70, 71. The attack upon the plaintiff is generally with regard to his conduct as director of the National Youth Service in which capacity he was responsible for the training of young people. The programme plainly suggests that as such director he is accountable for the activities of those who acted in accordance with what they were trained to do. It simply means that, as director of training, the plaintiff was responsible for a training programme the aim of which was to inculcate in Zimbabwe’s youth the attitudes described.
15 The “rolled-up” form objection does not survive recognition that the pleader has incorporated the adjectives as a hendiadys based on para 22 of the programme. So understood, the imputation is not confusing (Robinson v Brighton [2007] NSWSC 1125, para 21; Whelan p 157).
16 Further, I hold that the programme is reasonably capable of conveying this imputation.
17 Imputation (b) is:
“The plaintiff as director of training was involved in the training of criminals to go out to commit human rights abuses.”
18 Objection as to form was taken on the ground that the phrase “was involved in” was imprecise, in that the plaintiff’s involvement was not specified beyond the fact that he acted as director of training.
19 That the objection is without merit should be apparent from the very words of the pleading, even without regard to the observations in Gacic referred to in paras 9 and 10 above. The conduct of the plaintiff is alleged to be his involvement as director of training in the training of criminals with the purpose that they should commit human rights abuses. The programme makes this meaning plain e.g. para 65. No further specificity is required.
20 Further, I hold that the programme is reasonably capable of conveying this imputation.
21 Imputation (c) is:
“The plaintiff as director of training trained people to do abominable things and commit atrocities.”
22 Objection as to form was taken to this imputation as pleaded in exhibit A para (c). I did not understand the objection to be strongly pressed after it was amended to its present form by the inclusion of the phrase “as director of training”.
23 In any event, in my opinion, the meaning of the imputation is unambiguous. Having regard to the programme, particularly para 71, the plaintiff is entitled to plead as he has.
24 Further, I hold the programme is reasonably capable of conveying this imputation.
25 Imputation (j) is:
“The plaintiff as director of training indoctrinated students to be violent.”
26 Upon amendment to its present form, by making clear that the imputation concerned the plaintiff’s conduct as director of training, the defendant’s objection as to form was met. In my opinion, the meaning of this imputation is unambiguous, and no further specificity is required. Again, its sense is made clear by the words of the programme, particularly paras 22-45, 59-65, 70, 71.
27 Further, I hold that the programme is reasonably capable of conveying this imputation.
28 Imputation (k) is:
“The plaintiff as director of training trained Zimbabwe’s youth to murder Mugabe’s political opponents.”
29 As I understand it, the defendant’s primary objection was as to form, in that the sense of the imputation was ambiguous and uncertain. It was put that it was open to understand the imputation to be alleging that the plaintiff, himself, was acting as a teacher in the techniques of murder. Further, it was put that an imputation so understood was incapable of being conveyed by the programme to the ordinary reasonable listener.
30 In my opinion the objection fails, as the meaning of the imputation is unambiguous and sufficiently precise. The allegation, consistently with the thrust of the programme, attacks the plaintiff in his capacity as director of training. This is to be reasonably understood to refer to his conduct as head of the National Youth Service with responsibility for controlling the activities of that body which, in this case, are said to include training Zimbabwe’s youth to murder Mr Mugabe’s political opponents. In my opinion, neither the terms of the imputation, nor the language of the programme, provides support for a meaning to the effect that the plaintiff himself conducted training classes as a teacher. Prima facie, at least, that activity would be inconsistent with the status he is alleged to have held, namely that of director of training. It is sufficient to refer, without elaboration, only to paras 46, 50, 52, 57, 59, 70, 71, 78, of the programme.
31 Further, I hold that the programme is reasonably capable of conveying this imputation.
32 Imputation (l) is:
“The plaintiff lied when he said that he was not a spy or part of the Central Intelligence Office.”
33 Objection was taken on the ground of capacity. It was put that the programme provides no support for the allegation that the plaintiff lied about being a spy or part of the Central Intelligence Office. In short, it was put that the programme is incapable of being reasonably understood to go further than to repeat Mr Sikhala’s allegation, which was limited to an allegation that the plaintiff lied when he denied that he was a director of the National Youth Service. In other words, it was put that Mr Sikhala’s assertion that the plaintiff was lying, when taken in context, would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener to be directed only to the denial that he was such a director, and that there is nothing more in what Mr Sikhala said, or elsewhere in the programme, to support the imputation.
34 The defendant accepted that Mr Sikhala’s words conveyed an imputation to the effect that the plaintiff lied when he said he was not a director of youth training. It was argued that such an imputation, but not the one in issue, was conveyed by para 69 which says:
“It must be thoroughly investigated because no one resigns from the government. The whole country is run from Central Intelligence Office, the CIO. He pretends he has resigned but he has not resigned. He defends the government in each and every newspaper. He writes almost every week in the government mouthpiece called The Herald. That paper has been supporting the torture and also the oppression of the people of Zimbabwe. So basically, he thinks he’s playing with people who do not have brains. He is lying. He is still part and parcel of the system.”
35 In my opinion the objection must be rejected. Having regard to the principles to which I have referred, I find that there is sufficient material in the programme, taken as a whole, for a jury to find that a reasonable listener would conclude that the defendant is making an allegation in terms of this imputation. I am unpersuaded that the listener’s impression would be confined to an allegation of lying in respect of the directorship as the defendant contended.
36 In reaching this conclusion I have taken guidance from the statements in Marsden and Favell referred to in paras 6 and 7 above. The relevant listener is taken to have listened to the programme as a whole which, in this case, includes allegations that the plaintiff was also a spy for the Central Intelligence Office, well known as a government informer, a member of the ruling party, and a conduit between the university and the government (e.g. paras 50-65). Paragraphs 66-69 provide the immediate context for Mr Sikhala’s accusation that the plaintiff is lying. In para 70 reference is made to the plaintiff’s denial of allegations that he was in the Central Intelligence Office, or was a member of the ruling party.
37 In my opinion, the contents of para 69 attributed to Mr Sikhala, when taken in the context of, but not limited to, the paragraphs to which I have referred, arguably provide reasonable support for the imputation pleaded. It is reasonably open to a listener whose concentration might vary from one part of the programme to another to understand Mr Sikhala’s accusations “... He pretends he has resigned but he has not resigned ...So basically, he thinks he’s playing with people who do not have brains. He is lying. He is still part and parcel of the system.” as accusing the plaintiff of lying generally in respect of denials of the jobs in government referred to, including as a spy or as part of the Central Intelligence Office.
38 Accordingly, I find that the programme is reasonably capable of conveying this imputation.
Conclusion
39 (1) The defendant’s application to strike out proposed imputations (a), (b), (c), (j), (k) and (l) is refused.
(2) I hold that each of proposed imputations (a), (b), (c), (j), (k) and (l) is reasonably capable of being conveyed by the matter complained of, and is reasonably capable of being defamatory of the plaintiff.
(3) I direct the plaintiff to file and serve a further amended statement of claim on or before 4pm 6 November 2007.
(4) I stand the proceedings over to the defamation directors list 9.30am 12 November 2007 for further directions.
(5) Costs are reserved, although my prima facie view is that each party should pay his/its costs. This is because, in my opinion, the defendant’s objections to the imputations in exhibit A were substantially successful which lead to the amendments in exhibit B in respect of which the defendant failed.
ABC shame
You should be ashamed of yourself ABC.
Even the wording of your apology lacks any real remorse. You have lost all your credibility and respect in my opinion.
safi
For the record.
The Australian Supreme Court ruled that there was evidence from The Zimbabwe Parliamentary Hansard that Wafawarova was a key figure in the National Youth Service which committed atrocities.
It said there was no evidence that he was personally responsible for murdering opposition supporters.
Reason. You are such a disgusting liar.
Where did you get that ruling
I hope not from Metro.
Where did I get it?
FROM THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED ABOVE, DUMBASS.
Did you read it or did you just copy and paste?
I did
If you had any sense of what law is then you would know that thre was no ruling in that article. Infact the matter was only concluded in June this year and that piece is from October last year.
ABC SHAME
The baseness, stupidity and vileness of Wendy Carlisle is shocking to say the least. She abused her position to attack an innocent man and this is the retraction we see. The ABC must indeed be ashamed of self.
they should not have retracted: complicity=murder
tthe answer of the reporter reminds me of reason!!!
Q2 Gudo rakakwira danda rikadonha.
Chii chakadonha?
A.GUDO
B.DANDA
C.GUDO NEDANDA
D.HAPANA
Re: Mhinduro
It depends who is answering the question for example:
ACCOUNTANT'S answer would be "iwewe chii chaurikuda kuti chidonhe btwn the two"
ENGINEER'S answer would be "It depends on the effect and extent of the gravitational effect
on both these two objects. If the danda was directly perpendicular to the ground while the
gudo climbed the danda at 45 degrees it the chances of it dropping is 4.2
MARKETING MANAGER'S response: We are the leading suppliers of treated poles and we
haven't received any complain from clients since the 45years we have been in Business
so it cannot be disputed that GUDO ndiro rakadonha"
POLITICIAN's response (From the ruling Party) "That's a figment of an imagination the baboon
that is deemed to have fallen had actually been skinned and eaten during OPERATION NYAMA
PAKISIMUSI CHETE. It demonstrates the continual demonisation of the fast track resettlement
programme by the Western Media . We reiterate that there is no going back in the empowerment
of our people and it will continue whether more baboons are reported to have fallen from
matanda. After all we have confirmed with our MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT most species of baboons
are now extinct. They were slaughtered for meat as a substitute for beef.
POLITICIAN's response (From the Opposition) "One doesn't need to have a degree to tell that it
is the baboon that fell. It can't climb the danda without falling because of starvation and illness.
This demonstrates the Government's insincerity and lack of policy package in tackling such
environmental disastors. We promise people democracy and respect of human and animal rights.
Under our Government only danda will fail not baboon but at the moment it is the baboon
rakadonha sedhora redu"
JOURNALIST response "GUDO RISINA MAKUMBO RAKAKWIRA DANDA ASI HARINA
KUDONHA DANDA RACHO NDIRO RAKATOZODONHA ASI GUDO RAKASARA RAKAREMBERA
MUMHEPO"
CIVIL SERVANTs response "It depends on whether the Gudo was running away from the P-nuts
being offered by the government. so because of hunger and starvation it fell back to the ground
and failed to reach greener pastures being offered elsewhere."
THE POLICEFORCEs response "IT is the Gudo who fell because it failed to observe written down
rules and regulations of our good and well maintained roads"
CHINOs response "iti izi bhikozi of sangishenzi that whaz propozed by the west that the GUDO
whazi running from that kozed the fellow war vet GUDO to felling"
SABHUKUs response "GUDO ndiye akadonha nekuti akange aona kuti musangano waari ku
supporter hauna pundutso. akazenge oita zvokumhanya-mhanya zvino ode kuuya kwedu
kumusangano nekuti aive anzwa kuti marori eupfu nemafuta aive asvika pama grocer apo"
WASUs response " ini ndinobviro ite deny twunyaya twakaso daro ngekuti hapana evidence
yakasokwana apa. asi muchidimbu ndingangoti Baboon ndiye wakaita fall ngekuti haana kunyatso
observer kwaaienda uye paaite climb. Zvino ndingobviro mupe yambiro yekuti next time wode
ku climber danda tanga waite consult amweni ari around kuti kana ode kukwira ano user method
ipi yacho"
The list is endless. What would you say?
Most Stupid
I am sorry but this is the most stupid contribution ever to grace this forum.
Most stupid? Really?
I have several nominees for "most stupid posts", most of which come from you (the rest come from Tapiwa).
First there are the rambling articles that have no substance and are backed by evidence as impenetrable as hot air.
The there was that rather amusing post comparing evidence on external funding for the MDC to an adulterous affair by some singer.
Then there is your claim that Zimbabwe represents a threat to the west. It doesnt. The only countries it represents a threat to is its neighbors, whose economies will struggle under the weight of Zimbabwean refugees leaving Zimbabwe.
Then there is your insistence that it is sanctions, not Mugabe's eccentric economic polcies of forced nationalization, that is ruining ZImbabwes economy by depriving Zimbabwe of foreign investment. It seems to have never occured to you that no company in the world wants to build factories and put capital in a country where the leader is prone to confiscating them wihtout compensation.
The list can go on and on, but for now I will leave you with that to chew,along with a gentle reminder : people in glass houses should not throw stones at others.
chitongai tione
We maintain ZANUPF (CHITONGAI TIONE) rule we are watching!! We dont care what Emmerson and Jonathan does. Our battle will be with the ZIMDHORA. We will pull it down until it disappears from the face of the earth. Very soon people will be in streets. The Governor Gono is now a tuckshop boy. Dishing out humpers instead of administering monetary policies. Thats what we are doing to the ZIMDHORA. We will break the enemy spine through the economy. We want to ensure that onlu MUGABE, Emmerson, and Jonathan’s cars are the only ones moving and the rest grounded. It may take ages but we wont rest until the economy comes to ZERO. The MDC has no business talking to ZANUPF people who robbed them of victory. Any talks must be based on 29 March election results, release and accounting for every Zimbabwean killed or maimed, bringing to justice first the culprits to book - yes then MDC can talk. Otherwise they must wait until we have destroyed the ZIMDHORA.
This will not happen.
Yes you can pull the dollar down all you like but regime change will NOT come this way. The Zimdollar can be suspended tomorro and peole can start using the rand and the US dollar as happened in the DRC and life will go on regardless. Infact ipso fact this is what is happening already.
THERE wont be any people on the streets any sooner than your life time and you can take my word on that.
Start using US dollar
Did l hear you Reason saying we can start using rand and the US dollar in Zimbabwe.
Where is you patriotism gone now , l remember you and Zanu pf attacking the West and US impelialists and now you are talking about using US dollar as our curreny please give us a break.
When did I say that?
When did I say that? Why would Zimbabwe need to use another country's curreny anyway?
you said it
Um... have a look at your post above and it's pretty clear that is what you said... (slip of the tongue mate?)
Read again
I did not say people should use US dollar or rand. I said that can inevitably happen.
Reason. Let me explain something.
OK. I'm going to try and explain to you something relevant to every word you publish here, Reason.
This is not the world of The Herald anymore, nor is it the world of Zimababwean state of television. This is the internet.
Here, we can read what you write, and we can object to it. We can google your name, and we can find out who you are you.
You see, these days you can't get away with playing the part of the patriot writer; you can't pretend to be taking a balanced look at events and political figures in Zimbabwe. In short, you can't hide. We know what your connections with ZANU-PF are. We know who your friends are. We know what you've done. We know that when you say 'but I criticise Mugabe' it is tantamount to a lie.
We know, what's more, what this site is for, why you write the things you do, and that you support ZANU-PF, and all its violence and contempt for Zimbabweans, over the people of Zimbabwe themselves. Because we know your history, we know who your friends are, and we know what this site is for.
This ain't the world it used to be, Reason, and the moment, the very second, you post a defence to the arguments that rip you to bits here every day, you have lost. Do you understand? If people don't know who you are before they come here, they can google your name, or read the posts here, and within minutes they know who you are and what this place is for. You're embarrassing yourself. We know that your friends are in ZANU-PF. You have contempt for the people that party claims to govern (because they're beaten, and tortured, and the election was stolen, and you did not say a single thing, even when you were begged to.) The status quo suits you. You are a sell out.
We know that when you make a fuss about the 'puppet MDC' instead of speaking out loud and clear about the awful things the government of Zimbabwe is inflicting on its people it is because you support ZANU-PF through and through. And I repeat, the moment you try and deny it, you humiliate yourself.
Because this ain't The Herald, this is the internet. We know who you are, we know what this place is for, and we only come here, from all over the world, to make sure that everyone else knows too. The propaganda's not working anymore. You are a liar, and a sell out to your people, only defended by other people safe in Australia and England.
I hope I've explained properly.
Friends
While I do not have any friend whose relationship to me is their political affliation I still think there is nothing fundamentally wrong in having a ZANU PF supporter or official as a friend.
I think I will not be drawn to justify this as if I am one who is aware of the fundamental right to association.
I do not lie. Remember I am International Relations by training and as such my writings reflect a global politics line. I relate all events to how this world is being run.
Wafawarova
What a plonker!
Insults
Insults reflect a lot on the person who makes them. They are often a reality of the personality that exudes them.
False
This is plainly false. You are not "aware of the fundamental right to association". You are happy to defend the people who deny that right to those Zimbabweans who choose to associate with your political opponents. Applying a right only to yourself is not the same as being aware of the existence of the right. IN fact neother you nor anyone else in Zanu has any sympathy at all for the principle of free association.
Even the LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION wasn't allowed to hold a political rally, for God's sake!!!! Never mind the freedom to associate with the organization of your choice. Zanu doesn't permit the organizations themselves!!!
What ugly hypocrisy.
Idiotic
I assume you will do the right thing and sue them for their troubles. Idiots! See this is what I keep saying about western media - unconfirmed anonymous sources, lies, defamation, hearsay the whole thing....and all this without any shame at all.
Yes, sue them!
Take them to court!
Let the truth come out!
Let's all of us finally learn exactly what your role in the NYS training was, and what your responsibility for the atrocities that followed entails.
If you have nothing to hide, Reason, you have nothing to fear, right?
So sue them! Go on. Shine a light on those years. Go on.
I think he did already sue them.
He probably did already because I read somewhere about the court case. The retraction is not voluntary I think. It must be a result of the suit.
He did
Check this
Zimdaily is reporting that one of the people on the list is "believed to be" Reason Wafawarova. Crikey's information suggests this is unlikely. Moreover, Downer referred quite specifically to children of senior figures and Wafawarova wouldn't be described in this way.
In May, Radio National's Background Briefing profiled Wafawarova, a post-graduate student in international relations at Sydney's Macquarie University who it alleged has continuing links with the ruling party, Zanu-PF.
Wendy Carlisle reported Zimbabwe hansard as showing Wafawarova "had one of the most senior roles" in the Ministry of Youth, the organisation responsible for training Zimbabwe's youth militia, once described by Robert Mugabe as Zanu PF's "big, hard-knuckled fist".
Wafawarova denied this role and took exception -- he is suing the program. He said on the Background Briefing program, "the reports that I was a Director doing the duties you mentioned are just malicious and untrue."
Crikey understands that the matter is due to return to the Supreme Court in October.
What the court decides is one thing, what the Government does next another.
It's believed that the matter of Wafawarova's visa is being discussed at a ministerial level. And as Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews was keen to point out recently, he has a much lower burden of proof than the courts when determining such matters.
A visa holder can fail the character test where "they have, or have had, an association with an individual, group or organisation suspected of having been, or being, involved in criminal conduct".
All it takes is "that I should form a reasonable suspicion of an association...", Andrews noted in reference to Dr Mohamed Haneef.
Though he might be wary of exercising this discretion right now
Maybe you could start...
...with a detailed condemnation of those atrocities, and statement of your support for the people of Zimbabwe?
I'm not holding my breath.
Then the question is...
... Did you work there, Reason?
And is it true that people affiliated/trained by this organization have engaged in violence?
Doesn't matter.
If he's not responsible for the atrocities he still won't condemn them, any more than he will condemn the stolen election and the violence it took to steal it.
So who cares? We know where Reason's heart is, and it's not with the people of Zimbabwe.
At this point...
...it's traditional for Reason to say 'But I do condemn the atrocities!'
We all know perfectly well that for him, 'condemning the atrocities' means writing the line 'I oppose the violence and people must be held accountable' at the end of an article traducing the MDC.
Until you write a piece dedicated to the awful things that have happened in the last five years in Zimbabwe, Reason, naming names and demanding massive change beginning with the accountability of the government and the right of the people to choose who leads them without the threat of violence, it doesn’t mean a thing. You've not condemned anything and you're just doing your job to prop up the government and defend the status quo that's killing people every day.
I also note that Reason Wafawarova spent time directly in charge of training policy for the National Youth Service. So his connection with the atrocities the NYS have gone on to commit is purely coincidental.
Violence
I condemn violence at the beginning middle or end of any article and that means I condemn violence any given time.
If the condemnation is not good enough I will take all the correction given here and I will use it when necessary.
As for the last part of you post, I think you can make self judgement on that.
Crazy people
You wrote... Reason we know where you live, we know who you are, e.t.c e.t.c. So what?
Is it a crime now, to critise what should be critised.
Reason is providing another point of view(news wise).
Either you agree or not, then move on ; otherwise tought boobs
Ta..
Dread Down Under
Dread down...where?
Whats a "tought boobs"?
It is not a crime to criticize what is criticized. It is however morally reprehnsible to claim a moral neutral high ground, as Marxist Reason has, and then openly side with one gang and attack another.
He is entitled to his point of view, yes. But all we want him to do is admit that he is biased towards one group, and therefore not in a position to claim a neutral viewpoint on Zimbabwe.
Let him say straight up that he is not a neutral Marxist, but a Zanu PF apologist/ideologue, and most of the criticism here will stop. Until then, we are obligated to remind readers that these are not the views of a neutral commentator on Zimbabwe, so that they read his viewpoint with the grain of salt it deserves.
Hey Dread Down Under.
I didn’t say ‘We know where you live’ I said ‘We know who your friends are’, meaning ‘You write to defend ZANU-PF.’
On the same score, Dread Down Under, I know who you are, too.
You’re locks’d up, right? So you’re under 30, you’re in education and you’ve got family in Zimbabwe and they’re paying for you to study in Australia. So they can afford it, which means… your dad’s someone in ZANU-PF. Or part of the state apparatus owned by ZANU-PF. Like the police and… everything else
That’s nice.
You’re quite young so I’ll just run some Zim history by you.
European people came to Zimbabge, called it Rhodesia, and said that black people couldn’t vote. So the people of Zimbabge took their nation back, with righteous violence because it was necessary, called it Zimbabwe and invested power in the liberation party, ZANU, which became ZANU-PF.
Then ZANU-PF took away the vote from Zimbabweans and began to use violence against them so that their kids could go to university in Australia, locks up and be ‘the cool black guy with locks studying Engineering’, which is you.
People are dying in Zimbabwe. Reason does not care. You’re too young to be a sell out, but you’re old enough to be a collaborator.
You are wrong-by Dread Down Under
Zimbabwe situation is far more complicated than what you think.
Maybe its high time you should open your eyes before you see.
Its not only ZANU PF and MUGABE to blame but all players involve.
That include the following not in any particular order.
CDE Mugabe
MR Tsvangirayi
Zanu Pf
MDC-(Tsvangirayi)umm what will happen if he is no-longer the leader next year february, rename the party again?
MDC and its leaders
CFU
White farmers
War Vets
Zimbabweans(either black,white,yellow regardless of their skin colour)
England
USA
ZCTU
NCA
The above mentioned people, countries, parties are all to blame.
As soon as we understand and accept that then Zimbabwe will move on.
Oh. Dread Down Under. I see.
That’s nice.
The ZCTU’s somehow responsible for the politicisation of the police, the army, the courts and social services, the graft, the censorship, the violence, the torture and the incompetent land reforms. It's been the ZCTU in power since 1984! I see.
Hey ho. It doesn’t matter what you think, however, because the people are going to kick out Mugabe and then your dad won’t be able to pay your university fees any more, and you’ll have take your dreads back to Zim to get a job. Where you won’t be very popular, because your dad used to work for an organisation that everyone in Zimbabwe hates. And you won’t be the cool guy with dreads doing engineering anymore.
Incidentally, I hope it is engineering you’re studying, because you can’t punctuate or spell for toffee.
Attacks
This forum is for people who can argue on opinion pieces and articles and mot for speculation and the trading of insults and expression of suspicions and emotive feelings.
Who said someone must necessarily love the MDC to be in Australia? Equally who said one who lives in Australia has no right to criticise the MDC or even to be a member of ZANU PF? Is ZANU PF a banned terrorist organisation or a legal organisation running gvt in Zimbabwe?
Lets read articles here and question all we want otherwise some of the comments here are just but slander.
Ah, no.
Ah, no, you see, this forum is actually a place for you to publish pieces that defend ZANU-PF, not to ‘argue on opinion pieces’. And this is the internet, not the state-controlled and censored media of Zimbabwe. Here people are entitled to reject your ‘opinion pieces’, pointing out that they are apologies for ZANU-PF, an unpopular organisation that demonstrably terrorises and brutalises the people of Zimbabwe in its efforts to maintain power while its members at the highest levels help themselves to state funds.
And if you deny that this happens then you are absolutely denied the possibility of describing anything you publish here as anything other than propaganda.
Also, will you kindly stop referring to the MDC in every post? The only person who refers to the MDC is you. Constantly. I don’t support the MDC, I’m simply opposed to oppression, and your constantly referring to the MDC does not chage the fact that ZANU-PF did not win the recent election, they stole it, Mugabe is not a legitimate leader, Grace Mugabe really does spend the people’s money on shoes and we really are entitled, indeed obliged, to object to your one-sided defence of an organisation that violently oppresses the people of Zimbabwe.
Dread Down Under advise you to watch
Watch,listen,learn.
either like it, love it or leave it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chUpfOYZI5A
How about
How about you stop refering to ZANU PF and also respect Reason's criticism of treachery and his promotion of sovereignty?
Well, I would...
...if only it didn't remind me so much of the apartheid National Party and their swaart gevaar (Black Fear), and everything they came up when the world was saying that apartheid had to stop and the violence and terror was an affront to our dignity.
I've seen this stuff before. Terror, lies, and people like you and Reason defending oppression and the status quo.
Incidentally, we won.
Exactly how
Exactly how does criticising the West and the opposition MDC constitute support for ZANU PF. If I wanted to write in praise of ZANU PF there is so mmuch to praise ZANU PF for and I would not even need to disguise such praise. It is a liberation party with an outstandingly glorious legacy and history and there volumes of praises that can be written about ZANU PF inasmuch as there are many of its shotcomings.
Why do I get the impression that ZANU PF deserves covert support as if it were a terrorist organisation.
I write what I think about the West and its puppets and that is not meant to exonerate Zanu PF on any of its shortcomings. There is simply no relation.
The MDC can give up its neo-liberal status and we will shower them with praises.
Spectacular dishonesty.
ZANU-PF is not the party it was twenty years ago and its 'shortcomings' are not 'shortcomings'.
Stealing an election with violence and torture is not 'a shortcoming', it is an affront to the dignity of every Zimbabwean alive and to every Zimbabwean who died so that others could decide their own destiny.
Wholesale looting of the treasury is not a 'shortcoming'. It should be a resignation issue and there should be court cases and jail sentences. The people need hospitals, infrastructure, welfare and utilities. Their labour should not be paying for the editor of The Herald to educate his son in Australia or for Gideon Gono's Mercedes Benzes.
This website is a pure distraction from Zimbabwe's real problems, which arise from the disgraceful, incompetent and malicious governance of ZANU-PF. Defending ZANU-PF is the same as defending Pinochet, Salazar, Marcos (with Grace as Imelda), Batista, Franco and Verwoed.
Tsvangirai is not the only possible alternative. You could condemn Mugabe and propose an alternative, but you don't, because the status quo, with all the violence and hypocrisy and the straightforward dishonesty suits you very well. In the meantime I have yet to see any serious evidence implicating the MDC with any evidence strong enough to support the illegal abduction and beating of their MPs or the torture of their supporters. If there were evidence you would post it every day. You don't, because it's basically all lies.
You, personally, are a disgrace to Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans, and you should be held to account when the smoke clears.
That is how "criticising the West and the opposition MDC constitutes support for ZANU PF."
Opinion
Your opinion about what constitutes support for ZANU PF will neither make me a supporter for ZANU PF nor change my position in the resistance against imperialism.
Writing is based on a line of thought and there is no such thing as neutrality in political writing. I have never claimed to be neutral. I am most definitely and unregratably biased against imperialism and everything that associates with it.
'Opinion'?
No, Reason Wafawarova, it is not an 'opinion' that ZANU-PF stole the election last month with violence, torture and fear, it is a verifiable empirical fact. Likewise, it is not an 'opinion' that ZANU-PF members enrich themselves from the state treasury, it is an attested fact.
What is 'opinion' is your belief that ZANU-PF is today the same liberation organisation it was twenty years ago. It's not. It's become a morally and politically bankrupt organisation that does not serve the people it liberated but a tiny elite enriching themselves from the sweat of the Zimbabwean people (there's a nice Marxist turn of phrase for you.) It abrogated its right to govern Zimbabwe the moment it took away Zimbabwe's choice of who should govern it.
That fact that you don't suggest any alternative to ZANU-PF while you slam the MDC says very clearly that the corrupt, violent status quo suits you. I can't wait for the people to take the power back.
I note also that you have never posted any evidence of any kind that the MDC is a puppet organisation. It's my 'opinion' that this is because there isn't any. Not that any kind of evidence can ever, in any circumstances, warrant the deaths of Tonderai Ndira, Joshua Bakacheza or the assault that put the MDC MP Naison Nemadizwa in a coma. You support the status quo that permits the murder of people exercising rights that Zimbabweans dies to ensure.
Nothing you write has any credibility. Your opinions are without any integrity.
"puppets" = racism
Let me remind readers that when Reason accuses his fellow Zimbabweans of being "puppets" of white people he uses and encourages a tired racist stereotype: he implies that black people are too stupid and naive to make their own decisions and form their own parties.
Reason admitted to this in an earlier discussion, in so far as he did not come up with any argument against it.
Therefore, every time he uses the "puppet" accusation I will remind his readers that he is a racist.
And just so there is no confusion about this: I am talking about his patronising, insulting, and racist attitudes to BLACK people, NOT his attitude to white 'imperialists'. I am saying HE EVIDENTLY BELIEVES, AND CONSTANTLY ASSERTS, THAT BLACK PEOPLE IN ZIMBABWE ARE STUPID.
Puppets, after all, are extremely stupid: they are so stupid that all of their movements have to be directed by someone else who has a brain. That is Reason's view of Africans.
Maybe
Maybe that is your view of Reason. Why do we need your reminding to understand Reason anyway? Are you also assuming that we do not have brains of our own to make judgements on his writings?
No, not at all.
No, not at all.
By that argument, any disagreement at all would be an accusation of lacking brains.
I'm saying that anyone who calls Africans puppets is a racist. I'm also saying that the racism inherent in these accusations is conveniently ignored by Reason (for obvious reasons), and that it shouldn't be.
It's a simple case of trying to have it both ways. It suits you to calls your opponents stupid puppets, and to insinuate tat half of Zimbabwe's population is manipulated by white people, but it doesn't suit you to confront the fact that this is an extremely racist explanation of the situation.
So far nobody on this site has offered any response to this important point, including you. If you have a response, let's hear it.
So which is it? Do you endorse the racist stereotypes, or do you renounce the accusation of puppetry? It has to be one or the other.
PS
PS Your analogy is hopeless. A true analogy would be if I said something like this:
"The only reason you ever disagree with me about Reason is because clever white people are telling you what to think and what to say."
That would be a fair parallel to what Reason says about Zimbabweans. It would also be a genuine insult to your autonomy, and humanity, and would be extravagantly racist.
This Way
Reason, the problem is not your apparent support of Zanu PF. It is your claim of neutrality. If you said straight up that you were a Zanu PF hack, through and through, a lot of people would temper their criticism of you.
However, it is evident to most of us that you are not a neutral commentator, and that your attacks on the west and MDC are carried out from a Zanu PF perspective.
Zanu PF WAS a liberation party, just as Mugabe WAS a respected freedom fighter. Ignoring crimes of today because of the contributions yesterday is as noble as it is daft. Today's Zanu PF may not be a terrorist group, but it is a party that has condoned, if not committed, violence agaisnt Zimbabweans just to stay in power, not to mention the senile megalomaniac sitting on top building Gracelands instead of hospitals in a country where in one in five deaths is caused by AIDS.
This may not be the action of a terrorist group, but if a terrorist group wanted to inflict damage on Zimbabwe, helping Zanu PF stay in power would achieve most of its goals. Tanked economy, overzealous police state, and the funnelling of resources away from where they re needed - Al Qaeda would be proud of what Zanu PF has achieved.
Why is it that the former Asian colonies prosper while the African ones continue to flounder? It certainly has nothing to do with race. The difference is that the Asian ones that are doing well have been willing to become real democracies who judge parties on their achievements of today, not yesterday. A defining moment of one of the world's rising stars, India, was when the Congress Party, led by Indira Gandhi lost elections for the first time. Indira Gandhi, daughter of Nehru, showed up at Parliament and took her place in the opposition benches. The Congress Party, incidentally, had been THE main player in the Indian Indpendence movement. Can you imagine Robert "Only God Can Remove Me" Mugabe doing that?
Tell us you are a Zanu PF hack, and the criticism will stop.
How about....??
Promotion of sovereignty?????
That has got to be the most inappropriate usage of the term sovereignty. Reason does not care about the sovereignty of the Zimbabwean people - he only cares about the sovereignty of Zanu PF cronies over their bank accounts. The Zimbabwean people are there to be plundered by the sovereign leaders of Zimbabwe. The ones who only wear Ferragamo. And build mansions called Gracelands.
Hey Reason, since you are doing IR, I suspect you are using the IR definition that defines sovereignty as the monopoly of violence over a particular area of land. Mugabe's certainly flexing his 'sovereignty' in this regard, eh?
Sovereignty
This is the inalienable right to self dtermination, the very foundation of independence. That is my understanding of the term.
Hey, it is not racist to say the MDC is led by lapdog politicians and that it is therefore a puppet political party. Extending this assertion to the rest of Africans in order to push forward allegations of racism is just perfect myopia and a crass reflection of ludicrousness. The MDC is not and will NEVER EVER be represantative of African opinion, not least because of the alien nature to Africannes.