He’s the O.J. Simpson of South Africa–a gifted athlete charged with cold-blooded murder.
For Oscar Pistorius, life began as a struggle, on November 22, 1986. Born with fibular hemimelia (congenital absence of the fibula) in both legs, at 11 months old, he was forced to undergo the amputation of both legs below the knee.
But still he persisted to lead an active–even an extraordinary–life. As a child and teenager, he played rugby union, water polo and tennis, and took part in Olympic wrestling.
After a serious rugby knee injury, Pistorius was introduced to running in January, 2004, while undergoing rehabilitation at the University of Pretoria’s High Performance Centre.
Fitted with racing blades, he has been dubbed “Blade Runner” and “the fastest man with no legs.” He took part in the 2004 Summer Paralympics in Athens and came in third in the 100-metere event.
At the 2012 Summer Olympics, he became the first double leg amputee to participate in the Olympics. He entered the men’s 400-meters and 4 x 400 meters relay races.
Oscar Pistorius
At the 2012 Summer Paralympics, he won gold medals in the men’s 400-metre race and the 4 X 100 metres relay.
And then, having achieved so much against so much adversity, he found himself facing trial for a ghastly crime: The February 14 murder of his 29-year-old girlfriend, model and paralegal Reeva Steenkamp, whom he shot three times through a locked bathroom door.
Reeva Steenkamp
Pistorius claims he thought Steenkamp was a nighttime intruder. The state alleges that he and his girlfriend argued before her death and he intentionally killed her.
The case has been postponed to August 19, 2013.
Throughout South Africa, women believe the odds are high that Pistorius will escape justice for murder owing to his sports celebrity status. And those women may well turn out to be right.
According to one study, South Africa has “the highest rate [of violence against women] ever reported in research anywhere in the world.”
According to statistics, a woman gets raped in South Africa every four minutes. Only 66,196 incidents were reported to police in 2012 and their investigations led to only 4,500 convictions.
In fact, the murder of Pistorius’ girlfriend happened one day before she planned to wear black in a “Black Friday” protest against the country’s disgracefully high number of rapes.
“If data for all violent assaults, rapes and other sexual assaults against women are taken into account, then approximately 200,000 adult women are reported as being attacked in South Africa every year,” said Lerato Moloi of the South African Institute for Race Relations.
The real figure is considerably higher, she said, since most cases never are reported.
The rate of murders of women in South Africa is equally appalling:
- A woman is killed by an intimate partner every eight hours in South Africa.
- No perpetrator is identified in 20 percent of killings, according to a study published by the South African Medical Research Council.
- That is double the rate of such murders in the United States.
If Pistorius wins acquittal because of his status as a celebrity athlete, Niccolo Machiavelli will nce again be proven a relevant prophet for our time.
Niccolo Machiavelli
In The Discourses, his seminal work on how to preserve freedom within a republic, Machiavelli warns: “Well-ordered republics establish punishments and rewards for their citizens, but never set off one against the other.”
Specifically:
“The services of Horatius had been of the highest importance to Rome, for by his bravery he had conquered the Curatii. But the crime of killing his sister was atrocious, and the Romans were so outraged by this murder that he was put upon trial for his life, notwithstanding his recent great services to the state.”
While Rome might seem guilty of ingratitude, writes Machiavelli, “the people were to blame rather for the acquittal of Horatius than for having him tried.
“And the reason for this is, that no well-ordered republic should ever cancel the crimes of its citizens by their merits….
“Having established rewards for good actions and penalties for evil ones, and having rewarded a citizen for good conduct who afterwards commits a wrong, he should be chastised for that without regard to his previous merits.
“And a state that properly observes this principle will long enjoy its liberty, but if otherwise, it will speedily come to ruin.
“For if a citizen who has rendered some eminent service to the state should add to the reputation and influence which he has thereby acquired the confident audacity of being able to commit any wrong without fear of punishment, he will in a little while become so insolent and overbearing as to put an end to all power of the law.”
Americans learned the truth of this after the 1995 acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the slasher-murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and a waiter-eyewitness, Ronald Goldman.
In September, 2007, he led a group of men into a hotel room at the Palace Station casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, and, at gunpoint, seized sports memorabilia which he claimed had been stolen from him.
He was arrested and eventually convicted for criminal conspiracy, armed robbery, kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon.
On December 5, 2008, Simpson was sentenced to 33 years in prison with the chance of parole in nine years, in 2017.
"1984, ABC NEWS, ASHLEY WARDEN, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CHILLI'S, CNN, EMPLOYEE RIGHTS, FACEBOOK, FIRST AMENDMENT, GEORGE ORWELL, HARALSON COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL, JOHNNY COOK, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, NBC NEWS, POLICE, SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
FIRST AMENDMENT DANGERS
In Business, Law, Social commentary on June 13, 2013 at 12:07 amWARNING: Believing that the First Amendment gives you the legal right to express your opinion may be hazardous to your career.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Of course, that refers only to Congress. It says nothing about employers–and especially those self-appointed pseudo-gods who claim to be the personification of virtue and infallibility.
If you doubt it, just ask Johnny Cook, who until recently worked as a bus driver for the Haralson County Middle School in Georgia.
In late May, a sixth-grade student boarding Cook’s school bus said he was still hungry. Cook asked why, and the student said he hadn’t been given any lunch.
The reason: He had been forty cents short for buying a reduced lunch. So he hadn’t been given anything, not even the peanut butter offered to everyone else.
Furious, Cook vented his spleen on his Facebook page on May 21:
“This child is already on reduced lunch [program] and we can’t let him eat. Are you kidding me? I’m certian there was leftover food thrown away today.
“But kids were turned away because they didn’t have .40 on there account. As a tax payer I would much rather feed a child than throw it away. I would rather feed a child than to give food stamps to a crack head.”
Just two days later, Cook was fired over that post.
Johnny Cook and friends
The “official reason,” as given by Superintendent Brett Stanton, was that Cook had violated the school’s social media policy by daring to express his opinion publicly.
The policy states:
“Students who post or contribute any comment or content on social networking sites that cause a substantial disruption to the instructional environment are subject to disciplinary procedures.
“Employees who post or contribute any comment or content on social networking sites that causes a substantial disruption to the instructional environment are subject to disciplinary procedures up and including termination.”
This is similar to the policies–and atmosphere–of the Joseph McCarthy “smear and fear” era of the 1950s. You didn’t have to actually be proven an actual Communist, or even a Communist sympathizer.
All that was neeeded to condemn you to permanent unemployment was to become “controversial.” That way, the employer didn’t have to actually prove the employee’s unfitness.
The Almighty Employer need only declare: “Your usefulness to me is over.”
Consider the statement offered by Superintendent Stanton: “I can assure you it did not happen,” he told the CBS affiliate in Atlanta.
And how could he be so certain? Because, said Stanton, he had thoroughly investigated the incident.
“The video surveillance footage clearly shows that the student never went through the lunch lines at the county middle school,” Stanton said.
Therefore, Stanton said, the boy couldn’t have been offered the bagged lunch for students in his situation.
When asked if someone should have noticed the boy wasn’t eating lunch, he had a ready excuse for that: “When you have almost 1,000 students, it’s very difficult to notice.”
Stanton wouldn’t discuss Cook’s termination because it’s a personnel matter, but did say the school district has a strict Facebook policy.
CBS Atlanta contacted the sixth-grader’s family–who backed up Cook’s story.
Cook, who is married and the father of two kids, told CBS Atlanta that he felt in his “heart of hearts the kid was telling the truth.”
A petition has been posted to Change.org demanding that Cook be reinstated. It has so far gained more than 10,000 signatures.
Nor is Cook the only victim of employers who have no regard for the First Amendment.
Ashley Warden, a waitress at an Oklahoma City Chili’s insulted “stupid cops” on her Facebook page. In 2012, her potty-training toddler pulled down his pants in his grandmother’s front yard–and a passing officer gave Warden a public urination ticket for $2,500.
Warden was quickly fired. In an official statement, Chilli’s gave this excuse:
“With the changing world of digital and social media, Chili’s has Social Media Guidelines in place, asking our team members to always be respectful of our guests and to use proper judgement when discussing actions in the work place. After looking into the matter, we have taken action to prevent this from happening again.”
Put more honestly: “We have taken action to prevent” other employees from daring to exercise their own First Amendment rights.
Employers need to be legally forced to show as much respect for the free speech rights of Americans as Congress is required to.
Until this happens, the workplace will continue to resemble George Orwell’s vision of 1984–a world where anyone can become a “non-person” for the most trivial of reasons.
Share this: