28 February 2020

INSIDE OUT COLLECTIVE -FOR GAY AND LESBIAN PRISONERS AND THEIR FRIENDS - 1982-1991



31 JULY 1991




INTRODUCTION


information sheet



By Kendall Lovett for the Inside Out Collective - 1982-1991



The Inside Out Collective was formed in 1982 with the intention of facilitating support and improving communication between lesbians and gays on the outside and lesbian and gay prisoners in jails throughout the country. It was the initiative of a couple of prisoners, one in Western Australia, the other in a prison in NSW and myself on the outside.


As an active member of Sydney's Lesbian and Gay Solidarity (LAGS) since 1978, I was the correspondence contact for the group with those prisoners who from time to time had sought our assistance. The need for a specific subcommittee became obvious and from the enthusiasm of one of the prisoners the subcommittee became a collective and eventually a separate entity.


As a collective, we decided to present a paper, "Gays in Jail: Who Cares?" and host  a workshop at the 1982 National Lesbian and Gay Conference in Canberra. The paper received quite a bit of media attention and considerable interest was generated within the conference but we found that the interest wasn't sustained after the conference participants returned to their home States.


In 1983, we decided to produce a newsletter for gay prisoners and their friends outside. Even though it was called the Inside Out Newsletter we used an alternative name for our stationery, I.O.C. Publishers, so that it could be mailed to prisoners in some States who would only permit inmates to receive publications which came on subscription or gratis from a publishing house. The first newsletter was mailed to some 40 prisoners. The newsletter was also distributed at the 9th National Lesbian and Gay conference held in Melbourne in 1983. From the distribution, we were able to implement our mailing list with interested lesbians and gays on the outside.


In 1984 we presented another paper, "The Prison Business," and hosted a workshop at the 10th National Lesbian and Gay Conference held in Brisbane.


In 1985, the editorial board of the International Gay Association (now the International Lesbian and Gay Assoc.) invited me to submit an article for the Pink Book 1986. Because of my involvement with Inside Out, I was asked to write about the situation of lesbian and gay prisoners in Australia and the state of the law, etc. However, publication of the book was postponed.


In 1987, the International Association requested an update to my previous manuscript which I supplied and the Pink Book was published in 1988.


The newsletter had folded by 1987 mainly because the prisoners who had been so enthusiastic in providing a lot of inside material had all been released and my commitments in other areas had increased and without help I was unable to produce the newsletter. Nevertheless, I continued correspondence and contact with a number of long-term prisoners and following up their requests for advice and legal referral which has always been part of Inside Out's support work. In 1988, we extended that kind of support and awareness into the gay and lesbian communities by means of a regular weekly segment in the gay and lesbian (Wild G.A.L.S.) programme on Radio Skid Row FM, Saturday nights. After 3 years it is stll an important part of that programme. In 1991, Inside Out made a submission to and gave oral evidence at the Public Inquiry by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board into Discrimination against People who have or are presumed to have HIV/AIDS.



31 JULY 1991




SUBMISSION



TO THE ANTI-DICRIMINATION BOARD OF NEW SOUTH WALES PUBLIC INQUIRY into discrimination against people who have or are presumed to have HIV/AIDS, in Employment, Provision of Goods and Services (including Medical and Health Services) and accommodation.

This SUBMISSION is made by INSIDE OUT, Post Office Box 380, Broadway NSW 2007, a support collective for lesbian and gay prisoners, formed originally in 1983 by members and friends of the Gay Soldiarity Group Sydney.


Submission author: Kendall Lovett, I.O.Collective member, 31 JULY, 1991.


--------------------------------------------------



PREAMBLE


Because this submission is concerned solely with the NSW prisons system, the administration, the staff and the inmates of the jails, INSIDE OUT urges the Board to accept that such government institutions must be considered as falling into all three categories for the purpose of the Inquiry, especially as the NSW Government is in the process of privatising some of its jails/prisons.

   INSIDE OUT hopes to show by this submission that current laws, policies and particularly practices in NSW prisons and the Department intensify the degree of discrimination evident in the jails.

   There will be also some few recommendations from INSIDE OUT.


1. WHEN RIGHTS ARE LOST

Confined to a jail, a person loses all citizen rights. Prisoners have no rights only certain privileges which can be withdrawn for any reason at any time during incarceration. Even if the government of the day says that it recognises that some rights exist for prisoners, that does not mean that those rights automatically apply in all jails.

   In reply to a letter from INSIDE OUT regarding the "return to sender" of previously acceptable community newspapers sent to individual prisoners in Goulburn Jail, Michael Yabsley, at the time the NSW Minister for Corrective Services, wrote on 19 November 1990 as follows:-

   "Superintendent Klok of Goulburn Gaol allows inmates to purchase papers, magazines and books daily, provided the inmate complies (with number of publications permitted on a daily basis). Superintendent Klok does not permit papers and magazines coming into the institution through the post or visits. This is in accordance with the new prisoners' private property policy introduced on the 9th September 1990. Not all superintendents would necessarily follow Superintendent Klok's lead and indeed it is a matter for each superintendent to decide."

   INSIDE OUT views this example as indictive of the constant discrimination practised by authorities against prisoners. Regulations are framed so that they maybe interpreted in a fashion that very often allows jail superintendents to indulge their prejudices.

   Where HIV/AIDS is concerned, prejudice, homophobia and ignorance displayed by prison superintendents and staff as well as by Department of Corrective Services administrators can be said to have produced AIDS education discrimination in NSW prisons. As far as INSIDE OUT is aware there has been no adequate HIV/AIDS educational programmes provided by the Department for its superintendents and prison officers. But prisoners did it for themselves where they could despite the opposition.

   It is now some years since a small group of prisoners in Bathurst jail initiated a self-help education scheme which eventually became the model for the Prisons Peer Education Programme. The project is coordinated by the Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) and has been to some extent successful in overcoming the prejudice and the rigidity of some people within Corrective Services senior administration.

   CEIDA staff run courses for prisoners who have volunteered to train in various aspects of HIV transmission and prevention and issues surrounding HIV testing and the support of HIV-positive inmates. They graduate as Peer Educators. (See Attachment A.)

   Earlier this year, the prisoner whose certification is tendered as Attachment A contacted INSIDE OUT complaining that the Peer Educators were being denied access to incoming prisoners at Goulburn jail. These new prisoners, he claimed, were HIV tested without being told why or for what they were being tested. The Prisoner Peer Educator asked for advice on complaint procedure to the ADB.
An Inside Out Collective member explained the situation to the ADB Senior Conciliation Officer who advised that because the complaint involved a prison and the Goulburn Committee had complained to the Department, the more appropriate avenue would be the NSW Ombudsman's Office. (See Attachment B.)

   Prejudicial attitudes and obstruction by jail staff, officers and administrators re HIV/AIDS have been brought to the attention of INSIDE OUT directly by prisoners. Checking on the validity of the claims of prisoners by INSIDE OUT is seldom a viable proposition because the jail administration is not open to outsiders.

   A young prisoner who at the time was confined at Long Bay complex when he was HIV tested on Friday, 14 December 1990. He received no pre or post counselling whatsoever. He was still waiting for the results of his test when he was moved to the new jail at Lithgow in February. On the 4th March, 1991, he was informed that the result and details of his HIV test could not be found at Long Bay and had to be presumed lost.

   At Maitland jail, INSIDE OUT learned that there were two prisoners who were members of the Prison AIDS Committee and who were HIV positive, wanted to correspond with HIV positive people outside. INSIDE OUT contacted the People Living with Aids support group and asked the group to publish the request of the two prisoners in its newsletter TALKABOUT, which it did. INSIDE OUT also suggested to the two HIV-positive prisoners that they advise the AIDS Committee at Maitland to apply to receive National AIDS Bulletin and Sydney Star Observer so that the committee could keep abreast of the information on treatment and support. INSIDE OUT had learned from the Goulburn prisoner peer educator (refer Attachment A) that the only publications permitted to come in from outside were those that dealt with HIV/AIDS and then only if they had received approval from the jail authorities.


From a health point of view this is discrimination and discriminates against HIV-positive people in prison particularly. A prison superintendent's prejudice could conceivably prevent a specific HIV/AIDS educational publication from being received in that jail. It took approximately three months before the prestigious National AIDS Bulletin was approved for the Goulburn AIDS Prevention Committee.


Recently in Lithgow jail a prisoner died from AIDS. Another prisoner informed INSIDE OUT that after his death prison officers acted as though the cell was a "quarantine area." The dead prisoner's property was collected in large, plastic hospital-type bags labelled, according to the other prisoner, "Warning! Contaminated Waste." After almost a decade, obviously these prison officers have not been made aware of the fact that HIV/AIDS is not transmitted by casual contact.


Towards the end of July this year, INSIDE OUT learned from a long-time prisoner in Parramatta Jail that he had been diagnised HIV-positive. In a letter to INSIDE OUT he wrote" "I have a new date for my release but who knows or cares anymore what happens. The past two years have been the worst I've had in my life but I'm not going o complain to you about them." He then went on to say that he had to beg a prepaid postage envelope from another prisoner so that he could write to INSIDE OUT. He currently does not receive any prison subsistence  money (which is a pittance) because he takes his entitlement in tobacco. He said he has taken up smoking again to ease the boredom. "I don't even have enough for basic needs," his letter continued, "but not to worry, it doesn't matter anymore."


It is unlikely that this prisoner would receive much support or information about aletrnative treatments or how to care for himself because he is openly gay and in protection. INSIDE OUT is not aware either if there is an AIDS Committee operating in Parramatta Jail. The most INSIDE OUT can do initially is to photocopy what it considers to be relevant, practical and educational literature and use the plain side of the photocopy as notepaper on which to write letters of support to him, and visits if he requests them.


INSIDE OUT believes that these examples of the kind of discrimination that is practised in NSW jails are merely the tip of the iceberg.


In a workshop at the National AIDS Conference held in Hobart in 1988 Bernie Matthews of the Prisoners Action Group told the audience that two years earlier in a Lon Bay prisoners magazine the following advice was included for the prison population. "Don't share your needle! Buy your own fits (Syringe). Soak it in Blue Gum (a disinfectantused in NSW prisons at that time) or in bleach before you use it. Rinse your syringe 5 times before you have a hit.


That advice,Matthews said, was from a group of prisoners who felt concerned within the system not only for their peers but for their families when prisoners were released. What happened to that advice? Matthews said it got raised in the NSW Parliament by the then shadow minister in the Liberal Party opposition, Michael Yabsley. In his media release, Yabsley said: "Whatever the merits of education about AIDS, this kind of material produced with taxpayers' money amounts to the promotion of heroin and other illegal drugs in the prison system."


The prison magazine did not last long after that.


The controversial urine tests for traces of drugs being used by prisoners has been estimated to cost about 1/2 million dollars annually, according to Matthews, based on a cost factor provided by the Macquarie University Pathology Department in 1988, which Yabsley instituted after he became Corrective Services Minister. These tests, Matthews claimed, are simply to find out how many IV drug users there are in NSW prisons. Yet the issue of condoms remains unresolved and disposable needles unlikely to be made available in NSW prisons regardless of how many IV drug usersurinalaysis discovers.


RECOMMENDATIONS


1. That unrestricted access to publications dealing with HIV/AIDS education, information, new developments in treatments and alternative treatments be permitted to all prisoners in NSW jails and that no approval for their receipt be required;

2. That all prison superintendents, prison officers and staff in the employ of the Department of Corrective Services receive specific HIV/AIDS education including manner of transmission and latest treatments;

3. That to overcome the objections of the prison officers to the dispensing and collection of condoms, that a machine be installed that dispenses condoms and located possibly where buy-ups occur and that the manufacturer of dispensing machines be approached to provide a machine that also destroys condoms;

4. That the HIV Peer Education Programme receive increased funding so as to further educators fro AIDS organisations can be engaged to step up the education process for prisoners.


INSIDE OUT does not believe that confidentiality can be achieved in the prisons regarding the HIV status of a testing positive prisoner. However, INSIDE OUT is of the opinion that regular positive health education on HIV will reduce the stigma and fear associated with HIV/AIDS among superintendents, staff, prison officers and prisoners. If that can be achieved then discrimination will cease to be a problem in the jails.


----------------------------

SUBMISSION ends.


Attachments: two








1983-1985



INSIDE OUT NEWSLETTERS - 5 ALTOGETHER




Inside Out Newsletter Vol.1 N0.1




Inside Out Newsletter Vol.1 N0.2




Inside Out Newsletter Vol.1 N0.3




Inside Out Newsletter Vol.1 N0.4




Inside Out Newsletter Vol.2 No.1





  

1985



INSIDE OUT - HISTORY - DECEMBER 1985












24 February 2020

SOUTH AFRICA, APARTHEID, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE RULE OF LAW:QUO VADIS?

Op-Ed

South Africa, Apartheid, Crimes against humanity and the Rule of Law: Quo Vadis?

By Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh• 21 February 2020
Former president FW de Klerk looks on as the EFF raises points of order in Parliament during President Cyril Ramaphosa's State of the Nation Address. The EFF demanded that de Klerk be removed from the national assembly before allowing Ramaphosa to continue with his address. 13 February 2020. (Photo: Leila Dougan) Less

South Africa is a young democracy, but the unfinished business of apartheid remains a pressing priority for the state. South Africa’s embarrassing and often unlawful stance on international crimes has received worldwide attention.

Apartheid (Afrikaans forseparateness) describes the system that committed acts of racial discrimination, oppression, mass violence and murder in order to protect the white supremacy in South Africa from 1948 to 1994.

FW de Klerk, the last president of apartheid South Africa, who was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize together with former President Nelson Mandela made an unfortunate appearance on TV where he stated that apartheid was not a crime against humanity. While the damage had already been done, the FW de Klerk Foundation further amplified this with a statement on 14 February stating that the idea that apartheid was a crime against humanity was an idea propagated by communist political propaganda. 

As a result of the brouhaha, the Economic Freedom Front (EFF) seek to rescind the Nobel Peace Prize from De Klerk. Interestingly, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has never considered rescinding the prize from any Nobel Laureate. Even though both statements were subsequently retracted, questions remain about where South Africa stands in terms of its fight against impunity for international crimes and on reconciliation.

The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) stands with the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation in its declaration that it is irresponsible for the FW De Klerk Foundation to debate the degree of the awfulness of apartheid. We recognise that the offending statement has been withdrawn, but such offensive sentiments have no place in democratic South Africa. We question the relevance and utility of the FW de Klerk Foundation as a nation-building entity. 

Apartheid is a Crime against Humanity

The crime of “crimes against humanity” covers various offences including murder, enslavement, rape as well as the crime of apartheid. The fact of those offences having a connection to a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population is what makes them a crime against humanity. Not only does apartheid constitute a separate offence under the crime of “crimes against humantity; but also a brutal system of oppression that qualifies as a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population. International law recognised apartheid as a crime against humanity from the mid-1950s onwards. The United Nations General Assembly regularly condemned apartheid as contrary to the Charter of the United Nations from 1952 until 1990; and it was regularly condemned by the United Nations Security Council after 1960. In 1966, the UN General Assembly labelled apartheid as a crime against humanity, condemning the policies of apartheid practised by the Government of South Africa as a crime against humanity which was later endorsed by Security Council.

In 1973, The Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid was adopted and codified that apartheid was not only unlawful because it violated the Charter of the United Nations but also declared apartheid to be criminal. Today, apartheid constitutes a separate crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. South Africa implemented the Rome Statute by passing domestic legislation with The Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act which came into effect on 16 August 2002. This long-standing history of the recognition of crimes against humanity and the crime of apartheid in international law serve as the legal basis to prosecute crimes committed by the apartheid system in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond.

Why does the characterisation of Apartheid as Crime against Humanity matter?

Ahmed Timol, Steve Biko and Neil Aggett are the well known names of persons that died in police custody during apartheid. There are many more who were persecuted, discriminated against, abducted, disappeared and tortured. Ahmed Timol’s murder took place 48 years ago. This long duration of time is one of the reasons why a characterisation of apartheid as a crime against humanity is so crucial. The recognition of apartheid as crime against humanity allows the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to initiate investigations and prosecutions into alleged crimes that were conducted as part of the apartheid system such as the persecution of black people or the torture of anti-apartheid activists in detention. The South African Criminal Procedure Act explicitly states that there is no time limitation to initiate prosecutions for crimes against humanity. Even a single murder can suffice to meet the legal requirements of a crime against humanity. 

Another aspect of the importance to characterise apartheid as a crime against humanity is to show the systematic and/or widespread nature of this system that negatively affected the lives of thousands of South Africans. While crimes against humanity do entail an individual criminal liability, the nexus to a widespread and/or systematic attack against any civilian population shows that the alleged offence was not only the wrongdoing of one individual person but rather by a comprehensive system. In pursuit of truth and national healing, we need to see justice and accountability for all the people murdered, tortured and disappeared by the apartheid government. Prosecutions play a significant role in the healing process of a nation. Catergorising  apartheid as a criminal system of oppression and discrimination is not only important for the current discourse, but also for future generations who might not have the benefit of contemporary witnesses and testimony.

How does South Africa enforce its international obligations in respect of crimes against humanity and other international crimes ? 

South Africa is a young democracy, but the unfinished business of apartheid remains a pressing priority for the state. South Africa’s embarrassing and often unlawful stance on international crimes has received worldwide attention. While the NPA starts investigating and prosecuting cases like the disappearance of anti-apartheid activist Nokuthula Simelane (trial to commence in October 2020), Ahmed Timol or Neil Aggett, there is still a long way to go in order to fight against impunity of individuals in the former security branch of the apartheid system. With regards to the persons who are charged with or have been convicted of international crimes, the South African government has shown an unwillingness  to either prosecute domestically or arrest for hand over to other states or the International Criminal Court for prosecutions. South Africa’s refusal in 2015 to arrest former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during his attendance of an African Union Summit in Johannesburg is a stark reminder of the country’s willingness to facilitate impunity and disrespect for the rule of law. Al Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. The case of the former head of Rwandan intelligence, Kayumba Nyamwasa, from June 2010 is another situation where South Africa shielded a person implicated in the commission of egregious crimes and is the subject of various extradition requests by granting him refugee status. Nyamwasa continues to reside in South Africa. Dutch war criminal Guus Kouwenhoven has been convicted for complicity in war crimes during the presidency of Charles Taylor in Liberia. The Netherlands requested Kouwenhoven’s extradition in December 2017 so that he can serve his 19-year sentence. South Africa issued him with a visa and he continues to reside in Cape Town. 

The fight against impunity for international crimes requires a solid legal basis. In the case of apartheid, this foundation has been prepared by a long history of international condemnation, codification and classification as crime against humanity. However, this foundation is only the first step.

The inaction of the NPA to pursue individuals who were not granted amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is unfortunate. The South African government’s resistance and reluctance to prosecute or extradite international criminals illustrates how crucial the implementation and application of existing domestic and international law continues to be. South Africa’s ongoing attempts to withdraw from the International Criminal Court is a display of contempt for accountability and the rule of law. This points to a catastrophic failure of leadership. DM

Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh is Executive Director, Southern Africa Litigation Centre

04 February 2020

REMEMBERING NEIL AGGETT - AND OTHERS WHO FOUGHT APARTHEID FROM OUTSIDE THE ANC

From the Daily Maverick - Imraan Buccus 2 February 2020

Remembering Neil Aggett – and others who fought apartheid from outside the ANC

 

The inquest into the death of Neil Aggett is, as with the previous inquest into the death of Ahmed Timol, a most welcome development. This is not just because it raises the possibility of justice for Timol, Aggett and the many others who lost their lives under a brutal state. The renewed attention on Aggett, as we approach the anniversary of his death, is also welcome because it brings forms of leftism and anti-apartheid commitment outside of the ANC to public attention.

 

For a long time, the history of resistance to apartheid was told as if the ANC had liberated South Africa on its own. There was a particular focus on the Robben Islanders and the more or less completely failed attempt to organise a military strategy from exile. The history of the trade unions and the United Democratic Front (UDF) was constantly pushed to the margins. The same marginalisation was true of other liberation movements, such as the Pan African Congress and Azapo.

 From time to time, as we witness the descent into kleptocracy, it is suggested that we replace the figure of Nelson Mandela with Steve Biko or Robert Sobukwe. Biko and Sobukwe are certainly giants in our history and there is much to learn from them.

But there are also many other figures who have not been given their historical due. Harris Dousemetzis’s fascinating 2018 book, The Man Who Killed Apartheid: The Life of Dimitri Tsafendas, has an unfortunately overblown title. But it’s a work of impressive research that shows Tsafendas has had a raw deal from our written history and needs to be given a comprehensive reassessment.
The 2012 republication of Emma Mashinini’s autobiography brought another marginal figure to the centre of public attention. Mashinini, who died in 2017, was an important trade unionist and deserves much more consistent public attention.

There are also plenty of important struggle veterans who have not received the biography that they deserve. Phyllis Naidoo, who spent her life in the ANC, Richard Turner, the academic and trade unionist, Victoria Mxenge, the UDF lawyer, and Alfred Temba Qabulua, the poet and trade unionist, were all towering figures in Durban and richly deserve proper biographical attention. In Johannesburg, names such as Abu Baker Asvat, who was known as “the people’s doctor”, David Webster, the academic, and Mthuli ka Shezi, the playwright, immediately come to mind. In Cape Town, figures such as UDF leader Johnny Issel and Mama Yanta, the first chairperson of the Crossroads Women’s Committee of the 1970s, come to mind.

If we had a much richer sense of our history and of some of the personalities who rose up to challenge apartheid we’d also have a much richer history of ideas. That would give us a lot more space and freedom, as well as more tools, to debate the present.

We’ve slipped into a dangerous situation in which the struggle against apartheid, and the left more broadly, are both associated with an organisation that is in profound moral and political crisis. It is often assumed that the rot in the ANC has delegitimised all forms of progressive politics and that the only alternative to the ANC’s kleptocracy is full-throttle neoliberalism.

But if we had a better awareness of the history of the progressive movement in our country, and the ideas of intellectuals such as Neville Alexander, Richard Turner and many others who worked outside the ANC, we’d know that the progressive movement is far bigger and richer than the history of the ANC in prison and in exile. It would then be easy to oppose both the kleptocratic and the neoliberal elements in the ANC and to offer viable solutions for moving beyond this narrow binary.

When it comes to Neil Aggett, we’ve been particularly well-served by Beverley Naidoo’s extraordinarily accomplished 2012 biography. Naidoo’s beautifully written biography of Aggett is, in terms of its sheer literary quality, up there with Mark Gevisser’s biography of Thabo Mbeki as a truly great work.

Naidoo gives a real sense of Aggett as a person, of the radical milieu in which he moved with people such as Emma Mashanini and Johnny Clegg, as well as the politics of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

 In the wake of the Durban strikes in 1973, many young intellectuals joined the growing trade union movement. Aggett began his professional life as a doctor, working in Soweto and Tembisa, and learning some Zulu. But at the same time, he began working to support the trade union movement and by 1981 was a trusted and respected figure in the Food and Canning Workers’ Union.

Like many of the intellectuals who joined the trade union movement, Aggett was inspired by the ideas of the anti-Stalinist new left, kept some autonomy from the ANC, and had a vision of a future society in which the black working class was not simply instrumentalised by the elites in the national liberation movements, but sustained its own independent power.

At the time there were brutal debates between people who took this position, often labelled as “workerists”, and others, who were often described as “populists”, who thought that all the organs of popular power should be subordinated to the ANC. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight, it is now obvious that the so-called workerists were correct and that vesting all power in the ruling party was a road to disaster. The trade unions should have retained some independence from the ANC and the UDF should have done the same.

Famously, the mass protest after Aggett’s death in detention was the first time that all the black trade unions came out together and laid the basis for the solidarity that would later be formalised with the launch of Cosatu in 1985. To this day, in Cosatu and in Saftu, Aggett’s name is revered by the progressives in the trade union movement and he continues to serve as a model for how a principled middle-class activist can commit to working to build popular democratic power among the oppressed.

Aggett’s patient, self-denying and democratic form of activism is a world apart from the frequently nauseating self-promotion on social media that so often passes for activism these days. We have much to learn from him and have been very well served by Naidoo’s superb biography. Hopefully, other figures from whom we also have a lot to learn, people such as Abu Baker Asvat, Johnny Issel, Alfred Temba Qabula and many others will also come to be remembered with the same care.

And hopefully, all the other activists whose deaths were never properly investigated will, finally, also get some sort of justice.  

DM

RED JOS - ACTIVIST KICKS BACKS



Welcome to my blog and let me know what you think about my postings.


My web pages also have a wide range of topics which are added to when possible. Look for them in any search engine under

"RED JOS"




I hope you find items of interest!

Search This Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews

About Me

My photo
Preston, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
90 years old, political gay activist, hosting two web sites, one personal: http://www.red-jos.net one shared with my partner, 94-year-old Ken Lovett: http://www.josken.net and also this blog. The blog now has an alphabetical index: http://www.red-jos.net/alpha3.htm

Labels