In The Ring With Eusebius McKaiser

Haji Mohamed Dawjee has written a fantastic second essay collection, Here's The Thing, as a follow-up on her well-received first collection, Sorry, Not Sorry.

I invited her to chat to me about her latest book. It spans many themes, from parenting to mental health, cancel culture and online mob attacks, complex relationships with our parents, suicidality, and much more.

I have written a review of the latest book  ( https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times-daily/opinion-and-analysis/2022-04-25-book-review-heres-the-thing-living-is-bloody-hard-lets-be-honest/ ) and encourage you to buy, and read it.

Meanwhile, enjoy this podcast and make books and reading sexy!

The law only allows three exceptions to the use of symbols of hate such as the old SA flag. These exceptions include the usage of the symbol for purposes of bona fide artistic ends, academic endeavour or journalism. The gratuitous display of the old SA flag, for these reasons, has been declared as constituting hate speech.

AfriForum is hoping to persuade the supreme court of appeal that general free speech rights are impermissibly restricted by such a declaration. The Nelson Mandela Foundation as well the Human Rights Commission argued that AfriForum's view, in turn, took inadequate account of the rights of dignity and equality which constrain the free speech rights AfriForum are asserting. The SCA now has to adjudicate the matter. 

In this edition of In The Ring, advocate Ben Winks, who represented the NMF, joined me to discuss an aspect of the case that has been under the radar. What happens if a black person or a black-led and pro-black organisation used the old SA flag as part of their political speech rights such as, say, waving it publicly as a trenchant critique of the quality of the current ANC government? Would such usage also be deemed to be a celebration of white supremacy? Or ought we to distinguish such cases from the gratuitous display of the flag by right-wing organisations? How should the law handle this? Besides, such an instance would not be artistic, academic or journalistic? Should the law be expanded to include political usage of such symbols as another exemption from the hate speech laws? 

We did not arrive at clear conclusions but framed the inherent legal, political and ethical complexities these questions occasion.

We often bitch and moan about the state of our politics. Justifiably so. There are glaring weaknesses in all of our main political parties- from the governing African National Congress to the two biggest opposition parties, Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters.

Many smaller parties emerged in recent years, some doing well during the recent local government elections, but even they come with downsides such as populism and xenophobic sloganeering from their leaders. 

This raises an obvious and very urgent set of questions: what's the alternative to our main political parties? Can we change the political landscape as civil society? Are there alternative pathways to a more just South Africa beyond formal party politics? Can we and should we reduce the power of politicians?

I invited Mandla Isaacs to work through these issues with me. He is a political economist, public policy analyst and a Mason Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. 

Enjoy this latest episode of In The Ring and remember to subscribe to the podcast.

Afriforum is hiding behind free speech rights in order to justify their nostalgia for apartheid. In this episode of In The Ring With Eusebius McKaiser I explain why the legal debate is less important than the political and moral debates.

I explain why we should be concerned about anyone who desires to cling on to symbols of hate, symbols of trampling on black people's dignity. There are issues here that the law cannot settle. I frame these for public discussion. 

The legal issues are less clear cut. In my view, Afriforum will probably lose the legal case but I do explain why, notwithstanding the legal brilliance and oratorical prowess of Adv Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, I think the legal issues are more complicated to make sense of than the political and moral dimensions. 

I asked University of Cape Town's Jacques Rousseau (lecturer in critical thinking and ethics) to help me puzzle through the latest instantiation of the free speech debate. It's been sparked by the news that Elon Musk, who describes himself as a free speech absolutist (whatever that means), is buying Twitter. 

The difficulties are several: at a theoretical or principled level, what kinds of speech acts (if any) should be barred? And, related, how feasible is online policing of content anyway (assuming we can even make headway in defining what counts as 'harm', 'violence' etc.)

There are a myriad complexities here. Dig in. Share the podcast. And debate it with your family, friends and colleagues. 

For more of Jacques' work visit his blog which you can find at www.synapses.co.za

In this edition of In The Ring, I explain two ways in which you should NOT try to tackle racism, patriarchy and other forms of oppression in the workplace and elsewhere. There is a tendency to look for 'quick fixes', and I give examples of what these mistakes are. I outline, as an alternative, a different strategic pathway for companies to embark on, if they are genuinely committed to transforming the workplace - or any institution and any space - into a genuinely socially just environment that is safe for everyone, and conducive to productive behaviour, and entrenching norms such as fairness

Professor Sarojini Nadar (University of Western Cape) responded(https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times-daily/opinion-and-analysis/2022-04-16-god-grief-and-good-friday-a-response-to-eusebius-mckaiser/?fbclid=IwAR0SioBDrOuKohEuxvKf2-i51Uvrtz2ow9V8X43wWBwzCero5zZ-1P8p3iI ) to an article in which I had argued that the God I was taught about in Catholiism does not exist ( https://www.timeslive.co.za/ideas/2022-04-15-eusebius-mckaiser-i-was-taught-god-exists-that-is-a-lie-heres-why/ ). I argued that the characteristics of being all-loving, all-powerful and all-knowing are incompatible with the existence of natural evils like devastating floods and earthquakes. Nadar did not reject all of my philosophical analysis, but expanded the conversation by explaining why she had abandoned, in her own personal journey and academic work, a conception of God that invokes notions of "might, masculinity and militarism." 

In this edition of In The Ring, Nadar expands on the conversation that had begun on TimesLIVE. She started off by sharing her personal journey from a Pentecostal upbringing to her discovery of black, femnist and queer works which engage her faith. Thereafter, I challenged Nadar on whether the very idea of a transcendental being is necessary in order for one to be committed to black radical thought, feminism and justice. We also discussed the strategic importance of engaging and working with religious communities in order to achieve social justice in society, regardless of what one thinks about the metaphysical claims of those who believe in a supernatural being.  

We also reflected on religion and humour, and whether it is ever wrong to have playful discussion about religious beliefs. We ended the episode by debating whether or not it is important for religious beliefs to be true or whether religious beliefs and practices can be defended wholly instrumentally by appealing to the (potential) benefits for individuals and society.  

Some people are upset by a recent article I wrote (  https://www.timeslive.co.za/ideas/2022-04-15-eusebius-mckaiser-i-was-taught-god-exists-that-is-a-lie-heres-why/ ) in which I had argued that evil is imcompatible with God's alleged omnisience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Many of the responses to me were sheer bile, and one of them appealed to 'free will' as an explanation of why God cannot interfere in natural disasters like floods and earthquakes.

In this edition of In The Ring With Eusebius McKaiser, I do two things. First, I explain how the FORMAL LOGICAL nature of 'the problem of evil' is misunderstood by many critics (and, indeed, by some people sympathetic to the conclusion of my article). Second, I voice responses to some of the criticisms, including an explanation of the limitation of the 'free will'-defence.