NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6940666.stm
More recently, the Union Buildings were the setting for one of the most extraordinary acts of contrition which South Africa has seen.

Last year, a man called Adriaan Vlok - who had been South Africa's law and order minister in the late 1980s - came to the Union Buildings to offer an apology to the Reverend Frank Chikane, the director-general of the presidency.

Mr Vlok climbed the steps of the West Wing and made his way to the Rev Chikane's office at the far end of the ground floor.

Once inside, he produced an inscribed bible, handed it to Frank Chikane and pleaded for forgiveness.

Then Adriaan Vlok opened his bag again, took out a bowl and two towels and insisted on washing Mr Chikane's feet.

Now, this guy, Adriaan Vlok, had been a firm believer in Apartheid at a time when defending it meant committing all sorts of dispicable acts. Let's assume for a moment that he didn't do it for the money, but out of conviction. Let's also keep in mind that Apartheid was based on pseudo-science, that it wasn't simply a set of policies but an entire world view.

Can a man simply change his mind? And would that make him less deserving of punishment?

It is possible for one to see the errors of their ways as they gain wisdom with age and for that person to make a positive reformation.

That being said, he should still stand trial at least to try and bring out some of the hidden secrets of the apartheid era. The sentencing however should take into account more recent actions and let him atone for his misdeeds by giving back to the nation in a community sense.

I think he should be forgiven.

'Going with flow' isn't criminal as long as your perspective is in control...In a way he didn't know any better, he was brought up and lived in an environment were apartheid was seen as a just and right method, therefore he shouldn't be held responsible for his actions under false pretenses above a public apology and actions he took after he learned the error of his old ways.

One could argue he acted to the best of his knowledge and ability under old & new regimes.

Doesn't anyone sometimes look at South Africa as it is NOW and think that maybe these people had a point? Not because of inherent racial inequalities but rather due to social and cultural ill-preparedness? I mean, come on. South Africa has gone from Africa's richest and most succesful country to the rape capital of the world.

Someone messed up.

With age and experiance comes change. It seems he took a turn for the better and realized the error of his old ways and now seeks forgiveness. Should he still recieve punishment for his old crimes? Yes definatly, but he should be given a chance to prove that he has honestly changed.

With age and experiance comes change. It seems he took a turn for the better and realized the error of his old ways and now seeks forgiveness. Should he still recieve punishment for his old crimes? Yes definatly, but he should be given a chance to prove that he has honestly changed.

The problem here is that in the past his actions weren't considered criminal.

The problem here is that in the past his actions weren't considered criminal.

Not by the government in power at the time, it doesn't change the fact that it was wrong and in some places could have been considered criminal.

Not by the government in power at the time, it doesn't change the fact that it was wrong and in some places could have been considered criminal.Your point being?

Actions should be judged by the standards present when the actions were committed...For example, if alcohol was illegalized today you wouldn't go around arresting people for drinking alcohol yesterday.

Your point being?

Actions should be judged by the standards present when the actions were committed...For example, if alcohol was illegalized today you wouldn't go around arresting people for drinking alcohol yesterday.

What if he had been a Nazi? At the time what they did was perfectly excuseable by thier government but then they have been being rounded up and put on trial since the end of World War II. According to the world's standards what they did was wrong and deserved punishment. Is the difference that thier victims were black and not jewish?

I see little difference, he deserves punishment the same as they do.

There is a big difference between getting shit faced yesterday and commiting dispicable acts against innocent people 20 years ago.

What if he had been a Nazi? At the time what they did was perfectly excuseable by thier government but then they have been being rounded up and put on trial since the end of World War II. According to the world's standards what they did was wrong and deserved punishment. Is the difference that thier victims were black and not jewish?

I see little difference, he deserves punishment the same as they do.

There is a big difference between getting shit faced yesterday and commiting dispicable acts against innocent people 20 years ago.

The Nazis who were hunted down and punished after the war were trying to commit racial genocide.

Not too many apartheid-era officials were actually trying to completely destroy the black race in South Africa. Treat them as virtual slave labour, maybe but there was no rounding up of every man, woman and child for the death camps.

If you start punishing apartheid-era officials for their policies, you might as well take a long hard look at State officials in the American South before the civil rights movement.

Can a man simply change his mind?
It sounds from the stoyr more like he didn't change his mind, but found something that was there all along: his heart.

The Nazis who were hunted down and punished after the war were trying to commit racial genocide.

Not too many apartheid-era officials were actually trying to completely destroy the black race in South Africa. Treat them as virtual slave labour, maybe but there was no rounding up of every man, woman and child for the death camps.

If you start punishing apartheid-era officials for their policies, you might as well take a long hard look at State officials in the American South before the civil rights movement.

I never said I liked what they did in the American SOuth before and during the civil rights movement. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at them recieving some kind of punishment either. Just being 'sorry' isn't enough in my eyes. He approved of, supported, and even treid to maintain a way of life that made millions suffer under the yolk of oppresion and his only punishment is washing some self rightous religious guys feet? Come the fuck on...

What if he had been a Nazi? At the time what they did was perfectly excuseable by thier government but then they have been being rounded up and put on trial since the end of World War II. According to the world's standards what they did was wrong and deserved punishment. Is the difference that thier victims were black and not jewish?

I see little difference, he deserves punishment the same as they do.I think the whole prosecution of nazis for crimes (under the laws of nazi Germany) they didn't commit was almost macabre joke...Y'see, had Nazis won we would consider jews and jew defenders as criminal: The Nuremberg trials would've featured people like Churchhill as defendants instead of nazi leadership.

In wars winners get to use retroactive laws to dictate what is right and what is wrong because might makes right.


There are differences compared to South Africa, though, like duration: Nazi regime lasted a decade while official Apartheid lasted half a century with roots going even further back - People didn't have time to grow up in an environment where jews were decidedly second rate people and where persecution and segregation of a group of people was generally accepted. Secondly, Nazi trials were able to target the prime perpetrators of jewish persecution - the actual complicits responsible for the rise, establishment and popularization of the anti-jewish mentality.

Compare the issue with slavery, were all slave keepers prosecuted and executed because they held slaves when it was legal to do so or were they "given amnesty" of a crime they didn't commit when slavery was abolished?

What about the rights of black people in America in general...Were the segregating laws disbanded without opposition? Were the leaders of opposition prosecuted because they wanted to keep the racist laws? Were the members of opposition who eventually changed their mind to 'Damn, they're people like us and I was wrong before' prosecuted because they were teh evil, by todays standard, before?

I was merely answering the op when I said I think they deserve punishment for what they did. The op asks can people just change thier mind, and does that make them less deserving of punishment. If nobody wants to punish them then good for him, but if say the government in power wants to punish those who supported aparthied it is thier right and they have a reason to do so. Would the fact that he is sorry completly remove thier right or reason to punish him? Not at all. If they are truly 'sorry' they would accept any punishments levied against them. I'm not saying we should hang him or anything.

Would the fact that he is sorry completly remove thier right or reason to punish him?From my POV they have no right to punish them for upholding apartheid policy because it was according to the laws and customs of the nation: Following and supporting the laws of your nation shouldn't be criminal anywhere even if they're completely asinine to an outsider.

In case they did something worse, like say order executions of people because of, say, ethnicity then it would be a different thing...unless the popularly accepted (curses of democracy) laws of the country accepted their actions. However, there's a catch here: Crimes against humanity (or against other international agreements) which concern international law could be applied to a similar situation even if the laws of the nation at the time would allow such actions.

Coincidentally, USA is not part of the International Criminal Court....

.
Coincidentally, USA is not part of the International Criminal Court....

A fortunate cicumstance.