Human Rights Day 2012

Written Wed. 21 March 2012

00h35, on what is now known in South Africa as Human Rights Day. It was formerly called Sharpeville Day, in commemoration of a peaceful march (on 21 March 1960) against the racist laws of our country, particularly the Pass Laws, which required every black man (and later, woman) to carry a little book, a “pass”, which explained why he was not in his ‘location’ at that time. It was a demeaning law that violated people’s freedom of movement in the country of their birth, a law which turned many ordinary citizens into criminals when they found themselves being arrested and imprisoned for not having said document on them (when confronted by the police). The 1960 event became known as the Sharpeville Massacre, after police killed 69 protestors. These were people who were marching peacefully, expressing their frustration at, and rejection of, the Pass Laws.

**************************************************************************

21h55
And so ends another day, special because it was a public holiday, but, in our post-apartheid country, special to different people for different reasons. Listening to some people give their opinions on the evening news, I was reminded that the change of name from Sharpeville Day to Human Rights Day was still contentious, and that many people regarded it as yet another act of over-compensation, as they do the national anthem. I have to be honest, after years of not singing ‘Die Stem’ (apartheid South Africa’s national anthem, an Afrikaans song of patriotism that made unenfranchised people gag), it’s very hard for me to sing that section of the new anthem (which, in the spirit of reconciliation espoused by Nelson Mandela, is a mixture of the old anthem and the freedom song/hymn, Nkosi Sikelel iAfrika). Somehow……. it’s hard to explain……. it just feels weird. I don’t have an explanation beyond merely this: EVERY South African who lived through the apartheid era carries some sort of baggage.

Listening to my children say that, once again, they’d had to fill in forms at school where the category “Race” appeared, I could feel my blood pressure rising! On the one hand, I understand that we’re still gathering statistics, and that government funding to schools is linked to the demographics of the school population, but on the other hand, I’m sick of it. My question remains: what’s the point in our teaching our children that they’re all South African, if they’re still asked to ascribe racial labels to themselves? And what about children who have parents from different ethnic groups?! It’s as crazy as saying, “I know we’re supposed to have equality in our country, but just for today, only White students may sit on the benches in the school grounds.” It forces children who generally don’t go around thinking of each other in racial/ethnic terms to do just that.

Or maybe I’m being naïve?

***************************************************************************

In a Criminology class I was teaching, recently, I was confronted with extremely sexist views by some of the males in the class, who rejected the notion of marital rape. Not only did they not accept the term, but they believed - strongly – that, once a woman was married, she had no right to say no if her husband wanted to have sex. At first, I thought they were joking, and that, knowing how ardent I was about women’s rights, they were riling me. But I soon realised that they were dead serious. What bothered me immensely – and I raised this point – was that a few of the young men asserting these unfortunate views were outspoken political activists! I reminded them that Mandela himself had said that no country could call itself liberated until its women were liberated.

One of the young female students asked, with all the disbelief of a modern, empowered woman who’d assumed her classmates were equally enlightened, “But why would a man even want to have sex with someone who’s clearly stating she doesn’t want to?!” This was in response to a student saying that if a man’s wife said ‘no’, he should just overpower her and get his needs met, regardless. I raised the point that, if you married someone because you loved her, surely that included respect. There seemed to be an attitude that the matter of a man’s sexual needs stood alone – they didn’t see it as wrong for a man to force sex on his wife, because she was supposed to be ready whenever he was; that’s what a wife was supposed to do.

There was such machismo during the discussion, that, when I asked if the same applied to a woman wanting sex when her husband didn’t, or what happened when the woman’s libido was more pronounced than her husband’s, they laughed, incredulous that I could even suggest such a likelihood.

I must admit, I felt sick afterwards. Maybe I’m so used to being around mature people, who live the ideals of justice, equality and freedom for all, that I’d forgotten we have a huge sector of our population who are growing up saturated with American television, the internet and the sexist rubbish found in the lyrics of songs from certain genres. Many of these things contain offensive words and attitudes, and young people who are not presented with healthier alternatives are lapping up those values, perpetuating the gender insensitivity that results in South Africa having one of the highest levels of rape and family violence, generally inflicted by males on females.

I happened to be watching tv today, when my friend, Sandi Schultz (actress and clothing designer), came on as the guest of Noeleen (host of “3 Talk”, a talk show on SABC 3), on her special Human Rights Day programme. Last year, Sandi and some others organised a public march in Johannesburg, entitled “Slutwalk”, to protest against, and raise awareness of, the ridiculousness of blaming what women wear for the high incidence of rape in our country. From what I can remember, the idea caught on, and there was also a Cape Town march. Noeleen, showing just how conservative and crowd-pleasing she actually is, asked Sandi if the name of the event wasn’t a bit too bold (I can’t remember her actual words) and if it wasn’t likely to have scared off potential supporters.

(If you’re referring to those ‘tannies’ watching your show, Noeleen, they wouldn’t EVER take part in protest marches, so let’s not delude ourselves that the name of that particular march put YOUR viewers off.)

I watched my friend’s face closely as she answered the question with all the diplomacy she could muster. Ah, Sandi, you’re absolutely professional, every step of the way! Haha – I wonder what you were thinking!

(That’s the whole point, Noeleen – people judge women by what they wear, calling them sluts if their skirts are too short or their necklines too low. Naming the protest march “Slutwalk” confronts that very stereotype!)

I loved the slogans of one of the marchers: “We don’t attack you when you run shirtless in public.”

CHECK OUT SANDI'S NEW WEBSITE: www.isaidno.co.za

***************************************************************************

Our country still has a lot of work to do, before we have a nation of people who rate gender equality as seriously as “racial” equality. Maybe we all need to take a good, long look at our meticulously-documented Bill of Rights.

Cry, the Beloved Constitution.