City Press knuckles rapped on Reitz Four
Nov 3, 2010 12:14 PM
Sapa & TimesLive
City Press newspaper has been reprimanded by the Press Ombudsman for not giving the subject of a story relating to the "Reitz Four" the chance to comment.
The Radical Honesty White Refugee (RH) group had complained about an article published in July headlined "Right-wing group tries to scupper Reitz trial".
RH lodged a complaint against the newspaper saying the headline was misleading and that it had made no attempt to contact Lara Johnstone, who was representing the group, for comment, deputy press ombudsman Johan Retief explained in his findings.
Johnstone at the time had applied to intervene as a friend of the court in the Reitz Four trial.
RH was unhappy about the phrase "right-wing group" and the word "scupper".
The newspaper had argued that Johnstone's "abortive attempt at intervention in the Reitz matter was in itself a public event, on which City Press merely reported".
But Retief found that the newspaper should have approached her "precisely for this reason" as she was the subject of the story and should have been asked for comment.
"There was no acceptable reason for the newspaper to not ask her for comment," he said.
The newspaper was directed to publish the reprimand together with a summary of the finding on the same page as the article in dispute was published.
The ombudsman found however that the headline did not misrepresent the story and did not alter the context of the article in any way.
"This part of the complaint is dismissed," Retief said.
The "Reitz Four" were former University of Free State students who were sentenced to a R20,000 fine each or 12 months imprisonment for crimen injuria. This came after they involved a group of black staffers in the filming of a video which included a scene where staffers were on their knees drinking a mixture which was allegedly urinated in. The lawyer for the white students said that they had only pretended to urinate in the mixture.
The story in the City Press said that in its founding affidavit RH attacked the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and called the trial against the Reitz Four "a grave injustice", Retief said.
Johnstone was also quoted as saying that the Reitz Four were "used as scapegoats in a race war".
» » » » [TimesLive]
» » [M&G: City Press reprimanded by ombudsman (since deleted)]
» » [M&G: Ombudsman: City Press did nothing wrong]
» » [News24: Reitz 4: Ombudsman reprimands City Press (since deleted)]
» » [News24: Ombudsman dismisses Reitz complaint]
» » [CityPress: Ombudsman clears City Press]
» » [IAfrica: 'No excuse for k-word']
» » [SunInd: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [IOL: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [Sunday Tribune: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [Pretoria News: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [Isolezwe: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [Daily News: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [The Post: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [The Mercury: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [Cape Argus: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [Cape Times: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [The Star: City Press did nothing wrong: Ombudsman]
» » [BusReport: City Press reprimanded by the Press Ombudsman]
» » [NewsTime: Press Ombudsman Raps City Press On The Knuckles]
» » [Press Council Ombudsman: Radical Honesty White Refugee vs. City Press]
Excerpts from Radical Honesty White Refugee Response to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman:
20 October 2010
Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty
 City Press’s argument (para 01-03) once again favours deliberate distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation and material omissions, Johnstone’s point by point rebuttal, with evidence, follow this Summary.
 City Press’s argument (para 04) incorrectly states the application was unsuccessful. All the Radical Honesty SA Amicus application requested was to be (i) accepted into the court record and (ii) the issues raised in the Amicus to be taken notice of by all parties. Both of which were successfully accomplished. Radical Honesty’s timing of the Amicus application, was in response to the shocking news of the Reitz Four’s decision to plead guilty, based on the unheard of guilty intention of dolus eventualis, including the unheard of conviction on a guilty plea of dolus eventualis. From the information available in the Afrikaans media – Volksblad in particular – it did not make any sense to Johnstone for the Reits Four to plead guilty, on the dubious notion of ‘dolus eventualis’ and when the fundamental legal requirements of ‘crimen injuria’ had not been met, by their conduct, as per the information in Afrikaans news media. For example: The English Media avoided impartially reporting on:a. In Werkers het geweet hulle speel toneel, Mike van Rooyen writes that the plaintiffs were asked to role-play as actors, and voluntarily gave their consent to be ‘actors’ for the student satire movie, to be made for the residence’s culture evening; and that they could have ended their voluntary participation at any time. The plaintiffs knew they were acting, for a movie. The atmosphere was funny and jovial. After the movie was completed, the plaintiffs were given a bottle of whiskey as agreed upon. For the following four months after the make of the movie, the relationship between accused and plaintiffs continued to be very good, if not better than before, until five months later in February 2008, when the video became a media sensation, and their fellow community members humiliated them for the ‘urine act’. Subsequent to the video being played on the culture evening, others requested it to be shared with other students, which the accused objected to, since it was a hostel function event. The accused did not place the video on the UFS intranent, nor share it otherwise. They agreed that people who are not familiar with student prank initiations and satire could misinterpret the video, particularly the fake ‘urine scene’. They did not foresee that the video would become a media race war sensation.
Others Agree: Unanswered Questions about Reitz Four Guilty Plea:
b. Reitz-4 vra om verskoning, Mike van Rooyen reports that ‘legal history was made yesterday when the Reits four (a) plead guilty to crimen-injuria, on dolus eventualis, and (b) were convicted upon a guilty plea of dolus eventualis. The Reitz four did not plead guilty on Dolus Directus (Direct Intent: where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the accused); nor on Dolus Indirectus (Indirect Intent: where secondary consequences in addition to those desired by a perpetrator of an act were foreseen by the perpetrator as a certain result), but on Dolus Eventualis, i.e. where the accused did not “mean” for the unlawful act to happen, but foresees the possibility that it could happen, and proceeds with his conduct anyway. Both their action of pleading guilty to dolus eventualis, and for a Magistrate to convict someone based on a guilty plea of dolus eventualis, were unheard of, and made legal history. The Reitz four denied that they made the video with the intention of insulting the dignity of the plaintiffs, consequently stating that they considered themselves to be innocent. Why did they plead ‘guilty’?
c. Vrae oor Reitz 4 se saak, Hennie Vermaak, a retired attorney asks why the Reits 4 spent so much money to hire one of the most expensive advocates in the country: surely not to plead ‘guilty’? Why did such expensive advocate advise them to plead ‘guilty’? Pleading guilty does not require an expensive advocate!. Why did the expensive advocate not advise them to plead ‘not guilty’, since their only intention had been to make a stupid student SATIRE VIDEO? Why were the plaintiffs not cross-examined about their knowledge and voluntary consent to be ‘actors’ and to role-play, for the satire video, about their good relationships with the Reits Four, that the plaintiffs knew from working for years in Student hostels, that students get up to incredibly stupid pranks, and whether the Reits 4 Attorneys were just trying to get the matter dealt with by a Quick Fix Guilty plea.
d. In Reitz-4-regspan se vreemde optrede, Former Judge Arrie Hattingh, agrees with Attorney Hennie Vermaak, that in order to be found guilty of ‘crimen injuria’ the state must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had the intention to ‘insult the dignity’ of the defendants. It is not possible to insult the dignity of another person, if they voluntarily participate in the alleged ‘criminal act’. There was no coercion, the entire student prank was enjoyed by all. None of the defendants complained about the ‘student prank’, they voluntarily participated in, to anyone for months, until months later when the media bomb bubble burst. He accuses Advocate Kemp J Kemp of behaving very strangely, in regards to his accused clients.
 Summary Observations & Conclusions: City Press’s Response Confirms Johnstone’s Hypotheses of City Press’s Malicious Bias:
 City Press’s response made no effort whatsoever to simply provide a simple clarification that their use of the word ‘right wing’ was not meant as a pejorative label, by providing their definition for what the editor and journalist mean by the choice of the word ‘right wing’. Like any pejorative word, there are circumstances where the use of the word may be anything but pejorative. City Press did not allege that their use of ‘right wing’ or ‘scuppering’ were not pejorative. Instead City Press’s Response was to select short soundbytes, omit their context, or the evidence justifying the soundbyte, to justify their use of ‘right wing’ ‘scuppering’ headline, confirming that their intentions were pejorative (disparaging; belittling).
[18 ] Do the select soundbytes provided by City Press, justify their pejorative ‘right wing’ ‘scuppering’ labels? If taken totally out of context, and ignoring all contradictory evidence, perhaps. If taken in context, and making an impartial enquiry into each of City Press’s alleged ‘right wing soundbytes’, an impartial enquiry, shall find City Press’s arguments to be totally without merit.
[19 ] City Press have additionally provided no evidence whatsoever for how Radical Honesty’s Reits 4 Amicus Application -- subsequent to an unbelievably shocking plea of guilt by dolus eventualis, and even worse a conviction of guilt by dolus eventualis, of the defendants – requesting the Magistrate for “an Order from the court clarifying whether the Defendants and Plaintiffs belong to different culture’s and whether they were informed by their counsel of their constitutional rights to invoking cultural law in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, and which require the application of choice of law rules, and if not their Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977: S. 105A. Plea and sentence agreements: (9) (d). rights” could in any way be interpreted by any sincere forgiveness reasonable reader, committed to endorsing constitutional rule of law for all, as ‘scuppering’.
 Put differently, City Press’s Orwellian argument argues that requesting a Magistrate to confirm that both defendants and plaintiffs were fully informed of all their rights, prior to their required ‘guilt/innocence’ plea decision-making, would be scuppering a trial. Conversely City Press consequently argue that allowing defendants and plaintiffs to plausibly be denied information by their legal representatives, so as to be unable to make fully informed decisions, and hence to be railroaded and legally lynched by kangaroo court justice, would be demonstrate a free and fair trial!
 Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae: SA’s Legal Indulgence 95 Theses:
 Finally it is herewith stated that City Press attorney’s irritation with the Radical Honesty SA Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of the TRC Act Amicus Curia before the Constitutional Court in point 3 (“which she seemingly refers to in all her public communications”) , is because the Radical Honesty SA Amicus is to the SA Legal Establishment, what Martin Luther’s 95 Theses on Indulgences as posted on the door of the church of All Saints on 31 October 1517, were to the Catholic Church elite. The Radical Honesty SA Amicus does what no other lawyer in SA has had the courage, let alone integrity, honesty and honour to do: (I) confront the SA Corporate media on their hypocritical parasitic relationship to pressure cooker censorship of non-violent dissent, so as to financially benefit from If It Bleads, it Leads political violence; and (II) confront the SA Legal Establishment about their (a) Right-to-Breed Legal Hypocrisy and Ecological Carrying Capacity, ‘Human Rights Legislation’ Fraud; (b) the relationships between sincere forgiveness v. fake forgiveness and the common law reasonableness test; (c) Legal ‘Innocence/Forgiveness’ Indulgence’s sold to the rich, and (d) failing to educate the poor that the basic principle to get out of poverty is as simple as stated by Amy Wax, Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at Univ. of Pennsylvania, in her book, Race, Wrongs and Remedies: Group Rights in the 21st Century: “If you finish high school and keep a job without having children before marriage, you will almost certainly not be poor. Period. I have repeatedly felt the air go out of the room upon putting this to black audiences. No one of any political stripe can deny it. It is human truth on view.”
 Detailed Responses to City Press Errors and Allegations in ,  & 
Radical Honesty's detailed responses to City Press Errors and Allegations include evidentiary argument on the following: Origin & Founding of Radical Honesty religion and culture [City Press Point 1]
 Dr. Blanton’s Radical Honesty about the Importance of Sincere Forgiveness:
 Lara Johnstone – Member of Radical Honesty culture and religion
 Radical Honesty Personal Responsibility Culture v. Slave and Cannon Fodder Breeding Denial of Ecological Responsibility Cultures:
 International Just War Legal Principles & Apartheid [City Press’s Point 2a & b]
 UN Convention [Group] Refugee Status [City Press’s Point 2c]
 Radical Honesty SA Honourable Affirmation of TRC [City Press Point 2d]
 Cultural Law and the Constitution [City Press Point 2e]
 Reitz Accused: Media Deny Reitz Four Right to be Judged by Court of Law [Point 2g]
 Fundamental Attribution Error & African Presumptions of Malice [Point 3a]
 Interpreting ‘Kaffir’ in the Radical Honesty Culture [Point 3a]
 ‘Kaffir’ Contempt of Court and Crimin Injuria Convictions [Point 3a]
 New South Africa’s “Kaffirs” aka “Criminals” [Point 3b]
 Prejudicial Allegations Against Media, Gov & Black People [Point 3c]
 Worldview Concept: Race Intentions vs. Honest Observation [Point 3d]
» » » » [Excerpts: 10-10-20: RH Response to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman]
Original Documents in Radical Honesty White Refugee vs City Press; RE: CityPress article: “Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial”
- 10-07-27: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae in Reitz Four Matter
- 10-07-30: CityPress: Khadija Bradlow: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial
- 10-08-05: Radical Honesty SA Complaint to SAPS (CAS 180-08-2010): City Press: Defamation & Fraud
- 10-10-13: Radical Honesty SA Complaint to Press Ombudsman: City Press: Rightwing Group Tries to Scupper Reits Trial
- 10-10-18: Reply by City Press to Radical Honesty White Refugee Complaint to Press Ombudsman
- 10-10-20: Response by Radical Honesty to City Press Reply to Press Ombudsman
- 10-11-03: Press Ombudsman Ruling (subsequently deleted): Radical Honesty White Refugee vs City Press
- 10-11-04: Press Ombudsman 2nd Ruling: Radical Honesty White Refugee vs City Press
- 10-11-04: Radical Honesty SA Appeal to Press Appeals Panel: Judge Ralph Zulman: City Press: 10-07-30 Reitz 4 Trial article
Complaint to SA Press Council Press Ombudsman: 10-07-30: City Press Article: Right Wing Group tries to scupper Reitz Trial