Posted on August 24th, 2009 by Richard Catto 2,354 views
I was pleased tonight to read this article - IOL – Church makes key decision on gay couples – the link and excerpt of which were sent to me by my Google Alert on the keyword “Cape Town”.
I have been a member of the Anglican Church since I was a child and recently (since 2007) began re-attending the Anglican Church of my youth. As a gay friendly person and a Christian, I am very pleased to see that the Anglican Church met in Synod this past weekend and decided to adopt a resolution to accept and care for all gay couples in committed relationships in their parishes. Clergy of St George Street Cathedral parish proposed the resolution saying that their parish has come to be seen by gay couples as a “safe place” for them.
Archbishop Thabo Makgoba sees the resolution as an important first step towards the Southern Anglican Church ministering to its gay members.
Posted on August 21st, 2007 by Richard Catto 6,254 views
So after everyone has thoroughly enjoyed themselves defaming Juan Duval Uys up and down the South African Blogosphere and in media publications, it turns out that the state has NO EVIDENCE against him.
This does not come as a surprise to me at all.
On July 23 2007, Carol Amos of eBlockWatch contacted me via email asking me if I had any "evidence" against Juan Duval Uys.
I gave her the following reply via email:
Juan Uys is gonna walk.
If all they have as evidence of fraud is "receiving donations from the public", it will be thrown out.
Arresting him for alleged fraud of R250 is ridiculous. R250? Are you kidding?
That’s the only charge I’ve seen reported. If he has been harrassing [Andre] Snyman [also of eBlockWatch], I haven’t seen him charged with that (yet).
I think he could sue the police for arresting him, and the media for linking him to the blog, without any evidence.
I’m amazed at the media printing this slander about him without any firm basis.
If someone asks for donations on their web site, it’s only fraud if it is represented that the donations are for a specific purpose (other than keeping the site going) and then they are not used for that purpose. I don’t know what his web site said to elicit donations (if it did indeed do that).
It seems likely to me that the person made the R250 donation specifically so that they could then lay a charge. In that case, they knew beforehand (or at least strongly suspected) that they were giving a donation to a person for them to dispose of as they wished. And that is not fraud. Fraud involves deception.
I think this is a very weak case so far. Let’s see if they have anything of substance to bring. Otherwise he has a case for false arrest.
My message to all the bloggers out there who jumped on the bandwagon and vilified Juan Uys without having any evidence or proof for their allegations is this:
YOU are the kinds of bloggers who ought to be shut down. You are exactly the problem. As much as SA male prostitute was criticised for publishing information whose truth was in doubt, so did YOU.
Andre Snyman of eBlockWatch claimed that Uys had been harassing him telephonically since December 2006. No evidence. Sorry, Snyman, but I just don’t believe you. I suspect you made it all up to get your name in print and to focus a little bit of attention on eBlockWatch which seems to be an organisation of dubious worth. I say that because your actions seem to be nothing more than misguided vigilantism. You have shown no restraint in blackening a man’s name without any good reason to do so. You ought to deliver a public apology to Juan Duval Uys.
All of you who have vilified Uys owe him a public apology.
No evidence against sex blogger
Filed under bigotry, blogger, Blogosphere, eBlockWatch, gay, homophobia, Independent Democrats, Juan Duval Uys, Patricia de Lille, prostitute, queer, rentboy, sa male prostitute, SAMPie, sex blogger, Simon Grindrod, Skye, South African Blogosphere |
Posted on June 4th, 2007 by Richard Catto 9,624 views
Far from being over, many questions remain unanswered.
How did de Lille become aware of the sa male prostitute blog? It doesn’t seem plausible that she just stumbled across it.
She invoked the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) in her initial public outburst, even though it was not clear how they fitted into the picture. She was criticised for that in the blogosphere.
The Sunday Times article (on May 27 2007) mentioned Mbeki for the first time.
In Saturday’s Weekend Argus (June 02 2007), an article written by Michael Schmidt (on page 15) pointed out that that vindicated de Lille’s invocation of the NIA, because there was a national security risk if a member of Mbeki’s staff had disclosed private information (about Mbeki) to a prostitute.
This information about Mbeki was not posted to the sa male prostitute blog, although the Sunday Times article gives that impression because they quote him immediately after they report that he had updated his blog on Friday May 25 2007. They leave that (deliberately) vague. They can say it was in the emails they got from him. Or they can say that he edited his blog to remove the information.
I never saw anything about Mbeki in the RSS feed from the blog, which I have still in my Google Reader. Although he has removed the posts, the feed remains.
The Sunday Times was careful to avoid naming others, except for Grindrod whose name was already associated. They chose to mention Mbeki. I think they wanted to smear Mbeki. They published slander that was not even available in the public domain. It was a vague insinuation that someone had dirt on Mbeki.
People (for instance, Vincent Maher of The Mail & Guardian) were criticising me for publishing sa male prostitute’s url in my blog (a criticism that I resist), but no-one has criticised The Sunday Times for being the original publisher of hearsay slander about Mbeki.
The Sunday Times reported they left a comment on the blog and received a response via email from "Skye, who claimed to be the anonymous blogger."
Now comment moderation was turned on and their alleged comment never showed up. The only person who could see The Sunday Times’ alleged comment was the person who had access to the blog’s dashboard (that’s what WordPress calls it’s control panel). So if they received a reply to their comment, it WAS the blogger. It wasn’t someone else – no-one else could see it. It’s not plausible to argue, "oh, he might have approved it for a few hours to give people a chance to see it, and then he hid it or deleted it."
My opinion is that they used ambiguous language deliberately, to give them a way out, if their story is shown to contain fabrications or "inaccuracies" later.
Emails can be traced. The headers contain the IP addresses of all the servers which handled it and also the originating IP.
The Sunday Times does not report what domain the email came from, but the blogger published his email address on his blog as samaleprostitute at yahoo dot co dot uk. Unfortunately, that address does not exist. firstname.lastname@example.org does however. The yahoo id samaleprostitute was registered on the day he posted his first entry (April 23 2007) so there is every likelihood that that is the address he used to communicate with The Sunday Times, if they’re telling the truth. Yahoo mail contains header information that identifies the originating IP address.
I don’t know how journalists operate, but if I receive an email from someone and their location is an issue, I’m all over their headers to check it out.
On Monday May 28 2007, Die Burger reported that they had also received an email from Skye.
Now Skye blogged about both Barry Ronge (The Sunday Times) and Peet Bothma (media24). Yet he chose to communicate only with those two media organisations, ones which would have an interest in tracking him down. He didn’t email IOL, even though some commenter on my blog calling "herself" Belinda wrote that he had.
Belinda most likely works for media24. She came onto my blog disparaging me by saying that all the journalists at media24 thought I would be fool enough to republish Skye’s material as truth. She also asked, "didn’t you use to work for media24?" She was clearly acting as an agent provocateur.
She is also responsible for sowing the idea all over the SA Blogosphere that the unknown blogger is Juan Uys, for which she has provided absolutely no proof. Belinda has not furnished her true identity either. She commented too that she was harmed by Juan Uys on a previous occasion, almost losing her job. Clearly she has a score to settle with him.
Neither The Sunday Times nor media24 have reported that Skye is actually in South Africa. They can trace those emails (if they exist). They also have two employees who would want them to.
The Sunday Times reported that "someone" from the Independent Democrats had emailed Skye. Who? At what email address? Or was this also a lie?
Did The Sunday Times and media24 cut the alleged legal deal with Skye?
They may have been able to discover his true identity by approaching someone at Internet Solutions with his IP address, via their ISP (MWeb / ISPA) contacts. Assuming the email story is true, and that Skye was being truthful about having cut a legal deal, of course.
So what is the real story here?
Is there a base political motive underlying all of this?
Was this all to take a cheap swipe at Mbeki, whilst focussing a lot of public attention on Patricia de Lille and Simon Grindrod to bolster The Independent Democrats, and to settle an old score by pinning it all on a patsy, Juan Uys?
Anyone who can find definitive answers to all these questions, has a great story to write.
Filed under Barry Ronge, blogger, Blogosphere, blogs, Die Burger, gay, Independent Democrats, IOL, Mail & Guardian, media24, news24, Patricia de Lille, prostitute, queer, rentboy, sa male prostitute, SAMPie, Simon Grindrod, Skye, South African Blogosphere, Sunday Times, The Media, Vincent Maher |
Posted on May 30th, 2007 by Richard Catto 4,902 views
It’s been over six months since South Africa decided to end its discrimination (on the grounds of sexual orientation) and allow same sex couples the same marital rights as male and female couples, and yet the obstacles to achieving a perfect union still loom large for them.
Whereas a heterosexual couple can quite easily find a Church willing to bless their union, same-sex couples are being told NO by all the major denominations.
The Anglicans, Catholics, Baptists and Presbyterians will not be officiating over any gaggle of gay betrothals.
The Methodists are simply stalling for time – 19 of their misguided ministers are keen to catch teh ghey (sic) bouquet, whilst the rest of their number fumes over their Heresy! In the interim, they have placed a moratorium on performing any same-sex weddings.
Don’t ya just love the smell of excommunication in the morning?
Churches bar gay marriages