Johannesburg — MANY thousands of South Africans gave their lives for the freedom of Britain in the two great wars of the last century. Britain is one of this country's main trading partners and the single biggest source of foreign tourists to our country. We have sporting links that go back more than a hundred years and South Africans have enriched English literature and science.
So it is appalling to have to witness the reception President Jacob Zuma has received on his state visit to the UK, from sections of the British media.
Zuma has been pilloried because of the chaotic state of his private life. But you would think British journalists would know better.
After all, wasn't it the last Conservative prime minister of that country who we now know was screwing one of his cabinet ministers while still in office? Wasn't it the heir to the British throne who told a woman over the telephone he wished he was one of her tampons? Wasn't it the British Parliament and the House of Lords that were hit last year with proof that dozens of British politicians had lied about their expenses and stolen money from the taxpaying public?
The British body politic is without peer when it comes to sex scandals and moral or financial hypocrisy and the sight of leading British newspapers having a go at Zuma for his lapses of virtue is sickening.
Zuma is being castigated for his polygamy but what if, as nearly happened, Mitt Romney, governor of the state of Massachusetts, had won the Republican nomination in 2008 and was now president of the US? He is a Mormon. It will happen one day. Those same British journalists insulting our president now would be licking the presidential boot if it was on an American foot.
Let us help you guys in Fleet Street with a little news. Life in SA, even under Zuma, is, trust us, a lot better than in the UK. Sure Zuma's imperfect. He may even be a lousy leader. But he's our lousy leader. We'll deal with him. When UK politicians visit here we'll be sure to treat them with respect.
Comments Post a comment
I don't understand the reference to Mitt Romney in this article unless it is to suggest that Mitt Romney a Mormon practices polygamy and so does the Mormon church. Mitt Romney is not a polygamist and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) haven't allowed polygamy since the 19th century. The Mormon Church will excommunicate anyone who is a polygamist and the State of Utah where the Mormon church has it's headquarters has outlawed polygamy. Even in countries where Polygamy is legal the Mormon Church will not allow it's members to live this lifestyle. So the comparrison made in this article not only seems weak but misinformed as well.
So what?
What the Mormon Church says is one thing; what its members do is something else, and that something else is called "polygamy."
But, beyond the Church, INVADERLANDS are pragmatically polygamus states.
Affairs that are tolerated, for reasons obvious and opaque, by INVADER WOMEN are ubiquitous in INVADERLANDS.
Even gays are allowed to 'marry' in some States in the United States of America, the military District of Columbia, inclusive. If the argument that gays are not different from "straights," then they too will engage in polygamy.
Hence, it appears that polygamy rocks more in hypocrital anti-polygamy INVADERLANDS than even Saudi Arabia or South Africa or Guinea or anywhere else beyond INVADER ZONE.
Cheers then from Utah, USA.