Responding to: In defence of Julius’s right to free speech

I have little input to make with regard to the technicalities and interpretations of the law as I’m not a lawyer. However, the latter fact cannot be used, I hope, to invalidate my thoughts on this case, with particular reference to the offended vis-à-vis JM’s reasoning.

The most resourceful people will always get themselves topnotch lawyers to get them off the hook. Topnotch lawyers are cold, ”objective” masters of rhetoric, expert at finding and creating (?) loopholes in the law & interpretations of it in given situations. Therefore JZ goes free and a poor woman is left beat & humiliated, subjected to further emotional & psychological abuse by the likes of JM oozing arrogance of power.

I’ll argue that those who’ve never lived with and in what I call the township-jungle-law phenomenon will ofttimes have little or no appreciation of the socio dynamics of human relations and interactions emanating from there. At its most base level township-jungle-law metality can be extremely macho and chauvinistic, where boys and men take it for granted that screwing any girl or woman they want is their God-given ”cultural” prerogative. I (proudly) grew up in a shebeen, so I know. In this environment it’s often the easiest thing to overpower a woman through sheer material endowment or brute physical force. Many a time a woman  “…will wait until the sun comes out, request breakfast and ask for taxi money…” because running away in the middle of the night would be like jumping off the pot into the fire. A woman treated with respect and dignity doesn’t have to “…request breakfast and ask for taxi money…In the morning…”. But then again the law is not moved by feelings and emotions…