Publications
Partners
Last week, Labour MP Liz Kendall, told the UK Prime Minister that he must ‘show he takes violence against women seriously’ by taking immediate action against an erring Conservative candidate. His misdemeanour? He had insensitively posted images of himself on Facebook, dressed as Oscar Pistorius on the night of the tragedy in which Reeva Steenkamp lost her life. Clearly the man was deluded to think this was something to be made light of, but even more worrying was the effortless link made, between Oscar Pistorius and the issue of gender violence.
Last month, the University of Strathclyde, stripped Oscar Pistorius of the honorary doctorate that had been bestowed upon him in 2012 for his outstanding sporting success. A statement made by the group ‘Women’s Aid’ (who had previously expressed their disappointment at the sentence imposed upon him as ‘a violation of a woman’s right to justice’) suggested that pressure had been placed upon the University to revoke the honour.
Clearly, both Liz Kendall MP and Women’s Aid were voicing genuine concerns about violence against women (VAW), and there is no doubt that Reeva Steenkamp died under terrible and tragic circumstances. However, let’s be equally clear; when pressure groups and MP’s are making reference to gender violence they are not really considering a one off tragedy in which a disabled and vulnerable young man, made a catastrophic error of judgement, and a mistake that was to result in the tragic death of the woman he loved. That’s not really on the VAW agenda. I would suggest that it is their perception; that this was something much more insidious; the death of a woman at the hands of a typical, violent, male abuser.
Google ‘Oscar Pistorius and domestic violence’ and numerous articles are listed; theorising, and alleging, that Oscar was a controlling and manipulative narcissist, culminating in him taking Reeva’s life in a moment of uncontrolled rage. These views were openly published and all too often presented as fact, at a time when it was his legal and constitutional right to be presumed innocent, and despite there being not one jot of substantiated evidence that he had ever been violent towards a woman.
So, where did this damaging perception emanate?
On the 14th February 2013, a spokeswoman for the South African Police Force, gave a press conference, following the news that Oscar had taken Reeva’s life. In her statement, she informed the press that there had been previous reports at his home, which were “allegations of a domestic nature”. When asked by reporters if she meant “domestic violence“, she nodded in affirmation. With the inference clear, and with global press coverage of an unprecedented nature, within hours the message received by the world was; that Oscar Pistorius, Olympic and Paralympic champion, had a history of domestic violence. In reality, these purported allegations related to an incident which occurred in 2009, and an accusation of assault made by a drunken guest at a house party. The resulting charge was subsequently dropped due to lack of evidence.
Now, it would be charitable to assume that the domestic violence inference was unintentional. It would be even more charitable to assume that the police and prosecution service were too busy to correct the misunderstanding, by now seized upon by the world’s media as a scandalous ‘truth’ to be shared globally, and with damaging repercussions set in motion. However, it undoubtedly suited the police and the NPA to have this image of Oscar in the public domain, it made their unjustified allegation of premeditated murder so much more plausible. Inevitably, a scandal hungry media fell upon this sensational gift, and gullible sections of the public swallowed the bait, claiming that they always knew he was he a suspicious character.
Less than a week later, this gift was also seized upon by the ANC Women’s League, who used this image of Oscar as a violent abuser, to highlight the genuinely appalling trend of violence against women in S. Africa. In their numbers, they showed up at the bail hearing, to campaign outside the courtroom and raise the profile of their cause. Having briefly sat in on the bail hearing, Lulama Xingwana, then Minister for Women, Children, and People with Disabilities, a woman curiously unfamiliar with the principle of presumption of innocence, joined the contingent of ANC Women’s League demonstrators, to show support for their call for Oscar to be kept in custody and to ‘rot in jail’, as graphically demanded on one protest placard.
Later the same month, Minister Xingwana, made her controversial statement in an interview for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, during a discussion about Oscar Pistorius and gun ownership in South Africa: “Young Afrikaner men are brought up in the Calvinist religion believing that they own a woman, they own a child, they own everything and therefore they can take that life because they own it”. With these inflammatory words, she inferred that young men brought up in this community believe it is their inherent right to take the lives of their women and children. Given the topic of conversation, and Oscar’s Calvinist roots, the meaning was transparent. Ominously, both incidents involving Minister Xingwana took place within two weeks of the tragedy occurring and with the police investigation still in its infancy.
Under the circumstances, one might be forgiven for speculating that the ANC Women’s League, and Ms Xingwana’s single-minded focus on gender issues, had blinded them to the unethical and unconstitutional nature of their actions, and that Oscar, innocent or guilty, was deemed the perfect sacrificial lamb to further a cause dear to their hearts.
Less than a month after the tragedy that changed the lives of so many people for ever; the police, the National Prosecuting Authority and a government minister; willingly aided by the media and self-styled ‘experts’ with an eye for profit, had endeavoured to convince the world that Oscar Pistorius was a manipulative narcissist, and violent abuser, whose nature and actions had led to the pre-meditated murder of the woman he professed to love. Despite the absence of any credible evidence of such a serious and damaging allegation; with the seeds of speculation planted, this theory continued to be tended, watered and nurtured by the media, by the public and by those hungry to further their cause, or line their pockets.
The perpetuation of this propaganda must have had the NPA rubbing their hands with glee. Their case hinged on the premise that far from being the gentle, humble, humanitarian portrayed to the world for so many years, Oscar was in fact narcissistic, manipulative and controlling, capable of killing in cold blood in a moment of rage. With the public perception manipulated to believe the worst, by the time the State vs Oscar Pistorius hit the courtroom, he had already been through a trial by media and judged Guilty.
However, following a trial in an appointed court of law, Oscar Pistorius was acquitted of murder, and found guilty of culpable homicide. For the avoidance of any doubt, this means that the court found that the State had not proved that he intended to kill anyone, including Reeva Steenkamp. Furthermore, there was no substantiated evidence brought to the trial that he had ever indulged in any form of domestic violence, or had ever harmed a woman. The court appointed panel of psychologists also concluded that: "No evidence could be found to indicate that Mr Pistorius has a history of abnormal aggression or explosive violence … He does not display the personality characteristics of narcissism and or psychopathy that are mostly associated with men in abusive relationships and have been linked to rage-type murders in intimate relationships". And yet, the VAW banner still hangs over him like a dark and ominous cloud, and continues to be carelessly, or deliberately, recycled by anyone wishing to further their cause, including the ANC Women’s League who are supporting the NPA’s unprecedented appeal against the verdict.
There is no doubt that South Africa’s domestic violence statistics are atrocious. This being the case, is it understandable that a consensus was reached long before the trial started, that domestic violence was a factor in Reeva’s untimely death? Perhaps some would consider it justified to take advantage of a high profile case, to focus the world’s spotlight on the shocking treatment of women, even to the point of openly violating a man’s legal and constitutional rights. Is it defensible to manipulate public opinion and threaten a man’s right to a fair hearing, for such a commendable cause? Might one conclude, that the intensifying of the emotional trauma heaped upon him and his family, is in fact validated by the promotion of such a cause? After all, he is only one man, and they are only one family. In which case, the bottom line is: that it is acceptable to play God with a man’s life, provided doing so helps to promote a suitably worthy cause.
Frankly, the bottom line really is; that this falsehood has been perpetuated for far too long, and it has to stop.
At what point does truth become the goal? How long does a man have to wait before his human rights count for something, whatever he has done; his right to human dignity, his right to fair administration of justice, his right to be free from discrimination and for equality under the law? At what point does it become unacceptable to openly violate these rights and at what point do those who have a duty to uphold and protect them actually take their obligations seriously?
On what day, in which week, do those who continue to perpetuate such damaging slurs on a man’s character, get to face the consequences of libel or slander? And at what point, do people take a long, hard look at their selfish motives, and show some compassion and empathy for a man who wrongly, but mistakenly, took the life of a loved one, instead of lining their own pockets or furthering their own causes at his expense and at the expense of justice?
Finally, I will make it clear that I abhor domestic violence and I have enormous empathy with those passionate about raising the profile of women’s rights. I applaud any honourable and decent attempt to reverse the dreadful trend of violence towards women in S. Africa or in any other country. However, I am equally passionate about justice and it seems to me that those who choose to ignore the facts, and who are willing to use this tragedy to further their own causes, have played into the hands of others; those who knew that the ‘Violence against Women’ tagline would guarantee worldwide judgement and condemnation for Oscar Pistorius. And it has to stop. For, however dear a cause is to one’s heart; the sacrifice of truth, justice, and the life and well-being of another person, is ultimately a sacrifice too far.
Heather Malcherczyk
