Ah yes of course. That one stance makes up for all the other bullshit South Africa does.
The Minister of Sports, Gayton McKenzie, didn’t seem to have any problem travelling to Israel in 2023 and 2025 to seek deals to get Israeli water tech to south Africa. He sent a delegation to go to Israel and meet it’s president, and guess what? They apparently found “no evidence of apartheid” there.
Ah yes, McKenzie who is the president of the Ultra Right wing opposition party (Patriotic Alliance), very racist, very corrupt (gang ties, bribery, embezzlement), and constantly tries to buddy up to Israel because I’m sure Israel doesn’t have a vested interest to promote the opposition in a country calling out their apartheid - especially one that’s just as xenophobic and racist as Israelis.
Probably best to look at who you’re referencing when trying to muddy the waters.
I know who he is. I’m not “muddying the waters”. I don’t get how you can appoint someone like that (a convicted criminal) to be the “Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture” after filling a case against Israel.
South Africa isn’t a totalitarian state, it’s a proportional representative Republic. Which means that if a party has X percentage of votes and seats, they get a seat. South Africa have the GNU (government of national unity) coalition and McKenzie said that he would walk away if he wasn’t given a seat - thereby dissolving government. So he was given the sports ministry, the most insignificant position since the World Cup way back when. And in that role, he’s just pushed his racist rhetoric and corruption
How can you appoint someone like that (a convicted criminal)
people serve their time and can run in elections and get voted in. Nelson Mandela did it.
So if someone wants to bring up something that they’re not very informed about, it’s called “muddying the waters” of discourse, especially when that person wants to try and push their rhetoric on whether Israel is apartheid and what South Africa’s more accepted stance is on the topic.
Like, why even bring it up if you don’t know much about the politics involved? What point are you arguing by saying that this voice in South African politics says that apartheid doesn’t exist? Should we argue the Jim Crow policies didn’t exist because some MAGAT said so and platform them?
I wasn’t trying to argue South Africa’s stance on Israel, I just thought that it was ironic to bring up their stance on Israel when the minister in the article is pro Israel.
My original point was that South Africa rarely does anything that doesn’t make it look like a fool and I think McKenzie being in charge of Arts and Culture is foolish. I assume you already know why the GNU exists? Because you’d know that they wouldn’t be in that position if the ruling party wasn’t allowing the country to crumble.
Ah yes of course. That one stance makes up for all the other bullshit South Africa does.
The Minister of Sports, Gayton McKenzie, didn’t seem to have any problem travelling to Israel in 2023 and 2025 to seek deals to get Israeli water tech to south Africa. He sent a delegation to go to Israel and meet it’s president, and guess what? They apparently found “no evidence of apartheid” there.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2025-04-10-south-african-mps-claim-no-evidence-of-apartheid-during-controversial-israel-fact-finding-mission/
Ah yes, McKenzie who is the president of the Ultra Right wing opposition party (Patriotic Alliance), very racist, very corrupt (gang ties, bribery, embezzlement), and constantly tries to buddy up to Israel because I’m sure Israel doesn’t have a vested interest to promote the opposition in a country calling out their apartheid - especially one that’s just as xenophobic and racist as Israelis.
Probably best to look at who you’re referencing when trying to muddy the waters.
I know who he is. I’m not “muddying the waters”. I don’t get how you can appoint someone like that (a convicted criminal) to be the “Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture” after filling a case against Israel.
South Africa isn’t a totalitarian state, it’s a proportional representative Republic. Which means that if a party has X percentage of votes and seats, they get a seat. South Africa have the GNU (government of national unity) coalition and McKenzie said that he would walk away if he wasn’t given a seat - thereby dissolving government. So he was given the sports ministry, the most insignificant position since the World Cup way back when. And in that role, he’s just pushed his racist rhetoric and corruption
So if someone wants to bring up something that they’re not very informed about, it’s called “muddying the waters” of discourse, especially when that person wants to try and push their rhetoric on whether Israel is apartheid and what South Africa’s more accepted stance is on the topic.
Like, why even bring it up if you don’t know much about the politics involved? What point are you arguing by saying that this voice in South African politics says that apartheid doesn’t exist? Should we argue the Jim Crow policies didn’t exist because some MAGAT said so and platform them?
I wasn’t trying to argue South Africa’s stance on Israel, I just thought that it was ironic to bring up their stance on Israel when the minister in the article is pro Israel.
My original point was that South Africa rarely does anything that doesn’t make it look like a fool and I think McKenzie being in charge of Arts and Culture is foolish. I assume you already know why the GNU exists? Because you’d know that they wouldn’t be in that position if the ruling party wasn’t allowing the country to crumble.