NEWS
Return
to archived news contents page
Return to
Grape home page
|
Stepping up the war of words 22 June 2007 Bawsi lambasts Asmal and van Rooyen and says it is pressing on with its legal challenge
The Black Association of the Wine and Spirits Industry (Bawsi) has reacted angrily to the statement by Kader Asmal and Johan van Rooyen regarding the demand for an Industry Fund to deal with the endemic alcoholism that is the legacy of, amongst other social problems, the dop system (see our earlier report). Asmal and van Rooyen are Chairperson and CEO respectively of the SA Wine Industry Council (Sawic). They had expressed their surprise at Bawsi’s threat of taking legal action in the face of what Bawsi sees as a lack of meaningful action by the industry to deal with the problem (‘alleged problems’ according to the Asmal/van Rooyen statement). Now it is Bawsi’s turn to express surprise – primarily at the statement which, says Bawsi, was made without consultation with the rest of the Wine Council, of whose six members three ‘come from the previously disadvantage[d] communities’. The Sawic statement thus ‘represents the views of the privileged class’. Furthermore, says Bawsi, it has no need to seek permission from Sawic to act in the way it is. Apparently Dopstop and the Rural Development Network (Rudnet) were cited in the Asmal/van Rooyen statement without their permission. The statement had alleged that Bawsi’s threatened lawsuit ‘undermines the progress made by the institutions such … the Rural Development Network’. These two organisation were, says Bawsi now, surprised ‘to learn that the two gentlemen used their names without prior consultation’. Rudnet has, in fact, explicitly said that it disassociates itself from the Asmal/van Rooyen statement. It will also ‘support the intended Class Action of BAWSI as one of the means to address alcohol abuse and dependency on farms’. Bawsi has also reacted to the statement that ‘current institutions, the industry and the Government … cannot be legally held responsible for what happened in the past’. It points out that ‘government took responsibility for the billions of rands of debt incurred by the apartheid regime’. Bawsi says it is ‘quite far down the lane with our class action intentions’ and that only a positive response from government and the industry can stop them. ‘We want an Industry Fund that will contribute to the healing of our people.’ In a notice that is no doubt intended to send something like a shiver down the backs of marketers of South African wines abroad who remember the days of the international boycott of South African goods, Bawsi announces its intention of next week calling a press conference ‘to update the media, nationally and internationally’. There is no doubt that it would harm Cape wine’s international image if an organisation claiming to represent the poor and exploited is seen to be plausibly confronting resistant forces that can, in fact, point to little fundamental change in the wine industry in the years since 1994.
|
|
COMMENT
From Emile Joubert:
|
|
Response from Tim James: Some generalisations are sufficiently established, of course, as to not require justification at each repetition. The pseudo-journalist in question in this case was me, and perhaps my name should have been appended to the article, as it was to the previous news coverage of this topic, which included rather more substantial comment. (By the way, perhaps Emile should point out, in turn, that his splendid journalistic training led him to combine journalism with practising as a public relations consultant for the same industry he reports on; of present relevance is his employment by the SA Wine Council, which he forgot to mention here.) It is not always easy to defend a ‘negative’, of course, because it involves pointing to things that haven’t happened. The lack of fundamental relative change in the wine industry in the past dozen years is underlined, I would suggest, by the following: - The pattern of ownership remains as it was before, that is in white hands, with very little in the way of even the ‘black economic empowerment’ that has brought a small group of black people to positions of power in many industries. This despite KWV’s deal, and a few amendments to Distell's board, and despite the few instances of black involvement in small wineries and companies branding and selling wine. It is hard to see any glimmerings of fundamental change here. - The patter of employment remains as it was, that is a (largely) poorly paid (black) workforce, largely still living on employers’ farms and therefore vulnerable to evictions of the type that are carrying on right now. Some bits of legislation have ameliorated the position somewhat – the inclusion of farm labourers within the scope of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and provisions for minimum wages, for example, and some protection of right of abode, but this can scarcely be regarded as fundamental change, especially given the probably degree of evasion. Drive around the back roads of the winelands, Emile, and have a good hard look. - Of present relevance, the situation with regard to the conditions of extreme poverty and hardship that characterise most rural and semi-rural communities remains much the same. Within that situation, the endemic alcoholism and the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome and related conditions continues, combatted primarily by private charities. - It can also be pointed out, by the way, that the superstructural areas in which Emile and I both operate (journalism, PR, etc) remain characterised by the same social pattern that has long obtained. There are a few more black winemakers around than there were, but the relationship to the demographics of the Western Cape will reveal that, although this situation is slowly changing, not a great deal has yet changed in this face of the industry either. In short, power and wealth seem to be located pretty much where they were fifteen years back. This despite some change of personnel in a few councils that flutter and flap around the industry making high-sounding noises. If I am being unduly pessimistic, Emile, I’d be grateful if you or your employers would point to some examples of fundamental change in the wine industry to enlighten me.
|
|
From Riaan Smit: This is too much. I was supposed to feel all guilty in the Cape Times this morning (op-ed article by Console Tleane, 25 June) because Cape Town is so Euro-centric and uninviting to Black people. About a week or so ago, on the same page of the same newspaper, a Black (he is actually Coloured, but let us be politically correct) lecturer at Stellenbosch University described how he is suffering white superiority stares in Stellenbosch. May I suggest a reading of Steve Biko's works, instead of brow-beating those nasty, superior, racist Whites? Now Mr James wants me to feel all guilty because the wine industry is so White. What really gets me is the subtext that because the industry is so White, not much is being done to ameliorate problems of alcohol abuse and poverty. On a personal note and as a means to illustrate: I evidently live in a different Cape Town (and Stellenbosch) than the two Cape Times authors. I grew up in Kuilsrivier when it was a lily White dormitory town. When in Matric in 1981, our Leerlingraad clashed with the School Committee - inevitably chaired by a local Dominee - because we wanted to organise rugby and netball matches against our neighbouring Coloured school in Sarepta - the local Coloured Group Area. Today, the old White Kuilsrivier is a much bigger town and has at least 60% "non-White" property owners (To satisfy Emile Joubert's journalism first term requirements: My Mom has been an estate agent in Kuilsrivier for the last 38 years.) Take a drive past De Kuilen High School in the heart of Kuilsrivier at about 2pm on a school day and see for yourself the majority of learners are "non-White". Incidently, this school has been, and is, one of the top 20 schools in the Western Cape measured by academic achievement of its Grade 12s. All this happened without so much as a flutter. That is the real Cape Town I live in. Do not point to isolated enclaves of overwhelming White wealth and then claim to have proved your case that Cape Town is a City thriving on White superiority, Euro-centrism, and racism. I am not going to feel guilty because I bought a hectare of land in Pniel, outside Stellenbosch, where I will probably blow R100 000 on planting a little vineyard to have fun (and heartbreak). I did not make the money to afford this lifestyle choice by being a racist. My family has been in South Africa since 1686. They were no angels and I carry in my genes their infidelities with any number of slaves. Yet, I am being denied calling myself an African simply because I have a white complexion. That is racism. Likewise with most of the owners of wine farms. They are not exactly making sacks of money right now. Yet, they provide an income for thousands of workers and their dependants. Is the situation of these workers miraculously going to change if the wine industry is more "Black empowered"? Bawsi is playing the all too familiar White guilt card. I am sick of it, and I cannot believe that Mr James is playing along. Yes, the problem of alcoholism is real. But why should it only be laid at the door of the vast majority of responsible employer wine farmers? If Bawsi wants money to alleviate alcoholism and poverty among workers in the wine industry, they should lobby Government for funds already collected from excise duty on alcohol. That is what governments are supposed to do.
|
|
From Tim
James: I certainly was not supporting ‘black economic empowerment’ as it is officially understood - as you should have gathered from my comments. In fact, all I was doing was giving some simple support (as per Emile Joubert’s request) to a contention that there had been no fundamental change in the wine industry since 1994, in any terms. Whether there should be change, or what it should consist in, is a matter of politics and debate.
|
|
From Emile Joubert: Note that your points, issued in the usual spineless lofty prose so characteristic of Grape, are still as factless as the initial loose cannonball. They are also an insult to the hundreds of wine farmers who have in the past few years voluntarily approached industry bodies, such as Rudnet, to investigate their farm workers' living conditions so that tangible improvements can be made, something farming communities largely have committed themselves to. Your facts also do not refer to industry bodies that fight alcohol abuse and FAS - Fasfacts, DopStop, ARA. Despite having previously given you the pertinent details on the above, no attempt to contact these organisations to ascertain the level of industry support was made. (Journalism School, 2nd Term). You would have also learnt of the money the industry has spent on research onto Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or are you waiting for some PR to spoon feed you on this state of affairs? Evictions? You obviously do not read the fine print in the papers and find out why these evictions are taking place. Because the people in question, as sorry as one must feel for them, do not work on the farms. Is it unfair to ask someone who is not working for you or paying rent to evacuate your property? Your generalisations also insult the many exceptionally progressive individuals among the wine farming community who through their example have changed the way farmers (white) work with their staff (black). I am not going to supply you with names as I have too much respect for them to drag them into this messy debate. Of course I have driven the back roads. Unfortunately I choose to see the positive change that has taken place in the rural communities. Had you or your reporters the newshound hunger and resources to talk to the Ministry of Agriculture, you would have found out that the wine industry is leading the way in transformation and empowerment - in agriculture, that is. Obviously things are not perfect, nor do they meet your lofty expectations. But does this warrant the miserable picture you paint? Because if yours is the real picture, I would not be working in the industry but would be joining you in boycotting invitations to all these glamorous cellar openings and R600 a plate dinners we write about. |
From Tim James: I am not denying the good intentions, or even that some efforts are being made. Let's not keep shifting the goalposts here. That is not what you asked - you asked me to support a contention that there has been no fundamental change since 1994. Good intentions do not amount to fundamental change - though of course they might just assist in it happening some time in the future. |
|
From Riaan Smit: But do not feel alone in using that disqualifying comment, because it was also used (yes, once again) on the op-ed page of the Cape Times today (June 26). You see the pattern? That is what gets me, because I am forced under this white guilt political blanket regardless of my anti-apartheid track record. I am made to be a voiceless citizen in my country - just as millions of black people were voiceless inhabitants of Apartheid South Africa. Is this rather obvious state of affairs okay with you? You say it is a "matter of politics and debate" whether there should be change in the wine industry and what this change should consist of. So, put your cards on the table. It is already clear from your exchanges with Emile that you have a commendable heart for the socio-economic plight of farm workers in the wine industry. What else must change? The pattern of ownership? If so, do you have any suggestions of how this should be done in an industry that is not exactly wildly profitable now, and is not likely to be, for a number of years to come?
Note: We have received a copy of a letter from Professor Kader Asmal, Chairperson of Sawic, to Mr Leslie Fillis, Director of Rudnet, in which he refers to Mr Fillis complaining about Sawic linking Rudnet to its objections to the proposed 'class action', and says that: 'For the life of me, I cannot work out how you can arrive at any conclusion that we have referred to RUDNET in any way whatsoever'. He suggests that an apology from Mr Fillis would be in order. We are told, too, that
Professor Asmal also objects to our report above in which we say
that 'Apparently Dopstop and the Rural Development
Network (Rudnet) were cited in the
Asmal/van Rooyen statement without their permission'.
He 'regards it as tendenatious [sic] and offensive to make such
propaganda.' It is difficult to accept that this is the case: there very
clearly was, in the Asmal/van Rooyen statement, a reference to both
Dopstop and Rudnet (which we quoted), in which Professor Asmal stated
that the threatened lawsuit 'undermines the progress made' by these
institutions. That is, he cited them as examples. We reported that, and
we reported that Dopstop and Rudnet did not like being cited in this
manner without their permission. It is difficult to see how doing this
can be seen as 'propaganda' of any kind.
|
|
Emile, are you sure we are talking about the same wine industry?You accuse the gentleman of generalising but what do you think you are doing when you claim that people are evicted because they don’t work on the farm? You are defnitely not in a position to educate anyone on evictions because you either lack the facts or you are the shopsteward of your masters. To the guy from Kuilsriver, I feel so sorry for you. The discussion is about the wine industry, and Tim is pointing out that nothing fundamentaly has changed in terms of ownership, management and control and certified skills. Let us focus on the issues. The dop system was implemented with devastating consequences for my people. This cannot be denied. Right Emile?There are more than sufficient scientific studies done that prove the link between the dop system and the abnormally high incidence of FAS and alcoholism amongst my people. I don’t know whether the two defenders of the injustices done to my people are aware of the studies that prove that chidren of alcoholics are much more prone to become alcoholics than children of non-alcoholic parents. So you don’t need to be a very clever journalist, Emile, to realise that the problem is going to be with us for a very, very long time unless we do something drastic. Yes, Emile, we are all aware that there are organisations such as Dopstop, but I want to advise you, who an expert journalist, to do some investigation into the history of Dopstop and see when did they got funds from the industry for the first time. Not even to mention FAS facts, Emile. As President of Bawsi, I should know, don’t you think? ARRA who? Bawsi dragged them to the table and put the following on the agenda: dopsystem; FAS; papsak; alcoholism; and training for taverners. Instead we were called industry bashers. It was not the only time. We tried again, and this time we met with most of ARRA’s Board members. Nothing came of this too. When people claim as victims at the Truth and Reconciliation Cmmission, from whom do they claim? When they demand land restitution, who do they sue? When the goverment took responsibility to pay the apartheid debt which was incurred to oppress us – Why don’t the two of you object? Tim I need to point out to you that even the issues which you are trying to point out as progress have also came to nought. All good intensions that goverment had with the sectoral wage determination and Esta are being undermined – and please don’t even dare try and say it is the minority of farmers doing so. The non-compliance with the sectoral determination and how Esta is now used to evict farmworkers who don’t know their rights is oh so sad. When Zacheus came to faith, he not only repented of his ways, he went all the way. Restitution was part of his transformation. I hope that the two of you don’t fall in the group of people who condemn Francois Grobbelaar for confessing that he administered the dop system and asking for forgiveness. We are still waiting for your confessions because we want to forgive you too. Make sure that you don’t die without confession and forgiveness, like P W Botha did. But you must confess with a penitent heart. You might not have administered the dop system, but my advice to you is to do some soul searching. The truth hurts but it has the power to set you free. Dont condemn people for speaking the truth.
|
|
|
