Zimpapers Logo

The Arena With Hildegarde
GEORGE Orwell, in his classic, “Animal Farm” writes: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Once again, the Oscar Pistorius murder case is making this rude reminder. Crimes committed by the rich and famous have that tendency to suck everyone, including money from government coffers. But when all is said and done, the offender walks scot-free, moving on with their lives as if nothing ever happened, while their victims become the offenders. You then ask why justice is so unjust and this corruptible?

THE TEARS THAT SET HIM FREE. . . Oscar Pistorius sobs during court proceedings in this file picture

It is public knowledge that Pistorius, the South African paralympian convicted of killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on February 14 2013, was expected to be released from prison on parole this Friday, August 21 after serving a sixth of his five-year jail term.

The parole board saw nothing wrong with arriving at that decision inasmuch as the technicalities of the law led the court to slap him with a five-year jail sentence; while millions of observers unschooled in this behemoth called the law expected him to get a longer prison term.

The very contradictions raised by George Orwell!

We are told that his release is perfectly legal and normal because as an offender, he still has rights enshrined in the country’s supreme law.

Thus he was eligible for release on condition of “good behaviour.” That’s how cheap, worthless and immaterial a woman’s life is, compared to a man that poured millions of dollars into the corporate world through his talent as an athlete!

Pistorius, whose highly publicised crime and subsequent trial made headline news across the world, will serve the rest of his term under house arrest. And the likely possibility is that he will soon have another avenue to return to competitive sport.

Such is the power of money! And such is also the power of the media industry that made the killing of Reeva Steenkamp cannon fodder.

Pistorius’ release after serving just 10 months will continue to be a major talking point. But was the release date coincidental, considering that Pistorius should have been a free a man two days after Reeva’s family commemorated her 32nd birthday, for August 19 was her birthday? He murdered her on an important day on the calendar — Valentine’s Day, but walks home no longer crying the way he did in court two days after her birth date!

The release is a slap in Reeva’s ambitions since she was studying law. It is also a slap to the face of her family who told The Times this week: “We are still struggling with coming to terms with losing our precious daughter Reeva and her loss is felt even more this week as we would have celebrated her 32nd birthday on August 19 (yesterday).”

Pistorius’ release is also an insult to women the world over, but South African women in particular, since August is Women’s Month. According to sanews.gov.za, “South Africa commemorates Women’s Month in August as a tribute to the thousands of women who marched to the Union Buildings on August 9 1956 in protest against the extension of Pass Laws to women. This historic march was a turning point in the role of women in the struggle for freedom and society at large. . . ”

It was in this spirit that the Progressive Women’s Movement of South Africa, an umbrella body, lodged a petition with the Justice Minister Michael Masutha stating: “We are shocked about the insensitivity of the parole board to release Oscar Pistorius during women’s month. This decision of the parole board is outrageous and an affront to the aim of women’s month.

“The policy that provides that an offender will have to serve at least one-sixth of his sentence before applying to be placed under correctional supervision should not be applied as a fit-one-fit-all approach. Violence against women and children is rife in South Africa; therefore such crimes, despite the sentences they attracted as a result of the technicalities, must be treated with the seriousness they deserve.

“Furthermore, while we acknowledge Oscar Pistorius’ constitutional right to be considered for parole like any other offender, it is our submission that placing him under correctional supervision during women’s month will be an insult to the victims of women and child abuse and the women of South Africa in general . . . This is not emotional but factual. Violence against women will not be eradicated if this is the attitude of the criminal justice system.”

We gather that Minister Masutha is seeking legal advice on the release, but isn’t this too late considering that this early release was always discussed in the public domain? Pistorius’ good behaviour mantra issued before he even set foot in prison.

During the course of Pistorius’ trial I wrote a piece in our sister paper The Sunday Mail (April 13 2014), and the headline spoke into the current state of affairs: “Weep not, Oscar Pistorius!”

Below are excerpts of my argument:

“It is difficult to understand why he is crying, for himself or for Reeva? It seems to be more a ploy to win sympathy. If it is, then it is a poorly considered tactic; far from winning over the hearts of thinking observers, the 27-year-old athlete has only managed to come across as shamelessly calculating.

“There is something quite objectionable about Pistorius weeping more than the bereaved, the mother of the woman he killed sits quietly composed in court, only wiping a tear at times of immense distress.

“One online reader remarked: ‘Crying is not a sign of innocence and truth. He (Pistorius) clearly realises what he did and feels bad about it, but what I am disgusted with is instead of trying to say, ‘Poor Reeva’, and clear his name, he is trying to play the poor me card. Think of all the crying, suffering and loss Reeva’s death caused.’

“Although he remains innocent until presiding Judge Thokozile Masipa finds him guilty, it is still a matter of interest to find out why he is so emotional: throwing up in court and crying so uncontrollably.

“Is this genuine, or Pistorius is one damn good actor who has been coached to upstage the deceased Reeva in court in order to get the judge’s attention and invoke people’s sympathies, for we are seeing that there is a growing legion of sympathisers willing to buy his narrative, though it be fraught with inconsistencies?

“Pistorius seems not to mind that June Steenkamp, Reeva’s mother, is sitting in that same courtroom with him, taking everything in with a stony face and when it looks like she can’t bear it anymore she just bows her head down.

“Once in a while she wipes her eyes. Reeva was her daughter but she has not once howled. She has seen the same distressing pictures shown to the court, but she has not thrown up. This is the woman who should be crying. She is also the woman whose emotional and psychological anguish should force the prosecution to call for adjournment. She deserves the people’s sympathy and support, for not many people can take in the pain that she started taking in since February 14, 2013.

“She also needs that support because since the murder of her daughter, it has been Oscar’s story: Oscar the underdog, Oscar the champion athlete, his entitlements, fears, emotions, finances, past glories, losses, guns and fast cars, temperament; and, the apologetic and tearful Oscar. Oscar, Oscar, Oscar! And never Reeva!

“As a woman, I have looked at the Pistorius trial from June Steenkamp’s point of view, because she is the one person who has to make sense of all the pain that her daughter suffered, the pain that she now has to re-live through a lengthy trial. It must be like a second murder of her daughter.

“June Steenkamp is the one person the court and the whole world expected to cry uncontrollably. She is the one person who could have retched as she listened to the first responder’s testimony, then the pathologist’s post-mortem report and the forensic specialist’s report. Indeed, June Steenkamp could have caused the court’s adjournment many a time, but it’s as if she is weaving a tapestry of evidence in order to come to terms with the violent death her daughter met that Valentine’s in 2013.

“Because she is Reeva’s mother, she understands what motherhood means. In my view, June Steenkamp cannot afford to lose it for to do so would be to betray her daughter’s trust as a loving and caring mother. It would mean missing out on every small detail of the court’s proceedings. She needs all of that in order to mourn her daughter and move on.

“It goes without saying that Pistorius is no ordinary white South African male, but someone who against odds defied disability to become one of the world’s fastest Paralympics sprinters. He is emotionally and psychologically experienced. Boers are made of tough stuff and it is quite peculiar to see him wailing i n this way.”

Now, the interest in the killing and the high-profile trial and imprisonment can be followed by attractive book and movie deal offers from unscrupulous Americans. The very stuff that tragicomedy is made of! And June Steenkamp has to be ready for this second round.