Leon Lemmer: David Harrison oor die wit Afrika-stam

Deel op

David Harrison was in 1980 die regisseur vir ‘n BBC-televisiereeks en het daarna ‘n boek hieroor, The white tribe of Africa: South Africa in perspective (Johannesburg: Macmillan, 1981, 307p), gepubliseer. Die wit “stam” (eintlik: etniese groep/volk/nasie) waarna verwys word, is die Afrikaners. Die outeur het ongetwyfeld Suid-Afrikaanse konneksies. Hy verwys bv na “my own South African relatives” (p 152). Afrikaanse inligtingsbronne is ook gebruik. Die televisiereeks en die boek is as gesaghebbend en objektief geloof. In sommige hoofstukke slaag die outeur in redelike mate hierin, maar onderliggend is daar die tipies Britse distansiëring van en hooghartige neersien op Afrikaners. Harrison is ‘n buitestander wat betaal is om van buite af te kritiseer. Na sy kort verblyf hier, woon hy knus in Engeland en hoef hy nie verantwoordelikheid te aanvaar vir die skade wat hy met sy joernalistiek en fotografie aangerig het nie.

Vir die kritiese leser is dit duidelik dat Harrison hom aan die kant van die plaaslike Engelse en ongetwyfeld ook aan dié van die swartes skaar. Talryke verwysings na hierdie boek kom in die literatuur voor, maar ek kon eers onlangs daarin slaag om ‘n eksemplaar te leen te kry. (Daar is ‘n boek met ‘n soortgelyke titel, The European tribe (1987), deur ‘n Wes-Indiër, Caryl Phillips (gebore in 1958), iemand wat graag beskuldigend oor die rol van blankes in slawerny skryf, maar die teks van sy boek is van ‘n heeltemal ander aard as dié van Harrison.) Hou asseblief deurgaans in gedagte dat die perspetief wat Harrison bied 40 jaar oud is.

David Dimbleby, wat die onderhoude vir die televisiereeks gevoer het, het die voorwoord geskryf. Sy samevatting is: “It is the old story of man’s search for power and security, for sense of identity and a measure of freedom even at the expense of his neighbour’s” (vii). In sy inleiding skryf Harrison: “The account will trace the Afrikaners’ fortunes from the dark days of the defeat by the British in 1902 to the election victory in 1948, the moment which finally gave the Nationalists control over South Africa and the opportunity to impose on all its citizens the political creed they called Apartheid. It also attempts to show the realities of a system which in the end, whether Nationalists claim to have been understood or not, has brought subjugation where it promised freedom and which could yet threaten the very future of the Afrikaner people it sought to preserve” (3).

Hy wek die indruk dat apartheid by die Afrikaners ontstaan het; dus asof hierdie beleid nie ‘n voortsetting van die tradisionele Britse koloniale beleid van rassesegregasie was nie. Hy erken sekerlik ook nie dat die eerste paswet in Suid-Afrika in 1797 tydens die eerste Britse bewind deur George Macartney uitgereik is nie. Die naaste wat Harrison kom aan erkenning van die Britse aandeel in rassesegregasie is wanneer hy oor die NP se beleid van instromingsbeheer skryf: “It was no new system; the first laws restricting Hottentots to their own districts were introduced by the British” (184). Soos dit die gewoonte geword het, noem hy die pas wat deur die NP-regering uitgereik is “the Dompas” (247).

Die Rieckert-kommissie het in 1979 onder meer bevind:

“Control over the rate of urbanisation is, in the light of circumstances in South Africa, an absolute essential social security measure. Even though … the abolition of such control would lead to faster economic growth, the price to be paid for it in terms of direct and indirect social costs would be too high” (253).

Instromingsbeheer is sedertdien heeltemal afgeskaf. Die stede word deur ongewenste, werklose massas verswelg; eintlik die hele land omdat selfs doeltreffende grensbeheer nie meer uitgeoefen word nie.

Reeds in die inleiding word die Broederbond ‘n “so-called ‘cultural society'” genoem: “The Broederbond’s role has gradually changed, from safeguarding Afrikaner interests to conspiring [!] to maintain Afrikaner Nationalist domination” (5). Oor die beginjare: “During all this time the Broederbond had been paying particular attention to what they saw as the need to give the Afrikaner a feeling of identity, a self-confidence in his Afrikanerness that would make the Volk ‘stand up’ and challenge the English in every sphere of South African life” (94-95). “There was obviously much in the early activities of both the Broederbond and what it likes to call ‘its considerably bigger son’ the FAK [Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurvereniginge], that was entirely innocent and part of an understandable attempt to give the Afrikaner back his self-respect, secure his cultural heritage and promote his new language. But gradually the emphasis changed … its role has shifted from safeguarding Afrikaner interests to conspiring [!] to maintain Afrikaner domination” (97). Teen blanke oorheersing klink daar alewig besware op, maar nie teen “black supremacy” nie.

Het dit nie vir die Britse koloniale bewindhebbers ook om die beskerming van hulle belange gegaan nie? Byvoorbeeld, “In 1822 the Governor of the Cape Colony, Lord Charles Somerset, issued a proclamation that English was to be the only language of the courts and schools, even though Dutch settlers outnumbered the British by eight to one” (48). Ná 1948 het die Nasionale Party hom vir ‘n tweetalige staatsdiens, Afrikaans en Engels, beywer. “Never again would an Afrikaner complain that his case could not be heard in his own language” (155). Hierdie verwagting het sedert 1994 geblyk vals te wees. Hoofregter Mogoeng Mogoeng, wat net so min soos Somerset deur die kiesers aangestel is, het die slegte Britse voorbeeld nagevolg deur moedswillig Engels tot die enigste hoftaal vir dokumenteringsdoeleindes te verklaar, al is Engels die moedertaal van ‘n klein minderheid in Suid-Afrika.

“In trying to understand Afrikaner Nationalism I have been somewhat confused by the widely used terms of verligte and verkrampte, meaning enlightened or moderate, and reactionary or hardline. They have always seemed to suggest more difference than actually exists. Those dubbed with either adjective still appear to be equally wedded to the basic tenets of the Nationalist creed, separate black homelands, separate citizenship, separate parliaments, separate schools and separate living areas however much the so-called moderates may advocate the abolition of separate park benches or separate lifts” (6-7).

Asof baie Britte nie van nature geneig is om ‘n afstand tussen hulle en die swartes en selfs die Afrikaners te handhaaf nie. Waarom beswaar teen bv “separate black homelands” maak as die Britte self die skeppers van drie swart protektorate (Basoetoeland, Betsjoeanaland en Swaziland) in Suidelike Afrika was? Wat Harrison betref, is apartheid ‘n unieke Afrikaner-maaksel. “By the time PW Botha had become Prime Minister [1978] Apartheid was far more than a policy which could be repealed, an ugly aspect of an otherwise normal society” (276).

Harrison se boek begin by die Voortrekkermonument. Die volgende kan bevraagteken word: “At Voortrekkerhoogte, too, although not quite so well-known, is an institution that in a different way does its bit to preserve the republic. It is a work colony for blacks or ‘Bantu’ declared ‘idle and undesirable’ under Section 29 of the Urban Areas Consolidation Act no 25 of 1945. Arrested without a warrant, sentenced without a trial, a black man can now be detained here for up to two years on the order of a civil servant, under a definition of idleness that has never yet applied to a white” (14). Let op die sarkasme in “does its bit.” Die Afrikaners by die Voortrekkermonument word “uncles” genoem. Daardie 1945-wet is ‘n maaksel van die Smuts-regering; nie van Afrikaners nie. In elk geval, is dit nie die Britte wat veral Londen se strate van “idle and undesirable” mense gestroop en hulle teen hulle wil na kolonies soos Amerika en Australië verskeep het nie?

Hoe het die Britte die swartes tydens die Anglo-Boere-oorlog (ABO) behandel? “The blacks who had been workers on Boer farms were put into British labour gangs. Their families went to separate concentration camps but nobody bothered much about them. The daily maintenance allowance for Boers was 8½d a head, for blacks it was 4½d. Over thirteen thousand blacks died” (31). Die swartes wat die Britte in hulle oorlogspoging gehelp het, is die Boere se plase en ander eiendom belowe. Na afloop van die oorlog en ook met Uniewording in 1910 het niks van die Britte se beloftes, nie eens stemreg vir swartes, tereg gekom nie. Oor die ABO: “Whatever the reason the Boers had for changing sides it is estimated that a fifth of all fighting Afrikaners were on the British side by die end of the war” (33). Uiteraard beklemtoon Harrison eerder die persentasie hanskakies as die getal voorbeeldige Boere-bittereinders. Daardie hanskakies is dekades lank nie in Afrikanergeledere aanvaar nie. Deesdae is daar baie meer nieu-hanskakies as destyds, maar hulle word glad nie in dieselfde mate vir hulle verengelsing en ANC-gedienstigheid verkwalik as wat geregverdig kan word nie. Dink aan ‘n geval soos Wim de Villiers.

“It was not just passing sailors who produced so many pale skins among those now called Cape Coloureds” (15); ook nie net Afrikaners nie; ook die Engelse “did its bit” in hierdie opsig. Bruin mense was oorwegend Smuts/Sapgesind (157) en het graag, veral in Kaapstad en omstreke, ‘n voorliefde vir Engels geopenbaar. Met ander woorde hulle was geneig om veral in die openbaar anti-Afrikaner en anti-Afrikaans te wees. Maar ook in hierdie opsig probeer Harrison om die bruin mense eensydig aan Afrikaners te koppel. Na aanleiding van die verwydering van bruin mense van die gemeenskaplike kieserslys skryf Harrison: “The most lasting damage had been done to the relationship between Afrikaners and their Coloured cousins [!]. No population group was closer to the Afrikaners than the million or more South Africans of mixed race. Since the days of the Hottentots they had worked and lived alongside the Boers, learning their customs, sharing their blood [!]. They spoke the Afrikaner’s language which they enriched with their own idiom. They worshipped in their own branch of the Afrikaners’ Dutch Reformed Church” (158). Harrison soek ooreenkomste tussen bruin mense en Afrikaners maar verswyg die verskille, bv dat die afstammelinge van die Oosterse slawe Moslems is en dat baie bruin mense se taal Engelsbesoedelde Kaaps is, wat Afrikaans eerder ondermyn as verryk.

“Non-Nationalist historians now accept that the Transvaal, the destination of many of the Voortrekkers, was the home of black people as early as the fifth century” (16). Dit is waarskynlik ‘n oordrywing, maar die inheemse bevolking op die Indiese subkontinent was millennia vroeër as dit daar en in veel groter getalle, maar dit het nie die Britte ontmoedig om daardie streek eeue lank te beset en uit te buit nie. Die teks het by my die indruk gewek dat Harrison soms hard probeer om sy vooroordele agterweë te laat, maar kort-kort borrel dit uit. Byvoorbeeld, oor die jaarlikse herdenking van die Slag van Bloedrivier op 16 Desember skryf hy: “No Afrikaner public figure worth his boerewors (sausage) will fail to be on his feet somewhere in South Africa that day” (19). Die Boere moes seker eerder daardie veldslag verloor het. Leopold Scholtz redeneer vanuit Nederland dat Afrikaners daardie 1838-gebeure nie (meer) as ‘n oorwinning mag vier nie, maar dit so moet plooi dat dit versoening bevorder. Wanneer ‘n minister NP-beleid verduidelik, noem Harrison dit, na aanleiding van George Orwell se formulering, “Van der Merwe-speak” (189). Dit is vir my duidelik dat ‘n Afrikanerhater hier aan die woord is.

Een van Harrison se hoofinformante oor Afrikaners was die liberale en erg verengelste Ernst Gideon (Ernie) Malherbe (1896-1982, rektor van die Universiteit Natal, 1943-1965), maar Malherbe “did not feel that his Afrikanerness was threatened, or that he was being anglicised … to Ernie Malherbe the course chosen for the new South Africa by Botha and Smuts was both natural and welcome. To their cause he gave his full allegiance. Years later he was to become one of Smuts’ most trusted advisers” (58). Die soort anti-Afrikaner-raad wat Malherbe aan Smuts gegee het, blyk uit sy volgende skrywe in Maart 1944: “The Broederbond has obtained a stranglehold on education which will enable it, in sober truth, to govern South Africa within a few decades … Some thousands of servants of the state, more especially teachers, are bound by inclination and by oath to carry out the subversive plans of the Broederbond … As this policy of Afrikaner dominance creeps into the various spheres of employment, and particularly into the higher professional and state services, those who are not that particular brand of ‘ware Afrikaner‘ (true Afrikaner), required by the Broederbond, will be more and more pushed into the background to posts of secondary importance … Today, with the bitter experience of the Broederbond’s evil influence on the war effort, and its stranglehold on South African public life, the need for action is more urgent. If we are to live together in peace and amity in South Africa, the Broederbond must be destroyed” (144).

“Nine months later, Smuts finally acted. He banned members of the Broederbond from working in the public service, giving them the alternative of resigning from one or other. One thousand and ninety-four resigned from the Broederbond though a small group of prominent Broeders chose, with some ostentation, to give up their jobs in the civil service rather than leave their secret society. The story provided the Nationalist press with copy for weeks. In January 1945 Smuts denounced the Broederbond in Parliament, calling it ‘a dangerous, cunning, political Fascist organisation of which no civil servant, if he was to retain his loyalty to the State and the Administration, could be allowed to be a member'” (145). Die staatsdiens was toe, soos deesdae, nie bo die politiek verhewe nie. Vir inligting oor die Broederbond: Praag 23.09.2018. Pieter de Lange (1926-2019, voorsitter van die Broederbond, 1983-1993), is onlangs oorlede. Die Afrikanerbond, die opvolger van die Broederbond, het De Lange geloof vir alles wat hy gedoen het om Suid-Afrika aan swart politieke beheer uit te lewer. Die Afrikanerbond is steeds ‘n organisasie waarvan Afrikaners liewer moet wegbly.

Malherbe word soos volg aangehaal:

“Our Afrikanerness was in our blood. It was like breathing. We didn’t need to make a fuss about it and ram it down people’s throats. It is very clever of the Nationalists today to use language and identity as a peg to hang all their other paraphernalia. And they certainly get very eloquent about it all, and show what the British have done. The British may have taken our worldly goods but they couldn’t kill our sense of personality” (58).

Maar Anglofiele soos Smuts en Malherbe het in die Britse tradisie aan rassesegregasie bly vasklou. “The University of Natal was far from integrated, as Malherbe acknowledges. Lectures for blacks were separate although the staff was the same; blacks ate and slept in their own hostels” (194). Daar word gekla oor bruin studente in Natal wat van 1960 af verplig is om te verhuis met die oog op studie aan die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland (UWK) in Bellville. “Hardly any of them ever went because of the expense and also because the medium of instruction was Afrikaans which was quite strange to them” (194). In werklikheid is die bruin elite geneig om voor te gee dat hulle eerder Engels- as Afrikaanssprekend is. Dit is ook ‘n leuen om te beweer dat die UWK ooit ‘n eentalige Afrikaanse inrigting was. Van die begin af was die universiteit, wat onderrigtaal betref, ‘n tweetalige, dus Afrikaanse én Engelse, inrigting. Ná 1994 is die UWK omskep in ‘n eentalige Engelse universiteit, weens die misplaaste politiek-gedrewe ywer van veral Jakes Gerwel, wat deesdae graag deur Afrikaansinstansies geloof word asof hy ‘n kampvegter vir Afrikaans was. Die marxistiese Gerwel was maar net nog iemand wat die voortbestaan van Afrikaans as akademiese taal ondermyn het.

As teenhanger vir Malherbe word veral van die Afrikaner, Henning Klopper (1895-1985, eerste voorsitter van die Broederbond, 1918-1926, hooforganiseerder van die 1938-ossawatrek, speaker van die parlement, 1961-1974), gebruik gemaak. Harrison kry hierdie stekie teen die Broederbond in: “The similarity with the Communist Party cell structure is striking” (90). Klopper word soos volg aangehaal: “Smuts sold us to the British. He became an Anglophile … Smuts misled [Louis] Botha” (59). Oor Botha en Smuts se versoeningspolitiek, wat ná 1994 met heelwat valse paaiery ook deur Nelson Mandela gepredik is, het Barry Hertzog in 1912 by De Wildt gesê: “I have no need to conciliate anyone because I have not wronged anyone” (61). Hertzog het op moedertaal-skoolonderrig en ‘n tweetalige staatsdiens aangedring: “If an Afrikaner went into the Post Office to buy stamps he could expect to be served in his own language” (61). Hoe skandalig het ons daaglikse ervaring van die werklikheid nie verander nie. Van die hoogs suksesvolle simboliese ossewatrek van 1938 het Klopper gesê: “We had united the people. We had brought them to their senses” (110).

Harrison verwys na die kommunis, Brian Bunting (1920-2008), wat in 1994 ‘n ANC-parlementslid geword het, se boek The rise of the South African Reich (1964), waarin die Afrikanerbewind in Suid-Afrika as fascisties voorgestel word. “Bunting has analysed the effect of the continual emphasis on Afrikaner exclusivity” (96). Bunting word soos volg aangehaal: “The Boederbond has thus sponsored a sort of spiritual Great Trek of the Afrikaners in the twentieth century, by which they have removed themselves from ‘dangerous’ contact with other elements of the population and withdrawn into cultural isolation. Once behind the wall, they have become easy victims of the Nationalist virus” (96), wat sekerlik nie so gevaarlik soos die kommunistiese virus is nie.

Gedurende die Tweede Wêreldoorlog het die Sappe vir Jan Smuts gesteun toe hy kant vir Brittanje teen Duitsland gekies het. Die Natte onder Barry Hertzog was gekant teen die Britse vyandelikhede teen Duitsland. Vrywilligers het by Smuts se oorlogsaktiwiteite aangesluit. Sommige van hulle was bereid om as soldate in die buiteland te dien. “Those who did so wore distinguishing red flashes on their uniform shoulder tabs and became known to the Nationalists as Rooi Luisies, literally ‘Red Lice'” (125). ‘n “Flash” is ‘n kleurlappie of lussie, nie ‘n luisie soos Harrison uit onkunde of moedswilligheid beweer nie.

Voor die algemene verkiesing in 1948 het ‘n kommissie onder die voorsitterskap van Paul Sauer (1898-1976) die Nasionale Party se beleid soos volg geformuleer: “Equality between blacks and whites would lead to ‘national suicide of the white race’, whereas the policy of Apartheid would protect and make safe the future of every race with full opportunities for development in its own areas. One group would not be a threat to the other” (150). Die Nasionale Party, met DF Malan as eerste minister, het in 1948 aan die bewind gekom. Ernie Malherbe lewer soos volg kommentaar: “I was very much upset at losing that election because I knew the kind of people that would get into power and what they would do, particularly in the education field. That is what upset me most, because I knew what their aims were, from what I knew of the Boederbond. Unfortunately my fears were realised” (152).

Anders as Smuts en Malherbe het die Nasionale Party hom vir aparte Afrikaanse en Engelse skole en universiteite beywer, wat ‘n bloeitydperk vir Afrikaans, die kern van Afrikanerskap, ingelui het. Die ANC-regering en sy kruipsugtige meelopers bevorder deesdae eentalige Engelse opvoedkundige inrigtings. Afrikaanse skole en universiteite word vernietig deur hulle in dubbelmedium Afrikaans/Engelse inrigtings te omskep as voorlopers van eentalige Engelse inrigtings. Dit is ook wat Harrison per slot van sake bepleit: PW “Botha called for an end to the old feud between South Africa’s two groups of whites and for the promotion of what Pretoria’s hand-outs called ‘the Anglo-Afrikaner nation’ but as a Nationalist could not take the one step that might bring about real union, and send the children of both white groups to school together” (275).

Gerrit Viljoen (1926-2009) het in 1977 ‘n pragtige verduideliking verskaf:

“If the Afrikaner has an almost over-anxious fear of losing his identity, that is because he is not the branch of the tree but the tree itself. If the whites of Rhodesia are defeated, they are merely a branch and the tree of English culture still grows … If the Afrikaners go, then the whole tree of Afrikaner culture goes with them” (275).

Hermann Giliomee het onlangs aansluiting hierby gevind: “As Afrikaans in Suid-Afrika sterf, is dit weg, anders as die geval met Engels” (Die Burger, 14.03.2019, p 4).

Oor verskuiwings ingevolge die wet op groepsgebiede skryf Harrison: “Compensation was paid to families forced to move but rarely at the market price” (184). My ouers het so ‘n eiendom gekoop. Die eienaar het die veilingsprys aanvaar voordat die bod toegeslaan kon word. Die punt is: Mense wat verskuif is, is vergoed vir die eiendom wat hulle besit het. Deesdae word blankes blootgestel aan onteiening sonder vergoeding. Die NP-metode kan as geregtigheid kwalifiseer maar beslis nie die ANC se manier van doen nie.

“A government commission, set up by the Nationalists in 1949, found the [church] missions had ‘achieved nothing but the destruction of Bantu culture … nothing beyond succeeding in making the native an imitation Westerner'” (190). Vóór 1948 was swart onderwys grootliks in die hande van kerkgenootskappe. Van 1960 af het Bantoe-onderwys momentum gekry en is die klem nie op verwestering geplaas nie maar op die uitbouing van elke etniese groep se kultuur, insluitende die verskillende moedertale. Die NP-regering kan nie met reg daarvan beskuldig word dat hy Afrika-tale verwaarloos het nie, al is dit presies wat Cyril Ramaphosa onlangs op ‘n leuenagtige manier gedoen het en hy sy gehoor valslik probeer wysmaak het dat die ANC-regering, anders as die NP-regering, swart tale bevorder.

Ek het in vorige rubrieke verwys na die skouspelagtige positiewe resultate wat Bantoe-onderwys, teen groot koste vir die blanke belastingbetalers, behaal het, soos verwoord deur bv Hermann Giliomee. Maar die linksgesinde Harrison laat hom nie deur feite oortuig nie en skryf gevolglik oor Bantoe-onderwys: “The legacy of these years of calculated neglect is not easily erased” (192). Die swart elite, insluitende die ANC-regering, staan afkerig van swart kultuur soos wat dit destyds deur Bantoe-onderwys bevorder is, wat deels die heftige kritiek op daardie onderwys verklaar. Swartes “[showed] an extreme aversion to any education specially adapted for the Bantu” (197). PW “Botha committed his government to establishing compulsory education for all, but no amount of money poured into black schooling … would convince the black population that their education was anything but inferior to that of whites for the simple reason that it was different” (275).

Tydens die NP-bewind het Afrikaans en Afrikaanse universiteite floreer. Die Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit (RAU) is as teenvoeter vir die Engelse Universiteit van die Witwatersrand (Wits) gestig. Met die RAU is beoog die ontworteling van “the destructive forces of liberalism, communism and humanism which … flourished at the existing English-language University of the Witwatersrand” (202). Engelse universiteite, volgens Albert Hetzog (1899-1982), “permit the erosion and destruction of souls of our young people because of the liberalistic or leftist, perhaps even semi-communistic, influences at work in the English-speaking universities” (203). “Semi-communistic” is eintlik te sag gestel. Die huidige Wits-rektor is openlik en militant marxisties (Praag 17.03.2019). Harrison het destyds, soos deesdae die gewoonte geword het, kommunisme as onskadelik probeer voorstel. “The essence of the Nationalist charge [was that] Communism undermined traditional South African attitudes towards race. Communists advocated equal civil and political rights for all and it required no great leap of Nationalist imagination to believe that those who advocated equal civil and political rights for all South Africans must therefore be Communists” (211).

Oor die SAUK, wat vóór 1994 ‘n lonende onderneming en finansieel onafhanklik van die staat was, skryf Harrison: “On SABC radio, all is for the best in the best of all separate worlds. ‘It is through this medium’, wrote black author Mtutuzela Matshoba, ‘that the minds of my people are stolen'” (209). Deesdae word gedwonge rasse-integrasie as voortreflik voorgestel; nie net oor die radio nie maar ook oor die televisie, wat ‘n kragtiger indoktrinasiemedium is. Oor die SAUK: Praag 1.10.2018.

Die gewoonte het posgevat om PW Botha net sleg te sê. Harrison noem hom Piet Wapen. Die blankes moes hulle, volgens Harrison se siening, seker liefs nie teen die aanslae van terroriste en kommuniste verdedig het nie. By geleentheid het Botha glo aan Piet Cillié gesê: “No one will ever accuse me of too much self-control” (261). “Helen Suzman, in a famous epithet, said ‘If he was female, he would arrive in Parliament on a broomstick'” (261).

Neem deel aan die gesprek en lewer gerus hier onder kommentaar!

L.W. U gebruik die Disqus-kommentaarafdeling op eie risiko en PRAAG, die redaksie of enige verwante persone of entiteite aanvaar geen verantwoordelikheid vir u kommentaar en watter gevolge ook al daaruit mag voortspruit nie. Terselfdertyd vereis ons dat u ter wille van beskaafdheid, redelikheid en die gerief van ander gebruikers, u sal weerhou van kwetsende taalgebruik, vloekwoorde, persoonlike aanvalle op medegebruikers, twissoekery en algemene "trol"-gedrag. Enigeen wat só 'n laspos word, sal summier verbied word en sy IP-adres sal insgelyks versper word. Ons sal ook nie huiwer om, waar nodig, kriminele klagte aanhangig te maak teen individue wat hulle aan dreigemente, teistering of intimidasie skuldig maak nie.