[A] Publication & Date: 2010-07-30: City Press: Khadija Bradlow: Rightwing group tries to scupper Reitz trial1
[B] Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.1, & 5.1 [1.1] Not truthful, accurate or fair; [1.2] Not in context, unbalanced, departed from facts by (1) distortion, exaggeration and misrepresentation; (2) intentional material omissions, (3) summarisation; [1.5] Not contacted for any comment; [2.1] Ideologically discriminatory; [5.1] Headline misrepresentation of facts.
[C] Overview of Radical Honesty White Refugee Argument 1.
Radical Honesty is NOT a ‘right wing’ group. A Jew who speaks up and requests justice for a Christian, is not a Christian. A member of the DA who speaks up on behalf of justice for an IFP member is not a member of the IFP. In a country that practice mobjustice people only speak up for their own group. When any group speaks up for justice for members of another group – they are speaking up for CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE; I.E. THE RULE OF LAW. Radical Honesty supports the RULE OF LAW for EVERYONE, irrespective of whether we agree with them or not, they deserve to be found guilty by the rule of law, not the media. (para 12)
2.
Radical Honesty did NOT try to ‘scupper’ the Reits Four trial. To the contrary. Speaking up for an accused to be judged in accordance with THE RULE OF LAW, NOT A MEDIA SCAPEGOAT ORGY, is clearly resented by the scapegoat scuppering media. (para.13)
3.
These headline misrepresentations totally alter the context of the article. Consider for example the headline: ‘Transparency group discloses media’s censorship’
4.
Radical Honesty accused the media of “spitting on cultures who practice sincere forgiveness and root cause problem solving”; the omission is significant. (para.14)
5.
Radical Honesty honourably and transparently provided the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with its conclusions –detailed evidence-for the TRC’s bias, conflicts of interest, censorship, etc; and provided the TRC with all opportunities to provide counter arguments. Such honourable behaviour is only considered an ‘attack’ by those who endorse fascist dictatorship, that don’t allow dissent; and who are totally clueless that the growth of humanity, individuals, or organisations is from hearing honest feedback about errors made, so that they can be fixed. (para.15)
6.
Ms. Bradlow’s anonymous source was not only uninformed (had not read the documentation he was commenting on), prejudiced towards minority groups, but was acting in violation of the Bar Code’s Uniform Rules of Professional Conduct (4.12, 4.18.3 & 4.21.1), hence possibly biased, unprofessional, and/or unethical (para.18-22)
7.
Ms. Bradlow never bothered to call me for any comment; or response to Magistrate ruling or her ‘senior legal figure’ anonymous source’s comment (para.23-27)
[D] 8.
1
SAPS/NPA Referral of my Complaint to Press Ombudsman I filed a complaint of fraud & defamation with the SAPS on 05 August 2010 (CAS 180-082010), which was returned to me on 04 October 2010, by Colonel SV Matiwane, from George Detective Branch; who informed me that “This matter was referred to Senior Public Prosecutor, George for a decision on prosecution. The latter declined to prosecute any person in this matter and requested that you refer your complaint to the Press Ombudsman for adjudication.” [The (para) reference in points 1-7 refer to the paragraphs in the Fraud & Defamation Complaint to the SAPS]
http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Rightwing-group-tries-to-scupper-Reitz-trial-20100730
9.
[E]
Waiver
I, Lara Johnstone, the undersigned, hereby agree to submit this complaint and any dispute arising from it for adjudication to the SA Press Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman�) subject to the SA Press Code and Complaints and Procedures of the SA Press Council. I accept the decision of the Ombudsman, or in the event of an appeal, the decision of the Press Appeals Panel as final and binding. Furthermore, by submitting the complaint for adjudication to the Ombudsman I waive my right to approach a court of law or any other tribunal to adjudicate upon this complaint or any dispute arising from my complaint submitted to the Ombudsman.
Lara Johnstone || Cell: (071) 170 1954 || 06 October 2010