A very diplomatic message from Cyril Ramaphosa, perhaps recognising America’s usual MO for saving countries from their “regime“?
For context:
You know a rule of the internet: Any headline that ends in a question mark must be silently answered with “No” before swiftly moving on.
In this context I watched the 2 clips provided and can see no evidence of the proposition. If your assertion is that “questioning” hate speech is “interference”, I’d say you’re stretching the term. The job of an ambassador is to communicate about things like policy. If any such communications about policy is “interference” then we may scrap the job of ambassadors in general.
1 Like
Ja, it’s hard to discern a motive for these posts. Genuine interest? Suggestive scheming? Tendentious insinuations?
Without a clear statement of intent, there’s little point or profit in contending with vague ambiguity.
’Luthon64
I’m questioning the motives for the ambassador to choose this as talking point. If it’s to promote dialogue, I’m all for it. But it could also be to cause division. A tactic often used by the US to strengthen their position.
Given Trump’s current behaviour it could easily become an excuse for “saving” South Africans from their goverment.
Personally I don’t like that phrase, but I can also understand that in the context of our unique history, the free speech argument has merit. A nuanced perhaps lost on outsiders.
Is it the position of the civilised world that it is hate speech? I don’t know. So I’m interested in your opinion.
I don’t see how further dividing South Africa (if such a thing is even possible) can benefit the States. The ambassador is just sharing his opinions, as Americans are sometimes known to do.