Tomorrow, 11 October, the Cape Town Equality Court will rule in my complaint against Dianne Kohler Barnard @DKB20, at 11:00 in BELLVILLE. A thread...
I have little doubt the court will clear her, as it did previously in 2016. PEPUDA is nonsense and, really, what chance did I have, going it alone against an army of private and @Our_DA attorneys & advocates... 
My efforts have fallen far short, but I have certainly tried my best, as I did previously when trying to escalate this matter internally in @Our_DA.
For those of you who have not been following the matter very closely, allow me to catch you up on some of the testimony from former and current @Our_DA staffers heard in court over this exhausting, harrowing eight months.
I believe it’s vitally important to know what was said in court, under oath, because the Our_DA’s spin machine will be in full force tomorrow to churn out its “total exoneration, no obstruction” messaging…
Let me remind you what I testified she said: (1) “Farm murders have decreased since the removal of then-Zimbabwean president, Robert Mugabe, as Zimbabweans have returned home.
(2) Women have themselves to blame and are “stupid” for being scammed as they enter into relationships with Nigerian men who sleep with them and solicit money under false pretenses; and
(3) Black children are killing ‘whiteys’ with stoned thrown at vehicles from bridges, ‘never mind the fact that coloured or Indian people are also being killed’.”
Another staffer forwarded a similar complaint, on the day in question. It read:
During oral testimony, one witness testified that @DKB20 “did say that she believes the issue [farm murders] is no longer as burning since Emmerson Mnangagwa had just been elected president of Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans had gone back to the country…
“and that gave the indication that, the idea that foreigners were responsible for farm murders.”
Another, @DKB20 “said that however [the issue of farm murders] was not quite so urgent at the moment due to a recent decrease in the number of farm attacks. She ascribed this decrease to the fact that Zimbabwean nationals had returned home after the coup in Zimbabwe.”
Further testimony included “I remember her saying something along the lines of these rocks are being thrown by black children who are being trained to kill white people.”
Another, @DKB20 “said the culprits were school children that were idle during the day as they were not in school because their teachers were on strike. And then she uttered the phrase that they were being taught to hate whiteys.”
Most of us recalled how she called women “stupid” for falling for romance scams, with one testifying that @DKB20 “did utter the phrase ‘women are stupid’ and she said something about papgeld.”
I asked everyone how her utterances affected them/us. This question was never posed by the @Our_DA. Indeed, none of us were questioned after the complaints were submitted to @jsteenhuisen. The replies were sometimes difficult to hear….
“I felt embarrassed on behalf of my black colleagues who were in the meeting, that they had to hear these assumptions being made about them.”
“I [did] feel they [the utterances] were racist, sexist or xenophobic … I believe I am entitled to feel offended by it”. And you are.
“I was startled by her remarks … her comments about rock-throwing and about black kids being trained, specifically as a black person, very offensive.”
“I think they [a person from the group or demographic singled out] would have found it repugnant and offensive.”
“[t]he discussion [by staffers] was around many of us feeling startled and shocked by some of the remarks … Her comments were shocking, startling, many of the staff felt xenophobic, racist, sexist.”
And, importantly, from the first complaint: “I’m afraid that if she continues to make such statements I will not be able to continue working with her…
She needs to be cognizant of the fact that all the Press Officers are black and I think it might become really difficult for the others to work with her too.”
Yet @jsteenhuisen found nothing wrong with her comments. Nor did @zakhelembhele who testified for @DKB20. Indeed, @zakhelembhele not only found NONE of it offensive, he had a novel explanation for why ALL the staffers were offended and he was not, saying…
“[T]hat disaggregated phrases and terms and that we use in the course of a very meandering conversation had been rewoven into a tapestry that conveyed a much different meaning from that which was meant…
and which I understood, sort of, actually happened at the time [sic]”. Come again?
He also said “in reference to a demographic marker within those discussions was about hidden detail and nuance to describe those situations and not simply bigoted, general statements about a whole group of people.” Huh?
And then, my favourite, when asked about the explanation she gave to @jsteenhuisen, the single discussion that helped him conclude that this was all good and no further action was required…
@DKB20 testified, under oath: “No, I did not provide an explanation. I was being dressed down by my immediate boss and I immediately apologised. I’m not going to in any stage argue with a person in that position…
I didn’t feel it was my position to do so. I presumed I was in the wrong and I apologised for that.”
Yet in @DKB20’s affidavit, drafted by her attorneys, stated that “Steenhuisen … challenged me to explain the precise bases for my actual remarks during the workshop in issue and to provide him with necessary context. I did so.” Qué?
@jsteenhuisen, in HIS attorney-drafted affidavit, stated “I asked her to explain the comments” and goes on to provide a five paragraph, 235-word exposition of the explanation! Must've been that KZN telepathy.
I suppose it can be challenging to keep your story straight when you’re “re-weaving a tapestry of meaning”.
At least @JAMESSELFE3 was willing to reply to my complaint in writing, unlike @jsteenhuisen, noting…
“I took the matter up with @jsteenhuisen. He said that, on receipt of your original complaint to him, he had summoned DKB to his office to tell her in very clear terms that her comments had been unacceptable and offensive…
…She apparently expressed immediate contrition and promised not to repeat it. Mr Steenhuisen is the Chief Whip, and is responsible for the discipline of members of the caucus…
…He applied his mind to the situation and determined that a reprimand was the most appropriate sanction. I’m afraid I cannot supplant his role, nor would it be wise for me to question his judgement. He was there; I was not.”
Of course, @JAMESSELFE3 also told me that @DKB20 was on a last strike and that this could result in her expulsion, yet again, from @Our_DA.
I’ve come to realise that this ‘last strike’ was for the 5th Parliament, and that they only needed to get her through to the 6th Parliament. Y’know, to reset and give her a fresh [disciplinary] start.
Or maybe I was ‘suspended’? It doesn’t really matter, of course: by April I was an ex-employee of @Our_DA.
So here we are: ‘verdict day’. As I said before, I have little doubt the court will clear her. But would I do it again? Abso-bloody-lutely.
Exactly ten years ago my father and his entire side of the family shunned me for choosing to marry a person of colour. I was unmoved. @Our_DA leadership knew this, but still thought I was going to help them bury this.
Silly poppits.
My advice to @DKB20, going forward, is to keep the racist utterances to a minimum, and only around ‘safe’ individuals, like @zakhelembhele, @Siviwe_G, @jsteenhuisen and @JAMESSELFE3. Try not to talk that way around snowflake staffers or as @jsteenhuisen calls ‘em “Wokey McWokes”
I think that might sort the problem out. Alternatively, @Our_DA can just start sending decent human beings to Parliament. Just thinking out loud…
BTW, @DKB20 claimed that her utterances were not her own but rather she was repeating what she was told on oversight. Specifically, she says she heard from the Heritage Protection Group, a “private security NGO”…
@DKB20 @Our_DA MPs on oversight sure liked these guys. Check ‘em out here: heritageprotectiongroup.co.za/about.html. Here’s a profile of their “sole financial benefactor”…
In case you missed it: “Antonie [van Niekerk] was born in Zambia during a time of conflict between neighboring countries where murder, rape and other horrific crimes were an everyday occurrence ...
In 1979 Antonie’s life took on another direction. He was called up by the SADF and he made a promise to himself that he would do all he can to prevent RSA from becoming a North Rhodesia…
He joined 41 Battalion (SWA) [South West Africa] … and to this day it is with pride that he talks about his years served and that he gave every bit of his life for RSA and SWA.”
He sounds like a hoot, doesn't he?
So no decision today. Magistrate postponed. And I found out via @DKB20's attorney!
