The
Journalist's Agenda
For:
Die Burger
Right
of Reply to “Die Bybelsmokkelaar se agenda”
Click here
for the Afrikaans version
From
the very first paragraph of “Die Bybelsmokkelaar
se Agenda” (Die Burger – 15/02/02), correspondent
Johan van Zyl showed that this was not going to be an
objective article, dealing with the issues, but rather
a personal attack upon myself.
“Die
Bybelsmokkelaar se Agenda” is packed full with sarcastic
and prejudiced comments, which have absolutely nothing
to do with anything. The article also contains many inaccuracies.
Despite what Johan van Zyl states in his article, I was
not born in Zimbabwe, nor was my arrest in Zambia in 1987
for “illegally entering the country”. I still
have the visa stamps in my passport of the time from the
Zambian Immigration officials. The Government of Zambia
later apologised for detaining us without any charge.
Nor
do I know where your reporter got the impression from
that I’ve used a Honda 250cc motorbike to ride to
Sudan!! Anyone who knows anything about motorbikes, and
basic geography, should know that it would be an exceedingly
time-consuming exercise to attempt to ride the 7000 km’s
from Cape Town to Sudan on a 250cc motorbike!
The
article ignores the facts presented in our new book “The
Pink Agenda – Sexual Revolution in South Africa and
the Ruin of the Family” and chooses instead
to attack the person. Rather than objectively dealing
with the issues, van Zyl goes overboard in emotive subjectivism.
He accuses our book of being selective and inaccurate.
Yet, he fails to point out any specific inaccuracies in
the book. However, this article “Die Bybelsmokkelaar
se Agenda” is itself an excellent example of selective
and inaccurate reporting.
Not
content with misquoting and mistranslating what I said
in the 2-hour interview, your journalist even descended
to putting words in my mouth and inventing and inserting
comments which I never made. Van Zyl claims that I will
not debate. However, I have regularly engaged in debates
at public meetings and on radio, and in fact enjoy a good
debate. (It is van Zyl who would not debate. Throughout
the interview, he gave the impression of agreeing with
my observations of how inconsistent the Film & Publications
Board ruling was, how hypocritical the calls for censorship
from the homosexual lobby have been, etc.) The whole purpose
of our book is to encourage open discussion and debate
on the subject. However, instead of openly discussing
and debating his point of view with me, face to face,
your correspondent has chosen rather to engage in deception
and publishing character assassination.
I
am accused of having smuggled weapons of war in the conflict
areas where we have been engaged in Bible distribution,
medical, evangelistic and relief ministries. This is completely
unsubstantiated slander. Over the last 20 years of serving
suffering people in restricted access areas, I’ve
smuggled in hundreds of thousands of Bibles and Christian
books, and many tonnes of medicines, agricultural and
educational materials - never weapons of war.
Van
Zyl’s allegation that United Christian Action, of
which we are members, and of which I have been an office
bearer, was a secret project of the former government
is a blatant fabrication and slander. The Truth &
Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, Volume two,
Chapter six is entitled “Special Investigation into
Secret State Funding”. It deals exhaustively with
the former government’s secret projects, naming the
projects of the defence force, foreign affairs, the police,
national intelligence and the education department. Nowhere
does United Christian Action appear.
Furthermore,
Van Zyl did not discuss this matter with me. Had he done
so, I would have been in a position to clarify it. Mr
van Zyl needs to either substantiate his accusation with
some specific evidence, or he must publicly retract this
slander.
My
co-author, Christine McCafferty, and myself are accused
of hate speech in our book - The
Pink Agenda. Yet the book specifically takes a stand
against violence and mistreatment of people engaged in
homosexuality, and encourages Christians to reach out
in Christian love to homosexuals in their community. The
last article of the book is from a former homosexual who
came to Christ, and who is a good friend of ours.
I
am described as being “a supporter” of
resistance movements, such as Unita and Renamo. However,
there is a huge difference between a missionary who evangelises
amongst a resistance movement, and a supporter of those
guerilla armies.
Not
that this has anything whatsoever to do with the book
in question – “The
Pink Agenda”. One wonders what Johan van
Zyl’s agenda is? And where he is coming from, when
he can describe pro-family groups such as Focus on the
Family, The Family Research Council and The Promise Keepers
as “the most radical leaders of right-wing, religious
groups …” If peaceful, pro-family, pro-life
ministries that encourage men to be faithful to their
wives, and to be devoted to their children, can be described
as “the most radical”, then I think it’s
time Die Burger purchased a dictionary for your correspondent.
Van
Zyl puts words in my mouth concerning Promise Keepers
– “goddelike weermag” and “geestelike
oorlogvoering”. I’ve never used these terms
concerning Promise Keepers, and I never discussed anything
of the sort during this interview. Another complete fabrication
of van Zyl’s was the quote attributed to me: “Suid
I do not believe that, and I’ve never said that.
Not during this interview, nor at any other occasion.
The
last two paragraphs of the article placed in quotes attributed
to me are such a jumble of selected misquotes, that they
bear no resemblance to what was actually said. One expects
journalists, like any other people, to reflect their biases
and preferences with what they select to report about,
and how. What one does not expect is complete fabrications
and inventing and inserting in quote marks comments never
made.
Van
Zyl attributes to me a quote in which I said that it doesn’t
matter what people do in their own bedrooms. What I actually
said was: ”what two people do alone behind closed
doors is between them and God – and that is no small
matter – but it is not a matter for the state. However,
what is taught in the public schools is a public concern”.
When
I described our mission as “multi-racial”, van
Zyl misquoted it as “multi-cultural”.
That is not the same thing. When I pointed out that the
vast majority of the population of Cape Town have not
been consulted and would not support Cape Town being marketed
as “the premier gay tourist destination in Africa”,
your correspondent inserted the word “God-fearing”
although I never used that word.
Van
Zyl quotes me as saying that I am “proud”
of our achievements, although I never used that word either.
I said: “we are encouraged by the lives saved through
our pro-life activities and by the store owners who have
responded to our campaign to take pornography off the
shelves”.
The
vast majority of the readers of Die Burger are Christians
who would oppose the radical homosexual agenda, and who
would be sympathetic and supportive of the pro-life and
pro-family stands made by Focus on the Family, The Promise
Keepers and Africa Christian Action. Do the staff of Die
Burger really want to antagonise and insult their Christian
readers with this kind of sorry excuse for journalism?
Instead
of attacking the person, it would be more appropriate
if somebody actually read and reviewed the book –
“The
Pink Agenda – Sexual Revolution in South Africa and
the Ruin of the Family”.
Yours
sincerely
Dr.
Peter Hammond
Related
articles:-
The Biblical Response
to Slander
