Why can't Grindrod just let it go?
Simon Grindrod must have been really upset by the claims that he had paid for sex with the mysterious "male prostitute". Instead of just letting it go, he has now stated that he would be "merciless" in trying to track the blogger.
"We must use every means possible to find and track down this individual."My question remains: why is it so important Simon? By making this into such a big deal, Mr Grindrod is creating the impression that he is rather touchy on the subject of his own sexuality. A more suspicious person than myself would begin to wonder whether Grindrod does not have something to hide. Does he perhaps suffer from internalized homophobia and is he perhaps gay?
By pursuing the matter "mercilessly", he also runs the risk of appearing thin-skinned, prissy and vindictive. We now all know that the author of the Blog is an unstable publicity seeker, so few people would take the claims on the Blog seriously.
If Mr Grindrod had more political sense, he would just let sleeping dogs lie. By making such a fuss he is creating more suspicion than he might think.
Subscribe to constitutionally speaking
8 comments:
I do not believe Simon Grindrod knows Juan Uys. Grindrod laid charges at the Cape Town police against Juan Uys months back and there was a photograph of Juan Uys circulating at that time. No he would have known it will come back and bite him in the ass.
No Simon Grindrod is an opportunistic politician who was the opportunity to be the hero in this case. He enjoy playing the media game. It is well known that he bombard them with letters all the time. One newspaper letter editor said they delete his letters most of the time, just when they don't have things to publish will they use it.
I also think Simon Grindrod was hurt by this accusations. It is possible that he doesn't want talk about his sexuality and I don't even want to go there because I don't care about the sexual orientation of a politician. He must be honest. By the way that's my reason for not supporting the ID, I see little honesty (my personal opinion).
I believe that Juan Uys must be exposed. The reason is that he single handily got it right for a senior politician to call into regulation of blogs and there was no outcry from any other political party or even the FXI.
I have seen his other websites, they are more explosive and could have more people in power start to consider the regulation of the internet in South Africa.
I feel there are a number of issues here. Firstly Grindrod has arguably not added much to the political debate in South Africa and secondly this is the second time that Grindrod has seen fit to involve himself in the so called Gay War in Cape Town. On the first point I maintain that Grindrod is no more tham a publicity seeker which would seem also to be the case with the Crime Expo site where his claim was patriotism. Yet in the Crime Expo case even the ANC are admitting that there is a major crime problem whereas 9/10 months ago they and Grindrod were in denial. Also the alleged author of this site is reputedly gay and his fierce oponents were Pieter Boshoff ( also allegedly gay) and Grindrod.Cape Tourism is allegedly run by the homosexual fraternity and Grindrod was resposibe for Tourism at one stage.
No smoke without fire,I say, but if Grindrod is homosexual he should just say so as many others do.It is not against the Law to be gay but Grindrod's position seems that it is against his better judgement if not morality.
What is wrong for being gay? I heard someone make this statement "Never before have so many hetrosexual men been so scared of so few homosexual men"
I am involved in many gay and lesbian organisations. I know none of the organisations have anything good to say about Juan Uys. I dont know the Boshoff guy but I know Cape Tourism. According to your statemaent "Cape Tourism is allegedly run by the homosexual fraternity" I wonder where you get that information. They had a CEO for 3 months that was a well known in the gay community. Noone else in the management there is gay as far as I know it.
So Vodacom has a white afrikaans speaking man as a Chief Opperating Officer. Does that say Vodacom is tun by the Boers?
Wake up my friend. Life is full of wonderful people some of them are gay, some straight, some black and some white and there must be a few (I say few) nice politicians, just havent met them
Surely being gay should be completely irrelevant - whether one is a politician or the head of the Tourism board. What is relevant in this story is that a complete shyster like Juan Uys has made claims about a politician who has now overreacted because he obviously has issues.
This is not the first time the ID have wasted the precious time of the South African Police Service by running to Cape Town Central SAPS to grab yet another 15 minutes of fame.
All these criminal charges are just feeble attempts at political exposure.
Next time you are robbed in Cape Town and wonder where the police are... just pop in to auntie Pat's... I'm sure you'll find them there...
And as for Simon... how does that old saying go about protesting too much?
I don't care who politicians sleep with, so to me it makes no difference either way. But I can imagine that the claims made about Grindrod are upsetting to him, not because they suggest that he's homosexual, but because he is accused of having paid for sex, which is frowned about even by most people who approve of homosexuality.
As a heterosexual, I for one would be quite upset if some woman suddenly claimed, falsely, that I had sex with her and paid for it. In fact, it would upset me even if the claim were true.
Personally I have no experience of the industry in question but I assume there is some unwritten agreement, comparable to the rule of confidentiality obtaining in the professions like medicine, law, counseling or the ministry that the names of those making use of the service will not be divulged.
Surely, if such a rule did not exist very few people would visit prostitutes of either sex?
Or am I just being incredibly naive?
Gerrit, interesting point! Because the contract is illegal there is no legal duty of confidentiality but probably a "gentlemen's agreement". I understand - given the prejudice in society - that few men would want to have it known that they made use of the services of a sex worker. My (libertarian) point of view is that it should not matter unless one subscribes to a very rigid morality...
Now Simon Grindrod plans to marry his coloured secretary on 15/12/07. If that's not a cover up of his sexuality, please tell me what is!!
And to choose someone of colour, now that's a smart political move!
Post a Comment