Opinion / Columnist
Coltart crying more than the bereaved
04 Dec 2015 at 13:51hrs | Views
It is a fact that Zimbabweans fought for their independence as a move to create the good environment for everyone to walk and talk freely in the independent Zimbabwe without fear of any arrest that might befall anyone unexpectedly. As such people like David Coltart, an MDC-N member should realise that he is not qualified to lecture Zimbabweans on issues to do with human rights defenders. Actually he failed to do that during the armed struggle when he was supposed to have done that.
Coltart is quite aware that the armed struggle which was launched in the country more than half a century ago was as a result of having no human rights defenders in the country and Zimbabweans wanted equal access to anything in the country. Actually Coltart fought vigorously against those who sought to have a free Zimbabwe with everyone move freely. As a captain in the Rhodesian Front army during the armed struggle, Coltart fought vigorously against the liberation fighters because he wanted the majority of people to remain under the Ian Douglas Smith regime`s oppression.
Surprisingly the same Coltart who failed to defend the rights of some black people during the armed struggle wants to lecture the same on what he failed to do. It is naïve and uncalled for, for people like Coltart to cry more than the bereaved when he failed to do that during the time when he had power and time to do so.
For those on the dark over this issue, Coltart recently came out on his twitter account blazing and blasting the government in conjunction with about fourteen (14) United Nations (UN) members for voting against the UN General Assembly resolution on Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) claiming that without human rights defenders in the 1970s many of the current ZANU PF leaders would never have been defended. Coltart sought to tell the people that Zimbabwe was wrong to join those who voted against that resolution as the countries feared that it would be under spotlight. He failed to tell his followers that even though Zimbabwe voted against that resolution but still the country has been receiving barrage of attacks from the same.
Coltart needs to realise that the black indigenous people were driven out of their land by Coltart`s forefathers and where were they those human right defenders whom Coltart is talking about. Actually Coltart knows quite well that during his time working as a captain in the Rhodesian army he and his colleagues' enacted laws which made it difficult for indigenous people to walk freely in their country. For example a black man/woman was not allowed to walk freely in First Street, Harare as only whites were allowed to do so. So what type of the human rights defenders of the 1970s is he talking about if the same were allowing racial segregation to go unchecked during that time?
Why was it good for Coltart and his friends to institute laws which were discriminatory when it was necessary for the so called human rights defenders to defend those who were racially discriminated from walking freely in their country? Actually Coltart should applaud the government for voting against that resolution as the so called human rights defenders have of late failed to really do their expected work but have turned political. Close analysis of the so called human rights defenders have shown that they are only making noise in developing countries failing to do the same on developed countries.
The fourteen members who voted against that resolution with forty of them abstaining had some reason of doing that and Coltart needs to be analytical in his views. Zimbabwe did quite well by voting against that resolutions because the same country has been under attack from those so called human rights defenders since the time the country launched the land reform program. Those so called human rights defenders have been crying foul saying that Zimbabwe does not recognise property rights yet the same people failed to stop the colonial rulers from driving the indigenous people from their fertile land to infertile land when they were supposed to act accordingly.
Coltart needs to realise that those so called human rights defenders failed in 2003, to stop George Bush and Tony Blair then USA and UK leaders respectively from bombing Iraq with innocent people killed. A lot of people were killed in Iraq by the brutal armies of the USA and the UK but the so called human rights defenders kept quiet yet they only rush to developing countries to make unnecessary noise. Actually the developed countries have been abusing human rights with the so called human rights defenders doing nothing to stop.
In fact the way how the so called human rights defenders are doing of choosing to make noise on developing countries failing to do the same with developed countries is similar to what the International Criminal Court(ICC) is doing to African leaders. The ICC since its formation has never indicted leaders from the developed countries to appear before it although they could have launched wars that ended up killing innocent souls but the ICC keeps a blind eye on them.
African leaders have been put under surveillance by this ICC thing although they have done nothing that overtakes what the leaders of the developed countries could have done. George Bush and Tony Blair are true candidates for that ICC but today only Charles Taylor the former Liberian leader who was alleged to have killed innocent souls in Sierra Leorne has been convicted and now serving his sentence in the UK. Currently leaders like Omar Al Bashir of Sudan, Vice President of Kenya William Ruto and a host of other African leaders are being either under surveillance from ICC waiting for the opportune time to be arrested or are some already facing various charges before the ICC.
So Zimbabwe and those countries which voted against the resolution of the UN General Assembly Human Rights Defenders were right to do so as they did not want to create another ICC inform of the HRDs. For that reason Coltart should realise that Zimbabwe was correct for countering that incoming dinosaur before allowing it as it was going to devour the country.
Coltart is quite aware that the armed struggle which was launched in the country more than half a century ago was as a result of having no human rights defenders in the country and Zimbabweans wanted equal access to anything in the country. Actually Coltart fought vigorously against those who sought to have a free Zimbabwe with everyone move freely. As a captain in the Rhodesian Front army during the armed struggle, Coltart fought vigorously against the liberation fighters because he wanted the majority of people to remain under the Ian Douglas Smith regime`s oppression.
Surprisingly the same Coltart who failed to defend the rights of some black people during the armed struggle wants to lecture the same on what he failed to do. It is naïve and uncalled for, for people like Coltart to cry more than the bereaved when he failed to do that during the time when he had power and time to do so.
For those on the dark over this issue, Coltart recently came out on his twitter account blazing and blasting the government in conjunction with about fourteen (14) United Nations (UN) members for voting against the UN General Assembly resolution on Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) claiming that without human rights defenders in the 1970s many of the current ZANU PF leaders would never have been defended. Coltart sought to tell the people that Zimbabwe was wrong to join those who voted against that resolution as the countries feared that it would be under spotlight. He failed to tell his followers that even though Zimbabwe voted against that resolution but still the country has been receiving barrage of attacks from the same.
Coltart needs to realise that the black indigenous people were driven out of their land by Coltart`s forefathers and where were they those human right defenders whom Coltart is talking about. Actually Coltart knows quite well that during his time working as a captain in the Rhodesian army he and his colleagues' enacted laws which made it difficult for indigenous people to walk freely in their country. For example a black man/woman was not allowed to walk freely in First Street, Harare as only whites were allowed to do so. So what type of the human rights defenders of the 1970s is he talking about if the same were allowing racial segregation to go unchecked during that time?
Why was it good for Coltart and his friends to institute laws which were discriminatory when it was necessary for the so called human rights defenders to defend those who were racially discriminated from walking freely in their country? Actually Coltart should applaud the government for voting against that resolution as the so called human rights defenders have of late failed to really do their expected work but have turned political. Close analysis of the so called human rights defenders have shown that they are only making noise in developing countries failing to do the same on developed countries.
The fourteen members who voted against that resolution with forty of them abstaining had some reason of doing that and Coltart needs to be analytical in his views. Zimbabwe did quite well by voting against that resolutions because the same country has been under attack from those so called human rights defenders since the time the country launched the land reform program. Those so called human rights defenders have been crying foul saying that Zimbabwe does not recognise property rights yet the same people failed to stop the colonial rulers from driving the indigenous people from their fertile land to infertile land when they were supposed to act accordingly.
Coltart needs to realise that those so called human rights defenders failed in 2003, to stop George Bush and Tony Blair then USA and UK leaders respectively from bombing Iraq with innocent people killed. A lot of people were killed in Iraq by the brutal armies of the USA and the UK but the so called human rights defenders kept quiet yet they only rush to developing countries to make unnecessary noise. Actually the developed countries have been abusing human rights with the so called human rights defenders doing nothing to stop.
In fact the way how the so called human rights defenders are doing of choosing to make noise on developing countries failing to do the same with developed countries is similar to what the International Criminal Court(ICC) is doing to African leaders. The ICC since its formation has never indicted leaders from the developed countries to appear before it although they could have launched wars that ended up killing innocent souls but the ICC keeps a blind eye on them.
African leaders have been put under surveillance by this ICC thing although they have done nothing that overtakes what the leaders of the developed countries could have done. George Bush and Tony Blair are true candidates for that ICC but today only Charles Taylor the former Liberian leader who was alleged to have killed innocent souls in Sierra Leorne has been convicted and now serving his sentence in the UK. Currently leaders like Omar Al Bashir of Sudan, Vice President of Kenya William Ruto and a host of other African leaders are being either under surveillance from ICC waiting for the opportune time to be arrested or are some already facing various charges before the ICC.
So Zimbabwe and those countries which voted against the resolution of the UN General Assembly Human Rights Defenders were right to do so as they did not want to create another ICC inform of the HRDs. For that reason Coltart should realise that Zimbabwe was correct for countering that incoming dinosaur before allowing it as it was going to devour the country.
Source - John Mukumbo
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
