The University of Swaziland lecturer who proposes branding people who are HIV positive says he was misquoted by the Swazi Observer newspaper.
The remarks of Dr Eliot Tofa caused a storm of outrage when they were published on the front page of the newspaper. Even, his own university, the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) placed paid advertisements in Swazi newspapers to ‘disassociate’ themselves from Tofa.
Now Tofa has been in touch we me by telephone and email to say he was misrepresented by the Observer – and by extension, Swazi Media Commentary.
Tofa told me he does believe in branding the bodies of people who are HIV positive. It is just that they should be branded on a private part of their body and not somewhere that would be seen by the general public.
Tofa asked me to remove references to him from the website. I declined to do this but I said I would publish an email from him if he sent one.
Below is what he wrote.
'The essence of my article was that it is important that people disclose their HIV status to their partners before sex. This is the gist of my article. My argument is that the ABC in Africa and not Swaziland has achieved minimal benefits. Depite the knowledge about HIV and AIDS, people have not changed their sexual habits. The editor edited my work.
'I am asking you to take note of this in whatever you write.'
Doing nasty things to people with HIV and AIDS is not a new suggestion in Swaziland. Stephen Donaghy of the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations pointed out to me a news report that said people with HIV and AIDS should be put in isolation camps.
Donaghy says ‘it is old news but still shocking.’ Which it is.
The report from the BBC in 2000 begins,
‘An adviser to the Swazi monarch has shocked health workers at a conference in Swaziland after he proposed an isolation camp for HIV and Aids sufferers.
‘Tfohlongwane Dlamini, the influential chairman of the National Council Standing Committee, told delegates that the only way to prevent the spread of the disease was through isolating the victims.
‘“These people should be kept in their own special place if we want to curb the spread of this disease,” he said.
‘Mr Dlamini described the sufferers as “bad potatoes” and said they must be removed from general society or else “all will go rotten”’.
You can read the full report here.
Showing posts with label Tofa Eliot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tofa Eliot. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Sunday, 1 June 2008
SWAZI VARSITY DISOWNS HIV BIGOT
The University of Swaziland (UNISWA) has disowned its own lecturer who said that people who are HIV positive should be branded on their bodies so that other people could identify them.
There was an outcry of condemnation after Dr Eliot Tofa, made his comments in the Swazi Observer.
Now the university has publicly disowned Tofa. In an advertisement carried in both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer (both 30 May 2008), UNISWA says it ‘would like to disassociate itself from the statements and articles written by one of its employees, Dr E. Tofa, which appeared in one of the local dailies last week. The views expressed in the said article were personal and do not reflect those of the university.
‘However, the university subscribes to the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression.’
The move by the university is probably unprecedented. I cannot remember anything remotely similar happening.
It is not clear who at the university made this decision. The advertisement is signed by the UNISWA acting registrar, but to my knowledge neither the university senate nor Tofa’s faculty have discussed the matter (I am a member of both boards).
The university joins a number of people and organisations that have condemned Tofa. In a poll published in the Observer, 99 per cent of those who took part said Tofa was wrong.
I am absolutely certain that we should condemn Tofa, but I am less sure that the university should. The statement that the university ‘subscribes to the principle of academic freedom’ rings a bit hollow. Perhaps, UNISWA should support both the principle and practice of academic freedom and use facts and debate to argue against Tofa and not to simply ‘disassociate’ itself from him.
See also
SWAZI HIV BRANDING ROW GOES ON
There was an outcry of condemnation after Dr Eliot Tofa, made his comments in the Swazi Observer.
Now the university has publicly disowned Tofa. In an advertisement carried in both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer (both 30 May 2008), UNISWA says it ‘would like to disassociate itself from the statements and articles written by one of its employees, Dr E. Tofa, which appeared in one of the local dailies last week. The views expressed in the said article were personal and do not reflect those of the university.
‘However, the university subscribes to the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression.’
The move by the university is probably unprecedented. I cannot remember anything remotely similar happening.
It is not clear who at the university made this decision. The advertisement is signed by the UNISWA acting registrar, but to my knowledge neither the university senate nor Tofa’s faculty have discussed the matter (I am a member of both boards).
The university joins a number of people and organisations that have condemned Tofa. In a poll published in the Observer, 99 per cent of those who took part said Tofa was wrong.
I am absolutely certain that we should condemn Tofa, but I am less sure that the university should. The statement that the university ‘subscribes to the principle of academic freedom’ rings a bit hollow. Perhaps, UNISWA should support both the principle and practice of academic freedom and use facts and debate to argue against Tofa and not to simply ‘disassociate’ itself from him.
See also
SWAZI HIV BRANDING ROW GOES ON
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
SWAZI HIV BRANDING ROW GOES ON
Pressure is mounting for the university lecturer who said that people who are HIV positive should be branded on their bodies so that others could tell who they were to withdraw his remarks.
But Dr Eliot Tofa, writing in the Swazi Observer yesterday (26 May 2008), says, ‘I did nothing wrong’.
The controversy started last Wednesday (21 May 2008) when the Observer published Tofa’s remarks on its front page.
Since then reaction has been almost totally against him. The Observer ran a poll asking ‘is Dr Eliot Tofa right in suggesting that HIV positive people should be branded to control the spread of AIDS?’ A total of 99 percent of the 2829 people who responded to the poll said he was wrong.
The Swaziland Aids Support Organisation (SASO) condemned Tofa’s remarks as ‘senseless’. The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (26 May 2008) SASO saying that ‘his statement was tantamount to blatant stigmatisation and called upon him to withdraw it forthwith’.
SASO representative Vusi Matsebula is quoted saying,
‘If the branding of people living with HIV is done, it should start with Dr Tofa himself. He should know that the people living with HIV are in a situation they did not wish to be in and as such they should not be stigmatised.’
Bongane Zwane, writing in her column in the Weekend Observer (24 May 2008), said that ‘the whole country is abuzz with comments’ after Tofa’s first article. Some were angry because he seemed to be suggesting that people who were HIV positive had brought it upon themselves.
All this prompted Zwane to comment,
‘Dr Eliot Tofa should be stopped. His utterances have taken us back to the dark ages and quite frankly he must just shut up. While we live in a society that encourages freedom of expression, we also need to recognise that all freedoms come with responsibilities.’
Dr Tofa, himself writing in the Observer yesterday makes some attempt to further explain his reasons for making the original statement. As I wrote on Friday (23 May 2008) Dr Tofa’s commands of reasoning and of the English language are poor and it is difficult to follow his arguments. In his latest article he seems to be saying that he is in favour of the ABC principle of HIV avoidance (abstinence, be faithful, use a condom), but I honestly can’t be sure.
What the Observer has still not told its readers is why it felt Tofa’s views on HIV were worth reporting. Tofa is a lecturer in the Theology and Religious Studies Department of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) and has no obvious expertise in the subject of HIV. Nor, has the Observer come out with a clear statement as to what the newspaper’s own position is regarding the branding of HIV people.
Tofa’s comments have become a national talking point – the Observer owes it to its readers to answer these questions.
See also
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ HIV HATRED UPDATE
But Dr Eliot Tofa, writing in the Swazi Observer yesterday (26 May 2008), says, ‘I did nothing wrong’.
The controversy started last Wednesday (21 May 2008) when the Observer published Tofa’s remarks on its front page.
Since then reaction has been almost totally against him. The Observer ran a poll asking ‘is Dr Eliot Tofa right in suggesting that HIV positive people should be branded to control the spread of AIDS?’ A total of 99 percent of the 2829 people who responded to the poll said he was wrong.
The Swaziland Aids Support Organisation (SASO) condemned Tofa’s remarks as ‘senseless’. The Times of Swaziland reported yesterday (26 May 2008) SASO saying that ‘his statement was tantamount to blatant stigmatisation and called upon him to withdraw it forthwith’.
SASO representative Vusi Matsebula is quoted saying,
‘If the branding of people living with HIV is done, it should start with Dr Tofa himself. He should know that the people living with HIV are in a situation they did not wish to be in and as such they should not be stigmatised.’
Bongane Zwane, writing in her column in the Weekend Observer (24 May 2008), said that ‘the whole country is abuzz with comments’ after Tofa’s first article. Some were angry because he seemed to be suggesting that people who were HIV positive had brought it upon themselves.
All this prompted Zwane to comment,
‘Dr Eliot Tofa should be stopped. His utterances have taken us back to the dark ages and quite frankly he must just shut up. While we live in a society that encourages freedom of expression, we also need to recognise that all freedoms come with responsibilities.’
Dr Tofa, himself writing in the Observer yesterday makes some attempt to further explain his reasons for making the original statement. As I wrote on Friday (23 May 2008) Dr Tofa’s commands of reasoning and of the English language are poor and it is difficult to follow his arguments. In his latest article he seems to be saying that he is in favour of the ABC principle of HIV avoidance (abstinence, be faithful, use a condom), but I honestly can’t be sure.
What the Observer has still not told its readers is why it felt Tofa’s views on HIV were worth reporting. Tofa is a lecturer in the Theology and Religious Studies Department of the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) and has no obvious expertise in the subject of HIV. Nor, has the Observer come out with a clear statement as to what the newspaper’s own position is regarding the branding of HIV people.
Tofa’s comments have become a national talking point – the Observer owes it to its readers to answer these questions.
See also
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ HIV HATRED UPDATE
Friday, 23 May 2008
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ HIV HATRED UPDATE
The Swazi Observer has repeated the advice that people who are HIV positive should have marks branded on their bodies to advertise the fact.
The Observer yesterday (Thursday 22 May 2008) gave a full page to university lecturer Dr Eliot Tofa to repeat his hatred on the subject. I wrote yesterday that the Observer had reported Tofa’s remarks on its front page on Wednesday.
This time the newspaper has given him more space to expand on the subject. I’d like to give you details of Tofa’s ‘argument’ but his reasoning (as well as his command of the English language) is so confused that it is impossible to follow the detail.
What is clear is that Tofa believes that all means of HIV prevention have failed so far and his plan is the way to save Swaziland from the virus.
Even though the Observer has now devoted two days to Tofa, the newspaper has failed to explain to its readers who he is. We know that he is a lecturer in the Theology and Religious Studies Department at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA), but we don’t know what his expertise is in HIV AIDS. Nor do we know why the Observer thinks his views are worth publishing at this time.
As well as repeating Tofa’s comments, the Observer published some reaction on his views from the newspaper’s readers.
They are all critical of Tofa – and some are almost as extreme as he is himself.
One writer says Tofa should be ‘lynched’. Another notes that Tofa is not a Swazi and ‘not from our shores’ and is bringing unwelcome ‘exotic’ ideas. Another likens Tofa’s attitudes to people with HIV to those of Adolf Hitler and the Jews.
What both Tofa’s arguments and the reactions to it show is that it is very difficult to get reasoned argument in Swaziland’s newspapers. People take extreme views and in effect shout at one another across a great divide.
I don’t want to be one of the shouters, but can I (in a reasonable tone of voice) ask the Observer to share with us the background to this story. Who is Tofa and why is the newspaper giving such space to his views? And what stance does the Observer itself take on branding of HIV positive people?
See also
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ HIV HATRED
The Observer yesterday (Thursday 22 May 2008) gave a full page to university lecturer Dr Eliot Tofa to repeat his hatred on the subject. I wrote yesterday that the Observer had reported Tofa’s remarks on its front page on Wednesday.
This time the newspaper has given him more space to expand on the subject. I’d like to give you details of Tofa’s ‘argument’ but his reasoning (as well as his command of the English language) is so confused that it is impossible to follow the detail.
What is clear is that Tofa believes that all means of HIV prevention have failed so far and his plan is the way to save Swaziland from the virus.
Even though the Observer has now devoted two days to Tofa, the newspaper has failed to explain to its readers who he is. We know that he is a lecturer in the Theology and Religious Studies Department at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA), but we don’t know what his expertise is in HIV AIDS. Nor do we know why the Observer thinks his views are worth publishing at this time.
As well as repeating Tofa’s comments, the Observer published some reaction on his views from the newspaper’s readers.
They are all critical of Tofa – and some are almost as extreme as he is himself.
One writer says Tofa should be ‘lynched’. Another notes that Tofa is not a Swazi and ‘not from our shores’ and is bringing unwelcome ‘exotic’ ideas. Another likens Tofa’s attitudes to people with HIV to those of Adolf Hitler and the Jews.
What both Tofa’s arguments and the reactions to it show is that it is very difficult to get reasoned argument in Swaziland’s newspapers. People take extreme views and in effect shout at one another across a great divide.
I don’t want to be one of the shouters, but can I (in a reasonable tone of voice) ask the Observer to share with us the background to this story. Who is Tofa and why is the newspaper giving such space to his views? And what stance does the Observer itself take on branding of HIV positive people?
See also
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ HIV HATRED
Thursday, 22 May 2008
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ HIV HATRED
The Swazi Observer made a terrible mistake when it published on its front page a call for all HIV positive people to be branded on their bodies so people could tell they had the virus.
The Observer yesterday (Wednesday 21 May 2008) quoted a university lecturer Dr Eliot Tofa saying that preventative interventions to stop the spread of HIV in Swaziland had so far failed. He said that people who were HIV positive should be branded on the back or thigh so that other people would know not to have sex with them.
Tofa went so far as to quote Genesis in the Bible in support of his absurd idea. Have you noticed how many bigots in Swaziland resort to Genesis or other Old Testament books to give spurious credence to their nonsense?
There was absolutely no reason for the Observer to publish this report. Tofa was not speaking at any public arena, nor had he published an academic paper or book on the topic. For all we know he may have made his comments in a bar after ten bottles of beer.
Tofa is a lecturer in the Theology and Religious Studies Department at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) so he doesn’t even appear to have any special expertise on the subject of HIV and AIDS.
The Observer therefore had no justification for publishing the comments that amount to hate speech.
The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) has a code of conduct that expressly cautions journalists against spreading hate speech. Article 13 of the code says that ‘journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict’. Tofa’s remarks clearly hold up HIV positive people to hatred. How else can you interpret the call for them to be branded so everyone else can easily spot them?
There is no justification for publishing this report, unless the Observer itself supports the view and wanted an excuse to preach to the public. I’d like to think this isn’t the case, but we must remember that it was the Observer that gave a full page to the hate group Prolife Movement in Anglophone Africa in February 2008 to peddle its nonsense about HIV AIDS, homosexuals, feminism and abortion.
Is this connection coincidental or does the Observer have a hidden agenda?
The Observer made a small attempt at balance yesterday by reporting the response of the Swaziland Network of People Living With HIV and AIDS (SWANNEPHA) to Tofa.
SWANNEPHA Director, Thembi Nkambule called his views ‘Stone Age’ and ‘illiterate’.
But by the time SWANNEPHA was interviewed, the damage was already done.
See also
‘OBSERVER’ BACKS SWAZI HATE GROUP
The Observer yesterday (Wednesday 21 May 2008) quoted a university lecturer Dr Eliot Tofa saying that preventative interventions to stop the spread of HIV in Swaziland had so far failed. He said that people who were HIV positive should be branded on the back or thigh so that other people would know not to have sex with them.
Tofa went so far as to quote Genesis in the Bible in support of his absurd idea. Have you noticed how many bigots in Swaziland resort to Genesis or other Old Testament books to give spurious credence to their nonsense?
There was absolutely no reason for the Observer to publish this report. Tofa was not speaking at any public arena, nor had he published an academic paper or book on the topic. For all we know he may have made his comments in a bar after ten bottles of beer.
Tofa is a lecturer in the Theology and Religious Studies Department at the University of Swaziland (UNISWA) so he doesn’t even appear to have any special expertise on the subject of HIV and AIDS.
The Observer therefore had no justification for publishing the comments that amount to hate speech.
The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) has a code of conduct that expressly cautions journalists against spreading hate speech. Article 13 of the code says that ‘journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict’. Tofa’s remarks clearly hold up HIV positive people to hatred. How else can you interpret the call for them to be branded so everyone else can easily spot them?
There is no justification for publishing this report, unless the Observer itself supports the view and wanted an excuse to preach to the public. I’d like to think this isn’t the case, but we must remember that it was the Observer that gave a full page to the hate group Prolife Movement in Anglophone Africa in February 2008 to peddle its nonsense about HIV AIDS, homosexuals, feminism and abortion.
Is this connection coincidental or does the Observer have a hidden agenda?
The Observer made a small attempt at balance yesterday by reporting the response of the Swaziland Network of People Living With HIV and AIDS (SWANNEPHA) to Tofa.
SWANNEPHA Director, Thembi Nkambule called his views ‘Stone Age’ and ‘illiterate’.
But by the time SWANNEPHA was interviewed, the damage was already done.
See also
‘OBSERVER’ BACKS SWAZI HATE GROUP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)