Tycoon flies in barrister to defend Schalk Burger

From The Times.co.za:
Craig Ray Published:Sep 13, 2007

A top London QC was flown to Paris yesterday — on South African tycoon Johann Rupert’s private jet — to defend Schalk Burger in the Bok star’s appeal against a four-match Rugby World Cup suspension.

John McCochran, a senior British barrister, will argue Burger’s case early today at a special hearing in the French capital.

He was flown across the channel in the luxury jet of Stellenbosch billionaire Rupert, chairman of the Swiss-based but SA-rooted Richemont luxury goods group. Rupert is a close friend of Burger’s father, Schalk senior, and a strong backer of Bok coach Jake White.

Burger was given a four-game suspension at a disciplinary hearing in Paris, which lasted until midnight on Tuesday. He had been cited by match commissioner Douglas Hines for an allegedly dangerous tackle on Samoan scrumhalf Junior Polu during Sunday’s match which the Boks won 59-7.

Burger was penalised by referee Paul Honiss — but Rugby World Cup citing rules allow for him to be punished twice for the same offence.

The four-game ban has angered White, whose initial reaction was to consider withdrawing the Boks from the tournament. White said the punishment smacked of a “smear campaign” against the Boks.

“I was so angry … my initial reaction was to withdraw the team and come home,” White told The Times. “There appears to be a bias against the Springboks because I saw much worse this weekend [in World Cup matches].”

Unless McCochran persuades the appeal board to overturn the ban, Burger will be ruled out of the World Cup until the semifinals, if the Boks progress to that stage.

Burger was the third player at this World Cup to be hit with a ban.

The others were England captain Phil Vickery, who will not contest his two-match ban for tripping US centre Phil Emerick, and Emerick himself, who was banned for five games for a spear tackle on England flyhalf Olly Barkley.

White contrasted Burger’s heavy punishment with Vickery’s light sentence.

“Phil Vickery received only a two-match ban for kicking an opponent — how is it possible that Schalk gets four weeks for contesting the ball? And [Samoan player] Brian Lima wasn’t even cited, even though he nearly took Andre Pretorius’ head off with a tackle in which he didn’t use his arms.

“ The judicial officer [Terry Willis] was an Australian and we might play Australia in the quarterfinals. What does that suggest?

“There is clearly a campaign against the Springboks.”

Hang 'em High

Investec did a recruitment drive once and we were a group of graduates asked to debate whether capital punishment was justifiable. My argument was 'almost never'.

Here is an example of what may be an exeption to the rule: (click on the above title to link to Afrikaans story)
Ziqhu is a dude that worked as a storeman at a local air force base. He raped 12 girls (all under the age of 15 years old, the youngest was 10) despite knowing he had HIV. 2 of his victims now have the HIV virus.

Now one could posit a few mitigating arguments, but the bottom line is:
- he raped all 12
- he knew he had AIDS

It makes me uncomfortable to hear that he listened to his sentence being passed 'showing no emotion'. Perhaps if he was given the death penalty he might have registered some sort of human response, like, "Maybe I made a mistake. Maybe, you know, I hurt someone."

The value of the death penalty in his case will also be to warn similar monsters from committing the same dastardly deeds, and if you think it is not necessary, have a look at South Africa's holocaust like rape and AIDS statistics. So what if he was given 12 life sentences, he will only serve one. He could be given 1000 life sentences, but effectively it is a meaningless punishment. The death penalty is a barbaric way to control elements of barbarism in society. It is not an ideal measure, of course it isn't, but then our society is far from ideal. And of course, in a more ideal (law abiding) society, even with the death penalty in place, it would never be used.

Human beings though, seem to me, to thrive on incentive. In schools it is so obvious: where corporal punishment does not exist, students simply don't have the capacity to know how to behave themselves.

In muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Malaysia, limbs can be cut off for anything from drug smuggling to adultery, (something I consider extreme) yet we also see a very high degree of morality. My point is that to rapidly inculcate a sense of honesty and honor in a lawless society, you have to fight fire to some degree, with fire. Those who accept 12 life sentences as a 'just' punishment are really just fooling themselves. Two of those girls will now slowly be consumed with a deadly disease forced into them. This tragedy happens because human rights and value for the human being are wrongly attributed to all, and thus in this case also specifically to the perpetrator, rather than with due diligence and circumspection to those in society who earn and deserve them (the innocent majority of civilians).

On the issue of abortion we also like to make sweeping moral codes for ourselves. Naturally abortion depends on context. Maybe most of us are just too tired to think, so we give ourselves generalised laws to paint giant brush strokes over the details, and feel better about ourselves, thinking the world is safer. It's not. No, the details of human beings and how differently they live their lives are important, and each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

Pfizer to go bankrupt?

Meningitis: FG sues Pfizer $700bn * Over deaths of 200 children in 1996
By Ise-Oluwa IgePosted to the Web: Tuesday, June 05, 2007

ABUJA—The Federal Government has sued the world largest pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, before a Federal high court sitting in Abuja for allegedly maiming or and killing in 1996, not fewer than 200 children afflicted in Kano state by bacterial meningitis through alleged illegal experimentation of its products, Trovafloxacin Mesylate, (Trovan) on them.

The government is asking the court to award $700billion damages against the pharmaceutical firm.If the damages is awarded, it is capable of closing down the operation of the pharmaceutical firm.In the writ of summons filed at the registry of the high court, nine other persons including the medical personnel that allegedly administered the Trovan on the victims for the purpose of testing the potency of the drug, were named as co-defendants.

They include Pfizer Nigeria Limited, William Steere, Samuel Ohanbuwa, A Dogunro, Isa Dutse, Scott Hopkin, Mike Dunne, Debra Williams and Robert Buhl.But the management of the Pfizer International Incorporated has served a notice through its counsel, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) that it would challenge the competence of the entire case and collapse the claim by the Federal Government.

Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) who appeared personally in the case yesterday also requested for an accelerated hearing of the case.He particularly said in court yesterday that the damages being sought by the Federal Government was more than its annual budget and that it should not have any problem with the accelerated hearing of the case so that it could claim the sought damages.
The trial high court judge, Justice Babs Kuewumi hearing the case has granted the request for accelerated hearing of the suit and has ordered the government to furnish the firm. all relevant papers in the matter.

The matter is scheduled for mention on June 26, this year while full blown trial kicks off in July. The background of the case as captured by the statement of claim filed by the Federal Government was that on or about the month of April 1996, there was an epidemic of bacterial meningitis, measles and cholera in parts of Northern Nigeria particularly Kano State and some of the victims and/or patients were receiving medical attention at the Infectious Diseases Hospital (IDH) through the joint efforts of the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Kano State Government of Nigeria.

The joint efforts of the Federal Government and the Kano State Government to combat and contain the epidemic were complemented by the humanitarian assistance and supplies donated by Non- governmental Organizations including Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), the Nobel Prize-winning humanitarian relief organization also known as “Doctors Without Borders”.
The epidemic was extremely ravaging and as such there was a limitation of space and resources which limitation led to MSF setting up its tent on the grounds of the IDH from where it attended to the patients and/or victims.

The Federal Government contends that in the midst of the epidemic, Pfizer, acting by itself and through its agents, devised a scheme under which it misrepresented, concealed and failed to disclose its primary motive in seeking to participate in giving care to the victims of the epidemic in Kano .