One would think a nation that suffered so long under the oppressive yoke of apartheid rule would be more sensitive to the rampant discrimination of any demographic segment.
I suppose that makes too much sense to work in real life.
Perhaps. But in this case, one must perhaps also consider the social and political context; the South African Government, and more particularly the ANC are increasingly amoral, corrupt and self serving entities.
Add into the mix an ANC leader, and very likely (in a few weeks) next South African President who himself is an accused, tried and acquitted (IMHO incorrectly so) rapist whose upcoming, post election corruption trial has already been scheduled.
Given the debatable standards set by their leaders, it's perhaps no great leap to expect elements of South Africa's law enforcement agencies would exercise less a less than zealous persuit of justice when addressing such matters as this occuring among the mere citizenry. Especially those who are already exist the fringes of social acceptance.
Some of the other factors; cultural superstitions; simple homophobia, misguided beliefs rooted in ignorance and such like have already been touched upon by other posters. Considered togerher it's perhaps not so hard to see why 'sense' has not prevailed here. Not
yet anyway.
This issue, or rather, an analogue
came up a while back. I posted the quotation below close to three years ago, but I'm of the view that some of the same basic considerations may apply here too.
Stepping outside the religious context for a moment if I may, which after all is just one example of this kind of Human behaviour. I read some work by Paulo Freire on the 'relationship' between oppressor and oppressed in his work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", while he is I would say writing from a more socio-economic aspect, for me his ideas resonate here :
"Status, power, and domination of the oppressor are not possible without the existence of the oppressed. The oppressor is dehumanized by the act of oppression while the existential reality of oppression and the internalization of the image of the oppressor dehumanize the oppressed."
Freire defines oppressors as those who deny personal freedom and equality to others and deny them the power to fully direct their own lives.
Often the oppressed or those formerly oppressed (getting to your premise here at last) will attack members of their peer group. Ultimately they may become 'attracted' to their current or former oppressors behavour and may try to mimic it. They want to have what their oppressors have. People naturally want to have things and behave in ways they associate with happiness, success and power. They want to be 'like' their oppressors; simply because they believe this will provide all the components of happiness. Hence the cycle repeats.
Stepping back into the religious context, while the majority of Christians may consider themeselves true followers of Jesus (who demanded non-violence), many really worship what Walter Wink refers to as the “myth of redemptive violence.”
As a non 'practicing' Christian and it's not directed toward any individual I just found the following interesting; to quote from an article by the Clifton Unitarian Church :
"This myth speaks for God; it does not wait for God to speak… It misappropriates the language, symbols, and scriptures of Christianity. It does not seek God in order to change; it embraces God in order to prevent change. Its God is not the impartial ruler of all nations but a tribal god worshipped as an idol. Its metaphor is not the journey but the fortress. Its symbol is not the cross but the crosshairs of a gun. Its offer is not forgiveness but victory. Its good news is not the unconditional love of enemies but their final elimination..."
I think I alluded to this general way of thinking earlier. I can't say it's definitive of course. In any sociological issue as complex as this I doubt there are few if any absolutes.
