Goldstone Gone

Sharing in the guilt
Sir, - My association with Richard Goldstone was not "somewhat limited" ("Goldstone's human rights record," Letters, September 1). I frequently used his legal services until I left South Africa in 1973, and 10 years ago he was kind enough to write the introduction to a book of mine. I regarded him as a friend and there was certainly no animus on my part in writing a letter which I would have preferred not to write had I not thought the matter sufficiently serious.
My simple point, which Henry Shakenovsky's letter does not address, is that anybody who took part in carrying out the unjust and immoral laws which were an inherent part of the apartheid system shares in the guilt. A person who acted as a judge when 80 percent of the population were, by law, prevented from sitting with him on the bench - or, indeed, on any bench - cannot hold himself up post facto to be a paragon of human rights when the going becomes easy.
All who lived and worked in S. Africa are guilty to some degree. Only those who devoted themselves to African rights or actively opposed the system and put their careers and, indeed, their liberty at risk, can claim the right to preach. Significantly, Nelson Mandela's autobiography mentions the names of lawyers who truly stood up. Goldstone's name does not appear.
The fact that Mandela chose him for the Constitutional Court is not surprising. Mandela had to make use, as much as possible, of the existing judicial system, or chaos would have ensued. Goldstone's record may certainly have been better than most of his colleagues' - but one cannot be only somewhat pregnant.
On a personal note, I was a member of the Liberal Party until it was banned, did some African pro bono work and was one of the handful of white lawyers in the '60s to employ a black articled clerk. Yet I do not exempt myself from the guilt of moral compromise. I would not now claim to be a paragon of human rights.
The only way to make reparation for one's previous compromise would be not to allow oneself to be compromised now on human rights issues. In this context, one cannot ignore Judge Goldstone's "sad mistake," as conceded by M.L. Rostowsky (Letters, same date): not only his acceptance of the UNHRC appointment, considering his seat on the board of Human Rights Watch, but also his failing to insist on proper parameters for the investigation, and his allowing the participation of Christine Chinkin, who had made her animus known in advance.
In someone as brilliant as Goldstone, does this not indicate the very pliability about which I wrote?
LOUIS GARB Jerusalem