Off the Voortrekker Road

by Barbara Bleiman

  When he told her what he was planning on doing, she’d listened carefully, nodding from time to time, then taken his face in her hands and kissed him. Later that afternoon, she’d come to find him in his study and told him that she’d rather not know any more of the details about it, now he’d decided.

  ‘If I don’t know anything, I can’t say anything,’ she’d said. ‘I’d rather not know, in case anyone asks me. It’s better that way. And anyway, thinking about it all just makes me worry too much, for him and for us. I’ve got to start concentrating on myself and the baby now.’

  He understood. She’d been extraordinary, selfless and determined in her preparedness to trust him and his judgement. Now, it was only right that she should leave him to get on with it, to follow it through for himself.

  ‘Do you want to go and stay with your parents while the trial’s going on? Would that be easier for you, to be out of town for a while?’

  ‘Would you manage without me?’

  ‘Of course.’

  ‘Then maybe. That way, I’ll be away from all the talk, all the chatter. And you don’t have to worry about me and the baby. My parents will look after me.’

  But in the end she’d stayed. ‘I want to be here with you,’ she’d said. ‘When you come home at night, we can pretend everything’s just like normal. I’ll get the maid to cook you something nice and we’ll eat together. We’ll talk about other things, about afterwards, the baby and that nice long holiday we’ll go on, to Hermanus, or along the Garden Route, to Knysna and George.’

  The last meetings with Van Heerden had been tense. The closer they got to the trial the more agitated he had become, and, finally, it had needed his wife to agree to come along, to keep him calm enough to talk to Jack and take in what he had to tell him and agree on the best course of action. The more frenzied he had become, the more composed she was, the more able to take control.

  ‘You have to do what he tells you, Johannes,’ she kept repeating. ‘You have to accept the situation you’re in and let him help you to make the best of it. It’s no good wishing that things were different. They’re not. You just have to find some inner strength, to help you through. This is about you and me and our small family and our wider community, our brethren, but it’s also about more than that. Whatever happens to us is part of something bigger. You need to remember that. It’s the reason we were put here on this earth in the first place.’

  And when he became emotional and began to voice his utter despair, she encouraged him to have faith in God, who forgave all men their sins and looked after them in their hour of need. Then Jack would leave them for a moment or two, to allow them to kneel down in prayer. And on his return, Johannes would be calmer and more able to talk about the case.

  The night before the trial started, Sarah had phoned.

  ‘I’m worried for you, Jackie! I read in the Argus this morning that this is no ordinary case. There are a lot of people taking an interest in it. They’re saying you’ve got communist sympathies. They’re talking about dangerous links with Russia. That’s not true, is it?’

  ‘No, Ma. It’s not.’

  ‘You’re not going to do anything stupid are you, Jackie? You know, your Ouma and Oupa didn’t come all this way to see you give up the life they dreamed of. They didn’t board those boats and leave their shtetls to have more tsoros and troubles here in South Africa. They wanted to make a good life for themselves, and for us, their children, and for you, their grandchildren.’

  ‘I know, Ma. I’m not doing anything stupid.’

  ‘And your Pa, you owe it to him, after all the fighting between you and him, all the arguments, to prove to him that becoming a attorney was a wise thing to do, not a stupid one.’

  ‘He’s dead, Ma.’

  ‘Yes, but you still owe it to him. In the end, though he never came out and said it to anyone, he was proud of you, Jackie, just like I am. And he wouldn’t want to think of you throwing it all away for a bit of nonsense.’

  ‘Yes, Ma. I know.’

  ‘So you’ll do what’s right?’

  ‘Yes, Ma. I’ll do what’s right.’

  ‘OK, then I can go to bed and sleep peacefully. Good luck for tomorrow.’

  ‘Thanks Ma.’

  The courtroom was full. Agnes Small was there, standing behind her advocate and his junior, just a few steps away from Johannes Van Heerden; if they’d reached over the other people sitting between them, they could have almost touched.

  To one side of the courtroom, in the press seats, sat the court reporters, from the Cape Argus, the Cape Times and die Burger. In the public gallery, he saw Miss Joubert and her brother, along with a few of the other members of the church who were not appearing as witnesses for either the defence or the prosecution. Otherwise it was packed with unfamiliar faces, people eagerly awaiting what looked to be a particularly interesting case.

  ‘Your honour,’ he said again, ‘my client, Reverend Johannes van Heerden, wishes it to be known that he has decided to plead guilty.’

  There was a moment of silence. The newspapermen paused in their scribbling to look up, shocked by this sudden turn of events. In the public gallery there was a rising buzz of whispered voices.

  ‘My learned friend, the counsel for Mrs Agnes Small, will no doubt wish to make a similar plea on her behalf. But before he does so, I wish to make a statement to the court.’

  ‘This is not customary procedure, Mr Neuberger.’

  ‘I am aware of that, your Honour, but in the light of my client’s decision and the rapid conclusion of the trial that will be the consequence of it, I beg leave to be allowed to speak, before Mrs Small’s advocate rises, and before you close the proceedings to consider your verdict.’

  Mr Justice Steyn hesitated for a moment. ‘Very well then, if you can be brief.’

  ‘My client wishes it to be known that he is guilty, if guilty is what it really is. He has been brought to this courtroom on a charge of immorality; he is accused of immoral and indecent acts. In one sense, yes, he acknowledges the immorality of his actions, but in one sense only. And that sense is the immorality of having betrayed his wife. That, for my client, is something for which he is truly sorry; he repents his actions for the hurt he has caused her and the wrong he has done her. He made vows to her, in his own church, under the eyes of God, and these are vows that he has broken. He has allowed himself to stray. His wife is a remarkable woman. She is a woman whom anyone in this courtroom should admire, a woman of great strength and courage. Despite everything that she has suffered, despite all the illusions about her husband’s faithfulness and honesty that have been shattered, she has remained loyal to him, his true helpmeet and companion. She has forgiven him his sins and promised to stand by him, regardless of what happens in this courtroom today.

  ‘Has my client committed other immoral or indecent acts, beyond that of breaking his marriage vows? This new law says that he has. This law holds that any act of intimacy between a white and a non-European is an illegal one, an act of immorality and indecency. What kind of acts are we talking about here, your honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Two hands meeting, pressure on an arm, a kiss on the cheek? Are these not acts that all of us have engaged in, with our African nannies, when we were children, with our coloured maids, whom we have accepted into our families and sometimes known for many decades and across generations? Are we talking about a close embrace? A passionate kiss? Or acts of greater intimacy? Where does the boundary lie between the close relationships we may all have had with the non-Europeans with whom we have had dealings in our normal, everyday lives, and something that goes a bit further than that and becomes more personal and more deeply felt? Who here could say that at no moment in their lives have they felt something warm, tender, or even loving for a person of another race?

  ‘One only needs to look at our populatio
n to see that over the years black and white people have taken that relationship further, that sexual relationships have not been exceptional or unusual; our large coloured community provides the evidence for that. And why should we forbid this? All too often, it is true, there have been elements of coercion and control in the miscegenation that has occurred; all too often, white men have seen it as their right to exercise their power, to force non-European women into sexual relationships with them. But not in every case. And this is not what has occurred here. In this case, two consenting adults of different races have allowed a loving relationship to develop between them. It has threatened their happiness, as well as that of people close to them. But should that be an illegal act? Only the colour of the skin of the two parties is what makes it so. Men and women commit adultery every day of the week, and do so without fear of legal action, or penalties. Yet my client and the other party, Mrs Small, are in danger of becoming criminals, losing their liberty. Seven years. That’s the maximum sentence. More than the sentence for many other crimes. Commit robbery, burglary, bigamy, fraud, even common assault or the rape of a woman by a man of the same race and the term is often lower. Seven years for showing love towards another human being.’

  ‘Mr Neuberger, I must stop you there –’

  ‘I’m almost finished, your honour. I appeal to you in determining the sentence that is passed on my client, and to the decent people of the jury, the decent people in this courtroom and those beyond, South Africans one and all, who will read about this trial in die Burger and the Cape Argus or the Cape Times. I appeal to you all to allow decency to prevail. My client is accused of indecency. And yet the most indecent act of all is this very law, with its divisive, barbaric insistence on the differences between races. Laws like this put us as a nation to shame.

  ‘My client is guilty under the law, yes. But what happens when the law itself is besmirched and soiled? It is the duty of all of us to stand up and be counted. It’s our duty to speak out against it. My client will be sentenced and perhaps, if your honour sees fit, he will even go to prison, but his punishment will not be in vain, for people here and in other countries across the world will come to hear what our “civilised” society is capable of and one day it will be acknowledged that it is not my client’s behaviour but this law itself, and the enactment of it, that is the true crime. My client will go down in history not as a criminal but as one who suffered from the wrongs and misdemeanours of a state, from the immorality of a whole nation, that for a period of time lost its sense of what was right and what was wrong and went down a path of gross indecency.’

  He sat down. There was silence. His client Johannes Van Heerden sat looking straight ahead, stony-faced, bloodless and pale; it seemed that at any moment he might fall to the floor. His wife, Laura, looked towards Jack and very softly, almost imperceptibly, brought her hands together and began to clap. On her own, without accompaniment, and for what seemed like forever, in the stillness of the courtroom, Laura van Heerden applauded.

  All of a sudden, and perhaps because of the power of her act of defiance as much as the momentousness of his own, Jack was overcome. He started shaking. He realised that under his gown, his shirt was drenched in sweat. He was gripped with fear, with doubt at what he had said, what he had done. Renee would be at home waiting to hear what had happened; Ma would no doubt read about it in the paper the next day; perhaps already two men were driving towards his office to speak to him. In a few days’ time the court would be re-convened to hear the verdict; Johannes van Heerden would be sentenced, as would Agnes Small. Already the judge had risen and left the courtroom; he’d be hanging up his wig and his gown; already the ushers were clearing the court, making it ready for the next case. There were no winners, only losers. No one would come out of this laughing. But he’d done what he’d judged to be right, however hopeless it might be, however foolish or dangerous. He’d spoken. He’d spoken for Johannes and Laura; he hoped that Justice Steyn would reflect on his words and show leniency towards his client, that the judiciary might make a small stand of its own. But also for Terence, Jack said to himself, for Terence, Walter and May. And for himself and for every other decent man or woman who lived in Parow, Goodwood, Maitland, Bellville, up and down the whole length of the Voortrekker Road and way, way beyond.

  *****

  DIE BURGER

  MAY 8TH 1958

  GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCING SHOCK IN VAN HEERDEN TRIAL

  The trial of the Reverend Johannes van Heerden and Agnes Small for indecency came to a sudden close yesterday, with the unexpected plea of guilty by the two accused. This first case under the newly passed indecency laws has been seen as a test of the strength of the tightened legislation, and its power to curb the growing threat of racial integration and the moral turpitude that is endangering our society.

  Van Heerden’s defence counsel, Jack Neuberger, a relatively inexperienced young advocate trained under Jewish QC Louis Abrams, surprised the court with the sudden announcement that his client had reversed his decision on his plea. The jury was summarily dismissed but not before Neuberger had made a long statement to the court, going well beyond the bounds of accepted practice. Justice Steyn’s decision to tolerate this impassioned outburst, eloquent though it may have been, demonstrated in no uncertain terms his underlying sympathies regarding the case and gave advance warning of his likely approach to sentencing.

  Just an hour after announcing an adjournment to consider the facts, Steyn re-called the court to let his decision be known. He made full use of the discretion given to him in determining the sentence, by imposing a minimal fine on both van Heerden and Small. With the option of a substantial prison sentence available to him, Steyn’s derisory penalty is yet another troubling indication of the trend in recent years for the judiciary to erode the impact of the legislation passed by our government. It raises the spectre of undemocratic interference by our judges in the running of the country and poses more strongly than ever the question of whether the justice system itself is in need of serious reform.

  Outside the courtroom, van Heerden and his family refused to answer questions put to them by the large crowd of waiting reporters. A highly respected member of van Heerden’s church, Miss Clara Joubert, said that it had been a troubling time for the individuals concerned and for their small community but that she hoped that they would all now be left to re-build their lives, out of the public gaze. When asked whether the Reverend van Heerden would continue to serve as pastor for the church, she declined to comment.

  Counsel for the prosecution, Willem du Toit, spoke to reporters on the steps of the courtroom.

  ‘I would have liked the case to have been properly heard,’ he said, ‘I believe that the nation has a right to hear the full details in trials such as this, however distasteful and troubling they may be. Advocates like Neuberger play the system. They’re not operating within the spirit of the law. Advocate Neuberger took a risk for his client and it paid off. But is it in the interests of our country, our society, for a man like van Heerden to get off so lightly? Is that the direction we want our legal system to be going in? This kind of outcome paves the way for people to flout our laws with impunity.’

  Neuberger himself was not available to talk to die Burger. Court officials told reporters that the advocate had slipped out of the building by the back exit. His secretary was not answering phone calls at his chambers.

  For a more thorough analysis of the implications of this trial, turn to our editorial pages, where Martin Oosthuizen asks the question, ‘Racial intermixing and lax moral standards – is this the future for our nation?’

 

 

 
(100%); -moz-filter: grayscale(100%); -o-filter: grayscale(100%); -ms-filter: grayscale(100%); filter: grayscale(100%); " class="sharethis-inline-share-buttons">share