Business tycoon Strive Masiyiwa may not be enjoying the early days of the New Year after his bust-up with a number of people after making claims that his wife, Tsitsi, had been forced to close her Twitter account due to cyberbullying.
Masiyiwa even fingered Dewa Mavhinga, the Southern Africa Director for Human Rights Watch (HRW) as one of the cyber bullies and seems to have suggested that he should be fired as Masiyiwa is a close friend of the founder of Human Rights Watch, Robert L. Bernstein. Wrote Strive Masiyiwa on his Facebook page,
Sadly one of the foremost bullies is a Zimbabwean who works for an international organization that is highly respected for its work on human rights. It’s (sic) founder, now 95 is a close family friend. I hope my human rights friend is happy now that he has stopped her from using Twitter. Maybe now he and others like him will stop this pathetic misogyny.
What about the rights of women like my wife to also express an opinion?
Apart from attracting criticism from various quarters who viewed Masiyiwa’s actions as bullying, the billionaire businessman was also rebuffed by Human Rights Watch after the organisation backed Mavhinga. Human Rights Watch CEO Kenneth Roth released a statement explaining that Mavhinga’s statements were fair and an entirely appropriate response to his wife’s words.
We publish Roth’s response to Masiyiwa below,
No one wanted to see your wife attacked on Twitter, but you are unfair by not explaining what happened. She had tweeted: “Some outcries and actions in pursuit of justice seem and look so right until you discover the source of the outcry and sponsor of the cause. Take a step back and reflect on some of the things we consider ‘good and just causes.’ #FoodForThought” Although I will presume it was not her intention, that comment closely paralleled the claim of President Mnangagwa and some of his supporters that critics of human rights conditions under his rule are not genuine but are sponsored by outsiders.
In response, the person you attack tweeted the following: “If you are implying that all and any outcry & pursuit of justice is sponsored then that is really sad. When your husband pursued his fight to be licensed it was a just cause. In such position of privilege you should choose your words more carefully, le[s]t it promote injustice.” With no further instigation, others took up this theme as well, so your wife chose to close her twitter account.
That response was entirely fair—an appropriate way to ensure that your wife’s comment, despite what her intentions might have been, wasn’t understood as an endorsement of the president’s and his allies’ attacks on human rights critics. Far from bullying, the response cites your personal story as a positive counterexample: your long experience fighting injustice shows that good causes can indeed be genuinely pursued without any foreign sponsor.
I accept that you and the responder differ on when sanctions against the Mnangagwa government should be lifted. You find it sufficient that in your view Mnangagwa is well-intentioned. The responder and many others, including myself, prefer to see the government take concrete steps before lifting one of the main sources of pressure to secure improvements. That’s a legitimate difference of opinion. I would hope we could debate the merits of those positions without resorting to name-calling, especially such factually unsupported names, as you have now done. Unlike your statement here, the responder didn’t bully anyone—and certainly not your wife—but simply responded to what he feared, whatever her intentions, would be taken as an attack on the credibility of the human rights movement. That others picked up on his point, without any encouragement or prompting by him, does not make him a bully but speaks to the resonance of his comment. And given his long respect for her work, as well as his highly respectful and productive relations with his many female colleagues in the human rights movement, I would hardly call him misogynistic. He would have responded to comments along the lines that your wife made regardless of who had made them.
Sadly one of the foremost bullies is a Zimbabwean who works for an international organization that is highly respected for its work on human rights. It’s (sic) founder, now 95 is a close family friend. I hope my human rights friend is happy now that he has stopped her from using Twitter. Maybe now he and others like him will stop this pathetic misogyny.
What about the rights of women like my wife to also express an opinion?
 |
| Strive Masyiwa’s Bid To Have Wife’s Alleged “Cyberbully” Fired Rebuffed As HRW Backs Dewa Mavhinga |
We publish Roth’s response to Masiyiwa below,
No one wanted to see your wife attacked on Twitter, but you are unfair by not explaining what happened. She had tweeted: “Some outcries and actions in pursuit of justice seem and look so right until you discover the source of the outcry and sponsor of the cause. Take a step back and reflect on some of the things we consider ‘good and just causes.’ #FoodForThought” Although I will presume it was not her intention, that comment closely paralleled the claim of President Mnangagwa and some of his supporters that critics of human rights conditions under his rule are not genuine but are sponsored by outsiders.
In response, the person you attack tweeted the following: “If you are implying that all and any outcry & pursuit of justice is sponsored then that is really sad. When your husband pursued his fight to be licensed it was a just cause. In such position of privilege you should choose your words more carefully, le[s]t it promote injustice.” With no further instigation, others took up this theme as well, so your wife chose to close her twitter account.
That response was entirely fair—an appropriate way to ensure that your wife’s comment, despite what her intentions might have been, wasn’t understood as an endorsement of the president’s and his allies’ attacks on human rights critics. Far from bullying, the response cites your personal story as a positive counterexample: your long experience fighting injustice shows that good causes can indeed be genuinely pursued without any foreign sponsor.
I accept that you and the responder differ on when sanctions against the Mnangagwa government should be lifted. You find it sufficient that in your view Mnangagwa is well-intentioned. The responder and many others, including myself, prefer to see the government take concrete steps before lifting one of the main sources of pressure to secure improvements. That’s a legitimate difference of opinion. I would hope we could debate the merits of those positions without resorting to name-calling, especially such factually unsupported names, as you have now done. Unlike your statement here, the responder didn’t bully anyone—and certainly not your wife—but simply responded to what he feared, whatever her intentions, would be taken as an attack on the credibility of the human rights movement. That others picked up on his point, without any encouragement or prompting by him, does not make him a bully but speaks to the resonance of his comment. And given his long respect for her work, as well as his highly respectful and productive relations with his many female colleagues in the human rights movement, I would hardly call him misogynistic. He would have responded to comments along the lines that your wife made regardless of who had made them.
That is his right —and indeed his duty as a human rights defender.
