For forgiveness you need Truth and Reconciliation. There's a reason that committee was set up.

"Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing."

That's Desmond Tutu, another important figure in the struggle against apartheid.

Do you think Eich has owned up to the hurt and abuse he committed? He's not even apologized. You can't have forgiveness if the person you want to forgive isn't even willing to apologize.

Truth and Reconciliation was about truth, and not punishment. It did not demand that former supporters renounce their heresy or be punished, just that a historical accounting was made, the facts were laid down.

Brendan Eich said the following in a blog post(https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/) after making a statement that he fully intended to continue the LGBT-inclusive policies at Mozilla:

"I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain."

I'm not sure Eich fully understands the hurt and abuse he committed, which makes owning up to it somewhat difficult. My understanding of truth and reconciliation was that the process was intended to educate those responsible for apartheid just how truly awful it was, not just demand an apology. Thousands of people demanding for resignation over the Internet seems more likely to reinforce his current views than help him truly understand.

I'd add that a similar model is being followed in Rwanda. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/06/magazine/06-pi...

You make an important point, but I want to add a caveat. We know a lot about how long we have to wait to deal with "regime crimes" in order not to jeopardize the political system of the successor state.

It seems that in the case of maximum scale crimes, the right number is somewhere around 30 years (one generation). That was approximately the time between the end of WW2 and the 1968 student revolts in Germany, and the Bonn republic survived it. As another example, given the divisive nature of the incredibly bloody Spanish civil war, societal "digestion" of the Franco dictatorship also had to wait for almost 30 years.

What happens if winners rapidly turn on the former suppressors can currently be observed in Egypt.

So far, so interesting, but what it doesn't tell us, is what the time scale for a (comparatively small) intrasocietal adjustment of morality is (gay marriage = sin -> gay marriage = fundamental right).

One decade? Five years? Fifteen? I can't think of any precedents that can truly be compared to the gay marriage situation.

My personal feeling is that the reaction to Eich was not appropriate considering where he stands on the currently applicable bigotry scale.

But that is also just a gut feeling. The question remains: What is the right time to wait before a step of progressive change in society should be "enforced", so that the backlash remains minimal?

So - what you are saying is that you support radical, armed struggle in support of marriage equality? Just as Mandela supported radical, armed struggle against apartheid?

Yes, before he went to prison Mandela was engaged in armed revolution.. But after he got out of prison he did everything he could do to avoid bloodshed and war, even if it meant negotiating with those who had imprisoned him for 27 years.