Comments on: A (partial) victory for Joe Slovo residents

By: Mzo

Mzo — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:40:44 +0000

The Big Slipper // Jun 11, 2009 at 6:23 pm

….and u just had to mess it up with your unwarranted and baseless comment…..enjoy the debate and shut up if you don’t have something to add

i’ve never liked philosophical arguments even though I may find the discussion interesting…

By: Michael Osborne

Michael Osborne — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:31:38 +0000

OK, Pierre, Soobramoney, — a decade ago. Can you think of anything more recent?

By: InternAfrica

InternAfrica — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:12:18 +0000

The Creator – aught to know that:

2008 marks the point when fire and flood displaced more than the initial amount of shacks in Cape Town in 1994…

in the Period from 2000 to date 12/6/2009

55,013 Shacks have been affected by fire or flood
277 Deaths can be attributed to fire
226,538 People have been displaced

So if you think that there was more forced displacement during apartheid years – you are wrong.

Elemental (sic fire and flood) displacement is doing a much better job in recent history than any political dispensation… before or after

POLITICS DOES NOT SERVE THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF CAPE TOWN!

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:58:43 +0000

Leigh and MIchael, I have often written about problems with a kind of “constitutional essentialism” (as Dennis Davis and Michele Le Roux calls it in their new book) that thinks we can solve all problems by running to our courts. Political mobilisation and struggle is just as important as legal struggle. For tactical (you guys might call it pragmatic) reasons one must sometimes retreat and acknowledge the limits of law. Relying solely on law to effect social change may well delegitimise the legal institutions like our courts. A balance is surely required. I do not think we disagree on this. But within this matrix (as Sachs would say) some of us will push harder and others will be more pragmatic. It is about our view of our role in the larger scheme of things, I guess.

By: Michael Osborne

Michael Osborne — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:37:59 +0000

Leigh, I think your question for Pierre is well put. As he so often points out, the notion of a dispassionate observer is a myth; we all bring our values to every judgment we make. But
Pierre sometimes seems to take the conception of the engagé legal intellectual to the point where it would short-circuit critical analysis. It is an antique liberal jurisprudence that proceeds from the assumption that individual remedies applied by countermajoritarian judges is always the best way to expand rights and help the poor.

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:28:53 +0000

Michael, Soobramoney (see SAJHR article on Grootboom) comes to mind.

By: Michael Osborne

Michael Osborne — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:43:56 +0000

Pierre, my challenge to you is this. Name ONE decided constitutional (non-criminal), case in which the state won out over a plaintiff or applicant who was marginalised or poor, and where you expressed your approval of the decision.

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:01:46 +0000

Michael I do not disagree. Many posts on this Blog reflect – I hope – some sympathy for the difficulties involved in constitutional adjudication and the difficult choices faced by judges. One can, I hope, be both an idealist pushing the boundaries and a “realist” acknowledging the difficulties involved….

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:57:21 +0000

Mpho, they were not the losing party. The appeal was partly successful as the anti-poor and heartless order of the high court was overturned and replaced with a far more considered and compassionate order…..

By: Michael Osborne

Michael Osborne — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:27:30 +0000

Mpho! Please give some guidance so I can avoid repeating my misguided rushing! Thanks in anticipation!