“Yes, some would argue that any electorate that continued to vote in larger numbers for a party whose leader announced that a virus does not cause a syndrome is, indeed, and not to mince words, ’stupid.’”.

Did you mean former leader, one who was voted out of organisational office then recalled from Government?

*Note to self* Dworky must have a point – it has to be better to jump ship than to take corrective organisational action.

“Eyewitness news online 2009/11/16

Section 49 amendments exaggerated – Radebe

Justice Minister Jeff Radebe says the expected changes to Section 49 of the Criminal Procedures Act are being exaggerated.

The amendments are aimed at giving police a stronger hand when dealing with armed criminals.

Radebe, who chairs the justice, crime prevention and security cluster, briefed the media at Parliament on Friday.

He said the changes were aimed at giving effect to a 2002 Constitutional Court judgment.

The ruling sets out clear guidelines on when police are entitled to open fire on a suspect.

Radebe said state law advisors would look at proposed amendments before it was published.

“I think that will be the real yardstick and guideline that will indicate to the police how to behave under trying circumstances,” he said.

Radebe insisted the proposed law change was not a wholesale instruction to shoot.

http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=26274 “

“But surely voters are not stupid.”

Of course voters are not stupid.

Yes, some would argue that any electorate that continued to vote in larger numbers for a party whose leader announced that a virus does not cause a syndrome is, indeed, and not to mince words, “stupid.”

But I would reject any such argument.

What is currently in s 49 is that the “crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm” must either be “in progress” or the fleeing suspect must on reasonable grounds be suspected (”believed”) to pose a future threat of violence. This qualification does not appear in the Walters judgment and, so it is submitted, if s 49 is changed verbatim to read like para (h) above, the amendment will pass muster constitutional scrutiny. It will broaden the powers of the police in arrest situations so that they are not limited to the common law defences of private defence or putative private defence; but, at the same time, the powers of the police will not be broadened to the extent that the police are authorized to shoot and kill someone suspected of having committed a petty (or even grand) theft of a mealie (or a motorvehicle), against which the Walters judgment and subsequent amendment of s 49 was aimed.

So, I think there is room for a broadening amendment of the current s 49, but that it can still be balanced so that we do not revert back to a police state, which we were pre-1994. The current Constitution is all about balance; and, where violent offenders are on reasonable grounds suspected of having committed serious human rights infringements (like murder, rape, robbery, assault with intent to do grievious bodily harm – or an attempt to commit any such crime), it will certainly not be unconstitutional if the police are allowed to shoot and kill where the syspect is fleeing and “there are no other reasonable means of carrying out the arrest, whether at that time or later”.

“(3) I took a dig at the ACDP, not all Christians so no, I disagree. In any case the Christian religion is the majority religion in SA and is all pervasive. Many Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and that a person who does not suppress their love and emotional and sexual attraction for a member of the same sex acts in an abominable manner. As a gay man I think this is inhumane and even perverse (like supporting the death penalty, the public flogging of adulterers or stealing taxpayers money). This is my view. We can agree to disagree and we are both allowed to express our views because we live in a democracy. A religious group cannot claim special rights vis-a-vis the rest of us so that they are exempt from criticism. That is in violation of the right to freedom of religion and conscience and profoundly ant-democratic. You can say same-sex love is bad. I can say those who believe this are bigots. Ce-la-vie.”

Eish!

Somewhere in your blogs, some months back, a comment was posted on Zackie Achmat’s rather shocking views towards heterosexuality. If that is true, then it’s as bad as those who think that raping lesbians is a way to “correcting” there sexuality.

george says:September 23, 2009 at 2:53 am –
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/no-place-for-judge-who-has-contempt-for-gay-men-lesbians-and-hiv-positive-south-africans-zackie-achmat/

The point is that there are diverse views towards sexuality across the board – in my view it cannot be correct to correlate that with religion.

I dunno much about ACDP, but I cannot accept that all their members and supporters are such bigots – nor can I accept that all gay people hold the same views as Achmat.

Indeed there are extremes which need to be curtailed, but it cannot be much good generally to demonise people by some obtuse association.

At the risk of taking us off the subject (btw Prof you’r spot on with it) I do wish to register a sharp disagreement with your cavalier assumption that most (if not all) Christians are instinctually against the acceptance of the Gay issue. Hand in glove with this is the ‘appropriation’ of truth to your cause and likewise the uncritical expropriation of the Bible as ‘automatically’ sustaining all of this.

There is a significant number of well read and trained theologians and Christians who do not support or agree with your uncritical assumptions and have stood up to the viciforous rather rightwing franchise that casts all other opinions into hell

65.9% for the ANC on their new set of empty promises and this after several previous sets of unfulfilled promises. Come on, in spite of our vast potential, we remain a pretty stupid nation. We allow these types into office time and time again. Are we really expecting anything different?

And SA folks think Huntley’s application will be overturned.

see: http://politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=150911&sn=Detail

… says it all. We are here now… what next?