Life is a bit like a poker game – only, real people can get hurt in life. Some people, when dealt a really bad hand, would bluff and bluster in the hope of distracting attention from the bad hand he or she was dealt. Others would fold their hand and hope to get dealt a better hand next time.
It seems to me I am more of the latter kind of person while Paul Ngobeni is the first.
So I was rather amused when I read in this morning’s paper that I am a racist who hates black people. I was also a little bit proud because it means that I have been winning the argument on the actual substance of whether John Hlophe is fit to serve on any court in South Africa. Why else the personal attacks? If the arguments were not effective it would not have been necessary to attack me. The Cape Times Reports that Ngobeni said:
“An objective analyst does not get very, very angry. That will cloud your vision and your objectivity,” said Ngobeni. He accused De Vos of being a racist who hated Hlophe “with a passion, even when the man was sick” referring to an incident when the judge president had failed to turn up at the JSC for the case against him. Saying that he would continue to engage him and expose him as a phony, Ngobeni added De Vos would be joining a special group at UCT’s law faculty.
“This guy will be joining a group of gangsters who make (John) Hlophe their do-or-die issue. Whites want to entrench themselves in the last unelected branch of government – the judiciary,” said Ngobeni.
What a wonderful thing free speech and democracy is. We can all say almost anything we wish – even if it is not true. Informed people can then make up their minds about who is credible and whose arguments should win the day. So much better than in the apartheid days when people were banned and newspapers censored. One thing is sure, those who fall back on invective and name calling have lost the argument on the substance of any issue.
So I really do not want to get involved in a personal spat with Mr Ngobeni. When I met him at a debate he seemed rather sad and vulnerable and even more of a nerd than I am. As somone who used to be bullied at school, I could somehow relate to his plight. In any case, the issues facing our democracy are far more important than the personalities involved, so its better to discuss questions about whether a liar and an ethically challenged person should become Chief Justice or not. That seems rather more important than what either Ngobeni or myself might think or say about one another.
Just two points: Ngobeni is free to express an opinion that I hate John Hlophe and that I am a racist. This would be wrong. It would also be a tactic to divert attention from the real issue about Hlophe’s fitness for any office, given his scandalous behaviour, but, hey, that is all part of the game. However, Ngobeni said that I had WRITTEN on this Blog that I hate Hlope. That is untrue. In his response to the Cpape Times, he does not deal with this fact, attacking me because I had caught him out in a blatant lie.
Second, Ngobeni makes an intersting observation about “objectivity”. He says my analysis cannot be trusted because I said that Hlophe’s actions made me very, very angry. This is a rather quiant and old fashioned view and reminds one of the kind of attitudes that was prevalent in the apartheid years in our legal fraternity.
I respectfully disagree with his basic assumption as I think it is based on a misconception that is philospophically untenable – as Ronald Suresh Roberts so nicely pointed out in last week’s Mail & Guardian. If one provides comment and analysis one must of course be as fair as one can possibly be. But we all live in some kind of ethical universe and it would be foolish to deny this or to try and pretend it is not so. We cannot extract ourselves from our own ethical and ideological commitments. What we can do is to place those commitments on the table and acknowledge them, then to strive for open-minded and fair analysis of the issue well aware that we have a point of view and prepared to revisit our commitments.
My ethical universe is one in which human rights, democracy, respect for the rule of law, honesty and integrity play an important role. So if 800 000 people are slaughtered in a genocide in Rwanda I will get very, very angry and will say so if asked for my analysis of the situation. If politicians or officials steal poor people’s money, treat them with contempt or disregard the Rule of Law then I will get very very angry, yes. If I did not, I would not be doing my job.
Maybe somehwhere in the world there is someone who will say they can comment “objectively”, say, about the Holocaust, analysing the methods used by the Nazi’s in exterminating six million Jews and discussing the relative effectiveness of the various methods used. I would argue this is not objectivity – as there can never be absolute objectivity, only fairness and honesty – but a horrible endorsement of the Nazi regime and their excesses.
Sometimes a failure to get angry is also a display of moral and ethical cowardice or a choice for unethical and immoral acts. Not to get angry when politicians and offiocials treat people with contempt is not “objectivity” but, in effect, a heartless endorsement of the unethical behaviour. Silence or a lack of anger about ethical questions is often no more than an endorsement of what is wrong.
So if one does not get angry about John Hlophe and his antics, I would argue, one is really endorsing his lies and his unethical behaviour. One might call this objectivity, but that would just be a pretty word with no meaning anymore.
Sounds to me like Ngobeni was ‘very, very angry”…hehe
Does anyone know where Ngobeni will be working from now on?
well Pierre dont stress im sure everyone on here can see your not racist and can see your not the only one being branded as a racist hugh corder is also having issues with this nut case
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-06-21-a-lowering-of-the-bar
I love this bit….
Ngobeni now says that this is because “whites cherish and nurture blacks they can dominate intellectually or at least those self-hating blacks who regard approval from whites as their ticket to success”. As Hlophe does not fit these stereotypes, so Ngobeni says, he is targeted for criticism.
Pierre since your now good buds with Paul give him this telephone number 0123444000
Trauma, depression, anxiety
Relationships, perpetration
Im guessing Paul is one of those people who would accuse the game Chess is also racist since the white pieces move first??
It is a well known test of a [ previous] manager’s leadership, or eg of that of a partner in a legal firm after his retirement, to look at the people in the firm he left behind. Did he/she collect quality people around him to take the firm into the future?
Now regarding that Ngobeni character at UCT…..eish.
How did he land at such a renowned institution?
Or is it an indication of current / former leadership failures at UCT? A lead indicator of a once proud university going to the ground…..
UCT and Ngobeni part ways –
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/5f10cd8e6aae4dd89f1ff6f396f717cb/22-06-2009%2011-06/UCT,_Hlophe_ally_part_ways
Very gentle parting statement – god forbid anyone might tell stuff like it is.
Ah….
So the one character facing disciplinary proceedings are coming up for the other clot facing [ or, actually, ducking and diving ] disciplinary proceedings!
I still wonder who those other customers making up the so called Justice for Hlope Alliance are in real life.
Would be most interesting to see their “credentials”. Probably also facing proceedings somewhere.
Where’s Chris McDaniel? He’s got a knack for ferretting out usefull background info…
“Many who do what I do pretend that they are totally rational beings. Well, I’m not. Not even close. I carry a big bag of biases which color every word I utter—for example, I lived in Silicon Valley for 35 years; hence, everything I say inadvertently passes through an absurdly influential ‘Silicon – California filter, etc.” – Tom Peters
Henri // Jun 22, 2009 at 1:00 pm
… Now regarding that Ngobeni character at UCT…..eish.
How did he land at such a renowned institution?
Or is it an indication of current / former leadership failures at UCT? A lead indicator of a once proud university going to the ground….. “
MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY!!!!
lol “Having satisfactorily resolved the matters, Dr Ngobeni has expressed his wish to leave UCT to pursue other interests and we wish him all the very best in his future endeavours.”
well I can safely say I now what his other interests are
http://www.bailcobailbonds.com/fugitives/14
Pierre where is he I wanna get me my reward boy
I do not know Prof, if you’re now going to UCT WHETHER YOU’RE going TO join one of those camps between the Fagan bros and Dennis Davis.Some of the bloggers here praise UCT as if it does not have its own internal problems.Some of us are privy to that info, which clearly shows that that law faculty is highly divided.
Pierre, can I just say for the record, that I find it a little cruel to be using your own private playground to ridicule Ngobeni. The odds are stacked in your favour that you would win here, even if he was to log on and “debate” back. I know you are probably just attempting to set what you see as the record straight, but two topics on the issue is ranting, I feel.
I hope that doesn’t offend you, but I just had to say it.
Get mad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08
Mpho
“two topics on the issue is ranting.”
Jeez, what state does that leave Pierre in wrt Hlophe or Zuma. Apoplectic? Catatonic? Volcanic? Raving and dribbling?
All I can say is that we have not heard/had the last word from Paul. Paul is passionate about his cause. When he converts on the Road to Damascus, he will again be passionate. He will right letters to the Romans, Xhosas, Zulus, Corinthians, Pretorians, Capetonians until Revelation!
Enough about St Paul! These Paul characters die hard!
@ Mpho,
I am surprised that you continue to defend Ngobeni, given that he has PUBLICALLY (in the mass media) attacked the Prof. Furthermore, he has labelled Prof a racist and lacking in objectivity without giving Prof the benefit of rebuttal. If Ngobeni wishes to challenge Prof on any of the assertions he has made, he can do so very easily on this forum. While I don’t mean to be disparaging of the Prof’s reach on this blog, it certainly does not have the same impact as the Cape Times or SAFM. So who is truly the victim here? Surely not Ngobeni?
Again, it appears that certain individuals can behave in any manner they like and when their “victims” attempt to defend themselves, they are victimised.
Might I also remind you that Ngobeni has attacked the Prof in two separate incidents in a matter of days. Who is ranting?
I agree with Samantha there.
A forum platform like this is ideal for debates. Particularly because you can log off, cool down and log back on later if you get vewy, vewy angry while you’re hunting white wabbits or whatever.
Mpho // Jun 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I concur.
Samantha // Jun 22, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I disagree. Prof had an opportunity to debate with Paul on radio and we all know that Prof has a lot of these interviews on TV, surely he can go and vent out there.
As for giving Prof an opportunity for a rebuttal, I think you are knocking at the wrong door. The newspaper is supposed to give Prof that opportunity, not Paul.
By the way, I think Paul is, as always, going way overboard by calling Prof a racist an all those things but I refuse to accept that Prof does not “hate/dislike” (whatever nice and appropriate word you want to use) Hlope JP.
Professor, I would like to briefly address two points which you raised. I agree with the first but part ways with you as regards the second.
The first of your points, as I read it, is that unconditional objectivity, given that we are merely humans, is an impossibility. I think you are probably right. As you say, we each of us brings at least some preconceived ethical notions to the table. And as you say, the more realistic goal seems to be to strive not for absolute ojectivity, but for open-mindedness and fairness. This sought of maturity strikes me as being (a) humanly possible and (b) properly circumspect as those who embrace it would challenge their views and reject those which, in the light of more compelling views, do not pass muster.
With respect, I am not so sure about the second of the two views which I have chosen to look at.
At the heart of it, you seem to say that those who are not angered by and do not react angrily to unethical behaviour are either (a) cowards or (b) silent endorsers thereof.
Well I have two examples which I think call into question both (a) and (b) above. The first instance, which goes to investigating the defensibility of (a) runs as follows: say person X sees unethical behaviour. He plainly lacks the means to do anything about it. So, he lets it be and gets on with his life in the knowledge that loosing his cool will serve no purpose other than to make him miserable. Now is he cowardly or wise? I tend to think wise but mabe you can point out some error in my reasoning that escapes me.
The second example is this: a loving father of three adorable brats sees some disreputably unethical government types at work skimming off the top and effectively taking hot food out of poor mouths. Now he knows that the villains wolud literally kill to preserve the status quo. Does he silently endorse the crooks by choosing to stay alive for his children’s sake? I really cannot see how.
So I guess my basic points are these: one does not need to be angery to do the just thing. And if one cannot actively promote justice, one is not necessarily a coward or a bad person for letting go of one’s anger. Further, one does not necessarily support horrid situations where one chooses between two worthy causes which happen to be in competition with one another.
@ Leigh,
While I agree with your post in principle, I would like to propose that you may have misunderstood the Prof. This may seem like semantics, but at no stage does Prof state that one must “act” on one’s anger. One could argue that this is implied, as there is no point in being angry and doing nothing about it. But, I certainly do not think that the Prof would suggest that anyone take action that could potentially be life-threatening or harmful.
There is an old saying that goes: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing (Edmund Burke). And perhaps that is the gist of this post.
Leigh,
Regarding your views on anger; it depends on how objective you are being. Someone with a great deal of emotional, psychological, physical or finanical fear issues, is going to naturally err on the side of ‘I cannot do anything about that issue’, so let me not be angry.
In my case, what you are telling me, is that just cause I am only one person, I should not have gotten angry about the issues I got angry about; instead I should just have said ‘I cannot do anything about that’ and got on with my life.
Instead I chose to do something about the issues, wether I am just one person, and whether at the end of the road, I am still only one person, and nobody else has the courage to stand up, and stop telling themselves how they need not be angry about what is going on, cause there is nothing they can do.
Leigh, in my view, there is always something you can do! The choice to say there is nothing I can do, except avoid even getting angry, let alone expressing my anger, or channeling my anger, so that it motivates me, so that I refuse to condone the lesser evils…
So… I highly respect the Prof, for having the courage in this two faced hypocrisy, to say what so few — particularly passive aggressive legally minded persons — have the courage to say; that he is angry. Unless we can express our anger, to those we are angry with in words, and remain committed in the conversation until our anger is released or the reasons therefore removed… we will never remotely begin to start addressing the root causes of our violent, raping, murdering, society where people do not express their anger with words, with the intention of getting over their anger; but simply resort to physical violence, as their first resort.
Prof, you get my comment salute!
Lara
Pierre, I think we all understand that Ngobeni’s allegation of racism is rubbish. But you have played a part in creating an atmosphere that encourages such charges. When you suggested David Bullard might be racist in calling Xolela Mangcu “immodest”, you gave licence to people like Ngobeni to hurl equally ridiculous charges in your direction. Like Mbeki (and the Hlophe JP himself, for that matter), you trivialise bigotry and degrade the discourse with such careless aspersions of bigotry.
Tell me Pierre, do you get very, very angry when 16 judges conspire to imprison four innocent individuals? Do you get very, very angry when someone identifies gross incompetence, gross negligence and conspiracy and lays complaints against judges only to have them scoff at the serious charges? Do you get very, very angry when judges act dishonourable and cowardly? Do you get very, very angry when people know the truth but they refuse to tell? Do you know the meaning of honourable? Do you truly understand the meaning of justice? Are you really an honest man Pierre?
Samaita:
I’ll get the cross, you bring the nails and the hammer.
Leigh:
I agree with your post in principle. Anger being present or not does not indicate whether one’s moral high horse is a Lipizzaner or a Shetland pony. Ngobeni was probably trying to insinuate that the prof is angry and hateful towards Hlophe, therefore his judgement is clouded. This is horse manure, because Hlophe has been a disgrace to the bench since day one, regardless of who gets angry at him and why. The prof was probably trying to insinuate that Ngobeni gets angry when his bluff is called, but that there are valid reasons to get angry and that the prof had those valid reasons, while Ngobeni had not. If anything, Ngobeni would be angry at Hlophe too if his moral high horse was anything to bet on at the races. Yet we all know that Hlophe and Ngobeni are both mere ponies and Zuma is the bookmaker who decides their odds.
Leigh, you hqve q point. In a facist or authoritarian state it would often be wise to sa nothing. My point was perhaps assu,ing we are only talking about South Africa which is a democracy and where speaking out is allowed.
New battle in high places
22 June 2009
Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya
SOWETAN
——————————————————————————–
Search for next chief justice
WITH the mission to find a new president for the country done and dusted, another struggle is well and truly under way: to find a new chief justice.
All indications are that it will be as rough a ride as the one that ended with Jacob Zuma being sworn in as President of the Republic on May 9.
Cape Judge President John Hlophe has come out as the “Zuma” of those seeking a new name on the door of the chief justice’s Constitution Hill office.
If we are to take the flurry of support for Judge Hlophe into consideration, I can only come to one of two conclusions: either the entire black legal fraternity is made up of cowards who have allowed themselves to be run over by a conservative and racist white clique, or the race card is being used as a convenient scarecrow to avoid asking and answering some tough questions about the man who could be the chief justice.
The first instance will explain why the “racists” do not seem concerned about other black lawyers who are committed to the transformation of the judiciary.
The second proposition suggests that someone is using emotional blackmail – to marginalise whites who have misgivings about Hlophe’s attributes but fear the hard-to-remove stigma of being branded a racist; and to appeal to the instincts of black people who have suffered at the hands of racists in virtually every area of South African life and are therefore sympathetic to a victim of racism, especially if that person is seen as championing that amorphous thing called transformation.
I refuse to believe that black lawyers are cowards who need to be rescued by Hlophe or no one else. If they are so cowardly, then they deserve their lot.
Hlophe’s academic record – degrees from the universities of Natal (as it then was), Fort Hare and a doctorate from Cambridge make him a formidable lawyer. Even his detractors must concede that he is hardly ever in the news for legally questionable judgments.
That includes what his opponents like latching on to – the Delft case, which the Constitutional Court agreed with except that it extended its thinking to what should happen to the evicted after they had been removed.
What Hlophe’s fans refuse to discuss is some of the blemishes on his record. He might or might not be the champion of transformation, but we cannot pretend not to know what we already know about him.
For example, we know
that he told advocate Norman Arendse that he had given what is known as the Mikro School case to Judge Wilfred Thring because the latter “would f..k it up” and it would be overturned on appeal.
We know this not because “the racists” told us but because Arendse himself, who is a highly respected jurist and was at the time of revealing this information chairperson of the country’s main advocates’ organisation, the General Council of the Bar and headed the mainly black Advocates for Transformation, told us.
For his struggle credentials’ sake, I wish I did not know that Hlophe had given a company from which he was receiving R10000 a month permission to sue a colleague, Judge Siraj Desai. Since Hlophe’s fan club insists on making this an important point for consideration, let it be known that Desai happens to be black and is known to be politically progressive.
I for one accept that the honourable Hlophe told the truth when he told the JSC that he had received permission from justice minister Dullah Omar to receive the monthly payments. Omar, of course, could not corroborate this because he was dead by then.
We also know that in June 2006 the JSC was asked to investigate complaints that Hlophe’s son received a bursary from a Cape Town firm of attorneys. The firm had defended the bursary on grounds that the scheme was aimed at helping “disadvantaged” students. A partner at the firm, Derek Wille, was known to have been a university friend of Hlophe’s and the judge president had on several occasions appointed him as an acting judge.
Confronted with this, Hlophe told the JSC that he did not know who was paying for his son’s education and that is where the matter ended.
Hlophe stands accused of trying to influence two Constitutional Court judges – Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta – in a matter relating to President Jacob Zuma. Again we know this because the two judges – who are black and another also female – told us so.
I am willing to be persuaded that these “facts” that I know are anything but. Until I am presented with why I should not consider them, please spare me another sob story about a victimised darkie.
Black people have been in power since April 1994 and if transformation in state institutions is not happening fast enough then they – not the racists – should take the blame
Ngobeni will be continuing his rants in the press tomorrow. And it seems like he’ll be joining the likes of the YCL and ANCYL etc etc in rendering UCT ungovernable in future.
Prof, while I disagree with Dr Ngobeni on calling you a racist and so forth, I wish to point out that you have nobody to blame but yourself for these attacks, especially on the Hlophe JP matter. I mean, you are about the only public analyst who has ALREADY found the JP guilty of the allegations/charges he faces, completely ignoring the presumption of innocence constitutional principle (SOOS ALTYD!). As much as I personally like your robust articles and your public comments in general, I do agree that you have a serious problem of wanting to push your opinions, logic and reasoning down other people s throats at times.
Eish, Spuy, you talk some rubbish.
On what issue precisely has Pierre found Hlophe guilty? Do you have a link, because I must have missed the article.
Oh, and Spuy?
It is not Dr Ngobeni. It is Mr.
Spuy, for the millionth time: THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS AND ONLY IN CRIMINAL CASES!
Now write that out a zillion times, and post in on this site by noon on Tuesday.
I mean, how many times have you written (almost ALL BAD stuff) about the Judge President of the Western Cape?…One could indeed be forgiven for concluding that you hate/dislike the guy so much that it is close to impossible for you to be nearly objective where he is involved! I previously asked you why did SAFM producers pick you to represent the Anti-Hlophe constituency?…That should tell you that you have so much vested interest on Hlophe matter (almost personally so) to an extent that the media regards you as the Anti-Hlophe camp’s spokesperson. I thought the role of academics such as yourself was try to be as close to objective as possible on issues of public discourse, especially in the media. But then again maybe I m wrong!
Mpho // Jun 22, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Being called a racist on national radio and print by a dishonest populist lowlife, on the run from the law in the USA for stealing, warrants a rant or two.
Spuy you’ve hit the nail on the head.Pierre hates Hlophe with a passion.Thats clear.Now lets move on to the next issue.How far that hatred is going to get him.A plum chair at UCT:-)
I am a final year law student at UCT. I once questioned the credentials and racist attitude of a black staff member. I was summoned to a meeting with the then dean Prof Corder and the head of Criminal law and the dishonest Jeremy Raizon, it was implied that I was sexist and racist. Why? because I am Afrikaans.
As such, I am really enjoying Ngobeni’s accusations, now you know what it feels like, when you are unjustly accused of being a racist. Now you can get of your high moral horses, and experience the humiliation which I suffered at your hands. Racist Gangsters? No. Gangsters? Yes.
My bad Maya, I didnt know, and Michael, isnt it interesting that the constitution is selectively applicable? …nice hey!
Anyway, why is Prof bringing “personal attacks” on him from some newspaper articles to this blog. I know it is his blog and He Writes What He Likes like I m doing now but the appropriate platform for his defence is back in those little newspapers, defending himself here is indeed “ranting” as said already.
Spuy:
to read this blog, you have to search it out, you have to know where it is, you have to click on it, and then you have to scroll down, etc. So you (Spuy) do this everyday, regularly–and how can you possibly call YOUR actions a desire on Pierre’s part to “push your opinions, logic and reasoning down other people s throats at times.”?
He is pushing nothing. You are searching it out. Don’t blame other people for your actions. No one is pushing anything down your throat here. If you don’t like what he has to say, leave. Or engage in a reasoned debate–but do not imply that anyone is imposing this on you.
Get a grip.
PM
I agree with Spuy, opinions get pushed down your throat here especially if you disagree with Prof’s opinions and his disciples like 97% of the bloggers here will attack you. But some of do not just blindly agree and like debate that is why we will continue to read the Prof’s interesting article and also disagree with him if we feel he is out of line even if this invites attacks from all quarters who think the Prof can never be wrong.The Prof only gets criticised by those quarters the moment he says people like David Bullard, who are racists, are racists!
Neigh man, Garg, how much further can you run with that extended equine metaphor? Or have you run the course now?
Morning everyone. My basic goal here is to respond to certain points and queries raised by some of my fellow bloggers in respect of my post dated June 22 at 4:18pm.
Samantha, I take your views to mean the following: first, that the Professor did not say one must necessarily act on anger but that secondly, and at something of a stretch, that could potentially be regarded as implicit in the sentiment proffered by the Professor.
As to the first of foregoing, I can’t fault your logic and I admit I had it wrong. As regards the second, your view as to a possible implication of the Professor’s view might just wash. But I think we can leave it at a misreading on my part.
As to the saying you have ascribed to Edmund Burke, it certainly warms the heart. And I think it probably does reflect the crux of this post.
Francis Marion, you seem to me to say that whether one will stand against injustice turns greatly on one’s disposition. I can accept that.
You seem to understand my view as follows: if one has a paucity of means, one should not get angry and should just walk away from injustice to get on with one’s life.
Now your construction of my view certainly is not entirely wrong. And had I made my views in this regard a little clearer, mabe you and I would find a greater measure of common ground.
So in the hope of producing a more lucid statement, how about the following: it may be fair to say, as you put forward, that one always has a choice and one can always do something. What I meant to advance is that one cannot always do what one wants to do to stop injustices (including unethical behaviour).
For instance, I get really sad whenever I read K v Minister of Safety and Security ( a tragic case involving three monsters who gravely harmed a young women). Now, I could spend my last Rand and every one of my waking moments trying to stop rapes. I’ll still fail. That is not to say I should do nothing. But if I cannot realistically stop every instance of rape then getting angry about all of it will only give me a second problem (one, rapes will still happen and two, I’ll be angry and therefore unhappy).
Mabe this distictinction is a little too fine for some, but I think one can distinguish between (a) getting angry (and thus probably unhappy) and doing the right thing and (b), just doing right by people where practically possible because it’s the right thing to do but without the anger.
Now I know that (b) is difficult for most people (it certainly is for me). But I do think it is the superior approach to trying to do what’s right.
To Garg: first of all, how goes? And second, you seem to say that the presence or absence of anger, in itself, does not necessarily denote whether some individual’s moral compass is working.
Now that is what I was saying insofar as I think it is consistent with my view. It is not what I was on about inasmuch as my view, at the core of it, is that anger has a tip that stings the bearer also. That is, my view is that if one can act and act well without anger, then that is what one should do.
To the Professor, you did not suggest that people should effectively resign themselves to suffering grave harm in order to stand against injustice. So I apologise for attributing implications to your views that did not fall to be imputed thereto.
Mdu, the real deal and spuy, I’ve identified almost all the elements of being an ANC supporter:
You have to have standardized replies to the articles you read about in the news ie. when there’s another head line revealing another comrade as a crook you read the article and when it’s based on fact that’s where you dig in and take out the old and used race card or the innocent until proven guilty card or the dark forces of evil and the remnants -of -apartheid -still -remaining -in -government -card
You also need to make your voice heard and make sure the leaders know what you want to hear, you research all info about the topic (like reading the website of the no 1 opposer of crime) and you sell this intelligence to your leaders or swap it for brownie points.
You let go of all reason, accountability and logic and you allow the people above to use your meterial body and will to accomplish their goals
In order to keep these goals a secret, you overshadow it with the previous point.
Now anyone on earth can do this, become this eat this sleap this, many has, Nazi Germany Moqambique, Zimbabwe, various sects that were created by various lunatics and I, myself can become this any day of any week of any month……. but why in dear god’s name would I take the very, very, very easy route that will reveal just exactly how stupid I really am? Why, rather say things that makes you sound clever, sometimes people buys it and gives you little packets of respect that you could show to others to impress them.
morning Leigh
Spuy, I have a point of view, based on facts and my interpretation of the law. I share that here and elsewhere with the objective of promoting the values underlying the Constitution. I am honest about this goal and try and be fair in doing this. Do I sometimes get it wrong? Probably. Do I confront my mistakes? Yes, I really try. It should always be about principles and values and not about individual personalities or ego’s. That allows for lively and informed debate, something it seems we have to little of in our democracy.
Spuy:
It’s not a personal attack hogged to a personal blog (even though that would be entirely appropriate in my view).
Remember that Ngobeni nominated Hlophe for the position of chief justice. This is a personal recommendation tainted by their personal relationship. This is entirely inappropriate.
The good prof questioned this in a public debate and indicated why Hlophe is not a good candidate, whereupon Ngobeni started an attack of the prof’s person. I think it is gregarious of the prof to keep this debate in the public and it should be steered back on course: namely to be a public debate about who should be our next chief justice and why. It is not up to Ngobeni or some other yabo like myself to pick and choose our friends to serve important public posts.
If you read the post above, you will note that the prof concedes that being entirely objective is not always possible, but that we’d go a long way in understanding each other if we are transparent and lay all the cards on the table.
Section 174 of the Constitution indicates the requirements for the appointment of judicial officers. If you removed Ngobeni and the prof entirely from the picture, read through that and critically evaluate Judge Hlophe and decide for yourself if he is fit and proper to serve as any kind of judicial officer, let alone chief justice!
Leigh,
My name is Lara (Francis Marion Braidfute is nom I use as part of my webpages for eco home schoolers: fun and puzzles as a means of encouraging enquiry in learning).
Yes I agree, that “whether one will stand against injustice turns greatly on one’s disposition.”
Disposition is however still, a little vauge (for me). I am not quite sure what your definition and interpretation is.
I think also we are a bit cart before horse in the sense that, your ‘injustice’ may not be mine. What is an ‘injustice’ and how do some consider an ‘injustice’ to be ‘justice’ or unworthy of the term ‘injustice’.
So, I think our choice of the term ‘injustice’ often — like I was saying about our choice of response to what we have identified (not sure how that identification occurred, whether ego automatic, or by full impartial enquiry) — goes unnoticed in our minds, in our cognitive process of thinking.
Now to rest of your comment:
“You seem to understand my view as follows: if one has a paucity of means, one should not get angry and should just walk away from injustice to get on with one’s life.”
When you say ‘paucity’ are you referring to financial paucity, or emotional, or psychological, or intellectual, or legal? For you can have paucity of one, but not of any others, or paucity of a few, but not financial?.
For example, some psychologists profess that many women have problems orgasming, because they have a problem expressing themselves with certain other emotions, like rage, or joy. Because they limit their joy orgasm (unresistable giggling), for example… this manifests in their other emotions.
I imagine, we do agree on many issues. For me the focus is not necessarily agreement, but an exploration of the conversation and learning, as we go along. So even if I may not agree, at first, you may provide information, that enables me to see a new perspective and change my mind. So I don’t worry much about agreement or disagreement, more on the evidentiary information that accompany’s any perspective.
I agree with: “one cannot always do what one wants to do to stop injustices (including unethical behaviour).”
There is a spiritual saying that goes like this: “You can have anything you want, it just won’t look like you thought it would”
If you subscribe to that existneital spiritual principle, you may consider any ‘injustice’ that you perceive or ascertain to be true, to be, the universe/God/karma providing you with an opportunity to make a decision, of who you want to be, in relation to the perceived injustice. In other words, it is a problem, but also an opportunity for you to say: THIS IS WHO I AM, IN RELATION TO THIS INJUSTICE!
I hear your example, and I agree with your conclusion. My personal view is that the main failure in problem solving is jumping over the stage of identifying the cause of the problem.
In South AFrica, as elsewhere, we either negligently (ignorance, failure to identify the cuases) or consciously (failure to be politically incorrect) refuse to address one of the most glaring root cuases of our crime, violence, rape, hypocrisy, society; and that is overpopulation (whether in a family, community, or nation) colliding with scarce or finite resources.
I also think we have different interpretations of what ‘anger’ means. I subscribe to the gestalt psychological views of anger; anger that is sensate, sweaty palms, tight chest or shoulders, gnashing teeth, etc…. not simply ‘angry toughts’.
If I only experience ‘angry thoughts’.. no sensate sense of anger in my sensate being.. then a red flag goes up for me! Then I ask myself if my ‘angry thoughts’ are fully thought through. Are they just my ego, or what are they… so then i launch a little radical honesty social science experiment, to determine whether my ‘angry thoughts’ are ego, or whether there is more there.. I also do not have any ‘happy/unhappy’ judgements about my anger. I just accept them as is.
Not sure what you mean by ‘anger’….
Allot of my views, if not most, about anger, forgiveness, etc., come from living and working in the Radical Honesty community. They are often quite a bit different, than ‘normal’, which is why I try to make clear what my interpretations are about any abstract word or concept, just so we know what our different defintions are; and don’t think we mean the same thing.
Enjoying hearing your views.
Lara
Lara, sorry about getting your name wrong especially as I suspected that your name is in fact Lara.
I have enjoyed looking at your views very much and before I try to engage with them I have to say you are certainly one of the most interesting people I have ‘met’ for some while.
You say that the word ‘disposition’ is unclear as I have neglected to offer a definition thereof. True, a regretable oversight on my part.
Disposition, as I meant it roughly means that to which one is given to doing as a result of (a) one’s natural inclinations and (b) the influences which one’s circumstances have had on one’s natural tendencies.
As you say, I am guilty of the same oversight as to ‘injustice’ as I am as regards ‘disposition’. But I am running out of definitions here so mabe you’ll give me a pass and a warning on this one.
But I will happily address another very interesting and insightful point which you made. As I take your view, you say that one’s choice of language is often based on unnoticed and untested assumption. For instance, just because two people speak of respect does not mean they have the same thing in mind.
Again, you are right to say that the phrase ‘paucity of means’ is quite nebulous as I have not clarified the means I have in mind. Actually I meant a variety of means and the instances which you metioned coincide neatly with those which I contemplated.
I think you are probably right inasmuch as you and I probably do agree on many scores. And I certainly appreciate and even welcome your apparent preference for and focus on truth-seeking exercises as opposed to mere determinations of agreement or disagreement.
I read another of your views as, ‘It is best to avoid dualistic thinking.’ By dualistic thinking, I mean the sort of thought to the effect that if something is one thing, it cannot be something else at one and the same time. And yes, a set back from one perspective is just an opportunity from another.
I think a failure to determine the root cause of a problem can at times be the principal failure as regards problem solving. But with respect, another salient failure in respect thereof (which may be the major problem at times) is a failure to see solutions through.
Well, overpopulation is probably a significan cause of a host of unpleasant phenomena. And even if it is fair to say we have not adequately addressed it, perhaps this is understandable given that this problem hardly gives itself to solutions.
You say we seem to have different interpretations of anger. Well, lets examine this.
On what I take as the definition to which you subscribe, the definition of anger must embrace physical changes or reactions and not merely thoughts.
Let me just say that you sound very spiritually inclined.
Now I think you may have a point. One could possibly say that angry thoughts are the cause of anger but strictly speaking not actual anger. But how about this: both thoughts and what you may call physical sensations are consequences of causes. So in this respect, there is I think no distinction to be drawn between the two.
@Lara
“For example, some psychologists profess that many women have problems orgasming”
lol maybe with those pyschologists but not with me thats for damn sure.
“because they have a problem expressing themselves with certain other emotions, like rage, or joy”
its called whip n tickle trust me it ant a problem with girls expressing it…infact i incourage it.
apart from that good read
If it is true that Paul Ngobeni was disciplned at UCT for expressing an opinion, in the light of the last few days it is ironic that I have defended Ngobeni in this regard. See http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=729. I stand by my defense of him.
Wow Leigh,
Whole bunch of stuff there! Where to start! Grin!
Okay. No at all probelm with name, just one of my multitasking efforts, but did not want to create the impression I was hiding my actual identity. I don’t mind either: Lara, Fancis, my honey sometimes calls me ‘fruitcake’ when some of my ideas, or my sense of humour, make his mind go drunk like he’s has too much Xmas fruitcake!.
I am going to focus on two things: clarity of communication, and anger. And I think they are more than a little interconnected.
For example, some people, mean ‘I resent you for picking your nose’ and instead say something in passive aggressive high english… ‘What an interesting cultural habit”, where the ‘offender’ does not actually know the other person resents them for picking their nose. He suspects so, but is not sure. So he starts a, what i call ‘mental masturbation mindf**k bender’… he worries, he builds a story, he looks for other hints of behaviour from that person, that they dont like him. He looks for others to gossip with, about htat person.. You know the story.
A great article, I often remind myself with, on clarity is: Abstract, Concrete, General and Specific Terms, by Assoc. Prof. Friedlander, where I particularly like his example of:
If you were a politician, you might prefer abstract terms to concrete terms. “We’ll direct all our considerable resources to satisfying the needs of our constituents” sounds much better than “I’ll spend $10 million of your taxes on a new highway that will help my biggest campaign contributor.” But your goal as a writer is not to hide your real meanings, but to make them clear, so you’ll work to use fewer abstract terms and more concrete terms.
On that note, I was recently approached by a political party, asking me if i would be their candidate for a local by-election. I agreed, but only on certain conditions. I refuse to lie to anyone to get their vote. I refuse to promise anyone anything to get their vote. I do not want anyone voting for me, who does not know exactly what I represent. So, well, they decided — wisely or not, don’t know — the media would not be predisposed to impartial news reporting.
So, what i look for in a discussion, with anyone, is to avoid those who are committed to being politicians and doing the perception management media show, of massaging their ego’s and reputations; and to find the truth seekers, those who want to actually really understand what the other is saying and meaning; even if only ultimately to honourable disagree, but know exactly what you are disagreeing with.
So, moving to Anger. Yes I do think that angry thoughts, like in the example above… percolate and brew… and if allowed to stew and percolate in the ego, or with gossipping friends, that feeding those angry thoughts, by suppressing them from being shared honourably face to face with the person whose statement or action ‘generated’ the angry thoughts, is a huge source of ‘civilized’ (read: unable to clearly and honourable express anger and get over it) societies eventual sensate anger.
Sensate anger that then manifests as frigidity, depression (‘depression is just anger without enthusiasm), and many other what they call psychosomatic disorder and ailments. There are psychologists who say the the individual needs to conform to society; these psychologists never question the underlying foundaitonal premises of htier psychological assumptions.
Then there are critical or some call themselves radical psychologists, who say the system is sick, including mainstream psychological theories of political correctness, and psychological conformity fascism; it is the system of political correctness and suppression of honest thoughts and feelings, that suppresses people. I side with the latter.
Which almost brings me full circle, back to clear communicaiton and anger, and how they are related. Hope you don’t mind if I provide you with a quote, and if you want to read more, a link. Then you will know better where I am coming from on anger, and clear communication… Note, this works for me and this is the method for getting over being mad, in the Radical Honesty community. It is an excerpt from Practicing Radical Honesty
Getting Over Being Mad
There is a specific technology for getting over being mad. Getting over being mad is called forgiveness. It is not easy to do. Essentially you have to get mad in the presence of the person you are mad at, be present to your experience in your body while being mad, be specific and not abstract about what you are mad about, and stay in touch with the experience and the person and the conversation until you are not mad anymore.
[Note specific and not abstract, in relation to specific words, not abstract words like 'you don't love me'.. ]
Our minds, as well as a lot of experts, tell us to avoid this at all costs. Most of us, most of the time, would rather just stay mad and think about it and invent categories full of negative judgment for the rotten jerks who made us mad and look for further proof that we are right and they are wrong. It’s more fun and it’s easier to do.
Unfortunately, the “easy” way is the one most damaging to ourselves and others and it doesn’t work. The only way to get over the depression and anxiety and fury and physical illness caused by this way of avoidance is to get a prescription from psychiatrists or other physicians for drugs that help you avoid feelings. The drug companies are always there to
serve, with lots of variety and plenty of support and lots of good advice and tons of alternative “mother’s little helpers.” If that doesn’t work, illegal painkillers of various kinds are easily obtained. The old paradigm is powerful in keeping itself in charge and the opiates for the people are plentiful.
Furthermore, there is lots of advice by experts who will be concerned for your welfare and willing to fix your upset with many congenial old paradigm explanations and things you can do to avoid dealing with your anger. You have heard of or tried many of these ways, I am sure. But let me just review a few of the phony solutions to anger.
If anyone has ever told you that you can forgive someone by just deciding to forgive them, that person was wrong. If you believe you can forgive someone by just deciding to, you’re sadly mistaken and you have fooled yourself out of getting over your anger. If you think you can forgive someone you are mad at by praying, thinking, writing letters and sending them, writing letters and not sending them, doing “therapy,” talking to someone else about it, “acting out” in a protective environment, beating pillows, shouting at other folks, becoming “spiritual” or “attaining enlightenment” or any of the other methods of avoidance of face-to-face forgiveness that millions of minds have derived as a way to avoid the work of forgiveness and the experience of forgiveness, you are likewise, like all of them, still delusional and still angry.
Seriously, the way you get over being so serious about what you are angry about is to face it and face the person you are mad at if they are still on this earth and work through it until it gets funny. If the person is dead, there are other ways to forgive them without digging them up, but those ways don’t work if you are engaged in a conspiracy with your therapist to avoid contact and honest sharing of your anger with the living people you are mad at.
Now you may better understand why it is my, and Brad’s (the author above) opinion, that South Africans who think we had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and that Truth and Reconciliation occurred.. are delusional and still angry, some raging and beyond ‘fury’……. The proof for the anger, is available in our fake smiles, our rape and murder statistics, our high walls, our political leaders conversations, or lack of particular concrete word conversations……
The Nobel Peace Prize TRC co-conspirators, and their psychologists (media perception management of South Africa’s international image on the world stage)… do not yet have the courage to really get to work, on truthtelling, on transparency, and on forgiveness…
Maybe they will find hte courage… If not, it won’t be because I did not encourage them screaming like a bezerk fruitcake from every blog and courtroom rooftop; to practice what they preach… at every point along the way!
Not sure what that says about my ‘disposition!
Lara
I’ve figured it out – any disparagement of a loyal cadre based upon fact is indicative of hatred, obviously. Any disparagement of anybody else through personal attacks not based in fact but purely designed to obfuscate the first factual disparagement is absolutely fine, should it come from a loyal cadre.
It is apparently also absolutely fine to call people racists as often as you want, as long as they’re white. There needs to be no factual basis for this, merely a personal opinion based upon that white person doing or saying something a black person in the ANC didn’t like, possibly because it was true and about a black person doing something bad.
Also, black people in government/the civil service are incapable of doing any wrong, as evidenced by Tony Yengeni being carried shoulder high to jail for fraud. Any time a loyal black cadre is found guilty of some sort of crime or transgression, it is to be blamed on racism, or dark forces in the government, or the elitist judiciary.
Spuy et al – does this about sum it up? Please let us know, so we understand what parameters we’re dealing with here.
Slipper, it’s because the race card is worth less (notice two words) in post apartheid SA. You realy have to create a new scenario because of the abscence of the circumstances that prevailed during apartheid. For instance, because you got caught doing something questionable in every society on any part of the planet and you know it, you obviously know that they (those with authority, those who try and protect the norms, what westerners know as justice ect) are on to you because you have gotten away with it for some time.
Now what you do, because you’re obviously one step ahead of who ever is chasing you, you throw them a bit of course by means of: like we identified now the race card, you could claim the chasers is prejudiced (different variation of the race card) ect. But in the end those who truly have others interests at heart are those that can stand for what’s right and it’s impossible not to be able to see them.
Lara, that was all very informative it took me through a journey of introspection. Constitutional law interpretation is usually not very emotional, definitions to all words are also given usually in section 1 of most acts and when I say act, I mean a piece of legislation passed by Government that affects our daily lives. Basically you would call a spade a spade, I’ve also read Eat, love, pray by Elizabeth Gilbert and it’s beautiful. Especially were she made so much love to her new boyfriend that it gave her a bladder infection and she says there is no other cause for this kind of infection, she described it someone playing fire poker in the you know what and I though about my girlfriend back in the day when I was a student, I know now where her mother’s anger for me came from, you know?
Friend,
I am not sure I understand exactly what you are trying to say, with: “Constitutional law interpretation is usually not very emotional, definitions to all words are also given usually in section 1 of most acts and when I say act, I mean a piece of legislation passed by Government that affects our daily lives.”
Here is an example about how their ‘emotional restraint’ in Constituitonal interpreation.. is affecting your daily life….
The following is a document, sent to among others the Constitutional Court Chief Justice ni 2004, encouraging a debate and frank discussion on the issues we are here discussing…, and the consequences of deicisons made by the judiciary, which ripple through society and affect our daily lives.
The need to deny something in oneself, is frequently an underlying motive for certain odd behaviour — even up to and including crime. For example: Most sex crimes are committed by undersexed rather than oversexed individuals, often undersized rather than oversized, and impelled less by lust than by a need for reassurance regarding an impaired masculinity. The unconscious fear of women goards some men with a compulsive urge to conquer, humiliate, hurt, or render powerless some available sample of womanhood. [10]
Prof. Karl Menningers colleague, Bruno Bettelheim, thought that we do not properly educate our youth to deal with their violent urges. He reminds us that nothing fascinated our forefathers more. The Iliad is a poem of violence. Much of the Bible is a record of violence. Our penal system and many methods of child-rearing express violence — “violence to suppress violence.” And, he concludes in the article Violence: A Neglected Mode of Behaviour:
“We shall not be able to deal intelligently with violence unless we are first ready to see it as part of human nature, and then we shall come to realize the chances of discharging violent tendences are now so severely curtailed that their regular and safe draining-off is not possible anymore.” [10]
That information is from evidence led before US Supreme Court, in Brown vs. Board of Education, and is quoted, and made relevant to South AFrican criminal justice issues, in a document to Constitutional Court Chief Justice: Arthur Chaskalson, in 2004: Fraudulent ‘Rehabilitation’ Boomerang: Correctional Services Prison Policies As A Major Intentional Source of New South Africa’s ‘Kaffirs’ AKA ‘Criminals’.
• Forward: Social Engineers or Parasites
• Introduction: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure
• Incarceration’s Consequences on Community Development and Human Capital
• Social Functioning Process Problems: Our Social Systems Destructive Social Character vs Creative Morality
• The Obedient Sado-Masochist Bureaucrat’s Blueprint for Criminal Justice Policies
• Does South Africa’s punishment masquerading as ‘rehabilitation’ political penal policy exist not to deter criminality, but to covertly serve our latent desire for vengeance and superiority?
• Dissent, or, Obedience and Conformity to Authority?
• Proudly South African: Unconsciously United in the Pathology of Aggression, Violence & Revenge
• Interactive Action-Oriented Living Laboratory Mentoring Voluntary Offer
• HOW: Reciprocity: Alternative Models of the Social Correctional Expert
• WHY: Building Psychic Freedom Muscles: Regular and safe draining off of Rage, Anger & Hopelessness
• WHO: Mutual-Help Destiny-Control Colleagues: A Guide for Peaceful Revolution in South Africa
• Conclusion: Your Crime Against Criminals & Yourselves
• POSTSCRIPT: Are YOU a Social Engineer or a Parasite?
So, what do you think, do the South African Constituional Court, practice being legal social engineers to problem solving, or prefer to be Judicial Parasites?
It looks to me we are on the ‘Hlippery Hlope’ to the ‘Banana Republic’ as foretold by others.
The fact that the Honorable JH legally received a stipend from that August Institution is debatable.
That he actually ruled the same Institution could proceed against another judge, without recusing himself is what questions his moral paucity.
Doing something immoral and believing you are not ‘wrong’ unless you are caught out, then believing you are considered innocent until proven guilty is not a moral compass that should be admired by anyone especially someone in the Judiciary.
Francis Marion Braidfute // Jun 24, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“So, what do you think, do the South African Constituional Court, practice being legal social engineers to problem solving, or prefer to be Judicial Parasites?”
how you wording that makes it sound like the Constitutional Court is practicing nannyism i dont like what I read here. sorry Im with Friend on this one and Ill show you why
you got to be carefull here social engineering is a means of trying to control human behaviors with the emphasis of law
whats the danger to the constitutional court practicing social engineering is that you suggesting the Concourt should be supervisor and engineerer. It is then that social life commits to the state to social engineering. The state inturn becomes a social engineer and inturn holds its subjects to assessment and can deny there normative suitability and standing.
What your advocating for is infact totalization.
What the Concourt should be is a authoritative claim rather than a authoritarian impulse and life should not be colonized by state norms.
We are self owing and self authoring beings before and beyond law and politics. You want the concourt to move the focus of equality from freedom from laws that disrespect our equaility and autonomy to freedom to occupy state-approved forms of life.
a good example of this was making gay marriages illegal now its legal but how much rights do they enjoy as the married hetros?
and since when now does gay marriage all of a sudden become a right?
what about females in musilim marriages?
what your also suggesting that the super elit of the concourt is now in tune with changing public opinion.
This legal social engineering from the Concourt becomes judical supremacy and not constitutional democracy.
Abraham Lincoln 1861
“i do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Surpreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon a party to a suit….At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Surpreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will seize to be there own rulers.
You may wish the Concourt to rule you through legal social engineering, Im afriad im my own person and rather control my own legal social engineering.
Spuy and Mdu couldn’t have said it better.
Why dont you write anything about the DA, the FF-plus and other noteworthy nonsense about these????. The answer is simple, you are racist to the bone professor. With all the goons who support your views on this blog.
Skhokho Radebe:
You are right. You couldn’t have.
Skhokho Radebe, I ahve written reams about the DA et al and had quite a spat with Ms Zille at some point. Just search the Blog to see. Next time before yuo hurl insults first check your facts. I find it helps to prevent making a fool of oneself.
Chris McDaniel,
From your response, it appears you did not read the article, you only took one sub-chapter heading, ignored the rest, ignored the context, ignored the information where you could get context, and came to your own conclusion about what I meant.
I did not mean what you think I meant. If you want to know what I meant, read the article, if you wish, but your interpretation, as to what I meant is inaccurate. Here again is the article, and additional contextual information, should you be interested in accurately interpreting what I meant: Fraudulent ‘Rehabilitation’ Boomerang: Correctional Services Prison Policies As A Major Intentional Source of New South Africa’s ‘Kaffirs’ AKA ‘Criminals’.
Francis Marion Braidfute // Jun 26, 2009 at 1:55 pm
this was your conclusion and question towards friend
“So, what do you think, do the South African Constituional Court, practice being legal social engineers to problem solving, or prefer to be Judicial Parasites?”
“The following is a document, sent to among others the Constitutional Court Chief Justice ni 2004, encouraging a debate and frank discussion on the issues we are here discussing…, and the consequences of deicisons made by the judiciary, which ripple through society and affect our daily lives.”
You asked “what do I think” giving you a bit of a guidence on what legal social engineering is actually about.
if social engineering was not your main objective then way talk about it and and ask a question about it??
Maybe I should ask you your question “So, what do you think, do the South African Constituional Court, practice being legal social engineers to problem solving, or prefer to be Judicial Parasites?
Lara, my work’s intranet does not allow that site as the content is not suitable, but, let me tell you your questioin is not new, philosophers over the centuries have asked this question and I could give you a response without referring to the article.
Here we assume that the courts are there for law and order to govern a society. I’ll continue Monday enjoy Chris, the weekend cheers