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?

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’.

“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.

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.