The Social Justice Coalition will be holding a protest meeting on Thibault Square in Cape Town on Saturday morning from 12 a.m. to protest the Dalai Lama decision, the arms deal corruption and the dismal service delivery. Their plan of action states that they demand a commitment by all political parties to:
- Always act in solidarity with marginalised people by actively promoting the bill of rights and the UN declaration of human rights, both locally and internationally, and make decisions based on its principles;
- Enforce the principle that all are equal before law
- Protect the independence and integrity of the courts and allow for due judicial process without political interference;
- Prioritise the needs of the poor, disenfranchised and most vulnerable;
- Work actively to stamp out racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, religious discrimination and homophobia;
- Ensure that corporations locally and globally engage in fair trade with fair labour practices and openness in financial institutions.
Pity they are not on the ballot because then I could vote for a party in whose principles and values I actually believe. See you there?
It’s hard to understand why anyone would not want to support such a cause.
My support is pledged.
Hi Pierre,
Your views on the below????
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=123356&sn=Marketingweb+detail
Regards
Vuyo
SCA has upheld the appeal of the CC vs Slippery Hlope. Those dodgy counter-rev apartheid judges are at it again!
Read the entire judgment free online by visiting http://www.saflii.org.
“[55] It will always be distressing for a judge to learn in the media that he or she has been accused of misconduct but that seems to us to be an inevitable hazard of holding public office. The remedy that is available to a judge who finds that he or she is in that position is to insist that the body charged with investigating such a complaint does so with expedition so as to clear his or her name. Nor should it be thought that such accusations may be made with impunity: a judge, like any member of the public, is entitled to the consolation of damages for defamation if the publication of the statement cannot be justified (Argus Printing and Publishing Company Ltd v Esselen’s Estate 1994 (2) SA 1 (A)). But we do not think that his or her remedy lies in stifling the fact that a complaint has been made (Moran v Lloyd’s (a statutory body) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Reports 423 (CA) at 427).
[56] For those reasons we conclude that the court below erred by making the declaratory orders. The appeal must be upheld and the order of the court below replaced with an order dismissing the application. Costs were not in issue. It is accordingly ordered as follows:
(a) The appeal is upheld.
(b) The order of the court below is replaced by an order dismissing the application.
On behalf of: HARMS DP, STREICHER, MTHIYANE, NUGENT, CLOETE, PONNAN, MLAMBO, SNYDERS AND MHLANTLA JJA”
Prof, this just in:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-03-31-sca-upholds-appeal-by-judges-against-hlophe
“Ensure that corporations locally and globally engage in fair trade with fair labour practices and openness in financial institutions.”
Yet you are quite happy with to see Zuma as a fall guy for the globally corrupt arms trade business.
alright nice one George so there we go just like we been saying all along making the media statement was not unlawful.
Ozoneblue I think you need to eat some humble pie now.
Now we can get to the real issue of the influence of Hlophe on two Judges.
Next please….
No Ozone, as I recall Thint is being charged too…and other countries, such as Britain, are actively investigating the role that companies such as BAE played in the deal…
Sorry Vuyo, I’m aware you didn’t ask for my opinion, but that was the most shocking thing I’ve read in ages. I’d like to second your request for Prof’s views on this article.
This is off-topic, because blogs have replaced/crowed-out
newsgroups where not only the blog owner could initiate
a topic. But I’m hoping the prof will allow this CC related
query. What are current SA Court’s atitudes to out of time ?
The time limits were laid down decades ago, for the use of
the priviledged sector of a functioning society.
I.e. when [for those who it was designed for] the traffic
lights and postal service *functioned* and eg. there were
NOT tens of thousands of municipal clients who’s bills were
[admittedly] wrong.
Do the Court’s acknowledge that in the present
non-functioning society, often the statutary time limits
can’t reasonably be met. Of course it would be un-PeeCee
to ammend the legislation. But do Courts in fact
acknowledge reality? What happens to time limits if a
bombing war ‘breaks out’, or an earth quake swallows
SCA ?
Apparently Indian cases can drag on for generations ?
Did they too start by adopting the colonial time limits
in their legislation ?
==TIA.