DEFEND DEMOCRACY, NOT GAG IT: Former Minister of Intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils.
…
Substantial revisions have been made to the Bill. Whereas my motivation was to reduce unnecessary classification and encourage declassification, the 2010 Bill does the opposite.

The 2008 Bill required original State classifiers to provide a written justification for each initial classification decision. This has been removed from the 2010 Bill. The purpose behind the requirement was to force classifiers to think twice before classifying information. In particular it was there to force them to apply their minds to make reasoned and rational classification decisions, which could be defended. By removing this requirement, classifiers are given an opportunity to make up reasons after the fact. …

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=427543

“The bill suffers from several defects which render it constitutionally suspect and which need further consideration,” the LSSA said in a statement.

The society expressed concern over the bill and the ANC-proposed Media Appeals Tribunal, and their effects on media freedom.

“… Each has the potential seriously to erode transparency, accountability by public officials, the public’s right of access to information and media freedom.”

“Defects” in the bill include its “broad and vague” definition of “national interest”, the threshold for classification was “unacceptably low”, the bill allows for the classification of commercial information held by the state and the bill fails to provide for an “independent oversight mechanism” to review classification decisions.

“… [It] thus leaves the final decisions in this regard in the hands of state officials who may well have an interest in continuing to conceal certain information.”

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article590777.ece/Law-Society-concerned-about-media-freedom

2010-08-05 11:42
Michael Hamlyn, I-Net Bridge

“We understand that a lot of things that have taken place currently, the Protection of Information Bill the proposal of a media tribunal, the arrest of the journalist recently, all of these things are contributing to a climate where a perception could emerge that there is a government plan to muzzle the media, but I want to make it very clear that there isn’t such a plan on the part of the government.”

Maseko insisted: “What needs to happen is an interaction, a dialogue that needs to take place between editors, media owners and government to understand the context, to understand where government is coming from with its proposals on the table, and for government to hear the views of media owners and the editors, to find some understanding that is acceptable.

“We all agree that it is unhealthy for a perception to exist that government is on a mission to actually muzzle the media in any form or shape, which is actually not true.”

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Zuma-wants-to-talk-to-media-20100805

If my memeory serves me well, we had a gentleman who was presented in this blog as Chief Justice of Swaziland during the Hlophe debate. Well here is a taste of the kind of Justice you find in Swaziland that should be embarassing in anyones cv.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=29&art_id=iol1280841092211S241

The headline was, therefore, derived from this interpretation, and we accept that it is misleading. We apologise.”

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article582513.ece/Blade-did-not-use-word-jail

‘Choose tenants carefully’ and be accused of discrimination?

“On cutting off essential services – dude, somebody has to pay for the services. If you say the municipality cannot cut off services then nobody is going pay. Ever.”

Indeed.

It may well be why it was ruled that if services are provided to a property then the property has to stand against the expenses.

The bottom line should be that the property owner has to be responsible – protect property and choose tenants carefully, neither of which is very hard to do and neither should ultimately be the responsibility of the state.

It was reported over the weekend that as many as 450 000 homes (or some big number) are soon to be repossessed – so the defaulting owners have no money, the banks attach, who should pay for the services?