Sorry I have entered this debate a bit late, but I’d like to discuss your notion that Pierre (congrats incidentally) is “counter-majoritarian” because he is unhappy with the substance of the proposed Amendment.

Majoritarian must mean more than just Parliament, mustn’t it? It must mean through the will of the people at large. Otherwise you are criticising the fact that Judges are using their subjective opinions to “make” law and not 425 Parliamentarians using their subjective opinions.

So let’s just check to see how “majoritarian” that proposed Amendment is. Well look at the ANC’s electoral mandate: www [dot] anc [dot] org [dot] za/show.php?doc=elections/2009/manifesto/manifesto.html&title=2009+Election+Manifesto

Do you see any reference to Constitutional Reform? No me neither.

I also distinctly remember ANC leaders such as Mantashe rubbishing the suggestion that the ANC was pushing for a 75% or Three/Thirds Majority in order to effect Constitutional Amendment as scare mongering. Indeed fingers were pointed at the opposition parties for clearly outlining the Constitutional Amendments they were proposing as proof that they, and not the ANC, were the real Constitution wreckers! Mantashe on the final Election Debate on SABC2 before the election categorically stated that the ANC had NO PLANS to amend the Constitution.

Now here we have a 58 page document, which could not have been drafted in the few weeks since the election. That means that the Government were planning on publicising this Amendment post-election, despite their assertions to the contrary.

As someone who voted for the ANC, I am extremely concerned that I was blatantly lied to in this manner, that my mandate will be abused in that MPs who are subjected to the party Whip will be asked to vote in favour of a proposed Amendment which I was unaware of, told that no such Amendment would be tabled and that notwithstanding the public participation process, will be Tabled in precisely the form the ANC wants it to be (I’ve been down the public participation process too many times to expect otherwise).

So really to accuse Pierre of being counter-majoritarian is to unduly simplify his critique, and to smokescreen the real issue.

is it just me or is Mzo a little slow due to the weather?

Mzo

It states:
This order is different to the order made by the High Court.

it states:
it stipulates that no person may be moved unless alternative accommodation is provided to him or her.

Then it says:
It also requires individual engagement with households prior to their move. The order provides also that the parties should engage meaningfully on the timetable for the move; and on any other matter on which they agree to move.

and finaly it says:
It also declares that 70% of the low cost housing to be built at Joe Slovo must be made available to former or current residents of Joe Slovo who have applied for and qualify for housing.

so because you a bit slow, it says under section 26 of the Constitution because you poor little buggers are living in shacks we are going to move you for a short time so you can move back into an actual house.

So thank the CC judges for allowing government to carry on with there work on service delievery or do you have a problem with giving people better houses?

They going to move back ello???

Hlophe just wanted to get rid of them. see the difference?

No, no, no Mr Tshaka. They are not in terms of the CC order to be moved to ‘that far away place’. No person may be moved unless alternative accomodation has been provided to him/her; individual engagement has to take place with every household prior to their move; and the parties should engage meaningfully on the timetable of their move and on every other matter on which they agree. Moreover, 70% of the houses to be erected at Joe Slovo must be made available to former or current residents.

That, my friend, is not an ‘anti-poor’ judgement at all. It is not like Hlophe JP said, ‘Move or be forcefully evicted!’

You are missing the point. I couldn’t care less whether you, Prof or anyone else agrees with the judgment from a consitutiional/legal point of view.

My issue with Prof on this issue was never about whether Hlope’s judgment was correct or not, but I had issues with Prof calling Hlope JP anti-poor simply on the basis that he ordered that those “poor” prople be moved some 15km away.

My point now is simply that, on Prof’s reasoning, it would appear that Hlope is clearly not the only “anti-poor” judge around!…but I will take you up on reading the judgment!