“We planned our lives around this miracle.”

Indeed we did.

Oh well – at least some roads and freeways will be nicer for a long time after the final whistle blows.

Let the games begin!!!!!!!!!!!
We planned our lives around this miracle.

Asked this week at a presentation on the outlook for SA’s economy and markets whether he could estimate the stimulatory effect of the Soccer World Cup on SA’s economy this year, he replied: “It’s not hard to estimate, it’s completely impossible. We have no idea.”

Then you have people like Chris who know exactly the answer to this question.

Please be vocal after the World Cup.

Let the games begin

“General: Secession going ahead – lawyer
The controversial lawyer behind the planned secession of the AbaThembu hit back at his critics last week, saying whoever has problem with the planned move should raise it with the royal family, reports the Daily Dispatch. ‘I have a valid instruction from the royal family that on 6 January, 2010, we will go and withdraw,’ lawyer Votani Majola said. Majola, who heads the King Dalindyebo Justice Task Team, has served notice to President Jacob Zuma and the NPA claiming that the AbaThembu would establish an independent state by 6 January.”

I can only think that Pierre refers to the Public Nuisance bylaw, but that says nothing about locking anyone up. It DOES talk about a R50 for aggressive begging.

It would be interesting for someone to compare the relevant bylaws of JHB, DBN and CPT. Certainly the people that I’ve spoken to about the issue say that JHB’s and DBN’s bylaws are positively draconian with regards to homeless people… but given the political makeups of their councils, they’re above reproach?

http://www.argosy.ca/view.php?aid=41803
http://www.fodojournal.com/2009/10/03/the-olympic-games-remove-the-poor/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/08/10/vanishing_act/

Thanks bro.

I believe it is a matter of one being more comfortable in using certain words in certain contexts. My usage of the three words (assassinate, murder, execution), can be summarized as follows;

Assassinate – the person killed must be a politician or wield political power or influence (such a Bret Kebble. Even though he was not a politician he still wielded political influence, hence his “assassination”) Whether he’s killed by a knife, pair of scissors, thrown in front of a moving train (reminds me of John Travolta throwing his wife in front of a moving train in the movie, The Punisher), etc. but not if there was no intention to kill (as in being killed by a stray bullet or by a lion which has escaped from captivity)

Murder – when a person is killed but does not fit in the categoris above and below (like the people regional magistrates et al convict for murder in their courts).

Execute – when the person is killed on the instructions of a lawful or unlawful authority (like being shot by a firing squad on the instructions of a senior military officer or general, through an order of court, or by a mob where a country is in chaos). For instance, I consider a person who was killed by “necklacing” as having been executed since the mob was the (unlawful) authority at the time and place concerned.

I believe the distinction above also addresses your question about a guillotine. Speaking of that, both King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette were killed by guillotine which was the manner of killing authorities during the French Revolution. The same way necklacing was used to kill spies et al during the Apartheid South Africa…

In my above post I did not disrespect the dignity of the poor. I don’t think anyone believes that the rights conferred by s18 are absolute and the limitation of a right is not an automatic attack on the dignity of a person. The right to freedom of movement is limited in a variety of ways in South Africa. The limiting of this right has been confirmed in the Goliath case where the interests of society were put above those of the individual. Admittedly, the interest being protected was that of public health but I don’t see why this cannot be transferred to economic health.

In the same vein, the rights conferred by the Bill of Rights are also not absolute. If the purpose of the limitation has as its end goal the enhancement of the human dignity, equality and freedom of our society as a whole, it would surely be justifiable? We see this type of limitation on a daily basis in the form of Affirmative Action and various other laws that limit the rights granted in the Bill of Rights in an attempt to make ours a more equal and dignified society.

You further state that the temporary removal of homeless persons would have “limited gain for a small section of the population”. The World Cup is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) sporting event in the world. The World Cup is estimated to have a direct economic value for South Africa’s GDP of approximately $21.3 billion (that’s nearly 10% of our 2008 GDP) and is predicted to create 159,000 jobs. Nearly half a million visitors will visit South Africa and the image South Africa presents to these visitors will echo through the economy of South Africa for decades to come. I hardly think that an event of such magnitude will only benefit a small section of South Africa as you assert.

I would, in any case, be very interested to see what a court makes of this removal, if it is taking place at all. I haven’t found any specific cases where economic interest was put before that of the right to freedom of movement, but many instances of the application of such a limitation for economic purposes do come to mind.