“Water is life… Without it, we will die,” writes justice Kate O’Regan in the Constitutional Court judgment of Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others, handed down late last week. But if water is life, do the lives of poor people in Soweto count for less than, say, the lives of rich people living in Sandton?
This is the question that comes to mind when one reads the carefully argued (but, to my mind, utterly unconvincing) judgment of the Constitutional Court in the above mentioned case. The Court was asked to answer the question of whether the policy of the City of Johannesburg to install pre-paid water meters in poor areas like Phiri, Soweto, coupled with a policy to cut off the water supplies of households who had used more than their 6 kiloliters of free water for the month, contravened section 27(1)(b) read with the right to equality in section 9 of the Constitution.
Both the High Court (in a brilliantly innovative judgment by Tsoka J) and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) had found that the City Council did not have the legal authority to install pre-paid meters and cut off water supplies when residents had no money to pay for more than their free allocation of water, that the system discriminated unfairly against Phiri residents because residents in rich areas were not subject to the installation of pre-paid meters and that the 6 kiloliters of free water per household per month was not constitutionally adequate.
The Constitutional Court judgment demonstrates a limited (and quite conservative) understanding of its role in enforcing social and economic rights and shows an over eagerness on the part of the Court to endorse the essentially “neo-liberalism-with-a-human-face” pay-as-you-go water provision policies of the Municipality. To some extent the judgment represents a retreat for the Court from its hey-day when (in the TAC case) it ordered the state to take steps to make Nevirapine available to all HIV positive pregnant mothers in order to prevent HIV transmission to their babies.
The Court argued in Mazibuko that in the TAC case “in a sense” it did no more than to “render the existing government policy available to all”. This is a rather innovative (re)interpretation of the TAC case (hence the “in a sense” rider, one suspects) as the government argued then that Nevirapine was probably toxic, that giving it to mothers would probably lead to resistance to other drugs, that it might not be effective in preventing mother to child transmission of HIV and hence that the state was reasonable in restricting the use of Nevirapine to pilot sites until such time as these questions were definitively answered. When the case was argued there was a policy NOT to provide the drug to those who needed it to save the lives of their babies, so there was “in a sense” no existing policy to be extended.
In any case, despite this rather unconvincing interpretation of precedent, the Mazibuko case does add two interesting and welcome innovations to the jurisprudence on social and economic rights. First, it states that the government has a duty continually to review its policies to ensure the progressive realisation of social and economic rights - something the City of Johannesburg was willing to do in this case. Second, the judgment views social and economic rights adjudication as part of a broadening of democracy as it help to hold the government accountable for its actions.
Thus the national government had a duty to set the targets it wishes to be achieved with respect to social and economic rights. This was consistent with accountable, open and responsive government as it required the state to explain and justify its choices regarding the realisation of social and economic rights.
If the process followed by government is flawed or the information gathered is obviously inadequate or incomplete, appropriate relief may be sought. In this way, the social and economic rights entrenched in our Constitution may contribute to the deepening of democracy. They enable citizens to hold government accountable not only through the ballot box but also, in a different way, through litigation.
One assumes where no targets are set by the government, it would be difficult for the state to show that it has acted reasonably because it would make it very difficult for ordinary citizens to hold the government to account for the progressive realisation of the rights. This is potentially a very significant gain for social and economic rights jurisprudence.
Where the judgment really fails to convince is where the Court (re)interprets section 4(3) of the Water Services Act to ensure that it does not apply to cases such as the one before it.
The implications of this move are rather startling. The Court endorses the neo-liberal paradigm of water provision adopted by the city, a policy which would often deny poor people access to adequate water because they would be unable to pay for the water needed to live. This is something that would happen often, given the fact that 6 kiloliters of water for large families are wholly inadequate and given further that many poor residents stay on plots where one water meter serves two or three families living on that plot. Many such families are unemployed and do not have money to pay for the very water that would sustain their lives.
The judgment seems to be based on an assumption that people do not pay for water because they are bad or dishonest people: they want something for free when they need to (and can) pay for the water. It fails to take account of the fact that even if we all wanted to be good little capitalists like the government wants us to be, we cannot all afford the basic necessities that would sustain our lives.
One might well argue (as others have done) that it is not the role of the Constitutional Court to second guess the policy choices of the government. If the government decides to implement neo-liberal policies on water provision, it is constitutionally allowed to do so - as long as it acts reasonably in the context of the logic and assumptions of the economic paradigm it has chosen. The problem in this case is that it is far from clear that the national government had chosen the path endorsed by the Court.
Section 4(3) of the Water Services Act – which sets minimum standards that must be followed by municipalities – states that where water services are limited or discontinued, a fair and equitable process must be followed, reasonable notice had to be given of “intention to limit or discontinue” water services and must not result in the termination of water services where a person can show that he or she is unable to pay.
The Constitutional Court interpreted the words “limit or discontinue” to mean the permanent discontinuation of the water supply and in doing so ignored some of the wording (”limit”) of section 4(3) of the Act.
The ordinary meaning of “discontinuation” is that something is made to cease to exist. The water supply does not cease to exist when a pre-paid meter temporarily stops the supply of water. It is suspended until either the customer purchases further credit or the new month commences with a new monthly basic water supply whereupon the water supply recommences. It is better understood as a temporary suspension in supply, not a discontinuation….
Could section 4(3) mean that every time a water supply, provided through a pre-paid meter is about to be suspended because the credit purchased for the water supply is at its end, reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard must be provided to the relevant customer by the municipality? This would, in my view, have a result that borders on the absurd.
The Court here comes close to subverting the democratic will of the people as expressed through the legislature. Parliament had passed a law which required that where water supply was either limited or discontinued reasonable notice had to be given to those whose supply was to be cut off. Because it first decided (using contorted reasoning to re-interpret section 3(2) of the Act in a completely unconvincing way) that the Act allowed for the installation of pre-paid water meters (so much for interpreting a statute holistically!), it could then, second, argue that the next section had to mean that reasonable notice had only to be given when the water supply was permanently discontinued.
To reach this conclusion, the Court had to ignore the fact that the Act also includes the word “limit”, which could surely not mean anything but the “temporary suspension in supply”. In effect this aspect of the judgment ignores the express words of the legislature (”limit”) in order to justify its endorsement of the neo-liberal water policies of the City of Johannesburg. This was done not to show an adequate respect for the legislature to uphold the separation of powers doctrine but, on the contrary, to undermine that very doctrine in order to achieve a specific ideologically desired result.
The Court also rejected the argument that the implementation of pre-paid water meters to Phiri and other areas of Soweto (but not to wealthy, mostly white, suburbs) constituted unfair discrimination on the basis of race. Because water meters were not introduced in all townships and because households with pre-paid meters paid less for their water, this was not discrimination at all.
This argument does not seem plausible to me. First, it is based on the premise that unless all black residents of Johannesburg had been affected by the move, it would not really amount to discrimination. If followed in other non-discrimination cases this reasoning would make it almost impossible to prove indirect discrimination.
Second, although the users of pre-paid water meters pay less for water, they have no choice in the matter and they do suffer a disadvantage: when the free water runs out they have to pay – even when they have no money. If they had the same system than in Sandton, they would be able to pay their account at the beginning of the month when they are paid or receive their social grants and the chances of having an uninterrupted water supply would be far greater. There is a clear disadvantage for poor people to be put on a pre-pad system and the fact that the Court denies this shows a rather cavalier attitude towards the real lived experience of poor South Africans.
Previously the SCA used to hand down conservative judgments which were then overturned on appeal to the Constitutional Court. But as the latter court becomes more conservative, the SCA might emerge as the court championing the rights of the marginalised and downtrodden while the CC might become the court for those who run the country from the back of their R1.2 million BMW’s.
I find the primary argument somewhat skewered. If one argues that “water is life” and one argued that “everyone has a right to life”, then one ought to also argue that “everyone has a right to water”.
Let’s take it from another perspective. “Access to safe water is a fundamental basic human need and therefore a basic human right”, Kofi Anan, UN Secretary-General. This means that, inasmuch as it is the state’s duty to protect life, it is also the state’s duty to provide clean water to all people respectively it must afford people the access to clean water – and this without any restriction! To my mind, the right or access to water is a basic human right which every government must extend to its citizens without the crazy idea of necessarily charging people for it, especially the poor. I am by no means arguing that one should expect all things for free from a government/state (although silently I do prefer the Marxist ideology that the rich should pay for the poor!). On the contrary, I am arguing in favour of a state’s positive duty to uphold a basic human and constitutional right [in this case the constitutional right to clean water] and the unrestricted access to such right. Next to the inviolable right to dignity which ought to be anchored in “the First Amendment” of the constitution in any civilised constitution, the right to water (which also extend to a person’s right to dignity), should also be an anchored right in the constitution. Anything else is tantamount to a failure of any government in fulfilling its positive duty towards its citizens – a result of which every person who has suffered at the hands of the state not having supplied proper access to clean water should be able to sue the state for failure of executing its duty in guaranteeing access to water. Accordingly, the mere existence of a legal provision such as section 4(3) of the Water Services Act (or the Act itself) must be abolished because (i) it is human right and a positive duty of the government to facilitate this right as opposed to people “paying for this right”, (ii) it makes in-roads into the right of any person’s dignity and (iii) the implications and application of such provisions lead to active social discrimination and social imbalances. It is a sad and human disgrace to see how many people live without any sense of dignity simply because the state is inept to guarantee them access to clean and proper water!
French Water Bill (December 2006):
In 2006 the French Senate adopted the following amendment to the French Water Bill:
“Article 1: Within the framework of laws and regulations as well as previously established rights, the usage of water belongs to all and every natural person, for their food and hygiene, everyone has the right to a right to access drinking water in economically affordable conditions for all.” [Freely translated from : "Dans le cadre des lois et règlements ainsi que des droits antérieurement établis, l'usage de l'eau appartient à tous et chaque personne physique, pour son alimentation et son hygiène, a le droit d'accéder à l'eau potable dans des conditions économiquement acceptables par tous."]
Good posting Prof and I agree with you 100%.
Lawyers at it again. Wait until they start installing cut off meters in Sandton, Bishops Court, Umhlanga, Ballito etc and we will all sober up(including judges).
It is about time to challenge this concept of progressive realisation of rights especially in cases where the state has the capacity to deliver universal access.
The previous government allowed cellphone operators to deny poor people affordable calls for about 5 years until they cashed in on Vodacom/Telkmo BEE deal. They passsed ECA Act that compelled Icasa to consult operators forever while they were mliking us dry. Suddenly everyone has woken up De Lille, ANC, Parliament and issuing policy directives that are long overdue. The drop on inerconnection rates may not necesarrily lead to drop in retail price. Individual contracts may also delay the benefits. The excitement in our newspapers are exaggerated and interconnection has nothing to do with a call within a network. I see the party is about to begin but one court battle will put the champaigne on ice for another 3 yrs.
When will govt learn to stand side by side with the masses and do the right thing.
A phone call can be a matter of life and death, ask ADT
The thing that occupies my mind is how all this relates to the nebulous concept “sustainability”. I rail that this topic is imported, has no local relevance and is thereofre a farce: we have not established a local frame of reference for sustainability in Africa, let alone South Africa. If we do get around to trying to establish this framework, issues such as this be central.
How do we/should we/how should we balance the rights to water between the environment and the poor, for instance?
I s’pose underlying my thought process is a challenge: can you really understand the nuances of what is takes for really sustainable change in SA when you do not have experience of poverty, or living hard in SA?
“This means that, inasmuch as it is the state’s duty to protect life, it is also the state’s duty to provide clean water to all people respectively it must afford people the access to clean water – and this without any restriction!”
Does that mean without restriction as to volume at all? Because I have a huge swimming pool (or is it a dam really?) that I need to keep full and some rather large mielie fields to keep watered.
I realise that I am talking about the possibly absurd extreme but it proves the principle that one is on the slippery slope of the argument: the line *has* to be drawn somewhere.
It is impossible for all of us to have absolutely unlimited use of water.
For one thing, existing water resources simply do not allow it. Then there is also the production and distribution cost. Clean healthy water is not free. It has to be sourced, pumped, purified and distributed. This cannot be done without capital investments and maintenance, all of which cost money. Anyone who argues that people should have free access to unlimited water resources is living in La-La Land. It just can’t be done on that basis.
So if one accepts that there must be a limit, then the argument is simply about what that limit should be. There are two ways of limiting the use of the resource: economically and physically.
In the first instance imposing a cost on the resource will mean that people will of necessity voluntarily limit their usage in order to avoid incurring the assocaited cost “penalty” of excessive or wanton usage. But for the poor this is not fair because it may have the effect of excluding them entirely. So there needs to be a physical limit. As a matter of morality I do not believe any person should ever be entirely denied access to water: once the “free usage” limit (whatever it is) has been reached the system must simply slow the water flow down so that excessive or wanton use is not possible but the most basic needs can still be met. The technology exists. Why not use it?
To CD:
I am not necessarily arguing for free access to water (although this is what I would prefer) – I mentioned this clearly. I am arguing that it is the state’s duty to provide access to clean water. Concerning the merits of your argument: I do not agree with your argument of imposing costs on water usage – it is punishing poor/er people from the start again in the hope that the do not exceed this so-called limit as proposed by you. The right to access to water should extend to the right to live hygienically by means of the fact that it is a basic human necessity – servicing a pool falls rather under luxury and not under necessity. We’re talking about people who live in squalor and who fight on a daily basis to have some measure of human dignity (through the access of clean and proper water or sanitary facilities; not about the luxury of some who feel the need to service their pools! On the contrary, precisely those who feel the need to service their pool/s ought to pay additional water taxes in order to service the needs of other disadvantaged. I guess those who have their pools serviced probably also have them serviced by someone who comes from a township – great for esteem- and dignity building I’d say!
Hello Andy, you say:
“I am not necessarily arguing for free access to water ”
and then you say
“I do not agree with your argument of imposing costs on water usage – it is punishing poor/er people from the start again in the hope that the do not exceed this so-called limit as proposed by you.”
I am confused by the apparent contradiction in your statement.
But I wish to clarify something that you have raised pertaining to my previous post: I didn’t say that, or least did not intend to. I simply pointed out that as a general principle you can prevent people from wasting water, a limited resource, in one of two ways: it either by imposing a cost which ensures that they value the resource sufficiently or by limiting their physical ability to waste. I thought I had made clear that for the poorest the cost option is in effect a denial of access, which I am dead against for reasons I think we all agree on. I thought I had made clear that what I was suggesting for the very poor is completely free water access but not absolutely without limitation as to volume (unfortunately human nature is such that a completely free resource is sometimes treated wantonly and without regard to its true value, as any environmentalist will tell you) and that as to volume the way one limits it is by setting a technical mechanism such that once the initial allowed usage is exceeded the flow of water slows to a trickle so that at least basic drinking, cooking and personal hygiene may be maintained. As to whether 6kl is sufficient, I am afraid I will need to defer to those who know better than me.
The only point I am trying to make is that no-one, rich or poor, should have free access to unlimited water resources. It just isn’t viable or sustainable and there needs to be a limit for all. For those who can pay, you limit their use by making it too expensive to waste. For those who are too poor, there needs to be another mechanism. What that mechanism for the poor should be and how it should work is the real issue.
To CD. The state must provide universal access to clean water to all. The rich who often use this scarce resource for luxuries must subsidise the poor. Under no circumstances, we should cut water to a household because they are poor and are unable to pay. We can find means to incentivize citizens to save water and punish those who pollute and waste water. Unless we have a drought or any act of God we cannot start cutting off water to the poor.
Aa small town such as Port Shepstone has 5 golf courses and I believe SA has more than 2000 of such facilities. Mining houses are buisy polluting our water without much consequences. Municipalities allow feaces to flow into our rivers and not doing enough to repair broken pipes/leakages. There is more we can do before we start blaming the poor. I can bet that Golf Estates, Developments, Gov Departments, farmers, businessses owe more than the people of who have cut off water meters.
Currently we do not have an infrastructure that can readily make clean water available to all but we can set a deadline for that and restore dignity of our people.
If we do not act, basic sevices such as water, elecricity( up 45%), phones, toilets will forever remain a dream to the poor, especially black masses.
Where the state has capacity to provide it must be compelled to provide theses services rather than slowly squeezing people out of the benefiting pool.
Gwebecimele says:
October 13, 2009 at 15:28 pm
“The state must provide universal access to clean water to all”.
Surely universal access does not equal unlimited supply.
p.s. I think that everyone should have prepaid meters and the free water should only be to poor people.
p.p.s Yeah – Water management is a mess.
As to the matter of how to curb usage etc, the sustainability fraternity and communicators in general have long developed tools to influence human behaviour: that for me isn’t the real problem. What we need is a legal and national frame of reference that informs how we view the value and contribution of water to all of society (iow the role in SA of sustainability). We talk of sustainability with great freedom, yet we haven’t had this most basic conversation. Thanks.
Is 6 Kl sufficient water to sustain life for a household? Is it sufficient to sustain anything approaching a “nomal” lifestyle?
Ah, but these are different questions, are they not? Thje government may have a duty to sustain life by providing access to water (but then there is no similar absolute duty to provide food and clothing), but I would argue that the state does NOT have a duty to maintain any particular level of lifestyle – like being able to wash clothes daily.
On a practical level, I wonder whether the meters show users when their current level is, so that they are warned that a cut-off is impending. I suggest that this would be a logical addendum.
What makes this such a difficult practical issue is that: (i) courts are probably not well placed to decide how much water is sufficient (although the High Court and SCA took a stab at this); (ii) the 6 kiloliter is based on average household size but the court pointed out that in poor areas the household sizes are often much larger and, to boot, to earn some income the owner often allows several families to live in shacks on one property but they use one water connection; (iii) some provision is made to help indigent people (they get an additional 4 kiloliter a month free) but few people have registered for this either because of stigma or ignorance; (iv) administratively it is difficult to deal with all the variables and to treat each household according to their circumstances; (v) the state has decided that we should pay if we use more than 6 kiloliters of water to prevent a “culture of entitlement”, to make water provision sustainable and to preserve water. My problem with the case is that its arguments about the requirements of Water Services Act is based on a specific assumption about the system – it could easily have found for the residents (as the SCA and High Court did) but chose a more conservative and legally strained interpretation of the Act. The CC judgment would have been more justifiable if the Water Services Act was differently worded, but given the wording the CC had quitea lot of leeway to assist the poor residents yet it chose not to, perhaps because Joburg City took the case seriously and really engaged with the court and with the issue.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 13, 2009 at 16:47 pm
Does the judgment not indicate that indigent households (with income of less that R1881) qualify for 10 kl?
In any event it’s really silly that people with affordability should get 6 kl free.
I agree with pre paid meters on water since we know there is a limit of what is available. Nor do I see them as a problem in the communities. I know many people with pre-paid electiricity for example. I have a friend who, unbelievable as it may sound, buys R10 of pre paid krak (sp) at a time. Keep in mind that a quart of beer in the townships is R14 on a Sunday and not much less on other days.
To encourage shack dwellers to respect and limit their use of water is not wrong. I’m forever repairing water lines at our local settlement which have been senselessly damaged, and I see much of the water wasted flowing away in troughs of sewage. Even those in RDP homes with toilets leaking, won’t fix them, or even pay their municiipal bills. Surely, water responsibility is something we need to encourage, like litter consciousness.
Just keep in mind, a quart, or even 6 or more quarts of Black Label, take precedence over water for many of the poor.
Why should the poor who are as entitled to water as anyone else have to pay for something that is a basic human right at a relative cost to them that is exorbitant?
Mark: when something is not paid for it is not respected. Isn’t it reality that in life and death, expenses must be paid.
Water, like all the basics in life needs to be available and safe. With however many millions on social grants, should not a portion of that go to water, krak, pre-school? How can we keep these things available if contributions are not made. Are you not aware how much alcohol, drugs and tobacco are purchased in the communities? Survival is survival, and not just for the fittest. All must have their basic rights and services met, but all must contribute according to their ability.
I personally feel that with ‘all pay’ grants, the departments should insure that portions of the all pay for children, for example, should be paid directly to pre-schools, and for adults re water, directly to municipalities. We also need to look seriously at food stamps.
To deny the poor from contributing for their basic needs, denies their potential for growth and advancement. But then, according to many posts, that’s exactly the intent of the ANC.
I’m going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons I think, but I suppose that’s why we’re all here.
Firstly, I have no idea what a sufficient amount of water is per month for a family. Let us, just for this point, presume that 6Kl is sufficient. If this is the case, then what is the problem with making people pay for what they use above this? We have the right to access to water, but it is a scarce resource, and with rights come responsibility (something which South Africans prefer not to think about in my experience). You have the responsibility to use scarce resources wisely. If you do not, you are penalised by hitting your pocket.
If it is proven that 6Kl (or whatever number) is sufficient for, say, a family of 4, then that’s what you get – learn some personal responsibility. Whenyou go on strike over service delivery, don’t trash the water pumps and pipes. When you see a leak, do something about it. Personal responsibility is what is lacking these days, imo.
As for the rich subsidising the poor, this is a ridiculous notion. The “rich” (which, in this case, includes basically anybody who doesn’t have a prepaid water meter, including some very not rich people) are already penalised simply for using water full stop – there is no 6Kl free, as far as I’m aware. If you raise a tax so that those people can then pay for unlimited free water, it does two things:
First, it disincentivises those people who are making money to hang around. The idea that the rich should support the poor because one has money and the other doesn’t is unsustainable – read up on it if you don’t believe me. While I believe in social responsibility and responsibility to my fellow man, I do not believe in free rides.
Second, it removes any motivation for those receiving the water to be responsible. Why bother with conserving water? If I use 10Kl, or 100Kl, I’m not paying for it. So who cares? The government must provide.
Free rides are not sustainable unless they are completely equitable – in this case, if EVERYBODY in SA got 10 free Kl per month, a tax would be fairer, because we’d all be paying (according to our means) for our water.
In any event, I’m not against free water for the poor who cannot afford it, for various reasons. I am in favour of capping the amount given, because I believe in that silly thing called personal responsibility. Nice in theory, I know, practically – a lot more difficult. But still, that’s my point of view. Meh.
The high court and the SCA were at that moment of determining how many litres of water was adequate for a household serious judico-politicians. The executive must start passing legislation and parliament must literally takeover the function of the executive particularly when there are such festering social protests in South Africa. The eurocentric trias politica must be jettisoned.
In so far as determination of how much, the courts must defer to the executive. De Vos is an ardent exponent of judicial activism. He needs the CC to actually say free water for the poor. I think that is the direction to go however in a progressive way as material resources enable us.
I suppose that the rich will get letters of demand, summons and water cuts for non-payment is exacted. The policy of government is that those unable to pay by reason of abject poverty, they must be assisted in terms of the municipal indigent policy.
These are the multi-pronged ways in which SA asserts the right to, I suppose basic portable water. The marxicians that are emerging in the blog, it is a welcome development.
I think prof, at Cape Town university relaxed admission requirements and provisional non-fee registration for students from poor families can be such a wonderful campaign towards universal education for the poor. I will join the demonstrations!
The question of water resources will be with us for a long time. Even in a country as developed as Canada, and which has the largest fresh water resources in the world, worries over this question.
Because of the majority in South Africa being poor, the consideration of free water is understandable. However, what is free is abused, and the planet no longer has the option of abusing natural resources.
Excerpt from complaint (PDF) filed with the South African Human Rights Commission.
CC’d to: International Criminal Court, Information and Evidence Unit, Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Luis Moreno – Ocampo:
ICC Ref: Claim under Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the Int’l Criminal Court, for the initiation of investigation proprio motu: information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
—————-
(19) Is their preference for ‘collateral damage’ slave and cannon fodder breeding; as opposed to population policy common sense human rights, peace and social justice advocacy, “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups… with the intention of maintaining that regime.”? (PDF:110K )
20) In South Africa’s welfare state, how is the ruling regime dealing with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group, or political party) that adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? (PDF:1675K )
21) From at least 28 January 2002 (except Pros. Jacobs, who acted from 18 July 2007) to 23 September 2009, aforementioned accused population policy legal decisions reflected in their actions and knowledge, repeatedly refused to endorse advocacy, supporting a stable human population at the eco-systems long term carrying capacity requirements for real human rights, peace and social justice, to exist, in South Africa.
22) I concluded that they were not remotely serious or sincerely committed to real human rights, peace and social justice advocacy, and were directly politically and legally contributing to the conscious creation of a collateral damage slave and cannon fodder breeding welfare state; not as a result of stupidity or ignorance, but as actions of commission and omission in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over other racial groups, with the intention of maintaining their corrupt, indifferent, and apathetic slave and cannon fodder breeding regime.
—————————
Excerpt: Indictment of (i) Hon. Patricia de Lille, MP, ID; (ii) Mr. Thabo Mbeki, Former President; (iii) Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, Former NPA Nat. Dir.; (iv) Mr. J.S. Selebi, Former SAPS Commissioner; (v) Mr. B.M. Skosana, Former Min. of Corrections, (vi) Mr. Nelson Mandela, Former President; (vii) Mr. Jacobs, Senior Prosecutor:NPA:Capetown; & (viii) National Prosecuting Authority: WC; for: Accessory After the Fact , Complicity in Actions and Knowledge1 to Tragedy of the Commons1 Slave and Cannon Fodder Breeding1 (a) Crimes against Peace1, (b) Crimes against Humanity1, (c) Crime of Apartheid1; by breaching their Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act 34, 1995, social contract1 duties & responsibilities; violating § 2 (4) of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004, Article 6 of the London Charter1, & Article 6, 7, 33(2) 1 of the Rome Statute, of the International Criminal Court
@ The Big Slipper:
“As for the rich subsidizing the poor, this is a ridiculous notion”. Why??? That is the (entirely reasonable) pre-condition affixed to the participation in a capitalist system — where individuals are allowed to accumulate unlimited personal-wealth at the expense of his fellow-man, provided that they subscribe to a system of taxation. The rich subsidize the poor on a daily basis– and quite rightly so. The question in this instance is whether access to water, (without any regulatory intervention that determines the quantity of water available to each and every citizen), should qualify as one of the priority-areas to be funded from state-coffers? I consider that to be a ‘no-brainer’ when considering that:
— The current stage of socio-economic development, (or lack thereof), in South Africa, demands that the provision of free basic services and commodities to all citizens in the lowest income-sector be regarded as the very FIRST area of concern when budgets are allocated to the spending of SA’s ‘tax-rands’.
— State-expenditure is currently misdirected, to reflect the skewed priorities of a globalized ‘first-world’, within the respective ambits of so many of our government departments. (And that’s without even touching on instances of wasteful expenditure and corruption – which one accepts as being applicable to most forms of state-expenditure, in all countries, in any case).
— The criminal disparity in living standards in this country demonstrates that;
a) The wealthy should regard the disbursement of their taxes to all forms of investment in the provision of basic services to the poor as an essential, long-term ‘insurance-policy’ — a policy that allows them to continue reaping the benefits from a ‘game’ which CAN only accommodate a limited number of ‘players’ on the South African ‘playing field’.
b) The wealthy, (supplying the bulk of the ‘tax-rands’), have no MORAL right to identify the mere provision of basic services and commodities to the displaced poor as an example of misplaced or excessive intervention in the sphere of ‘household-economics’ — when considering the financial-nirvana, (relatively speaking), those ‘players’ are able to access. It should be Constitutionally entrenched that neither the wealthy, nor structures of government, be allowed to exercise any LEGAL right aimed at preventing the provision of such services.
When the Big Slipper refers to that nebulous concept of “personal responsibility”, he / she would do well to remember that it is — in this application — a debatable and subjective term. The brand of ‘personal responsibility’ that he / she refers to, has been defined by capitalists, for capitalists, within the framework of a (predominantly) just society that provides equal ‘access’ to all. Who are you, or any member of the ‘player’s-organization’, to decide what constitutes as “free-ride”?? The sector of the population referred to, are surplus to the requirements of the ‘game’. When you quote that well-worn cliché — that “with rights come responsibilities” — it therefore, (in your example), defines ‘water’ as ‘rights’, and ‘payment’ is equated to ‘responsibilities’. Why should the financial-means necessary to effect a ‘payment’ be defined as a component of personal responsibility?? It is the capitalist system that chooses to define ‘responsibilities’ in this entirely selective and self-serving manner — and the people affected in this instance have been largely abondoned by the capitalist system. How can it be demanded that they adhere to the definitions of ‘the game’, when they are not able to play without restraint?
@ Professor de Vos: I, (for a change), applaud both your choice of topic, and the sentiments expressed in your post.
DwarfWhisper32: Let’s leave the nutty fringe out of the discussion!
CD:
Generally I have found that when anyone accuses another of being ‘nutty’ or similar, instead of addressing the issues they raise, and the evidence they provide therefore, they are like the malema’s who scream ‘racist’…. instead of addressing the issues, or the evidence…. It is people who lack the will to read or listen to anothers argument, because perhaps they fear there may be too much truth to it, and so stick their heads in the sand…
anyway, you are welcome to your nutty intepretations…
guess you did not see that the one affidavit in support, was from a leading psychologist in america, dr. brad blanton, of the center for radical honesty, and bestselling author of the ‘radical honesty’ series of books, one of them with neale donald walsch of the bestselling conversation of god series of books…
are you calling them nutty too???
what about the Exponential functions (einstein nutty too??) and the laws of sustainability, you consider them nutty too? or you one of those people who think you can just breed, breed and breed, and resources are not finite?
my eight your old cousin understands that if mommy has a finite income, and she can afford 24 nuggets for her four kids every night, that if mommy decided to spread her legs for every man who came around the corner without using contraception and had 2 or four more kids, then his six nuggets of meal, every night would have to be shared with four more, which means he would only be getting three nuggets for dinner every night, and he would have half his monthly allowance etc….
anyway.. no worries…. take care….
The Big Slipper says:
October 13, 2009 at 18:32 pm
“As for the rich subsidising the poor, this is a ridiculous notion. ”
This is not a case of the rich subsidising the poor. It is in fact those living in certain areas, irrespective of whether they are rich oor poor, subsidising those living in other areas, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor.
SA Demographics from 1868 to 2001:
SOUTH AFRICA (White vs Non White) Population Growth:
__________ Total _________ Non Whites ______ Whites ________ W % of Total
1868:_____ 800,000 _______ 400,000 ________ 400,000 ________ 50
1948:_____ 11.5 M _________ 8.5 M __________ 2.5 M _________ 21.7
1980:_____ 29.5 M _________ 26 M ___________ 3.5 M _________ 11.8
2001: _____ 44 M __________ 40 M ___________ 4 M ___________ 10
[Approximate numbers taken from Graph: SA Demographics, from 1868 to 2001; from Prospects for the white tribe: the future of the Afrikaner people in South Africa, by Dan Roodt] (see Wake Up Whitey Photos, for Graph)
Interesting arguments, but I challenge general statements like anything free is abused, and the implication that only things that are paid for are appreciated. I don’t think that is accurate at all – a great deal of the truth of that depends on the item under discussion. If you are impoverished, and water is available, belive me you will quickly understand the value and worth it has for your well being.
While understandable, I believe this type of generalisation emerges from a particular paradigm, one that is borne of our own world view – how can we possibly understand the world view of the deeply impoversihed if we haven’t been there ourselves?
Mark,
I been there, i lived in the black ghetto, in Oakland, i was the only ‘whitey’ for at least 5 to ten blocks either direction. I have been homeless in South Africa; and I have spent a year 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in a South African prison listening to the ‘impoverished’…. being very brutally honest about their circumstances…
You????
Prof., I Agree with you wholeheartedly the CC dissappoints and so did they in many cases where they have been asked to use the innovative structural intedict especially in socio-economic rights cases.I think Tsoka J and the SCA judgments were brilliant and are to be commended.I have actually been following this case and I think Wim Trengove did well to put Phiri residents case across, but once you have a court hellbent on following executive desisions to the latter and ignoring the the decisions of the legislature, like in section 4(3) of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997, then you get bizarre judgments. nOT that I have anything against Prez Zuma’s final choice of JJ of the CC but I Lament that Judge Dennis Davis was not there, we need Justices like him and Tsoka J at our CC.
@DwarfWhisperer
You don’t want to know my friend! That’s why I react to all sorts of generalisations about the poor. I would have thought the work being done around the world and that is being written about would have put a stop to these generalisations by now, but I guess it’s convenient to keep them going.
Mark,
Your response is rather vague…. which is generally what generalisations are, vague…
anyway.. no worries… would you consider this a generalisation, and do you think this families life would have been different, if mommy had refused to have more than one or two kids… and if i can manage not to have any kids, when i am and have been poor, why is it other women cannot? If they lack the will power, or the abilty to say no, or to do what i did, do i have skills and capabi;ities they don’t, or do i just care more about children than they do, because i refuse to act like a broodsow?: would that be a generalisation about the poor? This article calls her an ‘intelligent’ woman… hmmmm me thinks that is a generalisation of the word ‘intelligent’… ? no?
Pregnant (Again) and Poor….
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti: For all the American and international efforts to fight global poverty, one thing is clear: Those efforts won’t get far as long as women like Nahomie Nercure continue to have 10 children.
Global family-planning efforts have stalled over the last couple of decades, and Nahomie is emblematic both of the lost momentum and of the poverty that results. She is an intelligent 30-year-old woman who wanted only two children, yet now she is eight months pregnant with her 10th.
Mdu, welcome back mate
Mdu says:
October 14, 2009 at 9:55 am
“but I Lament that Judge Dennis Davis was not there”
Davis is a racist – so said Barney Pityana as the Chairperson of the HRC at the time.
http://books.google.co.za/books?id=9M2uf0ymNwsC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=barney+pityana+dennis+davis+racist&source=bl&ots=biUodSujyE&sig=5RLjT0z8PNvaoYkAGyF40Cj_wac&hl=en&ei=-Y3VSteLBofMjAex84CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=barney%20pityana%20dennis%20davis%20racist&f=false
DwarfWhisper32.
In population stdies theory every couple replaces itself at 2.1 Total Fertility Rate, simply means give birth to 2 kids. Old economic theories advisesd nations to reduce their TFR if it was way above 2.1 in order to achieve economic targets. Simply put they were using sex , womans body, contraceptives and other factors to achieve economic targets. The reality is that you cannot mantain the raplacement level 2.1 because of wars, diseases, drought etc. When you go below 2.1 like most of the EU countries and pop growth decreases then migration is the only solution left. No money in the world has managed to change a demographic processes in order to increase fertility. Instead our life expectancy has increased and we have a problem of an ageing population and fewer younger people to work the economy. China was incentivized to apply one child policy and today are sitting with an unbalanced sex ratio with more boys than girls. South Africa is sitting comfortably at about 2.6 which is fine. What we need to do is make sure that each child grow to their full potential. Yes there are countries that have TFR around 6 or 7 but those are small , religous nations and their contribution is minimal in the bigger scheme of things.
The biggest problem is in the EU and East who are slowly approaching negative population growth rates and wiping themselves out of this planet. These old theories suggested that we will be hitting 16bn people this year on the planet and the reality is that we are about 7bn.
Have you noticed how difficult it is for women to fall pregnant these days due to modern pressures and diet. Ask any fertility specialist.
In short, soon we will have to appreciate each and every birth we can get in this world. Birth is a result of relationships, sex, marriage etc all of which are individual choices. Why do you think countries are offering free honeymoons and extended maternity leaves?
Politics in the world revolve around population size and natural resources, don’t be fooled by the hidden agenda. China, India, USA, Brazil will move to the top.
Gwebecimele….
your theory assumes that you live on a planet with infinite resources! I don’t live on a planet with infinite resources, and if i did, then reading about a consttituional court case, which is clearly about the problem of finite resources would not be a reality…
in other words, your population policy theories are built on quicksand and false assumptions…
in fact we are living in a world with DECLINING RESOURCES….
your theories are — in my view — a bit like flat earth theories were to Galileo…
they are very politically correct theories, but if we had less politically correct people on the planet, we would i suspect have a far more honest and transparent conversation about the real root cause issues.. than simply applying bandaids to braintumours…
In short, soon we will have to appreciate each and every birth we can get in this world. Birth is a result of relationships, sex, marriage etc all of which are individual choices. Why do you think countries are offering free honeymoons and extended maternity leaves?
I think they offer them because they are goverment politically correct morons living in a welfare state.. who want to ensure the future of the welfare state..
the exponential foundations of a welfare state, require exponential population growth….
see the principles of exponential growth and the laws of sustainability… and then ask yourself why they don’t teach you this at your fancy two-faced hypocrit population policy studies at university?
Population Policy Common Sense: Exponential Functions and the Laws of Sustainability (PDF
If you not on scribd, then a copy is on google docs.
As for: Politics in the world revolve around population size and natural resources
Indeed to a point.. but in a world with declining energy resources.. the use of nuclear bombs becomes more and more useful, cause it is simply so energy efficient to drop….
See Tragedy of the Commons, by Garret Hardin, on the links between Nuclear War and Ovepopulation
Alternatively, at some point in the future… if the mysery of famine, as a result of peak food, peak oil et al, does not depopulate the overpopulating useless eaters.. then the powers that be, committee of 300, et al.. shall instigate a few more wars, to cull the excess by means of collateral damage cannon fodder…
such is life…
DwarfWhisper32 – Hey dude, I have scanned through Lara Johnston’s Review application (and her founding/supporting affidavit) that you have quoted from in your fisrt post on this blog; and, through the rest of the blogsite your pseud links to. Hey bro, methinks you’ve got a serious case of Lithium-aneamia, as does Lara.
Anon..
you are entitled to your opinion… wouldn’t it be wonderful one day, when the liberal poverty pimp world is created… where we can go to a doctor and he can simply make a diagnosis of ‘lithium aneamia’… and thats it…
forget access to information, forget just admin actions.. forget administrative law.. where we give reasons and justifications for our decisions!
why i just find liberal thinking so fascinating….. anything you don’t want to talka bout —- ‘racist’…. ‘nutty’…. ‘crazy’….
and they want you to take them serious! talk about projection!
anyway… you are more than entitled to your opinion..
DwarfWhisper32 says:
October 14, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“in fact we are living in a world with DECLINING RESOURCES…. ”
Which resources are those?
Maggs – Don’t feed the Trolls. Link on DwarfWhisper32’s pseud above any of his posts and scan through the discussions there – see if he makes any sense at all – which is why I made the remark above.
Prof de Vos – Can’t we chuck this guy off from this blog – even under ‘freedom of speech’ we cannot tolerate such bullshit.
By the way, Prof – good thread and discussion of the CC’s decision. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and I must agree with your analysis thereof.
Anonymouse says:
October 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I am intrigued that nobody has refuted that Dennis Davis is a racist.
Not sure that is material to the discussion?
Maggs,
it depends of course on how you define a ‘resource’…
most, i imagine, would agree that energy, particularly cheap oil, has been an increidble primary resource… others are water, land, food, etc.
Depending on your views on the origin of oil.. you may or may not agree that the world has peaked in cheap oil, and that from here on, we are facing ever increasing expensive depleted energy resources… I agree with those who say the world has reached peak oil (Peak Oil Briefing Paper), but there are others who disagree
that agricultural production increases were a result of cheap oil… obviously means that peak oil, has massive implications for the future of food production (see Eating Fossil Fuels). Chemical fertilizers and pesticides are made from oil and gas.
Water and arable land are reasonably finite.. and with increasing populations, that means that relatively they are declining resources, in regards to population growth.
some say humans are a resource, and others say humans are a planetary virus. i think there are some humans who are a resource, and others certainly can be considered to have memetic dysfunctioning memetic viruses in their belief systems…
so it just depends on how you define ‘resource’ i guess… those are some of my thoughts on what is a physical concrete specific resource…
The CIA and Pentagon, in a nightline report with Ted Koppel, in 2000, were concerned about overpopulation and the lack of will of politicians to publicy discuss the issue and deal with it.. and their view was that we already had overpopulation resource wars over oil.. and very soon it would be water…
other peak resources of other related not resources, include peak gold.. and soon peak coal and peak uranium…. among many others…
DwarfWhisper32 says:
October 14, 2009 at 13:13 pm
Non-renewable energy is finite, but energy is not.
Naturally arable land is finite but there’s certainly sufficient land to grow food for twice or more of the current world population.
Oil based fertilizers may be under pressure but there are very interesting alternatives.
Natural potable water may be finite, but water is not.
The real issue is how does our country effectively manage the water resources that it has and take care of poor people given the constraints and sometimes conflicting needs.
Letting poor people die of thirst (and other water related issues) is not an option, finding creative solutions are.
United Nations reports, such as World Population Prospects state:
World population is currently growing by approximately 74 million people per year. If current fertility rates continued, in 2050 the total world population would be 11 billion, with 169 million people added each year. However, global fertility rates have been falling for decades, and the updated United Nations figures project that the world population will reach 9.2 billion around 2050.[7][8] This is the medium variant figure which assumes a decrease in average fertility from the present level of 2.5 down to 2.05
Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to increase to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion. An exception is the United States population, which is expected to increase 44% from 305 million in 2008 to 439 million in 2050.[9]
In 2000-2005, the average world fertility was 2.65 children per woman, about half the level in 1950-1955 (5 children per woman). In the medium variant, global fertility is projected to decline further to 2.05 children per woman.
During 2005-2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States of America, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth. China would be higher still in this list were it not for its One Child Policy.
Global life expectancy at birth, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed regions, the projected increase is from 75 years today to 82 years by mid-century. Among the least developed countries, where life expectancy today is just under 50 years, it is expected to be 66 years in 2045-2050.
The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.
During 2005-2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected to be 98 million. Because deaths are projected to exceed births in the more developed regions by 73 million during 2005-2050, population growth in those regions will largely be due to international migration.
In 2000-2005, net migration in 28 countries either prevented population decline or doubled at least the contribution of natural increase (births minus deaths) to population growth. These countries include Austria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates and United Kingdom.[10]
Birth rates are now falling in a small percentage of developing countries, while the actual populations in many developed countries would fall without immigration.[8]
By 2050 (Medium variant), India will have 1.6 billion people, China 1.4 billion, United States 400 million, Pakistan 309 million, Indonesia 280 million,Nigeria 259 million, Bangladesh 256 million, Brazil 254 million, Democratic Republic of the Congo 187 million, Ethiopia 183 million, Philippines 141 million, Mexico 132 million, Egypt 121 million, Vietnam 120 million, Russia 108 million, Japan 103 million, Iran 100 million, Turkey 99 million, Uganda 93 million, Tanzania 85 million, and Kenya 85 million.
Maggs,
Non-renewable energy is finite, but energy is not.
Hmmmm, no, of course we could breed poor people to stuff into arbied ‘macht frei’ ovens, and create energy ad infinitum….
so clarify what you mean by ‘non renewable energy’ and energy’ and how it is not infinite.. in terms of you are a ufo free energy fan… or whatever your evidentiary basis is… for ‘energy infinitum’…
Naturally arable land is finite but there’s certainly sufficient land to grow food for twice or more of the current world population.
thats hilarious! thanks for the laugh! Good luck!
Oil based fertilizers may be under pressure but there are very interesting alternatives.
May be under pressure! you make statements and provide no sources.. and you want me to take you serious, as if you are Allah….
Natural potable water may be finite, but water is not.
The real issue is how does our country effectively manage the water resources that it has and take care of poor people given the constraints and sometimes conflicting needs.
Sorry, I am of the religion where you help a man learn to fish. I am not a poverty pimp who needs to feel good about myself, because I helped some poor person to become codependent on me. You are welcome to your marxist codependcy requirements…
I am, and have spent much time with lots of poor people. And sorry… I am happy to help any poor person, who wants to help themselves. I am happy to help any alcoholic who wants to help themselves who is willing to take personal repsonsibility and not expect to sit back and be some welfare jungle bunny…
your type of poverty pimping… is the type of alcoholic reformer who thinks that placing a shebeen on every corner of sowetho is going to cure poverty and alcholism.. and then when there are more drunks and more unwanted babies and more rapes and everytyhing then it is of course whitey’s fault..
ahhh what would we do without whitey???
Letting poor people die of thirst (and other water related issues) is not an option, finding creative solutions are.
I guess you disagree with Gareth Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons.
If we were discussing criminology and rehabilitation… Gareth Harden would be advocating for Delancey Street Foundation rehab, and you would be advocating for more alcohol for alcoholics, because it is the duty of the goverment to make sure that alcoholics are taken care of….
The results of your different methodologies: 35 years later, delancey street would have helped 14,000 poor people who wanted to be helped, and who were willing to take personal responsibility for their lives, to become productive tax paying citizens…
35 years later, you would have helped however many poor people remain poor, remain addicts, remain in denial… and because you have failed, you will now have found someone to blame for your failure and inability to help people who are not interested in doing what needs to be done to help themselves… so you would probably be blaming whitey…
If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if thus, over breeding brought its own “punishment” to the germ line — then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, [12] and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.
In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? [13] To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
Anyway.. I guess you could say we disagree.. I am quite happy to agree to disagree… until you provide me with some evidence for your theories..
World Population vs Arable Land Clock (similar principle to the nuclear doomsday clock)
How are the numbers calculated?
World population data are extrapolated from statistics obtained from the United Nations Population Division. The clock indicates an increase of about three people a second by tracking both births and deaths.
Data on productive land are extrapolated from statistics produced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. The clock shows that one hectare is lost every 7.67 seconds. Productive land is made up of arable land, pasture land, and forest.
===================
Peak Food and Population Statistics and Studies: Eating Fossil Fuels:
[lots of facts and studies......... conclusion]
None of this research considers the impact of declining fossil fuel production. The authors of all of these studies believe that the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050. The current peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected. Quite possibly, a U.S. population reduction of one-third will not be effective for sustainability; the necessary reduction might be in excess of one-half. And, for sustainability, global population will have to be reduced from the current 6.32 billion people42 to 2 billion-a reduction of 68% or over two-thirds. The end of this decade could see spiraling food prices without relief. And the coming decade could see massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before by the human race.
DwarfWhisper32 says:
October 14, 2009 at 14:06 pm
Eish!
I should have listened to Mouse.
Sorry Mouse, but as they say telling someone that the plate is hot is not enough.
Dwarf. You are the last man standing.
WOW! Is DwarfWhisper32 the Professor in drag?
Maybe not, but you like a machine …
So, Dwarf, where do you want your boerestaat?
PS – Maggs – Denis Davis seems like a nice chap – I doubt he is a racist… The more important question is, is Barney a coconut?
Peter says:
October 14, 2009 at 16:14 pm
“Denis Davis seems like a nice chap – I doubt he is a racist… The more important question is, is Barney a coconut?”
Davis – 1
Pityana – 0.
Coconut – no.
Is plain nut an option?
Gwebecimele – No he’s not!
Harold – Machine? You should see his blogspot – click on his name above to link.
Maggs – When someone starts sputtering nonsensical shit like DwarfWhisper32 above – watch out! It does ot help to even argue with such people. See how he responded to my pun about his suffering from Lithium-Anaemia? he just shrugged it off that I am entitled to my opinion (note – he never denied it!), and started ranting and raving nonsensical twat that’s got nothing to do with any argument on this blog. don’t feed the Troll’s!
@Anonymouse,
What is your take on your star witness… Mt Agliotti? Do you not think he needs a glass of tap water?
Anonymouse says:
October 14, 2009 at 17:27 pm
“You should see his blogspot”
Eish x 24 million!
I need a triple dose of ccleaner!
Mouse…
Do you actually mean to say you expect someone to take you serious, when you say they are suffering from Lithium-Anaemia?
You actually expect them to deny it?
that is hilarious! do ducks deny rain is falling, or do they simply let it run of their backs? you raining your lithium, without knowing me, without any commitment to open dialogue or tolerance for a wide range of ideas… and i am expected to take your narrowminded petty ignorant allegations of lithium blah blah serious….
jee whizz.. i hope you ainta student of the prof.. cause if you are…
he needs my prayers!
Harold Ferwood says:
October 14, 2009 at 15:30 pm
I get the impression that you’re impressed.
Are you?
@ DwarfWhisper 32:
South Africa used to be governed by ‘white-trash’ whom were able —- through a programme of preferential advancement as instituted by a Nazi-state — to re- invent themselves as ‘geleerde barbare’. Bad luck, your time is up.
Shoo! Dwarf? Hey wena! Don’t you know things have changed around here, boeta! You’re like those spectacles they pull out of forests who think the war is still on! No need to continue to motivate yourself so, the hating has stopped. We are just mopping up now, d’y'hear? Be at peace – you can go to Mugg and Bean and no one is going to bomb the place, alright?
george says:
October 14, 2009 at 20:51 pm
Mark says:
October 14, 2009 at 20:52 pm
————————————————–
George,
am i to conclude you are calling me a geleerde barbar?
if so, thats funny…..
Mark,
What exactly do you mean by “don’t you know things have changed around here”?
Changed as in there once was a time when blacks and whites were honest with each other; and now we live in a time of deceipt and two faced hypocrisy?
war??? we ain’t even reached high school level of greenpeace vigorous debate on here… and teh piglets are squeeling…
how on earth will you ever have a radical honesty vigorous debate? no wonder your ego’s are so fragile…
oh well, to each their own… take care and enjoy what you guys are doing, whatever it is…
till some other time… adios…
DwarfWhisper32 is right.
About … everything.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 14, 2009 at 21:44 pm
DwarfWhisper32 is right.
About … everything.
————————————————————–
Including “adios”?
khosi says:
October 14, 2009 at 17:35 pm
Khosi – UglyCoyote is just what he has always been, a skelm, a mafiosi, a drug-trafficker, a racketeer, a murderer, a … (you can add many others). So, in order for the court in the end to believe him, iot would require that his evidence be supported by other (credible) evidence in many ways. Remember, he is not MY star witness, but Gerrie Nel’s. I think Nel was very brave in relying on his evidence at all. However, I do need to say something important, Jackie Selebi has been keeping weird friendships going – I mean, him saying: “Agliotti is my friend. Finish and Klaar!”
Anonymouse, is it just me or is Selebi probably going to walk. For a start, if Agliotti is the star witness, then the corroborating evidence will have to be very strong.
Secondly, it certainly looks bad if the former top cop was friends with a super crook when the former occupied the post. But as far as know, that is not against the law. Even taking payments or gifts from Glen is, as far as I know, not unlawful unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Jaks did favours in return.
And thirdly, Jaap got some pretty helpful concessions out of Glen. I mean it makes sense for a gangster to claim he has the top cop in his pocket in order for the gangster to inspire the confidence of his fellow dirtballs. It is certainly not inconceivable that Jackie did not know that Glen was using his name in that way.
Leigh – yes, pretty much Al Capone stuff, isn’t it? However, I think, that even only the circumstancial evidence that a police chief accepts expensive gifts and money from a super-crook, is enough for an inference that he had received same with ulterior motives. I mean, the police chief, head of interpol, highly paid individual, accepts gifts from one he knows is a super-crook. During his reign, the police chief does nothing really to have the super-crook caught, instead, remains befriended to him (for the gifts perhaps?)
@Anonymouse,
He said, ‘Trust me on Selebi’. You doubted him. And went on to say, ‘If anyone has evidence of wrong doing on the part of the commissioner, please bring it to me’. It is obvious now, that no one brought forth such evidence.
Hang on to whatever straw you may want to generate, the president acted in a proper manner in handling the Selebi saga. Question is raised, why did Pikoli see the need for haste?
Anonymouse, very good points. Given the circumstances, it may seem outrageously improbable that Selebi did not do any favours in return. But that still leaves open the question of what those favours were and whether they were done in return for payments or gifts.
On the bright side though, this is all very entertaining – if troubling also.
Leigh – You are of course correct. However, the court need not find exactly what favours have been rendered, neither does the court have to find that he did in fact return favours. All that needs to be proven is that, when he received the money/gifts, he foresaw (remember dolus eventualis is still dolus, at least in our law) that some day, he would be called upon to return favours and that he, would by then, not really have the guts to say, “Hell, I kept you for the fool all the time, I ate your money, but now I draw the line, I reject your friendship”. You see, only corrupt intention needs to be proven, and that would be very easy to infer in the circumstances.
Khosi – your TM fettish in this matter is never ever going to help him regain face. So let’s leave it at that. What he should’ve done is leave it to the courts. If UglyCoyote derails the prosecution, so be it. If Selebi gets away with shenanigans, so be it. But it is for the courts to decide, not the Pres. The friendship issue would still not have been resolved, and even the shoes that TM got from him, ha, ha, ha! Some friends that TM and Selebi have. Really now, ’straw’? Yes, very juicy straw.
Anonymouse, thanks for the clarification. I forgot about dolus eventualis.
@Anonymouse,
It takes a big man to admit fault. I am still hoping to use that sentence in praise, to you! I have not lost hope.
khosi – Earlier, under another post more to the point, I asked you the question. I’m not sure whether you’ve seen it or whether you responded as I have not revisited it. I think I asked you, in the light of Agliotti’s evidence in chief that he had bought TM a pair of expensive shoes at Gray’s (while Selebi was present!), whether that was the time that TM said that he would not want to step into (or does not want to be seen wearing) Nelson Mandela’s shoes, “because they are too ugly”. (Note that Jaap Cilliers has not denied that particular piece of evidence – so TM was a friend of Agliotti too?)
khosi – Ooh! This is going to be fun!! http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/387318c42be34151aa23073ae5ab8dae/15-10-2009-01-07/Agliotti_video_admitted
I wonder who else Agliotti mentioned in that video, whether that is not the reason why TM wanted to say that there is no evidence that Selebi had accepted expensive gifts and large sums of money from a super-crook called Glen Agliotti? As I have said before – I don’t give a damn whether Selebi is convicted or not, but I want to know why, a police chief, had a super-scoundrell as friend and received gifts from him, and why would a President want to keep scrutiny of that relationship out of the public domain.
Ahh, now I get it – he was afraid that if the video was disclosed he would not be able to receive indemnity in terms of s 204 of the CPA, which the court (presiding officer) would only grant if the court is satisfied that he earnestly and honestly answered all questions, even those through which he would incriminate himself. http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/8408e601327f4b59929ef11811d5c68d/15-10-2009-02-34/Scorpions_obsessed_with_Selebi
Poor UglyCoyote, in the RS of A, everyone with even a peripheral idea of the law knows that the NPA cannot really ‘offer’ one indemnity, the indemnity or not lies in the discretion of the court. He may now be prosecuted for the things he was afarid of.
But still, such a thug for a friend?!
Oops – I am under the wrong thread with these remarks. Sorry, I got carried away with Khosi’s invitation at it.
@Anonymouse,
On the shoes story, you are really being disingenuous and frankly, clutching at straws. One, has Aggliotti testified that TM did, in fact, get the shoes? Two, If TM did get the shoes, what did TM know of the origin of the shoes? Three, Aggliotti says he merely paid for the shoes, and not knowing the answer to question one or two, what would be wrong if Selebi did, in fact, buy Mbeki a pair of anything?
Rat, remember that I have never tried to defend Selebi or pronounce his innocent. All I have done, for the past two years, is to tell you that nothing was ever presented to TM that was legally credible enough for him to suspend, let alone fire Selebi. With that in mind, he further let the law take its own course and allowed Pikoli to do what was within his mandate. With one proviso, and that was that he(Pikoli) needed to give TM enough space to ensure the countries national security is not compromised by Pikolis action, which now appear to have been clearly, careless. I have always asked the question, why was a week so looooooong for Pikoli.
Lastly, given the happenings of the last few days, do you still think Mbeki was incorrect in setting up the Ginwala commission?
You can’t talk about right-to-free-water [in water scarce africa] and ignore the
recent rioting for free [illegaly connectable] electricity too.
SA liberal blankes are amazing, in never noting that Zim-natives would NEVER
claim that they are entitled to free delivered-water and electricity; except
from public rivers. But then the PeeCee wave, and false ANC promises missed Zim.
– I’ve made a study of the bantu-and-warm-water and may publish a PhD on it later:
why they will use the hot tap for a bucket of water to mop the floor, when I still
have to remember being a cold, hungry student in 60’s London, who had to ration
9-pence between a cheese sandwich or a coins-in-the-gas-meter hot bath.
– Traditionally the bantu heats a bucket of water which is added to the portable
tin-basin by the ‘juniors’ who prepare the washing facilities for us seniors.
Heating the water requires effort, by collecting the wood etc; so when the
bantu finds warm-water that just comes out of the pipe FREE, he would be sinning
by ingoring the gifts-of-god by using cold water — unheated by electricity
that the muzungu has to pay for.
– The ANC scheme of 6kl per [unmeasurable] household is a classical example of
why socialism MUST fail. The ‘taxi industry’ is an example of african commerce
which doesn’t fail. An essential element of successful african commerce/industry
is micro-management, at all stages, vs. centralised control.
@ Alibama
Please do let us know when your Phd thesis is published. Will it be on the web? (It sounds very good!)
Do you perhaps have an abstract – something to “wet the appetite”, as they say?
Hey Dwork,
I hope you get it – it will serve you right for asking!
@ Alibama
Why don’t you turn your ship around, and leave ‘bantuland’ forever?? Two birds with one stone: rewrite the lyrics of your song, whilst rewriting your personal destiny? Or do your business-interests preclude you from following that option?? …. I gather that you’re a member of one of the SAP-syndicates running the taxi-industry in this country??
@ george
]Why don’t you leave bantuland..business-interests preclude..?
Yes, I’m trapped, so I’ll enjoy the weather, but I’d be a coward if I just watched
the train-smash and didn’t warn about Kenia>Zambia>Zimb.
Imagine how unpopular those were, who told that mortgageing your house for beer
leads to disaster?
]SAP-syndicates running the taxi-industry..
Good ! That’s a novel “connection” of an outdated allegation.
I’m trying to untangle 4 independant myths:
1. Zanzi won’t follow the Kenia>Zambia>Zimb route.
2. Zanzi is not constrained by economic realities.
3. Zanzi can make socialism work, whereas it has always failed elesewhere.
4. The liberal-blankes understand the bantu, because they were born here,
altho’ I never see them when I “ry the taxis”.
Apparently there’s some truth in the old cliche “too ghastly to contemplate”?
So, then just deny it ! How else could I explain that the blankes refuse to
“look outside of the box” in space and time: Plato, Albert Schweitzer, Haiti…?
This is what a shortage of water also does – http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/ea9b18da5e6a4527a2ed804f3dcd170a/16-10-2009-09-52/Laywer_too_dirty_for_court