Constitutional Hill

What the vote of no confidence judgment really said

The analysis and reporting by journalists, political commentators and garden variety politicians about court judgments (which they could not possibly have read) are often so spectacularly uninformed or so deceitful, that only the most gullible or sycophantic among us would believe a word of it. The majority of reports and analysis of the recent judgment by Judge Dennis Davis about the refusal of the ANC urgently to schedule a vote of no confidence debate against President Jacob Zuma and his cabinet is a case in point.

After the judgment was delivered, but before the text of the judgment became available, some commentators criticised Judge Davis for supposedly being an ambitious and unprincipled ANC lackey, while others lauded the judgment, ostensibly because it established the principle that the courts cannot order Parliament to adhere to the Constitution. It is surprising, to say the least, that such comments were made by people who could not possibly have read the judgment. So, dear readers, ignore these pontificators. Their comments are nothing but nonsense upon stilts.

The opposition parties asked the court to order the Speaker of the National Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the motion of no confidence is debated on or before 22 November 2012. The court found that the Rules of the National Assembly do not empower the Speaker to do so and that a court could therefore not order the Speaker to do something which the Rules of the Assembly did not entitle the Speaker to do. However, the court did not find that it could never instruct the Speaker (or any other member of the National Assembly) to comply with the Constitution.

Davis found that the Constitution bestows a right on all parties (not only the majority party) to bring a vote of no confidence against the President. This, said the court, “is the very stuff of deliberative democracy”. Quoting from the recent Constitutional Court judgment of Chief Justice Mogoeng in the Ambrosini case, Judge Davis noted that the very nature and composition in the National Assembly renders it pre-eminently suited to fulfil the role of a national forum for debate on whether the President is suitable to continue leading the government.

In 1994 South Africa boldly began its journey from a society based on authority to one predicated upon justification, from diktat to deliberation, arbitrary assertion to rational consideration. While this journey was never expected to be easy, given our fraught and divided past, the ambition of the Constitution was to exercise guidance to the nation, so that it be kept on the indicated path, when intolerance or the temptation to abuse power to suppress the dignity of even a single voice expressing a different perspective, prompted movement from the constitutionally indicated journey.

The right of an elected representative to bring a motion of no confidence in the President is contained in section 102 of the Constitution. This right belongs just as much to a member of an opposition party as it does to a member of the majority party. A transient majority cannot block or delay the discussion of such a motion of no confidence – something the transient majority of ANC members unconstitutionally sought to do in this case.

Currently, the Rules of the National Assembly do not allow for the tabling of a motion of no confidence except on the basis of consensus of all the parties represented in the Programming Committee of the Assembly. This position is incompatible with the Constitution because it allows either the majority or a minority to subvert the right of anyone in Parliament to have a debate on a vote of no confidence in the President as envisaged by section 102 of the Constitution.

The Chief Whip of the ANC first described the motion of no confidence in President Zuma as frivolous and vowed that the ANC majority in the National Assembly would prevent it from being debated. He then made a complete U-turn (although he pretended not to have done so in the hope that we are all morons), stating that the motion was very serious and agreeing that the majority party “will impress” upon Parliament that the debate be scheduled in the week of 22 February 2013.

However, as Davis found, even this altered position of the ANC Chief Whip “proceeds from an incorrect premise” as it “cannot be within the gift of the majority party to decide upon the issue of the timing of this kind of motion.” This means that the decision of the ANC that it would only allow a debate of the motion of no confidence next year was itself not compatible with the Constitution as it was not for the ANC to decide – based on its so called “generosity” – when such a motion should be debated. Despite the embarrassing bluster of the ANC Chief Whip, the debate is urgent and needs to be scheduled as a matter of priority by the National Assembly.

There is an important reason why the timing of a debate of such a motion of no confidence in the President cannot be left to whims of the majority party (or any other party, for that matter). A motion of no confidence in the President of the Republic of South Africa must be inherently urgent as it “raises matters of profound national interest and importance”.

Members of the majority party may well consider that all of these claims are unjustified, indeed outrageous or frivolous. But when political parties, who represent approximately a third of the electorate, decide to initiate a motion, and to seek wider support for the motion on matters of such importance, that too is their right. The public are entitled to hear the debate. The public, in effect, own the national forum, Parliament. It is the body of the citizens of South Africa in that it is comprised of the peoples representatives, and the people are entitled, as citizens of South Africa, to hear what our national representatives have to say about a matter of such pressing importance. Of course, once the debate takes place and reasoned voices across the floor are heard, the majority may well vote the matter down and that would be the end of it.

Although judge Davis does not spell this out, the consequences of his judgment is that the ANC acted unconstitutionally, first, when it decided to block the debate and then, secondly, when it decided to postpone the debate until February next year. The ANC decision robbed voters of the opportunity to listen to (and consider the views expressed during) a debate on the vote of no confidence in the President, treating ordinary citizens with contempt.

Despite this, the court could not order the Speaker to schedule the debate as requested by the opposition. The problem faced by the court in this case was that the Rules of the National Assembly do not currently provide for the necessary deadlock breaking mechanism to ensure that a vote of no confidence is debated urgently – even where the majority party wishes to block the debate or where it wishes to delay the debate to a future date more to its liking. The High Court simply did not have the power to rewrite the Rules of Parliament as the power to determine what processes ought to be followed falls within the constitutional domain of the National Assembly.

Courts exist to police the constitutional boundaries… Where the constitutional boundaries are breached or transgressed, courts have a clear and express role. And must then act without fear or favour. There is a danger in South Africa however of the politicisation of the judiciary, drawing the judiciary into every and all political disputes, as if there is no other forum to deal with a political impasse relating to policy, or disputes which clearly carry polycentric consequences beyond the scope of adjudication. In the context of this dispute, judges cannot be expected to dictate to Parliament when and how they should arrange its precise order of business. What courts can do, however, is to say to Parliament: you must operate within a constitutionally compatible framework; you must give content to section 102 of the Constitution; you cannot subvert this expressly formulated idea of a motion of no confidence.  However, how you allow that right to be vindicated, is for you to do, not for the courts to so determine.

Importantly, the judgment found that there was no authority that suggests that the Speaker had some residual power – not provided for in the Constitution – to instruct that a vote of no confidence be debated urgently. The judgment therefore confirms the limits of the power of the Speaker. Where the Rules are clear, the Speaker cannot act outside these Rules. Neither can the court order the Speaker to do so. Whether the Speaker is asked to censure a member of Parliament for implying that the President is corrupt or whether to order the Programming Committee to schedule a debate, the Speaker is bound by the clear rules of the Assembly. No court can give the Speaker powers not bestowed on him by these clear Rules of the Assembly. But the clear Rules themselves can be found to be wanting, in which case – as we shall see – the Constitutional Court can order the National Assembly to fix the Rules.

It is important to note that the court found that debating such a vote is “inherently urgent” and that opposition parties therefore have a constitutional right to have such a motion debated urgently. The court pointed out that a vote of no confidence is “[p]erhaps the most crucial” motion that can be considered by Parliament. It is an essential tenet of the Westminster system that the government possess the confidence of the National Assembly. In other Westminster democracies there is a rule that any motion of a vote of no confidence in the government takes precedence over all other business until disposed of. That is why the Rules should provide for the urgent scheduling of such a vote, regardless of the whims of any political party represented in Parliament. Time should have been found to ensure it takes place expeditiously

The problem here was that the Rules of the Assembly do not currently provide for this. What was required was for the Assembly to craft a special Rule to provide for the tabling of a vote of no confidence as a matter of urgency. It is not desirable that courts make the determination as to when this occurs. But the appropriate court with the requisite jurisdiction can order Parliament to amend its rules to provide for it. The High court was not such a court.

This is because the High Court was bound by section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution, which provides that only the Constitutional Court can decide whether Parliament has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation. As Parliament may well have failed in this case to fulfil its constitutional obligation because it omitted to provide a Rule which would provide for the urgent tabling of a debate on a vote of no confidence in the Presidency, the Constitutional Court might well be the only appropriate forum to provide a remedy that would truly vindicate the rights of the opposition parties who tabled the motion.

This is why it would be entirely appropriate for the opposition parties to approach the Constitutional Court to order Parliament (not the Speaker) urgently to schedule a debate on a vote of no confidence in the President and to order it to amend its Rules so that the majority party would not in future be able to block or delay the debate of such a motion. I trust that they will indeed approach the Constitutional Court to do so as the decision of the ANC to “allow” the scheduling of the debate for February next year signals that it does not yet understand that it is not within the party’s constitutional power to decide when to schedule such an urgent debate.

  • Mpho

    I’m confused. Why couldn’t Davis J have ruled that the Committee’s procedures were unconstitutional and “read in” the prohibition on needing unanimity? Why also could that not be confirmed by an order of unconstitutionality after a referral from the High Court? Davis J did not need to act in such a restricted manner if Parliamentary Democracy was at stake.

  • Pierre De Vos

    Section 167(4)(e) bestows exclusive jurisdiction of this on Constitutional Court.

  • sirjay jonson

    Thanks Prof: not having read the decision I was concerned how it would impact on future applications against suspected non constitutional policies by government which are inevitable, see Secrecy Bill for example.

    It appears to me from your explanation that Judge Davis gave an excellent decision.

    I was duly impressed with the quote from the recent Constitutional Court judgment of Chief Justice Mogoeng in the Ambrosini case, and realized that Justice Mogoeng will be sitting beyond Zuma’s term(s). Perhaps he does have the integrity we require from a man in his position, and even an eye to his legacy.

  • Blue Ozone

    So I understand that since a couple of weeks we had the opposition calling for the military to control civilian unrest and apparently we were also subjected to an amendment to the constitution. Yet, or socalled “constitutional expert” remains fixated on one single political event.

    So what does it tell you all?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    November 26, 2012 at 20:36 pm

    Blue Boy,

    “So what does it tell you all?”

    It tells us that you read but forget what you read very quickly.

    Perhaps you suffer from drive-thru amnesia?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ PdV

    ” …something the transient majority of ANC members unconstitutionally sought to do in this case.”

    Pierre is right. In theory, our people could vote the ANC out in the next election!

  • Blue Ozone

    @maggs

    It is all a load of BULLSHIT.

    What was the constitutional change all about?

  • Blue Ozone

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    November 26, 2012 at 20:50 pm

    The only problem is that Pierre obtained his credencials at the Apartheid University of Stellenbosch.

    When it looks like a piece of shit and it smells like a piece of shit – what do you do?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    “the Constitutional Court might well be the only appropriate forum to provide a remedy that would truly vindicate the rights of the opposition parties who tabled the motion.”

    So if the CC rules in favour of the opposition parties, it may well turn out that the opposition parties will use this “remedy” to establish our equivalent of filibustering.

  • sirjay jonson

    Blue Ozone
    November 26, 2012 at 20:36 pm

    Well actually OZ, in my dorp, or at least in the disadvantaged community attached to it (which by the way has the best of all the views in the community) the military did come to town and patrol, successfully. There had been damaging Zeno attacks, destruction of property, looting, burning, rubber bullets, tea gas, even rubber bullets through citizens’ windows.

    Hasn’t been revealed in the press, but it did happen, and it did put an end to the riots. Or do you prefer the riots? Keep in mind, the ANCWC was intentionally directing ‘make the WC ungovernable’ operation and was primarily concerned with rioting, not striking. Most of our colored workers in the community say they knew very few of the rioters. Workers with back packs (in which they carry their breakfast and lunch) were intimidated and threatened both going to work and returning home. If you know the communities as I do, you would know that everyone but the drunkard within them knows everyone else.

    In most of these cases the locals didn’t know the rioters. They were bused in. Believe it or not, its still the truth. Those of us on the ground recognize these things.

  • sirjay jonson

    I might add that the military is occasionally brought into the communities without any press, knowledge or fuss. It happened more regularly in previous years on AllPay days before the changes with AllPay distributors in this year 2012, on days when cash, which was the practice, was dispensed. I’ve seen it many times. And yes they always carried heavy fire power. Quite intimidating actually.

  • Blue Ozone

    sirjay jonson
    November 26, 2012 at 21:13 pm

    So why no comment from a socalled “constitutional expert”? Or is that all tread-of the-mill stuff in a constitutional state?

  • sirjay jonson

    Blue Ozone
    November 26, 2012 at 20:36 pm

    I don’t understand your question. Would you be so kind as to rephrase it?

  • Blue Ozone

    sirjay jonson
    November 26, 2012 at 21:33 pm

    Oh I’m so sorry. Let me translate it into colored laten: Gan naai jou ma.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    November 26, 2012 at 20:59 pm

    Blue Boy,

    “When it looks like a piece of shit and it smells like a piece of shit”

    Enough about you.

    Let’s talk about Davis ‘ judgement!

  • sirjay jonson

    Blue Ozone
    November 26, 2012 at 21:37 pm
    sirjay jonson
    November 26, 2012 at 21:33 pm

    Oh I’m so sorry. Let me translate it into colored laten: Gan naai jou ma.

    Profanity does not serve you, nor does it serve your valid concerns.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, perhaps BlueBoy has a point about PdV’s Stellenbosch (Broderbond) pedigree not reflecting very well upon him. After all, the converse applies: when a black man has attended arguably the finest graduate school in the world, white people are rightly impressed, are they not?

  • sirjay jonson

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    November 26, 2012 at 22:10 pm

    You so devious mate. What would we do without you on Prof’s blog?

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    November 26, 2012 at 21:46 pm

    You and the Broederbond’s sad little gay white Pierretjie are such sad, sad losers.

    UZuma uyabuya!

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/anc-kzn-branches-back-zuma-1.1430045#.ULIf_q1vUVY

  • TM

    @Prof De Vos

    I have limited legal training as part of my studies in another field so u can correct me on this.

    My understanding is that a person can directly access constitutional rights when there is nothing (laws and regulations) giving sufficient effect to it.

    In this case, Mazibuko has a right that parliament rules do not sufficiently give effect to it.

    Please tell me: Why Judge Davis could not have issued an order that said Parliament had to hold what Mazibuko asked and this order would not be effective until the constitutional court confirms it?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Bhele – as a mineworker, living in a shack and getting by on meagre means, and who suffered the life-defining experiences of a dreadful massacre and torture – leads a difficult life, the struggles of which are now underlined by further tragedy. He has lost faith in our democracy and our country. And he has lost hope.

    I have no idea how Bhele’s life will turn out after this, and if he might someday find justice for his suffering. On Friday I wanted desperately to tell him how sorry I was for his pain and trauma, and apologise on behalf of the party and government I voted for. I didn’t, because I know the party and government I voted for is not sorry for what they did to Bhele and hundreds of his friends and co-workers.

    I do not want Bhele to fade into the depths of my memory like all the other ghosts which linger there. Their suffering occurred at a different place and a different time in our history. Bhele’s happened at the height of our democracy, where evil is trying to usurp the freedoms we fought for.

    I do not want to lose faith in our democracy. And I do not want to lose hope. The next time I vote, I will remember Bhele. DM

    http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-11-27-the-passion-of-bhele-a-simple-mineworker-a-broken-man

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    This, it seems, is what the SACP believes, and what Cosatu is hoping for. I have my doubts.

    Firstly, Zuma does not seem to have the drive to galvanise the country’s energies into a coherent vision and sense of purpose. He seems ready to appease all interests – including backward sectors of society that want to strip rural women, and broader society, of their hard-won democratic rights and freedoms.

    Secondly, the president’s personal conduct leaves much to be desired. The outrage of R230m allegedly spent on his personal home, while his rural neighbours still wallow in poverty, leaves a bitter taste in many mouths. This makes it difficult for him, like Mandela, to be a beacon of moral authority.

    Thirdly, if we are to build a democratic developmental state, we need a coherent political movement to forge synergies with broader society.

    However, our once-proud liberation movement seems more eager to march and defend the president’s dignity. Unlike Brazil’s Workers’ Party, it no longer inspires as a vehicle for radical, democratic transformation – and its leader is at the centre of division.

    So – while we look upon Obama with a measure of hope, the thought of another seven years of Zuma at the helm fills many with deadened resignation. In the face of rising working class discontent, from Marikana to De Doorns, we desperately need an inspirational leader to galvanise us, and make us believe again.

    Zuma, unfortunately, is no Lula. And the Moment, sadly, looks likely to be lost.

    Devan Pillay is an academic in University of the Witwatersrand’s sociology department

    http://thenewage.co.za/71583-1111-53-Is_this_Zumas_Lula_moment

  • http://warwickchapman.com Warwick Chapman

    Pierre Lindiwe Mazibuko confirmed on Saturday that papers have been drawn up and an application submitted to the constitutional court.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – UZuma uyabuya!
    November 27, 2012 at 6:22 am

    This is what you do not seem to get. Good African leaders employ consensus and reconciliation politics instead of confrontation, polarisation and alienation. That has always been a hallmark of the old ANC.

    “Firstly, Zuma does not seem to have the drive to galvanise the country’s energies into a coherent vision and sense of purpose. He seems ready to appease all interests – including backward sectors of society that want to strip rural women, and broader society, of their hard-won democratic rights and freedoms.”

  • Blue Ozone

    so maggs.

    To get back on topic.

    What was that bit with ISMAEL logging in the other day mumbling something about the ANC and DA agreeing on “changing the constitution”. Is there a link somewhere to explain this because it is obviously pretty fucking useless to expect more info from a blog like “constitutionallyspeaking”.

    Or is it just like the SANDF intervention in WC not newsworthy?

  • Brett Nortje

    Blue Ozone says:
    November 26, 2012 at 20:36 pm

    He can prioritise, you dolt?

    This is a constitutional crisis.

  • Brett Nortje

    BTW, excellent lawyering all round.

    Humble and abject apologies, shortypants.

    Your initial response soured me.

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 27, 2012 at 7:49 am

    But I’m sure if the constitutional amendment involved doing away with private property you and the DA would be all up in arms calling it the biggest constitutional crises ever.

  • Maggs Naidu – ABZ! – Zuma must go (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Blue Ozone
    November 27, 2012 at 7:38 am

    Hey Blue Boy,

    “Is there a link somewhere to explain this because it is obviously pretty fucking useless to expect more info from a blog like “constitutionallyspeaking”.”

    Indeed there is – I’m glad you asked.

    Seek and thy shall find!

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/

  • Brett Nortje

    OBS, I’m not trivialising it. I mentioned it first, remember?

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – UZuma uyabuya!
    November 27, 2012 at 8:00 am

    OK. So that is a very intelligent response for a serial poster on this blog. Instead of explaining what the “apex court” is you decide to behave like an apex cunt.

  • Brett Nortje

    I also think you are 100% right to be wary and suspicious when the political elites put their heads together and agree on something.

    It usually means less liberty for us or it would not be necessary to Amend our founding document.

  • Maggs Naidu – ABZ! – Zuma must go (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com)

    Blue Ozone
    November 27, 2012 at 8:04 am

    Hayibo Blue Boy!

    “Instead of explaining what the “apex court” is you decide to behave like an apex cunt.”

    I’m not just behaving like but am “an apex cunt”.

    If you wanted to know what an “apex court” is you should have asked.

    It’s in the link I posted above – page 993 v9 pa 37(c) clause 67.5 (ix)!

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 27, 2012 at 8:06 am

    “I also think you are 100% right to be wary and suspicious when the political elites put their heads together and agree on something.”

    Sure. But it seems as if it wasn’t reported anywhere and that nobody gives a fuck. But surely if it means amendment to our constitution it must have some impact on the way we are governed?

    Something has been amended but nobody seem to knows what and nobody know what it means?

  • Blue Ozone

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/11/26/joemat-pettersson-guilty-of-violating-ethics-code

    “Madonsela said the department’s acting director-general should recover about R150,000 Joemat-Pettersson unlawfully incurred for return flights of her two children and their au pair from Sweden to South Africa in January 2010.”

    So how does one reconcile this ruling with the constitutional imperative for gender transformation. Or is it expected, that a women with children should neglect her maternal duties when employed. Chose between her professional career and her kids?

    Or perhaps it is better to stick to same sex relationships, the traditional African way? What does our “constitution expert” says?

  • Thomas

    What should happen if the opposition win the Constitutional case and the motion of no confidence is debated and the president is not removed. How long will the opposition be allowed to lay the motion again? Should the Public Protector find against the president in the Nkandla matter will the opposition lay the motion for discussion again? In the case a very important debate in parliament is being discussed what will prevent the opposition from tabling a motion of no confidence resulting in the shelving of that motion to deal with the more “urgent” matter?

    I have the feeling that the opposition is not confident that one day they will govern and therefore are applying tactics that will render parliament paralyzed. The opposition must remember that should they be in power the tables will be turned and similar or worse tactics will be employed. As much as it’s an emotional matter right now people need to think careful about the implications. The people who will amend parliaments rules so that the majority party would not in future be able to block or delay the debate of such a motion should make sure that there is no possibility of abuse and making Parliament inoperative.

  • Brett Nortje

    Blue Ozone says:
    November 27, 2012 at 9:50 am

    The long-suffering people of South Africa pay her enough – for very little return on their investment so far – to enable her to pay for her children’s seats or very good child care.

    She is hardly a migrant labourer – most would wish to suffer her kind of hardship.

    She merely has a sense of entitlement, a desire to eat the money, like most of the ‘leadership’ of the ANC – and some ordinary ANC members who kill to join that ‘leadership’.

    Idiot.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Good work Prof.

    What surprises me is that the DA et al didn’t go straight to the ConCourt in the first place.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele

    Gwebecimele says:
    November 26, 2012 at 15:59 pm
    Brett and OB

    What is your view on the AA/EE as practised by DA??

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 27, 2012 at 10:45 am

    And how about your maid? I she allowed to bring her toddlers with when she comes to work the baas?

  • Blue Ozone

    Gwebecimele
    November 27, 2012 at 11:05 am

    Being a counter-revolutionary political movement the DA in particular are quite anxious on AA/BEE to succeed, as a means to counter a working class revolution.

    But you should know that strategy quite well.

  • Brett Nortje

    Blue Ozone says:
    November 27, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Yes, and piss on the floor where mama grew up wearing nappies.

    Teasing my dog was a deal-breaker though.

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 27, 2012 at 11:20 am

    As long as you keep them both pissed and retarded on foetal alcohol syndrome I can see no problem. That is the traditional Stellenbosch way, if going gets tough just phone cde Zuma to send in the SANDF. Even the “constitutional experts” at UCT won’t notice.

  • Brett Nortje

    Gwebecimele, I would rather read Pierre’s beautifully succinct (those words again) analysis of a really hopeful-for-our-country Judgement than opine on a opposition party whose ancestor I turned my back on long ago.

    You know the ACDP is my spiritual home although I now reward the FF+’s Pieter Groenewald with my vote wherever I think it might help – for his work in trying to defend my rights raped by the evil enemy ANC (while the DA was imitating the hearnoevil seenoevil speaknoevilmonkeys…)

    I would not have made the mistake of thinking the DA is the party for fundamentally embracing liberty as a matter of principle (any more than I believe it of the ACDP) even if I had not seen them doing this tokenism before when they embraced people like Wynand Malan and Denis Worrall.

    The DA’s sojourn will be short – then they will alienate Afrikaans voters and Tata ma chance, Tata ma Cape.

  • Brett Nortje

    Blue Ozone says:
    November 27, 2012 at 11:29 am

    ANd the traditional ANC way – for the last 18 years – was dumbing down schools so kids cannot write as well as their parents but use school as a dating club where they get pregnant with kids who will not grow up wearing nappies like they did.

    Viva ANC Viva!

    Onwards to 50million!

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 27, 2012 at 11:35 am

    “ANd the traditional ANC way – for the last 18 years ”

    True enough. Those coloreds are over-concentrated down there in WC anyway. Let those dom boers and the SANDF deal with the problem.

  • Eddie

    i am late with this discussion, but basically, if i am to understand correctly, the high court said that the anc are a slimy bunch of rascals, believing that this country is their domain and theirs alone.

    when they lose elections, and they will, will they actuallly relinquish power, or will they zanu pf us, i wonder?

    hmmph.

  • Anonymouse

    Zoo Keeper

    November 27, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Yes – how could the DA have overlooked s 167(4)(e)?

    This brings me back to the question I posed to Prof de Vos some time ago when he remarked on judicial candidate’s commitment to transformation by proposing that the JSC should test their commitment by asking them (or testing their previous judgments) whether they are prepared to develop the common law in terms of s 39(2) when required to adapt the common law to the Constitution, while the true mandate to develop the common law is found in s 8(3)(a) – not in s 39(2). The CC in its judgments has constantly (e.g., Charmichelle and the judgments referred to there) made the mistake of referring to s 39(2) as the genesis of courts’ power to develop the comon law, instead of s 8(3), while s 39(2) only describes how the mandate imposed by s 8(3) should be fulfilled.

    Now, if the CC so regularly makes this basic mistake in its judgments, I suspect nobody would have cried foul in the light of s 167 of the Constitution if Davis J indeed did make a ruling that falls outside his competence. I do not even think that the opposition mentioned the lack of jurisdiction in their papers – Davis J was sharp-eyed enough to see it on his own.

    Come on Prof – how about a piece on courts’ failure to identify (and apply) the correct provisions in the Constitution when deciding matters of a constitutional nature? See my post in this regard on the JSC below.

  • Gwebecimele

    Zook

    Try Madame Zille, she does it better than SAPS. She leaves no position vacant. It seems as if this is also well understood by the broader DA support that the “young, black and gifted” must be fast tracked ahead of the experienced whites. Unless its trick to lure black people.

    “Zoo Keeper says:
    November 7, 2012 at 17:46 pm
    Still waiting for a plausible defence of AA/BEE. One that convincingly differentiates AA fro job reservation. And one that explains when AA/BEE is set to end? Without a sunset clause AA/BEE is permanent.

    Yes, permanent, which means white children today will be discriminated against, as will their children and grandchildren etc.

    C’mon, defenders of the realm. Lets have the defence.”

  • Brett Nortje

    You’re right, dude. Zille is like all arrogant ‘progressive’s. She thinks she has all the answers and everything will come right if she just rewrites the narrative to accord with her Weltanschaung.
    (LOL! – I moved past that point when an attempt was made to disarm me.)

    DO they ever admit to their mistakes?

    After all, what great harm is done by filling chairs around her with young eager black faces?

    Few principles here and there… Principles sminciples.

    All you’re really doing is pissing off people like me when the DA’s black diamonds give anti-crime marches in Mpumalanga after the murder of a baby a luke-warm reception.

    Hey, even I think breaking through the race barrier makes a little political engineering here and there worth it.

    What you – that is, Gwebecimele – are steadfastly avoiding addressing is why the ANC is allowed to get away with the reverse. Constant racial mobilisation. Not only Juju. Not only Kimberley.

    Why do you – that is, Gwebecimele – not go lay charges with the HRC about the Inkatha delegate to the SACP’s race mongering?

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 27, 2012 at 15:24 pm

    Brett. let me ask you a serious question boet. Do you see a future nonracial Afrikaner state including the “coloureds” and the “Indians”? (besides for maggs of course who wants to spend his future gazing at his navel while the Africans suck all the whelf out of his kids)

    Surely the FF+ don’t have such a vision?

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 27, 2012 at 15:24 pm

    “What you – that is, Gwebecimele – are steadfastly avoiding addressing is why the ANC is allowed to get away with the reverse. Constant racial mobilisation. Not only Juju. Not only Kimberley.”

    True enough. Even our racist Communist Leader, his excellence the poison darf Blade Nzimande.

    But lets face it you have to feel sorry for the poor sods cause they have fokkol else to mobilise on. Besides for 17 years of failure.

  • Brett Nortje

    Blue Ozone says:
    November 27, 2012 at 15:31 pm

    Ja. Ek weet waarop jy neerkom en stem saam. Selfs al is die alternatief onophoudelike oorlewingstryd. Baie van ons mense sal die geleentheid gebruik om kleinlik te wees. Soos gewoonlik.

    Maaarrr, onthou. Dit is dieselfde mense wat ‘Ja!’ gestem het om ons beskawing met swart mense te deel.

    68 000 van hulle vriende en familie is vermoor en net ‘n handjievol het teen onskuldige mense weerwraak/vergelding geneem.

  • Gwebecimele

    What suprises me and others is the usual “merit based noise”, “We know no race” whenever we discuss springboks and other sporting codes. This noise also comes up during implementation of EE/AA at workplaces including JSC, parastatals, public and private sector. During job interviews scores are kept and postions are left vacant because a ‘black’ scored few percentages lower than the best white candidate.

    Conviniently this noise is absent during fronting and luring of black votes.

    Brett says:

    “What you – that is, Gwebecimele – are steadfastly avoiding addressing is why the ANC is allowed to get away with the reverse. Constant racial mobilisation”

    Brett, I support EQUALITY and will not support elimination or oppression of minorities.

  • Blue Ozone

    Gwebecimele
    November 27, 2012 at 16:45 pm

    “Brett, I support EQUALITY and will not support elimination or oppression of minorities.”

    So why don’t you speak out against the blatant, constant and unapologetic race-baiting from specifically African politicians and leaders in the media and everywhere else.

    Where is your fucking spine? How many whites spoke out against racism in the old South Africa?

  • Gwebecimele

    Tired of these “one person surveys”. We are busy sorting out this country, stop this noise and do something. We all know our problems we just disagree on solutions.

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/cape-town-s-secret-white-club-1.1431433

  • Blue Ozone

    And btw – we don’t need you too look out for us, patronise us as a fokken “minority”. Just give us space and half a chance and we can look after ourselves.

  • Brett Nortje

    Gwebecimele says:
    November 27, 2012 at 16:45 pm

    “Conviniently this noise is absent during fronting and luring of black votes.”

    I hear what you’re saying, Gwebecimele, and you’re right, of course.

    No-one wants to acknowledge they hold a position because of affirmative action. Another good example is no player wanting to be called ‘a quota player’.

    I still do not know whether it is the right thing to do – remember the story I told you about my team-mates having to be threatened with the belt to behave when we played baseball against Cornelia Collieries yet being completely relaxed with the ‘break-through’ by the time of the return game?

    I thought Paul Adams was the most useless bowler I had ever seen until I drove past little coloured boys imitating his action on their way home from school.

    Wouldn’t there be a huge ‘break-through’ effect if everybody knew Gwebecimele was the local DA branch chairman?

    This country’s race obsession sucks but it is our reality, just like the reality that for a long time there wasn’t much noise about AA, ‘Transformation’ and ‘deployment’ until the damage to our country became clear.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    “Wouldn’t there be a huge ‘break-through’ effect if everybody knew Gwebecimele was the local DA branch chairman?”

    Yes Brett, that would indeed be a huge “break-through.” But I have two questions:

    1. Why would Gwebe ever want to be a “branch” chairman of any party presided over by a “dancing monkey”?

    2. Would not even a “dancing monkey” be embarrassed to receive the support of someone who is convinced that whites are facing imminent GENOCIDE?

    Thanks.

  • Blue Ozone

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    November 27, 2012 at 21:40 pm

    “Would not even a “dancing monkey” be embarrassed to receive the support of someone who is convinced that whites are facing imminent GENOCIDE?”

    Thank you for your infinite colloquial wisodms. They say only a “dancing donkey” make the same mistakes twice.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Mogoeng wants rapid response on Zuma matter

    Johannesburg – Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng has requested an answer by Wednesday at the very latest on the urgency of debating a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma before December 7.

    Mogoeng issued the order on Monday to Speaker Max Sisulu and Mathole Motshekga, the ANC’s chief whip, Beeld reported.

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Mogoeng-wants-rapid-response-on-Zuma-matter-20121127

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – UZuma uyabuya!
    November 27, 2012 at 21:49 pm

    Its all extremely interesting, and as with Heath, Hofmeyr, De Lille, and others one day the good guy, next day the villain. But the sad truth is that I don’t give a flying fuck any more.

    Because the HONEYMOON IS OVER.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Ozonosonic guy

    I understand that you don’t give a “flying fuck.”

    But what do you think will happen next?

    Thanks.

  • Paul Kearney

    Surely what de Farce is too timid to say is that the DA hoped that the no confidence vote would entice Zuma opposition out of the ANC’s rotten woodwork and stiff him pre-Mangohung. Davis wuz nobbled.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    November 27, 2012 at 23:41 pm

    Blue Boy,

    “But the sad truth is that I don’t give a flying fuck any more.”

    Hmmmmm …

    And that’s relevant to the world because …???

  • Gwebecimele

    Dworky is right. I do not have the qualities of a DA branch chairperson. Do they have brances anyway?

    Zille understand and implement EE perfectly at least inside DA

  • Gwebecimele

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0742b814-38c3-11e2-bd13-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DUECnjV4

    Loud and clear message from a president. We need an equivalent message to our mining sector.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – – UZuma uyabuya!
    November 28, 2012 at 5:46 am

    It is relevant because if the honeymoon is over then it might just be time to start considering a divorce.

    And I’m not talking for Nazi flag waging, brnnewyn and coke right-wing lunatic types. I’m talking about WHITES who supported the “struggle” and voted for the ANC.

  • Blue Ozone

    Gwebecimele
    November 28, 2012 at 6:09 am

    Can’t read that gwebs. It is pay for website, I don’t believe in paying for any content on the Internet except perhaps for porn.

  • Blue Ozone

    France’s Hollande in Mittal nationalisation warning

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20518924

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    November 28, 2012 at 7:23 am

    Eish OB!

    “I’m talking about WHITES who supported the “struggle” and voted for the ANC.”

    So you’re suggesting that some supported the struggle against apartheid as a stake in the future and not because it was the right thing to do? not because of a determined conviction that apartheid was a crime against humanity?

    p.s. voting for the ANC should not be swopping favours – people should vote for a political party because they believe that it will do what they want it to do.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    November 28, 2012 at 7:34 am

    LOL. So you believe there were some who supported the “struggle” as part of some bizarre sort of long term assisted suicide/self-annihilation project?

    Go and read your Freedom Charter again, boet.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    November 28, 2012 at 7:51 am

    Hey OB,

    I am confident that there are those, like you, who made some noise in order to claim some “after action satisfaction”.

    There are many, many people who were active in the struggle to end the crime against humanity because it was just that.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    November 28, 2012 at 7:56 am

    Correct. We supported the Freedom Charter. We didn’t support another crime against humanity however i.e. in this unfortunately case our own long term genocide, nor did we support the notion to be governed by fokken Mafia and their friends.

    But as said assisted suicide takes two parties to give their consent.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    November 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

    Confused Blue Guy,

    “We supported …; We didn’t …; nor did we ..”

    Who’s “We”??

  • Mpho

    The Constitutional Court needs to confirm ALL orders of unconstitutionality. Not just in relation to Parliament. Our Court system cannot.possibly condone a High Court Judge saying that Parliamentary Rules are unconstitutional, but that nothing can be done until someone drafts more papers and takes the matter to the Con Court. He surely can refer the issue to the Con Court as he would if he were striking down an Act. If he is wrong, the Con Court disagrees with him and his decision doesn’t stand, if he is right then the Con Court confirm the unconstitutionality and maybe also the remedy.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Blue Ozone

    Gwebecimele
    November 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    However that is not what the typical AA/BEE “empowerment” propaganda is saying.

    “In the past 10 years, the percentage of black civil servants had increased from 42 to 74, and nearly 40% of South Africa’s highest-earning blacks were now government employees.

    Aling attributed sharp rises in black civil servants’ salaries to “managerial bloat”, claiming the government used promotion and job re-grading to increase their incomes.

    “This results in the average remuneration for public sector workers now (being) 32% higher than that of private sector workers.”

    If historical rates of progression were maintained, 5.1 million black people would be earning more than the average white person in private business by 2020, he said.

    Racial income disparities were steadily, if slowly, closing.”

    But not according to Mr. Pierre De Vos – “Instead of focusing on these shocking problems, *some middle class South Africans (who are mostly, but not exclusively, white)* focus obsessively on affirmative action, which they seem to view as the greatest injustice perpetrated in modern day South Africa.”

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/affirmative-action-judgment-might-be-wrong/

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    THE Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) is embarking on a restructuring process which will see hundreds of its staff retrenched, many of them infrastructure development and finance professionals.

    http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/financial/2012/11/28/state-to-lose-build-spend-skills-as-dbsa-restructures

  • Klaus Muller

    @maggs naidu, crime against humanity ? I am sure those 300 000 or more murdered people since that outbreak of freedom 1994 are in total agreement with you – or not ?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Klaus Muller
    November 28, 2012 at 16:10 pm

    Klaus,

    I’m not sure what you mean.

    Are you suggesting that apartheid was not a crime against humanity?

  • Brett Nortje

    The jury was tampered with, Maggs. How can you regard their verdict as credible?

  • Brett Nortje

    This is a crime against humanity, Maggs:

    http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Plaasmoorde-Dis-veel-wreder-as-ander-20121127

    Plaasmoorde ‘wreder’
    2012-11-27 22:21
    Alet Rademeyer

    Plaasmoorde gaan met baie meer geweld en marteling gepaard as waaroor die publiek ooit ingelig word.

    Eileen de Jager en Roelien Schutte, twee susters wat landwyd misdaadtonele skoonmaak, het gister by die bekendstelling van ’n omvattende verslag van die Solidariteit Navorsingsinstituut oor plaasaanvalle gesê hulle het uit ervaring gesien dat baie meer geweld in plaasaanvalle gebruik word.

    Hulle meen as die publiek werklik weet wat tydens dié aanvalle en moorde gebeur, dit ’n wekroep sal wees wat gemeenskappe sal mobiliseer om baie meer paraat te wees.

    “Slagoffers word ook gemartel deurdat hulle agter voertuie aangesleep of met kookwater vermink word. Dit is mal verby,” het De Jager gesê.

    Prof. Christiaan Bezuidenhout, dosent in kriminologie aan die Universiteit van Pretoria (UP), het gesê dit is baie kommerwekkend dat oortreders voortgaan om hul slagoffers te martel en te vermoor nadat hulle geld, wapens of voertuie met geweld afgeneem het. “Baie aanvallers gebruik buitengewone, onnodige en uitgerekte geweld.”

    Hy meen baie faktore kan ’n rol speel in gewelddadige aanvalle, soos alkohol en dwelmmisbruik, frustrasie, gebrek aan geleenthede en politieke invloede.

    “Dit kan ook toegeskryf word aan ’n geweldkultuur en geweld teenoor ’n spesifieke groep soos haat vir die wit boerderygemeenskap.”

    Groenewald meen misdaad as ’n oorlewingsmeganisme het plek gemaak vir toenemend sadistiese martelingsgeweld, veral tydens plaasaanvalle.

    Hy het gesê politici wat dié probleem oorsien en versuim om streng op te tree, sal waarskynlik eendag vir misdade teen die mensdom en etniese suiwering verhoor kan word.

    Lorraine Claassen, ’n onafhanklike kriminoloog, het gesê dit is onrusbarend dat plaasaanvalle steeds nie die aandag kry wat dit moet nie.

    “Die uitermatige vrees wat mense ervaar as hul lewe in ’n aanvaller se hande is, is verlammend en onbeskryflik. Geen mens verdien om op so ’n wreedaardige, onmenslike en onregverdige wyse vermoor te word nie.”

    Dr. Johan Burger, senior navorser by die Instituut vir Sekerheidstudie (ISS), het gesê dit is duidelik die regering sien nie die voortslepende aanvalle op plase as ’n prioriteit nie.

    Hy het gesê ’n boer het ’n twee keer groter kans as ’n polisieman om vermoor te word.

    “Die situasie moet ’n nasionale krisis wees en dit moet gefokusde aandag kry.”

    Volgens Burger het sake versleg toe die landelike beveiligheidsplan afgeskaf is. Dit is gedoen omdat daar ’n verkeerde opvatting was dat net wit mense beskerm sou word.

    Hoewel boere van verskillende rassegroepe slagoffers is, staan wit boere ’n groter kans om slagoffers te wees, is deur bydraers tot die verslag bevind.

    – Die polisie gee sedert 2007 nie meer afsonderlike statistieke vir plaasaanvalle nie.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ ANCYL

    “Comrade Malema must not now allow himself to play into the hands of those who are waiting in the sidelines, patiently seeking an opportunity to be proven correct that he would rule from the grave and would turn on the ANC when it got too cold outside.”

    ANCYL is right.

  • Klaus

    Maggs, to put it into context, when those “famous” words where uttered, with the help of the Non Aligned Movement, we had, amongst other similar beacons of humanity a certain Idi Amin whom no-one had the guts to confront?
    But my real gripe is the ongoing “crime against South African humanity” in the form, we all know – Crime, Education, Health (you might remember: no education before liberation – what has changed?)

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Klaus
    November 28, 2012 at 18:57 pm

    Klaus,

    Your opening paragraph seems to refute that apartheid was a crime against humanity.

    Is that your view?

    p.s. We can discuss the current situation once we’re done with the iniquity (or otherwise) of apartheid!

  • Klaus

    Again, to put it into context, I would not use those words, crimes have been committed, on all sides. but coming from a communist backed entity which is now responsible for the current mayhem, I might agree with you in some instances, but the current regime has lost their moral standing a long time ago and cannot claim anymore goodwill based on your assumptions – This is my opinion after living in RSA since 1968

  • Lisbeth

    @ Klaus

    I looked up all the definitions I could find as to what constitutes crimes against humanity.

    Crime, education and health – as mentioned by you – are not considered to be crimes against humanity.

    I find this outrageous.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Klaus
    November 28, 2012 at 19:38 pm

    Klaus,

    You disputed at November 28, 2012 at 16:10 pm that apartheid was a crime against humanity

    Again at November 28, 2012 at 18:57 pm

    And again at your latest post.

    But you’re simply not prepared to openly say that apartheid was not a crime against humanity.

    Brett is very clear – he does not think it’s a crime against humanity but he does think it was unChristian!

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, I am not so sure about the “crimes against humanity” category. But I do think it may have been somewhat unchristian to have spoiled blacks rotten by giving them schools, hospitals, stadia, and ultimately even their very own sovereign states, thus depriving them of the blessings of self-reliance!

    Thanks.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    November 28, 2012 at 21:08 pm

    Dworky,

    Do you think racism itself is a racist phenomena?

    As we are all aware only WHITES can be racist.

    Like the park benches, sports and the best beaches, it appears that WHITES have created another exclusive terrain for themselves – #RacismExclusivelyForWHites

    WDYSTT?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Maggs, you have a point. Racism is indeed a racist phenomena. But I go one step further. Racism about racism is itself racist! (This is what I like to call META-RACISM.)

    Pierre could in principle clear all this up. Sadly though, he has lost the appetite for descending into the fray of the fierce debates stirred by his initial postings. And who can blame him?

  • Cicero Langa

    I’m sorry, but how can Zachie Achmat STILL be a member of the ANC? Was the Mbeki’s backwardness (coin: “Mbackwardness”) not enough for him to relinquish his card?

    If it takes him this long to smell nevirapien, how long will it take our less courageous brothers?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    November 28, 2012 at 21:40 pm

    Dworky,

    “Racism about racism is itself racist!” reminds me of the great entrepreneurial genius of some who benefited from apartheid, benefiting again from the rotting corpse of apartheid by selling “I benefited from apartheid” T-Shirts.

    WDYSTT?

    #Meta-Racism. neat!

  • Cicero Langa

    Will Cyril, Patrice and Jacob wear “I benefit from apartheid” t-shirts?

    Cyril and Patrice (and all our convertable driving brothers) would never have received the freebies they are receiving had it not been for apartheid.

    As for Jacob, had it not been for apartheid nobody would have thought it accepible to have a complete moron and a crook as a president.

  • Blue Ozone

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    November 28, 2012 at 21:08 pm

    “Maggs, I am not so sure about the “crimes against humanity” category. But I do think it may have been somewhat unchristian to have spoiled blacks rotten by giving them schools, hospitals, stadia, and ultimately even their very own sovereign states, thus depriving them of the blessings of self-reliance!”

    Yes – yet another crime against humanity. However under the most recent racist UN sponsored dogma, self-determination is considered a very basic human right.

    “The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker), or in short form, the right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international law principles of international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4″

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#The_UN_Charter

  • Cicero Langa

    The point: the black over 40 elite is benefiting more from apartheid than any of the under 20 whites ever will.

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go! says:
    November 28, 2012 at 19:23 pm

    Maggs, you ninny, we were done with the iniquity of apartheid 18 years ago!

    Is this going to be another of our great ‘bodycount’ debates?

    How about we compare fatalities at the hands of the SAP/SAPS or deaths-in-detention SAP/SAPS?

  • Brett Nortje

    Cicero Langa says:
    November 28, 2012 at 22:22 pm

    What about Patrice’s sister or brother-in-law?

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    November 28, 2012 at 21:16 pm

    “As we are all aware only WHITES can be racist.”

    True enough. And that is exactly why we cannot ever escape such an inescapable deterministic genetic trap. Even if we tried.

    So time to say thank you. And fuck you. Lets allow you good black people to thrive without WHITE racists holding you back.

  • Brett Nortje

    Hands up everyone who believes Gwebecimele might very well be like my 15year-old teammates and only cross the racial barrier under threat of the belt?

    “Gwebecimele says:
    November 28, 2012 at 5:48 am
    Dworky is right. I do not have the qualities of a DA branch chairperson.”

  • Brett Nortje

    Jy sien!

    Blue Ozone says:
    November 28, 2012 at 22:32 pm

    “True enough. And that is exactly why we cannot ever escape such an inescapable deterministic genetic trap. Even if we tried.”

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 28, 2012 at 22:37 pm

    But check out what cde Zuma has to say. I’m sure his arm can be twisted for a couple of cows.

    Afrikaners must find their own Nkandla – Zuma

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Afrikaners-must-find-their-own-Nkandla-Zuma-20110216

  • Brett Nortje

    Cool. Maar hy het ons R240m!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    November 28, 2012 at 21:40 pm

    Dworky,

    “Sadly though, he has lost the appetite for descending into the fray of the fierce debates stirred by his initial postings.”

    Blame Prof MO – Pierre must have started a satellite blog.

    Re META-RACISM – what say you that us Black people (you, me and Matilda) start an #OccupyRacism campaign?

  • Brett Nortje
  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    November 29, 2012 at 8:34 am

    “Die lugmag se nege reserwe-eskaders het in die drie maande nie een enkele uur gevlieg nie.”

    Brett, I think that could be because of the SAAF’s “rigorous” new AA program. We are now training pilots who can only fly kites and those cute little paper mache airplanes.

  • Brett Nortje

    Eish! Who fukked up No1 frigate’s engine? No-one check the oil?

    Note the submarines are not even being mentioned. Is that because of the bumper-bashing? Are those subs deck-cargo on their way back to Germany?

  • Brett Nortje

    LOL! Our oppressor:

    http://www.rapport.co.za/MyRapport/Briewe/Genl-Witkop-had-sagte-hart-vir-troepe-20121124

    snip
    “’n Jaar of twee gelede tydens die KKNK het ons ons ou barakke besoek. Wat ’n ontnugtering!

    In die middel van die week, in die middel van die dag, stort daar ’n paar soldate, ’n ander een lê op sy bed. Die gebou is vuil, die plafonne stukkend, ons TV-kamer aan die agterkant ’n bergplek vir rommel. By die agterdeur lê stukkende stoele en ’n oliedromkarkas wat seker as braaiplek moes dien. Die gras tussen die geboue is lank en op die slap wasgoeddrade hang stukke uniform, dae lank moer toe gebrand.

    Ek het net gehoop ons trotse bevelvoerder wat help bou het aan ’n doeltreffende SA infanterie-gevegsmasjien moet dit tog nooit sien nie. Skielik het ek verstaan hoekom ons troepe in September 1998 met die inval in Lesotho ’n pak slae gekry en The New York Times smalend met banieropskrifte berig het: “Tiny Neighbor Gives South African Army Rude Surprise.””

  • Alibama

    }Courts exist to police the constitutional boundaries… Where the
    }constitutional boundaries are breached or transgressed, courts have a
    }clear and express role. And must then act without fear or favour.

    Thanks Prof, you’ve confirmed ZooKeeper’s reply to my question: “may
    High Courts over-rule pre-CC precedents, on grounds of constitutional
    principles?”. Yes! But I’ve never seen a reported case. Did anyone ever.
    succeed with searching/NoterUp subjects on: http://www.saflii.org/ ??
    ——
    Beetle said::
    }Why 12 cows?? Surely good animal husbandry would dictate slaughtering
    } oxen or inferior bullocks and keeping the cows in calf?
    It’s just a translation error [like RomanDutch to English to Afrikaans
    to English for SA broken-law]
    In Afrikaans cows/bulls/oxen are “beasts”
    In Nguni they are COWS. Hence John Bull = Joshua Nkomo

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Zuma: A blessing in disguise for our beloved land

    Very much a man many would loath and the most controversial President South Africa has ever had. With a trail of non-ending shenanigans, one would wonder why the ANC would want to re-elect him as the president for a second term. In a country where HIV is rife, he has four wives, has been accused of rape and has had sexual relations outside marriage. Among other things, he has escaped massive corruption charges and his friend Schabir Shaik who was found guilty of the corrupt dealings between the two of them is now out of jail under the guise of being at ‘death’s door’. Who are they trying to fool? This is a classic case of you scratch my back and I scratch yours.

    http://voices.news24.com/thabiso-molewa/2012/12/zuma-a-blessing-in-disguise-for-our-beloved-land/

  • http://www.tantricmassagelondonx.com/techniques/ sensual massage London

    Νot to mention, millіоns of people across the globe.
    Thе result is that you ԁo want to know what
    you’re looking for in a medical erotic massage that has the facility to find out more about the products and treatment choices. Truly all that is. The next day, my wife, Ruth, and Charles Lindbergh. With a myriad of ways. When writing your day Erotic Massage website.

    Here is my site :: sensual massage London

  • http://www.zazzle.com/dragon_tatooed_t_shirt-235785395962555419 our website

    I’ll right away grab your rss feed as I can’t to find your email subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please permit me realize so that I may just subscribe. Thanks.