Quote of the week

As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
12 March 2012

No, my anger is directed at the many followers who choose to remain silent in the face of such bigotry. Just because some old guy with flowing robes and a funny looking hat says some stuff, it doesn’t make it right. Nor does it make it wise or necessarily God’s will. By remaining silent, you condone this moronic and hateful stance of the church, which in turns makes you as bigoted and ignorant. By remaining silent, you prove you are nothing more than a sheep being fleeced for money and acting as agent of indoctrination. By remaining silent, you’re saying homosexuals do not deserve the civil liberties you enjoy. By being silent, you are acting against the very doctrine your supreme being in the heavens wants you to follow. – Styli Charalambous at Daily Maverick

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest