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.
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)
Why can’t Grindrod just let it go?
“We must use every means possible to find and track down this individual.”
My question remains: why is it so important Simon? By making this into such a big deal, Mr Grindrod is creating the impression that he is rather touchy on the subject of his own sexuality. A more suspicious person than myself would begin to wonder whether Grindrod does not have something to hide. Does he perhaps suffer from internalized homophobia and is he perhaps gay?
By pursuing the matter “mercilessly”, he also runs the risk of appearing thin-skinned, prissy and vindictive. We now all know that the author of the Blog is an unstable publicity seeker, so few people would take the claims on the Blog seriously.
If Mr Grindrod had more political sense, he would just let sleeping dogs lie. By making such a fuss he is creating more suspicion than he might think.
