Politics.za

Former ANC Chief Whip Tony Yengeni looks like he finally might be going to jail, after being convicted in 2003. Yengeni will probably launch a petition for leave to appeal but if that is turned down it’s off to the slammer.

Stop the presses!! There has been a massive scientific breakthrough in mathematical logic and it comes from none other than our own COSATU! Quick someone tell The IMU to start engraving that Fields Medal cause I have a hunch I know who is winning this year!

COSATU have figured out how to prove a negative assertion! Not only will this have massive implications for the world of mathematics but the ramifications for law and internet flaming will be major. Already the shockwaves of this landmark discovery are hitting the SA law scene, and have particular relevance to our rape laws. As COSATU now proclaim:

He should prove that he did not rape the victim

That’s right. In the past to prove a rape we needed a pesky thing called ‘evidence’. Therefore to now prove that a rape has not happened we need to prove there is no evidence, in short to prove that something does not exist, something that was logically impossible until COSATU came along!

It is quite clear that every male should report to the police (to female constables, all the males will also be handing themselves over) because with the distinct lack of no evidence that I have not raped every woman I walked past on the street, it is obvious I have raped them all. I hang my head in shame. Thank you COSATU for showing me the true criminal I am.

George Bizos :

Any attempt to limit the functions and jurisdiction of the judiciary is an interference with its independence and therefore a danger to be avoided

When George Bizos starts getting nervous about laws that threaten the independence of the courts then it’s serious stuff. The proposed laws might make the courts more efficient but they seem to do so by eroding the courts independence and it’s ability to act as a counter measure to the Execulature (A totally made up word: Executive and and Legislature combined, as it basically is today).

He’s hoping for some further negotiation before any laws are passed and I hope so as well. It’s really hard to pronounce Execulaturiciary.

The High Court has gagged newspapers from running the controversial Danish cartoons that are getting Muslims worldwide into a huff. The presiding Judge Mohamed Jajhbay said that

the right to dignity outweighed the right to freedom of expression in this matter

Ok now I’m a lowly software developer not some high court judge but I know that no right is more important than another. If one right is eroded, they all are.

Let’s look at the relevant sections in our own Constitution. Firstly let’s look at the section on freedom of expression.

16. Freedom of expression
  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­
        1. freedom of the press and other media;
        2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
        3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
        4. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
  2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to ­
        1. propaganda for war;
        2. incitement of imminent violence; or
        3. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Right so we have the freedom of speech, including freedom of the press except in certain cases. We’re interested in exception 3., the only exception that can possibly apply here, which limits speech which advocates relihgous hatred AND incitement to cause harm. Notice that ‘and’ there because it’s important. Are these cartoons advocating religous hatred? Not really. Do they incite harm on adherents of that religion? No.

Next let’s look at what the constitution says about dignity

10. Human dignity
Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

Does this cartoon infringe on anyone’s dignity? No, because the subject of this cartoon is dead. Frankly the ‘right to dignity’ has never set well with me. It doesn’t seem to actually protect an actual right and seems to have been put there for little else than an excuse for some mealy mouthed feel good clap trap. If dignity is to be protected then why isn’t the government swooping down and taking homeless people off the streets to protect their ‘dignity’? Dying of AIDS certainly isn’t dignified is it?

What about religion?

15. Freedom of religion, belief and opinion
  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.

Notice that people have the right to both religion and opinion. So is the opinion of the artist (or the editor at the Sunday Times) subservient to the rights of a religion? I think not.

And let’s not forget: Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.

I always feel a bit uneasy whenever there’s talk of constitutional amendments, especially in South Africa where the ANC government could change the constitution whenever they want to (check out this page to see the ones done so far).

I feel especially uneasy when said constitutional amendments tamper with the balance of government, which is what the current proposed amendment will do. Government is aiming to limit the courts powers even further in the future (can’t have any of those ‘activist judges’ to borrow a phrase from Dubya) by preventing courts from barring an act from coming into comencement. Once the act is in effect I assume it can then be shot down. But as they say posession is nine tenths of the law and once a law is in effect it’s a lot harder to get rid of.

The proposed amendment will also shake up the courts system a bit. The Labour Appeals court is set to disappear (COSATU must be thrilled! Not.) and will create a single High Court of South Africa. So what will the new High Court do that is not done by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals?

And to add a bit of totalitarian control to the mix the Minister of Justice will now control the budget and administration of the entire court system.

Checks? Balances? Seperation of power? Anyone?

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will decide whether same sex marriages will be legal. Government is actually opposing the case because they believe that parliament should decide on this and not the courts, and I see their point. However in the 9 years since the new constitution has been in effect no law has been made (or amended) legalising same sex marriage despite the equal rights offered to everyone under the constitution regardless of sexual orientation, so I also understand those who have grown a bit fed up waiting.

Funnily enough I was expecting the ACDP to be having a small fit over this but their latest weekly e-newsletter doesn’t even mention anything about it.