Threats to National Security

nightjar

nightjar

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
6,859
Reaction score
5,570
Location
Cape Town
The new Information (Censorship) Bill would certainly classify today's article in the Sowetan about the 20 miners executed.

Also classified would be:
Acid mine water threat to Johannesburg
Dead babies in hospitals
Babies disposed of as waste by hospitals
Any criminal activities by ANC comrades

What else can be added to this list?
 
nightjar said:
The new Information (Censorship) Bill would certainly classify today's article in the Sowetan about the 20 miners executed.

Also classified would be:
Acid mine water threat to Johannesburg
Dead babies in hospitals
Babies disposed of as waste by hospitals
Any criminal activities by ANC comrades

What else can be added to this list?
Click to expand...

Why would it be classified? The nephew doesn't isn't it government is he?
 
Fudzy said:
Why would it be classified? The nephew doesn't isn't it government is he?
Click to expand...

No but the information relates to economic activity and could harm the country if word got out about how corrupt it is. So yeah, it would be classified.
 
I believe that problem is that anything deemed a "threat to national security" could be censored.

However that phrase is so vague and open to interpretation that almost anything could be regarded as a "threat to national security". Think Orwell's 1984.

Who judges what is a threat? Politicians? What if I regard politicians as the threat?

Not that I necessarily agree with our constitution and everything it says but in this case, I hope the right to freedom of speech clause squashes this madness. Disagreeing with the government is not hate speech, propaganda etc.
 
Last edited:
Okay let me try simplfiy this for you, the nephew and grandson of present and past politicians own this mine where the trespassers were shot dead. The OP thinks that this news story will be squashed by the new act. From what I've read, the act does not cater for family members.
 
blunomore said:
Now this is worthy of a " huh" ????????????
Click to expand...

Easy, constitution says we have a right not be discriminated against, then it contradicts itself by saying certain forms of discrimination are okay?

It is a sad but ignored fact that anti-discrimination laws disregard the right to freedom of association. Which, if free will occures naturally, is a naturally occurring right, therefor it is a higher right than any subjective man made law.

Another example is that in certain cases the application of anti-discrimination laws disregard property rights, then in any other cases property rights trump anti-discrimination laws...

If anyone doesn't see double standards in that you have a problem...
 
Fudzy said:
Okay let me try simplfiy this for you, the nephew and grandson of present and past politicians own this mine where the trespassers were shot dead. The OP thinks that this news story will be squashed by the new act. From what I've read, the act does not cater for family members.
Click to expand...

Ah, makes sense now.:D

The Act doesn't specifically state "Uncle", "Nephew". But there is the problem, the Act doesn't specify anything. Basically the Government would be allowed to classify anything as a State secret because there are no specifics as to what can be, and cannot be a State secret.
 
Ronjay said:
Ah, makes sense now.:D

The Act doesn't specifically state "Uncle", "Nephew". But there is the problem, the Act doesn't specify anything. Basically the Government would be allowed to classify anything as a State secret because there are no specifics as to what can be, and cannot be a State secret.
Click to expand...

So what you're implying is that in order to get a story banned from newspapers is for said relatives of politicians to phone their uncles/grandparents and ask that the information be deemed a state secret?

EDIT: Here's the bill if anyone is interested in reading it.

http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/commonrepository/Processed/20091112/84004_1.pdf
 
WilD_CaT said:
Easy, constitution says we have a right not be discriminated against, then it contradicts itself by saying certain forms of discrimination are okay?

It is a sad but ignored fact that anti-discrimination laws disregard the right to freedom of association. Which, if free will occures naturally, is a naturally occurring right, therefor it is a higher right than any subjective man made law.

Another example is that in certain cases the application of anti-discrimination laws disregard property rights, then in any other cases property rights trump anti-discrimination laws...

If anyone doesn't see double standards in that you have a problem...
Click to expand...

Indeed. You can go on to include the rights of criminals being held above those of law abiding citizens....
 
WilD_CaT said:
Easy, constitution says we have a right not be discriminated against, then it contradicts itself by saying certain forms of discrimination are okay?

It is a sad but ignored fact that anti-discrimination laws disregard the right to freedom of association. Which, if free will occures naturally, is a naturally occurring right, therefor it is a higher right than any subjective man made law.

Another example is that in certain cases the application of anti-discrimination laws disregard property rights, then in any other cases property rights trump anti-discrimination laws...

If anyone doesn't see double standards in that you have a problem...
Click to expand...

But .... did you not know that our Constitution was drafted with due regard to our past ? Therefore, certain forms of discrimination is allowed e.g. AA in the workplace, as well as BBBEE.

Furthermore, every human right can only be exercised in such a manner that it does not infringe on the rights of others. That is what is called a legitimate curtailment of rights.
 
blunomore said:
But .... did you not know that our Constitution was drafted with due regard to our past ? Therefore, certain forms of discrimination is allowed e.g. AA in the workplace, as well as BBBEE.

Furthermore, every human right can only be exercised in such a manner that it does not infringe on the rights of others. That is what is called a legitimate curtailment of rights.
Click to expand...

The constitution might know that but do the policitians? They're the ones who keep buggering things ups.
 
Fudzy said:
So what you're implying is that in order to get a story banned from newspapers is for said relatives of politicians to phone their uncles/grandparents and ask that the information be deemed a state secret?

EDIT: Here's the bill if anyone is interested in reading it.

http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/commonrepository/Processed/20091112/84004_1.pdf
Click to expand...

Dude, you do know that most democracies around the world are relaxing their media laws and declassifying documents because they recognize media restriction and State secrecy is contrary to the principals of freedom. But here we are trying to choke out media freedom. And yes, I do believe that if the ANC have a means to prevent the egg on face experience, they'll use it. Especially if it means pushing their agenda forward.
 
Ronjay said:
Dude, you do know that most democracies around the world are relaxing their media laws and declassifying documents because they recognize media restriction and State secrecy is contrary to the principals of freedom. But here we are trying to choke out media freedom. And yes, I do believe that if the ANC have a means to prevent the egg on face experience, they'll use it. Especially if it means pushing their agenda forward.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I don't think, at least I hope it doesn't extend to protect family members from possibly negative media attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X