Sadly true.
That's in all mentionable politics though, so hardly a specific point when it comes to WC secession
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
CapeXit 2
- Thread starter Grant
- Start date
- Status
Sadly true.
That's in all mentionable politics though, so hardly a specific point when it comes to WC secession
@Splinter so where exactly do you then stand wrt Cape Independence?
Meaning, if you're "anti" / against it, what's your reasons as to why you are against the movement/ Independence/ referendum ?
Hypothetically, if tomorrow everyone in South Africahad the opportunity to vote 🗳 YAY or NAY for Cape Independence, what would your vote be and why ?
Splinter doesn't do adult conversations.
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
I've done a very quick Google search, all the above-mentioned individuals are connected to CIM or RP.
Well... you're strongly negatively focused on that abusive crowd, but doesn't mean some of them don't have other interests or want to see us move away from a potentially very dangerous Marxist crowd.
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
100% Agree with you, the Western Cape as for each individual person, family etc is all mixed, as in they're left, right and central neutral) leaning, I wouldn't say there's a VAST majority over the other.
Speaking of ordinary citizens...
lexity
Honorary Master
Well-endowed business operators? Who have funded the CIM? And openly call out the DA?
Count maybe on 2 or 3 fingers... perhaps on one hand, at a stretch?
I did caveat my statements, to this effect.
p.s. someone with deep pockets funded the court push-back by the CIP. And another called out the DA for failing to openly address the question of CI.
Possibly the same one?
lexity
Honorary Master
More true where the culture of healthy disrespect for the political class is in evidence.To quote you; only a few are needed
As per previously-posted.
link: https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/capexit-2.1327883/post-34308372
Can't be an excuse though, CIM still need to polarise to some degree in order to effectively function.
Have a great afternoon chaps, cheers
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
Buuuuuuuut I thought this was on topic and a valid discussion?
(Would be nice if everyone could just post their answers again to the questions I asked @Splinter , because going back a gazillion pages and trying to exactly find out WHY is
)
lexity
Honorary Master
Note of caution:
Joan Swart, for all she's done to highlight the plight of the WC, comes from a discipline that specializes in dousing individual primacy with cold water.
p.s. The notion of individuals reclaiming individual responsibility, back from the clutches of the consumer-protector-supreme i.e. the State, is considered anathema amongst this discipline's most purest social architects and engineers.
Joan Swart, for all she's done to highlight the plight of the WC, comes from a discipline that specializes in dousing individual primacy with cold water.
p.s. The notion of individuals reclaiming individual responsibility, back from the clutches of the consumer-protector-supreme i.e. the State, is considered anathema amongst this discipline's most purest social architects and engineers.
lexity
Honorary Master
Just noticed something odd, from the current state of the poll:
Of the 75 voters, 55 of us are generally pro-independence.... having voted in favor of the first 2 options.
Out of the remainder i.e. 18 voters, 33 of them 'disagree to all questions'.
Have I missed something?
Seems to me something is not right there.
p.s. Poll authors, can you investigate/opine?
Ah... I just realized why..... the first two are each unique sets, but together, there are duplicates... could be why.
The subtleties of multi-votes surveys/polls.
Of the 75 voters, 55 of us are generally pro-independence.... having voted in favor of the first 2 options.
Out of the remainder i.e. 18 voters, 33 of them 'disagree to all questions'.
Have I missed something?
Seems to me something is not right there.
p.s. Poll authors, can you investigate/opine?
Ah... I just realized why..... the first two are each unique sets, but together, there are duplicates... could be why.
The subtleties of multi-votes surveys/polls.
Last edited:
Just noticed something odd, from the current state of the poll:
View attachment 1893190
Of the 75 voters, 55 of us are generally pro-independence.... having voted in favor of the first 2 options.
Out of the remainder i.e. 18 voters, 33 of them 'disagree to all questions'.
Have I missed something?
Seems to me something is not right there.
p.s. Poll authors, can you investigate/opine?
You've forgotten it's multiple choice (of sorts), so no, it's quite unlikely to be "same-thinking" people have all selected both of the first two options, and certainly not 55 of them.
Also worth considering that it was experimental, so has a few flaws in its logic - for instance, "disagree to all questions" is about the questions above, not necessarily also about the (alternative) Swiss Canton question that follows which was added later on.
Anyway, a fair insight nevertheless.
Last edited:
lexity
Honorary Master
Yes. I added to my post when I noticed the error in my thinking (2minutes before your reply
).There's an overlap of 13 voters in the first 2 categories.
porchrat
Honorary Master
No., again: These laws are not part of the Constitution. They're created using the Constitution as a framework. There is a difference. They exist beneath the Constitution, not as a part of it.
The Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority in Parliament to alter. These laws do not. We are very very lucky they're not, as you erroneously claim, part of the Constitution.
You don't seem to be. You just got done telling me these laws are part of the Constitution. Again. You're wrong. Again.Not sure who you're trying to explain this to, we're all aware of the above-mentioned and the differences, thank you.
Still on your weird path... Anyways, good chat, thanks
They're not. Just so we're absolutely clear.
Last edited:
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
There's an Afrikaans saying for this, that would describe those individuals...
It seems fairly obvious, thats the whole basis of certain laws being challenged through the courts.
Sometimes a law will be ruled unconstitutional and will be scrapped or require reworking.
Laws cannot be in conflict with the constitution, and its the constitution that wins.
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
Section Nine of the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equality before the law and freedom from discrimination to the people of South Africa. This equality right is the first right listed in the Bill of Rights. It prohibits both discrimination by the government and discrimination by private persons; however, it also allows for affirmative action to be taken to redress past unfair discrimination
Section Nine of the Constitution of South Africa - Wikipedia
Section 25 of the Constitution, known as the property clause, prescribes in section 25(1) that no one may be deprived of property, except in terms of a law of general application (a law that applies to everyone equally), and any such law may not authorise the arbitrary deprivation of property (deprivation of property without due process). Section 25(2) permits the expropriation of property for a public purpose or public interest, and section 25(4) clarifies that "public interest" includes the country's commitment to land reform.
Education rights are contained in section 29 of the South African Constitution. In terms of section 29 everyone has the right to a basic education, including adult basic education; [1] and to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible. [2] These rights place a duty on the state to respect an individual’s right to education. It also imposes a positive obligation on the state to promote and provide education by putting in place and maintaining an education system that is responsive to the needs of the country.
The Right to Basic Education
It is widely accepted that education plays a vital role in lifting people out of poverty, empowering women and children, and promoting human rights and democracy. This brief aims to define the right to basic education in South Africa
hsf.org.za
Section 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides that everyone has the right to life. The right to life is textually unqualified because it is given stronger protection in our Constitution.
HUMAN RIGHTS DAY: Your right to life
Section 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides that everyone has the right to life. The right to life is textually unqualified because it is given stronger protection in our Constitution.
lexity
Honorary Master
After going back and forth on this over the last couple of days, especially, and recalling part of the name of a a book by Koos Malan, I thought I'd give an ai engine some exercise...
Seems my concerns are shared by some people with a much higher profile than mine...
So, some people think the Constitution was flawed from the beginning. I'm one of them.
It's hardly surprising if the wording of the constitution was heavily influenced by the same Communists that authored the Freedom Charter.
Also, section 9's reference to the equity clause is hard evidence, where it talks of "unfair discrimination'', that judicial procedure relies on a human being's arbitrary adjudication.... which has to favor one party at the expense of another i.e. that is so vulnerable to corruption that it is virtually baked into the cake.
There is a clear win-win solution to this.
Unless, ofc, one side considers that a changing national borders should be subject to approval by a mob i.e. permission.
This is so ironic, given the actual injustices of Apartheid were a case of compelled association, in that case you were compelled not to associate. In this case you are compelled to associate.
Both are a violation of the right to Freedom of Association, where nobody can compel anyone else to associate.
My view is that logically speaking the constitution can be use to adjudicate on national borders, because that would form a circular argument.
The legitimacy of the constitution, itself rests on consent by all members of those it was drawn up to represent.
People don't understand this circular reasoning, and so they keep making the logical error of putting the legal cart before the moral horse.
Seems my concerns are shared by some people with a much higher profile than mine...
So, some people think the Constitution was flawed from the beginning. I'm one of them.
It's hardly surprising if the wording of the constitution was heavily influenced by the same Communists that authored the Freedom Charter.
Also, section 9's reference to the equity clause is hard evidence, where it talks of "unfair discrimination'', that judicial procedure relies on a human being's arbitrary adjudication.... which has to favor one party at the expense of another i.e. that is so vulnerable to corruption that it is virtually baked into the cake.
There is a clear win-win solution to this.
Unless, ofc, one side considers that a changing national borders should be subject to approval by a mob i.e. permission.
This is so ironic, given the actual injustices of Apartheid were a case of compelled association, in that case you were compelled not to associate. In this case you are compelled to associate.
Both are a violation of the right to Freedom of Association, where nobody can compel anyone else to associate.
My view is that logically speaking the constitution can be use to adjudicate on national borders, because that would form a circular argument.
The legitimacy of the constitution, itself rests on consent by all members of those it was drawn up to represent.
People don't understand this circular reasoning, and so they keep making the logical error of putting the legal cart before the moral horse.
- Status