CapeXit 2

Poll is for all in South Africa -

  • Do you believe W/Cape secession from the Republic is feasible ?

    Votes: 28 34.1%

  • Would you support a bid for W/Cape to secede from the Republic ?

    Votes: 33 40.2%

  • In the event of secession being successful, would you consider migrating to W/Cape ?

    Votes: 23 28.0%

  • In the event of secession being successful, would you consider migrating out of W/Cape ?

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • Would you support other provinces bids for secession ?

    Votes: 20 24.4%

  • I disagree to all questions

    Votes: 35 42.7%

  • Would you support a "Swiss Canton" style of governance for the Republic ?

    Votes: 24 29.3%
  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian_G said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Dangerous Marxist crowd"? You are such a simp!!
 
Splinter said:
Sulky, sulky - isn't it childish for an old man to keep on wanting their antagonist to be banned? Honestly, how many times have you reported me in this thread alone?

Then again, I don't think you do honest...
Click to expand...

Glad to hear if someone is reporting you when you go off the deep end as usual. Or, the Mod is just wary of you, how long were you banned for before?
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
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

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org





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.

The Expropriation Act: A solution to South Africa's land reform challenges? | Webber Wentzel

www.webberwentzel.com www.webberwentzel.com




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.
hsf.org.za

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 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.
www.phinc.co.za

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.
www.phinc.co.za www.phinc.co.za
Click to expand...
You're still not getting it. That's the Constitution. Not the Acts you've mentioned. The Acts you've mentioned are not part of the Constitution. They are written within a framework provided by the Constitution.

They exist beneath the Constitution and are not subject to the same protections.

You can write anything you want. It won't change that fact. There are no racist Acts in the Constitution. There are no Acts whatsoever in the Constitution because the Constitution exists above any Act. Writing down Acts that yes in my opinion are racist, doesn't change that reality.

May as well argue that Tuesday is orange not green. Makes about as much sense.
 
quovadis said:
When’s the referendum? Why’s it taking so long? Or would having one now destroy the grift that goes along with it?
Click to expand...

For once we're in agreement.

Not that a current referendum would solve any of Phil's problems.
 
Ok
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
Care to share again 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Cool.

Not that I can recall what I said exactly, but as sentiments remain the same, here we go again.

I would like, and vote, for secession in an instant. If I believed it was remotely a....

- Economically
- Legally
- Practically
- Logisticall
- Historically
- etc

...probability.

And ignoring completely the fact that it would plunge SA into civil war.
 
Brian_G said:
For once we're in agreement.

Not that a current referendum would solve any of Phil's problems.
Click to expand...
Only explanation is they either don’t have financial support to do it or they know they don’t have the support to carry it in their favor. The former would be inexplicable if their support is what they claim it is.
 
porchrat said:
You're still not getting it. That's the Constitution. Not the Acts you've mentioned. The Acts you've mentioned are not part of the Constitution. They are written within a framework provided by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
No sĥît Sherlock, however the Acts I've mentioned is directly linked to the Constitution as I've pointed out now numerous times.

porchrat said:
They exist beneath the Constitution and are not subject to the same protections.

You can write anything you want. It won't change that fact. There are no racist Acts in the Constitution. There are no Acts whatsoever in the Constitution because the Constitution exists above any Act. Writing down Acts that yes in my opinion are racist, doesn't change that reality.
Click to expand...
Where did I say or insinuate that there's RACIST Acts in the Constitution?
You really need to go back at least 10 pages and re-read everything again.

porchrat said:
May as well argue that Tuesday is orange not green. Makes about as much sense.
Click to expand...
You commenting on making sense whilst you are completely off the rails here, never did I mention anything about racism or the Constitution in my original post.
My original post was about DEMOCRACY / DEMOCRATIC
 
quovadis said:
Only explanation is they either don’t have financial support to do it or they know they don’t have the support to carry it in their favor. The former would be inexplicable if their support is what they claim it is.
Click to expand...

That support is scientifically determined by a respected company who helps the DA as well, that's if you consider polls scientific. I'm still not sure of its accuracy anyway.
But if we take it as accurate enough, for me it paints a picture of people willing to dream but not (yet) willing to plunge into the chaos of separation.
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
No sĥît Sherlock, however the Acts I've mentioned is directly linked to the Constitution as I've pointed out now numerous times.


Where did I say or insinuate that there's RACIST Acts in the Constitution?
You really need to go back at least 10 pages and re-read everything again.


You commenting on making sense whilst you are completely off the rails here, never did I mention anything about racism or the Constitution in my original post.
My original post was about DEMOCRACY / DEMOCRATIC
Click to expand...
Have you read something like, for example, Section 9?

It basically says don't discriminate unfairly. It doesn't say "half of each company needs to be owned by a connected cadre, ISPs need to be black owned etc.".

What we see as Acts went through a layer of interpretation.

I used to think the qualifier of unfair shouldn't be there. However that doesn't really make sense. There are legitimate cases where someone should be able to discriminate on the basis of race. A movie wanting to cast someone for a role for a particular race for example. That's racial discrimination, but it's entirely justifiable. It's entirely fair.

The problem isn't the wording in that case. It's the interpretation.

Also keep in mind that just because an Act exists, doesn't mean the Act is actually Constitutional. It could simply have not been challenged successfully.

So no, even the now watered-down idea you're proposing... that an Act is inherently linked to the Constitution is, once again, wrong.

The Constitution is a framework. A set of basic guidelines and principles. It's not the Acts.

As to insinuation. You have not just insinuated it. You said these Acts were part of the Constitution. You've said it maybe 3 times at this point. To be clear BTW the conversation you jumped into was a post from me pointing out that there is a guy here who thinks these racist Acts are IN the Constitution. That's the context of the conversation you entered. You knew that coming in. Don't act surprised that's still the context now.

While we're on nonsensical topics: What's the colour of Tuesday?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X