South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Well, you're effectively saying yes but no.
They were found guilty first of something.
Logically they would have no business excusing people who did nothing wrong.
Absolutely.The real question though is if he was on favour of secession?
The real question though is if he was on favour of secession?
Yes, but my point stands... if they found nothing worth pardoning you for i.e. no nefarious acts, why would they bother wasting their time and tax-payer money?You are misunderstanding what the TRC was about. If you had been involved in nefarious deeds of a political nature which could come back to haunt you, you could disclose them and become exempt from future prosecution, even if no prosecution had happened to date.
If you decided that you had done nothing wrong and didn't avail yourself of that opportunity, the courts could prosecute you at a later stage and that would just be toughies.
See, now that - in and of itself - is peaceful conduct.He wanted his volkstaat so I suppose he was.
Yes, but my point stands... if they found nothing worth pardoning you for i.e. no nefarious acts, why would they bother wasting their time and tax-payer money?
See, now that - in and of itself - is peaceful conduct.
If someone got in the way of that process.... well that is where the problem would arise.
Like the ANC government saying to today's seceders, in reply to their invitations to co-operate peacefully: '[SA is one unitary State that must remain undivided... until we say otherwise]'.
The TRC would still have to find you guilty before an exemption/pardon was granted. I'm pretty sure they didn't pardon just anyone that walked in the door with a nefarious act.Because no-one went and disclosed nothing burgers to the TRC. You would only go there if you'd done something that you knew could be prosecutable.
I would have to read up on what actually happened, but as I said earlier... my approach is as I laid it out.Yes, quite tranquil and peaceful bombings they were.
The TRC would still have to find you guilty before an exemption/pardon was granted. I'm pretty sure they didn't pardon just anyone that walked in the door with a nefarious act.
I would have to read up on what actually happened, but as I said earlier... my approach is as I laid it out.
Essentially you would have to make some kind of self-defense case.
And you still haven't given their side of the story....They were not a proscribed or banned organisation. They were free to express themselves politically. No excuses for their kak.
This doesn't make sense.The TRC did not have the power to find anyone guilty. They could only grant amnesty from prosecution in return for full disclosure. There was no formal trial run along the basis of the rules of natural justice, as normal court proceedings are.
And you still haven't given their side of the story....
This doesn't make sense.
If someone walked into the TRC and said listen I'm accused of murdering a white person. It was 1982, during Apartheid. I only did it because I feared for my life.
For all the TRC guy could have been a cold-blooded murder with his own problems that have nothing to do with Apartheid.
No evidence. No corroboration. You're saying the TRC would stamp his case as 'amnesty granted'?
I hate politics, you know that.If the person could make a compelling case for political motivation, then probably yes. If not, then no. The TRC did not grant everyone amnesty. As someone who is so interested in politics, I don't really believe that you don't know this.
You hate politics as much as Trump hates money.I hate politics, you know that.
Not sure what you are actually referencing here, or referring to, but that's not how self-defense is determined.My position is that in order for any act to be considered self-defense you have to prove you were under immediate threat, and that the force used in the act of defending yourself was proportionate to the force used against you.