Eugene Terre'blanche murdered

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.

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.
 
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.
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?
 
He wanted his volkstaat so I suppose he was.
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]'.
 
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?

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.
 
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]'.

Yes, quite tranquil and peaceful bombings they were.
 
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.
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.
 
Yes, quite tranquil and peaceful bombings they were.
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.

p.s. No different to Mandela being taken off terrorist lists, internationally. He would have had to make the same case of acting in self-defense. To whatever degree.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.

They were not a proscribed or banned organisation. They were free to express themselves politically. No excuses for their kak.
 
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.
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'?
 
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'?

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.
 
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.
Not sure what you are actually referencing here, or referring to, but that's not how self-defense is determined.

An example, you arrive home, in your driveway and you are confronted by an attacker with a knife a few meters away from you, if you have a firearm in your possession you are within your right to use deadly force as in self-defense, furthermore even if it was a pickaxe, shovel etc.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X