SA Politics Thread Part 11: The GNU Normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Was ruled unconstitutional in 1995.
I did say while you were rewriting the constitution
Not right to kill, but I agree on making self-defence a right in the BOR.
The basis of castle doctrine is the right to kill within its parameters

We allready have right to self defence. Just there are far too many t&c's atm
 
I think it does, if whoever owns the land is able to find alternative accommodation for them, no squatter has absolute rights, and I say this not knowing if they are squatters or tribal land dwellers, that's why I wanted some background.

I also doubt it's the first time in history where people would be moved, as long as the moving happens within the law.
It is absolutely a mission to get rid of squatters. Recently, I came to know of one company called changing tides 74 Pty which takes such cases but these cases prolong too much. All the standard "humanitarian" lawyers jump in to defend such squatters and try to block / postpone / resist any court orders.
 
I think it does, if whoever owns the land is able to find alternative accommodation for them, no squatter has absolute rights, and I say this not knowing if they are squatters or tribal land dwellers, that's why I wanted some background.

I also doubt it's the first time in history where people would be moved, as long as the moving happens within the law.
The law currently favours illegal occupation and not the lawful owners by forcing the use of legthly and expensive processes in order to protect your lawful rights

1751628067537.png
 
It is absolutely a mission to get rid of squatters. Recently, I came to know of one company called changing tides 74 Pty which takes such cases but these cases prolong too much. All the standard "humanitarian" lawyers jump in to defend such squatters and try to block / postpone / resist any court orders.

This is largely the problem.

The law wasn't really written with any connection to reality.
Should an eviction process be done properly if a person has a legal standing lease, yeah. If the person can't produce any evidence of a lease they should be tossed off the land forthwith and be done with it.
 
It is absolutely a mission to get rid of squatters. Recently, I came to know of one company called changing tides 74 Pty which takes such cases but these cases prolong too much. All the standard "humanitarian" lawyers jump in to defend such squatters and try to block / postpone / resist any court orders.
Yeah, at least those humanitarian lawyers are broke these days since Trump took his money back.
 
Why limit it. Arrest them everywhere
JMPD & home affairs often collaborate to arrest illegals during roadblock ops. They just need to up their tempo but even then our legal system is too lenient so arrest itself is not enough.
 
This is largely the problem.

The law wasn't really written with any connection to reality.
Should an eviction process be done properly if a person has a legal standing lease, yeah. If the person can't produce any evidence of a lease they should be tossed off the land forthwith and be done with it.
Even then it is a mess. If your tenant doesn't pay, which is a plain violation of the lease conditions, you still have to go to court and pay $$$ to get them out.

You need the following amendments:
1) Legislation needs to allow the private sector to enact and enforce of evictions in limited cases. Like expired leases and non-payment of rent.
2) Legislation also needs to add criminal penalties for malicious occupation. That is when you have somewhere else to go, but deliberately choose not to go.
 
Even then it is a mess. If your tenant doesn't pay, which is a plain violation of the lease conditions, you still have to go to court and pay $$$ to get them out.

You need the following amendments:
1) Legislation needs to allow the private sector to enact and enforce of evictions in limited cases. Like expired leases and non-payment of rent.
2) Legislation also needs to add criminal penalties for malicious occupation. That is when you have somewhere else to go, but deliberately choose not to go.

So I don't disagree with you...

But where I'm going with my starting point is this

If there is a lease, there is a formal (and not onerous) process to follow that can remove tenants who have breached a lease, or to deal with landlords who do the same.

If there is no lease (or even evidence of one) there is no process other than get the fsck off the land and fast.
 
So I don't disagree with you...

But where I'm going with my starting point is this

If there is a lease, there is a formal (and not onerous) process to follow that can remove tenants who have breached a lease, or to deal with landlords who do the same.

If there is no lease (or even evidence of one) there is no process other than get the fsck off the land and fast.
To be the devil's advocate, that incentivises the landlord to trash the lease if they want to get rid of tenants.

IMO, you want a system that incentivises both parties to have a proper lease.
 
It is violation of law as the things stand. Law could be changed of course.

The Refugees Act of South Africa

The Refugees Act sets out rights for asylum-seekers and refugees in South Africa. It states that:

  • Refugees in South Africa have the same right to access healthcare as South African citizens.4 This right is widely interpreted to include asylum-seekers, as well.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X