SA Politics Thread Part 11: The GNU Normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1960630894042993139

Vincent, jou onderrok hang uit!The Daily Maverick article of 26 August 2025 reads almost like satire. According to the author, Vincent Cruywagen, we should apparently have invited our attackers for a polite cup of tea to discuss their true motives, and perhaps even asked the blood itself to pause for a few seconds while we debated whether it was appropriate to defend ourselves.This was not a philosophical exercise. It was a fight for survival. We were boxed in, trapped inside the vehicle. At one point, my colleague lost consciousness, covered in blood, collapsed into his lap. I had teeth broken out from the beating. Perhaps, in the author’s view, I should have politely asked the attackers to help me look for those teeth on the floor of the car hidden amongst all the pieces of glass.Let me be very clear, these were not “misunderstood victims” who happened to lob a brick or two. They beat us with bricks. One eyewitness compared it to hyenas attacking the car. That is not an ethical grey zone. It is an unlawful, violent, life-threatening attack.South African criminal law could not be clearer. Snyman identifies four essential requirements for private defence: 1. Unlawful attack – satisfied. Bricks used as weapons against people are unlawful. 2. Directed at the defender but may equally act in private defence to protect a third person – satisfied. The car and its occupants were the target. 3. Necessary to avert danger – satisfied. There was no safe retreat. 4. Reasonable means used – satisfied. Defensive force ended the attack.Snyman makes it clear that the law does not demand proportionality in self-defence. To insist that victims respond with the same weapon would hand the attacker the upper hand. In reality, an unarmed but stronger attacker can kill with their bare hands, and it is precisely the vulnerable, the weaker, the trapped, the outnumbered who would be left defenceless if such a rule were imposed.The law does not require citizens to martyr themselves. It requires necessity and proportionality. Both were present.Context matters. Between January and March 2025 alone, South Africa recorded 5,727 murders (most committed with firearms) and more than 31,000 aggravated robberies. Citizens are being attacked daily, and the state is failing to shield them.The attackers in this incident were not victims. They were aggressors who initiated unlawful violence, and the law recognises that in such circumstances, self-defence is legitimate.What is truly pathetic about this so-called “ethical debate” is that it is one-sided. The hand-wringers rush to question the ethics of defending oneself but never pause for a second to ask about the ethics of the unlawful attacker who initiated the violence.What moral high ground exists in trying to beat people to death with bricks? Where is the outrage about the deliberate, unlawful choice to endanger lives? To suggest that the ethics of the defender are more suspect than the ethics of the aggressor is to invert reality: the attacker abandoned morality the moment they struck; the defender acted within the law to preserve life.In such an environment, to lecture victims about restraint while ignoring the choices of aggressors is not only tone-deaf, it is dangerous.The real debate is not whether South Africans may defend themselves. The law is clear that they can.And then finally, to the Daily Maverick, your motto is that you defend truth but in this case your journalist is doing exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
 
Sideshow Bob said:
Good news but nothing is gonna happen to this scumbag.
Click to expand...
He will view this as a victory. The good from this is that the West have more ground to stand on now, and inaction from our legal system just proves them more right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X