SAHRC has lost the plot....

And if your complaint was against the SAHRC; that copy pasted nonsense they sent you is irrelevant.
 
UserZ said:
Yes, wasn't that the point from earlier?
Click to expand...
They did state that any dispute against them must be taken up in the High Court. Alternatively, should he wish the court to rule on the matter against Malema then he should approach the Equality Court.

Basically, they gave him two options.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
They did state that any dispute against them must be taken up in the High Court. Alternatively, should he wish the court to rule on the matter against Malema then he should approach the Equality Court.

Basically, they gave him two options.
Click to expand...
Either of which entails costs, and a lot of time.
 
Good on those that did respond directly to the SAHRC. It is the first step. We will now presumably all get the same reply. I will check my emails later on today. And I suppose it is up to us now to call on the Equality Court next. Personally, it is clear that until this process gets to the ConCourt, we are unlikely to get any meaningful analysis with a rational outcome.
 
Geoff.D said:
Good on those that did respond directly to the SAHRC. It is the first step. We will now presumably all get the same reply. I will check my emails later on today. And I suppose it is up to us now to call on the Equality Court next. Personally, it is clear that until this process gets to the ConCourt, we are unlikely to get any meaningful analysis with a rational outcome.
Click to expand...
The Equality Court is still wagging it's tail at the BLF. Good luck.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
They did state that any dispute against them must be taken up in the High Court. Alternatively, should he wish the court to rule on the matter against Malema then he should approach the Equality Court.

Basically, they gave him two options.
Click to expand...

The SAHRC notes your concern regarding its findings against Julius Malema of 27 March 2019. However, if you wish to dispute these findings, this should be done by approaching the High Court to review the finding.
Click to expand...

To me, the "dispute" part reads as disputes against the findings on Malema, not against the SAHRC directly.
 
Got the same response. Here I was hoping that all of these complaints would let them do some soul searching.
 
My response to their response:

Good afternoon

Thanks for the response.

Please note that your response is irrelevant in that I complained about the conduct of the SAHRC in the Julius Malema reviews. I consider the utterances of the SAHRC to constitute racism as it treated Mr Malema differently simply because he is black. I as a concerned South African citizen cannot let blatant racism like that slide. I was hoping that you would review your conduct in the Julius Malema matters objectively.

Therefore I give you an opportunity to review your response to myself. Please advise of the outcome.

Regards
Click to expand...
 
konfab said:
I think the SAHRC needs a lesson.
Everyone should snail-mail them a pencil tellling the SAHRC needs all the help in deciding who has rights and who doesn't.
Click to expand...

They did state,

https://www.timeslive.co.za/politic...e-speech-complaint-by-fw-de-klerk-foundation/

SAHRC said the statement should therefore be read in line with the Supreme Court of Appeal’s caution that vulnerable groups must be able to express anger and pain through robust speech.
Click to expand...

which is more than a reason to enable people like Steve with their robust speech.

And this,

https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/...peech-sahrc-after-findings-on-malema-20190327

Van der Berg stated that the Constitutional Court takes into account who uttered the speech, adding that the identity of the perpetrator makes a difference in cases such as the use of the k-word.

"The Constitutional Court is of the view that certain words or expression will depend on whether [they are] uttered by a white person or a black person and against a white person or a black person. In accordance to the ConCourt jurisprudence, the identity of the offender and target group as belonging to a vulnerable group will have an impact in determining hate speech and robust speech must be protected so that marginalised persons can convey anger and frustration at the systems of social injustice."
Click to expand...

may be argued that white people are a vulnerable group, white people are a minority in general and its subgroups do have an equal right to express anger and pain. The complaints made, and expressed by white people, to the SAHRC in regard to their ruling on Malema are caused by anger and pain which they themselves stated as a matter to be taken up against them in the High Court. The SAHRC didn't play the ball, they played the white players.

The question is whether any other rights organisation will take the SAHRC up to their challenge? Asking the Equality Court to make another ruling on the Malema matter will be going around in circles.
 
Got a response.



We obviously cannot review ourselves. If you find the outcome of our investigation or the manner in which it was worded to be problematic or unconstitutional, then a review before the High Court is the correct course to take.

Regards,
Click to expand...
 
Vrotappel said:
Got a response.
Click to expand...

Why can't they review themselves? The government is always setting up their own "comission of inquiry". I see no reason why they can't do it here as they are being accused of structural bias.
 
The SAHRC should be closed down. They are a waste of taxpayers money. There are a number of courts that could deal with these matters.
 
UserZ said:
Why can't they review themselves? The government is always setting up their own "comission of inquiry". I see no reason why they can't do it here as they are being accused of structural bias.
Click to expand...
Read the Commissions Act, it is by design established to make non-binding recommendations, an process heard by the general public (and to educate the general public). All in all the Commissions are there to give advice, the question is how there will be acted on the given advice.

No, the SAHRC may only be challenged.

Courts are binding on both parties directly.
 
Lew Skannen said:
The SAHRC should be closed down. They are a waste of taxpayers money. There are a number of courts that could deal with these matters.
Click to expand...
The SAHRC isn't a court, it is a commission, but they do however have a constitutional mandate enabling them with 4 powers, and yes they may take steps to secure appropriate redress.

The report on Malema is a observance and that observance may be challenged in the High Court or alternatively the Equality Court may be approached to investigate and report on Malema.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X