Show restraint during protests: Zuma

[MickeyD]

The violent nature of public protests, which has also seen the loss of life reportedly at the hands of police, was seriously concerning, President Jacob Zuma said on Sunday.

"The loss of any life through unnatural causes is painful to us as government and we need to do everything in our power, as society to prevent such loss of life,'' he said in a statement.

Zuma said the Constitution granted the public the right of protest, but this should be done within the ambit of the law, and in a peaceful manner.

"The Constitution states that everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions. We need to abide by this Constitutional directive," he said.

"There is no need to carry weapons, to burn public facilities and endanger the lives of others just to express a view about something or services."

Such conduct was unacceptable in a democracy, where there was a government which defended and promoted the rights of people to express themselves.

Zuma also called upon the police to exercise restraint and ensure they were well prepared for public gatherings.

"They should plan for any eventuality and should be sensitive and ensure that everything they do is within the law," the president said.

"The police now have tools at their disposal such as water canons, rubber bullets, shields and others that are non-lethal. There is a lot that they can do without killing people."

People should feel safe and protected when they saw the police, while at the same time, the public needed to respect the police.

"Police are our only buffer between order and anarchy. We all have a responsibility to support them in their work so that they can protect us all," Zuma said.

"Many of our police officials have been killed on duty, something we should also ponder and find solutions too, as communities, working with government."

The violent nature of South African society also needed to be attended to.

"We need to address the citizens of this country on the culture of violence that was inherited from our apartheid past, that we have not been able to shake off up until now," Zuma said.

"We cannot solve our problems through violence and anger. This is something that we must address at all levels of society as part of nation building and promoting social cohesion and progress."

Source : Sapa /aw
Date : 02 Feb 2014 20:29

 

[MickeyD]

And in a related story...

The decision by police to deny the Democratic Alliance permission to march to the African National Congress headquarters has been overturned by the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court on Sunday, the DA said.

"We won the case and the prohibition by the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) was set aside," said federal council chairman James Selfe.

"I'm still waiting to get the judgement but I was informed... the DA had complied with all provisions of the [Regulation of Gatherings] Act and the reasons given by the JMPD were not convincing."

Johannesburg metro police spokesman Chief Superintendent Wayne Minnaar said earlier: "The protest march by the DA... has been prohibited on the grounds that there would be a security risk to protesters."

 

[Sinbad]

Cry me a ****ing river, Zuma. Violent protest is a symptom of your cronies' failure to deliver. Not to mention the fact that your party taught these people how to burn **** if you don't get what you want.

 

[itareanlnotani]

Violent protest, and striking is all one see's printed about South Africa in the news *outside* of South Africa.
That isn't doing the rand any good either.

I'd rather have some policework enforcing rule of law than more of this *** to be honest.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Researched (and published) on the subject; and still researching. Violent service delivery protests are preceded by abuses of authority by municipalities. Things like an unlawful "refusal of permission" by a municipality - the RGA does not envision permission, but rather provides for prohibition under specific circumstances - and people being put on a line and telling them that they are not allowed to peacefully protest.

We've had perfectly peaceful service delivery protests here in Jbay, but I had to take the municipality to court.

The misapplication of the RGA also applies to Western Cape before anybody jumps the wrong bandwagon, but it is a lot worse in deeply Zumastrated municipalities.

If we want less violence in SA Zuma has to go.

 

[Beri]

what is restraint? can you eat it?

 

[itareanlnotani]

@Paul Hjul

I for one would love to see a *massive* police crackdown on violent striking and rioting, as well as suitable incarceration for incitement to riot (eg the ANC w/regards to the Cape Town rioting late last year), and / or the "poop" incidents.

People have a right to complain and protest, but they don't have a right to burn, steal, and intimidate whilst doing so.
Rule of law needs to be applied equally however, and not just when its politically expedient.

There are always other avenues than violence.

[and yes, I've read some of your articles on this subject]

 

[dcsmax]

what is restraint?

Its installed next to the fire pool at the compound.

 

[grok]

Show restraint when spending public money, moron.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Actually a massive police crack down if accompanied with violence won't accomplish anything other than to escalate the violence. What would help is the incarceration of people instigating violence in protests and the relevant Police Commissioner really should seek an interdict when somebody starts calling for their gun or for people to shoot some or another part of the populace in political rallies. It is for the courts to weigh up the freedom of expression concern and for the police to worry about keeping the peace. What would help is not having the deployment of robbery units to hotspots.

I've actually coordinated a protest march where the deputy convenor had previously thrown a rock at the High Court widow... In order to get discipline the state needs to show discipline. The avenues that are alternative to violence need to be shown and when there is violence it needs to be dealt with with commensurate directed force. I hold it an article of faith that civilized society holds violence and the threat thereof anathema but this article of faith requires that we do things to find and preserve the peace - rather than that we use keeping the peace as a basis for violence directed at a marginalized group of people.

Since the securing of an order from the Magistrate's Court Albany a group of people who had previously resorted to violence and poop incidents have marched peacefully. I am absolutely convinced that the appointment of impartial and competent responsible officers at municipalities - rather than the perverse situation where a municipal official who handles municipal security holds the position - in whom people have faith will almost immediately half the number of violent incidents.

The idea of the police using force to immediately and effectively detain trouble makers with gatherings is something I wholly support and having a really well covered s4 meeting where conditions that will result in s9 being used are spelt out is something I fully endorse. What we can't have - and do have - is a situation where the police are excluded from the process (I make it part of the course to deliver s3 notices to the police in addition to the municipality because of the failure of the municipality to perform their function of informing the police). An additional problem is that the police are blamed and forced to assume responsibility for oppression even when it isn't SAPS that is involved at all. My first bit of litigation experience with the Act involved the municipality prohibiting a gathering without notifying SAPS of the notice and without a meeting, approached the magistrate within the 24 hour period had delivered by facsimile the papers to the Authorized Member after getting the papers in on time a rather awkward moment and then a very good working relationship ever since.

You'll also notice that on the labour front strikes that cause public mayhem tend to involve government as an employer - refuse removal strikes for example. There is actually some simple economics at play - the government doesn't give a **** about the strike and incumbent service delivery until the rubbish piles up to a point of shame. Now if the refuse removers follow the prevailing legislation and give proper notice they would be legally able to put sealed (for environmental health concerns) rubbish bags outside the council facilities which is far more effective than back streets except responsible officers take instructions from the politicians to prevent this sort of thing. An impartial responsible officer is able to say - but you can't cause harm to the general public but a nice photo opportunity outside City Hall gets your message across.
Violence is a product of a lack of imagination and a belief that avenues to communicate are broken. So long as identity politics dominates the polls elections are no an avenue of political communication.

Beefing up the riot police units is very much necessary and the one place where "military" commissions have room in civilian SAPS is public order units, but with concomitant accountability - the Authorized Member under the RGA should be a Superintendent and Colonel and their report staff Majors and so on. But the trouble isn't with the police for the most part.

@Paul Hjul

I for one would love to see a *massive* police crackdown on violent striking and rioting, as well as suitable incarceration for incitement to riot (eg the ANC w/regards to the Cape Town rioting late last year), and / or the "poop" incidents.

People have a right to complain and protest, but they don't have a right to burn, steal, and intimidate whilst doing so.
Rule of law needs to be applied equally however, and not just when its politically expedient.

There are always other avenues than violence.

[and yes, I've read some of your articles on this subject]