South African Covid-19 News and Discussions 2

[Brian_G]

actually, no the ruling was suspended for 14 days so it has no force until that period expires. don't know when that is, but they could do business as usual until then and then say "deal with it". i don't think they like having their powers restricted, so i wouldn't be surprised to see them try to high-hand their way forward.

Agreed though they would be stretching it. Changing to a higher, hardly-valid level now would not go down well with the courts. What great justification could they come up with anyway, the EC premiere's further mutterings?

 

[daelm]

It does cause a lot of stupidity, and to be honest the ban didn't bug me at all. I've had the same whiskies in my house for 5 years, I kind of lost the appetitte for alcohol a few years ago. I mean I'll have a beer once in awhile, but now with this at least I can have lunches with clients and not have any alcohol, just tell them thanks to the lockdown I don't drink at all now.

agreed. but there's a bigger issue to be concerned with beyond merely current COVID situation. i think if we'd all been pleased with the government over the last 15 years, we'd be ok with a temporary suspension of rights. we'd trust them to roll it back. but we haven't, and their overreach has largely only been limited by their incompetence.

if it is the case that they see social engineering of this type validated in general, rather than being a disaster-delimited tactic, then expect a lot more overreach. and at some point, it will be into an area that you do care about: what kinds of social groups are best for a moral purpose, what kind of industries are best, what kind of salaries are best, what kind of education is mandatory, and so on. that kind of thing won't happen in a hurry or even be well-cordinated, but it's a learning that they can take out of this if we allow them to.

edit: basically, there's a reason we don't allow the government to determine society and a big part of it is you end with everyone having the same Kim Jong haircut on pain of death.

 

[daelm]

Agreed though they would be stretching it. Changing to a higher, hardly-valid level now would not go down well with the courts. What great justification could they come up with anyway, the EC premiere's further mutterings?

i think that they will probably challenge it as on its merits (the ruling) and at the same time forge forward as though it hadn't happened. force the judiciary to take action. i have always had the sense that they don't take kindly to being stopped when they're prosecuting the great programme of change (TM)

 

[ToxicBunny]

actually, no the ruling was suspended for 14 days so it has no force until that period expires. don't know when that is, but they could do business as usual until then and then say "deal with it". i don't think they like having their powers restricted, so i wouldn't be surprised to see them try to high-hand their way forward.

Nope not quite...

The rulling suspended the invalidity of Level 4 and 3 Regulations but stipulated that Level 3 regulations stay in force for the 14 day period as I read it.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Alcohol is a very well documented cause of trauma cases. I have a friend in EMS and he was pretty pissed at the sharp rise in cases since the ban got lifted. Apparently most of the cases they attend were alcohol related stupidity

I am not denying that it is a well documented cause of trauma cases.... but the assumption is that all of the spike is down purely to alcohol, which is a stretch without any research, you have more people on the roads and at work so there would have been an increase with or without alcohol. As for your EMS friend, could you find out how the "spike" compares to what their normal load would have been prior to the lockdown?

 

[Carol35]

I see twitter has a trend going on a grade 7 student having tested positive

Why is it trending? (sorry I rarely venture onto Twitter ) There have already been a number of confirmed cases in schools for teachers as well as students.

 

[Brian_G]

i think that they will probably challenge it as on its merits (the ruling) and at the same time forge forward as though it hadn't happened. force the judiciary to take action. i have always had the sense that they don't take kindly to being stopped when they're prosecuting the great programme of change (TM)

Possible. If they do respect the judiciary, even if only out of fear, surely they won't want to anger what most stands in their way.
But maybe I'm just clutching at straws, so much is at risk right now.

 

[daelm]

On its own, this reads well. Given the proven abuses going on, including the madness about smoking, not so much.

you should read Orwell on smoking. i'll dig up the essay. there was a movement to ban it on England or something, and - like all such movements - it focussed on the "rabble"who clearly couldn't be trusted to make good decisions on their own behalf and needed their moral superiors to make the big decisions for them.

edit: i'm seeing a lot of the same "control the rabble" themes here.

edit: the material i'm thinking of is probably scattered in Down and Out in Paris and London. basically, he made the point - all the corporate profiteering and health issues aside - that tobacco was the one time poor people actually had a luxury, and he was very suspicious when that was targeted, rather than the same effort being invested in improving their living standards and quality of life. iirc, he felt that it came from a view that poor people should rather be focussed on working than on having a luxury. it's a pretty common sentiment amongst the political and economist class, and just because they're both black in SA doesn't mean they have the same interests. or that they're on the same side.

 

[daelm]

Nope not quite...

The rulling suspended the invalidity of Level 4 and 3 Regulations but stipulated that Level 3 regulations stay in force for the 14 day period as I read it.

could be. i'll double check, but i think that while it's suspended (the ruling) the normal powers apply. so iirc they can summarily change as they say circumstances require. hence all the warnings when they moved to 3 that "you better be good or we'll take it away".

 

[ToxicBunny]

could be. i'll double check, but i think that while it's suspended (the ruling) the normal powers apply. so iirc they can summarily change as they say circumstances require. hence all the warnings when they moved to 3 that "you better be good or we'll take it away".

De Beer and Others v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (21542/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 184; 2020 (11) BCLR 1349 (GP) (2 June 2020)

www.saflii.org

4. During the period of suspension, the regulations published in Government Gazette No 43364 of 28 May 2020 as Chapter 4 of the regulations designated as: “Alert Level 3”, shall apply.

Whatever the ministers state is irrelevant until such time as they official lodge their appeal.Until that point the courts order is in effect.

 

[Brian_G]

As I read it, even an official appeal won't change anything until a further judgement.

 

[ToxicBunny]

As I read it, even an official appeal won't change anything until a further judgement.

No an appeal will suspend the current judgement, which they have until next week Tuesday to lodge before the 14 days runs out from what I can tell.

 

[Brian_G]

No an appeal will suspend the current judgement, which they have until next week Tuesday to lodge before the 14 days runs out from what I can tell.

?
So then what governs conditions between the appeal and the new ruling? Surely it can't revert to before the existing ruling, that's then not a suspension but a turn around.

 

[ToxicBunny]

?
So then what governs conditions between the appeal and the new ruling? Surely it can't revert to before the existing ruling, that's then not a suspension but a turn around.

As it stands right now, the regulations are invalid, but the invalidity is suspended for 14 days and during that time the Regulations as promulgated in the relevant gazzette number for Level 3 apply.
If the government appeals, then the ruling and the invalidity of the regulations is suspended wholly whilst the appeal is underway so effectively it will be as if the ruling was never made in the first place so Level 3 regulations (and any changes they choose to make) will apply until they change to Level 2 or upgrade us to Level 4 again or until the appeal is heard and either upholds the initial ruling or rejects it.

 

[Sinbad]

On its own, this reads well. Given the proven abuses going on, including the madness about smoking, not so much.

You expect coherence and consistency from the government?

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day

 

[Brian_G]

iirc, he felt that it came from a view that poor people should rather be focussed on working than on having a luxury. it's a pretty common sentiment amongst the political and economist class, and just because they're both black in SA doesn't mean they have the same interests. or that they're on the same side.

So that's part of the socialists' view?
(Never read Orwell, just saw a movie, long ago. Think it was called "Brazil" - brilliant!)

 

[ToxicBunny]

You expect coherence and consistency from the government?

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day

Not our government.. they even manage to break that maxim.

 

[daelm]

De Beer and Others v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (21542/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 184; 2020 (11) BCLR 1349 (GP) (2 June 2020)

www.saflii.org

Whatever the ministers state is irrelevant until such time as they official lodge their appeal.Until that point the courts order is in effect.

not entirely, but i could be wrong. what they say in respect of regulations affected by the ruling is constrained, but the Act itself confers on them the powers to create as they see fit (i think section 2) so, as i said, i think they will treat the ruling as an irritant and try to bulldoze it. however, we'll see.

i would have been much happier if they had been attacked - at least in part - for not fulfilling their overall obligation, laid out later in the act. it's pretty comprehensive.

 

[Brian_G]

As it stands right now, the regulations are invalid, but the invalidity is suspended for 14 days and during that time the Regulations as promulgated in the relevant gazzette number for Level 3 apply.
If the government appeals, then the ruling and the invalidity of the regulations is suspended wholly whilst the appeal is underway so effectively it will be as if the ruling was never made in the first place so Level 3 regulations (and any changes they choose to make) will apply until they change to Level 2 or upgrade us to Level 4 again or until the appeal is heard and either upholds the initial ruling or rejects it.

Unbelievable! Sounds like more Orwell
Thanks

 

[ToxicBunny]

Unbelievable! Sounds like more Orwell
Thanks

Cause and effect and consequences... Legal systems never make it simple