Seems like the ANC's dislike of the media is starting to be echoed by the man in the street!
Scary times indeed.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your non-negotiable item, device, or app for international travel?
What is it with McBride?
- Thread starter Fazda
- Start date
Seems like the ANC's dislike of the media is starting to be echoed by the man in the street!
Scary times indeed.
Jola
Honorary Master
I hear you. However, the legal position remains unchanged and this is what I was conveying to Jola
OK, but to make it clear, that's YOUR view of the legal system - it may not be the actual situation - that's what the court case is about.
The Citizen is saying that McBride can still be called a murderer, and they are taking this to the Constitutional Court.
Last edited:
blunomore
Honorary Master
It is not MY view Jola, it is THE LAW AS IT STANDS and until it gets changed by a higher court, it remains
Jola
Honorary Master
It is not MY view Jola, it is THE LAW AS IT STANDS and until it gets changed by a higher court, it remains
Nope, it's your view. The Citizen is saying that's NOT what the law says - they must have some basis for this, one of the lower courts even ruled in their favour.
For the record, I agree with the Citizen's position.
What's done cannot be undone.
blunomore
Honorary Master
It is the law. The law is not cast in stone, however, and can be challenged and indeed changed
Jola
Honorary Master
The Citizen is saying it's NOT the law. And some courts agreed with them.
You don't know that it is the law until the CC pronounces on it.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree until the highest court decides this issue.
Last edited:
blunomore
Honorary Master
Not disagreeing with you. I am putting my views across. Feel free to make if it what you like
Whatever the outcome, he is still a murderer. A court’s pronouncements or a ‘pardon’ don’t change facts (only time-travel will).
Got a link? Would be interesting reading.
I'm afraid blu is correct, it's not her view but the current rule of law and until such time a higher court decides otherwise it will remain in effect.
Jola
Honorary Master
The Citizen is saying it's NOT the current rule of law. I agree with that.
And it's clearly not as simple as you try to make it out, considering that one of the lower courts agreed with the Citizen.
The Citizen is saying that the Court has misinterpreted the Act. Note that there was also a dissenting opinion from one of the Supreme Court judges who agreed with the Citizen.
Links : http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-06-25-the-right-to-call-a-murderer
http://allafrica.com/stories/201003250024.html
Another Angle : http://redcardcampaign.wordpress.co...d-their-right-to-speak-freely-about-the-past/
Last edited:
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
you can't get much worse than this guy. a murderer, a scuzzbucket, a thief, a drunk driver, a liar.
He is the epitome of all that is wrong with the ANC.
He belongs in jail.
He is the epitome of all that is wrong with the ANC.
He belongs in jail.
I wonder how many of the forumites professing outrage at this have voted for the ANC.....
Last edited:
Thanks for the links.
The Citizen and their comments have no effect on the laws of the land, neither does the lower courts, individual judges or yourself.
The SCA made a ruling and that is the current state of the law irrespective of whether the SCA is right or wrong in it's ruling. Not what the Citizen, lower courts or individual judges interpret it to be.
This will only change when the CC rules otherwise, end of story.
I don't agree with the SCA either but my disagreement means nothing and does not change the law as it stands. Best thing to do is to defer cases like this until such time as the CC has made a ruling.
blunomore
Honorary Master
Well said. I've been trying the entire morning to get that across
Thanks blu. Maybe I should have continued studying law, on second thought, nah
Jola
Honorary Master
OK, so McBride blew up a number of women, maimed them severely, and caused them to stop breathing, but he didn't kill or murder them :erm:
:wtf:This ruling undermines the whole system of justice in this country !
Last edited:
blunomore
Honorary Master
OK, so McBride blew up a number of women, and caused them to stop breathing, but he didn't kill or murder them :erm:
This ruling undermines the whole system of justice in this country !
Can someone else maybe explain the legal concept of a presidential pardon to Jola ... ?
OK, so McBride blew up a number of women, and caused them to stop breathing, but he didn't kill or murder them :erm:
This ruling undermines the whole system of justice in this country !
Jola, it's how it works, for now. Hopefully the Con Court applies the logic of a reasonable person.
I don't think any of us here are disagreeing with you on how you feel about this. Our feeling are however not law.
The justice system is not undermined either. The fact that it's being argued in a higher court tells us the legal system is functional albeit slow.
Last edited:
Jola
Honorary Master
Can someone else maybe explain the legal concept of a presidential pardon to Jola ... ?
Can someone please explain the concept of a FACT to Blu ...
For example, Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1942, Magoo's Bar on 14 June 1986.
blunomore
Honorary Master
Who is denying the facts ? Not me
For the umpteenth time: To pardon someone does not mean the crime was not committed. It means the person gets pardoned for doing so.