Who Owns South Africa?

Debbie

Banned
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
7,253
And of course, it is in our Constitution, therefore we must be a democracy.
/end sarc
 

NewsFlash

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
584
Mbeki repeated this many times. Since he said it, it must be true.

Unfortunately he does not practise what he preach and the constitution means nothing to them. It can be changed and altered at will as the ANC pleases
 

jontyB

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
2,101
Unfortunately he does not practise what he preach and the constitution means nothing to them. It can be changed and altered at will as the ANC pleases
No, the constitution cannot be changed at will. The guardians of the constitution is the Constitutional Court, and as such they can prevent unconstitutional changes being made to the constitution.
 

NewsFlash

Banned
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
584
No, the constitution cannot be changed at will. The guardians of the constitution is the Constitutional Court, and as such they can prevent unconstitutional changes being made to the constitution.

Sorry I must be in denial re the recent issues of floor crossings, constitutional laws that take away the right of anyone not black and the cape management afairs. The constitutional court means nothing if they are precribed by the government as with Icasa is the case
 

RichardP

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
1,742
The Khoi and San peoples own South Africa, bantu tribes and whites and chinese and whoever else are invaders...

Like the invader flora in SA, its all being or has been or has been removed. Table Mountain, Pilgims Rest etc etc
 
Last edited:

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
Originally Posted by supersunbird
The Khoi and San peoples own South Africa, bantu tribes and whites and chinese and whoever else are invaders...Like the invader flora in SA, its all being or has been or has been removed. Table Mountain, Pilgims Rest etc etc
Um excuse me: the black people of South Africa are as much invaders as anybody else.

More Orwellian Double Speak Propaganda. Please get your history straight.

The Bushmen probably became the first modern people to migrate to the southern tip of the African continent. Skilled hunter-gatherers and nomads, the Bushmen had great respect for the land, and their lifestyle had low environmental impact, allowing them to sustain their way of life for years without leaving much archaeological evidence. Other than a series of striking rock paintings, the Bushmen left few traces of their early culture. Attempts to analyse the existing samples by radiocarbon dating indicate that the Bushmen lived in the area of modern-day South Africa at least as early as 25,000 years ago, and possibly as early as 40,000 years ago. Small numbers of Bushmen still live in South Africa today, making their culture one of the oldest continuously existing in the world, along with that of the Indigenous Australians.

Ancient history
Around 2,500 years ago Bantu peoples migrated into Southern Africa from the Niger River Delta. The Bushmen and the Bantu lived mostly peacefully together, although since neither had any method of writing, researchers know little of this period outside of archaeological artefacts.


History of South Africa
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,747
We all own the world. Its rather a silly concept thinking that anyone particular group or another actually "owns" a part of the world that we all live on. Creating imaginary lines in the ground does not subtract away from the fact that we are all in this together.
 

kilps

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
2,620
No, the constitution cannot be changed at will. The guardians of the constitution is the Constitutional Court, and as such they can prevent unconstitutional changes being made to the constitution.
I still think that every constitutional amendment should require a referendum to pass (after getting it's 2/3rds in parliament)
 

Debbie

Banned
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
7,253
I still think that every constitutional amendment should require a referendum to pass (after getting it's 2/3rds in parliament)

Solid idea in theory. To consider-
* Expense of referendums - really darn expensive!!
* Instability caused by referendums
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
147
Living in history! They own nothing, all taken (stolen) by the Aliens (blacks) from the north and then again "stolen" by the settlers. So we can conclude the indians own USA? Shame

They didn't believe in ownership of land, too bad most of them are dead anyway.
 

kilps

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
2,620
Solid idea in theory. To consider-
* Expense of referendums - really darn expensive!!
* Instability caused by referendums

Sure - but the expense should get parliament to think twice before trying to amend the constitution - get it right already

And the requirement that it gets passed by parliament first should hopefully do away with most of the instability - ie the referendum would simply confirm that the elected representatives are doing what the people want before it is too late and we have a changed constitution
 

Debbie

Banned
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
7,253
Sure - but the expense should get parliament to think twice before trying to amend the constitution - get it right already

Quite right.

And the requirement that it gets passed by parliament first should hopefully do away with most of the instability - ie the referendum would simply confirm that the elected representatives are doing what the people want before it is too late and we have a changed constitution

kilps the problem with referendums is that they tend to divide the country into "us/them", and as we all know the way the cookie usually crumbles in SA is that the "us/them" distinction usually falls along racial lines. Not good.

To build on the "instability" aspect- we must keep in mind that this is a violent country. People do get attacked (and murdered) for their political beliefs, particularly at election times. Political intimidation is very real in certain regions of the country.

Just things to consider. I don't have an opinion, haven't thought about enough angles/considerations as yet.
 

kilps

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
2,620
Quite right.



kilps the problem with referendums is that they tend to divide the country into "us/them", and as we all know the way the cookie usually crumbles in SA is that the "us/them" distinction usually falls along racial lines. Not good.

To build on the "instability" aspect- we must keep in mind that this is a violent country. People do get attacked (and murdered) for their political beliefs, particularly at election times. Political intimidation is very real in certain regions of the country.

Just things to consider. I don't have an opinion, haven't thought about enough angles/considerations as yet.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the problems with holding a referendum ... but I do think that it is unwise to simply trust our MPs with the constitution ;)
 

Debbie

Banned
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
7,253
Agree 100% kilps.

Above was not directed at you, but at Newsflash, just so I could be sure he was aware of where I stand, as his previous post could be interpreted in a number of ways :)
 
Top