Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Cape Town University Law Professor Pierre De Vos says not assisting a 'gay marriage' like sacrificing children to death. He adds his view that Christian beliefs are 'private', 'harmful'.


'Private belief to sacrifice children, say, cannot justify killing of children' and Christian beliefs cause acts which are 'harmful' and 'must be curtailed' UCT University of Cape Town Constitutional Law Professor tells our Marc Evan Aupiais and the Cape Talk radio station, on Christians refusing to assist a gay 'wedding' ceremony.

I often disagree with Pierre De Vos, especially for his strange approach to the Constitution. He hates the Roman Dutch approach the Constitutional Court often adheres to, I however love our 4000 year old heritage of law.

On an issue where yet another Christian couple is set to be punished by massive damages in the wondrous Equality Court, I said:



Pierre quickly responded with a number of claims:















So not endorsing Homosexual civil unions by assisting such ceremonies, due to Christian beliefs, is the equivalent of unjustifiable discrimination, and of child sacrifice. Christianity is a private belief, not a religion, or must be a private religion, and Christians following their beliefs, via ABSTAINING from an action, is something that 'MUST BE CURTAILED'? The thing is here, and I know the Constitutional Court has been quite activist on the issue against Christians, and quite activist in supporting abortion and legislation forces Christians to tell people where to get an abortion, the thing is there is still such a thing as human rights. It does not greatly inconvenience a gay couple to conduct their ceremony elsewhere, it does inconvenience a Christian greatly to be forced to deny their faith, and to relegate Christianity as though something evil and shameful, to the four walls of a church, or as in China, to hidden churches in homes. It is not like the conscientious objectors in these cases are denying them the right to buy bread. They are simply holding a belief set, which does not acknowledge 'civil unions' as a form of 'marriage', which their faith permits them to endorse.

'Faith Without Deeds is Dead'- Saint James, perhaps the extreme Christianity hating secularist left hopes that this part of the Bible is deeply true. As for me, I do believe that the intention of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was never to persecute Christians for ABSTAINING from taking actions which are a denial of their faith. This is indeed an issue where a small minority is able to persecute those who abstain for conscientious objection to a law that at its passing, ignored that 80 percent of South Africans held homosexual acts to be always immoral. But perhaps such thought crimes: perhaps such 'primitive' things as religion are behind us?

I would not deny a homosexual couple assistance in a divorce, or deny them bread if I were selling bread. 'Gay Marriage' is a whole other matter, because it relates to beliefs which are thousands of years old. It also relates to whether marriage is aimed at creating the next generation, or sexual pleasure, and a friendship of sorts, for however long the feelings of affection last. For a Roman Catholic a heterosexual marriage is a manifestation of the Trinitarian God upon this earthly plain, this is why sex is sacred, and why to endorse a homosexual union as this manifestation is believed to be an essential and deep blasphemy in the dogma of the church. A denial of faith in the dogma of the Church.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

As New Dawn makes terrible waves in Greece, popular South African party adopts Nazi campaign language!


As powerful tanks left Germany, the world thought they would never forget. Some promised to remember never to forget. Alas, it seems a distant past, long forgotten by the conscience of many. That foul Blitzkrieg: the bloody tip of the spear that would bring genocide: it seems has been forgotten by many. The word blitz, or the fast, swift, invulnerable advance: the lightning strike which wipes out an enemy. Such a word has deep memories embedded through war and hardship upon peoples of the world. For this reason the resurgence of Nazism, the beliefs of those terrible National Socialists in wartime Germany: ignites horror, outrage and the slightest of terrible fear in the world as it stands sombrely watching financial crises rip apart the morals and values, and empathy for one's fellow man, once so cherished the world over. Maybe, it might seem strange: that just as Nazism is making a resurgence and terrifying the Europeans, the very word that brought the Nazi genocide upon the world, is viewed as trendy by an up and coming South African political party, and ironically thought by them to be good for their campaign.

The German combined phrase of Blitzkrieg, comes from the words blitz meaning lightning, and Krieg: to strike. This was the watchword accompanying the German rush of lightning fast strikes which devastated nations in their genocide against the Jews, in a war that cost at least 11 million lives. The blitz can also refer to the devastating cruel and evil that was the relentless bombing of London which cost many lives, during the Nazi attempt at genocide which was World War II.

A South African party quite popular with the people: has adopted the word blitz to describe and call to arms their preparation campaign for the election. This party is the Democratic Alliance, which likes to call itself the official opposition in the Republic of South Africa. This weekend is what the Democratic Alliance is calling the 'blue blitz': where volunteers are recruited, trained, prepared for the next election. Their party colour is blue, with a rainbow coloured dawn seeming to rise above the capital letters D and A. The Democratic Alliance has not replied to my request for comments from the party on what I now once again ask them: namely whether or not they have even slightly thought it insensitive to use the word blitz to describe their campaign as a political campaign and platform. Especially, now that Nazism is making a comeback in Europe.

Oxford English Dictionary: '1930s: abbreviation of blitzkrieg'.

And the Democratic Alliance campaign:











Monday, April 1, 2013

South African soldiers: Child soldiers fought in Bangui, as new self-proclaimed President of CAR, asks for Allah Almighty to guide, strengthen him.

Djotodia used child soldiers during the Battle of Bangai: The South African National Defence Union has alleged to E News Channel Africa. The South African National Defence Union desires for South Africa to indict the self-proclaimed new president of Central African Republic in the International Criminal Court, which is situated in the Hague, in the Netherlands. Such is the report of E News Channel Africa journalist: Eleni Giokos of an interview with a spokesperson representing the South African National Defence Union. An interview, which had originally been planned to look into the recent helicopter crash claiming five South African National Defence Force soldiers' lives in a Kruger Park anti-rhino-poaching patrol: the fourth incident with that model of aircraft in four years, with ten percent of that particular helicopter model's 30 South African National Defence Force vehicles having incurred crashes in Defence Force care.

Djotodia leads a diverse band of rebels, allied under the banner of Seleka. It is not an alliance of trust, and it is one which is followed by and with intrigue by its members. Old school politics and shared interests have kept the Seleka rebels together, although it is thought that this loose alliance could easily fall apart if Djotodia is unable to keep the contrasting parties together.

The man whom the Seleka rebels disposed of, who has fled their country for Cameroon after their coup d'état: alleged that the followers of Djotodia are radical Muslim fundamentalists. The Archbishop of Bangai, representing the voice of the Roman Catholic Church: has voiced concern that Djotodia, a Muslim man by faith: has allowed his troops to target and attack Christians. Djotodia upon taking power has publicly prayed for God Almighty to give him and his new Prime Minister both intelligence and strength to manage and control the Central African Republic for the next three years after which he has claimed there will be an election. It is hoped that this prayer was not to suggest that the Central African Republic would now be ruled by Muslim or Sharia laws. The Central African Republic's population is majority Christian.

There have been reports of South African troops massing upon the respective Central African Republic borders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Uganda, with heavy equipment being flown in as well as extra troops upon Herculese transport planes. These reports coincide with South Africa's President Jacob Zuma urgently flying to a meeting called by the president of Chad of the Economic Community of Central African States, the same community whom Jacob Zuma bypassed in sending South African troops to the Central African Republic. Jacob Zuma will fly up to the meeting almost immediately after a memorial service for soldiers killed in combat. It is unusual for a representative of South Africa to be present at such a meeting. The president of Chad, has previously been linked with the new self-proclaimed president of Central African Republic, however he allegedly fell out with him in December. It is this president of Chad who has called this meeting.

The Sowetan newspaper reported an interesting quote they made of General Shoke, which suggests that South African troops were not killed during the battle for the camp as most media had presumed, but after a peace treaty was in place between rebels and the South African National Defence Force troops on the ground. Reports by an early on the scene witness of the Reuters news agency of Great Britain, which interviewed the Central African Republic witness on the ground: suggest that at least six of the South African National Defence Force troops were not killed in a battle for the camp, but died in the city by their burnt out South African National Defence Force vehicles.

Other reports, denied by the South African National Defence Force: claim that the Central African Republic troops whom about 27 of the 200 South African National Defence Force troops, had been training in accordance with the memorandum of understanding signed between then South African President Thabo Mbeki and the Central African Republic in the year of 2007: had mutinied and joined rebels in an attack against South African National Defence Force troops. Bozize, the disposed of President of Central African Republic is said to have kept his army weak in fear they would betray and overthrow him.

If the Sowetan newspaper is to be believed: in this claim that the troops did not die in the attack on the camp and that their nationally tragic deaths did not occur during the nine to thirteen hour so-called high tempo battle for the South African National Defence Force camp just outside the city of Bangai: but after rebels raised a white flag and entered into a peace treaty with the South African force. If it is to be believed that these troops were attacked during the lull in fighting which news agencies place at that night after the battle for the camp. If that is the case, then the 13 casualties that the South African National Defence Force incurred, occurred as a breach of peace truce entered into.

South Africa does not necessarily have the logistics to withdraw their troops from the Central African Republic. The South African troops had withdrawn their military from their much fought for base outside Bangai, and now reside within the airport which the French took and protected, according to E News Channel Africa.

If South Africa were to find a way to get rid of the new self-proclaimed president of the Central African Republic, whether through a war crimes trial, via assassination or capture, it might cause cracks within the rebel alliance to further break apart into chasms. South Africa certainly has an interest in an International Criminal Court trial of the self-proclaimed new president of the Central African Republic, should this be conducted; in the Hague in the Netherlands.

The opposition Democratic Alliance has alleged that the troops of the South African National Defence Force were in the Central African Republic to protect African National Congress business interests. It has been consistently politicking since the news broke. It thinks it has laid waste the African National Congress claims that the troops were reinforced and kept within this resource rich, almost pristine African country to our  distant North: to ensure stability and to prevent a complete breakdown of the security situation within the country. The United Nations organisation known as UNICEF, has claimed that 4 million children in the Central African Republic are desperately at risk due to the instability and insecurity situation due to the above said recent coup d'état.

It is important to note that despite not having United Nations Security Council approval, and despite not having African Union approval, South Africa did have the approval of the Central African Republic at the time, to deploy its troops within their border with their consent. The scenario on the ground is much more complex than South African media would have it portrayed. I had been following the situation in the Central African Republic for many years now, with great concern for our troops upon the ground of this foreign soil. Our troops were not surprised by the Seleka attack upon the capital Bangai of the now devastated Central African Republic. If the soldiers were in fact shockingly taken by surprise in the tragedy frozen reality of the attack, they must have had an all-out blackout of media, and not at all have noticed the advance of rebels. In fact, after an earlier attempt at the capital, in which rebel stopped just prior the figurative gates: South Africa decided to reinforce our troops at Bangai with the significant contingent deployed precisely because we feared that the rebels would attack again. If South African troops as foreign media has reported: had created extensive checkpoints into the city of Bangai, preventing all but light units such as infantry and motorbikes from entering the city of Bangai in the first less heavy day of the fighting, then such a claim of surprise seems odd once again. I began to pay special attention to the scenario in Central African Republic quite a while before my South African media did. It was quite clear the fall of Bangui would be plausible at a much earlier stage than many in South African media anticipated.

The major reason that rebels gave for their attack and coup d'état, not reported often enough: was precisely the foreign troop presence within the Central African Republic. The new so-called Cabinet put in place by the self-proclaimed new leader of the Central African Republic, consists almost purely of rebel figures, and opposition figures who had been given power in a government of national unity: in accordance with the treaty the disposed president's government had signed with rebels. The Prime Minister of the new so-called national unity government, was a figure placed in that position in the previous national unity government on behalf of the rebels.

A promise to still hold elections in three years, is less promising when the leader of a coup d'état: creates a 'national unity government', almost purely representing one side.

It is true that the disposed of president of the Central African Republic gained power through a coup d'état of his own. This coup d'état took place before the founding of the African Union. If it had taken place after the founding of the African Union, it would have been considered an unconstitutional change of government by the organisation, and the same measures taken against the new purported government would have been taken against the past government.



Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme