Monday, October 27, 2014

My experience with an Internet sexbot

My experience with an Internet sexbot

 
In Japan and other such nations there is quite a market for virtual girlfriends, for lonely men who will never find love with any real creature. A good search on Google will bring up many a program from textbased to graphics based, to stem the tides of loneliness and make men feel as though they have company. Pornography and the ancient art of striptease fulfil similar market niches' desires for great satisfaction and unhappy happy endings.




During my high school years I created a simple textbased answer program. It had its own favourite colour, but did not have a sex, and was not designed to abate loneliness with the alimentation of a virtual compensate. More than anything, it was a fun programming project.


Today I decided to log into Skype on my cellular phone. I was quite surprised to find that I had a number of invites to connect with other people on Skype. I accepted the invites. The moment I did, one of the accounts instantly began speaking to me.




I immediately suspected that I was being exposed to something beautiful, unique and fascinating. I got the impression that I was finally being exposed to a scam I'd only read about in online articles about criminal syndicates and their activities.




Those who desire to oppose human trafficking, created a virtual sex robot that pretends to be a little girl, and lures bad men in. The sexbot I had the pleasure of meeting however was designed to lure ordinary grown men. You might well expect a sexbot to be more responsive than the one I had the privilege of meeting. It did not matter what my responses were, the program clearly simply worked on any response. Some journalists have had the privilege of dealing with more advanced tools used by scammers. Mine did not even have a fake human picture. Nonetheless, by pure numbers it probably has worked on many, many men. Below are the screenshots of my enjoyable conversation with an all too responsive trap used by hackers and scammers. I hope you enjoyed the scintillating conversation.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Sending the troops in to stop Ebola, might repeat the American caused Spanish flu

Sending the troops in to stop Ebola, might repeat the American caused Spanish flu

The Spanish flu is about as Spanish as an immigrant to America from Mexico. It was called the Spanish flu because the Spanish first reported on it, Spain still had a semi-free press at that stage as compared to the United States in whose regular forces a terrible flu came to be birthed, and spread unabated in a national security climate of war.

'Epidemiological data indicate that pandemic began in the US in March 1918, at a crowded army camp in Fort Riley, Kansas. Subsequently, the transport of hundreds of thousands of infected troops in close physical contact between camps caused influenza to spread quickly even before troops assembled in East Coast ports en route to France. The troops brought the influenza to the trenches of the opposing armies and to other parts of Europe and beyond. ' (Harvard | 'Contagion')


During the war in question, American troops were tightly packed together, and health concerns were largely ignored. It was the troops who spread the flu from one end of the theatre of operations in which they operated to the other. The civilian population also caught the flu. Nothing is quite like an army to spread a disease. The Spanish flu was American, not Spanish. It was spread across countries by American troops and those they came into contact with.

Barack Obama has decided that he wants to send thousands of American troops to Ebola affected countries. Troops traditionally interact very closely and in close and intimate proximity to one another. Putting thousands of people into a dangerous situation, only for them to be expected to leave the situation, could well set up a similar catastrophe.

What would a better approach be? Simple to be quite honest: either sending in doctors, although America does not have any good record with Ebola on their own soil, never mind in Africa. The other option is something called subsidiarity: the money spent on deploying thousands of troops into a foreign nation, could just as easily be spent on funding local efforts to defeat the disease in such countries.

The same goes for any other country that desires to send the troops in to fight a disease. Those troops will eventually have to come home. The contingency available to the nations of the world of using resources already in danger and on the ground is certainly a better option in such a scenario.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The Islamic State succeeds for the same reason that Hollywood does.

 The Islamic State succeeds for the same reason that Hollywood does.
 
 
The latest research into the Islamic State, which I prefer to refer to as Islamic Caliphate, a more accurate rendering: suggests that Islam is not the reason young British men are gallivanting off to Iraq and Syria, in search of thrills, forced concubines and the eternal sunshine of the violent sociopathic mind. It must be surprising for many, that a group which advertises how violent it is across social media, and brags about catching women and selling them as sex slaves for $10 each: could possibly not be about religion, as much as it is about sex and violence. Indeed, the Islamic State, the Goody-Goody Caliphate of the Righteous Martyrs Heading to Heaven, Might Not Be Such a Religious Group After All.

 
So why is this message, this gospel of sex, violence and sexual violence so popular among what young Westerners happen to flock like seagulls upon the fast food that is Iraq and Syria? It is the same message that Hollywood has sold centuries before it even existed. There is a reason why gory horror movies sell, the Islamic State Is selling front row seats to sociopaths, so close you can smell the blood on the bad guy’ s murder knife, in their version you can feel the knife in your hand… The same sort of garbage which fills up cinemas, which for years we have been told is harmless, has found a place to be harmful to the nth degree.
 

It has been said that Islamic State was inspired by Boko Haram (which my speech recognition technology with which I am dictating this article: thinks is: ‘Barker Horror’). Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of little schoolgirls, and stated that they would be selling them as sex slaves. This advertising by Boko Haram, gained global attention, as social media users flocked like beachgoers with fast food into the territory of seagulls. Boko Haram grew as a result, the fact that they were kidnapping little girls to become sex slaves no doubt appealed greatly to the sort of people who might want to join Boko Haram. Islamic State might have taken note. Boko Haram’s strategy will no doubt be seen as a great fait accompli, a great strategic victory, something to be emulated: by the many other violent men who desire to wreak havoc upon the world. After all, the Nigerian government decided upon a ceasefire, allowing Boko Haram to keep their substantial territorial gains, in exchange for the girls: who have since been radicalised, and likely support Boko Haram’s agenda.
 

The horrors presented by Islamic State, so delicately screened across television screens should not however hide the fact that their enemies are as bad as they are in many ways. Shia militias, and the Iraqi army, have been slammed by human rights groups for committing similar atrocities against Sunni women and men. These groups have even advanced into Yemen, undercover of media attention focused on Sunni militia such as Islamic State. Nor is the savageness of Boko Haram and Islamic state unique to their causes. The Libyan revolution for instance, and the counterrevolution currently occurring in Libya were both barbarically conducted. Amnesty International and others warned that the original fight to oust Gaddafi, with Western approval: was being driven by propaganda aimed at driving sub Saharan black Africans out of Libya. In such a case it is unusually strange that the International Committee of the Red Cross in Libya at the time was refusing access to humanitarian camps to non-Libyan citizens: that is: to sub Saharan African black immigrants.

 
Research has shown that veterans of wars are no more likely to commit crimes than other parts of the population, but the crimes they commit are proportionally more violent and induce more feelings of utter horror at what they have done among the general population. Post-traumatic stress creates violence. The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant (ISIS) aka Islamic state, have an army that do not live upon bread alone, but upon post-traumatic stress and a love of sex and violence.

 
Many western children are raised upon both of these by the television screens. Any wonder then, that so many of the worst offenders amongst the Jihadist hordes hail from places such as Great Britain, and America. The little snake of sex and violence has eaten much sex and much violence, and has graduated into a massive anaconda. The video gamers who desperately wanted more real virtual reality have found reality to be even more enticing to the sickening urges they feel.


Research linking Islamist atrocities to sex, is not something new. It is alleged that pornography was found by the Americans in the house of Osama bin Laden. Many pieces have been written on the link, between violent pornography and groups similar to Islamic State: at the time being Al Qaeda, a less vitriolic but still utterly evil brother of its offshoot: The Islamic State.

 
The Islamic State might find their playground to be the Middle Eastern battlefield, but their nursery and the milk upon which they were fed are both located in the West, in movies, videogames, and music videos, in violent pornography and other sources that groomed these men into potential recruits for extremist organisations.

 
The wrongdoer is not Islam, but something far more primal, something far more primaeval than the Western mind can comprehend in any mind but its own. The Islamic State does not recruit solely through Islam, but rather upon promises of gore, rape and violence. Promises of power, not constrained by virtue. Sex and violence. Stirred in a teacup, in the house of naturalised British immigrant, powerless as they feel, they are gripped by the power that power promises, and the meaning that joining a terrorist group no doubt gives such poor examples raised upon the milk of violence, and a feeling of powerlessness in a western world that does not truly accept them, but has melded them from their very birth.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Why the Catholic Church would be unwise to change its policy on communion for divorcees.

Why the Catholic Church would be unwise to change its policy on communion for divorcees.

When I first started working as a divorce lawyer in early 2013, as a student counsellor at the University of Witwatersrand, I was worried I might be sinning or doing something wrong. I asked my confessor and reached out to Opus Dei, as well as Catholic friends in order to find out whether or not I should ask for a transfer to another unit. The answer was quite uniform. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, divorce does not exist. As far as my priest was concerned, as with Opus Dei: I was not divorcing anyone, but rather litigating over custody of children and the property of the marriage. They informed me that I was doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

A lot of my work remains divorce, I’ve divorced quite a number of people and will likely divorce many more. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned however, I’ve divorced no one. For me this is an important distinction.

Protestant Christians often quote a part of the New Testament of the Bible, where Jesus Christ states that man must not divide what God has combined, except in the case of what Protestants call adultery. The actual verse does not refer to adultery, but to sexual immorality, with a specific Greek word which refers to a specific Hebrew word: which refers specifically to the immorality set forth by the law of the Old Testament. Catholics might not readily admit it, but the reason they oppose homosexual marriage is because they believe that no marriage takes place based on this verse. The purpose for which Catholics do not believe in incestuous marriage: is that based on this verse they do not believe marriage takes place.

It is a bit of a misnomer to say that Catholics who have divorced and civilly remarried are forbidden communion. This is not true, because as far as the church is concerned no divorce has taken place and no remarriage has taken place. The reason such people might be forbidden from taking communion is the same reason as I might be forbidden from taking communion: their actions or their thoughts consist of what the Catholic Church considers as mortal sin. In their specific case it is the sin of extramarital sex. But the list goes on and on: use contraception? You shouldn’t be taking communion. Spend a good time fantasising about extramarital sex, French kiss someone outside of marriage or without the intent of having sex later, masturbate, miss church the week before? You probably shouldn’t be taking communion.

A friend of mine in fact was informed by the Catholic Church that if they wanted to have an annulment within the church, they would have to firstly divorce civilly.

So what if that verse in fact referred to adultery? What is adultery? Adultery is sex with someone who is not your husband or wife when you in fact have a husband or wife. So the moment either party has sex with anyone else, a divorce is possible? Is marriage not at its essence a promise of sex and exclusivity in such? Is not divorce the dissolution or breaking apart of a marriage? So if you break the promise, you’re no longer bound by the promise? In such a sense marriage is only a gentleman’s agreement, or rather a gentleman’s and lady’s agreement. ‘I will only have sex with you until I have sex with someone else.’

If marriage is not exclusivity of sex, then it is not a lot of other things.

The Catholic interpretation of that verse is that God will not create a marriage where marriage is not possible, and a marriage is not possible where its essence is sinful.

Catholics will usually divorce and then get an annulment. An annulment itself is merely informative, of what God has or has not done. An annulment means that God did not cause a marriage to occur. Making the standards for annulments more lax, does not make it more or less likely that God did or did not cause an aeviternal bond to take place.

If you are in something the Catholic Church calls mortal sin, you should not take communion. That is the rule. Treating divorce or remarriage as a sin, other than perhaps the sin of scandal, is an incorrect view: the sin in accordance with Catholic doctrine is that of extramarital sex or adultery. A period of penance for divorcing and remarrying would thus be largely pointless. The divorce was not a sin. The extramarital sex which is ongoing throughout the penance is what the church would consider the sin. Thus the suggestion by many Catholic bishops of penance for divorce, completely and entirely misses the point. As it is in any case, such things are usually left up to parishioners and not to the priest. Churches are usually large, and urban. Plenty of divorced and remarried Catholics in any case take communion weekly.

I myself often commit mortal sins. I tend not to take communion on a Sunday unless I confessed the Saturday before. I value my privacy and I do not go into detail with my sins. I merely list one of the seven deadly sins and say that I have either done it once or many times within the past week or so. Mortal sin is very common among Catholics. Chances are, if they were honest with themselves: 90% of Catholics would not be taking communion every Sunday. That does not mean however that a 2000 year old tradition, tracing back to early writings attributed to the apostles: should so readily change simply because human beings do not always comply with the precepts of Catholic morality. What is so beautiful about the Catholic Church is that its doctrines do not change. It is a relic before modern conceptions of time began. The fact that the Catholic Church does not believe in divorce in a very literal sense is in fact to some degree something deeply beautiful.

Recent research has found that the split itself in divorce, causes deep trauma to children even when their parents perceive them to be doing well with the divorce, even in amicable divorces. Granted, parents in a death match will have much more trauma upon a child and likely on a regular basis. However, the baseline of stress which causes children to achieve low grades, and other such consequences: exists even in amicable divorces. Research also finds that divorcees live shorter lives than couples who remain married. There is no doubt that divorce is something highly traumatic both for those who go through it and for their children. I regularly divorce people and I am not ashamed of it, but I don’t think the Catholic Church, the Catholic religion to which I belong: should change one of its oldest precepts, merely for the sake of appearing trendy. To the Catholic Church something highly traumatic, divorce, does not exist. To me that is something beautiful. It should not be changed.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Get a grip, you don’t have Ebola.

Get a grip, you don’t have Ebola.

Ebola no doubt is a terrible disease. It is incredibly deadly, it is very dangerous, and if not dealt with properly it can spread far and wide.

However, wondering about fear mongering does not help anyone. Do you want to prevent yourself from getting Ebola? Wash your hands regularly with soap and hot water, avoid touching your eyes and mouth and any cuts or injuries. Still not satisfied? Carry about some hand sanitiser with you, the type that kills diseases: and regularly apply it. Something like 4000 people have Ebola or rather had Ebola. That is a very small portion of the world population, and is much smaller then malaria, AIDS, or any number of diseases. At the current stage, people who want borders to be closed are more at risk of dying from snakebite than Ebola.

The massive spread in Liberia and other areas, is because of the deep superstition of the people in these areas, which saw them rejecting Western medicine, and blaming witchcraft for the disease, never mind their turning to witchcraft as its cure. When Ebola went into Nigeria, Ebola was quickly dealt with. Other countries likewise have quickly snuffed out the epidemic.

Yes, someone got Ebola, and a hospital negligently sent them home in America. Yes, despite purportedly wearing a full hazmat suit or whatnot: the American healthcare worker who treated this individual, has been diagnosed with Ebola. No doubt that sends shivers through your spine.

Unfortunately, even the best of doctors make mistakes, this is not a sign of the apocalypse, but something to be expected. Many healthcare workers, including the best in their profession, in the areas where Ebola has been ravaging: have died of the disease. The fact that this was picked up in the healthcare worker and he was isolated: is in fact a good sign.

As I have previously reported, measures such as thermal scanners at airports can only pick up Ebola sufferers once they have entered into the contagious stage of the disease. For about two weeks before that they might not show any symptoms at all.

So how can you protect yourself from Ebola? Basic hygiene. It is not foolproof, and you may not survive until the next apocalypse, but it is the best thing you can do right now. Go out and buy yourself some antiseptic hand sanitation. Wash your hands regularly with soap and hot water, and definitely wash your hands or sanitise them properly prior to eating. Don’t go around touching sick people and dead bodies. And if you do think you have Ebola, contact your local doctor and make sure you get good advice. Ebola cannot reliably be cured by medicine, but it can be treated and many people survive the ravages of the terrible disease in question.

C’est la vie. There is always a risk in being alive. Take the risk as it is: real, but unless you are in a certain country or a certain area, not quite as imminent as media would have you believe. Take precautions, be cautious, but don’t hyperventilate. You aren’t in the woods just as yet. Unless you are of course.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Rules for interpreting Facebook:

Rules for interpreting Facebook:

– The funnest times and parties are never photographed or put onto Facebook. Posing to appear that you are having a good time probably means you aren't having such a good time. A photograph speaks 1000 lies, but no doubt for you it is much fun having people believe them, or rather you think they believe them.
– Posting how much you and your lover are in love: probably means you're going through relationship troubles, or are dating them for their aesthetic or other markings. Literature and history is full of such things. But yes, do show public affection, which is not there in private.
– Posting about how rich you are, how blessed you are, how much stuff you are most blessed: the possessor of: might make you look slightly shallow, and might indicate that the products you claim to own are not in fact yours, or that you are secretly nursing depression or feelings of inadequacy, that Gatsby himself would aspire to mimic. Yes, we realise that you're not posting about people but about things which you hope other people will feel jealous of you for. They probably do feel jealous, which probably doesn't help your relationships with them.
– People are only capable of keeping up real relationships with 150 people: your friend with 5000 friends probably doesn't know who 4850 of them are any more than you do. But yes, feel jealous of them, and the 5000 friends, who they might not even have met, or may have met briefly in a bar, we hope, but don't have any real relationship with: except maybe about 150 of them.
– You might admire your friend with all of their wonderful photographs of them drinking and partying: their prospective future bosses do not. Be glad that you're boring, your friend who posts all of these is probably just as boring as you are, but nonetheless, in their delightful way: they always remember to bring a camera out with them and photograph themselves looking drunk, and appearing to be up to no good.
If you must use Facebook, use it to better mankind, to communicate honestly with friends and make connections. As for the other uses, we all know. It isn't a secret, it was not even a secret 10 years ago. It might seem good fun and no doubt, for you: it is, but it is not real life you are portraying. And we know that. So I guess it's fine. If you like things that way. But if not, consider making your Facebook about expressing yourself in a cordial and well thought out manner: rather than about impressing others with a persona who's not you. Just a thought, you don't have to listen to it, and please don't photograph it or hashtag it as a selfie. That is all for now. Do continue on with whatever it was you were doing. Yes, I can see that camera which you so visibly are pointing at yourself.

Use cannabis and you will go long-term bonkers, study finds.

Use cannabis and you will go long-term bonkers, study finds.


'Smoking the class-'B' drug while pregnant is linked with reduced birth weights, while long-term use can cause cancer, bronchitis and heart attacks, according to the paper' (The Daily Telegraph | 'Cannabis as addictive as heroin, major new study finds' by the Telegraph reporter on 7 October 2014: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11145094/Cannabis-as-addictive-as-heroin-major-new-study-finds.html )

A 20 year long-term study of cannabis use and mental illness has found that the drug also known as dagga, marijuana, pot, or weed: can turn an average human being into a regular cooking pot.

I have never tried cannabis or any other drug. I have always associated cannabis with schizophrenia. While media, desiring to push the drug don't tend to report on this, it has been well known for many years. Research, spanning 20 years, conducted by Prof Wayne Hall of King's Cross College in London: who as it happens, also acts in an advisory capacity to the World Health Organization, has found that dagga indeed is quite the bad news plant. The professor is quoted as saying that if cannabis isn't addictive then nor are heroin or alcohol.

According to the Daily Telegraph, reporting on the study: 'one in six teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis become dependent on it, as are one in 10 regular adult users… Cannabis doubles the risk of psychosis and schizophrenia, with withdrawal symptoms including anxiety, insomnia, loss of appetite and depression… Driving after smoking cannabis doubles the risk of a car crash with the risk heightened yet further if you have had a drink… As many teenagers now smoke cannabis as cigarettes.'

The study also links it to poorer academic performance and to underweight babies where mothers smoke cannabis.

A 20 year long study, no doubt does not reap the full effect of the much stronger modern cannabis, thought to be four times more disastrous to human mental health. So, to reiterate: the dagga is a bad news drug, and unlike pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by doctors: it harms you, it does not heal you. Speaking of bonkers, certain American states have legalised recreational use of dagga. When I took forensic medicine, in my final year of law school, we were taught by the morgue's experts on the matter: that increased drug use, in either victims of crime or perpetrators, directly correlated to an increase in murders and violent crime, and an increase in accidental deaths and non-survival of survivable situations. Cannabis is a bad news drug. Like other dangerous drugs, which were once used to relieve pain as medical marijuana users claim they use their drug for: dagga needs to be kept out of the hands of the vulnerable. An epidemic of mental illness is a threat to the public and a danger to innocent bystanders. Cigarettes present the danger of second-hand smoke. Cannabis also known as dagga: by contrast causes mental incompetence, and exposes innocent people to death by murder, negligence and plain stupidity. Dagga is a bad news drug. Make no mistake, alcohol likewise is linked to an increase in crime: however public drunkenness is a crime, and alcohol in low levels does not cause the same effects as drunkenness does. Dagga in contrast, has an intoxicating effect in small or large doses, to an extent that alcohol does not. There is no double standard when alcohol is allowed and drugs are not: excessive alcohol use in any public arena is met with jail time in the Republic of South Africa.

Those, however, who use dagga, can well find themselves in the prison of a most unsound mind.

Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice, any reference to law is made purely for argumentative or entertainment purposes.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

The latest Dragon NaturallySpeaking: bombs speech recognition out of the water.

If you are a lawyer by profession, you have probably heard of Dragon NaturallySpeaking. I have used it for several years now. I have just updated from Dragon NaturallySpeaking 12 to Dragon NaturallySpeaking 13. The difference between the two is just amazing.

I almost feel as though Dragon reads my mind as I speak. The transcriptions are more often than not, perfect.

I have decided to put Dragon through the ultimate test, transcription. How can I do this? I was going to take one of my old podcasts and ask Dragon to turn it into text. Yes there are errors, and it does not do well when I'm speaking in French at the beginning. However, in every other respect the result is amazing. As I speak now, I'm speaking slightly slower than I ordinarily do, with more gaps between the words I am saying. I always write with Dragon and this is what I'm used to doing. In the podcast however, I was simply aiming at speaking in an understandable and comprehensible manner for my readers.

Compare the transcript of Dragon, below to the version I painstakingly created as I am creating this very article and you will find very few differences. For me this is a massive step in the right direction. Dragon seems to comprehend me better than ever.




Follow the link to my original article, and read the transcription below to compare:

http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2014/08/50-illegal-crossing-points-from.html


The following transcription is by automation by the Dragon NaturallySpeaking 13 platform.

[To listen to the podcast: follow the following link: https://audioboom.com/boos/2419944-50-illegal-crossing-points-from-zimbabwe-to-south-africa-pose-a-major-health-terrorism-threat-to-the-population ]

From Zimbabwe to South Africa pose a major health terrorism threat to the population agree Candice Bell fleeing their elaborate homeland for South Africa is not a top priority for the Zimbabwean police people who claim to lack adequate resources to close down 51 illegal border crossings which are operated under the auspices of business persons 50 of these illegal entry points are into South Africa the point allegedly are used by people smugglers and cigarette smugglers Zimbabwean authorities are not perplexed about 10% of South African of the South African population are not South African whatsoever a massive influx since the end of Apartheid has seen the nation upon the southern tip of the dark continent become a vastly diverse melting pot of people's and cultures recent controversial immigration laws have made one of the most liberal immigration systems in the world slightly more restrictive as a previous article by house new service has demonstrated the immigration restrictions likely are in response to sporadic South African incidence of deadly xenophobia Borders are a bit like tonsils in the most serious sense they hope to filter out undesirable pathogens such as terrorism commonality and disease which could kill the body at which service they rest in the case of South Africa I'll border defences against diseases such as Ebola are rendered useless when masses of population do not go through border checkpoints granted Ebola has an incubation period of some weeks and there is a massive chance that an Ebola sufferer will pass into South Africa before developing symptoms with a population density such as is found in Gauteng province Ebola could spread much faster in South Africa than it has in West Africa just as massive fires often destroy dozens of homes in South Africa's informal settlements and closely packed formal townships the extensive population density is ripe for the spread of disease persons in South Africa illegally are also likely to avoid treatment options such as hospitals xenophobia could also be worsened should the virus enter South Africa through an illegally present foreign individual besides haemorrhagic fever terrorism is a very real threat in South Africa Independent research by journalists and church organisations suggest that Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group terrorism group Al should about has been operating in South Africa for several years now the group is thought responsible for many immigrant deaths specifically targeting Christians fleeing Somalia illegal entry points into South Africa also make it ripe for human trafficking and evil activity for which South Africa has become an international hub weapons trafficking is another very real concern Zimbabwe is unstable to say the least and our other neighbours are sometimes on the verge of civil war instability in South Africa's neighbours is hardly good for South Africa's economy and stability as a whole whether South Africa's laws on immigration are liberal or conservative should have no impact upon whether or not we adequately secure our border against illegal immigration the problem with illegal immigration is not immigration itself so much as what gets in through the border by the weak spots created by the influx of population South African police just recently announced the arrest of several dozen foreign nationals with false documents or expired documents some experts have estimated that several million individuals in South Africa are in the country clandestinely such a scenario is neither ideal for bona fides clandestinely immigrants who are often preyed upon by unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of their illegal status nor is it preferential for the internal and external security needs of the nation South Africa's rhino population would not be at risk of extinction were our border with Mozambique better patrolled also about would not be able to operate within our borders committing atrocities were our security systems at the border more efficient the location of each of these 50 illegal border crossings needs to be ascertained strategically by the South African government and combated with immediate effect as for the other debate as to whether or not South Africa should be liberal or conservative in its immigration policy that debate should be fought where it is rightly fought in Parliament there is very little danger in immigration to South Africa that this danger should not be under estimated in its very real impact upon the poor there is however very much danger inherent with this weakness in our border through which undesirable figurative and literal pathogens can spread undeterred and undeterred and damage the South African population whether in the interim or permanently Ebola spread so easily through three countries because the first case of an infant boy occurred very close to the border of the three main countries where it is ravaging a strong border is a vital first defence against many an evil the relatively strong protections at South African border posts mean little in protecting the population of the nation if vast numbers of people completely ignore all these points of intersection I neighbours Marc Aupiais thank you and good day

Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme