The DA is a party for elitist whites. Not for the majority of South Africa – Helen Zille

The DA is a party for elitist whites. Not for the majority of South Africa – Helen Zille

It's an interesting way, to sound inclusive: by using exclusive  language, but this is just the approach, which the Democratic Alliance's Helen Zille has taken. I may agree with the Democratic Alliance on many though certainly not all issues, that does not mean that I agree that those who disagree should be excluded based on their honest beliefs. Whether strategic or not this focus on the person not the 'problem' interestingly excludes the majority of black South Africa and those in poverty from Democratic Alliance membership, alternatively it excludes the DA from being 'for' them.

To quote The Democratic Alliance's official website on Hellen Zille's speech:

'If we bring together all the people who share these values, we will be the majority in South Africa.  We can become the government and build a better life for all.

But people who do not share these values do not belong in the DA.

The DA is NOT  a party for racists.

It is NOT a party for sexists, xenophobes or homophobes.'

Although: this list of who may not be part of the Democratic Alliance; or else this list: of who the Democratic Alliance does not represent as people and whom they are not for, may seem nonracial, not against the poor... Although that might appear to be the case: it also tends to align the Democratic Alliance almost solely to wealthy white interests, and beliefs. By design or accident: it seems like a statement designed to be hard to challenge.

IS THE NO 'HOMOPHOBES' ALLOWED STATEMENT, REALLY ANTI-BLACK: given the sweeping EXCLUSIVE LANGUAGE USED? NOT The DA is against Homophobia: but the DA is no place for people, who amongst other things: are Homophobes... i.e. they are exclusive of anyone who oppose homosexuality or mentally think it immoral (most of whom are black).

If 78%  of South Africans, as noted by the HSRC in 2004 (the last servey of the issue so far): believe homosexual acts are always immoral, and if as the servey notes: whites are more friendly to the idea of homosexuality, as with those in universities, and women, and those who do not attend church, already, this is a way to exclude the Black majority from the party. Remeber, she did not say the DA is not homophobic, but that it is no place for homophobes no matter their reason for joining. Otherwise, this applies to all the above classes: The Democratic Alliance is not for the general interests of people who also happen in their mind to believe homosexual lifestyle is immoral. Perhaps the Democratic Alliance can be said to only consider homophobia to be attacks against homosexuals. Ian Ollis on 25 Febuary 2009, wrote on his facebook wall:

'Ok, so huge numbers of people have been asking about the gay thing, so I decided we should start a discussion on the board! Currently, the DA has a large number of gay (LGBTI) people as public rep's either as MP's MPL's and Councillors around the country. Yes, I am one of them! On our election lists for the 2009 general elections, I was extremely happy to see the number of gay people that have been chosen on the lists for parliament and the various provinces as candidates. A case in point is the Gauteng Parliamentary Candidates list. I am currently one of 5(that I know of) gay or lesbian people in the top 16 positions on the list. That is a huge plus for the party and for our representivity. Show me one other party in SA that has that many? An many of us, like myself, Mike Waters, Paul Willemburg are very out about our sexuality. we are not a pink party however. We support equal rights for gay people, just as we support say, the equal rights of both genders, all races and each language group in the country. For those of you out there who are thinking of voting DA and for whom this is an issue, rest assured, the DA is the party that most represents the rights and views of gay people and not just in words. we have actions that support what we say! Viva Helen Viva!"'

Ian Ollis, was the 11th member listed on the DA's GAUTENG NATIONAL ASSEMBLY LIST listing.

Just as the African National Congress: seem to have a bias towards electing women, who granted make up +-50% of South Africa, the Democratic Alliance: seem to have a bias towards electing homosexuals in a disproportionate amount to the percentage of the general population. At the time Mr Gavin Davis of the Democratic Alliance leader's office informed our service that his view was that: '[...] there is no discrimination either for or against people from any particular group, whether based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.'

It still is peculiar: that about a third of a top list members in 2009 were homosexual. This may suggest that actually there is a anti-Heterosexual bias at work within the core of the Democratic Alliance.



IS THE ANTI-XENOPHOBE LANGUAGE (NOTE: NOT ANTI-XENOPHOBIA) ANTI-BLACK?

The most recent survey on the issue: found that the majority of South Africans are empirically xenophobic. The least xenophobic demography were the rich and the white. The most xenophobic South Africans: were the indigent or poor and the black demographics. There is a reason the African National Congress has decided to use stricter border control methods, and deport foreigners. These two thirds of South Africans: according to Helen Zille, and the Democratic Alliance: are not welcome within the Democratic Alliance, nor are there general interests, interpreting her speech differently.


Does the targetting of SEXISTS (Note: not Sexism) Really target Black African people for exclusion from the Democratic Alliance?

To many whites polygamy is sexism. This is why they so love to mock Jacob Zuma for his many wives. Likewise, when a 'sexist culture' is spoken of by many whites: they tend to be referring to the Black African demographic base. The fact is that in the eyes of much of the base of the Democratic Alliance: much of what is sexist in South Africa emanates from a specific culture base. One need only hear a potential Democratic Alliance supporter speaking of black men and miniskirts, or alternatively of the rape statistics in South Africa, to hear some mention of a certain greatly ominous culture.

The Democratic Alliance opposes an ill-defined racism. Is this aimed again at Blacks, and the African National Congress?

The most recent survey on the matter found that the majority of South Africa's population have no daily contact with other race groups. White South Africans through their work and those who work for them, tend to have more daily contact with other races than the black majority. The Democratic Alliance's base tends to see those who support Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) as racists. I certainly don't support the Black Economic Empowerment projects myself. I see it as racist. But as with the above: I don't see that as a reason to exclude that segment of people entirely from a political party, or not to speak and be for them on other aspects. The political party should be driven by what is the best interests of all South Africans. If they exclude people from membership for the above views, can they really claim this is the case? There are in fact excluding the majority of South Africans from membership or alternatively from the DA supporting them and their interests!

Perhaps the party which advertises a new South Africa where pornographic advertisements featuring black and white participants, and burning of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa: do not surprise anyone… Perhaps that same party thinks that exclusive language, excluding people from the party, or from those they are interested in serving: will make them sound inclusive of the majority of South Africans who are seemingly not permitted in the party, through diabolically clever exclusionary language. Perhaps this is the DA which claims not to be elitist, and not just only serve the interests of white South Africans, and so-called coconuts (black on the outside, white on the inside)!

I would much rather support a party that is against xenophobia, and want to reduce it, with the interests of all in mind: than a party that declares war on xenophobes, rather than xenophobia itself.

(This article was dictated using speech recognition technology. I did check through it several times, but please inform me of any errors I may not have caught.)

What is the Catholic view on South Africa's crippling strikes?

(SACNS)

There are many ways to look at striking. The practice is deeply associated with Gandhi, who learnt this practice in the British domain of South Africa, when Zulu workers refused to work, and Indians were brought in / imported to replace them. Gandhi encouraged peaceful resolution of the dispute with employers, by inaction of workers. Likewise, the Roman Plebeians, would strike in arcana, refusing to work. The Roman strikes turned into something unique. The office of the Tribune was set up to support Plebeian underclass workers, and this office eventually turned Republic Rome, governed by a senate and consuls, into Imperial Rome, governed by an Emperor, an office that evolved from that of Tribune.

The fall of the Soviet empire, occurred via strikes, when Solidarity, in Poland took to peaceful protest, as a workers' front against the tyrannical Soviet regime occupying their ancient country, so often conquered over the ages. Solidarity was a Catholic workers union. Oddly, violence, even murder seem to always be present when certain unions strike, but utter peace, even silence exists when other unions strike. Strikes seem to be determined by the organization which strikes, and not the industry they belong to or any other factor. When a massive increase is given for a strike: such as the 22% at Lonmin, or the large increase one De Doorns farmer gave his workers, at least in South Africa, this tends to encourage workers to strike.

The issue with strikes, lies in when they become a greedy first resort, whereby strikes aim not at a fair increase, but do away with good performance to gain better pay. The second major issue: besides strikes being anything but a last resort, is that violence, intimidation and other acts, by strikers: turn a peaceful means of collectively gaining a good, into an act much resembling the working of an Organized Crime Family. Where workers collectively and voluntarily strike as a last resort, for the collective interest it is a good, but where strikes are to enrich a few, who would rather blackmail their employer with their power to intimidate workers, than work hard for success, the strike ceases to be a good.


The Catholic Church's Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching says:

'c. The right to strike
304. The Church's social doctrine recognizes the legitimacy of striking “when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit”,[663] when every other method for the resolution of disputes has been ineffectual.[664] Striking, one of the most difficult victories won by labour union associations, may be defined as the collective and concerted refusal on the part of workers to continue rendering their services, for the purpose of obtaining by means of such pressure exerted on their employers, the State or on public opinion either better working conditions or an improvement in their social status. Striking “as a kind of ultimatum” [665] must always be a peaceful method for making demands and fighting for one's rights; it becomes “morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good”.[666]'

Is the Israeli claim of self defence in Gaza Strip valid? #PIL #PublicInternationalLaw

(SACNS)


Gaza and International Law!

a) HAMAS is not a state, nor does Israel recognise Palestine as a state, although about 120 nations do.
b) Self Defence (Caroline), affirmed as still existing by the UN SCRs on 9/11; refers to defence against an actual state. HAMAS is not a state but an armed group, either part of Palestine, or an occupied territory, in the later case: laws governing occupation are required to be enforced, including protection of civilians.
c) Armed Activities in the Congo set out that it was illegal to enter another country to stop a perceivable threat posed by an armed group (not state) in another territory. Security Council Approval is required to launch an attack on an armed group in another territory.

Israeli claims of Self Defence (Caroline Case), are therefore false.

THE ACDP IS MARCHING TO SAVE CHRISTMAS, GOOD FRIDAY FROM ANC GRINCH!

(SACNS)

The Commission for the Protection and Promotion of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities is looking to remove Christmas and Good Friday from the Public Holiday schedule. Their choice has not been announced, but ACDP is making a Christian voice heard on the alleged plans to go ahead and ban Christmas. The recommendations on whether to ban Christmas and Good Friday, from the Commission are due in January. The Decision is up to the ANC, who have previously planned to ban Christmas and Good Friday, but withdrew due to public outcry.

As the body told to relook at the public holidays act, to see if Christmas and Good Friday should be done away with, has apparently acted oddly towards some Christian submissions to keep Christmas and Good Friday as holidays, a fire-storm has erupted.

The first sign of dissatisfaction is the fact that the ACDP has launched a march through the streets of Johannesburg, only to be patronised by Pandor (aptly named lass). The ACDP will continue marches until the government promises not to steal Christmas, and ignore good Friday. Most of South Africa's public holidays celebrate figures in the ANC, and thus are not noted by a majority of people. Christmas and Good Friday are important to 79.5% Christian South Africa. The ACDP says it is also upset about past decisions to remove Ascension Thursday from the Public Calendar, and the choice to remove prayer (probably also a reference to the sad removal of hymns by government) from schools.