Canadian Government Tribunal: South African government shows "indifference and inability or unwillingness" to protect "white South Africans from persecution by African South Africans".

(Social Justice South Africa; c.f. News 24 (Secular; Independent; South African) 31 / 08 / 2009; Page on Brandon Huntly; The Telegraph (United kingdom based / British; Independent; Secular) 31 / 08 | August / 2009 ; Dispatch.co.za (Secular; independent; South African) 01 / 09 | September / 2009 )


[Voir en français ; Kyk na hierdie artikel in Afrikaans]

Article by Marc Aupiais

Representing the South African High Commission in Ottawa, Canada, a Anesh Maistry, according to News 24: has noted a ruling granting a white (Ethnic European / Caucasian) South African refugee status in Canada. The panel chair (William Davis) of the Canadian tribunal (Canadian immigration and refugee board panel) which granted refugee status to a Caucasian South African, claimed that the evidence presented by the claimant: "Brandon Huntley", a 31 year old South African who had been living illegally in Canada :

""showed a picture of indifference and inability or unwillingness""

( News 24 (Secular; Independent; South African) 31 / 08 / 2009)

on behalf of of the government of the Republic of South Africa to protect:

""white South Africans from persecution by African South Africans""

( News 24 (Secular; Independent; South African) 31 / 08 / 2009).

According to the UK Telegraph, the tribunal's chair even went as far as to claim that this alleged discrimination was occurring across South Africa: saying:

"I find that the claimant would stand out like a 'sore thumb' due to his colour in any part of the country,"

( The Telegraph (United kingdom based / British; Independent; Secular) 31 / 08 | August / 2009)

Ronnie Mamoepa, spokesperson for South Africa's Department of Home Affairs, informed News 24 of his "disgust" over what he termed as the :

"baseless allegations against our [note the word "our", in as far as it relates to the alleged attacks, the choice of words here is interesting] people and our country"

( News 24 (Secular; Independent; South African) 31 / 08 / 2009)

which were put forward by the Canadian tribunal.

He Further claimed that:

"It would have been courteous for the Canadian government to allow the South African government to respond to the allegations".

( News 24 (Secular; Independent; South African) 31 / 08 / 2009)

The High Commission representative, contrary to the Department of Home Affairs spokesperson, however claimed that the granting of refugee status was a Canadian decision, of a sovereign state.

The claimant- Huntly, reportedly was raised in Cape town, South Africa and claimed that he has been attacked 7 times, of which 3 were allegedly stabbings, all allegedly by black South Africans, adding that he had been called slurs such as "white dog" and "settler". He is further alleged to have said that "There's a hatred of what [Huntly reportedly used the word "we"] did to them and it's all about the colour of your skin,"

As the majority of South Africans are Ethnic Africans, it is statistically not unlikely that the majority of criminals would by Ethnic Africans, just as the majority of criminals in a European country will likely be Ethnically European, of course factoring in poverty levels, how stable families are in general and other factors. As to whether or not the specific alleged attacks were racially motivated as a percentage of local crime is, and whether or not race played a role in police handling of these specific incidents is uncertain to our service at present. The alleged slurs do seem to center on the man's race, however, these could be incidental insults, based on attempting to downgrade the dignity of a specific individual, by stereotyping his Ethnicity.

Huntly had been illegally residing in Canada, having previously had a stay in Canada on a work permit. He requested refugee status in April 2008.

Current legal fashion in interpreting the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 reads it as allowing the specific discrimination against Caucasian South Africans, so far as economic, educational, and government related business is concerned, this does not extend to personal or physical descrimination of the type alleged by the claimant. The Legislative and Administrative schemes such as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and AA (Affirmative Action), ask that larger companies have a certain portion of non-white ownership, and that a large portion of general and management positions in companies over a legislated size be non-white. Companies which do not comply with BEE are fined. Universities are also encouraged to choose non-white students over white students.

The result is that companies often pay for the education of black students in order to employ them later, and black persons can receive much higher pay than white persons in fields where there are not many Ethnically non-white skilled workers. Advertisements for job applications can contain wording which informs the applicant that only "previously disadvantaged" (Those whose Ethnicity [whether or not the individual was alive or not during this period] would have "previously disadvantaged" under Apartheid) South Africans should apply for a job.

There have been publically made accusations, that those most benefitting from BEE, are persons affiliated with the ruling African National Congress (ANC), and that average black South Africans have not benefitted. Those who have become known for profiting from BEE deals include Cyril Ramaposa, and Tokyo Sexwale, both of whom have had strong ties with the ANC. The DA (Democratic Alliance), the Official Opposition in the Republic of South Africa, has alleged that the attempts to change the racial makeup of the judiciary (what the government terms "transformation"), via discriminating against white judges, are politically motivated.

To our service's knowledge: there is a scale as regards these economic discriminations, and different races are viewed slightly differently. Government companies are encouraged to do business with blacker contractors over those with more white staff, or owners. Companies which are best suited to benefit from BEE legislation are known as Blackchip companies.

The current President of the Republic of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, has been reported in the news as claiming that those Caucasian South Africans, who are not Afrikaans, are not true South Africans, his justification of this statement was that many English speaking Caucasian South Africans are in his opinion: dual-citizens in other countries, while Afrikaans Caucasians, according to the President: often are only South African citizens. Mention of Ethnic Africans with dual citizenship was not made. He had also claimed that Afrikaaners were in his opinion: the only truly African "white" "tribe". This was seen as a claim that English speaking Caucasians were not true Africans, some saw it as the equivalent of the slur in which white South Africans are sometimes called "settlers".

Claims that the South African government refuses to or can't protect white South Africans from racially motivated violence, are not often made in the public space or endorsed by state institutions of other countries, making this case of note. A percentage of violent crime against White South Africans, has been seen as racially motivated. Many Caucasian and non-Caucasian South Africans have left the country looking for work, or safety from crime and political uncertainty which is not as prevailant elsewhere.

This article does not constitute legal advice, and should not be taken as legal advice, facts or information are here: presented purely to contextualize the situation for informative purposes, and this is not to be taken as legal advice.

SADC Region: Republic of South Africa: Official Opposition in talks with strange bedfellows?

(South African Catholic)


Notation by Marc Aupiais

According to the Cape Argus, a member of the Independent Newspapers (IOL) news group: the Democratic Alliance (DA)- South Africa's Official Opposition: is in behind closed doors unity talks with several smaller parties- including ANC off-shoot: COPE (Congress of the People), the ID (Independent Democrats), and the UDM (United Democratic Front).

While the DA allows their Members of Parliament (MPs) to vote with their conscience, on matters deemed by the DA to be related to morality- the ID and UDM- have both pushed legislation and policies, which are seriously against the moral fibre set out by the Church- including on vitally important issues such as- what marriage should be, and legalising of and pushing of pro-abortion legislation by the state.

Much of the leadership of political fledgling- COPE- jumped ship from the ANC prior the last election- having seemingly been perfectly accepting of the ANC (African National Congress)- when it radically liberalised access to Abortion, and instituted "Civil Unions"- "Gay marriage". On the "Gay Marriage" issue- as our service noted in another article: earlier this year- the ID seemingly wanted to force marriage officers to "marry" gay couples- whatever their conscientious or religious objections.

Exactly what form of alliance would be formed if the alleged talks are successful- is not clear to our service at present.

Whether this would entail close co-operation on some matters between multiple parties, or a new political party- is not clear, although the evidence seems to lend towards the latter- as with the quotations the Cape Argus gives to back up its claims.

Reportedly: Helen Zille has noted a number of areas where the opposition parties could find common ground-

These apparently include: commitment to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; creating an environment which would offer opportunities to everyone; a market-driven economy, opportunity and delivery and a safety net for the less privileged (c.f. IOL- as linked to below).

Representation of the DA had not replied to a media request from our service at the time of publishing.

C.F. IOL (Secular; Independent; South African) 02 / 08 | 2009

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_Twitter&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=vn20090802061851279C687881

South Africa: DA Leaders office denies any pro-civil-union discrimination

(Scripturelink Voters guide)

Article by Marc Aupiais

In response to a request for clarity on seeming insinuation of DA discrimination for Homosexual candidates, the DA, has responded to our concerns. Gavin Davis, the Chief of Staff of the Da's Office of The Leader, whom I have corresponded with in the past, has responded to our concerns on behalf of Christian voters. The following is an email reply we received from him today:

2009/3/10 Gavin Davis 

Dear Marc

Thank you for your email.

As I mentioned in previous correspondence, DA public representatives have a free vote on issues of conscience including civil unions. To my knowledge, Mr Ollis has never said that the DA is for civil unions. He has expressed his personal view, which he has every right to do. But it does not represent the view of the party.

As far as the DA’s lists are concerned, there is no discrimination either for or against people from any particular group, whether based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind regards
Gavin

We have asked that the DA monitor their facebook group better, and are pleased that their national policy seems the same. It does seem odd, that Ian Ollis, should make such a point, as he did, and that he seems to have insinuated certain things, which would make the DA a less acceptable party to vote for.

As it is, they maintain their status on our acceptable vote list. Due to the positions of their leadership. We do hope that the DA will look into the claims by Ian Ollis, involving the Gauteng list, and sexual orientation.

South Africa: DA's SA Christian voters lose say?

(Scripturelink Voters Guide)

Note: the DA's leader's office's head of staff replied to our request: http://southafricancatholic.blogspot.com/2009/03/south-africa-da-leaders-office-denies.html

Article By Marc Aupiais

Recently, we came accross the following:

"

Post #1

Ian Ollis wroteon February 25, 2009 at 1:49pm

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!"

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2226300562&topic=7506

Ian Ollis, is the 11th member listed on the DA's GAUTENG NATIONAL ASSEMBLY LIST listing. I see no reason to discount that the person speaking is him.

 Last year, when asking the DA, whether or not they had altered their policy on gay marriage, their answer to our organization was no: they still had no policy. This was after a decision involving Internation Politics, which technically favored "Gay Marriage".

We have requested a reply from the Democratic alliance, on this issue, since, having seen this admittal by a potential MP.

This was posted on their facebook group.

The DA, has also refused to alter the constitution, so that abortion is clearly relegated to the criminal arena, as any South African, no matter their age, can legally request an abortion. The only restrictions in South Africa, seem to focus on protecting the mother's health. The Judiciary, largely seems to have a certain view of the Constitution, and some believe that if South Africa's abortion laws are overturned, they will overturn the nullification of ANC: African National Congress: policy. This trial has yet to occur however.

Such moves either mean nothing, or everything. The DA would not have succeeded in changing the constitution, and so their choice had no effect, but they seemed to say that the constitution was over in 1994.

If the DA values their Pro-life, pro-family, pro-catechism voters, I suggest that they clarify this issue: as one of their representatives seems to be saying that they have purposely placed a large portion of homosexual voters on their parliamentary list high up. Such would mean a pragmatic change in a possibly neutral vote on a pro-life issue: marriage.

Such calls into account: how does the DA stand on other issues of policy, such as abortion: another issue, of importance to Christians voting. If they are that sort of "liberals" now, leaving what I would have thought was the PFP behind, then: where else are they liberal. America's Democratic Party has jumped on both issues, so have many others. Such concern lies not in homosexual ideas, which generally may change from each to each: but what is considered liberalism in many nations.

Both support of "Gay Marriage", and support of abortionist policies, are issues which make a party very unlikely to be the best for Catholic voters. The question is whether or not the DA is still neutral on these issues, or if they simply are officially neutral, but have hidden practical policies.

I would like it if the DA were to reply to my request.

Can the DA say that it is still neutral on these morally concerning issues to Christian voters?

If the man above is not Ian Ollis, I request that the DA inform us, as it is, I suspect it is the DA potential Parliamentarian, and I hope that the DA, is not discriminating against heterosexuals in their representation in parliament.

Africa: SADC: South Africa: Corruption and Politics: Shaik (accused of a currupt relationship with ANC president) shakes off 15 year jail sentence

(Scripturelink Voters guide; Social Justice South Africa; IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 03 / 03 / 2009; Letters sent to IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) on the 04 / 03 / 2009; IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 04 / 03 / 2009; IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 04 / 03 / 2009; 03 / 03 / 2009)

Article by Marc Aupiais

Shabir Shaik: convicted of having a "Generally Corrupt" relationship with the Ruling (with a majority capable of changing the constitution of SA, which has changed said constitution numerous times) ANC (African national Congress) President Jacob Zuma, has just been "permanently" let off a 15 year jail sentence for corruption, 2 days after a press release by Jacob Zuma, that he would pardon Shaik on possibly becoming president of South Africa.

"Shaik was sentenced to 15 years in jail in 2005 after he was convicted on two counts of corruption and one of fraud. This was based on evidence of a corrupt relationship between himself and then South African and ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma.

At the time of going to press on Monday night, there was a lot of activity at the Inkosi Albert Luthuli Hospital in Durban, where Shaik had spent a good deal of his incarceration."

(IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 03 / 03 / 2009)

The ANC, largely backed by uneducated masses of South Africa, who suffer from lack of education, and basic resources: after over a decade of ANC rule, is mooted to win a majority, as usual in this year's elections. When a Constitutional challenge on election rules, preventing South Africans abroad from voting: hit: the ANC set the election date in April: this may well prevent the constitutional claim from succeeding. Millions of South Africans have left the country since 1994, due to openly racist business and other regulations set by the government: which has seen incalculable damage to South Africa's economy, due to a non-white skills shortage, and also the leaving of many South Africans due to crime, and a general perception among many: that whatever they want, the government will do as it desires.

Opposition parties have, in recent years, whether purposeful, or incidently: had the police used against them. DA leader Hellen Zille was arrested in Cape Town, by police, while objecting on crime. ANC offshoot: COPE, was prevented from taking to the streets, to campaign after a national congress, by Riot Police, as the ANC suddenly had a meeting nearby. No mention of Riot Police by the ANC talk was mentioned. With Voter intimidation in recent By-Elections, and ANC supporters alleged by the DA, to have been bussed in, and attempting to blockade a DA rally in a township, these are just some of the worries: not excluding murders in Kwazulu Natal; where IFP and ANC supports are alleged to have taken part in violence in previous elections. High ranking members of the ANC's Triparteid Alliance: have said that they will take up arms for Mr Zuma's cause, and there have been comments regarding what seems, for lack of adequate clarification like a physical annihilation of the DA (Democratic Alliance), South Africa's major opposition party.

According to the State, which has let Shaik off due to "depression", and "high blood Pressure", Shaik will not be sent back to jail, if these "symptoms" suddenly disappear. The State has also refused to release exactly what "terminal" condition Shaik has: only mentioning what could be signs of someone actually being in prison.

"It should be noted that in terms of section 75 (8) of the Correctional Services Act (Act 111 of 1998), the 'decision of the board is final' and can only be reviewed by the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review board, led by a judge," Wolela said."
( IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 03 / 03 / 2009)

As the law requires a prisoner to be terminally ill to be released, it seems odd, that a terminal illness has not been mentioned. In fact, unless Shaik kicks the bucket within days, or weeks, it raises the question on HIV Positive prisoners, who have been denied parole until their last legs. Perhaps Shaik needs a change in diet, having spent most of his time in hospital, over what many may see as symptoms of stress, and being in jail.

IOL, probably South Africa's most reliable news source, has more to say, by airing letters sent on the issue, which I think are an interesting read:


Like many South Africans: who have seen so much in the interesting way in which ANC supporters of high rank usually don't feel too discomforted when faced with "prison", many South Africans seem suspicious. Others want more details: some think that fraudsters should not go to jail.

(Letters sent to IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) on the 04 / 03 / 2009)

IOL notes that the state is refusing to review the choice, or to give it up to review, despite the fact that the ANC controls the government, and: "Shaik was sentenced to 15 years in jail in 2005 on two counts of corruption and one of fraud, which, among other things, related to an alleged bribe he negotiated between Zuma and a French arms company. - Sapa"IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 04 / 03 / 2009; IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 04 / 03 / 2009). Zuma is president of the ruling ANC.

The African National Congress denies ( IOL (Independent; South African; Secular) 04 / 03 / 2009) any influence in the release of Shaik, while the DA, among others is seeking some form of action over the surprise the release of Shaik, due to his "High Blood pressure" "etc".

IOL quoted a source, which tries to get prisoners rights insured, it was noted that 2500 prisoners die a year, it seems these did not get this parole. Many prisoners have been subject to denials of medical parole, and it is probably a unique case, that Shaik should get it for depression and high blood ( 03 / 03 / 2009: IOL) pressure, with possible "chest pains". Why the public has been denied so much information on this case is odd, especially due to the following:

"32. Access to information

1. Everyone has the right of access to
1. any information held by the state; and

2. any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.

2. National legislation must be enacted to give effect to this right, and may provide for reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state."

(Bill of Rights, Chapter II of the Constitution of the "Republic of South Africa" 10 December 1996)

South Africa; SADC Region, Africa: DA (Democratic Alliance) Alleges possible ANC scandal

(Scripturelink Voters Guide)

Article by Marc Aupiais

We do not endorse the views of the DA (Democratic Alliance), nor do their views represent us, these quotations are not endorsements, nor guarantees of the accuracy: of the statements made by South Africa's major opposition party.

A letter sent out from Helen Zille, via email today: says:

"Reports surfaced this week that President Kgalema Motlanthe is poised to appoint Muzi Wilfred Mkhize as the next National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to succeed Advocate Vusi Pikoli.

If this happens, it will trigger a constitutional crisis.

Advocate Mkhize was a member of Jacob Zuma’s defence team when Zuma first appeared in the Durban Magistrate’s Court on corruption charges in October 2005. Under no circumstances should Mkhize be put in a position to decide whether or not his former client should be charged with 783 counts of fraud, bribery and corruption. That would constitute a clear conflict of interests.

If President Motlanthe appoints Mkhize, it will be clear why the ANC nominated Motlanthe as President when Thabo Mbeki was “recalled” last year. The conclusion would be irresistible that the ANC required Motlanthe to appoint a compliant National Director of Public Prosecutions who would make the charges against Zuma go away. Then Zuma would have a clear run for the Presidency without the cloud of an imminent corruption trial over his head. The first step was to fire Pikoli. The second step, according to this line of analysis, is to appoint a Zuma man as the country’s chief prosecutor, in accordance with the ANC’s infamous deployment policy."

Among other things.

The DA, is calling for the NPA to be appointed by an independent body, rather than the government. The DA campaign for elections: is to prevent Mr Zuma getting the Two thirds majority, which the ANC got last elections: which gives them absolute power over South Africa. Motlante was not elected as President of South Africa, and the current ANC leadership, were not elected by the people at the polls.

Thabo Mbeki, the previous president of the country: was president when the ANC were elected into office, once again. The ANC removed him after a judge, not judging Mbeki, but whether or not Mr Zuma, could be tried for multiple corruption charges, alleged a conspiracy against Mr Zuma, by Mr Mbeki. Zuma used the opportunity to rally his forces, and force South Africa's then President to resign: without an Election by the people, Mbeki was replaced by Motlante, in accordance with the laws set out by the communist affiliated ANC government.

Important figures in the ANC, have previously called for the "Annihilation" of the DA, and have said that they are prepared to kill and die for ANC president Jacob Zuma, who dodged rape claims recently: having been found innocent. The woman, who accused him of rape, is an HIV sufferer, currently in exile outside South Africa, fearing for her life, after Zuma supporters stoned a woman, who they thought was her. The ANC only will guarantee her safety, if she withdraws claims of rape. Zuma's supporters, do not deny that he was having extra-marital sex with her. They say that she actually stayed the night: and had breakfast: and that this is a sign that she enjoyed having relations with Mr Zuma. Zuma claimed that he took a shower afterwards: in order to avoid getting aids.

Archbishop Buti, of Johannesburg, recently expressed fears, that South Africa's government would not be accountable to the people after this years constitutionally needed elections, and fears: that Mr Zuma will not receive a trial on corruption charges; that a "political solution" would be used. What he feared, likely referred to the possibility, that Zuma would change South African law: to avoid prosecution. The DA claim, however: is a bit different, they allege the possibility, that what may be seen: as below board methods will be used: to further prevent a Zuma corruption trial, something Zuma, after asking for a day in court, has fought on every level he could.

Fear of electoral violence, after voter intimidation in recent by-elections, and in a mirror image of some previous times: is real, and feared in South Africa. The future, of the important regional power: is murky, and dangerous. If South African mediation efforts, and troops are withdrawn from across the continent, due to local issues: an even more dire situation could occur.

Attacks, or commentary on attacks of President Motlante's private life, appeared in independently run newspapers, and media, recently. Motlante recently refused ANC pressure, to change the board of the SABC, South Africa's government media network, without fair proceedings, even as they had been reportedly pulled into ANC headquarters, and encouraged to give the ANC better coverage. The ANC, has consistently interfered with the running of state television and radio. Local newspapers, years ago: alleged that the state broadcaster was no longer independent. SABC board members, were due to get the sack from communist affiliated Zuma's ANC recently, but Motlante stood against this, and refused to sign that. Motlante: however: has disbanded the "Scorpions", the body, which was investigating Zuma for corruption.

Response of the Office of Helen Zille (DA Leader) on concerns over homosexuality statements

(Scripturelink Voters guide)

Introduction by Marc Aupiais

The following is an Email Response, by the office of Helen Zille, leader of the DA (Democratic Alliance) in South Africa, and Mayor of Cape Town, to concerns raised, over a press release, in which the ANC were lambasted, for not supporting a document, which in addition to the noble cause of decriminalizing Homosexuality, legally: also promoted, and seemed to attempt to legislate "Gender theory": which would insinuate support of Homosexual civil unions: "Gay Marriage", something the church considers to be irreconcilable with Catholic morality, and society.

Date: 19 January 2009 16:06
Email: Leader < leader@da.org.za >
Title: Response from the office of Helen Zille
Respondent: Tammy Evans

Large sections of the Contents of Email Response:

"Dear Mr Aupiais



On behalf of Helen Zille, thank you for your e-mail.



As indicated in the press statement you refer to, the DA supports the decriminalisation of homosexuality in line with our Constitution.



The DA’s position on civil unions is the same as it always has been. Like all issues of conscience, the DA gives its members a free vote to vote in Parliament as they choose.



Giving our members a free vote on civil unions is compatible with the belief that homosexuality is not a crime.



I hope that this e-mail has served to clarify your concerns.



Please feel free to remain in touch with our office.



Sincerely



Tammy Evans



Political Assistant

Office of the Leader - Democratic Alliance

2nd floor, Marks Building, Parliament

Cape Town 8000"


This email (contact details somewhat excluded)

is in response to another by ourselves: to the DA:

"A DA objection, to not voting on a UN proposal by France has caught my attention. My objection, is not the protection of homosexual rights, but the same, as that given by the Vatican, when apposing such a proposal. The proposal promotes Gender theory, and therefore gay marriage. Yes, South Africa should have stated, they supported the principle of freedom from persecution, but support of that proposal means indirectly, seeming: support for Gay marriage (something that the SA populace does not in majority support): an issue that he DA has been neutral on previously. I would like a clarification from the DA: on their neutrality on this issue, as it will affect both my vote, and many others. This does affect moral issues, as the DA is in fact, willingly or not: making a stance on this issue!"
(to: leader@da.org.za;
date: 16 January 2009 15:39;
subject: Clarification needed, I represent a media initiative (3 days ago);
mailed-by gmail.com)

South Africa: DA (Democratic Alliance): in support of Homosexuality: addition to previous reviews

(Scripturelink Voters guide; c.f. IOL (Independent; Secular; South African) 12 / Jan / 2009; c.f. Archive 03 / Dec / 2008; c.f. Archive 12 / Dec / 2008; c.f. 23 / Dec / 2009; DA Support, on their own website 11 January 2008 (see such))

(Note, while this is not to justify the stance they took on this issue, they have replied to our request for a response via email, we have recorded their response, from Helen Zille: in another post: in which they reaffirm party policy, to allow in the SA Parliament: Freedom of Conscience, on moral issues: Response of the Office of Helen Zille (DA Leader) on concerns over homosexuality statements: http://southafricancatholic.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-of-office-of-helen-zille-da.html )

Article by Marc Aupiais

The DA, who have previously gained a relatively good rating from us, have done something, which calls into question their dignity. Tony Leon, their Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has asked, via questions submitted in parliament: the ANC's Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who is South Africa's foreign minister, why RSA ("The Republic of South Africa"); did not vote for a UN (United Nations) push, considered as anti-religious discrimination, by the Vatican: which affirmed "Gender Theory", and attacked religious: in a move, claimed to be aimed at legalizing homosexuality throughout the world.

Their stance, if with an understanding of the document: would seem to insinuate support for Gay marriage: a definite seeming change in policy on the issue.

This note is based on an article in IOL: stating that Tony Leon Stated:

""Our failure to translate our domestic constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world," Leon said."

9IOL (Independent; Secular; South African) 12 / Jan / 2009)

The DA's previous record on "claimed" neutrality on moral issues, seems somewhat broken in this recent escapade. The UN resolution, fronted by France, was apposed by 60 nations, via a direct, joint statement, and in a addition,in a statement, which also rejected calls by those 60 nations: linking homosexuality to child molesting: as incorrect, the Vatican also rejected such: saying that they rejected it: due to clauses which encouraged anti-religious persecution.

66 nations, including the EU: supported the initiative.


The wording of the resolution, was thought by the Vatican to contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in it's affirmation of Gender theory: in so far as the Vatican directly stated: that it would likely lead to persecution of natural, universally accepted marriage: and put pressure on nations to accept "Gay Marriage": something, which the church considers an objective evil. Attacks on marriage: which the church considers the union between one man and one woman, aimed at unity and childcare: are considered enough to disqualify a party: so far as voting is concerned: unless voting for such a party: consists of supporting the lesser of two evils; so as to prevent greater evil.

4 out of 5 (80%) of South Africans, consider homosexual acts to be always wrong. This according to the statutory body for statistics http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-39.phtml

We have sent an electronic communication to the DA's Guateng Representation, asking for comment on this issue, and informing them of the "Gender Theory" bias of the proposition, they seem to be raising issues about. We will hopefully have a response, or update on this issue soon.

We have also informed the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference of this, we shall hopefully be able to keep you up to date on such things.

The ANC, which is seemingly, politically speaking: "radically" in support of the pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage camps, as compared definite opposition in South Africa: and their choice to force these issues through (i.e. "radically" when nine out of ten South Africans (90%) appose abortion, and 4 out of 5 think homosexual acts are always wrong: they still chose to force MPs (Members of Parliament) to support such,something which makes them different in this issue, than South Africa's norm in demographics), responded, saying that they simply had not gotten around to signing it, but supported it. The South African ambassador to the UN (United Nations), Dumisani Kumalo, stated that it was not signed: so as not to offend other African nations: of which 6 alone sign it. 47 African Nations did not sign the December 18th proposal.

Abortion laws in South Africa: are considered in Catholic theology, to violate the right of conscientious objection, to participating in the killing of the yet to be born baby.

January 18th, is set forth as a day for the sanctity of Life, in the United States (Of America), under outgoing US (American) President George W Bush, who is doing so, in a stance by the White House against abortion. US (American) President Elect Barak Hussein Obama, has vowed to overturn laws requiring parental consent for abortions, and recently voted to allow a child which survived abortion, to be killed. His most clear promises, seem to be in this field: where he plans to get more funding to abortionists, and wherein, many appointees to vital positions in his administration: are ideologically pro-abortion, raising questions, as to his purpose in appointing these people to such positions.

His vowed legislation, is radical, and seems biased. Many American Catholic bishops, outright apposed him, including a senior Vatican aid. Vatican Representation, say that if legislation, he has promised to pass, passes, such would be seen as an act of war.

One the DA Issue, their own website states:

"TONY LEON, MP
DA SPOKESPERSON ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

On receipt of the news that South Africa refused to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day in December 2008 calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality I submitted on Friday 9 January 2009 the following questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

1. Whether she can indicate why the South African government failed to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day, calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

2. whether her Office has considered the ramifications of the South African government’s failure to support this declaration for the South African government’s reputation, both internationally and domestically, in terms of being committed to (a) upholding its Constitution and the values enshrined in it and (b) promoting the freedom of its people as well as the people of other countries; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Our failure to translate our domestic Constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world. This contradiction between what we practise at home and preach abroad is entirely and unhappily consistent with our role call of dismal votes on the United Nations Security Council during our ill-starred tenure there which ended in December 2008."


(DA (Seular; South African; Political party: Press Release 11 / 01 / 2009; no copyright listed)

Helen Suzman Dies: about a month ago she was still taking a stand: this time against crippling corruption in South Africa

(Scripturelink Voters Guide)

Article by Marc Aupiais

She was a Jewish woman, and a hero.

My Grandfather, whose life helped lead me back to the Catholic faith, stood for her party in the Freestate, but never got more than about 10% of the vote. Often, she was the only voice of reason in parliament: and considering what they attempted with my family: I can assure you: it took courage to stand. Without her: many on Robin Island: would have been much worse off: as an MP; she could go there.

I was speaking to someone who knew of her: the amazing thing is: about a month ago: she joined those calling for an Inquiry into the infamous "Arms Deal". Currently the head of the ruling ANC: is constantly managing to prevent this from going to trial: despite the arrest, and conviction of his financial advisor: for having what the judge termed a generally corrupt relationship with the current president of the communist friendly ANC.

Since Apartheid ended: for many South Africans, nothing has changed: instead: foreigners get their government sponsored houses: out of corruption: leading to attacks such as in the Xenophobia; much as it was in Apartheid. White South Africans: have to face discrimination: a company is only allowed to hire so many white people: meaning that due to a shortage, companies used to hire foreigners: until the ANC closed the net. On exiting government: ANC officials, often become successful "Blackchip" CEO's: in that companies have to do a certain amount of business with companies: which are majority black, and large companies must have large percentages of "Black" ownership: resulting in shares often basically being given away: so as to comply with racially motivated laws. Does this change the socio-economic landscape: unfortunately for the worse: while a few politicians and others become rich: and while the standard of business has decreased, and many businesses have collapsed: or hired persons in token positions, the ANC's leaving politicians: often become rich. In fact, the ANC: has taken a co-operating society, and once again resorted to engineering a society, as Apartheid did: more than this, are other results of ANC power: not only causing social tension: and making it harder for those standing for equality, and non-racialism: intimidation, threats of genocide, and annihilation, against political, and legal opposition: resulting in South Africa's version of the FBI: the "Scorpions", being shut down on investigating ANC politicians, and many other issues: including voter intimidation in previous by elections: have made for a landscape of fear, and often made those who stand for non-racialism: have to shut their mouths, for fear of being ridiculed, or shouted down.

Helen Suzman: was brave at all to still be making a stance: those she was apposing, had changed: but she still stood for South Africa: and is a credit to our Jewish brothers.

ID and PAC, ACDP, DA on Gay Marriage and Abortion

(Scripturelink Voters guide)

Article by Marc Aupiais

It seems from my research that every single opposition party, except the UDM which refused participation, and the DA, who allowed their MPs to vote with conscience- apposed the ANC bill which forced through Gay marriage- by not allowing ANC MPs to vote against such.

As for Abortion- The DA, always allows freedom of conscience to MPs on Moral issues, but the ANC has it in their manifesto, or plan, whatever it may be- since the 1994 election- that Abortion should basically be a right for women. The ANC of course passed both abortion and Gay marriage in South Africa with their parliamentary advantages- and by forcing their MPs to vote against conscience and for the party. For the abortion bill we have Mandela and the liberation Generals of the ANC to thank. To vote ANC was the matter of Mortal sin in every previous election- but if one did not know the facts- perhaps one is innocent- of course in the next election no Catholic who knows their policies can avoid mortal sin by voting ANC.

DA is very clever- they don't bring morals into force on others- and therefore can almost always be voted for at present because their policies on the major issues usually are- it involves morals- let us leave it to conscience. Not that I don't wish they had said- automatic opposition though!

On the more recent "Termination of Pregnancy Amendment bill", which was worse than the previous one- showing just how much further the ruling party seems constantly to fall towards non-negotiables- the African Christian Democratic Party, the Freedom Front, the Federation of Democrats where quick to vote against the additional measure, all as the Democratic Alliance permitted their members freedom of vote as they chose, which probably could mean for, as many hopefully voted against on the matter. This as 9 out of every 10 South Africans drastically appose abortion. Many of the abortions performed here, are from people who come across the border to use the free facilities.

Now the PAC and ID vote on this isn't noted by news 24. Other sources noted that in addition to the ACDP and FF, and FD, the UCDP and the IFP which openly apposed this additional legislation. The ID allowed a free vote, as the DA always does while and this is revolting, and means these parties should be added to your never vote for if possible list- ANC, UDM and MF all were in support of the bill.

Apparently the ruling party, and supporters of this bill- acting against the people's wishes- have yet to have a single MP publicly defend these actions, as asked by "ChristianView Network" (P E Church Net- 19/08/2004) who offered two thousand rand to anyone who could find such a parliamentarian.

And so- so far the parties South African Catholics will likely commit mortal sin in voting for are the ANC, UDM, and MF.

As for the ID, before 2003 they did not exist, so we couldn't find their original votes. The party's well known leader was a PAC member- part of a party known for the policy of some members of one "settler" one bullet, and has been in some controversial issues. The ACDP- is a protestant parrty, but a small party, and I don't know where they stand on other issues. The DA are our largest opposition, and have no official view on morality issues.

Parties, which on these two issues seem relatively clean are the DA, ID, ACDP and FF, and FD, the UCDP and the IFP. We do not know the policies of the PAC on these, but they seems against. One must not forget the calls of some of their party's members in the past calls for what sounded like genocide against white people in the past though- which could place them as a don't vote for party. Yes, the claim is that "One settle one bullet" refered to oppressors- but some murders show a different perspective in some of their listeners. The ID comes as an offshoot from the PAC, and this could be an issue on which to avoid votes for them. Of course- in modern times- the PAC has distanced itself very much from such statements. It has not stopped them asking in the TRC for amnesty for some killers of white persons.

Parties on these two issues, which cannot be voted for are: ANC, UDM, and MF.

As our first article states- your mortal soul is on the line when voting- keep this in mind. Please join our facebook group and spread the news.

If any of our facts are in any way incorrect, please inform us. They are based on internet sources- mostly linked to news sources, but mistakes do happen.

As for resources- we don't endorse the sites we have linked to- but they are the sites we have based our information on among others

recent vote:

A site we know little of:
http://www.pechurchnet.co.za/post/issues/abortion/ab20040820.htm
Mail and Guardian
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-01-17-abortion-amendment-bill-passed-by-assembly
News 24
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,,2-7-12_2253844,00.html


Gay Marriage:
IOL
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=iol1163515597485S522

Original Abortion vote:
another site we don't know anything of
http://www.euthanasia.com/safrica2.html

Unfortunately- we are one of the only Catholic News Services to have a strong online basis in South Africa- so we don't exactly have too many in-house resources to go on!


PAC- some supporters claiming- One settle One bullet:

http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/pr/1998/p980728a.htm



Note: this article is written in and from a catholic perspective. No insinuations are made otherwise!

Democratic Alliance (DA) and issues of faith

(Scripturelink Voters Guide)

Article By Marc Aupiais

While the DA itself has not answered us on their position on such issues, several internet sources we have made use of- with different views of the given party- show a relative reluctance, even negative response from this party to the Gay Marriage, and Abortion laws in South Africa.

In such matters- the DA has always- it seems- afforded their MPs a free vote, as they are matters of conscience- but the DA does seem more friendly to the Catholic view on these matters- than the ANC, who have been blamed by many for forcing such issues through parliament.

Once again we must note, the ANC under Nelson Mandela gave us our current abortion laws, and the ANC is the authority in place under which gay marriage was legalized and other issues have occurred. As always- we recognize the need for South African catholics to vote for opposition parties, as the ANC consistently disappoints, I personally am impressed however by how the DA handled these issues- they truly do seem as a party with a very wise, and stable opposition.

to see issues, other than those like communism, another in which the ANC fails- and lands itself on the non-voting list for- see the 7 non-negotiables based on the 5 non-negotiables, which mention 7 global issues, and five applicable to Americans- from Catholic Answers Action in America.

The seven non-negotiables for Catholic Voters in South Africa:
http://scripturelinkvotersguide.blogspot.com/2008/09/7-non-negotiables-for-catholic-voters.html