Tuesday, 30 April 2013

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


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

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

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



Pierre quickly responded with a number of claims:















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

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

I would not deny a homosexual couple assistance in a divorce, or deny them bread if I were selling bread. 'Gay Marriage' is a whole other matter, because it relates to beliefs which are thousands of years old. It also relates to whether marriage is aimed at creating the next generation, or sexual pleasure, and a friendship of sorts, for however long the feelings of affection last. For a Roman Catholic a heterosexual marriage is a manifestation of the Trinitarian God upon this earthly plain, this is why sex is sacred, and why to endorse a homosexual union as this manifestation is believed to be an essential and deep blasphemy in the dogma of the church. A denial of faith in the dogma of the Church.
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Saturday, 6 April 2013

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


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

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

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

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

And the Democratic Alliance campaign:











(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Monday, 1 April 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Sunday, 17 March 2013

Durban Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier responds to our questions about his Paedophilia interview!

I still would like an oral interview, but the Cardinal did email me this, from a private email address shortly after I asked his Archdiocese for a response. I have not seen this statement anywhere else, it seems I am the first to receive it (Update: it was later received by much of media about a day later.). The Archdiocese has confirmed that it is him who emailed me, and that it is his view:

Parts are still problematic, but at least he has hopefully by now realised the gravity of what has happened, and that statements such as his are not acceptable in any context, according to the morals and values of society. And I truly hope that in his explanation and seeming apology, he is not perhaps suggesting that he had anything to do with  shifting sexual predators from parish to parish in the 1990s. I would also like to ask the Cardinal whether the case/cases he referred to on the BBC ended with a police investigation and the sexual predators in jail, or whether they indeed got no punishment, when he has said he personally thought they deserved none.

If you follow this link to our earlier article, the first on the interview published in this corner of the world, to my knowledge: this account is what I believe is a fair account of what happened, and a context and history to this, including some statements by another bishop, who believed that there was a serious betrayal in South Africa, of Christ and victims, which has yet to see the light of day.

Just before I give his view, I'd quickly like to quote the BBC on his interview, to show the grave statements, which so concerned those who objected to the statements of the cardinal: whether he was ambushed or not, and whatever context they were in. These are the sort of statements which do need serious clarification, which it seems the Cardinal has realised this dire need in such a scenario as his words on British Broadcasting Corporation Radio 5 have created:

Napier said to the BBC's Stephen Nolan Show on BBC 5, according to the BBC:


'"What do you do with disorders? You've got to try and put them right.

"If I - as a normal being - choose to break the law, knowing that I'm breaking the law, then I think I need to be punished."

He said he knew at least two priests, who became paedophiles after themselves being abused as children.


"Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged."'
BBC | ''Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal' by BBC at 16 March 2013 Last updated at 02:13 GMT

And now: Napier's response to me:




STATEMENT ON STEPHEN NOLAN SHOW
At the outset I confirm that I fully uphold the Church’s position that:
a.       Sexual Abuse of Children is a horrendous crime against Children, their Families, the Church and Society.
b.       It is to be dealt with according to the requirements of civil criminal law and Canon Law.
c.       Accordingly once the existence of an offence has been verified by thorough investigation by independent investigators engaged by the Professional Conduct Committee, the matter is reported to the civil authorities, either the police, a Child Welfare Officer or a Social Worker, so that civil criminal action may take its course.
d.       Once civil action has been concluded the local Church submits the case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
e.       Action determined by CDF is carried out.
BBC Radio 5 Live Interview
On Friday night at about 21h45 I received a request from BBC Radio to speak on the election of Pope Francis. As I had done more than a dozen times I agreed.
The interview conducted by Stephen Nolan for Radio 5 Live began with a general discussion of the Conclave, the atmosphere in the Sistine Chapel, etc. Then Stephen asked what Pope Francis needed to do about reforming the Church with particular reference to Sex Abuse of children. I accepted the question as I had done with other interviews.
I spoke about my own experience. In the early 1990’s expert medical opinion was that paedophilia was a condition that was treatable, even curable. Therefore offenders could return to ministry after treatment. With experience that medical opinion evolved to saying that while offenders could be treated, their condition was not curable; indeed even treatment was not always successful. Therefore return to ministry was not an option.
To illustrate the complexity of the issue, I raised the question of the offender who had himself been abused, and with one particular case in mind opined that he needed treatment rather than punishment. That’s when the wheels came off.
I now stand accused of saying that paedophilia is a mental condition or disorder and not a crime. At least twice I stated that I was not qualified to say what paedophilia is. I was afforded no time to explain that the priority of pastoral concern must always be for the victim. But that has been overlooked in the heat of the argument.
The point was and still is: Child Sexual Abuse is a heinous crime among other things because of the damage it does to the child. In that concern I  include the abused who has become an abuser.
Whether he needs medical help as much as, if not more than punishment, is a question that is still to be answered by medical experts? Does the damage suffered by the abused in any way affect his culpability before a court of law? Again only the experts can give us the answer. I am not qualified, but don’t I have the duty to ask on behalf of the abused abuser that he be given treatment even while inprison?
Subsequent to the show I called Stephen on Saturday without success. Eventually at about 23h30 someone from Radio 5 Live phoned to say I could go on the Show to clear the air. That was done, but not too successfully as the interview once again became an interrogation.
I asked to speak to a superior to complain formally about the deception of being asked to speak about the election when the agenda was Child Abuse. The senior editor Paul passed me on to Philo who gave me a chance to listen to the clip recorded earlier and make further clarifications.
While I issue this statement to give the background to the interview and also to what the Church is actually doing about Sexual Abuse of Children, I apologise sincerely and unreservedly to all who were offended by the botched interview, and especially to those who have been abused and need every help and support that the Church can give.


+ Wilfrid Cardinal Napier OFM
Archbishop of Durban
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On 3 comments:

Saturday, 16 March 2013

Durban Cardinal Wilfrid Napier says Paedophiles 'not' criminals, and don't deserve punishment

Update (but don't miss this article which also includes it at the bottom): The Cardinal has given us a so far seemingly exclusive response to a request for comment on his statements to BBC Radio 5. He has clarified/retracted his seeming statement that Paedophiles are not criminals, here: Durban Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier responds to our questions about his Paedophilia interview! Parts are still problematic, but at least he has hopefully by now realised the gravity of what has happened, and that statements such as his are not acceptable in any context, according to the morals and values of society. And I truly hope that in his explanation and seeming apology, he is not perhaps suggesting that he had anything to do with  shifting sexual predators from parish to parish in the 1990s. I would also like to ask the Cardinal whether the case/cases he referred to on the BBC ended with a police investigation and the sexual predators in jail, or whether they indeed got no punishment, when he has said he personally thought they deserved none. Below is what I believe is a fair account of what happened, and a context and history to this, including some statements by another bishop, who believed that there was a serious betrayal in South Africa, of Christ and victims, which has yet to see the light of day. And comments by the current pope, that the only approach for such predatory behaviour must be zero tolerance.

I once interviewed Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, about a priest in his diocese seemingly breaking the rules of the Catholic Church, the cardinal asked whether I was a foreigner who struggled with English, and proceeded as though a proud parent, praising the dissident, and disobedient priest as one of the best. It is in perhaps this type of spirit, that Cardinal Napier has said some very strange things to BBC Radio 5's Stephen Nolan show.

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, of Durban, says that paedophiles in his view were abused as children, and because they were abused, in his view, it is a psychological condition, and they are not criminally responsible, and therefore do not deserve jail, or any punishment at all for that matter.

This is in stark contrast to now Pope Francis, who as a bishop/Cardinal Bergoglio, before he changed his name to become Pope Francis, had then powerfully stated:

'"If a priest is a paedophile, he is so before he becomes a priest. But when this happens you must never look away. You cannot be in a position of power and use it to destroy the life of another person."

Bergoglio says he has never had to deal with such a case, but when a bishop asked what he should do, he told him the priest should be sacked and tried, that putting the church's reputation first was a mistake.

"I think that is the solution that was once proposed in the United States; of switching them to other parishes," he says. "That is stupid, because the priest continues to carry the problem in his backpack." The only answer to the problem, he adds, is zero tolerance.'
The Guardian | 'Pope Francis's book reveals a radical progressive in the making' by Giles Tremlett at 15 March 2013 16.33 GMT.

But to quote the BBC, to assure you I am not just making this extraordinary interview up, of Cardinal Wilfrid Napier's interview with the BBC, the BBC quotes Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, of Durban quite directly:

'"What do you do with disorders? You've got to try and put them right.

"If I - as a normal being - choose to break the law, knowing that I'm breaking the law, then I think I need to be punished."

He said he knew at least two priests, who became paedophiles after themselves being abused as children.


"Now don't tell me that those people are criminally responsible like somebody who chooses to do something like that. I don't think you can really take the position and say that person deserves to be punished. He was himself damaged."'
BBC | ''Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal' by BBC at 16 March 2013 Last updated at 02:13 GMT

The Cardinal's statement however, completely misinterprets criminal responsibility in South African law. If the fact a person incurred violence as a child excuses their behaviour, most rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals would be considered innocent. The ISS recently studied the root cause of South Africa's rape epidemic, seeing it as the uncured exposure of children to violence, without psychological help for the mental conditions, such as in the kindness of the form of post-traumatic stress counselling, which the ISS says: could have stopped violence breeding violence. Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom, recently reported that those who have served in the army, are more likely to commit violent crimes than ordinary criminal offences. Violence does breed violence. But that does not absolve responsibility for raping a small child and ruining the life of that child and all who love that child. That certainly does not justify covering up paedophilia to prevent the law from protecting that child. In South African law: if you are criminally responsible and mentally sane: you go to jail, and sanity relates there to the ability to see right from wrong and obey right. Paedophiles, tend to have that ability and to CHOOSE to do wrong. But let us for a moment look at his argument, because South African law knows how to deal with the mentally ill who are harmful to others and break laws: the approach would be to make the paedophile then a 'guest of the president', in a mental health facility, that is to say, that they would spend the remainder of their untreated life in a mental health facility, restricted from their previous freedom, and locked away from society for the sake of the country.

Cardinal Wilfrid Napier, has in the past dealt with sex abuse in the church, as though it were inevitable:

'"It is clear that to the degree that Christians are not apart from the society in which they live, they will carry over from society some of its dominant features .

"Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if there is sexual abuse of children in society, some members of the Church will, sad to say, carry it over into the Church."'

IOL | 'Abuse is problem among SA clergy: Archbishop' by Kashiefa Ajam at 3 November 2007

On 6th April 2010, Archbishop Bhuti Tlhagale of Johannesburg took a very different approach, perhaps with the views of Cardinal Wilfrid Napier in mind, or perhaps with those of others, it is unknown whether he has known of Wilfrid Napier's approach:

'In our times we have betrayed the very Gospel we preach. The Good News we claim to announce sounds so hollow, so devoid of any meaning when matched with our much publicized negative moral behavior. Many who looked up to priests as their model feel betrayed, ashamed and disappointed. They feel that some priests have “slipped away from the footprints of the Apostles.” Trust has been compromised. The halo has been tilted, if not broken. What happens in Ireland or in Germany or America affects us all. It simply means that the misbehavior of priests in Africa has not been exposed to the same glare of the media as in other parts of the world. We must therefore take responsibility for the hurt, the scandals, the pain and the suffering caused by ourselves who claim to be models of good behavior. The image of the Catholic Church is virtually in ruins because of the bad behavior of its priests, wolves wearing sheep's skin, preying on unsuspecting victims, inflicting irreparable harm, and continuing to do so with impunity. We are slowly but surely bent on destroying the church of God by undermining and tearing apart the faith of lay believers. …

The upshot of this sorry state of affairs is that we weaken the authoritative voice of the church. As church leaders, we become incapable of criticizing the corrupt and immoral behavior of the members of our respective communities. We become hesitant to criticize the greed and malpractices of our civic authorities. We are paralyzed and automatically become reluctant to guide young people in the many moral dilemmas they face.

Under such circumstances, when allegations after allegations are made, when scandal after scandal is brought forth, as clergy, we probably feel much closer to Judas Iscariot and his thirty pieces of silver. “Alas for that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed” (Mk. 14.21). Or perhaps like Simon Peter, we are deeply buried in denial; we curse and swear when we hear the words: “You are one of them.” We answer: “I do not know the man you speak of.” Each time we toss our vows in the air, each time we break our fidelity, we betray Christ himself.'
First Things | 'The Moral Consequences of Episcopal Sin' by Edward T. Oakes 15th April 2010

South Africa has increasingly had to deal with sex abuse scandals and seemingly with allegedly guilty supervisors: with reports of South Africa's schools not replacing teachers who abuse children sexually, and Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg, also facing a sex scandal, this one involving lecturers in the Arts and Journalism schools. Witwatersrand has hired a law firm to help investigate the allegations in their backyard. Sex abuse by teachers in South African schools, has also come to light lately, as has the terrible culture of rape in the country, which now has reared up its terrible form, whereby it is alleged by the Medical Research Council that a third of Gauteng men have performed rape, and one in ten have gang raped. As the Institute for Security Studies (or the ISS) wrote in 'Why we can't 'fight' violence', the solution may be to give psychological help to children who experience, or observe trauma and violence before they themselves become damagers, and devils of sorts to others, that does not excuse those who perform these heinous crimes from criminal responsibility however. The ISS unlike Napier, realises the great importance of some little thing called the Justice System, and the Rule of Law.


Update:

I have been pestering Cardinal Napier and a friend of his, about an interview. The Cardinal has not yet said yes, but his friend says he will ask for the Cardinal to accept an interview with me, so I can hopefully then do so. The Cardinal has been sticking sort of by his views on his social networks, below I quote these micro-blog entries of the Cardinal, who at present has not answered any of my own Tweeted or otherwise questions, but did respond to a Twitter user who asked him for clarity (in a manner that leaves even less clarity at present and creates all the more a need for a proper journalistic interrogation/interview of the matter, and how the Cardinal practices his views.):



















Hopefully the Cardinal will allow an interview, where I put the facts to him and see his response on each.

I still would like an oral interview, but the Cardinal did email me this, from a private email address shortly after I asked his Archdiocese for a response. The Archdiocese confirms that it is his address which sent the reply, and that this below is his view. I have not seen this statement anywhere else, it seems I am the first to receive it:

STATEMENT ON STEPHEN NOLAN SHOW

At the outset I confirm that I fully uphold the Church’s position that:

a. Sexual Abuse of Children is a horrendous crime against Children, their Families, the Church and Society.
b. It is to be dealt with according to the requirements of civil criminal law and Canon Law.
c. Accordingly once the existence of an offence has been verified by thorough investigation by independent investigators engaged by the Professional Conduct Committee, the matter is reported to the civil authorities, either the police, a Child Welfare Officer or a Social Worker, so that civil criminal action may take its course.
d. Once civil action has been concluded the local Church submits the case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
e. Action determined by CDF is carried out.

BBC Radio 5 Live Interview

On Friday night at about 21h45 I received a request from BBC Radio to speak on the election of Pope Francis. As I had done more than a dozen times I agreed.

The interview conducted by Stephen Nolan for Radio 5 Live began with a general discussion of the Conclave, the atmosphere in the Sistine Chapel, etc. Then Stephen asked what Pope Francis needed to do about reforming the Church with particular reference to Sex Abuse of children. I accepted the question as I had done with other interviews.

I spoke about my own experience. In the early 1990’s expert medical opinion was that paedophilia was a condition that was treatable, even curable. Therefore offenders could return to ministry after treatment. With experience that medical opinion evolved to saying that while offenders could be treated, their condition was not curable; indeed even treatment was not always successful. Therefore return to ministry was not an option.

To illustrate the complexity of the issue, I raised the question of the offender who had himself been abused, and with one particular case in mind opined that he needed treatment rather than punishment. That’s when the wheels came off.

I now stand accused of saying that paedophilia is a mental condition or disorder and not a crime. At least twice I stated that I was not qualified to say what paedophilia is. I was afforded no time to explain that the priority of pastoral concern must always be for the victim. But that has been overlooked in the heat of the argument.

The point was and still is: Child Sexual Abuse is a heinous crime among other things because of the damage it does to the child. In that concern I include the abused who has become an abuser.

Whether he needs medical help as much as, if not more than punishment, is a question that is still to be answered by medical experts? Does the damage suffered by the abused in any way affect his culpability before a court of law? Again only the experts can give us the answer. I am not qualified, but don’t I have the duty to ask on behalf of the abused abuser that he be given treatment even while inprison?

Subsequent to the show I called Stephen on Saturday without success. Eventually at about 23h30 someone from Radio 5 Live phoned to say I could go on the Show to clear the air. That was done, but not too successfully as the interview once again became an interrogation.

I asked to speak to a superior to complain formally about the deception of being asked to speak about the election when the agenda was Child Abuse. The senior editor Paul passed me on to Philo who gave me a chance to listen to the clip recorded earlier and make further clarifications.

While I issue this statement to give the background to the interview and also to what the Church is actually doing about Sexual Abuse of Children, I apologise sincerely and unreservedly to all who were offended by the botched interview, and especially to those who have been abused and need every help and support that the Church can give.


+ Wilfrid Cardinal Napier OFM
Archbishop of Durban
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Sunday, 24 February 2013

Western Cape Premier Helen Zille: 'Inter-generational sex is wrong and drives AIDS.'

One of the Re-Tweets is by our editor: to comment on the original Tweet.


Helen Zille, Premier of the Western Cape Province of the Republic of South Africa, and leader of the official opposition: the Democratic Alliance. Yes, that Helen Zille: has some advice for the Republic of South Africa about preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. If you're having sex with a person a generation ahead of you: you're an evil person who is immoral and spreads HIV/AIDS, to paraphrase this powerful leader. That is quite the message for Mrs Helen Zille to put out. Some of us were under the impression that for instance marrying a person older or younger than you was perfectly fine. Apparently this very act spreads one of the most deadly viruses of all time.

This is the same Helen Zille: who stated in no uncertain terms: '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.' Ageism however, seems quite acceptable in the Democratic Alliance.

To put it in context, Helen Zille was responding to a Twitter user who had asked why she was so 'obsessed' with President Jacob Zuma of the Republic of South Africa, the user of Twitter was slightly rude: saying that Jacob Zuma preferred much younger women, as though the opposition leader had a slight crush on the president. It isn't the sort of tweet one expects a massive, and urgent response to from a public figure. Reading it: it was possibly even made tongue in cheek. The tweet to Helen Zille however is not made by any one notable, the response is much more concerning. Whether the Twitter user was insulting Jacob Zuma or Helen Zille is uncertain.

Helen Zille, the seemingly self proclaimed 'vanguard' of liberalism in South Africa: responded with great clarity as to her moral standing on men dating younger women, and women dating younger men: 'A woman in her 60s would be just right for him if he stuck to his generation! Inter-generational sex is wrong and drives AIDS.'



A follower of Helen Zille on Twitter asked her to clarify her statement, state her basis for it, and clarify her view on HIV/AIDS.




The opposition leader gave less than no response to such a valid questioning.

While some behaviours do make one more susceptible to HIV/AIDS: researchers have linked both polygamy and male homosexual sex lifestyles to an exponentially higher rate of transfer of HIV/AIDS: there does not appear to be any research linking sex between an older and younger person to a higher rate of transfer than sex between two young people or two older people. When President Jacob Zuma claimed that taking a shower after sex would reduce the chance of gaining HIV AIDS: there was uproar in the media. I hope that these irresponsible statements by Helen Zille are not overlooked.
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Tuesday, 19 February 2013

What do you think: Is helping people divorce as a legal practicioner immoral?


Is helping people divorce as a legal practicioner immoral?

I am studying to become an Advocate in the Republic of South Africa. One of my mandatory courses is to act as a paralegal: giving legal advice to the poor. I have been assigned to the family department: guardianship, etcetera but also divorce. I had initially hoped to take police torture cases, but the university ignored my wishes on the matter, and I have to do this or I don't graduate. I am good at divorce law, and I like that parties must be sure the marriage is over before divorce, and that children are the major focus of everything.

My rationalization is that divorce is tragic, while remarriage is the mortal sin, also that the state sinned by introducing divorce, but that does not mean that people should be denied legal services, such as to ensure that their children are cared for and that the weaker party gets maintenance and so forth. I don't think what I am doing is immoral, and it is required for me to graduate from law.

That said, I am uneasy. I don't mind defending a murderer, or rapist, but it makes me uneasy that divorce rips apart families. The head of the department is a Catholic who goes to church every Sunday, which is some comfort.

For me, what we do is divide estates of people already divorced in their hearts: and insure that no further evil comes of the divorce by enforcing the rights to maintenance and childcare and so on.

Any advice would be appreciated.
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Monday, 18 February 2013

ANC Bedfellow: Sekunjalo: buy Independent Newspapers (18 major titles) for 2 Billion Rand (Reported in international media as from the funders of Al Jazeera network)



A BEE firm, which media reports prior today (including by Independent Newspapers) have consistently labelled as a politically connected: ANC Military-Tender/'inappropriate'-Loans-'Bed-Partner': which was funded in 1996 to help MK veterans, or as media put it: former ANC 'freedom fighters' after retirement, has just had a boon. Today Sekunjalo was announced as having bought Independent Newspapers. The deal is still subject to the competition commission, and Irish shareholder approval, but is thought to be a done deal.

This article will detail the deal, as well as the close connections between Sekunjalo and the Africa National Congress, and the response Sekunjalo has given to these public interest concerns on this matter.

Independent Newspapers was formerly owned by the Irish group: Independent News and Media. Independent Newspapers, also known for 'Independent Online' or IOL: Publishes: The Star, Sunday Independent, Cape Argus, Business Report ( and to cut the listing short: a total of 18 highly circulated newspapers).

Sekunjalo is being reported by most media as a company run by a philanthropist. When I saw its name this morning, it struck a note. Not only did I, like most thinking South Africans: this morning wonder where the 2 billion Rand to buy the newspapers came from: international media suggest that comes from the Qatari royal fund, which also funds Al Jazeera media. I also realised that Sekunjalo has a long and somewhat terrifying history, when it comes to being politically connected: and to some inappropriate incidences involving the military, a strange loan I shall mention, and inappropriate tender awarding to this reportedly closely-ANC-Allied firm.

Sekunjalo is a company which caused South African naval staff to have to take over previously privately taken care of Agricultural, Forestry and Fisheries Department overfishing et cetera investigation vessels. The Navy claims that the ships were not seaworthy when they took them on, so far as naval standards were concerned.

Politically connected: Sekunjalo's controversial awarding of the contract in 2011, despite lack of skills and clash of interest alleged, had caused: on its eventual withdrawal, a desperate ministerial note: causing the navy to take over. 50% of Sekunjalo revenue at the time of the awarding of that contract: came from a group called Premier Fishing. The contract was for about 1 billion Rand, which in South Africa is a large amount for taxpayers to pay, to a firm that purportedly had no expertise in the area and a deep conflict of interest.

Independent Newspapers Group's Business Report reported at the time of the awarding of the tender, of their now prospective future boss and owner:

'Survé was talking during a week in which Sekunjalo came under much scrutiny following the controversial awarding of a R1 billion tender by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to a consortium led by Sekunjalo. The tender is for the management and maintenance of the country’s marine research and fisheries patrol vessels for five years starting in April next year.

'Survé’s close ties to the ANC and the fact that Sekunjalo’s most valuable single investment is 100 percent of Premier Fishing, one of the largest fishing companies in the country, have given rise to concerns about the appropriateness of awarding the tender to the Sekunjalo consortium.

'Questions have been raised about the ability of Sekunjalo to carry out the necessary highly skilled repair and maintenance work on the fleet of eight vessels. Also questioned is the appropriateness of one of the country’s largest fishing companies managing and maintaining the ships that conduct anti-poaching patrols and inspections of trawlers for illegal fishing and other activities.

'A political dimension is added to the controversy in the form of Survé’s reportedly close ties with senior ANC leaders and the unusual R100 000 “loan” that Sekunjalo recently made to International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane.

'Critics charge that the Sekunjalo consortium was awarded the tender despite its lack of capacity and the apparent conflict because of the political ties. They further contend that Sekunjalo would merely funnel the bulk of the work to its partner Kobus Naval Design (KND) and gain an attractive commission in the process, which would be funded by taxpayers.'

Business Report | 'Sekunjalo defends BEE credentials, tender award' by Ann Crotty at December 12 2011 at 05:00am

http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/sekunjalo-defends-bee-credentials-tender-award-1.1196308#.USHOHqXIuyo

It was also alleged that the tender was awarded irregularly: at the time.

There is perhaps only one article on the Internet, about the sale of this of national interest group, Independent Newspapers, which even mentions the fact that Sekunjalo is very closely linked to the ruling African National Congress party. That is an article by Business Report, owned by Independent News and Media. It was only tweeted sometime after I began to ask Independent Newspapers and the Business Report whether or not the ANC now owned them. Independent Newspapers were the ones who tweeted the article, while Business Report who wrote it did not.

The deal is still being looked through by the competition commission and by shareholders in the Irish Independent News and Media. Independent News and Media owns about 18 South African newspapers of great circulation, which are relied upon by many people within the country. These titles include what had been a favourite newspaper of mine: the Business Report title, the Johannesburg-based The Star, the Cape Argus, and many other very famous titles.

The New Age Newspaper, a national daily owned by the ANC (African National Congress) connected Gupta family: was set up late last year, widely branded as the African National Congress newspaper. Much of its advertising, according to its competitors: come from parastatals and the government. It is alleged that the advertising, and the sponsoring of its business breakfasts: consist of government funding of an African National Congress paper. The New Age often toes the party line. It is a boon for the African National Congress to have one newspaper support its plans, and policy.

The South African Broadcasting Corporation, has seen its heads and former board's members shuffled around, and called in to the African National Congress building: Lithuli House, when they did not toe the line. There have also been allegations involving the use of funding for the taxpayer funded South African Broadcasting Corporation. Independent Newspapers had at the time alleged the South African Broadcasting Corporation had become an ANC puppet to paraphrase their articles on the issue.

Media had in the past been relatively kind to the opposition Democratic Alliance party, somewhat less kind to the Congress of the People party, a lot less kind to the Inkatha Freedom Party, and have not portrayed the African National Congress in a light which it very much enjoyed. The African National Congress prior to the founding of the New Age Newspaper: consistently alleged that the media was attempting to oppose them.

With the Protection of State Information Bill, labelled by newspapers as the Secrecy Bill: especially due to the broad powers that it had reportedly given to cover up corruption as claimed in the allegations of newspapers: one element of that may well have been addressed.

Consistent suing of media by the African National Congress, a call to boycott the newspaper City Press: over the publishing of a very unflattering picture/painting of the President of the Republic of South Africa, and the bullying of the First National Bank company: into shelving the original footage of interviews they did with the children of South Africa: as some of it portrayed the African National Congress government as corrupt. These make quite a list of recent developments to do with the African National Congress.

It was understood, that the government desired that Independent Newspapers be sold to local buyers, preferably black economic empowerment buyers. That in itself, means that there was only really one company or consortium which would likely be sold these 18 important newspapers.

It has been suggested that the funders of the Al Jazeera news service, the Qatari monarchy: put up the funding for the African National Congress linked Sekunjalo consortium: to buy the major newspapers of South Africa.

After consistent requests made by myself for comment from the Independent Newspapers Group: the Independent Online twitter account, then: tweeted an article: in which the head of Sekunjalo consortium said that he had too much integrity to turn it into an ANC group of papers. He also promised certain internal measures to ensure independence. It is uncertain whether or not these independent measures will be adequately monitored. He said that he believes a newspaper should entertain a wide diversity of views.

The sale to an ANC (African National Congress) linked consortium: could not come at a better time for the African National Congress. With much help from media, perception of the African National Congress is down. Maphela Ramphele, a former ANC member: is expected to announce her own political party today. Independent Newspapers: had been one of the major groups seemingly supporting her to this time and date.

Below is Independent Newspapers Group's interview with their new expected owner:  Dr Iqbal Survé, and a few quotes I shall make beforehand:

'INM SA does not have an editorial charter protecting editorial independence. Instead editorial independence is governed by the letters of appointment of the individual editors of group titles, which states they have full responsibility for the editorial and commercial content of the newspapers. Editors also sign an internal code of practice.

'Asked about public interest concerns around his links to the ANC, Survé said this would not become an issue because he had a strong personal commitment to editorial independence.

'“I am a businessman and I have run Sekunjalo with integrity,” Survé said, adding that no interest group should have prominence over any other. “We must reflect the views of everybody and newspapers must support democracy and the growth of the economy. You must have many divergent views in a newspaper.”

'He intended to deal with questions of editorial independence by setting up an independent advisory board which would consult with management, editors, staff and outside the business to define editorial charters.

'He said he was open to approaches from the group’s staff, which had already extensively discussed establishing a staff trust which could take a share of the company to incentivise employees and involve them in decisions around developing the company.'

Business Report | 'Independent Newspapers to be sold for R2bn' by Samantha Enslin-Payne and Peter De Ionno at February 18 2013 at 08:00am

http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/independent-newspapers-to-be-sold-for-r2bn-1.1471854



Also take note of:

'Sekunjalo, KND wins DAFF ship maintenance deal' by Defence Web at 28 November 2011 14:40

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21585&catid=74&Itemid=30

'DAFF withdraws Sekunjalo maritime patrol vessel tender inquiry' by Defence Web at 25 April 2012 17:22

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25203&Itemid=106


'SA Navy takes over management of state-owned maritime patrol vessels' by Defence Web at to April 2012 12:52

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24716&Itemid=233

Mail and Guardian | 'Navy called to keep coast clear after fishy tender deal' by South African Press Association at 19 March 2012 09:02

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-19-navy-called-to-keep-coast-clear-after-fishy-tender-deal

Mail and Guardian | 'Tender row rocks fisheries department's boat' by Craig McKune at 15 December 2011

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-12-15-tender-row-rocks-fisheries-departments-boat

'Oceans vulnerable as fisheries department fails to award patrol ship contract' by Defence Web at 19 March 2012 15:44

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24447:oceans-vulnerable-as-fisheries-department-fails-to-award-patrol-ship-contract&catid=51:Sea&Itemid=106

(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Monday, 26 November 2012

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.)




(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Saturday, 17 November 2012

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]'
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

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.
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Sunday, 11 November 2012

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.

(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Sunday, 21 October 2012

CCTV employed, successfully to catch exam cheats. Will this system spread?

(SACNS)

Two Cheetah Brothers caress in the Waterberg (Image copyright Marc Aupiais)... Image included due to the sound of the animal's species's denotation.


Sometimes, in writing an exam, certain people feel the need to do away with the uncertainty. This is especially the case, when an exam can result is great convenience, or great hardship, dependant on the outcome. 39 (thirty-nine) South Africans, writing their learner's licence tests, in the corruption rife Mpumalanga Province, learnt an important lesson about lack of integrity, when their learners' licence applications were denied, and they were barred from writing the exam again for another 12 months. The staffers, who were seen helping the deceitful lot, on CCTV footage, employed by the department, were promptly released from their positions.

With the rife corruption, and rural setting in Mpumalanga Province, which fortunately is not as corrupt as nearby Limpopo, such checks as this basic CCTV system, are seen as a step forward.

Department of Community Safety spokesman in this matter,  Joseph Mabuza, is reported by EyeWitness News, in this serious matter, as saying that corruption will not be tolerated in the Mpumalanga.

The incident with the examiner and technician, and Mhala has lead the province to extend CCTV monitoring to other motor-vehicle competency exam venues.

c.f.

EyeWitness News | 'Video footage catches cheating in the act' 21 October 2012 by Govan Whittles

http://ewn.co.za/2012/10/21/Video-footage-catches-cheating-in-the-act?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Saturday, 20 October 2012

Integrity is Everything!

(SACNS)


News.va English
Today's Gospel Reading, Luke 12:8-12

Jesus said to his disciples:
"I tell you,
everyone who acknowledges me before others
the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God.
But whoever denies me before others
will be denied before the angels of God.

Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,
but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit
will not be forgiven.
When they take you before synagogues and before rulers and authorities,
do not worry about how or what your defense will be
or about what you are to say.
For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say."
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Friday, 19 October 2012

Please pray for me. Christianity, Catholicism hating individuals are trying to persecute me. Please pray that God protect me, and undo their evil. And preserve me and my name fully in tact!

Please pray for me. Christianity, Catholicism hating individuals are trying to persecute me. Please pray that God protect me, and undo their evil. And preserve me and my name fully in tact!

I love Christianity, I am Christian, I love Catholicism, I am Catholic, and I oppose evil people, but right now I need prayer, and help!

- Marc Evan Aupiais!



(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:

Thursday, 18 October 2012

I just got a death threat!

(SACNS)

So, this person: Alex Angelides starts bullying my friend on Google Plus. And gets his friends to spam me, and threaten to block me when I intervene. It seemed like Google Plus was investigating the lowlife, and I declared victory.

He (or 'Candy Sauce') then threatened murder:

 p.s. the death threat is obscene. Not for children to read. At all! Click to enlarge)!
Here's my post addressing my friend also addressed. p.s. the death threat is obscene. Not for children to read.



+Melanie Jones fyi you just got a death threat from a left wing idiot!

'Candy Saus candy.sausage@gmail.com via profiles.bounces.google.com
20:17 (1 minute ago)

to me
Maybe you up your bleach consumption.https://plus.google.com/u/0/104458755807282024750/posts Please, do the world a favor and remove yourself from it. Take the right wing cunt nutjob with you before someone else does in a much less... pleasant way




-------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you from your Google profile. The sender does not have your email address.

If you no longer wish to receive messages from your Google profile, you may edit your settings.'
Alex Angelides - Google+ »
Alex Angelides hasn't shared anything on this page with you.

Unfortunately it doesn't end there. Alex Angelido pushed things further, playing victim and violating my copyright, prompting requests to have Melany and myself killed, from his friends:

'+Marc Aupiais Google didn't do anything because I never broke any rules. I deleted my account and came back. Don't worry though, keep believing whatever's in your head just like all the other posts you've made about me today that have all been proven wrong.'


A Death Threat from 'Lucius Nite'



'Lucius NiteYesterday 18:28  -  Public
Someone from Google seriously needs to step in and remove these guys!!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/115133333057328743179/posts/U39gkqDoWAq

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107215233344563833193/posts'

And 'Candy Saus' having set up another Google Plus account, not only twisted her own words: a clear death threat to both Melanie and in turn against myself, but decided to attempt to defame us both in her ghetto speak. P.s. a Google Image search of her new profile links to a person linked to pornography (this old image of a woman carrying a spiked bat seems aimed at Melanie).




And her spam on my profile:





And without her supporters, who Alex the Cyberbully no doubt got to spam my profile:



According to Melanie Jones, these are seemingly the details of 'Alpha Corporation' where the cyber bully's father is CEO, and where he works. I don't trust online research, but none the less are putting the details here:


''Melanie Jones Yesterday 17:49+1
UPDATE: THIS GUY #ALEXANGELIDES WORKS AT ALPHA CORPORATION, ACTUALLY HIS DAD IS THE CEO. PLEASE CALL AND REPORT HIM FOR CYBER BULLYING!!!!

http://www.alphacorporation.com/contact-us.asp
 
Corporate Headquarters
21351 Ridgetop Circle, Suite 200
Dulles, VA  20166
Phone: (703) 450-0800
Fax: (703) 450-0043''

After release of the details, I continued to get ill treatment from some in any case part of the attempts to spam me.

Here for instance is:



'

Roxie Falco

20:58  -  Public
This profile continues to bully, make false statement and harass numberous people which is a violation of terms of use . What is being done about it +Vic Gundotra '





'Another from the hate squad!

'Lucius Nite20:35  -  Public
Oh wow! Now apparently I've made a death threat lol
Go to the post, read the one comment for his source lol

This is unbelievable how Google HAS STILL NOT SHUT THESE PEOPLE DOWN!!!

Everyone report this profile, along with any known friends of theirs, for hateful speech.

+Alex Angelides +Joe Bolin +Crystal Mills +Natalie Villalobos +Vic Gundotra +Tiffany Elle 


Marc Aupiais - Google+ - Another Death threat for standing up to Alex Angelides of… »
Another Death threat for standing up to Alex Angelides of 'Alpha Corporation' USA. +Melanie Jones By a Mr Lucius Nite. Hope it helps get him arrested.''


another death threat assistant to note:





After her friends sent +Melanie Jones and myself death threats,

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+StacyFrazer/posts has decided to lie about us to assist her criminal friends! I'd like to know when Google will take DEATH THREATS  sent through their system seriously!

'Stacy Frazer20:39 (edited)  -  Public
*This is a copy of the feedback I just sent to Google.  I'm so over the ridiculousness of it all and it needs to end.  +Vic Gundotra
+Natalie Villalobos +chee chew, while this my not be your department please direct this to the person(s) who is/are*

I'm disturbed and very annoyed that you continue to allow the cyber bullying to continue!  It's been reported, posts reported, profiles reported.  Your lack of action is an actual promotion of such behaviors!
Do something about this!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107215233344563833193/posts

https://plus.google.com/u/0/115133333057328743179/posts

The two profiles above are two of the main perpetrators.  Bullying, calling people's employer, posting personal information about others and creating death threats and defamation of character.  I'm c/p this and posting it publicly.

Google it's time to step in.'


http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2012/10/i-just-got-death-threat.html


Another in the Google Plus Death Squad:



'Cristina Crocker23:50
Kill yourself

Cristina Crocker23:51
Do you even lift phaggot? I didn't think so. I'll curl your squat rack you pussy.'



I deleted this part after they deleted their post. It was a post attacking me as a hypocrite from the fact I was standing up, and posting this.

And given the many other threats about Melanie, it's interesting how such Cyber-bullies rely on their friends to further harm others.

(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by: On No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme