10-10-01: Radical Honesty [30 Ecolaw] Complaint to Press Council Ombudsman by Andrea Muhrrteyn

CC: Dr. S. Cwele, Minister of State Security CC: Mr. Cecil Burgess, Chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence CC: All Concourt #23-10 Parties in The Citizen v Robert McBride.

Complainant: Lara Johnstone, First Amicus in Concourt # 23-10 Tel: (044) 870 7239; Cell: (071) 170 1954 Email Address: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

Respondents: Editors: Business Day; Business Report; Cape Times; Cape Argus; Citizen; Daily News; Daily Dispatch; East Cape Radio; Mail and Guardian; Pretoria News; The Mercury; South African Press Association (SAPA); The Star; Sunday Independent; Sunday Tribune; Times Live/Sunday Times.

Issues covered in this Complaint: [A] Complaint Publications and Dates of Publication [B] Courts Reliance on Media to Inform Public’s Right to Know [C] Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1; 1.2 and 1.3 [D] SANEF’s Editors Censorship & Bias: Negligent or Intentional? [E] Difference between Media ‘Murderer McBride’ Defamation & Citizen’s Sincere ‘Murderer McBride’ Truth-Telling: Gatekeeper Access to National Discourse & ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ corporate profits. [F] Complaint to Green Scorpions/SAPS (CAS 823-08-2010) against 22 SANEF editors: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor & Obstruct Administration of Ecolaw Concourt Justice: [G] Media Editors Censorship & Bias of Issues before Concourt Hearing of 29 Sep 2010 [H] Editors Malicious Contempt for Culture of Sincere Forgiveness [I] Is SANEF Media Corruption Greater than ANC Corruption? [J] Newsworthy Inspirational Significance of Concourt’s (a) Approval of Radical Honesty SA’s ‘little guy citizen’s’ Amicus Application; (b) Possible Commitment to Sincere Truth and Reconciliation by enquiry into Radical Honesty SA’s TRC fraud Amicus arguments?

[A] Complaint Publications & Dates of Publication: [001]

10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live1: Citizen fights McBride in Concourt

[002] 10-09-29: SAPA-N242: Court to hear McBride ruling appeal [003] 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live3: Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt [004] 10-09-30: SAPA-Business Report4: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ [005] 20-09-30: SAPA-IOL5: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [006] 10-09-30: SAPA-Pretoria News6: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [007] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Argus7: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [008] 10-09-30: SAPA-SA Star8: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [009] 10-09-30: SAPA-Sunday Ind.9: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [010] 10-09-30: SAPA-Daily News10: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [011] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Times11: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [012] 10-09-30: SAPA-Mercury12: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer [013] 10-09-30: SAPA-N2413: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ [014] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live14: McBride murder accusation unfair [015] 10-10-01: SAPA-Daily Dispatch15: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’ [016] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live16: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest [017] 10-09-30: SAPA-N2417: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest [018] 10-10-01: SAPA-IOL (Kenrichi Serino)18: Court weighs validity of TRC past [019] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live19: Citizen argues validity of TRC past [020] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Times20: Court weighs validity of TRC past [021] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Argus21: Court weighs validity of TRC past [022] 10-10-01: SAPA-Pretoria news22: Court weighs validity of TRC past [023] 10-10-01: SAPA-The Mercury23: Court weighs validity of TRC past

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article682703.ece/Citizen-fights-McBride-in-ConCourt http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Court-to-hear-McBride-ruling-appeal-20100929 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article682446.ece/Citizen-takes-McBride-appeal-to-Concourt 4 http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=5668895 5 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/mcbride-murderer-label-unfair-lawyer-1.682680 6 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 7 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 8 http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 9 http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 10 http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=3532&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 11 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 12 http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 13 http://www.news24.com/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=88774e42-3cd1-4832-817b-053045239bb1&cid=1059 14 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article683813.ece/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair 15 http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=437602 16 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684101.ece/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest 17 http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest-20100930 18 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/court-weighs-validity-of-trc-past-1.682742 19 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684314.ece/Citizen-argues-validity-of-TRC-past 20 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 21 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 22 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 23 http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 2 3

[024] 10-10-01: SAPA-Sunday Tribune24: Court weighs validity of TRC past [025] 10-10-01: SAPA-SA Star25: Court weighs validity of TRC past [026] 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Mobile26: McBride Concourt case continues [027

10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Newswatch27: McBride Concourt case continues

[028] 10-10-01: Citizen28: Concourt: truth versus law [029] 10-10-01: Mail & Guardian (Faranaaz Parker)29: ‘If I see someone stealing, can I call him a thief?’ [030] 10-10-01: Eyewitness News30: Stephen Grootes: McBride lawyer are playing with semantics

[B] Courts Reliance on Media to Inform Public’s Right to Know In New Guide Books for Court Reporters, Independent Publishers31 (PDF32) write: The Association of Independent Publishers (AIP) and South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) have jointly published a practical pocket-guide and companion desk glossary to help journalists report on court cases. The Reporting the Courts books are a practical response to the demise of specialised court reporters in many newsrooms, and the lack of court reporting training at tertiary institutions. South African Chief Justice Pius Langa formally launched the books at the Constitution Court on August 17. In his forward to the handbook, he writes: “Judges and magistrates have little power outside of the courtroom to explain or defend their positions and are uniquely reliant on journalists to convey their decisions to the broader population … with this power comes responsibility, not to the courts, but to the public and to our young nation as a whole to report the work of the courts accurately and fairly but not uncritically.”

[C] Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1; 1.2 and 1.3 1.1: Reports were not truthful, accurate or fair; but particular facts were censored, indicating malicious bias. 1.2: Reports were not presented in context in a balanced manner, but were intentionally departed from the facts by (a) distortion; (b) exaggeration; (c) misrepresentation; (d) material omissions; and (e) summarisation. 1.3: Reports censored facts as presented from Constitutional Court Orders and Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae submission, consequently reports were not a fair and accurate report of all submissions before the Concourt, hence reports are deliberately biased in regard to context and importance.

http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/?fSectionId=3537&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radio-mobilenews?oid=932049&sn=Mobile+news+detail&pid=171901 27 http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radionews?oid=932049&sn=Detail&pid=490476&McBride-Concourt-case-continues 28 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128517&catid=80:breakingnews&Itemid=132 29 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-10-01-if-i-see-someone-stealing-can-call-him-a-thief 30 http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=49757 31 http://www.independentpublisher.org/article.php?ssID=5&aID=45 32 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260234/ 25 26

[D] SANEF’s Editors Censorship & Bias: Negligent or Intentional? Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae Application to Concourt: 1.

On 25 March 2010, I filed an application to the Constitutional Court Chief Justice, as a member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, to proceed as an In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae, in the matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (Annex A: 25 March 2010: Radical Honesty SA Application to Proceed as Amicus).

I informed the Chief Justice that if my application to proceed was approved, my submissions would argue I did not share the Applicant, Respondents and Supreme Court of Appeals assumptions that the TRC Act meant what it said, and that those entrusted to implement the TRC Act applied the law in the Act, as if it meant what it said.

Briefly it argued that TRC social contract was flawed, because it negligently or intentionally missed addressing two key components, namely: (a) only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract33, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of any violent and conflict ridden society; and (b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability.

For example: It asked if the TRC seriously and sincerely meant that the TRC were provided with a mandate to seriously and impartially investigate “the truth in relation to past events as well as motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights have occurred, to prevent a repetition of such acts in future”? If so, did the Act expressly demand that population growth and demographic factors that contribute to violence, not be enquired into; and if not; and the Act law, meant what it said; why were these factors not enquired into?

Furthermore if the TRC Act seriously and sincerely meant that the “pursuit of national unity and the well-being of all South African citizens and peace required reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society; why do none of the TRC Social Contract Acts provide a definition for ‘ubuntu’, ‘forgiveness’ ‘reconciliation’ and ‘reconstruction’? If the Apartheid government used vague definitions to maintain legal oppression, what should we call a ‘reconciliation’ government that refuses to provide any definition whatsoever for its terms? Without any clear definition for ‘reconciliation’ or ‘ubuntu’ or ‘forgiveness’, does the law require us to interpret these terms, to mean that ‘ubuntu34’, ‘reconciliation’ and ‘forgiveness’ is achieved when individuals pretend to like each other, pretend to care about each other, and that in essence the only individuals who can achieve ‘ubuntu reconciliation’ or ‘forgiveness’ will be those willing to sell their souls, for a fake Rainbow ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ Illusion to become ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ ‘Gatkruiping Experts’?

My Application to Proceed as an Amicus also included reference to the study by Dr. Michael Maher, How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection. This study examined press responsibility for the public’s indifference to population growth, as a causal factor for so many socio-economic and resource

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-SocialContract PDF: http://www.tutufoundationuk.org/Reflections%20on%20adopting%20an%20Ubuntu%20way%20of%20life%20(5).pdf

scarcity and resource war community problems. Additionally considering that most of the public’s literacy in science and technology is reached not from formal education, but from the mass media, what was the media’s response to this educational responsibility? 7.

Media’s Responsibility to Inform the Public’s Right to Know News articles, regardind the Radical Honesty Application to Proceed as an Amicus: NONE.

Concourt Approve ‘Radical Honesty – SA’ as First Amicus Curiae: 8.

On 03 May 2010, the Chief Justice approved my Radical Honesty SA Amicus application, and issued, among others the following orders: “Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae”. The Amicus Directions were emailed to all parties on 07 May 2010, by Senior Registrars Clerk, Mr. Delano Louw (Annex B: 03 May 2010: Chief Justice Radical Honesty Order).

Media’s Responsibility to Inform the Publics Right to Know News Articles published that the Constitutional Court had approved the Radical Honesty SA Application to proceed as an Amicus, including that this was to be possibly the first ever layperson to submit an Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court: NONE.

Radical Honesty SA File Heads of Argument: 10.

On 18 July 2010, Radical Honesty SA files written Heads of Argument (Annex C: 18 July 2010: Radical Honesty SA Amicus). Because Radical Honesty believes that Constitutional Court Judges are quite capable of reading a written argument, and don’t need their time wasted by regurgitating written arguments verbally, the Radical Honesty SA Amicus did not request to submit any verbal argument, unless there was any aspect of the written argument any Justice requested any clarification upon. In an order dated 27 September 2010 (Annex D: 27 Sep 2010: Chief Justice Directions), the Chief Justice informed all parties that the ‘first amicus, Ms. Lara Johnstone, will not be required to present oral argument,’ i.e. was not required to answer any questions from any of the Justices.

11.

Herewith a brief overview of Radical Honesty SA Heads of Argument: Under Chapter I: Legal Principles Addressed and Relied Upon, and II. Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, the Amicus addresses among others an argument regarding errors related to legal interpretation of the Common Law Reasonableness Test, particularly related to Skills and Competencies for reasonableness, particularly relevant to this matter, to the huge differences in regards to ‘reasonable persons’ who practice fake intellectual forgiveness vs. sincere sensate forgiveness. Dr. Brad Blanton, the worlds foremost expert on sincere sensate forgiveness filed a written statement of consent to testify as an expert witness on the issues of Practicing Radical Honesty, differences between fake intellectual and sincere sensate forgiveness, in relation to among others the reasonableness test, should the Applicant or Respondent dispute his statements of fact in the Amicus.

12.

In Chapter III: Population Policy Common Sense Principles, the Amicus covers the social and political violence consequences of violating Carrying Capacity principles, namely how overpopulation affects resource scarcity and resource war violence, including the political violence results from Youth Bulges; how population pressures contribute to resource wars and national security problems. It concludes with the study of Dr. T. Michael Maher, How and Why Journalists Avoid the PopulationEnvironment Connection. Dr. Maher filed a written statement of consent to testify as an expert witness to his study, should the Applicant or Respondent dispute his argument.

13.

14.

In Chapter IV: Fraud: ‘Crime of Apartheid’ Falsification of History, the Radical Honesty SA Amicus provides detailed evidence for how: (A) The TRC negligently or intentionally avoided providing key concept definitions for its terms of ‘forgiveness’, ‘reconciliation’ ‘ubuntu’ etc.; (B) How the meaning of Amnesty was changed from its original agreement in the Interim Constitution, without required Due Process proceedings being followed; (C) Detailed evidence for how Truth and Reconciliation was not only not done, but was not seen to be done, in regards to blatant conflicts of interest, censorship, bias, and omissions, as detailed in among others: A.

Assessment of the probable results of activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF 35, by Generals Malan, Viljoen, Geldenhuys and Liebenberg

The Truth about the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery

The Conflict of the Past: A Factual Review, by General Johan van der Merwe;

Complaints to Public Protector of TRC Handling of SADF, by Gen. J.J. Geldenhuys, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; Genl A.J. Liebenberg, SSA, SD, SOE, MMM; Genl M.A. de M. Malan, SSA, OMSG, SD, SM; and Gen C.L. Viljoen, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; January 1998. They also refer to the TRC’s lack of enquiry into among others the: The Stuart Commission's Report; The Douglas Commission's Report; The Motsuenyane Commission; The Skweyiya Commission; Amnesty International Report; Mbokodo: Inside the MK: A soldiers Story, by Mwezi Twala; the book: Marching to Slavery: SA's Descent into Communism; and The Denton Hearings, by Jeremiah Denton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary. They also filed a further submission to the TRC: Assessment of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by Former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF.

Additionally under IV: Fraud: ‘Crime of Apartheid’ Falsification of History, an evidentiary enquiry is made as to whether the ANC’s ‘liberation struggle’ was indeed legally – in accordance with Just War legal theory principles – a factually a legal ‘Just War’, considering among others the arguments of: D. Did ‘Evil Apartheid’ raise Black living standards to Highest in Africa? E. Apartheid: Crime Against Humanity; or Just War for Demographic Survival? F. Nature & Causes of Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival? G. Farm Murders: A Rainbow TRC Peace, or Racial Hatred War Reality?

15.

Under Chapter V. Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion or Refugee Status, part B. 40 SA Media Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee details how in February 2010, Radical Honesty Amici contacted 140 of SA’s political, academic and media elite, to provide them with a copy of Radical Honesty author, ‘Dr. Truth’ psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Candidate for US

February 1998, Letter: Assessment of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF, by Generals Malan, Viljoen, Liebenburg and Geldenhuys, to Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34381488]

Congress in 2004 and 2006, Dr. Blanton’s Affidavit36 filed in the HC-WC -19963-09, with a summary of his findings, that: A. If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks; then it is not a democratic country. B. Hon. Mrs. De Lille and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against [Johnstone]. C. The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous; it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors. Put differently, any society that values the principle of 'crimen injuria' (I think, I am unique); is one that values protecting the right of people with fragile ego's to not be offended as more important, than protecting the right of Galileo's and Voltaire's to offend. D. The South African government are deliberately and intentionally punishing defendant for practicing her non-violent culture and religion of Radical Honesty. E. The South African government are deliberately and intentionally denying defendant her right to a defence; and ignoring the justification and accuracy of her nonviolent civil disobedience political necessity defence. F. That there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, including South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians. Put differently: S. Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation was not real & sincere; but fake & posed; a political fraud committed against SA citizens.

16.

In paragraphs 86-98, the Radical Honesty SA Amicus additionally includes the verified “deliberate indifference” comments of SANEF editors to the legal and political persecution of a member of the Radical Honesty culture whose culture is founded on the practice of (a) total transparency, (b) brutal honesty and (c) sincere forgiveness, their comments being: A.

17.

“[Name (Editor: Publication] is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, [Publication] is deliberately indifferent.”

Those editors being: Saturday Star: Editor: Brendan Seery: 26 February 201037; 702 Radio: Manager: Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa: 01 Mar 201038; Die Burger: Editor: Henry Jeffereys: 27 Feb 201039; Cape Argus: Editor: Chris Witfield: 26 Fe 201040; Cape Times: Editor: Alide Dasnois: 26 Feb 201041: The Citizen: Editor: Martin Williams: 26 Feb 201042; City Press: Editor: Ferial Haffajee: 26 February 201043; Daily Maverick: Brkic Branco: 26 February 201044; Daily Sun: Editor: Themba Khumalo: 02 March 201045; Daily Dispatch: Editor: Andrew Trench: 26 Feb 201046; E-News: Head of News: Patrick Conroy: 04 March 201047; Financial Mail: Editor: Barney

Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671] 37 Request Saturday Star Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743217] 38 Request 702 Radio’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27357910] 39 Request Die Burger Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27823922] 40 Request Cape Argus Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741568] 41 Request Cape Times Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741584] 42 Request The Citizen Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743296] 43 Request City Press Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741601] 44 Request Daily Maverick’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741615] 45 Request Daily Sun Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741638] 46 Request Daily Dispatch Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741607] 47 Request E-News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743088]

Mthombothi: 26 Feb 201048; Finweek: Editor: Colleen Naude: 26 February 201049; George Herald: Editor: Mandi Botha: 26 February 201050; The Herald: Editor: Jeremy McCabe: 26 February 201051; Ind. on Saturday: Editor: Trevor Bruce: 26 Feb 201052; Pretoria News: Editor: Zingisa Mkhuma: 26 February 201053; Rapport: Editor: Lisa Albrecht: 26 February 201054; SA Press Assoc.: Ed.: Mark van der Velden: 26 Feb 201055; Sowetan: Editor: Bongani Keswa: 03 March 201056; The Star: Editor: Moegsien Williams: 26 February 201057; Sunday Ind.: Editor: Makhudu Sefara: 26 February 201058; Sunday Times: Editor: Ray Hartley: 26 February 201059; Sunday Tribune: Editor: Philani Mgwaba: 26 Feb 201060; Volksblad: Editor: Ainsley Moos: 26 February 201061; Freedom of Expression Inst: Dir. M. Moore: 11/03/201062; Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities: Rev. Wesley Mabuza: 26 February 201063. 18.

Media’s Responsibility to Impartially and Fairly Infom the Public’s Right to Know of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus filed with the Constitutional Court: NONE.

19.

Comparison: How many news articles were written about the other Amicus Curiae’s filed with the Constitutional Court in this matter? No less than 28 available online:

Don’t suppress the truth: FXI, Citizen Reporter, The Citizen64, 18 May 2010

Heavyweights enter the fray, Cedric Mboyisa, The Citizen65, 19 May 2010

New Turn in McBride legal battle, The Citizen66, 19 May 2010

The Citizen fights ruling on McBride’s history, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day67, All Africa68, 17 May 2010

Editors Argue Free Speech in McBride Case, Franny Rabkin, Business Day69, All Africa70, 20 May 2010

Ruling distorts common sense; Will Constitutional Court come down on the side of common sense or has the amnesty process washed away the bloodshed of apartheid? , Carmel Rickard, The Mercury71, 20 May 2010

Request Financial Mail Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743104] Request Finweek Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743118] 50 Request George Herald Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743133] 51 Request The Herald’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743307] 52 Request Independent on Saturday Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743150] 53 Request Pretoria News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743173] 54 Request Rapport Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743183] 55 Request SAPA Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743208] 56 Request Sowetan Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743231] 57 Request The Star’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743248] 58 Request Sunday Independent Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743260] 59 Request Sunday Times Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743275] 60 Request Sunday Tribune Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743285] 61 Request Volksblad Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743073] 62 Request Freedom of Expression Inst. Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/28224700] 63 Request Commission… Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/28224628] 64 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60024&catid=80:breakingnews&Itemid=132 65 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8360:heavyweights-enter-thefray&catid=25:local-news&Itemid=34 66 http://www.citizen.co.za/index/News/1060117.page 67 http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=109057 68 http://allafrica.com/stories/201005170139.html 69 http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=109430 70 http://allafrica.com/stories/201005200060.html 71 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226801462.html 49

When the logic of law is murdered, Carmel Rickard, Pretoria News72, 20 May 2010

When is a killer not a killer? Constitutional Court to decide whether Robert McBride can be called a murderer despite TRC amnesty, Carmel Rickard, The Star73, 20 May 2010

Even the elite cannot wipe clean the bloodstained slate of our history clean, Carmel Rickard, Cape Times74, May 20, 2010

Waarheid word gestraf, se Sanef en FXI aan hof, Phillip de Bruin, Die Burger75, 16 July 2010

Apartheid victims and survivors challenge McBride ruling, TimesLive76, The Star77, ICTJ, 19 June 2010

Apartheid victims fight McBride case, Nathi Olifant, Sunday Tribune78, IOL79, Cape Argus80, Cape Times81, Mercury82, Pretoria News83, Daily News84, CSVR85, The Star86, Lawlibrary.co.za87, 20 June 2010 (Apartheid activists relatives to challenge McBride ruling, Legalbrief Today88, Mooney Ford Attorneys89, 21 June 2010)

Slain activists relatives seek to join McBride defamation case, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day90, All Africa91, Lawlibrary.co.za92, LexisNexis93 (Cache94), 22 June 2010

McBride loses support in defamation case, Jason Warner, Pretoria News95, The Star96, IOL97, Independent on Saturday98, Lawlibrary.co.za99, 24 June 2010

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804745.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804960.html 74 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804826.html 75 http://www.dieburger.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Waarheid-word-gestraf-se-Sanef-en-FXI-aan-hof-20100715 76 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article510624.ece/Apartheid-victims-and-survivors-challenge-McBride-ruling 77 http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=128&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 78 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-229387811.html 79 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=13&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100620072724632C152979 80 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 81 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 82 http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 83 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 84 http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=540&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 85 http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1326&Itemid=26 86 http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=549&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 87 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 88 http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100621160354575 89 http://www.mfp.co.za/page.asp?pg=news&newsID=399 90 http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=112396 91 http://allafrica.com/stories/201006220474.html 92 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 93 www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=675&topicId= 112450003&docId=l:1211886819&start=10 94 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6YNr_rA9IcwJ:www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser%3FActio n%3DUserDisplayFullDocument%26orgId%3D675%26topicId%3D112450003%26docId%3Dl:1211886819%26start%3D10+%22Slain+ac tivists%E2%80%99+relatives+seek+to+join+McBride+defamation+case%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za 95 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=665&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 96 http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 97 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20100624045434761C698608 98 http://www.independentonsaturday.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 99 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 73

McBride was convicted – period, Eusebius McKaiser, Mail and Guardian100, 02 August 2010

International Center for Transitional Justice Amicus Brief for Sa Apartheid Defamation Case, ICTJ101, 02 August 2010

[E] Difference between Media ‘Murderer McBride’ Defamation & a Citizen’s Sincere ‘Murderer McBride’ Truth-Telling: Gatekeeper Access to National Discourse & ‘If It Bleads, It Leads’ corporate profits. 20.

Of particular legal and media interest in regards to the difference between media editors and citizens condemnation of politically violent acts, is that media editors are known to play an active role in censoring and suppressing people voicing their non-violent grievances, thereby creating the pressure cooker atmosphere where some citizens feel the only way they get their grievances heard is by means of violence. Common citizens have no means of silencing and censoring the voices of non-violent protestors grievances. That is the huge difference between an editor v. a common citizens condemnation of Mr. McBride for being a ‘murderer’. The latter has no gatekeeper power access to media discourse. The former has the ability to provide the worlds Mr. McBride’s with access to the public media discourse, when he and his colleagues voiced their grievances non-violently, but chose to ignore their non-violent protests. Consider the footnote point in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus quote of Rev. John Gogotya in Nicholas Partridge’s documentary ANC: VIP’s of Violence: “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a nonviolent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence

21.

The Radical Honesty SA Amicus makes this point very clearly in paragraph 7: Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud: Mainstream Access-to-Discourse-Gatekeeper Editors censorship102 of nonviolent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker sociopolitical reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits, in knowledge application of: 1. ‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’103; 2. ‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’104;

100

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-02-mcbride-was-convictedperiod?utm_medium=saDailynews24&utm_source=sadailynews24.com 101 http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/3938.html 102 “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence, documentary; “For revolutionary groups, the more murderous the deed, the more certain the media coverage.” -- Nicholas Partridge, Presenter, ANC: VIP’s of Violence. See: Transcript of ANC: VIP’s of Violence at: UA: [C.6] ‘If it Bleads, It Leads,’ Editorial Maxim [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739403] 103 Clark McCauley, Ph.D, Prof. of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College, in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?, by Benedict Carey, New York Times, March 26, 2010 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34271993]

3. ‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse105; 4. Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection106; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism107.

[F] Complaint to Green Scorpions/SAPS (CAS 823-08-2010) against 22 SANEF editors: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor & Obstruct Administration of Ecolaw Concourt Justice. 22.

On 20 August 2010 I filed the following complaint with Green Scorpions, who referred me to the SA Police, who referred me to the Commercial Crimes Unit, who referred me to the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit. (Annex E: 24 Aug 2010: Complaint to Green Scorpions: Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor & obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt Justice)

23.

[From paragraph 28 of the SAPS complaint]: On the evening of 26 July 2010, and early morning of 27 July, I sent the following editors and journalists (whom I imagine are SANEF members) a form letter email providing them with a PDF copy of the Radical Honesty SA Concourt Amicus, as provided to SANEF attorneys, and informed them the Amicus was supported by the expert witness statements of (a) Dr. Brad Blanton, the worlds foremost expert on honesty, transparency and sincere forgiveness, bestselling author of Radical Honesty series of books, and former Honesty in Politics candidate for Congress in Virginia in 2004 and 2006, and (b) Dr. T. Michael Maher, the author and study of How and Why Journalists Avoid the Environment-Population Connection. I confirmed my interpretation that it appeared their editorial decision was to censor this information, and if I was incorrect in my assumption, would they please provide me with the information about where they had published the information. I enquired how their censorship decision-making was in accordance to SANEF’s Code of Professional Practice which requires News Reporting to be ethically driven, to provide for an environment for ethics discourse in the media, to be in support of freedom of expression, to enable a culture of real debate of the highest standard, and were in accordance with SANEF’s alleged values of integrity, accountability and the public interest. (The emails can be found in full in First Amicus Proof of Email Service and Correspondence # 2 (PDF108) & 3 (PDF109)), the dates and titles as follows: A.

[188] 12:33 PM: Questions for SANEF Chairperson: Mr. Rantao: Re: Ind. Media Tribunal, media corruption and media censorship

[190] 01:09 PM: FW: Questions for SANEF Chairperson: Mr. Makhanya: Re: Ind. Media Tribunal, media corruption and media censorship

104 Jean Pierre Mean, Group General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, SGS Group, In Confronting Corruption: The Business Case for an Effective Anti-Corruption Programme, by PricewaterhouseCoopers Intnl [PDF: www.pwc.com/anticorruption] 105 (I) Power and the news media, Teun A. van Dijk, Univ. of Amsterdam, D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication & Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34271955] ; (II) Ubuntu Amicus (UA) : [C] Right to ‘Free Speech’ Propaganda Profits Deception [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739403] 106 CCT 23-10: Statement of Consent by Dr. T. Michael Maher [PDF: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53663485/]; How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D. [PDF: ] 107 HC-WC 19963-09: 140 SA Elite Deliberate Indifference to Rule of Law [PDF: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/56239025/] 108 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53657095/ 109 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53657095/

[191] 01:40 PM: Att: Ms. Deborah Patta, Exec. Prod.: 3rd Degree: Req 3rd Degree Position on media corruption and media censorship

[192] 01:53 PM: Att: Tim du Plessis, Editor: Beeld: Req Beeld Position on media corruption and media censorship

[196] 02:45 PM: Att: Mr. Peter Bruce, Editor:Bus Day: Req Bus. Day Position on media corruption and media censorship

[202] 03:42 PM: Att: City Press Ed: Ms. Ferial Haffajee; Req: City Press Position on media corruption and media censorship

[203] 03:59 PM: Att: Daily Dispatch: Ed. Mr. Andrew Trench; Req: Daily Dispatch Position on media corruption and media censorship

[208] 04:22 PM: Att: Daily Maverick: Ed: Mr. Brkic Branko; Req: Daily Maverick's Position on media corruption and media censorship

[209] 04:40 PM: Att: Daily Sun Editor: Mr. Themba Khumalo; Req: Daily Sun's Position on media corruption and media censorship

[217] 05:30 PM: Att: Die Burger Ed: Mr. Bun Booysens; Req: Die Burger comment on media corruption and media censorship

[218] 05:36 PM: Att: ETV: E-News: Mr. Patrick Conroy; Req: E-News Comment on media corruption and media censorship

[220] 05:43 PM: Att: Financial Mail: Ed: Mr. B. Mthombothi; Req: Financial Mail's Comment on media corruption and media censorship

[224] 06:06 PM: Att: Ms. C. Naude, Editor; Req: Finweek's Position on media corruption and media censorship

[227] 06:36 PM: Att: Mail and Guardian Editors; Req: Mail and Guardian Position on media corruption and media censorship

[229] 06:50 PM: Att: Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa, Station Manager; Req: 702 Radio Position on media corruption and media censorship

[233] 07:28 PM: Att: Ms. Lisa Albrecht, Editor; Req. Rapport's Position on media corruption and media censorship

[234] 07:35 PM: Att: Mr. van der Velden, Editor; Req. SA Press. Assoc. Position on media corruption and media censorship

[236] 07:50 PM: Att: Mr. Bongani Keswa, Editor; Req. Sowetan Position on media corruption and media censorship

[238] 08:59 PM: Att: Mr. Ray Hartley, Editor, Req. Sunday Times Position on media corruption and media censorship

[241] 09:06 PM: Att: Mr. Jeremy McCabe, Editor; Req. The Herald Position on media corruption and media censorship

[242] 09:16 PM: Att: Mr. A. Moos, Redakteur; Req. Volksblad Position on media corruption and media censorship

[245] 12:03 PM: Att: Editor: Mr. Makhudu Sefara; Req. Sunday Independent Position on media corruption and media censorship

[246] 12:22 AM: Att: Mr. Brendan Seery, Editor; Req Saturday Star's Position on media corruption and media censorship

[247] 12:22 AM: Att: Cape Argus Editor: Mr. C. Whitfield, Req: Cape & Weekend Argus Position on media corruption and media censorship

[248] 12:22 AM: Att: Ed: Trevor Bruce; Req. Ind. on Saturday's Position on media corruption and media censorship

[249] 12:21 AM: Att: Ms. Z. Mkhuma, Editor; Req: Pretoria News Position on media corruption and media censorship

AA.

[250] 12:21 AM: Att: Mr. Philani Mgwaba, Editor, Req. Sunday Tribune Position on media corruption and media censorship

BB.

[251] 12:22 AM: Att: Daily News: Ed: Mr. Alan Dunn; Req: Daily News Position on media corruption and media censorship

CC.

[252] 12:22 AM: Att: Cape Times Ed: Ms. Alide Dasnois; Req: Cape Times Position on media corruption and media censorship

DD.

[254] 01:41 AM: Att: Mr. Toby Shapshak, Editor: Stuff; M&G journo on Truth Commission

EE.

[255] 01:55 AM: Prof. Rod Amner, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University

FF.

[256] 01:55 AM: Fackson Banda Chair of Media and Democracy, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

GG.

[257] 01:57 AM: Att: William Bird, director of Media Monitoring Africa:

HH.

[258] 01:56 AM: Guy Berger, head of the School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

II.

[259] 01:58 AM: Robert Brand, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University.

JJ.

[260] 01:58 AM: Prof. Harry Dugmore, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

KK.

[261] 02:00 AM: Prof. Harold Gess, School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University:

LL.

[262] 01:59 AM: Prof. Jane Duncan, Chair of Media and Information Society at Rhodes University:

MM.

[264] 02:02 AM: Prof. Anton Harber, Professor of Journalism at Wits University.

NN.

[333] 01:55 PM: Prof. Franz Kruger, Professor of Journalism at Wits University.

Radical Honesty SA Press Release to SAPA Wire Service: 24.

[From paragraph 53 & 54 of SAPS Complaint # 823-08-2010]: On 15 August at 12:39110, 14:07111, 15:25, 15:48, and 16:10; and on 16 August at 10:28 and 12:17112, the following Press Release is published on SAPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Domestic and International Wire Services: Attention: News Editor, Legal Editor, Court Reporters For immediate release:

110 111 112

http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9305&Itemid=12 http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9306&Itemid=12 http://www.link2media.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9316&Itemid=12

15 August 2010 Radical Honesty SA Amicus, in Concourt # 23-10 CONCOURT: POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF TRC ACT On 03 May 2010, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa approved the Application from Radical Honesty SA, to be admitted as Amicus in the civil defamation matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Radical Honesty SA application to intervene as Amicus had argued for a Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation (TRC) Act. Radical Honesty is a small religion/culture founded on truth-telling and sensate forgiveness (Gestalt Therapy) by Dr. Brad Blanton, an American 'Honesty in Politics' politician, psychologist and bestselling author of the 'Radical Honesty' series of books. Dr. Blanton has filed an expert witness statement on behalf of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus. The Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Amicus, filed on 18 July 2010, argues that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights. Put differently, any legislation or jurisprudence such as the TRC Act, which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis - a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. The legal precedence for the Radical Honesty Ecolaw argument is among others the International Court of Justice opinion of Vice President Weeramantry in the 1998 Hungary v. Slovakia case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project. For this and other Radical Honesty and Population Policy Common Sense evidentiary reasons they ask the Concourt to acknowledge that a Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of the TRC Act renders the TRC's 'crime of apartheid' conclusion, to be a falsification of history. The Radical Honesty SA Amicus was also served upon various TRC Commissioners, including Archbishop Tutu and Rev. Borraine, and the Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk Foundations, on 20 July. As of date, neither the TRC Commissioners, nor the Nelson Mandela or FW de Klerk Foundations have disputed the allegations in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus to the Constitutional Court. Other parties who have submitted Amicus Curiae's are the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), South African National Editors Forum (SANEF); Mrs. Joyce Mbizana and Mr. Mbasa Mxenge, and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development. Interestingly, on 12 August, Xinhua reported that in response to a public interest writ to a Bangladesh High Court, it instructed the government to provide it with a population growth report for the last 10 years, and to explain why the goverment should not be directed to implement additional population control measures. Radical Honesty SA Amicus Expert Witnesses include Dr. Brad Blanton on Radical Honesty: Being Specific about Anger and Forgiveness; and Dr. T. Michael Maher, Univ. of Louisiana Head of Educ. Dept, on Media's censorship of Population Issues.

25.

Subsequent -- Media’s Responsibility to Inform the Public’s Right to Know about Radical Honesty SA Amicus to Concourt -- News articles: NONE.

[G] Media Editors Censorship & Bias of Issues before Concourt Hearing of 29 September 2010

26.

The Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae and Chief Justice’s Order dated 27 September, provide the following details, related to the arguments (written and/or oral) made to the Concourt by Radical Honesty SA: D. Estimate of the duration of oral argument of Lara Johnstone / Radical Honesty – RSA: None, unless a, or more, Justices have any questions. (Annex C: 18 July 2010: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae) The first amicus, Ms. Lara Johnstone, will not be required to present oral argument. (Annex D: 27 Sep 2010: Chief Justice’s Directions)

27.

28.

Although the Radical Honesty SA Amicus clearly provides detailed context of alternative perspectives to the verbal arguments made before the Concourt, by both The Citizen (Concourt Applicants), Mr. McBride (Concourt Respondent) and other Amicus Curiae parties (SANEF, FXI, Mr. Mxenge, Ms. Mbizana and the Dept. of Justice and Constitutional Development), every single respondent news publication – whose editors are fully cognizant of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae before the Concourt – deliberately and intentionally censored the information from the South African public, in their articles regarding this matter. The SA public are totally unaware that there is a TRC fraud legal argument before the Concourt Justice’s; and furthermore that the Justice’s approved such an argument for their consideration. The SA media have decided in their wisdom, that the SA public have no right to know this information, have no right to know the decisions made by Chief Justices to hear dissenting legal arguments.

The following SAPA articles [001] & [002], states among others: On Thursday, the Constitutional Court is expected to hear argument by The Citizen that the TRC Act does not deem crimes granted amnesty never to have been committed, that the purpose of the TRC Act was truthtelling, and that the SCA's interpretation curtails freedom of expression and prevents victims and the public from describing the perpetrators of heinous crimes as criminals and murderers.

[001] Citizen fights McBride in Concourt: SAPA-Times Live113, 10-09-29; [002] Court to hear McBride ruling appeal: SAPA-N24114: 10-09-29; 29.

The following SAPA article [003] is an exact copy of the aforementioned articles, but includes the following: Five friends of the court have been admitted.

[003] Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt, SAPA-Times Live115; 1009-29 30.

[001] [002] and [003] only include the argument to be made to the Court by the Citizen, Mr. McBride’s argument’s to be made are totally ignored, as are all the arguments of the Amicus Curiaes.

31.

Furthermore, six – NOT FIVE -- Friends of the Court have been admitted: First: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty; Second: Freedom of Expression Institute; Third: SA National Editors Forum; Fourth: Ms. Joyce Sibanyoni Mbizana; Fifth: Mr. Mbasa Mxenge; Sixth: Dept. of Justice and Constitutional Development.

113 114 115

32.

The following SAPA article, syndicated as [004] to [015] includes reference to Mr. McBride’s argument related to ‘contrition’, i.e. a factor involved in forgiveness; The Citizen’s argument related to a ‘reasonable reader’, but totally ignores the Radiucal Honesty SA Amicus Curiae which deals in great detail on issues of sincere vs. fake forgiveness, as well as how such factors affect the legal common law principle of the ‘reasonableness test’; i.e. the ‘reasonable reader’. [004] McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’, SAPA-Business Report116, 1009-30; [005] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-IOL117, 20-09-30; [006] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Pretoria News118, 10-09-30; [007] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Cape Argus119, 1009-30 [008] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-SA Star120, 10-09-30 [009] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Sunday Ind.121, 1009-30; [010] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Daily News122, 1009-30; [011] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Cape Times123, 1009-30; [012] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Mercury124, 10-0930; [013] McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’, SAPA-N24125, 10-09-30; [014] McBride murder accusation unfair, SAPA-Times Live126, 10-09-30; [015] McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’, SAPA-Daily Dispatch127, 10-1001;

33.

116

In the following SAPA article [016] – [017], SAPA include only the argument presented to the Constitutional Court by The Citizen, Mr. McBride’s argument and other Amicus Curiae arguments contradicting the Citizen are totally ignored. Nor are the skeletons of the media, in relation to their censorship of non-violent dissent, so as to create a pressure-cooker environment for violent terrorist acts for their ‘if It Bleads, it leads’ corporate profits, as contained in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus even hinted at.

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=566&fArticleId=5668895 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/mcbride-murderer-label-unfair-lawyer-1.682680 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 119 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 120 http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 121 http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/?fSectionId=3536&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 122 http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=3532&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 123 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 124 http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682680&fFeed=sanews 125 http://www.news24.com/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=88774e42-3cd1-4832-817b-053045239bb1&cid=1059 126 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article683813.ece/McBride-murder-accusation-unfair 127 http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=437602 117 118

[016] ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest, SAPA-Times Live128, 1009-30; [017] ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest, SAPA-N24129, 10-09-30; 34.

In the following Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA/IOL article [018] – [025], SAPA totally censors the argument by Radical Honesty on the irregularities and illegalities, bias, censorship and omissions committed by the TRC, which contributed to SA’s state of fake, two-faced hypocrisy ‘reconciliation’. The article totally censors any mention whatsoever of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae argument before the Constitutional Court, regarding the validity or not, or selective invalidities of the TRC in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus. [018] Court weighs validity of TRC past, Kenrichi Serino, SAPA-IOL130, 1010-01; [019] Citizen argues validity of TRC past, SAPA-Times Live131, 10-09-30; [020] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Cape Times132, 10-10-01; [021] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Cape Argus133, 10-10-01; [022] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Pretoria news134, 10-10-01; [023] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-The Mercury135, 10-10-01; [024] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Sunday Tribune136, 10-1001; [025] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-SA Star137, 10-10-01;

35.

The following articles in East Cape Radio, are amalgamations of ‘Skeletons’ [016] - [017] and ‘court weighs validity of TRC past’ [[018] – [025] SAPA articles, and the same aforementioned arguments of bias and censorship apply: [026] McBride Concourt case continues, SAPA-ECR-Mobile138, 10-10-01 [027] McBride Concourt case continues, SAPA-ECR-Newswatch139, 10-10-01

36.

128

The following Citizen article [028] provides the details of the Citizen’s argument, that the TRC was allegedly about ‘truth-telling’ and promotion of national reconciliation. It totally censors the argument of Radical Honesty SA, which is directly to the contrary, that the TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt, riddled with conflicts of interest, bias, omissions, censorship and that its focus – considering the TRC Commissioners response to Dr.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684101.ece/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Skeletons-can-be-raised-in-public-interest-20100930 http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/court-weighs-validity-of-trc-past-1.682742 131 http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article684314.ece/Citizen-argues-validity-of-TRC-past 132 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=3531&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 133 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 134 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/?fSectionId=3534&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 135 http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=3535&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 136 http://www.sundaytribune.co.za/?fSectionId=3537&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 137 http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=1.682742&fFeed=sanews 138 http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radio-mobilenews?oid=932049&sn=Mobile+news+detail&pid=171901 139 http://www.ecr.co.za/kagiso/content/en/east-coast-radio/east-coast-radionews?oid=932049&sn=Detail&pid=490476&McBride-Concourt-case-continues 129 130

Blanton’s allegations -- was not sincere reconciliation, but simply to label apartheid a ‘crime against humanity’ by irregular and biased practices. The article refers to all other Amicus Curiae’s and their arguments, but totally censors the Radical Honesty SA Argument before the Justices. [028] Concourt: truth versus law, Cedric Mboyisa, The Citizen140, 10-10-01 37.

In the following Mail and Guardian article [029], Ms. Parker also provides details of the Citizen’s argument and Mr. McBrides argument. She also deals with The Citizens argument about the ‘reasonable reader’ and hence the reasonableness test, but totally censors the detailed argument related to sincere vs fake forgiveness and its relation to the reasonableness test, as made in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus. Similarly to SAPA and The Citizen, the Mail as far as the Mail and Guardian are concerned the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the Constitutional Court in this matter does not exist. [029] ‘If I see someone stealing, can I call him a thief?’, Faranaaz Parker, Mail & Guardian141, 10-10-01

38.

In the following article by Eyewitness News, Mr. Stephen Grootes [030], his title alleges that Mr. McBride’s lawyers are playing with semantics; i.e. acting unethically. He totally censors any mention about how The Citizen’s lawyers, and SANEF’s lawyers are condoning the highly corrupt, conflict of interest and malicious censorship behaviour of their clients in this matter, as detailed in the Radical Honesty Amicus. His biased article appears to be motivated to encourage less than intelligent or impartial readers, or those who have not yet forgiven Mr. McBride, to be opposed to impartially enquiring into Mr. McBride’s lawyers arguments with an open mind. [030] McBride lawyer are playing with semantics, Stephen Grootes, Eyewitness News142, 10-10-01

[H] Editors Malicious Contempt for Culture of Sincere Forgiveness 39.

If an individual is sincerely committed to a practice of forgiveness, or a particular sport or a belief in honourable behaviour, or practicing transparency or any particular cultural, religious or professional practice; then when they come across someone who has information which they are unaware of regarding that particular practice, and which could inform them of skills and capabilities whereby they could increase the depth of their sincerity to their practice; then they generally are enthusiastic to hear and learn these new skills, which will help them to improve their practice. This is an easy test to find someone who is sincere about any practice they profess to be committed to, or interested in.

40.

If an individual is not sincerely committed to a practice of forgiveness (or any other practice), but is faking that practice for public relations benefits, to maintain a fake image of forgiveness, then if they come across someone who does sincerely practice forgiveness and whom consequently may expose

140

http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128517&catid=80:breakingnews&Itemid=132 141 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-10-01-if-i-see-someone-stealing-can-call-him-a-thief 142 http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=49757

their forgiveness fraud, then they generally resort to irregular and unethical practices of censoring, ignoring or vilifying the person, so as to prevent others from discovering their own fraud. Sadly they are generally unaware that it is exactly in going about these actions to shun the sincere individual, whereby they expose their fraud and hypocrisy. 41.

[I]

Dr. Brad Blanton’s practice of brutal radical honesty communication, whereby participants make an honourable commitment to remain in such conversation to listen to each others anger, by sharing their anger in clear radical honesty ‘I resent, or I appreciate’ terms for clarity of understanding, has helped thousands of people worldwide to overcome their anger, rage and fury at individuals whom they feel wronged them. His work and the culture of honesty and transparency he has set an example for, has been recognized by individuals committed to sincere forgiveness, total transparency and honesty in politics, including the Prime Minister of Sweden, with whom Dr. Blanton appeared on a public broadcasting discussion about honesty in politics. The South African media, however have no interest whatsoever in exploring the possible perspective, that a man who practices what he preaches, may be able to provide South Africans with some honest feedback for where and how the TRC made errors. This denial of any feedback from arguably the worlds foremost expert on sincere forgiveness, the SA media do in service of their fake, two-faced fraudulent ‘truth telling’ and insincere ‘reconciliation’.

Is SANEF Media Corruption Greater than ANC Corruption?

42.

Nobody doubts that a significant number of ANC officials are corrupt. Perhaps a Milgramesque143 92 % of ANC officials lack the skills and capabilities to either (a) resist the temptation from participating in the dominant corrupt paradigm, and/or (b) are able to resist actively participating in the dominant corrupt paradigm, but unwilling to risk exposing their fellow colleagues corruption. However, there have been, and continue to be ANC members who do have the courage to both resist actively participating in the corruption gravy train, and to cross the line, by exposing their fellow ANC colleagues corruption.

43.

While SANEF Editors, as partners of the World Association of Newspapers, no doubt allegedly officially support the Declaration of Table Mountain to Abolish "Insult Laws" in Africa and Set a Free Press Higher on the Agenda; when SANEF editors were contacted to support the Freedom of Expression for a member of the Radical Honesty culture’s freedom of expression from legal and political persecution and prosecution for allegedly privately insulting a politician; none of SANEF editors had the courage to demonstrate their constitutional commitment to the Declaration of Table Mountain principles.

44.

Certainly in this Concourt matter, as demonstrated in paragraph 28 of the Complaint to the SAPS (Annex E), not one SA media editor or media professor contacted was remotely interested in making an impartial enquiry,

143

See Annex C: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae: [II] Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract Principles: (B). Stanley Milgram Studies on Obedience: Legal, Socio-Political Implications, para.29; (C). Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skills and Competencies, para.30; and (D). Rule of Law and Forgiveness: Individuality, Independent and Integrity, para.31-33

or objecting about their fellow media editors corruption. Consequently in this matter, not one SA media elite possessed the skills and capabilities of the 8% of ANC members, who have the courage to cross the line, by exposing their fellow media elite’s corruption in this matter. Is this an isolated and exceptional case or is this kind of blind obedience to censorship and silence about media corruption fully entrenched in SA’s corporate media elite? It appears plausible, considering the allegations made in Mr. David Bullard’s columns, among others, The Hollow Men of Journalism144, and A mosquito buzzing in the dark *145, that indeed there is very little skills and capabilities on the part of the SANEF corporate media elite to expose their own peers corruption. Consequently, when it comes to resisting peer corruption, at least in this matter, and Mr. David Bullard’s legal matters, 100% of SA media editors are as ideologically obedient to their code of silence about fellow media editors corruption, and unquestioning of such obedience to their silence and censorship of media corruption, as Adolf Eichmann was to Nazism.

[J] Newsworthy Inspirational Significance of Constitutional Court’s (a) Approval of Radical Honesty SA’s ‘little guy citizen’s’ Amicus Curiae Application; (b) Possible Sincere Commitment to Truth and Reconciliation by consideration of Radical Honesty SA’s TRC fraud arguments. 45.

I stand corrected, but as far as I am aware, the Constitutional Court’s 03 May 2010 ruling approving me as a layperson, to proceed with the filing of an Amicus Curiae before the Constitutional Court, is the first time ever that a layman has been approved to file an Amicus Curiae before the Constitutional Court.

46.

In a state that is sincerely motivated to encourage its citizens to know their rights, stand up for their rights, by means of non-violent legal procedural means, to learn and struggle with the law, legal principles and their application, a layman or non-professional’s struggle and perseverance to enter into a professional area of expertise, is recognized, not censored, by most other honourable professions or sports. That this Amicus Curiae submitted by this ‘little guy citizen’ was further in support of sincere honesty and reconciliation, would make it of greater news significance in any country that was sincerely motivated to practice either, the recognition of the ‘little person’, in acts of perseverance, and furthermore the sincerity of commitment to the goal ‘Proudly SA’s ‘ allegedly hold dear.

47.

The response so far from the media on these two issues indicates the media’s lack of sincere commitment to either of these two goals, they allegedly hold dear. Their behaviour demonstrates the media emperors are butt naked, and appear to be totally oblivious of their hypocrisy.

48.

How exactly are the citizens and public supposed to make any fullyinformed decision about the issues in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before

144 145

http://www.newstime.co.za/rs_articles_contributors.asp?conid=9&recid=2357 http://www.newstime.co.za/column/DavidBullard/A_mosquito_buzzing_in_the_dark*/9/2200/

the Constitutional Court Justices, regarding the difference between sincere and fake forgiveness and reconciliation, when they are being denied that information, due to a conspiracy of media censorship? 49.

Why is this conspiracy of media censorship acting on the forces that shape society, to censor opportunities for sincere forgiveness and sincere reconciliation? Perhaps to cover up its own fraudulent forgiveness and reconciliation, and because the last thing the SA media are committed to, is the hard work of sincere brutal honesty and gut-wrenching real forgiveness? Too much corporate profits to be made from censoring the non-violent, encouraging them to contribute to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;If It bleads, it leadsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; corporate profits?

Respectfully Submitted,

Lara Johnstone Member Radical Honesty Culture and Religion Annexures: A.

25 March 2010: Radical Honesty SA Application to Proceed as Amicus.

03 May 2010: Concourt Chief Justice Radical Honesty Order

18 July 2010: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae in Support of Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995

27 September 2010: Concourt Chief Justice Directions

Annex E: 24 August 2010: Complaint to Green Scorpions: Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor & obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt Justice

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CCT 23/10 The Citizen 1978 (PTY) Limited Versus Robert John McBride In the Application of: Lara Johnstone, Member Radical Honesty Culture & Religion

Application to Chief Justice to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae, ITO Rule 10 (4)

In the matter between: THE CITIZEN 1978 (PTY) LIMITED

Appellant

and ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE

Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION

Take Notice that Lara Johnstone, of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, intends to apply to the Chief Justice of this Court for the following orders: (a) For an Order to approve the Applicant as an Amici Curiae in the above proceedings in terms of Rule 10 (4) of the Rules of this Constitutional Court; (b) To approve the Applicants Request for In Forma Pauperis Amici Curiae proceedings; (c) To instruct the Constitutional Court Registrar to issue such In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Referral on behalf of the Applicant, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 1(a) of Rule 40 of the High Court; and that the accompanying affidavit of Lara Johnstone will be used in support of this application. Please Take Further Notice that Appelant and Respondent are requested to submit their consent or objection to this Application, to the Applicant and Registrar, by no later than noon on Wednesday, 31 March 2010; to enable their consent/objection to be submitted by the Registrar, as an attachment to this application to the Chief Justice for his consideration, on 01 April 2010. Take Further Notice that until the Applicant is appointed with In Forma Pauperis Representation, the applicant can unfortunately only accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings, at 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6529. Tel and Fax (call first): (044) 870 7239; Cell: (071) 170 1954; Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za. Dated at George, this 25th day of March, 2010.

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za. TO: Registrar of the Constitutional Court: Tel: (011) 359-7400 Fax: (011) 339-5098 Fax: 0866493626 Email: registrar@concourt.org.za AND TO:

AND TO:

(Appellants Attorneys) Willem de Klerk Attorneys P O Box 84162, Greenside, 2034 Tel: (011) 717 8562 Fax: (011) 486 4506 Email: wdeklerk@telkomsa.net Service Address: c/o Garratt Mbuyisa Negle Inc. #15 6th Avenue, Parkhurst.

(Respondents Attorneys) Mashiane, Moodley & Monama Incorporated 39 Wierda Road West Wierda Valley P.O. Box 784040 Sandton, 2146 Tel: (011) 303-7900 Fax: (011) 303 7999 / 303 7902 Email: monamar@m4attorneys.co.za Email: johnm@m4attorneys.co.za

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CCT 23/10 The Citizen 1978 (PTY) Limited Versus Robert John Mcbride In the Application of: Lara Johnstone, Member Radical Honesty Culture & Religion

Application to Chief Justice to proceed as In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae, ITO Rule 10 (4)

In the matter between: THE CITIZEN 1978 (PTY) LIMITED

Appellant

and ROBERT JOHN McBRIDE

Respondent

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT

I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say: 1.

I am the only member – to my knowledge – of the Radical Honesty1 culture and religion currently living in South Africa. The Radical Honesty culture and religion is open to anyone from any culture or religion, nationality or ideology; the only pre-requisite being a commitment to Radical Honesty: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness processes, i.e. the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract2, as excerpted from Dr. Brad Blanton’s book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends3.

I am a former employee of Dr. Brad Blanton: (1) President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises Sparrowhawk Book Publishing and The Center for Radical Honesty, both dedicated to promoting honesty in the world; (2) former candidate for Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‘Honesty in Politics’4; (3) Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth”5; and (4) author of (i) Radical Honesty: How To

As founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, bestselling author, psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Congressional Candidate. See: www.radicalhonesty.com PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-Social-Contract PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5507662/Practicing-Radical-Honesty-by-Brad-Blanton 4 See Video Documentaries at: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/honesty-in-politics.html 5 See Center for Radical Honesty at: http://www.radicalhonesty.com 2 3

Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (ii) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (iii) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh, author of the Conversations with God books; (iv) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (v) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (vi) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-Light-Being; (vii) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash. 3.

I am 43 years old. With the help of an IUD, inserted at age 19, Common Sense and a love for children, I have never been pregnant, nor had an abortion; nor brought any unwanted children onto the planet; nor contributed to local, national or international overpopulation or resource wars; nor advocated on behalf of population or economic growth; or materialist consumerism.

I am the Defendant / Applicant in an In Forma Pauperis Application for Review with the High Court, Western Cape, on a conviction and sentence of ‘crimen injuria’; where the Magistrate effectively ruled that a falsification of history was to be allowed against the me, in that in the New ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ South Africa, only one interpretation for the word ‘Kaffir’ was allowed. Irrespective of whether the Plaintiffs behavior fit my Radical Honesty Cultural and Religious definition of ‘Kaffir’6, it was against the law to use the word ‘Kaffir’ to describe her behavior and punishable with a six month suspended prison sentence. That the Kaffir definition accurately described her behavior, and was consequently a truthful opinion about reality, was irrelevant. Furthermore the Police, Prosecutor and Plaintiffs response to me for using the term ‘Kaffir’ was to proceed to illegally arrest me without an arrest warrant, deny me the right to appear in court within 24 hours of arrest, and to illegally detain me for 33 days in Pollsmoor, before providing me with a Bail Hearing. The Magistrate deliberately and indifferently ignored the expert witness Affidavits of Dr. Brad Blanton7, and Dr. Leonard Horowitz8, on my behalf; where Dr. Blanton clearly clarified his allegations that in his expert opinion as one of the worlds experts on anger and forgiveness; South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation politicians were not seriously or sincerely committed to sincere forgiveness; and were conducting a legal and political persecution and prosecution of me. I subsequently proceeded to contact 140 of SA Political, Academic and Media elite, including the Appellant (Editor), to enquire

6 The Individuals Radical Honesty Cultural & Religious Definition for ‘Kaffir’ in this instance was the original etymological meaning for the word ‘Kaffir’ namely: The word Kaafir comes from the root verb Kafara, which means ‘cover’. It was originally used before Islam, in the Arabic language, to describe farmers, when they bury a seed in the ground and cover it with soil in their planting process. Kafir subsequently came to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth’. Muslims subsequently altered it to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth about Islam’. In this Radical Honesty context it was used to accuse SA politicians of ‘knowing the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; but who covers up such information’. 7 PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20888675/HH-09-09-18-Affidavit-of-Brad-Blanton-Nuremberg-Principles-citizens-privilege-BradNotarySigned 8 PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20889550/GG-09-09-11-Affidavit-of-Len-Horowitz-evidencing-Iatrogenic-AIDS-Origins-OrigSigned

whether they endorsed the Rule-of-Law to be applied on my behalf. The Appellant’s comments was as follows: “Deliberate Indifference: Martin Williams (Editor, The Citizen) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, The Citizen is deliberately indifferent.” – Martin Williams, Editor, The Citizen, 26 February 20109 I would however like to state for the record, that irrespective of the fact that the Appellant is deliberately indifferent to the Rule-of-Law being applied, on behalf of my persecution; I would like to herewith confirm herewith under oath, that I support the Rule-of-Law be applied to both Appellant and Respondent; since I endorse the Rule-of-Law for everyone, of whatever culture, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, ideology, political affiliation, or culture; including for Two-Faced Hypocrite elites, who it appears selectively endorse the Rule-of-Law for commoners, whose Honesty and commitment to sincere forgiveness, they may find offensive. 5.

The facts set out herein fall within the Applicants personal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated by the context, and are to the best of my belief true and correct.

When dealing with legal questions, I rely on: A

A Paralegal Certificate, and Paralegal Diploma, both with Distinction, from the South African Institute of Legal Training and Damelin Correspondence Career Development College.

My Radical Honesty culture and religion’s Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract10 practices of resolving disagreements as adults, namely face-to-face in person, with a commitment to remaining in such conversation until sincere sensate forgiveness occurs.

My experience of other cultures preference for resolving disagreements through passive-aggressive revenge tête-à-tête’s via parasitic lawyers11 and judicial systems, whose parasitic lawyers12 frequently negligently or intentionally refuse parties to a dispute to resolve such dispute face-to-face in person with a

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27743296/10-02-22-The-Citizen-Editor-Martin-Williams PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-Social-Contract Howard Law School Professor Charlie Houston, the primary legal mentor of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, taught that: ‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ 12 Howard Law School Professor Charlie Houston, the primary legal mentor of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, taught that: ‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ 10 11

commitment to attaining sincere sensate forgiveness; preferring to demand of parties their participation in fake and two-faced intellectual forgiveness. 7.

The Applicant:

The Applicants original commitment to the Truth and Reconciliation process may be found in her Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 199913; which details her willingness to donate her entire Inheritance (1/4 of her parents farm) to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness.

In an 11 June 2004, Essay on Proudly South African Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent Rehabilitation Boomerang14, submission to the South African Government, the applicant detailed how its Criminal Justice and Penological (Prison) Policies were a Major Intentional Source of New South Africa’s ‘Kaffirs’ AKA ‘Criminals’; and how denying any prisoners who may wish to sincerely rehabilitate, the opportunity to express their anger, frustration and hopelessness nonviolently, resulted in their expression of such anger in subsequent acts of recidivist violence.

10.

The Applicant is the author of The Educate to Liberate: Human Consciousness Rule-ofLaw Freedom Charter: White Refugee Guerrilla Law Social Science Enquiry Report: 140 of SA Political, Academic & Media Elite, Say ‘No Thanks’ to the ‘Rule-of-Law’15; wherein she contacted among others, 30 media editors, including the Appellant; 7 Political Party Leaders; 2 Gov. Protection Bodies, including the Public Protector; 12 Human Rights Org's, incl. the F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela Foundations; 9 University Vice Chancellor’s; and 76 Academics who signed a Petition to the Canadian Charge D'Affaires in Pretoria, objecting to the granting of ‘White Refugee’ status to Brandon Huntley; to determine their official representation related to the Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter. More specifically they were informed that it was assumed that they (a) are Proudly TRC SA leaders who agree that if SA does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, it is not a democratic country and (b) if informed of evidence the SA government is legally and politically persecuting a SA citizen; they would wish to express their democratic objections thereto, with at the very least a public comment, that they object. All 140 declined to object by providing a comment in support of the Rule of Law.

11.

13 14 15

The Present Application

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16224046/990118-Truth-Reconciliation-Commission-Submisson-to-Register-of-Reconciliation PDF: http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2328314 PDF: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/03/human-consciousness-rule-of-law-freedom.html

12.

This application arises out of the application launched by the Appellant, The Citizen Newspaper, seeking Leave to Appeal the SCA Judgement which ruled on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Robert McBride. The Appellants argument being that the SCA erred in its interpretation that the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, which states that amnesty expunges the conviction and sentence from all official records, and also that “the conviction shall for all purposes… be deemed not to have taken place.” Consequently reference to the Respondents ‘murder’ was considered as ‘defamation’, because it was false. The Appellant believes such a ruling shall require that a falsification of history be required, and deny the Media the right to freedom of expression of the truth.

13.

The Applicant seeks to be admitted as an amicus curiae in respect of the main application in terms of Rule 10(4) of the rules of this Court. The purpose of this affidavit is to set out the basis of the application in terms of Rules 10(6) (a)(b) and (c) of the Rules of this Court.

14.

I will herewith deal with the five main issues: A

The Financial State of Indigence of the Applicant

The interest of the Applicant in the main application;

Submissions which will be advanced by the Applicant if admitted as an amicus curiae;

Attitude of the parties in the main application to the Applicants admission; and

The relief that ought to be granted to the Applicant in this application.

15.

The Financial State of Indigence of the Applicant:

16.

I herewith confirm that I am indigent, in that, except for household goods, wearing apparel and tools of trade, I do not possess of property to the amount of R10 000 and will not be able within a reasonable time to provide such sum from my earnings, which are currently below R500 per month.

17.

The Interest of the Applicant in the Main Application:

18.

The Applicant is of the view that the main application raises novel questions which are crucial for the rule of law and the principle of legality.

19.

Furthermore the applicants submissions are founded on a matter of principle: (a) that only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social

Contract16, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of any violent and conflict ridden society; and (b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability. 20.

Allegedly the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (“the Act”), was setup to among others: (a) provide for the investigation and establishment of as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights committed… emanating from the conflicts of the past, granting of amnesty to persons who made full disclosure…, affording victims opportunity to relate violations suffered; ….. rehabilitation and the restoration of the human and civil dignity of victims of violations of human rights; reporting to the Nation about such violations; the making of recommendations aimed at the prevention of future gross violations of human rights; (b) establish the truth in relation to past events as well as motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights have occurred, to prevent a repetition of such acts in future; and because the Constitution stated that (c) the pursuit of national unity and the well-being of all South African citizens and peace required reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society; and (d) there was a need for understanding but not for vengeance, a need for reparation not retaliation, a need for ubuntu not victimization.

21.

All of the original Appellants, the Respondent, and all the Supreme Court of Appeal Justices, including those dissenting, all appear to assume that the Act meant what it said, and that those entrusted to implement the law applied the law in the Act, as if the law meant what it said.

22.

The Applicant does not share their assumption that the Act meant what it said, nor that those entrusted to implement the Act even applied the law to the extent that the Acts law meant what it said. For example: A

Did those implementing the Act sincerely and seriously apply the Act’s mandate, as if the law seriously meant what it said; that for example ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ be investigated, or did they apply the law to mean, ‘the ANC truth, the whole ANC truth, and nothing but the ANC truth’ be

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-Social-Contract

propagated to the world? For example: If it is true that poor blacks, of all black tribes under Apartheid rule had the highest living standards of all poor blacks on the African continent; how is it that ‘Apartheid’ is considered ‘evil’; and all the other Black African states whose poor blacks lived in horrific conditions were not ‘evil’ for suppressing their poor blacks, worse than ‘evil Apartheid’? Is there a different standard of behaviour required for ‘white’ governments, than from black governments? If so, why? B

Did the Act seriously and sincerely mean that the TRC were provided with a mandate to seriously and impartially investigate “the truth in relation to past events as well as motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights have occurred, to prevent a repetition of such acts in future”? For example: If so, did the Act expressly demand that population growth and demographic factors that contribute to violence, not be enquired into; and if not; and the Act law, meant what it said; why were these factors not enquired into?

Did the Act seriously and sincerely mean that the “pursuit of national unity and the well-being of all South African citizens and peace required reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society? How did the Act define ‘reconciliation’ and ‘reconstruction’? It didn’t. Does interpreting ‘reconciliation’ in accordance with the principles of ‘ubuntu17’, mean that ‘reconciliation’ is achieved when individuals pretend to like each other, pretend to care about each other, and that in essence the only individuals who can achieve ‘ubuntu reconciliation’ will be those willing to sell their souls, for a fake Rainbow ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ Illusion to become ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ ‘Gatkruiping Experts’?

Did the TRC provide for the ‘rehabilitation and the restoration of the human and civil dignity of victims of violations of human rights’; as if the Act seriously meant what it said? If so, why did neither the Act, nor the alleged ‘Truth’ and ‘Reconciliation’ religious and psychology experts provide for any facilitation for victims and victimizers to meet face-to-face in private, to non-violently express their anger, by getting mad and getting over being mad; until sincere forgiveness (i.e. closure) had been achieved? How are the victims and victimizers supposed to achieve ‘closure’ while they are denied the opportunity to release their anger nonviolently?

PDF: http://www.tutufoundationuk.org/Reflections%20on%20adopting%20an%20Ubuntu%20way%20of%20life%20(5).pdf

Did the TRC make recommendations aimed at the prevention of future gross violations of human rights; as if the Act seriously meant what it said? If so, why did those implementing the Act make no enquiry whatsoever into population policy factors of demographics factors such as rapid population growth’s contribution to the Apartheid hostilities?

How did the Act’s law interpret the word ‘closure’; a fundamental process required, as an alleged stepping stone to ‘reconciliation’. The Act doesn’t define ‘closure’ or ‘reconciliation’. In the Radical Honesty community ‘closure’ of a painful issue means the individual has been provided the opportunity to be specific about their anger, fear, hate, fury and pain to the person whom they believe to be responsible therefore, face-to-face non-violently, and to remain committed to such conversation until sincere forgiveness occurs, for both parties. Only once sincere forgiveness has occurred, would any Radical Honesty observer state that ‘closure’ had occurred. Anyone stating that closure had occurred while either or both parties were still furious with each other; would be in a state of very serious denial, about what the word ‘closure’ meant.

23.

Consequently the Applicants In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae submission shall argue that:

24.

The TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt negligently conducted by SA’s political, academic, media and legal elite: Both Appellants and Respondents legal arguments are negligently or intentionally furthering the politically correct -- and financially and public relations convenient -– political, psychological and legal fraud conducted by South Africa’s political, academic and media elite, upon South African citizens.

25.

TRC’s fraudulent representation to victimizers and citizens: TRC would provide ‘closure’: The TRC implied that alleged sincere and serious ‘closure’ was possible, and would occur, via the legal processes of what I shall refer to as the “TRC’s Religious Circus”18 of using victims and victimizers as a form of ‘Circus Monkeys’ on the world stage; to promote their fake two-faced hypocrisy Intellectual Forgiveness Rainbow Nation.

26.

TRC’s fraudulent representation to victimizers, victims and citizens: TRC would make impartial enquiry to “establish the truth in relation to past events, as well as the motives for, and circumstances in which gross violations of human rights occurred, and to make the findings known, in order to prevent a repetition of such acts in the future.” The TRC’s enquiry can only be considered a ‘Flat Earth’ enquiry, which totally and perhaps intentionally and deliberately ignored population policy factors which

PDF: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/03/hegelian-clash-between-belief-unbelief.html

contributed to the motives for implementing apartheid. Imagine if blacks had chosen to adopt a cultural trait of personal responsibility and concern for their children, whereby they refrained from procreation until they could provide for a stable and loving environment for their offspring in a small committed family environment. If so, South Africa would currently be populated by 10 million predominantly educated citizens, 50% white & 50% black and coloured, most of whom had grown up in loving small family homes, with responsible parents. For example: According to National Security Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth: “... population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the spatial location of population in relation to resources -- in this rough order of importance -- all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence... Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities.” What role did population growth factors play in South Africa’s Apartheid violence? If understanding demographic roots is a prerequisite for understanding their subsequent symptomatic political violence, and hence preventing their future re-occurrence, why was this not a priority for the TRC to enquire into? What role did the ANC play in contributing to the Population Explosion of Cannon Fodder and Resource War Violence? Why was the ANC not required to take responsibility for their population production of poverty stricken cannon fodder? According to Witchcraft and the State in South Africa19, by Johannes Harnischfeger: Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said

See: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/ancs-embrace-of-occult-politics.html

‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250) Why was the media silent about the role population growth demographic factors played in South Africa’s Apartheid violence? If the Media are serious about their commitment to ‘Reconciliation’ and prevention of future hostilities, why were they silent about how the TRC, and subsequently the ANC are deliberately indifferent to abiding by the laws of sustainability20? How are the ignorant masses suffering from the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources ever going to wake up, if their media and political leaders are too gutless to start telling these truths, and educating people on these issues? Is Martin Luther King Jnr. the only black leader to have ever expressed a sincere concern for the plague of overpopulation, and the need to Educated to Liberate the poor from their cultural prison of ignorant poverty production procreation? “Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victim.” – Martin Luther King Jnr. Why are South African black leaders participating in a population explosion of moral degeneration and social disintegration, while blaming all their problems on evil apartheid? “That South Africa has the highest Aids infection and death rates is neither altogether Mbeki's doing, nor coincidental. Legislation and other governmentdriven policies and programmes have engendered an environment that has escalated the pandemic. For example, the permissive pregnancy rules and social grants (especially for children) introduced by the Constitution and government have encouraged teenagers and unmarried women to have children on a large scale. The spread of Aids has been a consequence; the evidence is there for all to see. And so too there is a high correlation between this abnormal governmentsponsored population explosion, on the one hand, and the deepening of the Aids crisis, of Malthusian poverty aggravation, moral degeneration and social disintegration on the other.” -- Meshack Mabogoane, the Secretary General of the Forum of Black Journalists

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16203475/090606-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Exponential-Functions-The-Laws-of-Sustainability

27.

Respondent is a primary victim of TRC fraud; and appellant a secondary victim: The TRC Religious Circus fraud was, and continues to be, committed against (a) Apartheid and ‘liberation’ foot soldiers, whether Eugene de Kock, the Respondent, those tortured at Camp Quatro, etc. and their victims; and (b) South African citizens. The Appellant and Respondent have allowed the TRC fraud to rape them of their psychological integrity, by requiring them to participate and perpetuate the TRC fraud, pretending that sincere Truth Telling and Forgiveness occurred; when any sincere honest enquiry would inform them that they were and are perpetuating a lie. When exactly did the Appellant and Respondent ever forgive each other? Did they ever want to forgive each other? What does the word ‘forgiveness’ mean to them? It remains to be seen whether Respondent and Appellant suffer from Battered TRC Fraud Syndrome, a cousin of Battered Wives and Battered Voters Syndrome; of people addicted to the Politics of Codependency Abuse?

28.

Explosion of Crime, racially motivated violence & corruption is a symptom of, among others TRC fraud: The consequences of this TRC Religious Circus fraud can best be described as a process of psychological thought control, or psychological warfare brainwashing, by our ANC-TRC Ministry of Truth political, media, legal and academic elite; who -– for their own politically correct public relations ‘Rainbow Nation illusion’ benefit -require that the victims and victimizers and all South African citizens, partake in this Religious Circus charade of fake two-faced hypocrisy Intellectual Forgiveness. The folly and stupidity of such hypocrisy is available for anyone with eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to think; to observe the truth that 2 + 2 in South Africa does not equal 4. A country winning the crime and rape Olympics is not a country that has experienced Truth and Forgiveness; and a country that pretends it has, certainly cannot be said to have a sincere commitment to truth or forgiveness, considering their willingness to psychologically emotionally and politically gang-rape the meaning of such concepts into total oblivion.

29.

Explosion of Fragile-Ego Hyper-Sensitivity to any constructive criticism of the Fake Rainbow Nation, is labeled as ‘Racism’ or ‘right wing’: The consequences of this fake intellectual forgiveness is that sincere closure and forgiveness is never reached by any parties, but all parties are required to pretend that they have reached closure; and this pretence not only denies them the opportunity of a sincere conversation about their anger, so as to attain sincere closure and forgiveness; but all parties knowledge of the fact that their intellectual forgiveness is fake, adds to their anger and hostility about the alleged fakeness of the other parties. Imagine a husband and wife whose lovemaking requires them to pretend that they have achieved orgasm? Individuals who spend a great

deal of time in a psychological state of pretence experience a significant increase in their psychological and spiritual insecurity. As their psychological insecurity increases they become more easily insulted; because their sense of self is no longer rooted in their values of being true to themselves, by expressing their sincere honest opinions, thoughts and feelings; but in an obsessive paranoia perception of what others think of them. 30.

What would a sincere and serious Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract have looked and felt like: It is submitted that a truly impartial serious and sincere Truth and Reconciliation process would have (a) provided all Human Rights violators with the opportunity to submit a brief confidential application Invitation via a legal representative, as a John Doe, via the ‘TFSC’ (Truth & Forgiveness Social Contract) to their victims, of their request to participate in face-to-face private meetings with experienced impartial facilitators to provide them with the opportunity to share the truths about their crimes, and listening to the resulting sincere anger in response thereto, nonviolently; until sincere sensate forgiveness was reached. Details of the victimizers crimes and their names would only be released to the public, once the victim and victimizer had achieved sincere forgiveness (a new Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract); (b) Victims could make the same invitation to their Unknown Victimizers, to the TFSC, which would be a published invitation in the media; (c) The co-creation of victims and victimizers of such a new ‘Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract’ process would only be legitimate if monitored and facilitated by a truly politically, ideologically, legally and psychologically impartial Truth and Sincere Forgiveness expert, such as Dr. Brad Blanton, with procedures – that have been proven to work -- as described in his book Practicing Radical Honesty, on the chapters on Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness21; (d) Prior to both victim and victimizers final commitment to participate in such a process; they would be required to take part in an eight day Course in Honesty and Forgiveness workshop, so as to be fully informed of what the process of specific truth-telling about past secrets and skeletons and anger entails; so that both parties are psychologically, emotionally, politically and legally fully-informed prior to their final decision to commit to the ‘Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract’ process with one another; only once they had completed the workshop, would they be required to make their final commitment; (e) For example: Both parties acceptance of the invitation require their serious and sincere commitment to refuse to pretend any fake intellectual forgiveness, and secondly to remain in the facilitated conversation, sharing their anger and the true details about their crimes with qualified impartial Anger and Forgiveness facilitators; until both parties are 100% sensate certain, they have unequivocally forgiven each other (For example, they could eyeball-to-eyeball

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-Social-Contract

their victim/victimizer, and experience no physical sensate signs of discomfort, no sweaty palms, no blinking and avoiding eye contact, no tight shoulders, no tight jaw, no negative thoughts, etc; totally and sincerely seeing the other person in a new context); (f) Once true sincere forgiveness had occurred between victims and victimizers, the victims could legally endorse Amnesty and expungement of the victimizers criminal act, and join the victimizer, by supporting them to reveal the truth of their acts to South African citizens and requesting any citizens angry with the victimizer, to approach them via the TFSC process; (g) Where a victim declined to accept the invitation to participate in exploring a new Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, they could proceed in their attempts for legal justice via the courts; and if successful; a significant factor in mitigation of sentence (not conviction) would be the victimizers original Offer to the victim to explore a Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract; (f) Conversely, where a victimizer had declined to accept a victims invitation; should they be found guilty in subsequent legal proceedings, their refusal to accept the victims invitation would be considered in aggravation of sentence. 31.

It is the Applicants submission that if the South African elite remain attached to enforcing their shallow and two-faced Rainbow ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ Illusion upon South African citizens, victims and victimizers, demanding we commoners join the SA elite in becoming ‘Ubuntu Reconciliation’ Gatkruiping Experts; the end result of how this Act was legislated, implemented, and subsequently politically and legally interpreted shall have disastrous consequences, like the ‘Peace’ Treaty of Versailles.

32.

If there are any members of the South African elite seriously and sincerely concerned and committed to the principles of Truth and Reconciliation, closure and forgiveness; they better start asking themselves what those words mean, not just intellectually, but in the guts of the everyday common citizens beings.

33.

In the circumstances, I submit that the Applicant – as an individual dedicated to advancing the understanding and respect for the practice of accomplishing sincere and specific truth telling about anger, sincere forgiveness and closure, non-violently – has an interest in the main application sufficient to qualify her as an amicus curiae.

34.

The Submissions which will be Advanced by the Applicant if she is admitted as an Amicus Curiae

35.

The Applicant seeks admission as amicus curiae for the purpose of advancing certain legal and factual submissions and interpretations, as a commoner citizen, from the Radical Honesty culture and religion, whose values are founded upon the Truth and Forgiveness

Social Contract22, which provides its members with an incredibly powerful process of getting mad and getting over being mad, in the presence and face-to-face with the person they are mad with; to a state of sincere sensate forgiveness. 36.

The Appellant, Respondent and Supreme Court of Appeal Parties Legal Arguments are founded upon inaccurate presumptions and interpretations of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act 34, 1995 that presume (a) the TRC was sincerely and seriously impartially committed to accomplishing its mandate to expose the historical truth about Apartheid reality; and (b) sincere in its representation that the TRC’s Truth and Amnesty process would provide the opportunity for closure, and sincere reconciliation and reconstruction of society.

37.

Further submissions by the Applicant shall provide evidentiary material that implies a lack of credibility of the Appellant’s (a) alleged commitment to the Rule of Law for all citizens; and (b) objection to the alleged falsification of history. The Applicant shares the Appellants vehemence to any falsification of history; but unlike the Appellant the Applicant is not selective about which falsifications she endorses and which she objects to. The evidence that indicates a particular case where the Appellant declined to endorse the Rule-of-Law Constitutional rights on behalf of the Applicant, when she was illegally arrested and detained and shunted through a Kangaroo court trial. Furthermore the aforementioned Kangaroo Court trial, endorsed by the Appellant, dealt specifically with a Magistrate, Prosecutor and Plaintiff who demanded the falsification of History in regards to the individuals definition and interpretation of the word ‘kaffir’23.

38.

The applicant will rely on among others the following comparative foreign jurisprudence, expert opinions and evidentiary documentation, to substantiate her ‘citizens privilege’ argument and interpretation in regards to her allegations of ‘TRC Religious Circus Fraud’ and the Appellants lack of credibility. A

Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg skills and competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’24

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-Social-Contract 23 The Individuals Radical Honesty Cultural & Religious Definition for ‘Kaffir’ in this instance was the original etymological meaning for the word ‘Kaffir’ namely: The word Kaafir comes from the root verb Kafara, which means ‘cover’. It was originally used before Islam, in the Arabic language, to describe farmers, when they bury a seed in the ground and cover it with soil in their planting process. Kafir subsequently came to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth’. Muslims subsequently altered it to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth about Islam’. In this Radical Honesty context it was used to accuse SA politicians of ‘knowing the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; but who covers up such information’. 24 Text & PDF available at: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/honesty-in-politics.html

Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence25, by John Alan Cohan, Pierce Law Review

The Nuremberg Defence in the Pentagon Papers Case, by Richard A. Falk

Article 6 of the London Charter: Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Charter of the International Tribunal

Article by poet Mphutlane wa Bofelo, Racist, sexist, violent-peddling, Malema

hate-talk dangerous for the future re-titled by the Applicant Forsaking Gandhian Non-violence, Honour and Character… the ANC Fanonstein Struggle spawned a Gov. of Comrade Tsotsis, Gangsters and Kleptomaniacs26 F

The Educate to Liberate: Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter White Refugee Guerrilla Law Social Science Enquiry Report: 140 of SA Political, Academic & Media Elite, Say ‘No Thanks’ to the ‘Rule-of-Law’27;

How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, Report by Univ. of SW Louisiana28;

National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth29;

Population Policy Common Sense: Exponential Functions and the Laws of Sustainability30

Population Policy Common Sense: Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract31

The Truth about the Truth Commission32, by Anthea Jeffery

Battle of the Youth Bulge: Social Unrest and Violence from Idle Young Men33, by Population Action International

Witchcraft and the State in South Africa34, by Johannes Harnischfeger

The Unforgiven, excerpt from Robert McBride – A Coloured Life, by Dr Gomolemo Mokae

39.

For these reasons, I submit that the Applicants submissions will assist the court in determining the main application between the Appellant and Respondent and will be different from those of the parties to the main application.

40.

Furthermore the applicants submissions are founded on a matter of principle: (a) that only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520106/CC-02-Civil-Disobedience-and-Necessity-Defense-by-Pierce-Law-Review PDF: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/03/media-academia-civil-society-also.html PDF: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/03/human-consciousness-rule-of-law-freedom.html PDF: http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2009/03/politician-attempts-to-remedy-evil-by.html PDF: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/09/national-security-study-memorandum-200.html PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16203475/090606-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Exponential-Functions-The-Laws-of-Sustainability PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-Social-Contract PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22814076/The-Truth-About-the-Truth-Commission-by-Andrea-Jeffery-SAIRR PDF: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/03/battle-of-youth-bulge-social-unrest.html See: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/ancs-embrace-of-occult-politics.html

Contract, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of any violent ridden society; and (b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability. 41.

The Attitude of the Parties to the Main Application:

42.

On 25 March 2010, the Applicant telephoned the Appellant and Respondents Attorneys to determine their contact details, and informed them of her intention to seek their consent to be admitted as amicus curiae in the main application.

43.

The applicant apologizes to all parties for her lack of legal expertise regarding correct legal procedure; and did not want to waste either the Appellant, Respondent or Courts time, by contacting them separately, waiting for their response, and if approved, only then applying for In Forma Pauperis Council; so herewith attempts a multi-tasking effort to accomplish all goals with one application.

44.

Accordingly the Applicant requests that if the Appellant and/or Respondent objects to the Applicant being admitted as Amicus Curiae in the main application; they provide such objection no later than noon on Wednesday, 31 March 2010.

45.

Subsequent thereto, the applicant requests that this Application to Chief Justice for Approval of In Forma Pauperis Representation, to be admitted as an Amicus Curiae, in terms of Rule 10(4); be submitted, along with any letters of objection or consent from the Appellant or Respondent to the Applicant being admitted as an Amicus Curiae; to the Chief Justice, on Thursday, 1st of April 2010; for the Chief Justice’s ruling on the Applicants admissibility as an Amicus Curiae and if so decided, for In Forma Pauperis Representation.

46.

The Relief that Ought to Be Granted to Lara Johnstone in the Present Application

47.

In view of the considerable importance that should the Applicants averments be proven to be based on sound evidence, it would behove South Africa’s elite to seriously confront the reality that (a) that only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract35, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20520279/AA-01-d-09-08-11-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Truth-Forgiveness-Social-Contract

man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of South Africa’s violent ridden society; and (b) any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability36. It is legislation written by politicians and lawyers who ‘know the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; but who cover up such information’, in their legislation. 48.

I consequently submit that it is plainly in the interests of justice, sanity and the Human Consciousness Rule-of-Law Freedom Charter37, and the opportunity this application presents for the Constitutional Court, Appellant and Respondent, to participate in a process of Educate to Liberate; that this application be dealt with on its merits.

49.

In the circumstances, I humbly request the relief as set out in the Notice of Motion to which this Affidavit is attached.

Dated at George, this 25th day of March, 2010. Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 26th day of March 2010, the Deponent acknowledging that she knows and understands the contents of this Affidavit, and that she has no objection to taking the prescribed oath and that the oath is binding on her conscience.

___________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark George, 6529 Tel/Fax: (044) 870 7239 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za.

36 37

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16203475/090606-Population-Policy-Common-Sense-Exponential-Functions-The-Laws-of-Sustainability See: http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/03/human-consciousness-rule-of-law-freedom.html

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. CCT 23/10

In the Matter Between: THE CITIZEN 1978 (PTY) LIMITED

KEVIN KEOGH

First Applicant (First Respondent in leave to cross-appeal) Second Applicant (Second Respondent in leave to cross-appeal)

MARTIN WILLIAMS

Third Applicant (Third Respondent in leave to cross-appeal)

ANDREW KENNEY

Fourth Applicant

And ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE

First Respondent (Applicant in leave to cross-appeal)

And LARA JOHNSTONE

First Amicus Curiae

THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION INSTITUTE

Second Amicus Curiae

THE S.A. NATIONAL EDITORS FORUM

Third Amicus Curiae

JOYCE SIBANYONI MBIZANA

Fourth Amicus Curiae

MBASA MXENGE

Fifth Amicus Curiae

FILING SHEET: AMENDED1 PRACTICE NOTE AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (HEADS OF ARGUMENT2) FOR LARA JOHNSTONE; IN SUPPORT OF RADICAL HONESTY POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF PROMOTION OF NATIONAL UNITY AND RECONCILIATION ACT, 34 OF 1995 1 2

10-07-18: 1st Amicus: HoA Condonation: Radical Honesty Interpretation of TRC Act [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34551198] 10-07-18: 1st Amicus: Heads of Argument: Radical Honesty Interpretation of TRC Act [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34551212]

Presented for Filing: 1.

Amended Heads of Argument Written Submissions for Lara Johnstone (Radical Honesty - SA); and

Practice Note for Amended Heads of Argument Submissions, for Lara Johnstone (Radical Honesty â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SA)

_________________________ LARA JOHNSTONE First Amicus, Pro Se PO Box 5042, George East, 6539 Cel: (071) 170 1954 Email: jmcswan@mweb.co.za

TO:

REGISTRAR OF THE COURT Snr. Registrars Clerk: Delano Louw Tel: (011) 359-7400 || Fax: (011) 339-5098 E-mail: louw@concourt.org.za

Served Copy on 19 July 20103 [# 152@03:51AM] Ack. Receipt: 19 July 2010 [# 154@07:38AM]

AND TO: WILLEM DE KLERK ATTORNEYS Attorneys for the Applicants P O box 84162, Greenside, 2034 Tel: (011) 717 8562/37 | Fax: (011) 486 4506 Cell: (082) 880 6844 Email: wdeklerk@telkomsa.net CC: Adv. W. Trengrove, S.C. Tel: (011) 291 8600 Fax: (011) 291 8666 Cell: (082) 337 0852 Email: wimtrengove@law.co.za

Served Copy on 19 July 20104 [#150@03:28AM] Ack. Rec. on 21 July 2010 [Cell: 082-337 0852@12:22]

AND TO: MASHIANE MOODLEY MONAMA Attorneys for the Respondent 39 Wierda Road West Wierda Valley, Sandton JOHANNESBURG Tel: (011) 303 7900 Fax: (011) 303 7993 / 7902

Served Copy on 19 July 20105 [#150@03:28AM] Ack. Receipt: 19 July 2010 [#151, 157 & 158]

3 4 5

PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979] PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979] PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979]

Email: monamar@m4attorneys.co.za David Maphakela: dmaphakela@m4attorneys.co.za CC: Adv. D.I Berger S.C. Tel: (011) 263 8900 Fax: (011) 263 8956 Cell: (083) 455 3887 Email: diberger@chambers.co.za

AND TO: WEBBER WENTZEL Attorneys for the Second, Third, Fourth & Fifth Amici 10 Fricker Road, Illovo Boulevard JOHANNESBURG, 2196 Tel: (011) 530 5607 | Fax: (011) 530 6232 Ref: D. Milo/O Ampofo-Anti 2039305 Email: dario.milo@webberwentzel.com Email: okyerebea.ampofo-anti@webberwentzel.com CC: Adv. Gilbert Marcus, S.C. Tel: 011 291 8600 | Fax: 011 291 8666 Cell: 083 452 5105 Email: gjmarcus@mweb.co.za

Served Copy on 19 July 20106 [#150@03:28] Ack Receipt: 19 July 2010 [#153 & # 155]

AND TO: THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT c/o: THE STATE ATTORNEY 8th Floor, Bothongo Heights, 167 Andries Street PRETORIA Tel: (012) 309 1500 | Fax: (012) 328 2662/3 c/o STATE ATTORNEY 95 Market Street, Cnr. Kruis Street North State Building, 11th Floor JOHANNESBURG Tel: (011) 330 7600 | Fax: (011) 337 6200 Cell: (082) 926 0705 Email: Vdhulam@justice.gov.za Ref: Mr. V Dhulam

Served Copy on 19 July 20107 [#150@03:28] Ack. Rec. on 21 July 2010 [Cell: 082-926 0705 @ 11:59]

HONOURABLE TRANSPARENCY COPY8: ‘RH REFUGEE’: (i) MIN. OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIG., CANADA: MR. KENNEY; (ii) NOBEL INST.: NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMM. Ref9: South Africa’s Unrepresented White Refugees: High Court: WC # 19963-09: Notice of Intention: Application for Leave and For Judicial Review, served on (i) Min. of Citizenship and Immigration, Canada (Ninth Respondent), c/o UN High Comm. for Refugees: Mr. Guteres, Geneve, Suisse; served on Consul General of Switzerland: Ms. Irene Fluckiger, Capetown; delivered to Ms. Anja Munger, at 11:05 hrs on 6

7 8 9

PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979]

PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979 PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979

HC-WC: # 19963-09: PDF File: www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2333061

22/09/09; (ii) Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Comm. (Tenth Respondent); c/o: Royal Norwegian Consulate: HE Amb Tor Christian Hildan, Capetown; delivered to Ms. Adele Day at 10:32 hrs on 22/09/09

TO:

MIN. OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION, CANADA The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P. Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1L1 Email: Minister@cic.gc.ca || kennej@parl.gc.ca Per: High Commissioner Ruth Archibald High Commission of Canada Private Bag X13, Hatfield 0028, Pretoria, South Africa Tel: (012) 422 3000 || Fax: (012) 422 3052 Email: pret@international.gc.ca

TO:

THE NOBEL INST.: NORWEGIAN NOBEL COMM. Thorbjørn Jagland (Chair); Kaci Kullmann Five (Deputy Chair), Henrik Ibsens Gate 51, No-0255 Oslo, Norway Tel: (47) 22 12 93 00 | Fax: (47) 22 12 93 10 Email: postmaster@nobel.no Per: H.E. Ambassador Mr Tor Christian Hildan Royal Norwegian Consulate, Cape Town 17th Floor, Southern Life Centre, 8 Riebeek Street P.O. Box 4446, Cape Town 8000 Tel: +27 21 418 1276 | Fax: +27 21 418 1275 Email: embctn@telkomsa.net, emb.pretoria@mfa.no

Served Copy on 19 July 2010 [#160@23:48] Ack. Rec. on 19 July 2010 [#165@23:54][#183@12:29]

Served Copy on 19 July 2010 [#161@23:48]

HONOURABLE TRANSPARENCY COPY10: ‘RH REFUGEE’: (i) U.S. NAVY JAG, DC (ii) INTN’L CRIMINAL COURT, THE HAGUE Ref11:

TO:

October 30, 2009 Correspondence, to: ICC Prosecutor: Info & Evidence Unit (CC: Dep. Judge Adv. Gen., US Navy JAG Office); from: Lara Johnstone (Johnson): US Immigration & Naturalization: # A77 177 281; CA Drivers Licence #: CA: B9644585; Subject: NSSM 200, NSDM 314, NSDM 46, US-SC: # 00-9587 (Graves vs. President of USA) and (Kosovo) Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999): Notice of legal and political persecution and prosecution of non-violent Radical Honesty activist; 28 Oct 2009: RE: Freedom of Speech Political & Cultural Rights, or Secession?; Foreign & Intl Law Issues

U.S. NAVY JAG Rear Admiral Nanette M. DeRenzi, Ref: INS: A 77 177 281 Deputy Judge Advocate General Commander, Naval Legal Service Command Judge Advocate General’s Corps U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Office 1322 Patterson Avenue, Suite 3000 Washington Navy Yard, DC, 20374-5066, USA Per: US Ambassador in Pretoria: Mr. Donald Gips PO Box 9536, Pretoria 0001 877 Pretorius St, Arcadia, Pretoria Tel: (27-12) 431-4000 | Fax: (27-12) 342-2299 Email: consularjohannesburg@state.gov

TO: 10 11

ICC PROSECUTOR: INFO & EVIDENCE UNIT

Served Copy on 19 July 2010 [#162@23:48]

Served Copy on 19 July 2010 [#163@23:50];

PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979

09-10-28: HC-WC In Forma Pauperis (Crimen Injuria) Review Application; RE: Freedom of Speech Political and Cultural Rights, or Secession?; Constitutional, Foreign and International Law Issues [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/22039639]

Ack. Rec. on 19 July 2010 [#174@23:51]

Head Investigations: Mr. Michel de Smedt International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor: Communications Post Office Box 19519 2500 CM The Hague, The Netherlands. Fax: +31 70 515 8555 Email: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int

HONOURABLE TRANSPARENCY COPY12: ‘RH REFUGEE’: (i) MR. KEES VAN DER STAAIJ (SGP); (ii) MR. GEERT WILDERS (PVV); (iii) MIN. BUITENLANDSE SAKE, DEN HAAG Ref13: (i) 23 April 2010 news report by Casper Naber of the Daglikse Algemeenblad, Bange Zuid-Afrikanen smeken om Wilders' hulp (Terrified 'S.Africans' of Dutch descent Appeal to Dutch MP for Safe Haven from Violence Targeting Whites); (ii) Correspondence: Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010; To: Mr. 'Geert Wilders'; Subject: Att: Mr. Geert Wilders; Freedom Party; RE: Request Help for African White Refugees who are descendants of Dutch Citizens; (iii) 21 March 2010: Application to Netherlands Consulate General: Application for Dutch Citizenship/Passport as a direct descendant of Dutch citizens: Lambertus Bosman & Maria Fransz of Amsterdam, Holland

TO:

MR. KEES VAN DER STAAIJ (SGP) Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij c/o: V.A. (Volbregt) Smit, Afdelingshoofd Communicatie, vorming en voorlichting (CVV) Burgemeester van Reenensingel 101, 2803 PA Gouda T (0182) 69 69 05 / 06 || F (0182) 57 32 22 Email: voorlichting@sgp.nl | Email: vasmit@sgp.nl

TO:

MR. GEERT WILDERS (PVV) Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid) Email: g.wilders@tweedekamer.nl

TO:

MIN. VAN BUITENLANDSE ZAKEN DEN HAAG, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Verhagen Bezuidenhoutseweg 67, 2594 AC 's-Gravenhage, Nederland c/o: Mrs. Ineke Solinas, Consular Assistant Netherlands Consulate General 100 Strand Street, Capetown, 8001 Tel: (021) 421 5660 Email: kaa@minbuza.nl

Served Copy on 19 July 2010 [#164@23:54]

Served Copy on 19 July 2010 [#166@23:56]; Ack. Rec. on 20 July 2010 [#178@08:44] Served Copy on 19 July 2010 [#167@23:58] Ack. Rec. on 20 July 2010 [#180@09:40]

HONOURABLE TRANSPARENCY COPY14: ‘TRC FRAUD’: (i) TRC COMMISSIONERS: TUTU, BORRAINE ET AL; (ii) NELSON MANDELA FOUNDATION; (iii) F.W. DE KLERK FOUNDATION Ref: (*15) Submission to TRC dated 18 January 1999: Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation 12 13

PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979

10-04-23: White Refugee: Help Asseblief Graaf Wilders & Royal Familie, Nederlands: Jus Sanguinis Right of Return to Holland, for Boer-Afrikaners [PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34457887] 14

PDF: First Amicus: Transcript: Correspondence & Email Service: www.scribd.com/doc/34064979

to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 1999; (*16) Email to TRC Commissioner: Dr. Gobodo-Madikizela, Associate Professor of Psychology, Univ. of Capetown, Sun 2009/06/28: An Eco-Psychology Guerrylla Warrior Enquiry: Was South Africa's 'Reconciliation' an Intellectual Delusion?; (*17) We've lost our pride - Tutu, by Murray La Vita, Die Burger, 2010-05-05 (*18) Correspondence: to SA Leadership Editor & CODESA Politician Mr. Piet Coertze: Mr. Coertze Admits he Never Forgave AWB (*19) Corr: Nelson Mandela Foundation: Request for Comment: Freedom of Speech for Radical HonestFy White Refugee; (*20) FW de Klerk Foundation: Request for Comment: Freedom of Speech for Radical Honesty White Refugee

TO:

TRUTH & RECONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS Archbishop Desmond Tutu & Rev. Alex Boraine; c/o International Center for Transitional Justice C/O Board of Directors: Mr. Kofi Appentung, Mr. Harvey P. Dale, Mr. Vincent Mai, Mr. Ken Miller, Ms. Minna Schrag, Mr. Theodore Sorensen, 5 Hanover Square. Floor 24, NY, NY USA 10004 Tel: +(917) 637 3800 | Fax: +1(917) 637 3900 P O Box 44329, Claremont, 7735 Email: tutudm@mweb.co.za, cgarvie@ictj.org, info@ictj.org, capetown@ictj.org, Brussels@ictj.org, Geneva@ictj.org, kenyainfo@ictj.org, egonzalez@ictj.org, CC: Mr. Murray La Vita, Die Burger Email: mlavita@dieburger.com

TO:

TRC COMMISSIONER: DR. GOBODO-MADIKIZELA Associate Professor of Psychology Dept. of Psychology, University of Capetown Tel: +27 (0)21 650.3427 Email: pumla.gobodo-madikizela@uct.ac.za

TO:

NELSON MANDELA FOUNDATION Chairperson of the Board: Prof Jakes Gerwel Exec. Personal Assistant & Spokesperson: Ms Zelda La Grange c/o Mr. Sello Hatang, Manager: Information Communications Private Bag X70 000, Hounghton, 2041 Tel: (011) 728 1000 | Fax: (011) 728 1111 Email: nmf@nelsonmandela.org, SelloH@nelsonmandela.org; Ms. Makano Morojele, Educ.: Makano@nelsonmandela.org; Dr Mothomang Diaho, Memory: mothomangd@nelsonmandela.org; Verne Harris, Memory & Dialogue: verne@nelsonmandela.org; Boniswa Qabaka, Archives: boniswa@nelsonmandela.org,

TO:

F.W. DE KLERK FOUNDATION c/o Center for Constitutional Rights Adv. Nikki de Havilland 163 Hendrik Verwoerd Drive, Plattekloof, Capetown T/F: (021) 930 3622 / 3898 Email: info@cfcr.org.za, nikki@cfcr.org.za; Piet Le Roux: piet@fwdeklerk.org; David Steward: dave@fwdeklerk.org

Served Copy on 20 July 2010 [#168@00:01] Ack. Rec. on 20 July 2010 [#169@00:02]

Ack. Rec. on 20 July 2010 CC: [#179@09:39] Served Copy on 20 July 2010 [#170@00:04] Tel. Confirm on 21 July 2010 [Tel: (021) 650-3427]

Served Copy on 20 July 2010 [#171@00:10] Ack. Rec. on 20 July 2010 [#172@00:11][# 175@05:41] [#176@07:48]

Served Copy on 20 July 2010 [#173@00:12] Ack. Rec. on 20 July 2010 [#177@08:15][#181@10:00] [#182@11:33]

Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 199915 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/16224046] 16 09-06-28: WR: Dr. Gobodo-Madikizela, Assoc. Prof. Psych: Eco-Psychology Guerrylla Enquiry: Was SA's TRC an intellectual delusion? [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34537544] 17 ‘TRC Failed’ - Tutu; ‘TRC Chickens come home to roost’ – SAIRR; ‘Rainbow Nation Dead & Buried’ – David Bullard; ‘ANC violating social contract’ – TAU [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34460267] 18 10-04-18: WR: Codesa Politician & Leadership Mag Ed; RE: Truth and Forgiveness Leadership & Terre'Blanches Murder [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34537527] 19 Req: Nelson Mandela Fnd: Free Speech for Radical Honesty White Refugee [PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28224781] 20 Req: F.W de Klerk Fnd: Free Speech for Radical Honesty White Refugee [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/28224667]

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. CCT 23/10

In the Matter Between: THE CITIZEN 1978 (PTY) LIMITED

KEVIN KEOGH

MARTIN WILLIAMS

First Applicant (First Respondent in leave to cross-appeal) Second Applicant (Second Respondent in leave to cross-appeal) Third Applicant (Third Respondent in leave to cross-appeal)

ANDREW KENNEY

Fourth Applicant

And ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE

First Respondent (Applicant in leave to cross-appeal)

And

LARA JOHNSTONE

First Amicus Curiae

THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION INSTITUTE

Second Amicus Curiae

THE S.A. NATIONAL EDITORS FORUM

Third Amicus Curiae

JOYCE SIBANYONI MBIZANA

Fourth Amicus Curiae

MBASA MXENGE

Fifth Amicus Curiae

PRACTICE NOTE1 FOR LARA JOHNSTONE; IN SUPPORT OF RADICAL HONESTY POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF PROMOTION OF NATIONAL UNITY & RECONCILIATION ACT, 34 OF 1995

10-07-18: 1st Amicus: Heads of Argument: Radical Honesty Interpretation of TRC Act [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34551212]

A. Nature of Proceedings a. The Applicants and Respondent are appealing and cross-appealing a judgement of the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”), Case: 277/2008, regarding, among others, the interpretation of the meaning of ‘amnesty’ in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 (“TRC Act”), whose ‘amnesty’ mandate was provided for in The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 200 of 1993 (“Interim Constitution”), both which collectively set the ‘social contract’ foundation for the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 (“SA Constitution”); all collectively herein after referred to as ‘TRC Social Contract’. b. As the only member of the Radical Honesty culture and religion in South Africa, First Amici Applied to the Chief Justice to proceed as an In Forma Pauperis Amicus. First Amicus was approved to proceed as a member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, on the argument that the ‘TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt negligently conducted by SA’s political, academic, media and legal elite’.2The Application for In Forma Pauperis council was denied.

B. The issues to be argued by Lara Johnstone / Radical Honesty - RSA a. Multicultural Conflict of Laws Substantive Due Process: Importance of Clarity, Impartiality: Multicultural lawmaking must avoid Mono-cultural legal hegemony and draw on legal cultural diversity. b. Constitutional provisions for invoking cultural law require courts to be clear about the application of choice of law rules, so that all cultural groups are adequately informed with sufficient defined precision to enable citizens and cultures to regulate their affairs with individuals from other cultures in accordance with law. 3 c. Cultural applications: Skills, competencies and practices, to the Common law Reasonableness Test, in accordance with principles principles of serving a socially useful purpose, acting in accordance with common cultural practices, and skills and competency standards. Example of Radical Honesty Political Necessity and Civil Disobedience skills and competencies. 2

Lara Johnstone, Member Radical Honesty Culture and Religion: Application to Chief Justice to proceed as an In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae, ITO Rule 10 (4):, at Para 17 – 33: The Interest of the Applicant in the Main Application 3 Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458079]

d. Importance of Judiciary to protect the rights of discrete and insular minorities 4 in political dispensations, where their voice is effectively nullified and neutralized, in accordance with Judicial Activism precedence enabling a more comprehensive and searching judicial enquiry, to search for the truth5. e. Brief overview of Ecolaw6, principles of Sustainability7, in accordance with the principle that sustainability, the environment, or ecological carrying capacity laws, are the sine qua non8 for all other rights9. Principles covered include procedural rights to access to information10, being a key to environmental rights, intergenerational equity and integration, to protect natural and cultural resource bases11.

C. Portions of record that are necessary for the argument of Lara Johnstone / Radical Honesty - RSA None

D. Estimate of the duration of oral argument of Lara Johnstone / Radical Honesty – RSA: None, unless a, or more, Justices have any questions.

E. Summary of argument

United States v. Carolene Products Co. , 304 U.S. 144 (1938) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33092567] Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456660]. See also: Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009); Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981) 6 Principle 1: ‘All human beings have the fundamental right to an environment adequate for their health and well-being.; Principle 2 (adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights), provides that all persons ‘have the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment.’ See Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development, adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law, reproduced in WCED Our Common Future (1987) 348. See also Principle 1, Draft Principles on Human Rights and the Environment in UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Human Rights and the Environment, Final Report of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc E/CN.4.Sub2/1994 19 7 Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, by Albert Bartlett, Ph.D., Paper first published in Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; (1998) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707684] 8 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456660]. 9 See eg Lopez Ostra v Spain (1995) ECHR Ser A 303-C. 10 Van Huyssteen NNO v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 1995 9 BCLR 1191 (C). For a discussion, se A. Eide et al (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights: A textbook (1995) 261 et seq. The authors discuss Communication 429/1990, EW & Others v The Netherlands as an example of how this is achieved. 11 (i) Art 3(1) of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, reprinted in (1992) 31 International Legal Materials 851, which provides that ‘parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of the present and future generations of humankind’. (ii) Preamble of the 1992 Biodiversity Convention, reprinted in (1992) 31 International Legal Materials 822, makes use of intergenerational equity. For earlier instruments see the Preambles of the 1968 Convention on African Nature Conservation, and the 1972 World Heritage Convention. 5

a. A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non12 for all other constitutional rights; similarly a psychological integrity environment of philosophical courageous truth searching honesty and sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non13 for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements. b. Put differently, legislators or tribal leaders whose person to person, and tribe to nature tribal code of conduct relationships incorporate these two fundamental sine qua non precepts, can be said to have eliminated the difference between what the laws of human nature, and natural laws say and mean, and applied such knowledge in a clear code of conduct for their tribe to live in accordance to. They are social engineers who search for the truth about human nature and natural laws, and clarify and simply them for application14. c. The Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract15, addresses both of these sine qua non principles: (a) a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract, unequivocally understood and practiced by all its cultural members to resolve disagreements and misunderstandings, which works, perhaps as a result of its inclusion of ‘I am, therefore I think’16 human nature scientific realities; (b) any advocacy on behalf of peace, human rights and social justice, takes full recognition of sine qua non carrying capacity requirements for such to occur. d. Consequently First Amicus Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract Arguments contends that:

12 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456660] 13 Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790790] 14 ‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ – Prof. Charlie Houston, Howard Law School mentor of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the epochal Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation, and of black America’s century-long struggle for equality under law, by Richard Kluger; Random House (1975) (pp126-129) 15 Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34270511] 16 Non-Descartian/Radical Honesty (I am, therefore I think) Worldview: UA: [B.4] Sui Generis (I think, I am Unique) Meme Dream [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739383]; Practicing Radical Honesty : Chapter 2: what is a Mind and How Does It Work?, Chapter 3. Dysfunctional Family University, The World-Famous School Within Which We Grew Our Minds; Chapter 8. Community and Compassion; [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790790]; Waking from the Meme Dream: Who Am I? Do I Exist?; by Susan Blackmore; Paper presented: The Psychology of Awakening: International Conference on Buddhism, Science & Psychotherapy Dartington 7-10 November 1996; also The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science & Our Day-to-day Lives. Ed. G.Watson, S.Batchelor and G.Claxton; London, Rider, 2000, 112-122 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790665]; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes (1976); The Computational Brain, Churchland,P.S. and Sejnowski,T.J. (1992); Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press; To Have or to Be, by Erich Fromm, published in World Perspective Series, by Harper & Row; et al

i. Only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract17, i.e. a code of conduct unequivocally understood (communication clarity by participants who cognitively understand key concepts for other tribes cultures practices) and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of any violent and conflict ridden family, community, or society; ii. any legislation or jurisprudence such as the TRC Social Contract, which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability, advocating misery. e. The Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of TRC Social Contract: The TRC’s determination that Apartheid was a crime against humanity, was a falsification of history. i. The TRC Social Contract avoids providing key definitions, is vague and ambiguous on fundamental culturally conflicting concepts, such as ‘forgiveness’, ‘closure’, ‘national unity’, ‘reconciliation’ etc18. ii. Definition and meaning of Amnesty was changed, subsequent to Interim Constitution, and prior to TRC Act, without due Process to all parties19. iii. Truth and Reconciliation was not seen to be done20. The Commission was biased, skewed and not remotely interested in addressing root cause problems for better understanding, nor in rainbow struggle perspectives, ignoring blatantly obvious enquiries into population demographic causes, etc21. iv. The consequences of the fake TRC publicity stunt are there for all to see; clearly clarifying a principle highlighted by the Milgram studies on obedience: Conflict between conscience and authority is not wholly a

Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34270511] Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456270] 19 R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456310] 20 R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456310] 21 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998). Multi-cultural Law Must draw on legal cultural diversity; Environment is sine qua non for all other rights. PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456660]. 18

philosophical or moral issue. Many people intellectually share philosophical values, or convince themselves they do, because they prefer to think of themselves with that particular positive value image. However, when placed into a circumstance where they are required to make difficult decisions to demonstrate their commitment to their philosophical beliefs about themselves, they lack the skills and capabilities to transform convictions into physical action. Similarly an intellectual belief in the concept of forgiveness, is not an indication of any individuals capability to transform such belief into actual physical sensate forgiveness; i.e. to sincerely forgive. f. Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract Conclusion: TRC FRAUD: ‘CRIME OF APARTHEID’ WAS A FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was biased, skewed and had a -– perhaps unconscious, but the results provide the evidence -- predetermined ‘crime of apartheid’ black-liberation-theory victimhood racialvengeance (not truth and forgiveness) based agenda. The TRC’s biased and pre-determined vengeance and censorship Recipe results are there for all –except the Eichmann-Obedience-to-Rainbow Belief-Addicts suffering from Battered-TRC-Fraud-Syndrome –- to see: “One cannot expect to follow the recipe for roadkill stew and produce a crème brulee”. For example: i. Farm Murders: A Rainbow-TRC-Peace, or a Racial-Hatred-War Reality? SA’s 2080 farm murders have occurred in a country officially allegedly at peace, after having achieved alleged 'reconciliation', indicate that the "rainbow reconciled nation" is nothing but an illusion not reflected in evidentiary facts and reality on the ground. People who have forgiven each other, or are participating in such a conversation, collaborate to address and eliminate the root causes of their dispute, they don’t murder, rape and torture those they allegedly forgave, in order to rob them; unless their definition for ‘forgiveness’ is ‘murder, rape and torture’. ii. Radical Honesty Culture of Forgiveness Banned in SA Multi-Culture Courts: One of the few citizens in South Africa seriously committed to sincere sensate forgiveness and reconciliation, who endorses the rule of law for all tribes, all ideologies, all cultures, is and has been legally persecuted and prosecuted for practicing Radical Honesty Population

Policy Common Sense Social Contract advocacy, for eight years, without any objections from any TRC Proudly Rainbow South African political, academic, media, or legal authorities. g. Relief: Recognize Radical Honesty, Implement Choice of Law Rules: Cultures who prefer to abide by a fraudulent TRC social contract, are welcome to continue to follow the recipe for roadkill stew to attempt to produce a crème brulee. Their cultural definitions for ‘dignity’ and practice of ‘freedom of speech’ should however not be assumed to be the definitions and practices for all cultures. Confirmation that Radical Honesty is a religion/culture, not a refugee status. i. Acknowledge that forgiveness, closure, ubuntu, amnesty, truth, reconciliation, interpreted in accordance to Radical Honesty definitions, renders the TRC social contract: A TRC Fraud: ‘Crime of Apartheid’ Falsification of History; ii. Acknowledge that the absence of multi-cultural legal definitions (let alone choice of law rules) for many TRC social contract’s foundational multi-cultural concepts –- forgiveness, closure, reconciliation, ubuntu, - eliminates any Non-Descartian22 (I am, therefore I think) [and perhaps Ubuntu ‘I participate, therefore I am’ worldview] citizens ‘right to certainty in TRC ‘rainbow jurisprudence’23 administration of justice’24. iii. Issue a judgement requiring that relevant choice of law rules (where two or more conflicting legal systems aims have to be met) be implemented: to give detailed guidance to courts and citizens on the application of cultural laws; eg. where and when is a defendant to be treated as a member of a particular cultural community in which particular practices, are cultural rights and obligations obtained, allowing sufficient flexibility to cater for the peculiarities of individual cases.

F. Authorities on which particular reliance will be placed

See: Non-Descartian/Radical Honesty (I am, therefore I think) Worldview. Ibid Alfred Cockrell ‘Rainbow Jurisprudence’ (1996) 12 SAJHR 1. 24 Van der Vyver (1982) 15 CILSA 312-14 23

a. Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998). b. United States v. Carolene Products Co. , 304 U.S. 144 (1938) c. Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 ยง 110 d. R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) e. Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009) f. Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A). g. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118 h. Van Huyssteen NO v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 1995 9 BCLR 1191 (C) i. Constitution S.12: Freedom of Security of Person & Psychological Integrity; S 15: Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion; S 16: Freedom of Expression; S. 24: Sustainable Environment; S 31: Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Community; S. 32: Access to Information; S.33: Just Administrative Action.

George

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se

18 July 2010

Propria Persona / Litigant in Person

IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. CCT 23/10

In the Matter Between: THE CITIZEN 1978 (PTY) LIMITED

KEVIN KEOGH

First Applicant (First Respondent in leave to cross-appeal) Second Applicant (Second Respondent in leave to cross-appeal)

MARTIN WILLIAMS

Third Applicant (Third Respondent in leave to cross-appeal)

ANDREW KENNEY

Fourth Applicant

And ROBERT JOHN MCBRIDE

First Respondent (Applicant in leave to cross-appeal)

And

LARA JOHNSTONE

First Amicus Curiae

THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION INSTITUTE

Second Amicus Curiae

THE S.A. NATIONAL EDITORS FORUM

Third Amicus Curiae

JOYCE SIBANYONI MBIZANA

Fourth Amicus Curiae

MBASA MXENGE

Fifth Amicus Curiae

HEADS OF ARGUMENT1 FOR LARA JOHNSTONE; IN SUPPORT OF RADICAL HONESTY POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF PROMOTION OF NATIONAL UNITY AND RECONCILIATION ACT, 34 OF 1995

10-07-18: 1st Amicus: Heads of Argument: Radical Honesty Interpretation of TRC Act [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34551212]

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF FIRST AMICUS ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 03 I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ADDRESSED AND RELIED UPON: …………………………………………………. 06 A. Multicultural Conflict-of-Laws Substantive Due Process: Clarity & Impartiality .……………. 06 B. Bolam Test: Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skill & Competencies ………………………….. 08 C. Political Necessity: Freedom of Speech & Civil Disobedience …………………………………………. 10 D. Judicial Activism: A More Searching Judicial Enquiry: Search for Truth …………………………. 12 E. Ecolaw 101: Laws of Sustainability: Ecological Social Contract ………………………………………. 13

II: TRUTH AND FORGIVENESS SOCIAL CONTRACT PRINCIPLES …………………………………… 16 A. Radical Honesty Overview: Being Specific about Anger and Forgiveness ……………..………… 17 B. Stanley Milgram Studies on Obedience: Legal, Socio-political Implications ………………..…. 17 C. Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skills and Competencies …………………………………………. 19 D. Rule of Law & Forgiveness: Individuality, Independence & Integrity ………………………………

III: POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE PRINCIPLES ……………………………………………….. 21 A. Thou Shalt Not Transgress Carrying Capacity Prophets ………………………………………….……….

B. Eco-Numeracy: Exponential Functions and Carrying Capacity ………………………………………... 22 C. Tragedy of the Commons: Limited World, Limited Rights ……………………………………………….

D. Overpopulation: Resources Scarcity and Resource War Violence ……………………………………

E. Demographics and Violence: Youth Bulges ………………………………………………………………………

F. Population Pressures, Resource Wars and National Security ………………………………………...

G. How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection …………………...

IV: TRC FRAUD: ‘CRIME OF APARTHEID’ FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY ……………………..

A. Negligent or Intentional Avoidance of Key Concept Definitions? …………………………….……..

B. Amnesty Meaning Changed without Due Process? …………………………………………………………... 28 C. Was Truth and Reconciliation Seen to be Done? ……………………………………………………………..

D. Did ‘Evil Apartheid’ raise Black living standards to Highest in Africa? …………………………..

E. Apartheid: Crime Against Humanity; or Just War for Demographic Survival? ………………... 33 F. Nature & Causes of Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival? ………………………..… 35 G. Farm Murders: A Rainbow TRC Peace, or Racial Hatred War Reality? …………………………...

V. RADICAL HONESTY: CULTURE & RELIGION; OR REFUGEE STATUS? …………………….

A. Radical Honesty Culture of Forgiveness Banned in SA Multi-Culture Courts ……………………

B. 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee ………………..

CONCLUSION: TRC SOCIAL CONTRACT: A FRAUDULENT PR PUBLICITY STUNT ……….. 48 RELIEF: RECOGNIZE RADICAL HONESTY, IMPLEMENT CHOICE OF LAW RULES……………. 49 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 50

INTEREST OF FIRST AMICUS: 1.

This Amicus brief (a) addresses alternative legal arguments to those of both the Applicant and Respondent, i.e. from a Radical Honesty culture/religion perspective; (b) ‘argues points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular case’2; (c) ‘apprises the court of broad-based legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration to avoid unintended consequences for groups not before the court,’3 (d) informs the court of information to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law legal framework, so that the court’s final judgment shall include a fullyinformed refined legal analysis, which provides equal protection to all SA’s tribes4; and (e) provides a perspective from a culture practicing sincere sensate forgiveness.

First Amicus, Lara Johnstone is the only member of the Radical Honesty5 culture and religion, in South Africa. The Radical Honesty culture and religion are founded upon the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness6; as excerpted from: Practicing Radical Honesty7. Radical Honesty is a powerful process by which people can make corrections in the minds distorted and only partly conscious map of the world. Our maps of the world are distorted by our repressed anger and resentment; the greater the amount of repressed anger and resentment, the greater the distortion. The key to individuality, integrity, individual freedom, and free societies, lies in providing people with the skills and capabilities to get over their anger, and experience sincere forgiveness. It is the way the statistics from Stanley Milgram’s experiments on blind obedience to authority8 get changed.9

Radical Honesty culture and religion was founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, who is: (1) President and CEO of Radical Honesty Enterprises Sparrowhawk Book Publishing and The Center for Radical Honesty, both dedicated to promoting honesty in the world; (2) former candidate for Congress in 2004 and 2006, on the platform of ‘Honesty in Politics’10; (3) Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. “Dr. Truth”11; and

Luther T. Munford, When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?, 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 279, 280 (1999). Paul M. Sandler & Andew D. Levy, Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer: State and Federal: Amicus Briefs 331 (1994). 4 Paul M. Smith, The Sometimes Troubled Relationship Between Courts and Their “Friends”, note 2, at 26 (1998). 5 Founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, author, psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Congressional Candidate: www.radicalhonesty.com 6 Chapter 9: Radical Honesty About Anger: PDFS: [www.scribd.com/doc/33790658] & [www.scribd.com/doc/20520279] 7 Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton, Ph.D. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5507662] 8 Great World Trials; The Adolph Eichmann Trial, 1961. pages 332-337; 1997.: Eichmann, speaking in his own defense, said he did not dispute the Holocaust facts. During the whole trial, Eichmann insisted that he was only "following orders"—the same Nuremberg Defense used by some of the Nazi war criminals during the 1945–1946 Nuremberg Trials. He explicitly declared that he had abdicated his conscience in order to follow the Führerprinzip. Eichmann claimed that he was merely a "transmitter" with very little power. He testified that: "I never did anything, great or small, without obtaining in advance express instructions from Adolf Hitler or any of my superiors." 9 Ibid. Ch. 8: Community and Compassion: Work of Stanley Milgram; (p81) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5507662] 10 See Video Documentaries at: www.why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/p/honesty-in-politics.html 3

(4) author of (a) Radical Honesty: How To Transform your Life by Telling the Truth; (b) Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Stay in the Present and Build a Future with a Little Help from Your Friends, (c) Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World, with Neale Donald Walsh (Conversations with God series); (d) Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World; (e) The Truthtellers: Stories of Success by Radically Honest People and (f) Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal Split-Second-Sound-Light-Being; (g) Some New Kind of Trailer Trash. Dr. Blanton, has filed a Radical Honesty / Futilitarian Church statement in support of this Amicus.12 4.

Rainbow Rule-of-Law Freedom of Speech Search for Truth Culture13 Credibility: First Amicus supports the maxim of the non-violent anti-slavery publication the North Starh, whose Republican editor, Frederick Douglass was fond of saying: “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.” As a rule-of-law political activist, she endorses the rule-of-law for all, rich, poor, white, black, left and right, religious or atheist. She filed her submission to the TRC14 on 18 January 1999, wherein she detailed her willingness to donate her entire inheritance to facilitate sincere Truth and Forgiveness. She is separated (filed for divorce) from Demian Emile Johnson, who is, and has been, incarcerated in California Dept. of Corrections, for the entire duration of their marriage15. In addition to Radical Honesty she has been involved in non-violent civil disobedience actions on behalf of her former husband16, Greenpeace17, Amnesty Int’l, Pacific Inst. for Criminal Justice18, Jericho 9819, Crack the CIA20, The Disclosure Project21, New Abolitionist22, Justice for Timothy McVeigh23, Alliance for Democracy24,

See Center for Radical Honesty at: www.radicalhonesty.com Written Statement of Consent by Brad Blanton, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness to: Practicing Radical Honesty, Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger & Forgiveness; Paradigms & Contexts: Revolution of Consciousness [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31989814] 13 In Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) Schreiner J.A. said lifestyle of is a choice of law factor. “Aside from an express choice of laws all connecting factors with conflict of personal laws are designed to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. Because the laws involved are conceived in terms of culture .... the connecting factors must be conceived in like terms. The most direct access to a person’s cultural leanings would clearly be his or her lifestyle.” 14 Submission to ‘Register of Reconciliation’ and donation to Presidents Fund for Reparations to assist victims of gross violations of human rights dated 18 January 199914 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/16224046] 15 98-05-31: Sun Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town, [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5503257]; 98-09-24: YOU & Huisgenoot: Volkrust FarmGirl Doomed Love for Black Convict, by Frans Kemp [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/13270097] 16 RSA OVERSEAS: South African on hunger strike in California, by Ilda Jacobs 17 In Easter 1993, she was arrested with a few dozen Greenpeace activists in a Save Our Seas anti-nuclear demonstration at Sellafield, Nuclear Power station, in Scotland, for trespassing. She was neither charged nor prosecuted. See: Greenpeace’s Campaign Against Ocean Dumping of Radio-Active Waste, 1978 – 1998 (www.greenpeace.org). 18 98-07-04 Miami Herald: Police action harms image as protectors [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5503636] 19 Jericho 98 is the movement to Free America’s Political Prisoners. She participated in Jericho 98, wrote to President Mandela to request his support for the many Anti-Apartheid Activists whom the ANC conveniently forgot, rotting away in America’s prisons: Marilyn Buck, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, etc. She visited Marilyn Buck in prison a few times, helped where she could. 20 99-03-16: San Francisco Chronicle: CIA Class Action Suit For Not Reporting Drug Trade [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/28391760] 21 Presidential UFO: George W. Bush’s UFO Mail: Are You Ready for the Revolution? [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33838621] 22 New Abolitionist: Race Traitor: Zero Tolerance [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5503955] 23 April 2001: New Abolitionist: Tim McVeigh and Me [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5508338] 24 In 2000, she was arrested & detained for 3 hours, with Brad Blanton, Ronny Dugger (founding editor of Texas Observer and Alliance for Democracy), & others in the Wash, DC, Capital of the Rotunda. Issue: Campaign Finance Reform. District Attorney declined to Prosecute. 12

Boycott 2010 World Cup25, Right of Return for African White Refugees26, et al27. She is 43 years old, has never been on welfare, has used an IUD as contraception since the age of 19, and hence has never been pregnant, nor had an abortion. She has lived an ecological small footprint life; to avoid aggravating overpopulation, resource wars; materialist consumerism and resource depletion.28 5.

Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract Beliefs: (A) Only a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract29, or similar, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man can ever contribute to sincere and serious reconciliation and the reconstruction of any violent and conflict ridden family, community, or society; (B) any legislation or jurisprudence such as the TRC Social Contract, which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability, advocating misery.

Radical Honesty in SA: A Culture and Religion, or a Refugee Status Enquiry: The results of a Multi-Culti Rainbow Little Eichmanns30 social science experiment whereby First Amicus provided Applicants, 2nd and 3rd Amicus (incl. other political and academic SA elite) the opportunity to ‘search for the truth’ regarding the relationship between freedom of speech, sincere forgiveness, Stanley Milgrams studies on blind obedience to authority and the common law reasonableness test – i.e. their unequivocal endorsement of the rule of law; their response was “Deliberate Indifference”31

Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud: Mainstream Access-toDiscourse-Gatekeeper Editors censorship32 of nonviolent political grievances and

09-12-17: IOL Tech.: Anti-SA Smear Campaign on Facebook [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/24312359] 10-04-23: Algemene Dagblad: Zuid Afrikanen Smeken Om Wilders Hulp [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31036819] ; 10-04-25: Sunday Argus: SA family seeks repatriation to Netherlands [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31036819]; 10-04-30: Mail & Guardian: Persecuted Afrikaners Talk of Returning Home [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31036798]; 10-05-17: Christian Science Monitor: White South Africans use Facebook in Campaign to Return to Holland [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33839485] 27 On 17 Dec 1998, she was arrested at Oakland Federal Building, with anti-war protestors, who shut down the Federal Building for two hours. She was detained by Oakland Police for an hour, before being released. Alameda Co. District Attorney declined to prosecute. 199812-19 Beeld: SA `plaasmeisie' vas in VSA oor Golf-protes [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/5504269] 28 The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or # of Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. All we do, buy and breed has ecological consequences. Ecological Footprint, excluding ‘Child-Free’ factor (www.myfootprint.org/en/) is 13.16 gha. 29 Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34270511] 30 Little Eichmanns: phrase used to describe the complicity of participants in destructive and immoral systems in a way that, although on an individual scale may seem indirect, when taken collectively have an Eichmann Milgram Obedience to Authority effect. 31 HC-WC 19963-09: 140 SA Elite Deliberate Indifference to Rule of Law[PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34274197] 32 “The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence, documentary; “For revolutionary groups, the more murderous the deed, the more 26

problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits, in knowledge application of: 1. ‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’33; 2. ‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’34; 3. ‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse35; 4. Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection36; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism37.

I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ADDRESSED AND RELIED UPON: ‘Lawyers are either social engineers, or they are parasites. Social Engineer Lawyers aim to eliminate the difference between what the laws say and mean, and how they are applied; whereas legal parasites aim to entrench their parasitism from the difference between what the laws say and mean, and the application of such differences to their parasitic benefit.’ – Prof. Charlie Houston, Howard Law School mentor of Justice Thurgood Marshall, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education 38

A. Multi-Cultural Conflict of Laws Substantive Due Process: Clarity & Impartiality: 8.

Multi-cultural Law Must (a) avoid Mono-cultural legal Hegemony, (b) draw on legal cultural diversity: Opinion of Weeramantry J in Case Concerning the GabcikovoNagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) 39, clarifies multi-culti lawmaking: The need for International law to draw upon Worlds Diversity of Cultures in Harmonizing Development and Environmental Protection

certain the media coverage.” -- Nicholas Partridge, Presenter, ANC: VIP’s of Violence. See: Transcript of ANC: VIP’s of Violence at: UA: [C.6] ‘If it Bleads, It Leads,’ Editorial Maxim [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739403] 33 Clark McCauley, Ph.D, Prof. of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College, in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?, by Benedict Carey, New York Times, March 26, 2010 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34271993] 34 Jean Pierre Mean, Group General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, SGS Group, In Confronting Corruption: The Business Case for an Effective Anti-Corruption Programme, by PricewaterhouseCoopers Intnl [PDF: www.pwc.com/anti-corruption] 35 (I) Power and the news media, Teun A. van Dijk, Univ. of Amsterdam, D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication & Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34271955] ; (II) Ubuntu Amicus (UA) : [C] Right to ‘Free Speech’ Propaganda Profits Deception [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739403] 36 CCT 23-10: Statement of Consent by Dr. T. Michael Maher [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31373074]; How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33694415] 37 HC-WC 19963-09: 140 SA Elite Deliberate Indifference to Rule of Law [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34274197] 38 Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the epochal Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation, and of black America’s century-long struggle for equality under law, by Richard Kluger; Random House (1975) (pp126-129) 39 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456660]. See also: Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009); Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981)

In drawing into international law the benefits of the insights available from other cultures, and in looking to the past for inspiration, international environmental law would not be departing from traditional methods of international law, but would, in fact, be following in the path charted out by Grotius. Rather than laying down a set of principles a priori for the new discipline of international law, he sought them also a posteriori from the experience of the past, searching through a whole range of cultures available to him for this purpose40. From them he drew the durable principles which had weathered the ages, on which to build the new international order of the future. Environmental law is now in a formative stage, not unlike international law in its early stages. A wealth of past experience from a variety of cultures is available to it. It would be pity indeed if it were left untapped merely because of attitudes of formalism which see such approaches as not being entirely de rigueur. I cite in this connection an observation of Sir Robert Jennings that, in taking note of different legal traditions and cultures, the International Court (as it did in the Western Sahara) case: “was asserting, not negating, the Grotian subjection of the totality of international relations to international law. It seems to the writer, indeed, that at the present juncture in the development of the international legal system it may be more important to stress the imperative need to develop international law to comprehend within itself the rich diversity of cultures, civilizations and legal traditions….”41 Moreover, especially at the frontiers of the discipline of international law, it needs to be multi-disciplinary, drawing from other disciplines such as history, sociology, anthropology, and psychology such wisdom as may be relevant for its purpose. On the need for the international law of the future to be disciplinary, I refer to another recent extra-judicial observation of distinguished former President of the Court that: “there should be a much greater, and a practical, recognition by international lawyers that the rule of law in international affairs, and the establishment of international justice, are inter-disciplinary subjects42. Especially where this Court is concerned, “the essence of true universality” of the institution is captured in the language of Article 9 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which requires the “representation of the main forms of civilization and of the principle legal systems of the world.” (emphasis added)…. I see the Court as being charged with a duty to draw upon the wisdom of the worlds several civilizations, where such a course can enrich its insights into the matter before it. The Court cannot afford to be monocultural, especially where it is entering newly developing areas of law.

The Constitution provides an entitlement for invoking43 cultural law44 in S. 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185, which require the application of choice of law rules. Constitutional Law of South Africa, Freedom and Security of the Person45 states: “By substantive due process, the courts and commentators of the time meant that a law could be found

40 Julius Stone, Human Law and Human Justice, 1965, p.66: “It was for this reason that Grotius added to his theoretical deductions such a mass of concrete examples from history.” 41 Sir Robert Y. Jennings, Universal International Law in a Multicultural World, in International Law and the Grotian Heritage: A Commemorative Colloquium on the Occasion of the Fourth Centenary of the Birth of Hugo Grotius, edited and published by the T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, 1985, p. 195. 42 International Lawyers and the Progressive Development of International Law, Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century, Jerzy Makarczyk (ed), 1996, p 423. 43 Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397: Appellate Division held that neither common nor customary law was prima facie applicable. Courts had to consider all the circumstances of a case, and, without any preconceived view about the applicability of one or other legal system, select the appropriate law on the basis of its inquiry. 44 SALC, Sept 1999: Report on Conflicts of law: P.22: ‘1.58. The Constitution now provides an entitlement for invoking customary law in legal suits. Because ss 30 and 31 specifically guarantee an individual and a group's right to pursue a culture of choice, it could be argued that application of customary law has become a constitutional right. Previously, the state had assumed complete discretion in deciding whether and to what extent customary law should be recognized, an attitude typical of colonial thinking, for Africans were subject to whatever policies the conquering state chose to impose on them. Now, however, the state has a duty to allow people to participate in the culture they choose, implicit in this duty is a responsibility to uphold the institutions on which that culture is based.’ 45 I Currie & S. Woolman, Freedom and Security of the Person, in M Chaskalson et al (eds) Constitutional Law of SA (1998)

unconstitutional as a violation of due process if “it exceeded all bounds of the social compact.’46 The doctrine of Substantive Due Process47 requires that "due process," that is, basic procedural rights be applied, but it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law gives them such power. But the State has to use sufficiently fair and just legal ‘due process’ procedures to lawfully deny any right. Substantive due process guarantee not only due process (just procedures), but also that these rights cannot be taken away without reasonable governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. 10.

In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom48, the European Court of Human Rights held that the rule of law requires provisions of legislation to be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accord with the law: “As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law", it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the alone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68).”

11.

R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy49 established the principle that the mere appearance of bias -- in that case a conflict of interest, on the part of the judicial officer -- is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith, cannot be a party in the case, nor an interest in the outcome: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause". In the Kings Bench Judicial Review case, Lord Chief Justice Hewart found that: “.... a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. .... Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.

B. Bolam Test: Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skill & Competencies:

R Rotunda & J Novak Treatise on Constitutional Law vol 2 (1992) at 380. See: ‘Judicial Activism… Search for Truth’: The substantive due process right to (a) …. free speech; and (b) the rights of “discrete and insular minorities” originated in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), footnote 4. If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. This test inquires into whether there is a compelling state interest being furthered by the violation of the right, and whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest. 48 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456270] 49 R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456310] 47

12.

First Amicus alleges that the common law principle of the ordinary (Clapham Omnibus50), reasonable51, fair-minded citizen is an illusion52, an approximate 9.2% miniscule minority in all cultures53. The majority ordinary and elite are ignorant, prejudiced, unreasonable54 citizens, frequently psychologically insecure55, and desperate for anyone with an ‘air of authority/credibility56 to provide them with the public relations57 certainty -- although an illusion58 -- their herd mentality / politically correct59 beliefs are ‘absolutely right/superior’60.

13.

According to the Common law Reasonable Man Test, if the defendants actions served a socially useful purpose then he may be justified in taking greater risks; and if she acted in accordance with the common practice of others, this is considered strong evidence, with special standards being appropriate to professionals61. In Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee62, Judge McNair’s judgement dealt with the application of the common law reasonableness test in regards to negligence, where the ‘reasonableness test’ circumstance involved a special skill or competence.

50 ‘The man on the Clapham omnibus’, is in legal speak, 'the reasonable person'. This is a phrase that was first used by Sir Charles Bowen, QC (later Lord Bowen). (Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, 16th Edition, 1995) The man on the Clapham omnibus / the man in the street means the average ordinary English person (Oxford Guide to British & American Culture, 1999) 51 Zimbardo, P.G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House. 52 Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371–378. Blass, Thomas. (2002), "The Man Who Shocked the World, "Psychology Today, 35:(2), Mar/Apr 2002. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34496359]; The Milgram Paradigm after 35 Years: Some Things We Now Know about Obedience to Authority, by Thomas Blass, University of Maryland, Baltimore County: "If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town." Stanley Milgram, [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34496532] 53 Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671] 54 Solomon Asch, Opinions and Social Pressure (1955): “In the 1950s the social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a famous experiment that highlighted the fragility of the person in a mass society when he is confronted with the contrary opinion of a majority, and the tendency to conform even if this means to go against the person's basic perceptions. This is a chilling text that should be carefully read and remembered whenever we think we are swayed by the mass, against our deepest feelings and convictions. At that moment we should be on the alert, re-examining all positions (ours included) and then taking decisions as free, mature and fully responsible human beings, whatever the direction taken by the mass or by a majority.”. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34292822] 55 McElvaine, R: Eve's Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor and the Shaping of History [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34104187] 56 Hundreds of Federal Agents Fall Victim to Ponzi Scheme, AOLNews, July 8, 2010. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34292821]. 57 Propaganda by Edward Bernays [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34292992] 58 Non-Descartian/Radical Honesty (I am, therefore I think) Worldview: See: Practicing Radical Honesty : Chapter 2: What is a Mind and How Does It Work?, Chapter 3. Dysfunctional Family University, The World-Famous School Within Which We Grew Our Minds; Chapter 8. Community and Compassion; [PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33790790]; Waking from the Meme Dream: Who Am I? Do I Exist?; by Susan Blackmore; Paper presented: The Psychology of Awakening: International Conference on Buddhism, Science & Psychotherapy Dartington 710 November 1996; also The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science & Our Day-to-day Lives. Ed. G.Watson, S.Batchelor and G.Claxton; London, Rider, 2000, 112-122 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790665]; The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes (1976); The Computational Brain, Churchland,P.S. and Sejnowski,T.J. (1992); Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press; To Have or to Be, by Erich Fromm, World Perspective Series, by Harper & Row; et al; [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739383] 59 Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press; Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416); Bond, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137. 60 Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd 1995] 2 AC 65, [1995] UKHL 6, [1995] 2 WLR 450, [1995] 2 All ER 313: "Everyone outside a court of law recognises that words are imprecise instruments for communicating the thoughts of one man to another. The same words may be understood by one man in a different meaning from that in which they are understood by another and both meanings may be different from that which the author of the words intended to convey. But the notion that the same words should bear different meanings to different men and that more than one meaning should be 'right' conflicts with the whole training of a lawyer. Words are the tools of his trade. He uses them to define legal rights and duties. They do not achieve that purpose unless there can be attributed to them a single meaning as the 'right' meaning. And so the argument between lawyers as to the meaning of words starts with the unexpressed major premise that any particular combination of words has one meaning which is not necessarily the same as that intended by him who published them or understood by any of those who read them but is capable of ascertainment as being the 'right' meaning by the adjudicator to whom the law confides the responsibility of determining it. ... [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456692] 61 Daborn v. Bath Tramways [1946] 2 All ER 333; and Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 2 All ER 368; Gray v Stead [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 559; Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566 62 Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33092633]

But, where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest skill at the risk of being found negligent. It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.

14.

Similarly, the common law reasonableness test has cultural applications, similar to that of a professional skill application. Where the ‘reasonableness’ of an act is questioned that involves the skills or common practices within a particular culture/tribe, then the skills and practices of that particular tribe needs to be applied to determine the cultural/tribal ‘reasonableness’ of the individual’s circumstances63.

C. Political Necessity: Freedom of Speech and Civil Disobedience 15.

In Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defence64, John Alan Cohan describes the Civil Disobedience Free Speech Necessity Defence as follows: Freedom of expression in a free society includes freewheeling public dissent on controversial political issues of the day. Civil disobedience is a form of protest that, while usually peaceful, involves violating the law—usually by trespassing on government property, blocking access to buildings, or engaging in disorderly conduct. Civil disobedience has been called “the deliberate violation of law for a vital social purpose.”65 In their day in court, civil disobedients have at times sought to interpose the necessity defense to justify their conduct. The necessity defense asserts that breaking the law was justified in order to avert a greater harm that would occur as a result of the government policy the offender was protesting. Protestors will seek to invoke the necessity defense not so much to gain acquittal from the relatively minor charges, but to advance the more important objective of publicly airing the moral and political issues that inspired their act of civil disobedience. There is the hope of gaining notoriety for a cause by discussing it in court, and “educating” the jury about political grievances or other social harms. The strategy is meant to appeal to a higher principle than the law being violated—the necessity of stopping objectionable government policies—and to let the jury have an opportunity to weigh their technically illegal actions on the scales of justice. Acquittal is of course hoped for in the end but may be quite low on the protestors’ list of priorities. The necessity defense is attractive to reformers who practice civil disobedience because it allows them to deny guilt without renouncing their socially driven acts. It offers a means to discuss political issues in the courtroom, a forum in which reformers can demand equal time and, perhaps, respect. Moreover, its elements allow civil disobedients to describe their political motivations. In proving the imminence of the harm, they can demonstrate the urgency of the social problem. In showing the relative severity of the harms, they can show the seriousness of the social evil they seek to avert. In establishing the lack of reasonable alternatives, they can assault the unresponsiveness of those in power in dealing with the problem and prod them to action. And in presenting evidence of a causal relationship, they can argue the importance of individual action in reforming society. Thus, the elements of

Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009); S v Zuma (JPV325/05, JPV325/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 45; 2006 (2) SACR 191 (W); 2006 (7) BCLR 790 (W) (8 May 2006), at: p.98; Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981). 64 Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defense, by John Alan Cohan, J.D. Loyola Law School; B.A. University of Southern California; Pierce Law Review. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33149485] 65 Howard Zinn, Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Falacies on Law and Order 39 (1968)

the necessity defense provide an excellent structure for publicizing and debating political issues in the judicial forum.66 The goal of describing their political motivations to the jury, and implicitly to the media, is subject to numerous hurdles inherent in the necessity defense. In most instances, as we will see, courts will rule as a matter of law that the actors have failed in the offer of proof regarding the elements of the necessity defense so that the jury rarely is given the chance to weigh in on the matter. On the other hand, if the defense is allowed, the jury is called upon to weigh controversial political issues and to function as the “conscience of the community.” “Reflected in the jury’s decision is a judgment of whether, under all the circumstances of the event and in the light of all known about the defendant, the prohibited act, if committed, deserves condemnation by the law.” In cases where judges have been persuaded to allow the necessity defense, juries have, often enough, delivered not guilty verdicts Definition of Civil Disobedience John Rawls defines civil disobedience as “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.”67 A more comprehensive definition of civil disobedience is: Civil disobedience is an act of protest, deliberately unlawful, conscientiously and publicly performed. It may have as its object the laws or policies of some governmental body, or those of some private corporate body whose decisions have serious public consequences; but in either case the disobedient protest is almost invariably nonviolent in character.68 Broadly construed, civil disobedience may be directed toward a law or policy of the government, or toward a corporate entity whose policy is the subject of protest. Civil disobedients hope that their conduct makes a dramatic appeal to the conscience of the community, affects public awareness of a particular social issue, and motivates citizens to demand change in certain policies. Civil disobedience is a singular hallmark of a free country: We must recognize that civil disobedience in various forms, used without violent acts against others, is engrained in our society and the moral correctness of political protestors’ views has on occasion served to change and better our society. Civil disobedience has been prevalent throughout this nation’s history extending from the Boston Tea Party and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the freeing of the slaves by operation of the Underground Railroad in the mid-1880’s…. Civil disobedience differs from other forms of peaceful protest in that there is a technical violation of the law such as trespass, blocking of public access, or disorderly conduct; and the violation is part of the effort to garner public attention to the cause. Historic Instances of Civil Disobedience Of course, civil disobedience is something of a democratic tradition. ….. As early as 1635, American colonists were persecuted for direct civil disobedience in refusing to obey certain laws by reason of conscience.69…. In 1846, Henry David Thoreau wrote his famous and influential essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, in which he gave a cogent argument on the necessity of direct civil disobedience. 66 Steven M. Bauer & Peter J. Eckerstrom, The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience, 39 STAN. L. REV. 1173, 1176 (1987). 67 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 364 (1971) 68 Carl Cohen, Civil Disobedience: Conscience, Tactics, and the Law 39–40 (1971) (emphasis omitted); see Blacks Law Dictionary 223 (5th ed. 1979) (defining civil disobedience as “a form of lawbreaking employed to demonstrate the injustice or unfairness of a particular law and indulged in deliberately to focus attention on the allegedly undesirable law”). 69 William P. Quigley, The Necessity Defense in Civil Disobedience Cases: Bring in the Jury, 38 NEW ENG. L. REV. 3, 18 (2003) Quigley, supra note 10, at 21; see, e.g., Power of the People: Active Nonviolence in the United States 15 (Robert Cooney & Helen Michalowski eds., 1977). In 1635, the General Court of Massachusetts banished Roger Williams for criticizing the Puritan clergy’s persecution of people of conscience and for insisting that the land still belonged to Native Americans. See id. Anne Hutchinson was banished in 1638 for publicly insisting that conscience was a higher authority than law. See id. At 15–16. The Society of Friends, a pacifist group, was banned from Massachusetts from 1654 to 1661; a law in 1657 imposed a fine of 100 pounds on anyone who brought a Quaker into the territory. See id. In 1658, a Quaker named Richard Keene was fined and beaten for refusing to be trained as a soldier. See id. at 18.

D. Judicial Activism: A More Searching Judicial Enquiry70: Search for Truth 16.

In The Living U.S. Constitution71, Padover and Landynski write: How to reconcile judicial review with majority rule has been a basic issue, at times a critical one, in our polity. In 1938 Justice Stone, in the famous footnote 4 to U.S. v. Carolene Products72, articulated a justification for judicial activism in the field of individual rights when he suggested that, unlike challenges to “ordinary commercial transactions,” “there may be narrower scopes for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within specific prohibition of the Constitution… The same were true with regard to “legislation which restricts [the] political processes” or is directed at “discrete and insular” (i.e. vulnerable) minority groups; these situations might call for a “more searching judicial enquiry. In other words, ordinarily the political system is adequate to defend individual liberties. When it is not, the Courts role must be redefined to allow for broader judicial review as a substitute for the political review, which these groups are unable to effectively obtain. In effect the court, should appoint itself as a surrogate legislature, judicially awarding the legislative bargains it believes these groups would themselves have struck were they politically influential. In such circumstances, judicial activism becomes defensible as a safeguard for democratic principles, for the Court can be seen as aiding democracy rather than blocking it, as giving expression to the political process rather than negating it.

17.

In Judicial Activism in South Africa’s Constitutional Court: Minority Protection or Judicial Illegitimacy?, Anthony Chima Diala73 writes: In South Africa, the ANC enjoys an overwhelming political dominance which has practically neutralized significant parliamentary opposition. In the absence of strong opposition, the duty of protecting ‘discrete and insular minorities’74 falls on the Constitutional Court. To do otherwise in a country with a remarkable history of injustice might make such minorities not only ‘perpetual losers,’ but also ‘scapegoats in political struggles’75

18.

In the context of a religious76 enquiry (search for truth) of the relationship between: (i) freedom of speech, (ii) sincere forgiveness, (iii) Stanley Milgrams studies on obedience, and (iv) and the common law reasonableness test; First Amicus reiterates: “...freedom of expression is an essential process for advancing knowledge and discovering truth. An individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to opposition, and make full use of different minds. Discussion must be kept open no matter how certainly true an accepted opinion may seem to be; many of the most widely acknowledged truths have turned out to be erroneous. Conversely, the same principles applies no matter how false or pernicious the new opinion appears to be; for the unaccepted opinion may be true or partially true and,

Ubuntu Amicus (“UA”) : Ubuntu Brief of Amicus Curiae Lara Johnstone, Bushido Dischordian Futilitarian In Support Of: Radical Honesty Common Sense Population Policy Social Contract Interpretations of Promotion of National Unity & Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995: [A.12] Judicial Enquiry: Simple Justice Tribal Consciousness [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739370] 71 The Living U.S. Constitution, by Saul K. Padover; Revised by Jacob W. Landynski; Third Revised Edition (Pg 64) 72 United States v. Carolene Products Co. , 304 U.S. 144 (1938) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33092567] 73 Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for an LL.M. (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa) degree of the Centre for Human rights, University of Pretoria, 29 October 2007 74 United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 144, 152-53 (1938), FN 4 para 4 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33092567] 75 R.M. Cover, The Origins of Judicial Activism in the Protection of Minorities, (1982), Yale Law School, vol 91, No 7, p 1287. It has been noted that: ‘(w)ith little meaningful institutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, South Africa’s judiciary is central to prospects for accountable government.’ See R. Alence, ‘South Africa after Apartheid: The First Decade’ (2004), Journal for Democracy, vol 15, No 3, p 87-89. 76 Fromm, Erich, To Have or To Be (Continuum 2000: p135-136) [See: Radical Honesty: Religion & Culture; or Refugee Status?]

even if wholly false, its presentation and open discussion compel a re-thinking and re-testing of the accepted opinion. The reasons which make open discussion essential for an intelligent individual judgment likewise make it imperative for rational social judgment.” T Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression at 6-7 (1970) 'If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. But when men have realised that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.” Abrams v United States 250 US 616 (1919) at 630

E. EcoLaw 101: Laws of Sustainability: Ecological Social Contract 19.

Sustainability, i.e. environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non77 foundation for all other rights78. However adding "sustainable" to our legal vocabulary, is not sufficient to ensure that our society becomes sustainable, unless the definition of sustainable is sufficiently precise79 to enable sustainable living.

20.

In Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: International and Constitutional Law80: Environmental Rights, Feris and Tladi, detail three main approaches to the environment. The first, as a right in an of itself as represented in the Proposed Legal Principles for Environment Protection and Sustainable Development, adopted by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) Experts Group on Environmental Law81. The second, under existing recognized rights, as a violation of life, health and dignity. An example is found in Principle 1 of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration), which provides that humans have ‘the fundamental right to freedom… in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity’. This approach is supported by the European Court of Human Rights82 and the opinion of Weeramantry J in Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-

77 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456660] 78 Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation, Al Bartlett, Ph.D., Population & Environment, Vol. 22, No. 1, Sep 2000, pgs. 63-71 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102633] 79 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456270] 80 Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: International and Constitutional Law, by Danie Brand & Christof Heyns (eds), CHR 81 Principle 1: ‘All human beings have the fundamental right to an environment adequate for their health and well-being.; Principle 2 (adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights), provides that all persons ‘have the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment.’ See Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development, adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law, reproduced in WCED Our Common Future (1987) 348. See also Principle 1, Draft Principles on Human Rights and the Environment in UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Human Rights and the Environment, Final Report of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc E/CN.4.Sub2/1994 19 82 See eg Lopez Ostra v Spain (1995) ECHR Ser A 303-C.

Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), where the Judged ruled that the protection of the environment is a ‘sine qua non for numerous human rights’83: Environmental Protection as a Principle of International Law The protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself. It is scarcely necessary to elaborate on this, as damage to the environment can impair and undermine all the human rights spoken of in the Universal Declaration and other human rights instruments. …. Thus Arthur C. Clarke, the noted futurist, with that vision which has enabled him to bring high science to the service of humanity, put his finger on the precise legal problem we are considering when he observed: “the small Indian ocean island.. provides textbook examples of many modern dilemmas: development versus environment84, and proceeds immediately to recapitulate the famous sermon… relating to the trusteeship of the land, observing, “For as King Devanampiya Tissa was told three centuries before the birth of Christ, we are its guardians – not its owners.” The task of the law is to convert such wisdom into practical terms – and the law has often lagged behind other disciplines in so doing.

21.

The third approach involves the use of procedural rights, such as access to information, as ruled in Van Huyssteen NO v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism85 where the court held that opponents to a proposed development had both locus standi and the right to access to information. This approach is ‘said to be the key to environmental rights’, since the “idea is that if principles of democratic governance such as openness, accountability and civic participation are adhered to, then environmental standards will be maintained, or at least improved.”

22.

Additional international instruments on sustainability, including the principles of intergenerational equity and integration, as made famous by Edith Brown Weiss. It imposes an obligation to conserve natural and cultural resource base for future generations86, in binding87 and nonbinding modern international instruments.

83 Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456660] 84 Arthur C. Clarke, Sri Lankas Wildlife Heritage, National Geographic, August 1983, No. 2, p 254; emphasis added 85 Van Huyssteen NNO v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 1995 9 BCLR 1191 (C). For a discussion, se A. Eide et al (eds) Economic, social and cultural rights: A textbook (1995) 261 et seq. The authors discuss Communication 429/1990, EW & Others v The Netherlands as an example of how this is achieved. 86 (i) EB Weiss In fairness to future generations: International law, common patrimony and intergenerational equity, in P Hayden (ed) the Philosophy of human rights (2001) 618; (ii) EB Weiss The planetary trust: Conservation and intergenerational equity (1984) Ecology Law Quarterly 495; (iii) EB Weiss Our rights and obligations to future generations for the environment (1990) 84 American Journal of International Law 198; (iv) L Gundling, Our responsibility to future generations (1990) 84 American Journal of International Law 207; (v) Judgement of Davide J in Minors Oposa v Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Supreme Court of Philippines (reproduced in (1994) 83 International Legal Materials 173) in which the Court granted the petitioners claim to a right to a balanced ecology, for themselves, and also for future Filipino’s. 87 (i) Art 3(1) of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, reprinted in (1992) 31 International Legal Materials 851, which provides that ‘parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of the present and future generations of humankind’. (ii) Preamble of the 1992 Biodiversity Convention, reprinted in (1992) 31 International Legal Materials 822, makes use of intergenerational equity. For earlier instruments see the Preambles of the 1968 Convention on African Nature Conservation, and the 1972 World Heritage Convention.

23.

SA’s environmental rights is guaranteed in Section 24 of the Constitution, leaving no question whatsoever as to the existence of this distinct environmental right.

24.

In Constitutional Law of SA: Environmental Law and Rights88, Gutto, writes: In three main cases dealing directly with environmental law in light of the interim Constitution civil cases have been successful against ‘environmentally harmful activities’ of private persons and corporations.89 ‘Environment rights’ are also not new; the Environment Conservation Act, 73 of 1989, was considered by the Department and Ministry of Environmental Affairs90 as ‘the most important environmental statute in SA’91 Many acts preceded it92, as identified by the Department of Environmental Affairs, as forming part of the major legislation on the environment93. The common-law source of environmental rights is well established in several branches of delict… The development of environmental norms and principles through the tort/delict of nuisance is a general feature of common-law legal systems and is not unique to South Africa …… The origin of the constitutional provision in environmental rights is partly rooted in these ‘sources’ and not in some abstract notions of rights without history or relevance to reality of life in society.’ [Finally the] right or freedom to engage in economic activities (s 26) is limited, to ensure that such ensure conformity to environmental rights requirements.

25.

The 18 Laws of Sustainability were authored by Dr. Albert Bartlett94, in Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth and the Environment95, republished in The Essential Exponential! For the Future of our Planet96, which documents his assertion that, “[T]he greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” The laws detailed descriptions, and the Hypothesis, Observations and Predictions to define the term ‘sustainability’. The 18 laws are believed to hold rigorously, with few exceptions: 1. Population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

SBO Gutto ‘Environmental law and Rights’ in M Chaskalson et al (eds) Constitutional Law of South Africa (1998) Van Huyssteen & others NNO v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and others 1996 (1) SA 283 (C); Wildlife Society of Southern Africa & others v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism of the Republic of South Africa & others 1996 (3) SA 1096 (Tk); Minister of Health and Wealth v. Woodcarb (Pty) & another 1996 (3) SA 155 (N). 90 Dept. of Environmental Affairs General Environment Policy (Jan 1994); ‘Mission Statement 1992’ in (Mar/Apr 1992) SA Panorama 4. 91 Andre Rabie ‘The Environment Conservation Act and its Implementation (Jan 1994) 1 SA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 113 92 The Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act 45 of 1965, the Water Act 54 of 1956, the Minerals Act 50 of 1991, the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983, and the Health Act 63 of 1977. 93 Department of Environmental Affairs Statutory Obligations and Responsibilities (January 1994) 16-17. Other statutes identified as major environmental legislation by the Department include the Agricultural Pests Act 36 of 1983, the Animal Diseases Act 35 of 1984, the Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 (now repealed by act 139 of 1992), the Common Pasture Management Act 82 of 1977, the Forest Act 122 of 1984, the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965, the Mountain Catchments Areas Act 63 of 1970, the National Parks Act 57 of 1976, the Sea Fishery Act 12 of 19988, the Physical Planning Act 125 of 1991, the Sea-Shore Act 21 of 1935, the Territorial Waters Act 87 of 1963, the Housing Act of 1966, the Dumping at Sea Control Act 73 of 1980, the Hazardous Substances Act 52 of 1951, the Slums Act 76 of 1979, the Less Formal Township Establishment Act 113 of 1991, and the State Land Disposal Act 48 of 1961. See also Department of Environmental Affairs (Teurinigs (ed) Guide to Legislation Concerning: (1) Natural Environment; (2) Pollution; (3) Built Environment; (4) Cultural Environment (February 1993). 94 www.albartlett.org: Albert Bartlett is Professor Emeritus at Colorado University at Boulder, and been a faculty member since 1950. He was President of the American Association of Physics Teachers in 1978, and in 1981 received the Associations Robert A. Millikan Award for outstanding scholarly contributions to physics education. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2001 he testified before the US Congress on energy policy. He has given his celebrated lecture, Arithmetic, Population and Energy over 1,600 times since September 1969. 95 Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, by Albert Bartlett, Ph.D., Paper first published in Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; (1998) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707684] 96 Reprints of Dr. Bartlett’s papers have been published by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in the book The Essential Exponential! For the Future of Our Planet, compiled by University of Nebraska physicists, features articles from scholars on exponential human population growth and increasing rate of natural resource consumption. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456952] 89

2. In a society with a growing population and / or growing rates of consumption of resources, the larger the population, and / or the larger the rates of consumption of resources, the more difficult it will be to transform the society to the condition of sustainability. 3. The response time of populations to changes in the human fertility rate is the average length of a human life, or approximately 70 years. 4. The size of population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the sustainable average standard of living of the population are inversely related to one another. 5. Sustainability requires that the size of the population be less than or equal to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for the desired standard of living. 6. (The lesson of "The Tragedy of the Commons") (Hardin 1968): The benefits of population growth and of growth in the rates of consumption of resources accrue to a few; the costs of population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are borne by all of society. 7. Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource, such as a fossil fuel, causes a dramatic decrease in the life-expectancy of the resource. 8. The time of expiration of non-renewable resources can be postponed, possibly for a very long time. 9. When large efforts are made to improve the efficiency with which resources are used, the resulting savings are easily and completely wiped out by the added resources consumed as a consequence of modest increases in population. 10. The benefits of large efforts to preserve the environment are easily cancelled by the added demands on the environment that result from small increases in human population. 11. (Second Law of Thermodynamics) When rates of pollution exceed the natural cleansing capacity of the environment, it is easier to pollute than it is to clean up the environment. 12. The chief cause of problems is solutions. (Sevareid 1970) 13. Humans will always be dependent on agriculture. 14. If, for whatever reason, humans fail to stop population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, Nature will stop these growths. 15. In every local situation, creating jobs increases the number of people locally who are out of work. 16. Starving people don't care about sustainability. 17. The addition of the word "sustainable" to our vocabulary, to our reports, programs, and papers, to the names of our academic institutes and research programs, and to our community initiatives, is not sufficient to ensure that our society becomes sustainable. 18. Extinction is forever.

II. TRUTH AND FORGIVENESS SOCIAL CONTRACT PRINCIPLES “The struggle to establish a human rights culture in Africa cannot be won unless Africans address the causes of massive human rights violations97… Africa must reexamine its priorities if it has to come out of the culture of conflict and poverty.98”

97 Nelson Mandela Foundation, SAHRC and Office of the High Comm. for Human Rights, Dignity and Justice for All of Us, Reflecting on Human Rights in Africa Today, Human Rights Lecture and Roundtable Discussion, 10 Dec 2007 (p.12) 98 N. Mandela Foundation, SAHRC & UNHCHR, Ibid (p.13)

A. Radical Honesty Overview: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness 26.

In Practicing Radical Honesty99, Dr. Blanton qualifies the conflict between intellectual fairness and sensate forgiveness: Many of us are concerned about fairness and use the principle of fairness as our primary rationalization for withholding anger. Advanced instruction in this principle creates lawyers who are miserable people. Divorces handled by lawyers often result in children shot back and forth like missiles between hostile camps. If you force yourself to be fair while still angry, you are a fool, and any agreements you make in such a state won't work for you. Judges and lawyers ignore this fact. Judges and lawyers exist for people who can't handle their anger. A judge tells you what to do, based on what he or she thinks is fair, whether you like it or not, because you haven't been able to work things out on your own.

27.

The Radical Honesty Methodology or Process or definition of Sincere Sensate Forgiveness is explained in depth in Practicing Radical Honesty100, also referred to as the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract101, with the six minimal requirements, none of which may be skipped, being: 1. You have to tell the truth about the specific behavior you resent, to the person, face-toface; 2. You have to be verbally and vocally unrestrained with regard to volume and propriety; 3. You have to pay attention to the feelings and sensations in your body and to the other person as you speak; 4. You have to express any appreciations for the person that come up in the process, with the same attention to your feelings and to the other person as when you are expressing resentments; 5. You have to stay with any feelings that emerge in the process, like tears or laughter, regardless of any evaluations you may have about how it makes you look; and let the tears or laughter or pain or anger not be interrupted by your mind until they go naturally to completion; 6. You have to stay with the discussion until you no longer feel resentful of the other person.

28.

Dr. Blanton -- the worlds expert on sincere sensate forgiveness -- concludes, with great emphasis, that is not to be contradicted by any lawyer, priest, psychotherapist, diplomat, bureaucrat, democrat, labour leader, company executive, head of government or any other patrolman, that: “Then, and only then, are you ready to talk about the future, make arrangements for the future, or make any agreements.”

B. Stanley Milgram Studies on Obedience: Legal, Socio-Political Implications 29.

In Affidavit of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, evidencing the legal, psychological, and sociopolitical ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills and competencies of

Practicing Radical Honesty, by Brad Blanton [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790790] Practicing Radical Honesty: Chapter 9: Radical Honesty About Anger [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790658] 101 UB: [A.11] Being Specific About Anger and Metholody of Forgiveness [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739370] 100

Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience to perceived illegitimate authority; and their application to the common law ‘reasonableness test’102 filed as Expert Witness Affidavit in High Court, W.C. # 19963-09; Dr. Blanton explains what happens in cultures of obedience; how and why studies show that 92% of citizens lack the psychological and emotional skills for non-violent disobedience. Brief Description of the Milgram Experiment: [19.] The Milgram experiment was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. [20.] Milgram devised the experiments in response to the question raised by Hannah Arendt, in her coverage of the war crimes trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmanns defence was that he should not be held personally responsible for a crime against mankind because he was doing his duty in the social system of which he was a part. His lawyers said a court might judge the social system as criminal, but not the person doing their duty within that social system. This argument was rejected. Eichmann’s adjudicators concluded that he was individually responsible for the crimes he committed, regardless of the social system of which he was a part, and he was executed. [21.] Arendt then raised the question which fascinated Milgram: Was Adolf Eichmann some unusual deviant, some sadistic exception to common humanity, or was he just a bureaucrat? What he actually did was shuffle papers in an office and make phone calls and give orders. Was he normal? [22.] The Milgram experiment was designed to simulate the conditions in which Eichmann operated, and to determine how many individuals would – like Eichmann – follow orders and be obedient to the system in which they operated; and how many would practice civil disobedience and refuse to be obedient to perceived illegal authority. Milgram’s experiment revealed that a significant majority of the population – 65%, like Eichmanns millions of accomplices – merely follow orders, irrespective whether the orders violate their deepest moral beliefs; only 35 % possessed the skills and competencies for civil disobedience. [23.] Furthermore, when individuals could share the responsibility or blame, with just one other person, 92% of individuals would, like Eichmann, cooperate with authority; and refrain from civil disobedience; and only 8% possessed the skills and competencies for civil disobedience. [25.] The relevant questions then become, what are the resources: the emotional, psychological, and socio-political skills and competencies, that: A. the 37% possess, when individually confronting perceived illegal authority; and B. the 8% possess, refusing the given opportunity, from an ideological or social peer, to share the blame, with them; and individually confront perceived illegal authority. [27] The results of the Stanley Milgram Tests on Obedience (which have since been replicated by other social-scientists with the same results) clearly show that acts of civil disobedience are acts that the man on the Clapham omnibus are emotionally, psychologically and socio-politically incapable of. Put differently they are acts that require the use of special emotional, psychological and socio-political skills and competencies. [28] To apply the man on the Clapham omnibus reasonableness test, to someone consciously and deliberately committing an act of civil disobedience to perceived illegal authority; would be the same as applying the man on the Clapham omnibus reasonableness test, to determine whether a heart surgeon’s decisions and actions made during open-heart surgery, were negligent or unreasonable; or asking a clown, whether an astronauts decisions during lift-off, were ‘reasonable’ or not. 102

Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671]

[29]. Consequently, the reasonableness test that should be applied to cases of civil disobedience, are not those of the man on the Clapham omnibus; because he does not have these special skills and competencies. The reasonableness test that should be applied, is the standard of the ordinary skilled person, exercising and professing to have that special skill.

C. Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skills and Competencies 30.

In Dr. Blantonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Radical Honesty skills and capabilities forgiveness expert witness affidavit103 he confirms that â&#x20AC;&#x153;[Johnstone] is being ridiculously prosecuted, and her defence is justified and accurate and her opinion that there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness is entirely accurate and, so far, almost always avoided by politicians.â&#x20AC;? [D] There is a difference between posed, fake intellectual forgiveness, and sincere, sensate being forgiveness: Forgiveness occurs through telling the truth and then staying there to experience the sensations in the body and the emotional response of the person speaking the truth. Staying present to the experience requires a broadening of attention, a widening of focus from the narrower focus on right and wrong, admitting lies, admitting crimes, reporting what really happened in the past. The shift from primary attention to the intellectual domain of judging right and wrong, to giving primary attention to the bodily experience that comes with telling the truth, is so that the person can feel their way through, rather than think their way around, the experience triggered by the report about the past. Forgiveness is required for reconciliation. And the process of reconciliation is forgiveness squared. Because, as the one who initiates telling the truth, whether it is confessing what you have done or reporting on what others have done, you have to stay present to the persons who responds to your words, and to your feeling response and verbal response to them, and they must do the same in response to you...and this must go on for however long it takes for all the parties to be moved in their emotions, in their bodies and at the level of sensations experienced in the body, so that the sensations can increase, persist for a while, decrease, and then recede and go away. It is this bodily sensation of a change of heart that is the criterion for forgiveness that creates the possibility of reconciliation. If this process goes on honestly and is supported by those who give the invitation to reconciliation, sometimes former enemies become allies and friends out of mutual respect for each other's willingness to go through the process of telling the truth and experiencing and sharing their honest heartfelt, bodyfelt response. Sometimes, many times, the truth never gets told. Sometimes, many times, even if the truth is told, reconciliation does not occur. Sometimes truth and reconciliation happens. When it does, new people make a new beginning."

D. Rule of Law and Forgiveness: Individuality, Independence, Integrity 31.

In Practicing Radical Honesty, Dr. Blanton describes the importance of sincere forgiveness to changing the statistics of the Stanley Milgram studies of Obedience, which proved that 92% of humans are as culturally, racially, ideologically or religiously obedient, and unquestioning to their beliefs as Adolf Eichmann was to Nazism:

103

Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671]

The key to individuality, integrity, and individual freedom has something to do with forgiveness, which involves getting over anger. That is done in the public domain, in community, and it is the pathway to freedom for individuals and the key to free societies. It is the way the statistics from Stanley Milgram's experiments get changed. Learning forgiveness, as an individual skill, by practice in getting over anger in the context of a community of friends, is an absolutely necessary prerequisite to creating a world that works for everyone. To be an individual who operates independently of authority and according to compassion, you need to learn the fundamental skills of getting mad and getting over it. Once you gain experience of getting mad and sincere forgiveness, you learn skills of noticing. You learn to notice even your mind. You notice that ‘I think, therefore I am’ is erroneous; and you begin to know “I am, therefore I think”. You notice yourself thinking. Your thoughts are just thoughts, not ‘me’. You become a being with a mind (I am, therefore I think) rather than a mind with a being (I think, therefore I am) as your culture has taught you all your life.

32.

In Obedience to Authority, Stanley Milgram describes the perils of blind obedience to authority, as described in An Essay on Proudly South African Hypocrisy104: Nothing unites a community or builds national-unity easier than a common enemy, where the 'unity' is often of superiority. Usually systematic intense devaluation of the enemy prior to action against him provides a measure of psychological justification for his brutal treatment. Once having acted against the enemy, these individuals often find it necessary to view the enemy as an unworthy individual, whose punishment was made inevitable by his own deficiencies of intellect and character. Building national unity by drawing people together in a common unified posture of anger and indignation (at the 'criminal' enemy), is the use of political policy to redefine the meaning of the situation. …. Control the manner in which a man -- in South Africa, America or wherever -- interprets his world, and you go a long way toward controlling his behaviour, because there is a propensity for people to accept definitions and interpretations of action, situations and behaviour provided to them by individuals whom they consider to be legitimate authority. That is why governments invest heavily in ideological propaganda, which constitutes the official manner of interpreting events. Additionally every situation also possesses a kind of ideology, which is called the "definition of the situation," and which is the interpretation of the meaning of the particular social occasion. It provides the perspective through which the elements of a situation gain coherence and clarity. An act viewed in one perspective may seem heinous; the same action viewed in another perspective seems fully warranted. When people accept definitions of action provided by legitimate authority, although the individual performs the action, he allows authority to define its meaning. It is this ideological abrogation to the authority that constitutes the principal cognitive basis of obedience. If, after all, the world, event, job, or the particular situation is as the authority defines and describes it, a certain set of actions follows logically. Because the individual conforms and without critical analysis accepts the authority's definition of the situation, obedient action follows willingly, often enthusiastically.

33.

In Perils of Obedience, Dr. Stanley Milgram summarised ‘Eichmann’ Obedience as: The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects [participants] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects [participants] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study

104

04-06-11: Proudly SA Parasite Hypocrisy: Fraudulent Rehabilitation Boomerang [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34104187]

and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

III. POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE PRINCIPLES “Are we really going to be able to give these extra people jobs, homes, health care and education?” -- Official in Uganda’s Ministry of Finance, August 25, 2006105

A. Thou Shalt Not Transgress Carrying Capacity Prophets: 34.

One of the most commonly used words In the Bible, Tsedeq106 -- found in Psalm 72, 85, etc; -- in its fullest sense, meant “world in balance” both ecologically and politically107. This was not only the responsibility for the Gods, but also kings and people, and when this carrying capacity law was ignored or violated, Prophets Isaiah, Habakkuk, Joel, Hosea and Nahum warned of pestilence, war, famine and death.

35.

In the The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia108, Garrett Hardin writes that Tertullian, a Father of the Christian church shocked many traditionalists over the centuries, by asking why is the human population so vast [perhaps 150 million then] that we are a burden to the earth, which can scarcely provide for our needs? What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race....

36.

The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus FRS, was an Anglican clergyman who thought that the dangers of population growth would preclude endless progress towards a utopian society. Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour, as did Rev. Martin Luther King109, and the Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican General Synod of Australia, Key Issues for Australia’s future in the global context

105 Population Explosion Threatens to Trap Africa in Cycle of Poverty, The Guardian, 25 August; Rice, X. 2006 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33281151]; High birthrate threatens to trap Africa in Cycle of Poverty, Guardian, UK; 1 September 2006, by Xan Rice [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33281181] See also: UB: [A.8] Exponential Functions, Carrying Capacity Limits & the Laws of Sustainability [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739370] 106 Stairway to Nowhere, by Yakov Rabinovich: “Tsedeq comes from a Semitic word meaning to be firm, straight, “like steel,” a determined integrity that goes to one's core. In Arabic, this means that one is fully developed, balanced and mature. Although tsedeq is often translated to mean “judgment,” this does not mean evil retribution or a legal judgment, but justice and righteousness, incorporating right living.” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34342563] 107 UB: [A.9] Lysistrata Tsedeq: Eco-Law 101: Laws of Sustainability [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739370] 108 Hardin, Garrett: The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34463595] 109 “Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victim.” ML King, May 5, 1966

and actions for us to take110, they argue the relationship between ‘Though shalt not steal’ to ‘Though shalt not breed’111. 37.

According to Robert McNamara, Former World Bank President: “Short of nuclear war itself, population growth is the gravest issue the world faces. If we do not act, the problem will be solved by famine, riots, insurrection and war;” and President Nixon: “We must help break the link between spiralling population growth and poverty. ...Where they have been tried, family planning programs have largely worked. ...Many pro-life advocates ...contend that to condone abortion even implicitly is morally unconscionable. Their view is morally short-sighted. ...if we provide funds for birth control ...we will prevent the conception of millions of babies who would be doomed to the devastation of poverty in the underdeveloped world.” 112

38.

In World Scientists Warning to Humanity, Issued November 18, 1992, signed by 1700 leading scientists from 70 countries, including 102 Nobel Prize laureates in Science; Union of Concerned Scientists113; they warned: The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices which damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair. Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth.

B. Eco-Numeracy: Exponential Functions and Carrying Capacity 39.

In various Arithmetic of Growth and Living within Limits articles114 Professors Al Bartlett and Garrett Hardin, explain the basic principles of exponential functions, which can be applied to population, fiat currency, resource depletion, etc. An exponential function describes the size of anything that is growing steadily, over a fixed period of time: eg. 5% per year. To calculate the doubling time, i.e. how long it would take to grow 100%; you take the number 70, divide it by the percent growth per unit time: 70 ÷ 5; and you find the doubling time: 14 years.

40.

Adverse economic factors which generally result from rapid population growth include: * reduced family savings and domestic investment; * increased need for large amounts

110 Key Issues for Australia’s future in the global context and actions for us to take, A discussion paper prepared by the Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican General Synod of Australia, February 2009 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102510] 111 Thou Shalt Not Breed: Anglicans, by Josh Gordon, The Age, Australia, May 9, 2010 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33281239] 112 Richard M. Nixon, Seize the Moment (Simon & Schuster, 1992); In National Security Study Memorandum 200: World Population Growth and U.S. Security, by Stephen D. Mumford; The Social Contract, Winter 1992 – 93 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34181013] 113 World Scientists Warning to Humanity, issued 18 November 1992 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707614] A World Scientists Warning Briefing Book is available from Union of Concerned Scientists, which provides the citations to support their WARNING. 114 * Arithmetic of Growth: Methods of Calculation I, by Al Bartlett, [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102577]; * Arithmetic of Growth: Methods of Calculation II, [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102614]; * Arithmetic, Population and Energy: Sustainability 101 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707649]; (iv) Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos: Growth: Real and Spurious, by Garrett Hardin [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102737]

of foreign exchange for food imports; * intensification of severe unemployment and underemployment; * the need for large expenditures for services such as dependency support, * education, and health which would be used for more productive investment; * the concentration of developmental resources on increasing food production to ensure survival for a larger population, rather than on improving living conditions for smaller total numbers.115 41.

In Ethical Implications of Carrying Capacity116, Garrett Hardin defines carrying capacity of a particular area as “the maximum number of a species that can be supported indefinitely by a particular habitat, allowing for seasonal and random changes, without degradation of the environment and without diminishing carrying capacity in the future”. In From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards117, he further clarifies the total impact equation of carrying capacity on a particular area: “Impacts of a population on the environment are of two sorts: the reduction of wanted resources and the addition of unwanted wastes. The fundamental equation connecting the variables can be expressed in simple words: Total impact = (per capita impact) x (population size).

42.

Carrying Capacity is an absolute necessity for honest bottom line of ecological accounting.118 According to Hardin: (a) a laissez-faire birth control (B.C.) policy + No Social Welfare, would provide for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas laissezfaire (B.C.) within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery. Legislators can have either, but not both; if welfare policies are too precious to be abandoned; they will have to introduce limits to the right to breed119.

C. Tragedy of the Commons: Limited World, Limited Rights 43.

In Tragedy of the Commons120 Garrett Hardin refers to a Limited World, Limited Rights121 legal dilemma in which multiple individuals, acting independently and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for

115 National Security Council, NSSM 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, Washington, DC December 10, 1974 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33114194] 116 Ethical Implications of Carrying Capacity, by Garrett Hardin, 1977 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707704] 117 From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards, by Garrett Hardin, Population and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 3. Spring 1991 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707732] 118 Perpetual Growth: The Next Dragon Facing Biology Teachers, by Garrett Hardin, National Association of Biology Teachers Address on 10 November, 1990 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102744] 119 From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards, by Garrett Hardin, Population and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 3. Spring 1991 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707732] 120 Tragedy of the Commons, by Garret Hardin, Science, 1968 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707732] 121 Limited World, Limited Rights, by Garrett Hardin, 17 May/June 1980 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707719]

this to happen. Harden predicts that the tragic problem of human population growth’s overuse of the carrying capacity of the commons can only be solved with a change in human values or ideas of morality. He accuses the legal and political nanny welfare state of providing financial incentives to procreate poverty stricken voting cannonfodder for the power-greedy welfare parasite elite: “If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own “punishment” to the germ line--then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families.” Hardin also refers to Lifeboat Ethics122 as another metaphor for the application of the logic of the commons.123 The problem of the commons has been evaded in the exploitation of all from fisheries to rain-forests to the question of human populations. “Both require for their rational resolution a clear understanding of the concept of carrying capacity and a willingness to fashion laws that take this concept into account.”124

D. Overpopulation: Resources Scarcity and Resource War Violence: 44.

In Environmental Change and Violent Conflict125 Scientific American authors document how the predictions of NSSM 200 were already occurring around the world: Within the next 50 years, the human population is likely to exceed nine billion, and global economic output may quintuple. Largely as a result of these trends, scarcities of renewable resources may increase sharply. The total area of highly productive agricultural land will drop, as will the extent of forests and the number of species they sustain. Future generations will also experience the ongoing depletion and degradation of aquifers, rivers and other bodies of water, the decline of fisheries, further stratospheric ozone loss and, perhaps, significant climatic change. As such environmental problems become more severe, they may precipitate civil or international strife." To examine whether these problems are currently causing civil or international strife, the authors assembled a team of 30 researchers to review a set of specific cases. [Their findings were then summarized] The evidence that they gathered points to a disturbing conclusion: scarcities of renewable resources are already contributing to violent conflicts in many parts of the developing world. These conflicts may foreshadow a surge of similar violence in coming decades..."

45.

Other studies on Overpopulation, Resource Scarcity and Violence include: 1. The Demography of Armed Conflict, edited by CSCW researcher Henrik Urdal 2. The Devil in the Demographics: The Effect of Youth Bulges on Domestic Armed Conflict, 1950-2000; Urdal, Henrik, 2004 3. Population Dynamics and Local Conflict: A Cross National Study of Population and War, by Nazli Choucri, Massachusetts Institute of Technology126

122

Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, by Garrett Hardin [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707714 ] Carrying Capacity: As an Ethical Concept, by Garrett Hardin, [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102726] 124 Ethical Implications of Carrying Capacity, by Garrett Hardin, 1977 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707704] 125 Environmental Change and Violent Conflict, by Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, Jeffrey H. Boutwell & George W. Rathjens; Scientific American, Feb 1993 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102682]; The Life and Death of NSSM 200 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707613] 123

4. Population and Conflict: New Dimensions of Population Dynamics, by Nazli Choucri, United Nations Fund for Population Activities127 5. The Security Demographic – Population and Civil Conflict After the Cold War, by Cincotta, Engelman and Anastasion, Population Action International, 2003

E. Demographics and Violence: Youth Bulges 46.

Numerous reports provide details how population age structures have significant impacts on a countries stability, governance, economic development and social wellbeing. Put differently, countries with large populations of idle young men, known as youth bulges, account for 70 – 90 percent of all civil conflicts. Additionally a wealth of historical studies indicates that cycles of rebellion and military campaigns in the early modern and modern world tended to coincide with periods when young adults comprised an unusually large proportion of the population. Youth Bulge Reports: 1. The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World128, by Population Action International 2. YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century129, by Optimum Population Trust

F. Population Pressures, Resource Wars, Terrorism and National Security 47.

The Kissinger Report, also known as National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications for Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests130, commissioned by President Nixon, and undertaken by the National Security Council, the CIA, the Defense, Agriculture and State Departments, and the Agency for International Development. It was authorized into law by President Gerald Ford, in NSC, National Security Decision Memorandum 314131 on November 26, 1975, detailing the sense of national security emergency: There is a major risk of severe damage [caused by continued rapid population growth] to world economic, political, and ecological systems and, as these systems begin to fail, to our humanitarian values [Executive Summary]. 132 ...world population growth is widely recognized within the government as a current danger of the highest magnitude calling for urgent measures [Page 194]. ...it is of the utmost

126

Choucri, Nazli: Population Dynamics and Local Conflict [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34102721] Choucri, Nazli: Population and Conflict: New Dimensions of Population Dynamics [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34464029] 128 The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer More Equitable World; by E. Leahy with R. Engelman, C. Gibb Vogel, S. Haddock and T.Preston, Population Action International [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34180717] 129 YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, by John Guillebaud, Optimum Population Trust, 2007 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34180625] 130 National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications for Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33114194] Pres. Nixon’s Cover Letter [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34464123] 131 National Security Council, National Security Decision Memorandum 314, Washington, DC, November 26, 1975. 4 pp. [Ch. 4: The Life and Death of NSSM 200, by S. Mumford] [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707613] 132 National Security Study Memorandum 200: World Population Growth and U.S. Security, by Stephen D. Mumford; The Social Contract, Winter 1992 – 93 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34181013] 127

urgency that governments now recognize the facts and implications of population growth, determine the ultimate population sizes that make sense for their countries and start vigorous programs at once to achieve their desired goals [Page 15]. The threat to security briefly summarized, ...population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the spatial location of population in relation to resources — in this rough order of importance — all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence... Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots. Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities [Page 66]. Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence [Page 69].

48.

Other executive actions by President Nixon included Public Law 91-213: An Act to establish a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future133; 91st Congress, S. 2701; March 16, 1970; and consequently Population and the American Future: The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future134; John D. Rockefeller 3rd, March 27, 1972. In The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy135, Dr. Stephen Mumford, details the in-depth role of the Vatican to scuttle America’s population policies. Additionally Life and Death of NSSM 200 summarizes and discusses one of the most important population documents ever written The World Population Plan of Action136 adopted at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest in Aug, 1974.

49.

The Public Report of the Vice Presidents Task Force on Combatting Terrorism137 concludes that a fundamental root cause of terrorism is the collision of youth bulge overpopulation with scarce, depleted and finite resources; namely too many idle young men fighting over too few and depleting resources.

50.

In 2000, a Nightline documentary by Ted Koppel, detailed the CIA & Pentagon's Perspective on Overpopulation & Resource Wars; warning about future wars over water, as a result of lack of political will to address population growth factors.

G. How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population – Environment Connection

133

Act to Establish a Commission on Population Growth and American Future [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707613] US Rockefeller Report: The Report Of The Commission On Population Growth: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33114078] 135 The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy, by Stephen D. Mumford; Center for Research on Population and Security, 1996 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707613] 136 World Population Plan of Action was adopted at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest in August, 1974; Appendix 1 to Life and Death of NSSM 200 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33114086] 137 Public Report of the Vice-President’s Task Force on Combatting Terrorism, February 1986. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34192907] 134

51.

In How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection138 Dr. Michael T. Maher, concludes his study as follows: “As we have seen, both land development economists and environmental experts acknowledge population growth as a key source of environmental change. But journalists frame environmental causality differently. Why? Communication theory offers several possibilities. First is the hegemony-theory interpretation: reporters omit any implication that population growth might produce negative effects, in order to purvey the ideology of elites who make money from population growth. As Molotch and Lester (1974) put it, media content can be viewed as reflecting "the practices of those having the power to determine the experience of others" (p. 120). Since real estate, construction and banking interests directly support the media through advertising purchases, this interpretation seems plausible. A number of media critics (e.g., Gandy, 1982; Altschull, 1984; Bennett, 1988) have suggested that media messages reflect the values of powerful political and commercial interests. Burd (1972), Kaniss (1991) and others have pointed out that newspapers have traditionally promoted population growth in their cities through civic boosterism. Molotch (1976) even suggested that cities can best be understood as entities competing for population growth, with the city newspaper as chief cheerleader. Certainly most reporters would be incensed at the suggestion that they shade their reporting to placate commercial interests. But Breed's classic study of social control in the newsroom (1955) showed that news managers' values are transmissible to journalists through a variety of pressures: salaries, story assignments, layout treatment, editing, and a variety of other strategies that effectively shape news stories in ways acceptable to management. Another possible explanation for why journalists omit population growth from their story frame is simple ignorance of other explanations. Journalists who cover environmental issues may not be aware of any other possible ways to frame these stories, thus they derive their framing from other journalists. Journalists frequently read each other's work and take cues for coverage from other reporters, particularly from the elite media (Reese & Danielian, 1989). Perhaps the pervasive predictability of the story frames examined in Part I is another example of intermedia influence. On the other hand, it seems difficult to believe that journalists could be ignorant of the role population growth plays in environmental issues, because media coverage frequently ties population growth to housing starts and business expansion. Furthermore, "Why" is one of the five "W's" taught in every Journalism 101 course. A public affairs reporting textbook, Interpreting Public Issues (Griffin, Molen, Schoenfeld, & Scotton, 1991), admonishes journalists: "A common journalistic mistake is simply to cover events—real or staged—and ignore underlying issues" (p. 320). The book identified population trends as one of the "big trouble spots," and listed world population as the first of its "forefront issues in the '90s" (p. 320). Hence, we cannot say that reporting basic causality is beyond the role that journalists ascribe for themselves. Indeed a panel at the 1994 Society of Environmental Journalists discussed "Covering Population as a Local Story" (Wheeler, 1994). But ignorance remains a possible reason, for not all reporters have training in environmental issues. A third possible explanation comes from the "spiral of silence" theory by German scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1984): The fear of isolation seems to be the force that sets the spiral of silence in motion. To run with the pack is a relatively happy state of affairs; but if you can't, because you won't share publicly in what seems to be a universally acclaimed conviction, you can at least remain silent, as a second choice, so that others can put up with you. According to Noelle-Neumann, “the media influence the individual perception of what can be said or done without danger of isolation”. Media coverage legitimates a given perspective. Lack of media coverage—omitting a perspective consistently from media stories—makes the expression of that perspective socially dangerous. Noelle-Neumann also

138 How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Population and Environment, Volume 18, Number 4, March 1977. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33694415]

suggested that the media serve an articulation function: “The media provide people with the words and phrases they can use to defend a point of view. If people find no current, frequently repeated expressions for their point of view, they lapse into silence; they become effectively mute”.

IV: TRC FRAUD: ‘CRIME OF APARTHEID’ FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY “The commission also said that there could be no healing without truth, that half-truths and denial were no basis for building the new South Africa, that reconciliation based on falsehood would not last, and that selective recollection of past violence would easily provide the mobilisation for further conflict in the future. If these are its criteria for the role of truth in promoting reconciliation, it has failed to meet them.” -- John Kane-Berman, The Truth About the Truth Commission

A. Negligent or Intentional Avoidance of Key Concept Definitions? 52.

Conflict of Laws Definitions: Fundamental Concepts Not Defined139: The TRC, perhaps intentionally?140, ignored the importance of providing clear definitions: In the TRC Report they repeatedly accuse the Apartheid government of maintaining its alleged legal oppressive regime, by means of definitions that are vague and ambiguous141. The TRC social contract Acts proceed to provide no definition for ‘ubuntu’, ‘closure’, ‘reconciliation’, ‘dignity’ and ‘national unity’: which are socially, culturally, religiously, psychologically, and racially important terms; which have multiple different meanings for different cultures, religions, etc.

53.

This circumvents the European Court of Human Rights principle that rule of law requires that provisions of legislation must be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law.142

B. Amnesty Meaning Changed Without Due Process? 54.

Did ‘Amnesty’ mean Amnesty, or was the meaning changed?143: Did the ANC, change the requirements for Amnesty principles of the original agreement (Interim

139

UA: [E. 2]: Definitions: Fundamental Concepts Not Defined [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739548] SALC Project 90: Report on Conflicts of Law, September 1999, p.22 “1.57: Blending two very different legal systems in a synthetic code is an immense undertaking, however, which has been accomplished in very few African countries …. and then largely at the expense of customary law. At a social level, it may be questioned whether everyone in the country either wants or is prepared for a single law. Are the peoples of South Africa willing to compromise their cultural traditions in a homogenized legal system? In any event, it must be appreciated that, for the immediate future at least, social and legal differences will remain, and, if that is the case, the conflict of laws will have an important role to play in selecting appropriate laws in particular cases.” 141 Truth and Reconciliation Report: Vol I. page 30; para 26; 27 ; page 32 para 32; page 38, para 59; Vol II; page 274, para 453 142 The European Court of Human Rights has held that the rule of law requires that provisions of legislation must be adequately accessible and sufficiently precise to enable people to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law.” Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110: “As regards the phrase "subject to the conditions provided for by law", it requires in the first place the existence of and compliance with adequately accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provisions (see, amongst other authorities, the Malone judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 31-33, paras. 66-68). “ 143 UA: [E.3] Did ‘Amnesty’ mean Amnesty, or was the meaning changed? [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739548] 140

Constitution), but avoided any such consultation (as required by Interim Constitution S. 233 (3) and (4)) with relevant parties, such as the IFP, the SADF, etc144.

C. Was Truth and Reconciliation Seen to Be Done? 55.

In Assessment of the probable results of activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF 145, by Generals Malan, Viljoen, Geldenhuys and Liebenberg, they write: Although we stand sympathetic towards the objectives of the TRC….. we have serious reservations as to whether the TRC can make an optimum contribution towards reconciliation and national unity. Our reservations are shared, amongst others, by the historian Hermann Giliomee in the Leader Page article in the Cape Times of 9 October 1997. "Writing as a historian, I have always felt that the greatest problem with the commission was not so much what it has set out to do, but its hopelessly skewed composition. Unlike Chile, where half the commissioners appointed to a similar body was roughly associated with the old regime and the other half with the new, the score in our case is roughly nine to one in favour of the anti - regime side". In the case of South Africa, strange as it may sound, there is more than one past. If the position of the TRC's past is accepted, an analysis such as this becomes irrelevant. If society is perceived as an interaction between oppressor and oppressed, as a clear-cut distinction between evil and good, the TRC's investigation is not really necessary - even before the start of the hearings, the outcome would have been predetermined.

56.

The TRC Foundation: Impartial Truth or Selective Truth (Bias)146: In The Truth about the Truth Commission147, Anthea Jeffery details how the TRC did not live upto its mandate to contextualise the gross violations, including the perspectives and motives of the perpetrators, as well as any antecedent factors contributing to violations. It contextualised the actions of the ANC, and provided no context for the IFP or State, simply depicting it as a criminal state, totally disregarding the State’s perspective, about the importance of law and order; or the IFP’s perspectives and motives. The TRC deliberately ignored the People’s War, TRC findings were frequently unexplained, “its investigation and research appears … one-sided”. It concentrated on the States Security Council, while ignoring its ANC equivalent the ‘Political-Military Council of the ANC’. The TRC further failed to verify evidence before it, or to take all relevant information into account. It expressed reservations about audi Alteram partem and giving alleged perpetrators sufficient notice, and conducted many of its hearings behind closed doors. It failed to give reasons for many of its findings, or to explain the

144 The Conflict of the Past: A Factual Review, by General Johan van der Merwe: “From the very beginning the TRC-process was characterised by a one-sided approach in which members of the Security Branch were often harshly discriminated against…….” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32954067] 145 February 1998, Letter: Assessment of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF, by Generals Malan, Viljoen, Liebenburg and Geldenhuys, to Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34381488] 146 UA: [E.4] Was Truth and Reconciliation Seen to be Done? [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739548] 147 The Truth About The Truth Commission, Anthea Jeffery, SA Inst. Race Relations (SAIRR), 1999 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32954016]

basis of its conclusions, particularly findings of accountability on a balance of probability. It repudiated various judicial rulings without citing evidence or reasons to justify this. On the importance of Truth to the TRC, she states that it is clear the TRC are aware of the importance of the need for impartial truth, but that they appear to sorely lack the will to put actions behind their words. 57.

Further complaints of TRC bias148, conflicts of interest, censorship or omission, etc: 1.

The Conflict of the Past: A Factual Review149, by General Johan van der Merwe;

Complaints to Public Protector of TRC Handling of SADF150, by Gen. J.J. Geldenhuys, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; Genl A.J. Liebenberg, SSA, SD, SOE, MMM; Genl M.A. de M. Malan, SSA, OMSG, SD, SM; and Gen C.L. Viljoen, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; January 1998. They also refer to the TRC’s lack of enquiry into among others the: The Stuart Commission's Report151; The Douglas Commission's Report152; The Motsuenyane Commission153; The Skweyiya Commission154; Amnesty International Report155; Mbokodo: Inside the MK: A soldiers Story, by Mwezi Twala156; the book: Marching to Slavery: SA's Descent into Communism; and The Denton Hearings, by Jeremiah Denton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary157. They also filed a further submission to the TRC: Assessment of the Probable Results of

148

UA: [E.5] Rainbow Truths: Were contextual Struggle Violence Truths Told? [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739548] The Conflict of the Past: A Factual Review, by General Johan van der Merwe [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32954067] 150 Complaints to Public Protector of TRC Handling of SADF, submitted by Generals J.J. Geldenhuys; A.J. Liebenberg; M.A. de M. Malan; and C.L. Viljoen; January 1998 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32954024] 151 Stuart Comm. Report: of Inquiry into Recent Developments in People’s Rep. of Angola, Mar 14, 1984: “Despite the report of the Stuart Comm. by Hermanus Loots (alias James Stuart) after being appointed by the ANC's NEC to inquire into the Pongo mutiny among ANC combatants : "Some of those punished have been maimed for the life and there have been deaths..... The aim of the punishment seems to be to destroy, demoralise and humiliate comrades and not correct and build." He listed gruesome punishments and the "shocking corruption of fear" in the camps, listed the names of people who died as a result of these punishments and noted that others had committed suicide or had deserted. It added that the ANC/SACP security department had done things that would "shock our people against the movement". Although presented to Oliver Tambo, Alfred Nzo and others, the Stuart Comm. Report sank without trace. This was apparently not the stuff the politicians behind fighters wanted the world to know about.” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32956936] 152 “The Douglas Commission's Report. Based on the evidence from some 100 witnesses and depositions from some 60, including some 40 survivors of ANC camps in Angola, Uganda, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia, it found that the cruelties amounted to a "litany of unbridled and sustained horror". This Durban based State's council mentioned various prominent SACP/ANC leaders as being directly or indirectly responsible for serious human rights abuses.” 153 ANC - Commission of Enquiry into Certain Allegations of Cruelty and Human Rights Abuse Against ANC Prisoners and Detainees by ANC Members (Motsuenyane Commission) - August 20, 1993 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957187]: “This Commission, the ANC's own, recommended that those responsible for the atrocities should be identified and banned from holding high positions of authority.” 154 Skweyiya Commission Report, Report of the Commission of Enquiry into Complaints by Former African National Congress Prisoners and Detainees, 1992 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32956941] 155 South Africa: Torture, ill-treatment and executions in African National Congress Camps, Amnesty International, 2 December 1992, AI Index AFR 53/27/92 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957163] 156 See also: (i) What Happened in the ANC Camps?, Focus: ANC Camps, WIP, No. 82, Page 14-18; June 1992.; (ii) Women in the ANC and SWAPO: sexual abuse of young women in the ANC camps, by Olefile Samuel Mngqibisa, October 1993, Searchlight South Africa, No 11, Pages 11-16 (ISSN 0954-3384) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32956931]; (iii) A Miscarriage of Democracy: The ANC Security Department in the 1984 Mutiny in Umkhonto We Sizwe, Bandile Ketelo, Amos Maxongo, Zamxolo Tshona, Ronnie Massango and Luvo Mbengo; Searchlight South Africa, Vol. 2. No.1, July 1990, Pages: 35-41. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957159]; (iv) An Open Letter to Nelson Mandela from Ex-ANC Detainees, Searchlight South Africa Number 5 July 1990 , pages 66 to 68 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957184]; (v) The ANC Conference: From Kabwe to Johannesburg, Letter to the Editors, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 2, No.2 January 1991 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957358]; (vi) A Death in South Africa: The Killing of Sipho Phungulwa, by Paul Trwhela, The Killing Fields of South Africa, Searchlight South Africa, Vol 2, No 2, 6 January 1991; Pg 11 – 25; ISSN 0954-3384 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957565]; (vii) The Case of Samuel Mngzibisa (Elty Mhlekazi); Resignation from ANC, 07/02/1991 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957409]; (viii) Inside Quadro: End of an Era, by Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa, No. 5 in July 1990. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957573]; (ix) The ANC Prison Camps: An Audit of Three Years, 1990 – 1993, by Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957712]; (x) The Dilemma of Albie Sachs: ANC Constitutionalism and the Death of Thami Zulu, by Paul Trewhela, Searchlight South Africa [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32957509] 157 (i) The Denton Hearings. This report by Jeremiah Denton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, states in the Letter of Transmittal : "I feel that a review and analysis of the material which has been compiled will be of substantial assistance to those who desire to have a fuller understanding of the part that the Soviet Union and its proxy states play in international terrorism and national liberation movements such as SWAPO and the ANC".”; (ii) The Aida Parker Newsletter: Issue No. 200: October 1996: “Prisoners dealt with the 1982 hearings scheduled in Washington by one-time Republican Senator Jeremiah Denton of Alabama. Testimony heard before the Denton Committee on security and terrorism in SA disclosed the existence of a strategy to seize power by force and terror. The first tactic, of course, was to kill Black South Africans who disagreed with the ANC strategy of revolution.” 149

Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by Former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF158.

D. Did ‘Evil Apartheid’ raise Black living standards to Highest in Africa? “Most people overseas were still under the impression that the policy of separate development was aimed at keeping the Bantu down. They did not realise that the policy was aimed at uplifting them.” – R.J. Stratford, Former Opposition MP, 159 “Until I have found an alternative policy which would do greater justice to all concerned – and I cannot – I do not propose to criticise South Africa’s policy.” – Sir Carl Berendson, former New Zealand Ambassador, after a two months tour of South Africa160 “Apartheid is conceived of by the government of South Africa as a ‘separate and parallel’ development, and to implement it the government is creating Bantu states, where complete self-government will be not only permitted but encouraged, after a period of transition. The ultimate objective will be a dual commonwealth in which the Bantustans will be constituent units… Self government is to be developed on the basis of tribal traditions, the objective being full democracy, but in the form most readily assimilated by the African…” – Clarence B. Randall, advisor to President Kennedy161

58.

Yosef Lapide, a journalist for the Tel Aviv newspaper Ma’Ariv’s wrote: Well, the so called liberated African states are, with a few exceptions, a bad joke and an insult to human dignity. They are run by a bunch of corrupt rulers, some of whom, Like Idi Amin of Uganda, are mad according to all the rules of psychiatry. I feel unburdened when I say this; I wanted to say this all these years, and all these years I had the feeling that we fool the public when, for reasons of diplomacy, we do not tell them that the majority of black African states are one nauseating mess. The lowliest of Negroes in South Africa has more civil rights than the greatest Soviet author. The most oppressed negro in South Africa has more to eat than millions of Africans in “Liberated” countries. The people advocating “progress”, who were so worried about the rights of the majority in South Africa, have never raised their voices for the majority in Hungary or in Cuba, in Red China or in Egypt. In half a dozen states-including Ethiopiathousands of persons die every day of hunger, while the rulers travel by Cadillac and steal food that is being sent to aid their subjects. Only in the sick minds of “progressives” do the babies die of starvation with a smile on their lips, because the ruler who starves them to death has a black skin.162

59.

Although Verwoerd’s Apartheid “launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for non-whites that South Africa had ever seen,”163 which raised poor blacks living standards to the highest in Africa164, granting them greater self-determination

158 Assessment of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by Former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF , by SA Defence Force Contact Bureau [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34381488] 159 1964-01-10: ICJ: Counter-Memorial of Gov. of SA (Book I-IV), p 493: The Pretoria News, 1963, p.1; from: SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) [ICJ: www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=f2&case=46] 160 1964-01-10: ICJ: (Book I-IV), p. 494: The Evening Post (New Zealand), 4 Dec 1962; Ibid (www.icj-cij.org) 161 1964-01-10: ICJ: (Book I-IV), p. 494: South Africa Needs Time, Atlantic Monthly, May 1963 Ibid (www.icj-cij.org) 162 History in the Making: World Conflict in the Twentieth Century, S.M. Harrison, 1987; as quoted in Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 18 – Hypocrisy at The United Nations, Mike Smith Political Commentary Blog (www.mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com) 163 Open Letter from Jaap Marais, Leader of the HNP, to President Clinton, the Whitehouse, 14 January 1999: “This is a picture of the country which under Verwoerd had the second highest economic growth rate in the world (7,9% per year), an average inflation rate of 2 per cent, was accommodating new labour in the formal sector at 73,6 per cent per year, and enabled the living standards of Blacks in the industrial sector to rise at 5,3 per cent per year as against those of Whites at 3,9 per cent per year. The Financial Mail published a special survey entitled "The fabulous years: 1961-66". …. Jan Botha wrote, Verwoerd "had launched the greatest programme of socio-economic upliftment for the non-Whites that South Africa had ever seen".” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34463257] 164 Was Apartheid Really The Most Evil Regime In The World?, by Albert Bremmer, 10/08/2007: “Did you know that the life expectancy of black South Africans nearly equaled that of Europeans during the last decade of Apartheid? Did you know that the black population nearly

under Afrikaners165, than other minority black tribes in Africa enjoyed under majority black rule. This did not sit well with the OAU, who founded the OAU Liberation Committee, to assist in “forging an international consensus against apartheid.”166 It claims it was devoted to eradicating all traces of colonialism to benefit Africans ‘self determination’; but it “rejected post-independence claims to self-determination in Biafra, Katanga, southern Sudan, Shaba and Eritrea” 167, and the Sahrawi people’s right to self determination168. The OAU’s collective effort to rid Africa of apartheid meant it “played an influential role in the UN to ensure an arms embargo, economic sanctions, condemnation of South Africa’s main trade partners and the non-recognition of the “homelands”.”169 (own emphasis) 60.

In 1961, then foreign minister of SA, Eric Louw presented to the UN a factual comparison of the living conditions of blacks in South Africa compared to other African states. He proved that Blacks in SA had a higher per capita income, better educational opportunities170, far superior medical and social services and altogether a higher standard of living than anywhere in Africa. In response, the OAU engineered a motion of censure against him (first of its kind) and his speech was struck from the record. Even “The Washington Post”, who regularly criticized South Africa, noted: “Nothing that South Africa has done and nothing that its representatives said, justified the mob-like censure which the United Nations visited upon that country and its Foreign Minister, Mr Eric Louw.”

61.

By 1978, “Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.”171

trebled during Apartheid? Did you know that black South Africans had the highest per capita income and education levels in Africa during Apartheid?” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34381274] 165 Salute the bravery and vision of SA’s founders, Meshack Mabogoane, Business Day, 2010/05/05: “Undoubtedly, racial inequity existed and full democracy was absent. But social, health and material provisions — the best in Africa — existed for black people. Long before 1994, blacks had voted directly, at least, for urban and rural councils and executives — izibonda and bungas. Now all races don’t even vote for central and provincial legislators but for mere party representatives.” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34463315] 166 Cervenka, Z; The unfinished quest for unity: Africa and the OAU , New York, Africana Publishing Company (1977) p.45 167 Eritrea won its independence in 1991, despite the OAU’s lack of support for the application of the principle of self determination in its case. Blay SKN Changing African perspectives on the right of self-determination in the wake of the Banjul Charter on Human and People’s Rights; 29 Journal of African Law (1985) p 152-153. 168 Naldi, GJ, The Organisation of African Unity and the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic; 26 Journal of African Law (1982) p 152-157 169 Andemicael Berhanykun The OAU & the UN: Relations between The Organization of African Unity and the United Nations (New York & London: Africana Publishing Company, 1976, 352 pp. (1976) 133-173; and Foltz & Widner in El-Ayouty & Zartman (eds) 1984) p. 263 - 269 170 Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 11– Bantu Education under Apartheid, by Mike Smith,: “Since 1970 the budget for black education was raised by about 30% per year every year. More than any other government department. In the period 1955 -1984 the amount of black school students increased 31 times from 35,000 to 1,096 000. 65% of black South African children were at school compared to Egypt 64%, Nigeria 57%, Ghana52%, Tanzania50% and Ethiopia 29%. Amongst the adults of South Africa, 71% could read and write (80% between the ages 12 and 22). Compare this to Kenya 47%, Egypt 38%, Nigeria 34% and Mozambique at 26%. In South Africa, the whites built 15 new classrooms for blacks every working day, every year. At 40 children per class it meant space for an additional 600 black students every day!!!” (www.mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com) 171 Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 9 – The lies about the Townships, Mike Smith Political Commentary: “At the height of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 Football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses. In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post

62.

According to British political commentator Simon Jenkins, writing in the London Spectator, on 07 May 1994 (reprinted Aida Parker Newsletter # 208): For the Blacks.. apartheid will be …. the Great Excuse. White rule may have been nasty and brutish, but it disciplined the SA economy and made it rich. SA has for 20 years outperformed every ‘liberated’ state in Africa. Politically correct academics claim White rule held SA back by stifling Black education and advancement. I don’t believe it. Apartheid may have been crude and cruel, but it was no more than an elite entrenching its economic power. The ‘trickle-down’ worked. "The incomes of Blacks were well above those elsewhere on the continent, which explained the heavy migration of Blacks into SA throughout the apartheid period. As Third World economies go, SA was a thundering success. The massive redistribution of wealth promised by the ANC threatens that success. So a reason for incipient failure must be found in advance. Mr Mandela is human. He cannot admit that in African terms White rule was an economic success…... If a school is ill-equipped, a housing estate without sewerage, a mob unemployed, it will be ‘the legacy of apartheid.’ Every inequality of income, every injustice detected by trade unionist or … journalist will be put down to apartheid. Apartheid was horrible. It acknowledged, albeit crudely, the racial distinctions ordinary people acknowledge. It made the implicit explicit. There was no pretence at a melting pot. Now the explicit must be suppressed, but the legacy of racial frankness will not disappear just because legal apartheid is dead. The new SA is not a raceless community, any more than Britain is a classless one. It will still be run mostly by Whites, and Blacks will still be at the bottom of the ladder. Democracy will give a new tilt to the conflict. But all South Africans will be glad to have in their knapsack the Great Excuse. Apartheid will be a marvellous friend in need."

E. Apartheid: Crime Against Humanity; or Just War for Demographic Survival? 63.

Can ‘Just War’ Principles be Applied to Apartheid v. Liberation Struggle Conflict?: In Just War Theory172, Alexander Moseley, explains that the doctrine of just war only holds for cultures who practice cultural equivalent codes of military honour173: Historically, the just war tradition–a set of mutually agreed rules of combat—may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. That is, when an array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare. But when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, and as such they see each other as “less than human”, war conventions are rarely applied.

Offices, & its own fruit and vegetable market. There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.” (www.mspoliticalcommentary.blogspot.com) 172 Just War Theory, by Alexander Mosele [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34462302] 173 Rain Liivoja. 2010. Chivalry without a Horse: Military Honour and the Modern Law of Armed Conflict submitted to the Proceedings of the Estonian National Defence College. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/rain_liivoja/15: “If we strip chivalry of its romantic overtones and literary hyperbole, we find a code of conduct that held currency among the military elite of the era. At the core of this code stood an ideal that was certainly not characteristic to the Middle Ages alone: '[c]hivalry was often no more, and no less, than the sentiment of honour in its medieval guise.' Thus, to speak of chivalry is to speak of a military code of honour.... Honour, moreover, has played a key role in military thinking over millennia, so it does not seem out of place to talk about it with reference to modern warfare. There is also another, in some sense more concrete, link between chivalry and the modern law of armed conflict. The law that might be called 'modern' began life in the second half of the 19th century with the adoption of a number of important documents -- the Lieber Code in 1861, the Brussels Declaration in 1874, the Oxford Manual in 1880, and the Hague Regulations in 1899. ... The basic rules of armed conflict were not invented in the late 19th century: one of their most significant sources was the medieval code of chivalry.”

64.

However, the ANC and TRC ignore the huge differences in cultural concepts of military honour, insist on their ‘Just War’, of the ‘crime of apartheid’. In 1962 Liberia and Ethiopia brought ‘crimes of apartheid’ charges against S. Africa for practicing the crime of apartheid in South West Africa174. SA delivered a written presentation of 3000 pages, called 15 expert witnesses who testified that fifty countries practiced a form of apartheid between groups, classes or races forty of them members of the UN at the time, including Ethiopia and Liberia. The petitioners refused to appear in person to testify and be cross examined, even though S. Africa offered to pay all their expenses. S. Africa was found not guilty of practicing the ‘crime of apartheid’ in Namibia. “It was specified in Article 22 of the Covenant that the "best method of giving practical effect to [the] principle" that the "well-being and development" of those peoples in former enemy colonies "not yet able to stand by themselves"… was that "the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations . . . who are willing to accept it." 175

65.

Irrespective ten years to the day of the ICJ ruling, the UN issued their Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid176: The Apartheid Convention was the ultimate step in the condemnation of apartheid as it not only declared that apartheid was unlawful because it violated the Charter of the United Nations, but in addition it declared apartheid to be criminal. The Apartheid Convention was adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973, by 91 votes in favour, four against (Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) and 26 abstentions. It came into force on 18 July 1976. As of August 2008, it has been ratified by 107 States. Although consideration was given in 1980 to the establishment of a special international criminal court to try persons for the crime of apartheid (E/CN.4/1426 (1981)), no such court was established. No one was prosecuted for the crime of apartheid while apartheid lasted in South Africa. And no one has since been prosecuted for the crime.

66.

No Apartheid Official has ever been convicted of the ‘crime of apartheid’177, a fact ignored by the falsify-facts ‘point at a deer and call it a horse’178 political and media et al elite. Consider in comparison how billions are ignorant – thanks to media censorship – of the fact that according to a 24 June 2010 statement from the Zug Swiss Prosecutors Office ‘Senior FIFA Officials were centrally involved in the biggest and most spectacular bribery scandal in Olympic history’, involving CFH 138 million179. A half-truth

174

1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Application Instituting Proceedings, 4 November 1960 1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 18 July 1966 176 Dugard, John: Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Professor of International Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Leiden [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34462304] 177 Dugard, John, Ibid 178 The Asch conformity experiments are also known as the "Asch Paradigm". The Asch experiments may provide some vivid empirical evidence relevant to some of the ideas raised in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (see 2 + 2 = 5). This also helps illustrate the concept of "point at a deer and call it a horse". [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34292822] 179 Prosecutor's office links FIFA officials to bribery scandal: Senior FIFA Officials were centrally involved in the biggest and most spectacular bribery scandal in Olympic history, Swiss prosecutor's office confirms, 24 June 2010, by Jens Weinreich, Play the Game; Zug Canton: Zuger Polizei: Verfahren nach Wiedergutmachung eingestellt (Statement from the Zug Prosecutor’s Office) , Do, 24.06.2010; The ISL bribery system: 138 million CHF for senior officials in the Olympic world, by Jens Weinreich, 16 Juni 2009; Is FIFA an Organised Crime Family?, by Andrew Jennings, Transparency in Sport [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34464210] 175

propagandized, a fact censored: The media power to ‘manufacture our social and political world180, to worship corrupt Pharisees and scapegoat honest prophets. 67.

‘Crime of Apartheid’ TRC Commissioners lacked cultural equivalent code of military honour181 or philosophical courage182, to impartially enquire into demographic motives of Apartheid; unable to “accept that, irrespective of the methods used, both sides performed their duties bona fide, in what they perceived to be service to their respective political masters,”183 that “no single side in the conflict of the past has a monopoly of virtue or should bear responsibility for all the abuses that occurred”184.

F. Nature & Causes of Apartheid: A Just War for Demographic Survival?: 68.

In response to questions from the TRC about the motives for apartheid, FW de Klerk185 clarified the Afrikaners very rational demographic ‘swart gevaar’ motives and fears: As far as relations with the other peoples of South Africa were concerned, the National Party believed initially that its interests could be best served by following a policy of "separateness" - or apartheid. It felt that, only in this manner, would the whites in general - and Afrikaners in particular - avoid being overwhelmed by the numerical superiority of the black peoples of our country. Only in this manner would they be able to maintain their own identity and their right to rule themselves. It persuaded itself that such a policy was morally defensible and in the interest of the other peoples of South Africa, because any other course would inevitably lead to inter-racial conflict. (own emphasis)

69.

Verwoerd described the motives, practices and policies for apartheid, aka separate development, or Harmonious Multi-Community Development186, and Live and Let Live187 in depth, in the submissions to the ICJ on S.W. Africa, about the ‘superiority of numbers of the Natives’188. As declared by Dr. Malan’s National Party in 1947189:

180 Ben Bagdikian, The New Media Monopoly (Boston, Beacon, 2004), 4, 9.: “No imperial ruler in past history had multiple media channels that included television and satellite channels that can permeate entire societies with controlled sights and sounds. …Big media corporations] control every means by which the population learns of its society. ...media products are unique in one vital respect. They do not manufacture nuts and bolts: they manufacture a social and political world.” 181 Rain Liivoja. 2010. Chivalry without a Horse: Military Honour & Modern Law of Armed Conflict Ibid 182 The Role of Philosophical Courage in Philosophical Counseling, by Hakam Al-Shawi: “..l suggest that this transformational process requires at least one necessary ingredient without which philosophical counseling would not be possible. Whether implicitly or explicitly, both counselor and client need the virtue of courage in its form as “philosophical courage” in order for the counseling to be successful. Moreover, the degree of such courage in both client and counselor will determine the extent to which issues are brought into question…… there is another form of courage—philosophical courage—required of individuals in dealing with their most fundamental beliefs and values. ….. I believe the best way to demarcate roughly the different forms of courage, is through an analysis of the cost involved with each form of the virtue…. First, with physical courage, the possible cost involved, at the extreme, is the physical loss of life…. Second, with moral courage, the possible cost is social rejection and isolation and/or a loss of “ethical integrity or authenticity. Third, with “psychological courage,” the possible cost perceived by the individual is “psychic death.” …. And fourth, with “philosophical courage” the possible cost is philosophical instability where one’s most fundamental beliefs and values are brought into doubt. … it demands of the individual a confrontation with fundamental beliefs and values” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34457982] 183 Submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Comm. by SADF General Magnus Malan [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34462172] 184 Submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Comm. by Mr. F.W de Klerk, National Party [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34462184] 185 Second Submission of the National Party to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34462184] 186 Dr. Eiselen, W.W.M., “Harmonious Multi-Community Development”, in Optima, Mar. 1959, p.1. Dr. Eiselen was at that time Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. 187 Address by the South African Prime Minister, Dr. H.F. Verwoerd, address to the SA Club, London, in Fact Paper 91, Apr. 1961, p.14 188 1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p.463 189 1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p.473

It [apartheid] is a policy which sets itself the task of preserving and safeguarding the racial identity of the White population of the country, of likewise preserving and safeguarding the identity of the indigenous people’s as separate racial groups, with opportunities to develop into self-governing national units; of fostering the inculcation of national consciousness, self-esteem and mutual regard among the various races of the country. The choice before us is one of these two divergent courses: either that of integration, which would in the long run amount to national suicide on the part of the Whites; or that of apartheid, which professes to preserve the identity and safeguard the future of every race, with complete scope for everyone to develop within its own sphere while maintaining its distinctive national character.

70.

SAIRR Surveys, repeatedly document Apartheid authorities concerns with rapid black population growth as causal factors for socio-economic and political realities: In the 1989 SAIRR Race Relations Report190, we are informed that the Chairman of the Council for Population Development, Professor JP de Lange, claimed that population growth was South Africa’s ‘ticking time bomb’, and South Africa within two decades South Africa would find itself in a dilemma where its resources and socio-economic capabilities would be insufficient for its population, which would give rise to total social disintegration, unemployment, poverty, and misery which would become unmanageable, even in the best of constitutional dispensations. He urgently urged a birth rate of 2.1 or less children per woman per year. The Population Development Program recognized that a direct relationship existed between standard of living, an effective family planning and population growth. In a 1992/93 Race Relations Survey 191 by the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR), we are told that the high population growth is the cause of growth in poverty, unemployment and squatter camps, and most of the serious problems in South Africa; Population pressures are destroying the environment; the IFP and FRD call for ethics of 2 children per family as urgent population control priority; Population Growth outstrips Economic Growth for many years, and blacks avoid participation in family planning programs.192

71.

Strategic Demographic ‘Swart Gevaar’ & ‘Friction Theory’ Motivations for Apartheid: In Outcast Cape Town193, social geographer, John Western writes: Outcast Cape Town investigates how Apartheid came to be, the roots of apartheid, traced back to Cape Town’s establishment in the mid-seventeenth century, and the many social, geopolitical, demographic, political, racial, etc. factors which contributed to Apartheid. For Apartheid was not inevitable. Had certain demographic factors been different, it may not have occurred. Had it managed to avoid its massive problems of demographic surges and attendant unemployment, these different factors and sequences of events might have brought more similar societal results to other parts of the world, with similar factors. Even once apartheid was legislated, the ‘Nationalists with all their Sowetos could hardly keep up with the Black demographic realities of rural-urban migration and absolute population increase. At immense cost, they as it were ran as fast as they could, only to stay in the same place.’ (p.xix) It could be anticipated that, if a White power-holding minority were to enact segregative laws for urban areas through a motive of fear for its future security, it would first enact them against those whom it perceived to be the greatest threat. These would be the Black Africans – the swart gevaar – who are not only those who greatly outnumber the Whites in the land, but are also those who have seemed most culturally dissimilar…. (p.45)

190

Cooper C, et.al, Race Relations Survey 1989/90, (Jhb: SAIRR) 1990. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33820505] Cooper, C et. al., Race Relations Survey 1992/93, (Jhb: SAIRR) 1993. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33820596] 192 UA: F.1. Population Explosion Concerns during Apartheid [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739548] 193 Outcast Cape Town, by John Western, University of California Press (June 1, 1997); See also: The Lie of Apartheid, by Arthur Kemp, Lulu.com (December 28, 2008): (Chapter 1, of The Lie of Apartheid and other true stories from Southern Africa) 191

The Strategic Motive: There are, then, more profound reasons for groups areas than the minister of community development chose to advance. The outnumbering of Whites by Nonwhites in the country as a whole and in the cities in particular continues to grow more marked. A parallel can be drawn with the fears of the upper, ruling classes of Britain when they were confronted with that totally novel and therefore unpredictable phenomenon, the great industrial city as epitomized by Manchester. Of this city in 1842 W. Cooke Taylor wrote (p.6): “[One] cannot contemplate those “crowded hives” without feelings of anxiety and apprehension almost amounting to dismay. The population is hourly increasing in breadth and strength. It is an aggregate of masses, our conceptions of which clothe themselves in terms that express something portentous and fearful……” As a description of the White South African’s widespread fear of the urban swart gevaar, this passage can hardly be bettered. Then years, earlier, another commentator viewing Manchester had warned of “the evils of poverty and pestilence among the working classes of the close alleys, … where pauperism and disease congregate round the source of social discontent and political disorder in the centre of our large towns.” Here is the strategic motive, which is indeed one of the two primary underpinnings of the group areas conception. (Pg 74) Of twentieth-century South Africa, van den Berghe (1966, p 411) is firm in his agreement: “The older non-white shanty towns with their maze of narrow, tortuous alleys were often located close to White residential or business districts; they are now systematically being razed as a major military hazard… The new ghetto’s are typically situated several miles from the White towns, with a buffer zone inbetween. (Pg 74) Adam (1971, p. 123) also considered that, “since the widespread unrest of the early sixties, white rule is efficiently prepared for internal conflicts. The design and location of African townships has been planned on the basis of strategic considerations. Within a short time such a location could be cordoned off, and in its open streets any resistance could be easily smashed.” (p.75) Surely no more striking proof of this can be found than the expressed opinions of the government minister in charge of the security system within South Africa. Jimmy Kruger, minister of justice, when interviewed by the Financial Gazette, on the possibilities of urban guerrilla warfare, said he did not think an organized campaign would get off the ground. One of the big advantages was that the residential areas were segregated. Overseas, urban terrorism was largely sparked off by a mixture of mutually antagonistic groups within a limited geographical area, and this was often accentuated by overcrowding. “We have fortunately managed to avoid this here,” said Mr. Kruger (South African Digest, 2 September 1977). Whether or not we agree with his analysis of the causes of urban guerrilla warfare, which predictably leans on the soc-called “friction theory” (see p.85), the strategic motive for group areas segregation has been made crystal clear. Leo Kuper (1956) commented: “The danger is in numerical preponderance of the non-whites. It is a threat, however, only if the non-whites are united… The Group Areas Act (1950) gives the GovernorGeneral [now the state president] the necessary power to subdivide Coloureds and Natives but not whites…” (p77) … A central justification for [Apartheid s racial residential segregation] viewpoint, that segregation is in the interest of all, is enshrined in the “friction theory.” The belief is simply that any contact between the races inevitably produces conflict. Thus, the minister of the interior, introducing the group areas bill to Parliament on 14 June 1950, stated:

Now this, as I say, is designed to eliminate friction between the races in the Union because we believe, and believe strongly, that points of contact – all unnecessary points of contact – between the races must be avoided. If you reduce the number of points of contact to the minimum, you reduce the possibility of friction… The result of putting people of different races together is to cause racial trouble. … The friction theory has some measure of sense to it, as may be illustrated by once again returning to the work of Robert Sommer (1969, pp 12, 14 and 15), who wrote: [Animal studies] show that both territoriality and dominance behaviour are ways of maintaining social order, and when one system cannot function, the other takes over… Group territories keep individual groups apart and thereby preserve the integrity of the troop, whereas dominance is the basis for intragroup relationships… Group territoriality is expressed in national and local boundaries, a segregation into defined areas that reduces conflict. Epilogue In the new South Africa one might think that managing the population surge is now delinked from political pressures. That is, we no longer deal with a White minority government fearful of demographic swamping by an ever-growing Black African majority. The whites have now been “swamped”…There’s no more looming swart gevaar – ….. for it has already arrived… So, surely, the population surge is simply a technical problem for the wellintentioned technocrat? (p. 333) The Double Drawbridge In June 1996, however, one politically connected Capetonian opined to me that population control was far too hot a potato for any Black African politician to touch. At least two considerations – in addition to what many North Americans might term a generally conservative African ethos celebrating procreation – are in play here. Both point up my error in assuming there’s no more swart gevaar. For after three weeks in Cape Town I do believe there are at least two ways in which the swart gevaar may be said to loom still, promoting unease in many a South African heart.

72.

He proceeds to refer to the Deracialized Swart Gevaar Redux, the massive influx of “foreign Africans”, into post-Apartheid S. Africa; the aggravation of these illegal immigrants to population pressures collision with scarce employment and resources, and the ‘friction theory’ consequences; what is currently referred to in S. Africa as ‘Xenophobia Attacks’. In Welfare state gives rise to xenophobic violence194, SA’s African Galileo, Meshack Mabogoane, documents the motives for corrupt politicians to welcome illegal foreigners regardless of deteriorating social, economic and health facilities that are reeling under the weight of an exploding population: Absorbing millions of foreigners into a country that is still relatively poor, and in which more people are increasingly dependent on state grants for basic subsistence, is unpatriotic, dishonest and ridiculous. These foreigners come from countries that squander their resources and deliberately destroy economies — let alone develop them. A genuine regional power would address this. These issues are not moral but material. The ruling regime encourages teenage girls, for example, to have children — for which the state pays child grants of R100bn a year — and this is presented as “human rights” and “welfare”. Now millions of poor foreigners produce babies to receive child grants too, and compete for jobs and houses — the universal causes

194 MESHACK MABOGOANE: Welfare state gives rise to xenophobic violence, Business Day, 2010/07/14; More welfare recipients than workers – Schussler, Sapa, 01 July 2010; SA biggest welfare state in world: economist, City Press, 2010-02-18; Minister defends welfare system, SAPA/News 24, 2010-02-23 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34461035]

of real xenophobia. Such welfare programmes will stir real xenophobic attacks, as some of these “human rights” have engendered social degeneration.

73.

In Stalking the Wild Taboo195, Garrett Hardin deals with the concept of competition, a process that is inescapable in societies living in a finite resource world, and the competitive exclusion principle. The meaning of this principle can be easily explained in a strictly biological setting. Suppose one introduces into the same region two different species that inhabit the same “ecological niche”. If, by hypothesis, two species occupy exactly the same ecological niche, then all that one species needs to know to predict the ultimate outcome of their competition is the rates at which they reproduce in this ecological niche. If one of them reproduces at a rate of 2 percent per year while the other reproduces at a rate of 3 percent, the ratio of the numbers of the faster reproducing species to the numbers of the slower will increase year by year. In fact, since their rates of reproduction, like compound interest, are exponential functions, a little algebra shows that the ratio of the two exponential functions is itself an exponential function. The ratio of the faster species to the slower species increases without limit. If the environment is finite – and it always is finite – the total number of organisms that can be supported by this environment is also finite. Since the size of the population of a species can never be less than one individual, this means that ultimately the slower breeding species will be completely eliminated from the environment. This will be true no matter how slight the difference in the rate of reproduction of the two species. Only a mathematically exact quality in their rates would ensure their continued coexistence, and such an exact equality is inconceivable in the real world. As a consequence, two species that occupy exactly the same ecological niche cannot coexist indefinitely in the same geographical area.

74.

Even SAHistory.org in Grade 12: Africa in the Twentieth Century: Economic196, is frank about the consequences of high population growths socio-economic consequences of poverty, unemployment, etc. But the ‘crime of apartheid’ TRC avoided an enquiry into Apartheid ‘swart gevaar’ demographic motives, and ANC ‘population production’ breeding factories, on their ‘racial-Boer-scapegoat’ march. Especially evening assemblies girls had to attend as well: “They would come into the house and tell us we should go. They didn't ask your mother they just said ‘come let's go.’ You would just have to go with them. They would threaten you with their belts and ultimately

195 Stalking the Wild Taboo, by Garrett Hardin: Part 4: Competition: (20) Competition, a Tabooed Idea in Sociology; (21) The Cybernetics of Competition; (22) Population, Biology and the Law; (23) Population Skeletons in the Environmental Closet; (24) The Survival of Nations and Civilisations (www.garretthardinsociety.org) 196 SAHistory.org: Grade 12: Africa in 20th Century: Economic: Overpopulation Problems [PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34460518]

you would think that if you refused, they would beat you. Our parents were afraid of them” (quoted by Delius 1996:189). All those opposing the wishes of the young men were reminded, that it was every woman’s obligation to give birth to new “soldiers”, in order to replace those warriors killed in the liberation struggle. The idiom of the adolescents referred to these patriotic efforts as “operation production”. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)197

G. Farm Murders: A Rainbow-TRC-Peace, or Racial-Hatred-War Reality? 75.

Political Climate of Farm Murders: According to (2.5 x 52 x 16)198 Eugene Ney Eugene Terreblanche is murdered farmer number 2080 since the April 1994 TRC social contract brought S. Africans ‘peace and human rights’ (sic). By way of comparison: 1. In the 1950’s Mau Mau War in Kenya, the official number of ‘European settlers’ killed was 32199, of which a dozen were said to be farmers. 2. During the 15 year Rhodesian war, 260 white farmers were murdered200. 3. In South Africa, between 1970 and 1994, in 24 years, while the ANC was "at war" with the white minority goverment, sixty white farmers were killed.

76.

The July 2003 Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Farm Attacks201, details: The Committee also interviewed 15 … state advocates in Bloemfontein, Capetown, Kimberley, Pietermaritzburg and Pretoria. They were unanimously of the view that .... the degree of violence and cruelty during farm attacks was exceedingly high. Most state advocates attributed this extreme violence to racial hatred.202 Features of specific farm attacks culled from NICOC and other security agency reports, such as utterances by attackers, gratuitous violence and the fact that the attackers did not steal anything, are cited in support of this [Land related intimidation, racism, hatred, revenge and politics] interpretation. There is also reference to perceived racial hatred stemming from the historic relationship between blacks and whites in South Africa, and a desire for retaliation for past injustices.203 In his book Midlands, Steinberg, while acknowledging that the motive in the majority of farm attacks appears to be robbery, supports the theory that the imperative to reclaim land lost through colonial dispossession is a key factor in some of the post-1994 attacks, which ‘tamper with the boundary between acquisitive crime and racial hatred’. He talks of ‘a racial frontier’ and claims that the perpetrators of a farm attack did so ‘to push the boundary back, a campaign their forebears had begun in the closing years of the nineteenth century and which their great-grandchildren believed was their destiny, as the generation to witness apartheid’s demise, to finish’.204

197 Johannes Harnischfeger, Witchcraft and the State in South Africa * German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/ 2000, S. 99-112. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34180512] See also Women in the ANC and SWAPO: sexual abuse of young women in the ANC camps, by Olefile Samuel Mngqibisa [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32956931] 198 Anatomy of a farm murder, by Vuvu Vena, Mail and Guardian, Apr 08 2010: “AgriSA, the South African Agricultural Union, recorded 1 541 murders and 10 151 attacks in the period from 1994 to 2008 -- an average of 0,3 murders a day. The Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) recorded 1 266 murders and 2070 attacks in the period from 1991 to 2009 -- an average of 0.2 murders a day. The Institute for Security Studies of the University of Pretoria, using statistics provided by TAU in June last year, reported 1 073 murders and 1 813 attacks in the period from 1993 to 2009 -- an average of 0,2 murders a day.” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34460479] 199 Anderson, David (2005). Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya & the End of Empire. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. (p.4) 200 The Farmer At War, Trevor Grundy and Bernard Miller, Modern Farming Publ., Salisbury 1979 [PDF; www.scribd.com/doc/34381393] 201 Great SA Land Scandal and Farm Attack Report: [PDF File: www.scribd.com/document_collections/2333949] 202 Farm Attack Report: Chapter 8: Investigating Officers and Prosecutors (p19) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458366] 203 Farm Attack Report: Chapter 18: Conclusions and Recommendations (p 406) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458345] 204 Farm Attack Report: Chapter 18: Conclusions and Recommendations (p 408-409) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458345]

77.

According to Johnny Steinberg, in his book The Number205, in those who act on the ANC’s cultural heritage of ‘Kill Farmers’, are accorded with automatic membership -prison and street-cred status -- of the 27’s gang. Put differently, if you adhere to gangculture and in accordance with such gang culture, Kill a Farmer (Boer) in South Africa, then you are rewarded with automatic membership of the 27's gang.

78.

The 2080 farm murders have occurred in a country officially allegedly at peace, after having achieved alleged 'reconciliation', indicate that the "rainbow reconciled nation" is nothing but an illusion not reflected in evidentiary facts and reality on the ground. People who have forgiven each other, or are participating in such a conversation, collaborate to address and eliminate the root causes of their dispute, they don’t murder, rape and torture those they allegedly forgave, in order to rob them; unless their definition for ‘forgiveness’ is ‘murder, rape and torture’.

79.

When Archbishop Tutu said the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had failed206 (perhaps because it was a ‘get the big fish’ vengeance commission, instead of a rainbow perspectives revolution of forgiveness consciousness commission?); was he referring to acts like that of Joseph Hlongwane, 22, when he brutally tortured and murdered his employers Alice, 76 and Helen, 57 Lotter, and the English media censored the incomprehensibly brutal murder and trial?207

RADICAL HONESTY: CULTURE & RELIGION, OR REFUGEE STATUS? “To clarify, “religion” as I use it here does not refer to a system that has necessarily to do with a concept of God or with idols or even to a system of perceived religion, but to any group-shared system of thought and action that offers the individual a frame of orientation and an object of devotion. A religion may be conducive to the development of destructiveness or of love, of domination or of solidarity; it may further their power to reason or paralyze it. The question is not one of religion or not? but of which kind of religion? – whether it is one that furthers human development, the unfolding of specifically human powers, or one that paralyzes human growth. Thus, our religious attitude is an aspect of our character structure, for we are what we are devoted to, and what we are devoted to is what motivates our conduct.”208

A. Radical Honesty Culture of Forgiveness Banned in SA Multi-Culture Courts 205

The Number: One man’s search for identity in the Cape underworld and prison gangs, Jonny Steinberg, Jonathan ball, 2004 We've lost our pride – Tutu, Murray La Vita, Die Burger/News24, 2010-05-05; The Truth Commission’s chickens come home to roost, Business Day, 16 August 2007; The Rainbow Nation: Dead and buried?, David Bullard, Politicsweb, 28 April 2010; 10-04-27: WR ANC is in Breach of TRC Social Contract: Open Letter to President Jacob Zuma, from Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU), April 24 2010, Ben Marais, President TAU SA [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34460267] 207 Tortured farm women’s gardener guilty, Adriana Stuijt, Censorbugbear, 09 June 2010; Bejaarde se gebed laaste woorde voor dood, Tom de Wet, Volksblad, 2010-06-01; Slagting van vroue beskryf, by Corne van Zyl, Nuus 24, 2010-06-02; Wreedaardigheid van moorde blyk uit verslae, Tom de Wet, Volksblad, 2010-06-03; Allanridge-vroue glo oor geld vermoor, Tom de Wet, Volksblad/Nuus 24, 2010-06-04; Tuinier skuldig aan 2 se dood, Corne van Zyl, Volksblad, 2010-06-09 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34459264] 208 Fromm, Erich, To Have or To Be (Continuum 2000: p135-136) 206

80.

First Amicus is currently serving a 6 month prison sentence, suspended for 3 years, for crimen injuria, for allegedly having insulted the dignity of a politician, by expressing her honest sincere Radical honesty opinion about the politicians behavior, privately, to her face, in five SMS’s, which included the alleged ‘crimen injuria’ word: ‘Kaffir’.

81.

First Amicus use of the word ‘Kaffir’ is, and has been generally in accordance with its original etymological meaning: The word Kaafir comes from the root verb Kafara, which means ‘cover’. It was originally used before Islam, in the Arabic language, to describe farmers, when they bury a seed in the ground and cover it with soil in their planting process, and came to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth’. Muslims altered it to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth about Islam’. Johnstone’s allegation that SA politicians ‘know the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; but who cover up such information.’

82.

The Politician, Mrs. Patricia de Lille filed a charge of ‘crimen injuria’. Johnstone was subsequently (a) illegally arrested, without a valid arrest warrant (18 July 2007)209; (b) denied right to appear in court within 24 hours of arrest (19 July 2007)210; (c) illegally detained for 33 days in Pollsmoor prison (18 July – 22 Aug 2007)211; (c) denied right to information (alleged Arrest Warrant) to defend her rights (18 July 2007 to present)212; (d) denied impartial investigating Officer, Prosecutor and Magistrate (18 July to present)213; (e) framed in court by Investigating Officer and Prosecutor who intentionally withheld critical evidence of innocence (cellphone conversations with plaintiff) from the court; (f) framed by Magistrate who ignored the fact of Plaintiff Politician committing perjury on affidavit and witness stand; (g) denied valid legal internationally recognized Political Necessity214 defence; (h) denied right to present expert witness evidentiary testimony (Dr. Leonard Horowitz215 and Dr. Brad Blanton216); (i) denied right to not be found guilty of an act that is ‘lawful’ (i.e. as per ‘reasonableness’ test)217; (j) denied right to withdraw formal admissions if Prosecution

209

08-12-28: S v. Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars; Letter to Senior Prosecutor [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20520262] 08-12-28: S v. Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars; Letter to Senior Prosecutor [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20520262] 211 08-12-28: S v. Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars; Letter to Senior Prosecutor [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20520262] 212 08-12-28: S v. Johnstone: Incomplete Further Particulars; Letter to Senior Prosecutor [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20520262] 213 Respectively: Ibid, Ibid, and Notice of Intention: Application for Leave and for Judicial Review: ITO § 309B (1)) & 304A of Criminal Procedure Act (“CPA”); with § 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20519849] 214 Civil Disobedience and Necessity Defence by Pierce Law Review [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33149485] 215 Affidavit of Leonard George Horowitz evidencing the Origin of AIDS sourcing from Hepatitus B Vaccine experiments conducted by Agents and Agencies of the Federal Government of the United States of America and the Merck Pharmaceutical Company; [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33891726] 216 Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671] 217 Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671] 210

breach the ‘Formal Admission/Plea’ Agreement218; (k) denied right not to be sentenced to a suspended prison sentence for an act that the law says is ‘lawful’219; (l) denied right to file a complaint with the police documenting her persecution220, for their investigation; (m) although the Registrar has approved her In Forma Pauperis application221, Braam Swart & Partners declined to represent her for reasons of ‘complexity of legal argument’222. She has been unable to find one attorney willing to represent her223, to practice her culture: tell the truth. All require her to lie. 83.

Although the Prosecutor, Magistrate and Johnstone all belonged to different cultures, the Magistrate refused to consider that politically correct Afrikaner or African interpretations are not prima facie applicable224, different definitions and meanings for the alleged insulting225 word -- kaffir226 -- in addition to ‘dignity’, ‘respect’, than his cultural definition. For example: In Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others227 Judge Nic van Reyden of the Kwa-Zulu Natal High Court, ruled in favour of the revived Zulu cultural practice of barehanded killing of a bull at the Ukweshwama festival, satisfied with the evidence of cultural expert Professor Jabulani Mapalala228, who said that the animal’s death was quick, unpainful and that no blood was shed. (Others disagreed229: Mapalala’s expert witness testimony contradicts Chief Mlaba (not submitted to the court), as quoted in an ANC newsletter of December 1995, that: “We must use our bare hands, It’s cruelty, we agree, but it’s our culture. We cannot change our culture.”230). Johnstone’s Magistrate lacked the philosophical or

218

Notice of Intention: Correct Record: Withdraw Formal Admissions [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20918633] Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671] 220 Complaint to the SAPS: (i) Senior Pros. Jacobs, NPA: WC, Obstruction of Justice, Persecution and Corruption (II) Hon. P. de Lille, MP; ID: Perjury, Fraud, Corruption, & Persecution [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20890741] & [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/20890746] 221 09-10-13: HC-WC: In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Referral to Braam Swart Partners [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/21801180] 222 10-02-10: Braam Swart & Partners: In FormaPauperis Proceedings: L Johnstone [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/26795413] 223 09-10-28: Cape Bar & Intn'l Bar Assoc: Pro Bono Comm: Re: HC-WC In Forma Pauperis (Crimen Injuria) Review Application; RE: Freedom of Speech Political and Cultural Rights, or Secession?; [PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22039639] 224 Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397. 225 Unlike a rose, ‘kaffir’ does NOT smell the same to black and white, by Sandile Memela, Mail & Guardian, February 26th, 2008; “Kaffirs do exist! The biggest sin will always be: Who says it!.... The use of the K-word is something that most white guilt whites still need to discuss with their psychiatrists… the meaning of any word is not in the word itself, but in people’s heads”; refernced in Legal Argument: G. Decoding Kaffir: Prevailing Norms of Society, copy to Cape Bar Pro Bono Committee; Request: for Impartial Record Keeping of Documentation: State v. Johnstone: Legal Argument, dated 11 August 2009 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/18634354] 226 First Amicus Radical Honesty Cultural & Religious Definition for ‘Kaffir’ in this instance was the original etymological meaning for the word ‘Kaffir’ namely, from the root verb Kafara, which means ‘cover’. Used before Islam, in the Arabic language, to describe farmers, when they bury a seed in the ground and cover it with soil in their planting process, to mean ‘a person who hides or covers the truth’. In this Radical Honesty context it was used to accuse SA politicians of ‘knowing the truth about the irresponsible planting of semen seeds in women’s wombs, and the resource war consequences of overpopulation colliding with scarce resources; who covers up such information’. 227 Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009) 228 Mkhize: Bull-killing ruling promotes cultural tolerance, Mail and Guardian, 04 December 2009; Court Clears Ritual, Bare Handed Killing of a Bull – Does the Judgement Threaten Wider Environmental Problems?, by Dave Harcourt, Eco-Localizer, 6 Dec 2009; S. African Judge Compares Zulu Bull-Killing to Holy Communion, by C Szabo, 2 Dec 2009, Digital Journal; [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 229 Culture no excuse for cruelty: How soon before we start burning witches again?; Justice Malala, Sunday Times, 6 Dec 2009: “The argument put forward was that this bull must suffer because my ancestors made animals suffer. The argument is, with all due respect, stupid: my ancestors had not read the work of JM Coetzee and were not on Facebook. I know that I know more than they did, and that my practices must of necessity differ with theirs.” [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 230 ANC Daily News Briefing, Monday 11 December 1995: Zulu King revives ceremonies to build support, Sapa-AP, 10 December 1995; Court Clears Ritual, Bare Handed Killing of a Bull – Does the Judgement Threaten Wider Environmental Problems?, by Dave Harcourt, EcoLocalizer, 6 December 2009 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 219

psychological courage or judicial impartiality231 to enquire into Radical Honesty culture’s practices, as detailed by her expert witness. 232 84.

This was the second time, a TRC multi-culture SA Magistrate refused to apply the Radical Honesty practices233 and Bolam test to the reasonableness of ‘Kaffir’ free speech. On 31 January 2003, Johnstone accused Afrikaner Magistrate ADS Meyer of being a ‘white Kaffir’ (white truth concealer/deceiver), and African Prosecutor Sipoyo a ‘black Kaffir’ (black truth concealer/deceiver), for their refusal to follow due process practices in response to Johnstone’s Complaint to NPA regarding the Africanization of the Public Service234, and demanding the same ethical standard of service from blacks as whites: Questionable Qualifications and Understanding of Fundamental Legal Concepts displayed by George Prosecutor Ms. Sipoyo, in Case # C-572-2002: Lara Johnstone (Johnson)235.

85.

Johnstone was summarily convicted on 3 counts of Contempt in Facie Curiae, and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Johnstone was denied parole, and served her full 12 months sentence. Both the NPA and Chief Justice Hlope refused to place the Appeal (HC-WC: A 696-04, leave granted on 16 February 2004, by Regional Magistrate VA Botha236), on the roll for hearing in the Cape High Court.237

B. 40 SA Media: Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee 86.

In February 2010, First Amici contacted 140 of SA’s political, academic and media elite, to provide them with a copy of Radical Honesty author, ‘Dr. Truth’ psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Candidate for US Congress in 2004 and 2006, Dr. Blanton’s Affidavit238 filed in the HC-WC -19963-09, with a summary of his findings: 1. If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks; then it is not a democratic country. 2. Hon. Mrs. De Lille and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against [Johnstone].

231

Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397 Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671] 233 Gray v Stead [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 559 234 1964-01-10: ICJ: Counter-Memorial of SA (Book I-IV) p.455: “The Africanization of the Public Service has been a prolific source of dissatisfaction in many African States and territories. The newly independent territories in Africa have generally embarked on a more-orless ambitious programme of “Africanizing” their Public Service; that is, replacing European or Indian personnel with Africans. The inevitable effect of this process has been to reduce the standard of efficiency of the service.” 235 Questionable Qualifications and Understanding of Fundamental Legal Concepts displayed by George Prosecutor Ms. Sipoyo, in Case # C572-2002: Lara Johnstone (Johnson), dated 22 July 2002; and RE: Complaint dated 22 July 2002, Re: George Prosecutor’s Office in Case # C 572-2002: Lara Johnstone (Johnson) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34342510] 236 06-06-17 HC-CPD A 696-04: HoA: S.4.1 (A) Chronology of Facts [File: www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2308877] 237 HC-WC: Appeal A 696-04: Heads of Argument: [File: www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2308877] 238 Blanton, Brad Ph.D: Reasonableness Test Radical Honesty Skills & Competencies Affidavit [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671] 232

3. The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous; it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors. Put differently, any society that values the principle of 'crimen injuria' (I think, I am unique); is one that values protecting the right of people with fragile ego's to not be offended as more important, than protecting the right of Galileo's and Voltaire's to offend. 4. The South African government are deliberately and intentionally punishing defendant for practicing her non-violent culture and religion of Radical Honesty. 5. The South African government are deliberately and intentionally denying defendant her right to a defence; and ignoring the justification and accuracy of her non-violent civil disobedience political necessity defence. 6. That there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, including South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians. Put differently: S. Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation was not real & sincere; but fake & posed; a political fraud committed against SA citizens.

87.

First Amicus requested a comment regarding among others whether they (a) objected to Johnstone’s legal and political persecution and prosecution239, (b) endorsed or supported Johnstone’s right to non-violent Radical Honesty Freedom of Speech:

88.

Sowetan Sun: Editor: Charles Mogale: 26 February 2010: ‘I have taken the time to read Dr Blanton's offering and regret that I am not able to offer any opion on his views. I do not feel aptly qualified to proffer any opinion as, you will appreciate, ours is a tabloid publication which does not cover the subjects he raises.’240

89.

Beeld: Editor: Tim du Plessis: 25 February 2010: “Kindly be informed that I am not going to comment on the questions/issues raised in you letter. There will be no further correspondence or liaison in this matter.”241

90.

3rd Degree: Exec. Producer: Deborah Patta: 03 March 2010: “3rd degree is an investigative current affairs programme not a public elected body with a responsibility to comment on issues. All comment from e.news and current affairs falls under the head of news as pointed out in a previous e-mail.”242

91.

Business Day: Editor: Peter Bruce, 23 February 2010: “I didn't read all of it, because it was so long and so demented. So, I don't have any reply or any comment. I don't want to have anything to do with it. Sorry”243

92.

Daily News: Editor: Alan Dunn: 25 February 2010: “Mr Alan Dunn, Editor, Daily News, will not be commenting on Free Speech Legal Issue. Any response on the Huntley case will be in our editorial column.”244

93.

Mail and Guardian: Editors: Keith Nichols & Mathew Burbidge: 22 February 2010: Mr. Nichols stated that he had “No Comment” to the issues raised by American politician and author, Dr. Brad Blanton’s allegations of South African State’s Political and legal

239

Immigration and Refugee (IRB) Ruling by Mr. William Davis: Case MA8-04910: Brandon Huntley Request Sowetan Sunday World Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743238] 241 Request Beeld’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27357977] 242 Request 3rd Degree Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741647] 243 Request Business Day’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27358006] 244 Request Daily News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741628] 240

prosecution and persecution of non-violent civil disobedience Free Speech dissenter in South Africa. Asked whether it would be fair to say whether Mr. Nichols choice not to make any comment on the issue, demonstrated that he did not care about the Free Speech issues raised, he said he was not going to comment. Asked whether it would be fair to conclude that his statement of No Comment, reflected that he did not care about a South African citizen's being politically and legally prosecuted and persecuted. He again responded that he was not going to comment, with “I am not going to comment on that, okay,” and put down the phone.245

94.

Saturday Star: Editor: Brendan Seery: 26 February 2010: “I would much prefer deliberate indifference.”

95.

In Johnstone’s follow up confirmation of comment letter, (Confirmation of [News Organisation’s Name] Negligent and/or Deliberate Indifference to Radical Honesty Free Speech Legal Issue), she had informed Editors: Your response is one of negligent or deliberate indifference. The term ‘negligent and/or deliberate indifference’ is used to describe your actions as follows: Prior to the Receipt of this Confirmation, you have made no effort whatsoever to (a) contact me to enquire for more information to make an informed comment; and/or (b) at least honourably and professionally notify me of your Deliberate Indifferent “No comment.” It is assumed that your motivations for aforementioned behaviour of negligent or deliberate indifference are a result of your, or your organisation’s, deliberate indifference to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and that I, Lara Johnstone fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom you are deliberately indifferent. In the event that aforementioned assumption is incorrect; please clarify your intentions for your negligent and/or deliberate indifference; so that I may accurately state your reasons for your negligent and/or deliberate indifference.

96.

Consequently Mr. Seery’s ‘Deliberate Indifference’ is defined as follows: “Deliberate Indifference: Brendan Seery (Editor: Saturday Star) is deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and you fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, Saturday Star is deliberately indifferent.”246

97.

The following Editors share Mr. Seery’s “Deliberate Indifference” definition: 702 Radio: Manager: Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa: 01 Mar 2010247; Die Burger: Editor: Henry Jeffereys: 27 Feb 2010248; Cape Argus: Editor: Chris Witfield: 26 Fe 2010249; Cape Times: Editor: Alide Dasnois: 26 Feb 2010250: The Citizen: Editor: Martin Williams: 26 Feb 2010251; City Press: Editor: Ferial Haffajee: 26 February 2010252; Daily Maverick: Brkic Branco: 26 February 2010253; Daily Sun: Editor: Themba Khumalo: 02 March 2010254; Daily Dispatch:

245

Request Request 247 Request 248 Request 249 Request 250 Request 251 Request 252 Request 253 Request 246

Mail & Guardian’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743162] Saturday Star Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743217] 702 Radio’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27357910] Die Burger Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27823922] Cape Argus Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741568] Cape Times Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741584] The Citizen Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743296] City Press Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue: [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741601] Daily Maverick’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741615]

Editor: Andrew Trench: 26 Feb 2010255; E-News: Head of News: Patrick Conroy: 04 March 2010256; Financial Mail: Editor: Barney Mthombothi: 26 Feb 2010257; Finweek: Editor: Colleen Naude: 26 February 2010258; George Herald: Editor: Mandi Botha: 26 February 2010259; The Herald: Editor: Jeremy McCabe: 26 February 2010260; Ind. on Saturday: Editor: Trevor Bruce: 26 Feb 2010261; Pretoria News: Editor: Zingisa Mkhuma: 26 February 2010262; Rapport: Editor: Lisa Albrecht: 26 February 2010263; SA Press Assoc.: Ed.: Mark van der Velden: 26 Feb 2010264; Sowetan: Editor: Bongani Keswa: 03 March 2010265; The Star: Editor: Moegsien Williams: 26 February 2010266; Sunday Ind.: Editor: Makhudu Sefara: 26 February 2010267; Sunday Times: Editor: Ray Hartley: 26 February 2010268; Sunday Tribune: Editor: Philani Mgwaba: 26 Feb 2010269; Volksblad: Editor: Ainsley Moos: 26 February 2010270; Freedom of Expression Inst: Dir. M. Moore: 11/03/2010271; Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities: Rev. Wesley Mabuza: 26 February 2010272: Deliberate Indifference: [SANEF Editors, FXI Exec. Director, et al] are deliberately indifferent to certain people of certain ethnicities and/or ideologies and/or cultures and/or religions being politically and legally persecuted and prosecuted; and Lara Johnstone fit one or more of those particular ethnic, ideological, cultural or religious categories, towards whom, SANEF and FXI are deliberately indifferent.

98.

Johnstone also informed Applicant, all SANEF Editors and FXI, that: Please Note: No offence is taken from your decision to act with Negligent or Deliberate Indifference towards this matter. I most certainly would not want your Human Rights/Fourth Estate organisation to pretend to be concerned about my status as a legally and politically persecuted SA citizen; when in fact you couldn’t care less. It is better for me to be clear about which organisation, if any, are concerned about me being legally and politically persecuted, and which couldn’t care less. If none, and I apply for asylum with a foreign country, as a result of SA civil society’s negligent and/or deliberate indifference towards my political and legal persecution and prosecution; please do not be offended.

254

Request Request 256 Request 257 Request 258 Request 259 Request 260 Request 261 Request 262 Request 263 Request 264 Request 265 Request 266 Request 267 Request 268 Request 269 Request 270 Request 271 Request 272 Request 255

Daily Sun Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741638] Daily Dispatch Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27741607] E-News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743088] Financial Mail Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743104] Finweek Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743118] George Herald Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743133] The Herald’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743307] Independent on Saturday Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743150] Pretoria News Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743173] Rapport Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743183] SAPA Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743208] Sowetan Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743231] The Star’s Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743248] Sunday Independent Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743260] Sunday Times Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743275] Sunday Tribune Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743285] Volksblad Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/27743073] Freedom of Expression Inst. Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/28224700] Commission… Official Comment on Free Speech Legal Issue [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/28224628/]

99.

On 17 Mar 2010, Johnstone notified273 Honourable Jason Kenney, Min. of Citizenship and Immigration, Canada, that 140 of SA elite endorse minority persecution in SA. On 21 March 2010 Johnstone launched Right of Return for African White Refugees and Jus Sanguinis Right of Return to Holland, for Boer-Afrikaners as a Facebook community and group; and on 21 April 2010, she contacted Dutch Representative Mr. Geert Wilders in Req: Freedom Party Help for African White Refugees who are descendants of Dutch Citizens.274

100.

On 23 April 2010, Algemene Dagblad Editor Mr. Casper Naber reported in Bange Zuid Afrikanen Vragen Wulders om Hulp275 that Mr. Kees van der Staaij, leader of the SGP conservative protestant party stated: The Netherlands has 'a very special responsibility towards the often very religious South Africans of Dutch descent…. The violence against whites in South Africa in a large problem. If they are targeted by violence, they should also be accepted as asylum-seekers in the Netherlands… If those people do not feel safe in their own country and want to settle here in The Netherlands, our country should consider those requests with a positive approach….

CONCLUSION: TRC SOCIAL CONTRACT: A FRAUDULENT PR PUBLICITY STUNT? 101.

Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract276: should be (a) unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man, committed and capable of the honourable non-violent resolution of disagreements, except where clear consensual code of conduct for violent resolutions is agreed upon; (b) legislated in accordance with Laws of Sustainability277 (The Essential Exponential! For the Future of our Planet278), fully cognizant of Bouldings origins of socio-economic misery theorems: 1st Theorem: "The Dismal Theorem"- If the only ultimate check on the growth of population is misery, then the population will grow until it is miserable enough to stop its growth. 2nd Theorem: "The Utterly Dismal Theorem" - This theorem states that any technical improvement can only relieve misery for a while, for so long as misery is the only check on population, the [technical] improvement will enable population to grow, and will soon enable more people to live in misery than before. 3rd Theorem: "The moderately cheerful form of the Dismal Theorem" - If something else, other than misery and starvation, can be found which will keep a prosperous population in check, the population does not have to grow until it is miserable and starves, and it can be stably prosperous.

273 For the Record Memo: ‘Beyond Milgram Belief’: 140 SA Editors, Politicians, Academics confirm they are Deliberately Indifferent to the Rule-of-Law; have No Objections to persecution of ‘Radical Honesty White Refugee’ (“RHWR”) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34274197] 274 Friday, April 23, 2010: White Refugee: Help Asseblief Graaf Wilders & Royal Familie, Nederlands: Jus Sanguinis Right of Return to Holland, for Boer-Afrikaners... [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34457887] 275 Friday, April 23, 2010: White Refugee: Help Asseblief Graaf Wilders & Royal Familie, Nederlands; Ibid 276 Chapter 9: Radical Honesty About Anger: PDFS: [www.scribd.com/doc/33790658] & [www.scribd.com/doc/20520279] 277 Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment, by Albert Bartlett, Ph.D., Paper first published in Population & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, Sep 1994, pp. 5-35; (1998) [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33707684] 278 The Essential Exponential! For the Future of Our Planet features reprints of Dr. Bartlett’s papers, published by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34456952]

RELIEF: RECOGNIZE RADICAL HONESTY, IMPLEMENT CHOICE OF LAW RULES “The main difference between the corporate media and Pravda is that the Soviet citizens knew they were being lied to. We no longer have a free press. We have a brainwashing machine stuck on spin.” – Steve Bhaerman, How We Can Break the Soundless Barrier and Bring Down the Irony Curtain

102.

Confirmation that Radical Honesty is a religion/culture, not a refugee status.279

103.

Acknowledge that forgiveness, closure, ubuntu, amnesty, truth, reconciliation, interpreted in accordance to Radical Honesty definitions, renders the TRC social contract: A TRC Fraud: ‘Crime of Apartheid’ Falsification of History;

104.

Acknowledge that the absence of multi-cultural legal definitions (let alone choice of law rules) for many TRC social contract’s foundational multi-cultural concepts –forgiveness, closure, reconciliation, ubuntu, -- eliminates any Non-Descartian280 (I am, therefore I think) citizens ‘right to certainty in TRC ‘rainbow jurisprudence’281 administration of justice’282.

105.

Issue a judgement requiring that relevant choice of law rules (where two or more conflicting legal systems aims have to be met) be implemented: to give detailed guidance to courts and citizens on the application of cultural laws; eg. where and when is a defendant to be treated as a member of a particular cultural community in which particular practices, are cultural rights and obligations obtained, allowing sufficient flexibility to cater for the peculiarities of individual cases.

George, Southern Cape

LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se

18 July 2010

Propria Persona / Litigant in Person

Expert Witness Affidavits & Written Statements of Consent: » Brad Blanton, Ph.D: Practicing Radical Honesty, Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger and Forgiveness; Paradigms and Contexts [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31989814] » T. Michael Maher, Ph.D: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31373074] » Brad Blanton, Ph.D: legal, psych. & socio-political ‘citizens privilege’, Nuremberg Principles skills & competencies of Individual Responsibility, required for acts of civil disobedience…; application to common law ‘reasonableness test [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33790671]

279

Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi. 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397. See: Non-Descartian/Radical Honesty (I am, therefore I think) Worldview. Ibid 281 Alfred Cockrell ‘Rainbow Jurisprudence’ (1996) 12 SAJHR 1. 282 Van der Vyver (1982) 15 CILSA 312-14 280

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Multicultural Substantive Due Process: Minorities, Clarity, Impartiality, Conflict of Interest, etc. » Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. » United States v. Carolene Products Co. , 304 U.S. 144 (1938) » Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 » R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) » Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009) » Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24 (29 December 1977), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981). » International Court of Justice: South West Africa Cases: (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) Second Phase, Judgement of 18 July 1966; Counter-Memorials of South Africa » Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397. » The Truth About The Truth Commission, Anthea Jeffery, SA Inst. Race Relations (SAIRR), 1999 » Assessment of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by Former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF, by SA Defence Force Contact Bureau » Immigration and Refugee (IRB) Ruling by Mr. William Davis: Case MA8-04910: Brandon Huntley Reasonableness Test: Culture Practices of Necessity Nonviolence Skills, Capabilities » Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118 » Daborn v Bath Tramways [1946] 2 All ER 333; Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 2 All ER 368; Gray v Stead [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 559; Philips v William Whiteley [1938] 1 All ER 566. » Civil Disobedience and the Necessity Defense, by John Alan Cohan, UCLA; Pierce Law Review. Ecolaw 101: ‘Sine Qua Non’ for all Rights: Environment, Sustainability, Carrying Capacity » Opinion of Weeramantry J in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (1998) 37 International Legal Materials 162 206. » Van Huyssteen NO v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 1995 9 BCLR 1191 (C) » Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development, adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law, WCED Our Common Future (1987) 348 » World Population Plan of Action: adopted at the UN World Population Conference at Bucharest in August, 1974; Appendix 1 to Life and Death of NSSM 200 » How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection, by T. M. Maher, Univ. of SW Louisiana, Pop. and Environment, Vol 18, No 4, Mar 1977. » World Scientists Warning to Humanity, issued 18 November 1992, issued by 1700 leading scientists from 70 countries, including 102 Nobel Prize laureates in Science. » Al Bartlett: (i)Arithmetic of Growth: Methods of Calculation I; (ii)Arithmetic of Growth: Methods of Calculation I; (iii) Arithmetic, Population and Energy: Sustainability 101; (iv) The Essential Exponential!; (iv) Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth and the Environment » Garrett Hardin: (i) Living within Limits; (ii) Limited World, Limited Rights; (iii) Stalking the Wild Taboo; (iv) Tragedy of the Commons; » Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, Jeffrey H. Boutwell & George W. Rathjens; Environmental Change and Violent Conflict, Scientific American, Feb 1993 » Choucri, Nazli: Population & Conflict: New Dimensions of Population Dynamics; Population Dynamics and Local Conflict » National Security Council, National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200): Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, DC Dec 10, 1974, 227 pp.

From: Vanessa Bendeman [mailto:VBendeman@environment.gov.za] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:08 PM To: jmcswan@mweb.co.za Cc: Eugene Swart; Frances Craigie; Linda Garlipp; Mark Jardine; Phumzile Sabeka Subject: Re: Fwd: Complaint to Green Scorpions: Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor & obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt Justice

Dear Ms Johnstone After perusing your complaint, I do not believe that we are the appropriate Department to investigate this complaint. I would recommend that you approach the Human Rights Commision or the SAPS for further assistance herein. Kind regards Vanessa Bendeman

Devinagie Bendeman Director:Corporate Legal Services Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Tel: 012 310 3599 Fax:012 322 1936

Complaint to Green Scorpions / SAPS / SAHRC: Criminal Charges: Bribery Conspiracy to Censor Ecolaw TRC fraud evidence before Concourt from Public’s Right to Know, to (a) enable TRC elite to retain TRC-PR benefits & (b) obstruct administration of Ecolaw Concourt justice Charges in accordance to following definitions: 1.

Conspiracy: to conspire with any other person to aid or procure the commission of, or to commit an offence.

Fraud: the unlawful and intentional misrepresentation or perversion of the truth, which can lead to actual or potential disadvantage or prejudice to another individual or group.

Bribery (as a briber): unlawfully and intentionally offering to a State official to give any consideration in return for action or inaction by him in an official capacity.

Corruption: S.3 of Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004

Obstruction of Justice: unlawfully and intentionally defeating or obstructing the administration of justice

Accused: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Ainsley Moos, Volksblad Alan Dunn, Daily News Alide Dasnois, Cape Times Andrew Trench, Daily Dispatch Barney Mthombothi, Financial Mail Bun Booysens, Die Burger Bongani Keswa, Sowetan Chris Whitfield, Independent Cape Ferial Haffajee, City Press Jeremy McCabe, Weekend Post Jovial Rantao, The Star

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Liza Albrecht, Rapport Makhudu Sefara, Sunday Ind. Martin Williams, The Citizen Mondli Makhanya, Avusa Nic Dawes, Mail & Guardian Peter Bruce, Business Day Philani Mgwaba, Sunday Tribune Ray Hartley, Sunday Times Themba Khumalo, Daily Sun Tim du Plessis, Beeld Zingisa Mkhuma, Pretoria News

Plaintiff: 

Lara Johnstone, personal capacity; and on behalf of Radical Honesty SA.

Issues Covered in this Complaint: 

Overview of Indictments

 

SANEF Editors Conspiracy of Censorship Motives

    

Media’s Responsibility to Inform / Public’s Right to Know

Public Interest Environmental / Sustainability Corporate Management DecisionMaking Responsibilities Courts Reliance on Media to Inform Public’s Right to Know Education Responsibilities of News Media in an Information Society Affidavit of Lara Johnstone, member Radical Honesty culture & religion List of Primary (Encl.) Secondary & Tertiary (Link) Evid Documentation

[A] Overview of Indictments: 1.

Conspiracy: SANEF editors have conspired to aid or procure the commission of, or to commit the following offences: fraud, bribery and corruption, which amount to conspiracy to the obstruction of justice.

Fraud: SANEF editors by word and conduct made the following unlawful and intentional misrepresentations or perversions of the truth: (a) In SANEF’s 08 June 2010 Amicus to Concourt they imply that they oppose the suppression of expression and the truth and object to the impediment of a search for the truth1; (b) in their 08 August 2010 Auckland Park declaration to people of SA, they allege that they oppose the suppression of expression and the curtailment of freedom of expression and the free flow of information and will join hands with all South Africans, from all cultures and religions who value their freedoms. Both these representations are perversions of the truth, since SANEF editors repeatedly endorse (i) censorship of Radical Honesty Amicus curiae from the people of SA; and (ii) the legal and political persecution of individuals from the Radical Honesty culture, and perhaps other cultures they despise. SANEF’s fraudulent representation can lead to actual or potential disadvantage or prejudice to Plaintiff, Radical Honesty culture members, and other individuals and cultures.

Bribery (as a briber): SANEF editors conspiracy to censor the details of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the Concourt from the people of South Africa, are an unlawful and intentional indirect offer to State Officials (the Concourt Justices, and other SA TRC elite politicians whose reputations would prefer the contents of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus to the Concourt to remain censored) to pressure and/or bribe the Justices with the opportunity to ignore the Radical Honesty SA Amicus in their deliberations, as if its arguments and allegations do not exist, because it’s contents have been censored from public discourse; in return for such officials consideration in return for action or inaction in their official capacities.

Corruption: SANEF editors are directly or indirectly giving or agreeing or offering to give to other SA elite the gratification of censorship of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus, for their TRC-PR benefit, in order to influence such persons so to act, in a manner that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorized, incomplete, or biased; exercise, carrying out or performance of their power and duties or functions arising out of constitutional, statutory, contractual or any other legal obligations. These actions amount to the abuse of their position of authority, a breach of trust, the violation of legal ecological management duties and sustainable management corporate decision-making, and are designed to achieve an unjustified result; by the unauthorized or improper inducement to TRC Justices’, Political et al elites, to endorse a conspiracy of silence censorship, and are hence guilty of the offence of corruption. (S.3 of Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004)

Obstruction of Justice: SANEF editors conspiracy of silence is unlawfully and intentionally defeating or obstructing the administration of justice

1 CCT 23-10: Citizen v. McBride: Written Submission for South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) and Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), para 18 to 26, pages 10-15

[B] SANEF Editors Conspiracy of Censorship Motives: It is alleged SANEF Editors Conspiracy of Censorship Motives to suppress the following Radical Honesty SA Amicus to Concourt issues, which, include among others, to:



Censor public discourse about Editorial Abuse of Media Power



Censor public discourse or knowledge of SA Editors and other Elite’s Endorsement of Political and Legal Persecution of Minority ‘white refugee’ Cultures



Censor public discourse and knowledge about the study of Dr. Michael Maher: How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population Environment Connection.



Censor public discourse about how the political, corporate and media elite are the beneficiaries of population growth and of growth in the rates of consumption of resources; while the costs of population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are borne by all of society. (6th Law of Sustainability)



Censor public discourse about how ecological carrying capacity rules and responsibilities are the sine qua non for all other human rights.



Censor public discourse and knowledge of TRC’s negligent or intentional refusal to enquire into demographic population policy issue motivations for apartheid



Censor public discourse and knowledge of TRC’s negligent or intentional refusal to enquire into demographic population policy issue causal factors for Apartheid political violence; i.e. Youth Bulge’s, Friction Theory Population Pressures, etc.



Censor public discourse about whether apartheid would ever have existed, if all tribes and cultures had adhered to reproduction rates that were equal, in accordance to carrying capacity principles.



Censor public discourse regarding TRC legislators negligent or intentional ambiguity and failure to provide clear legal and cultural definitions for key TRC social contract terms, such as ‘forgiveness’, ‘closure’, ‘national unity’, ‘ubuntu’, ‘reconciliation’, etc.



Censor public discourse on whether South Africa’s TRC was sincere, or an Intellectual delusion



Censor public discourse on whether any nation or society can ever achieve sincere forgiveness, in the absence of a sincere and serious specific, clear and unambiguous Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract2, or similar, unequivocally understood and practiced by the common man



Censor public discourse on the reality that no amount of adding the word ‘sustainable’ to our legal vocabulary can ensure that our society becomes sustainable, unless our definition for sustainable is sufficiently precise, for all citizens to be aware of the duties and responsibilities required to enable sustainable living.



Censor public discourse on whether legislation or jurisprudence such as the TRC Social Contract, which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud

Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Social Contract PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34270511

[C] Public Interest Environmental / Sustainability Corporate Management Decision-Making Responsibilities: According to the National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998, government and corporations principles on matters affecting sustainable development requires the integration of social, economic and environmental factors in the planning, implementation and evaluation of decision-making. National Environmental Management Principles include:  Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.  Sustainable development requires the consideration of all relevant factors including, among others: o

that the use and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is responsible and equitable, and takes into account the consequences of the depletion of the resource;

that the development. use and exploitation of renewable resources and the ecosystems of which they are part do not exceed the level beyond which their integrity is jeopardized;

that negative impacts on the environment and on people’s environmental rights be anticipated and prevented, and where they cannot be altogether prevented, are minimized and remedied.

 The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured.  Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties, and this includes recognizing all forms of knowledge. Including traditional and ordinary knowledge.  Community wellbeing and empowerment must be promoted through environmental education, the raising of environmental awareness, the sharing of knowledge and experience and other appropriate means.  The social, economic and environmental impacts of activities, including disadvantages and benefits, must be considered, assessed and evaluated, and decisions must be appropriate in the light of such consideration and assessment.  The environment is held in public trust for the people. The beneficial use of environmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected as the people’s common heritage.  Global and international responsibilities relating to the environment must be discharged in the national interest.  Decisions must be taken in m open and transparent manner, and access to information must be provided in accordance with the law.

[D] Media’s Responsibility to Inform / Public’s Right to Know: Foreign Law Public’s Right to Know Background to SA Constitution: Up until the present time, U.S. constitutional law on the freedom of the press has focused on forbidding government or government agencies to interfere with the press. This has been justified in a number of Supreme Court decisions3 on the basis of protecting the press's role in providing public information. In all of these decisions, the fundamental justification of the Court was the people's RIGHT TO KNOW and THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE information through a FREE PRESS. But what if the free press is no longer free? And what if those denying the people's right to know and to receive information through a free press are those who actually own, or edit the presses and the other forms of information media? Where information is being censored from the people by editors, they transform themselves into the new ‘corporate agency’ forbidding citizens from the right to know, and the right to receive information. In New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the U.S. Government wanted to restrict the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Government had to demonstrate the justification for their action of refusing the public the right to know, and the right to receive the information they wished kept secret. Similarly, if or where media editors wish to keep information which citizens have a right to know unpublished by the media, they must be required to demonstrate the justification for their action of refusing the public the right to know and the right to receive the information they wish to keep secret. "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 372 U. S. 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 402 U. S. 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the New York Times case, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Washington Post case, held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.

SA Media’s Representation; RE: Primary Purpose of News Gathering: According to the Press Code of Professional Practice (PDF4): The basic principle to be upheld is that the freedom of the press is indivisible from and subject to the same rights and duties as that of the individual and rests on the public’s fundamental right to be informed and freely to receive and to disseminate opinions. The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve society by informing citizens and enabling them to make informed judgments on the issues of the time. The freedom of the press to bring an independent scrutiny 3 Stanley v. Georgia 394 U.S. 557 (1969); Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 Justice Black (1943); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, pages 482-483 (1965); Kleindienst v. Mandel 408 US 753; 4 PDF: http://www.sanef.org.za/images/uploads/Press_Code_Aug_2006_1.pdf

to bear on the forces that shape society is a freedom exercised on behalf of the public. The public interest is the only test that justifies departure from the highest standards of journalism, and includes:     

detecting or exposing crime or serious misdemeanor; detecting or exposing serious anti-social conduct; protecting public health and safety; preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation; detecting or exposing hypocrisy, falsehoods or double standards of behaviour on the part of public figures or institutions and in public institutions.

These alleged primary purpose of being the watchdog for the public’s ‘right to know’ have been repeatedly reiterated in courtrooms, such as in Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Intelligence Services5 (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) In re: Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (Independent (CCT38/07) [2008] ZACC 6; 2008 (5) SA 31 (CC); 2008 (8) BCLR 771 (CC) (22 May 2008) (PDF6), Independent Newspapers sought upon the legal arguments of the right to open judicial deliberations, i.e. ‘open justice’ and the public’s ‘right to know’ that national security related documents which formed part of the court record, not be withheld or censored from the public.

Media’s Representation’s to the Public on their Right to Know: SANEF member and media academic and activist, Mr. Guy Berger, in Taking the

ANC media tribunal at face value, Mail & Guardian Thought leader7 (PDF8), 4 August 2010:

The reason why everyone should support a self-interested media fight against the tribunal intervention is simple. It is because, as an earlier version of South African Press Code of Professional Practice puts it: “The freedom of the press to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces that shape society is a freedom exercised on behalf of the public.” In short, the interests of media owners and editorial staff in opposing the tribunal are simultaneously in the wider public interest in helping to hold the powerful accountable.

Media’s Representations on the People’s Right to Know: 

We have a right to know who funds Zuma family, Judith February, Mail and Guardian9 (PDF10), 02 July 2010



Electorate has a right to know full earnings, Business Report11 (PDF12), 10 August 2010



We must protect public’s right to know, Abdullah Saeed, Sunday Times13 (PDF14), 09 August 2010

http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZACC/2008/6.html&query= right to know PDF: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2008/6.pdf http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/guyberger/2010/08/04/taking-the-anc-tribunal-at-face-value/ 8 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260877 9 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-02-we-have-a-right-to-know-who-funds-zuma-family 10 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260151/ 11 http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=553&fArticleId=5594828 12 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260203/ 6 7



Public ‘has a right to know’, Tia Goldenberg, News 2415 (PDF16), 07 November 2007



We’ll never surrender our right to know, Helen Zille, Politicsweb17 (PDF18), 01 August 2010



Censorship a dark, evil path, editors warn, IOL19 (PDF20), 27 July 2010

[E] Courts Reliance on Media to Inform Public’s Right to Know: In New Guide Books for Court Reporters, Independent Publishers21 (PDF22) write: The Association of Independent Publishers (AIP) and South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) have jointly published a practical pocket-guide and companion desk glossary to help journalists report on court cases. The Reporting the Courts books are a practical response to the demise of specialised court reporters in many newsrooms, and the lack of court reporting training at tertiary institutions. South African Chief Justice Pius Langa formally launched the books at the Constitution Court on August 17. In his forward to the handbook, he writes: “Judges and magistrates have little power outside of the courtroom to explain or defend their positions and are uniquely reliant on journalists to convey their decisions to the broader population … with this power comes responsibility, not to the courts, but to the public and to our young nation as a whole to report the work of the courts accurately and fairly but not uncritically.”

The Open Democracy Center’s Right to Know Laws (PDF23), booklet states: But, to understand [Right to Know Law] value, journalists need to put modern right to know (RTK) law in its correct context. Contemporary understanding of RTK law recognises that it should be seen as much as a linking right to socio-economic rights as to the protection of more traditional civil and political freedoms. Thus, RTK law is now being used around the world to expose corruption and to give poor people a voice in the policy-making and executive decisions that impact on their material well-being. This is a pivotal paradigmatic shift, part of a global movement of new understanding about transparency and accountability. …. In addition, the way in which government complies with the right to know, and puts in place—or fails to put in place— proper procedures to handle requests, may be newsworthy.

[F] Education Responsibilities of News Media in an Information Society: 13

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/letters/article593896.ece/We-must-protect-publics-right-to-know http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260184/ 15 http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Public-has-a-right-to-know-20071106# 16 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260108/ 17 http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=190478&sn=Detail 18 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260171/ 19 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3015&art_id=vn20100727045604323C825604 20 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260156/ 21 http://www.independentpublisher.org/article.php?ssID=5&aID=45 22 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36260234/ 23 PDF: http://www.opendemocracy.org.za/images/docs/rtk_laws.pdf 14

In an information society, reasonable access to information is a necessity for nations and individuals. A state or news corporation which professes news impartiality and exercises censorship to bar access to information effectively controls and shapes the destiny of its people or readers. The right to know includes the right to receive information, which is broadly conceived and includes the right to access to specific types of data (for example, health or political or ecological information), as well as more general types of knowledge obtainable through education, training or employment. In How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection (PDF24), Dr. T. Michael Maher writes: The Ehrlichs and Howell seem to assume that education is the chief factor driving public opinion about environmental causality. But in Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a High-Tech World, Wenk (1986) offered a more media-centric view of how the public learns: "Whatever literacy in science and technology the general public has reached is not from formal education. Rather, it is from the mass media. That responsibility of the press has been almost completely ignored" (p. 162). This study will examine press responsibility for the public's indifference to population growth by exploring two questions: ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ

To what extent do press reports about population-driven environmental problems link those problems to population growth? What reasons do reporters give for ignoring population growth in stories about environmental problems?

Under Why Journalists Avoid Mentioning Population (i.e. avoid educating their Information Society readers of how population is a factor in the problem they are reporting upon), he writes, among others: Why? Communication theory offers several possibilities. First is the hegemonytheory interpretation: reports omit any implication that population growth might produce negative effects, in order to purvey the ideology of elites who make money from population growth. As Molotch and Lester (1974) put it, media content can be viewed as reflecting "the practices of those having the power to determine the experience of others" (p. 120). Since real estate, construction and banking interests directly support the media through advertising purchases, this interpretation seems plausible. A number of media critics (e.g., Gandy, 1982; Altschull, 1984; Bennett, 1988) have suggested that media messages reflect the values of powerful political and commercial interests. Burd (1972), Kaniss (1991) and others have pointed out that newspapers have traditionally promoted population growth in their cities through civic boosterism. Molotch (1976) even suggested that cities can best be understood as entities competing for population growth, with the city newspaper as chief cheerleader.

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33694415/

[G] Affidavit of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture/religion: I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say: 1.

I am a 43 year old adult female unemployed paralegal, who sells wormeries and organic compost to make a very simple living. I live at 16 Taaibos Ave, George, Southern Cape (Additional Info in Annex B: Heads of Argument: para 2, 3 & 4).

Save where appears from the context, the facts contained in this affidavit are within my own personal knowledge and are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and correct.

I am the only member – to my knowledge – of the Radical Honesty25 culture and religion currently living in South Africa (Annex A: CCT 23-10: Concourt Chief Justice Order: 03 May 2010: Amicus Directions: Lara Johnstone: Member Radical Honesty Culture and Religion (p.2) (PDF26).

Supreme Court of Appeal Ruling in Citizen v. McBride, taken to Constitutional Court: 4.

On 26 February, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled on behalf of Robert John McBride, in The Citizen v. Robert John McBride Defamation case, regarding the legal interpretation of the meaning of ‘amnesty’ in the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act.

On 09 March 2010, the Citizen announced its intentions to Appeal the SCA ruling to the Constitutional Court, in Truth about SA is at stake, Martin Williams, The Citizen27 (PDF28).

On 10 March 2010, the South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) announced their intentions to file Amicus Curiae’s in the matter, in a SANEF Press Release: SANEF to apply as Amicus Curiae in the Citizen Constitutional Court Challenge29 (PDF30). Resulting news articles:

As founded by Dr. Brad Blanton, bestselling author, psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Congressional Candidate. See: www.radicalhonesty.com 26 PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31036663 27 http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=118256,1,22 28 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257581/ 29 http://www.sanef.org.za/news/entry/SANEF_to_apply_as_Amicus_Curiae_in_the_Citizen_Constitutional_Court_Challen/

Don't edit history – editors, IAfrica.com31 (PDF32), 10 Mar 2010

SANEF: Can censorship of historical fact lead to reconciliation?, by SANEF, The Media Online33 (PDF34), 10 March 2010

SANEF joins Citizen's ConCourt appeal on McBride ruling, Politicsweb35 (PDF36), 10 March 2010

McBride vs Citizen ruling has serious impact on reporting: Sanef, SABC37 (PDF38), March 10, 2010

Editors body to challenge McBride ruling, Stephen Grootes, Eyewitness News39 (PDF40), 10 March 2010

Editors join appeal against McBride defamation ruling, Legalbrief41, 11 March 2010

IPI Supports The Citizen Newspaper in South Africa Constitutional Challenge: ‘National Unity and Reconciliation Act Should not be Used to Justify Censorship’, by Naomi Hunt, International Press Institute42 (PDF43), Thursday, 18 March 2010

RAYMOND LOUW: Problem needs urgent fixing when law encourages lies, Raymond Louw, Business Day44 (PDF45), 2010/03/23; Law shouldn't encourage lies, as it has done for McBride, Journalism.co.za46 (PDF47), 26 March 2010

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257569/ http://iafrica.com/news/sa/2291581.htm 32 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257591/ 33 http://www.themediaonline.co.za/themedia/view/themedia/en/page1351?oid=46910&sn=Detail&pid=1351 34 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257606/ 35 http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=165123&sn=Detail 36 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257616/ 37 www.sabcnews.co.za/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.5c4f8fe7ee929f602ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=5e0535a69474721 0VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=default&channelPath=South%20Africa%20%3E%3E%20Social 38 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257625/ 39 http://www.ewn.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=34428 40 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36263902 41 http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100311090436473 42 http://www.freemedia.at/singleview/4838/ 43 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257634/ 44 http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=104311 45 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257642/ 46 http://journalism.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3107:law-shouldnt-encourage-lies-as-it-hasdone-for-mcbride-&catid=92&Itemid=51 47 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257660/ 31

Top court to mull ‘criminal’ McBride, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day48 (PDF49), All Africa50, The Daily African51, 2010/03/25; Citizen files McBride Constitutional Court Papers, Weekend Post52 (PDF53), 25 March 2010

Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae Application to Concourt: 7.

On 25 March 2010, I filed an application (PDF54) to the Constitutional Court Chief Justice, as a member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, to proceed as an In Forma Pauperis Amicus Curiae, in the matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride.

One of the arguments stated in my Founding Affidavit for why I alleged that both Mr. McBride, The Citizen and the SCA’s interpretation of the TRC Social Contract was erroneous; was founded on the principle that any legislation or jurisprudence which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, such as the TRC Act, while ignoring their ecological basis – a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud. It is legislation and jurisprudence that is deliberately indifferent to the laws of sustainability.

My Amicus also included reference to the study by Dr. Michael Maher, How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection. This study examined press responsibility for the public’s indifference to population growth, as a causal factor for so many socio-economic and resource scarcity community problem. Additionally considering that most of the public’s literacy in science and technology is reached not from formal education, but from the mass media, what was the media’s response to this educational responsibility.

10.

Media’s Responsibility to Inform / Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

Mr. McBride’s Notice of Cross Appeal and Updated Correspondence to Parties: 11.

Robert McBride Plans Cross-Appeal against newspaper, Citizen Reporter, The Citizen55 (PDF56), 08 April 2010. The Citizen states that “The South African National

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=104503 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257652/ 50 http://allafrica.com/stories/201003250024.html 51 http://www.thedailyafrican.com/south_africa/31547-South-Africa-Top-Court-Mull-Criminal-Mcbride.html 52 http://www.weekendpost.co.za/article.aspx?id=545593 53 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36263607 54 PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28979161/ 55 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89615&Itemid=34 56 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36261846 49

Editors’ Forum and Freedom of Expression Institute have applied to be admitted as a friend of the court”, but mentions nothing about the Radical Honesty SA Application to be accepted as an Amicus Curiae. 12.

In an email to all parties on 09 April 2010, I informed them of my attempts to determine who had written the aforementioned article, and that I had been informed the author thereof was the editor, Mr. Martin Williams, writing under the pseudonym of ‘Citizen Reporter’. I also informed them of an article I wrote on the matter for the White Refugee blog: SA Media Conspiratorial 'What Bleads, Leads' role in SA's Race War57 (PDF58). The White Refugee article included the details of three International Expert Witnesses Interested in Testifying Before the Concourt, should the Radical Honesty SA Amicus be accepted, among others: (a) Dr. Brad Blanton: Honesty in Politics Politician, bestselling author of Radical Honesty series of books, and Dr. Truth psychologist; (b) Prof. Al Bartlett, author of the Laws of Sustainability, as detailed in The Essential Exponential! For the Future of Our Planet, and Reflections on Sustainability, Population Growth, and the Environment.; and (c) Dr. T. Michael Maher, Professor of Communication, University of Louisiana at Lafayette; author of the study: How and Why Journalists avoid the Population-Environment Connection (Annex C).

13.

Media’s Responsibility to Inform / Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

CCT 23-10 Media Reports: 14.

On 14 April 2010, SAPA publish Concourt sets McBride date, picked up by News 2459(PDF60), Mail & Guardian61 (PDF62), IOL63 (PDF64), SouthAfricanTimes.UK65; wherein SAPA reports on the Concourts intended hearing date for the matter. SAPA also states that SANEF intend planning to file an Amicus. No mention is made of the Radical Honesty – SA Amicus Application which was already filed with the Concourt.

Concourt Approve ‘Radical Honesty – SA’ as First Amicus Curiae:

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/04/sa-media-conspiratorial-what-bleads.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/36261953 59 http://www.news24.com/printArticle.aspx?iframe&aid=8fa46375-74e2-4b32-8fd0-dc6beb20276c&cid=1059 60 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257662 61 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-14-constitutional-court-sets-date-for-mcbride-hearing 62 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36264585 63 http://www.iol.co.za/general/news/newsprint.php?art_id=nw20100414142401335C573653&sf= 64 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36264595 65 http://southafricantimes.co.uk/the-republic/news/archive/2010/04/14/concourt-sets-mcbride-date.aspx 58

15.

On 03 May 2010, the Chief Justice approved my Radical Honesty SA Amicus application, and issued, among others the following orders: “Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae” (Annex A: CCT 23-10 Order). The Amicus Directions were emailed to all parties on 07 May 2010, by Senior Registrars Clerk, Mr. Delano Louw.

16.

Media’s Responsibility to Inform / Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

The Citizen file Submissions on Main Appeal: 17.

On 07 May 2010, The Citizen file their Submissions on Main Appeal (PDF66).

SANEF and FXI file Application to be Accepted as Amici: 18.

On 18 May 2010, the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) and SA National Editors Forum (SANEF) file their Application to be accepted as Amici (PDF67). Subsequent news articles, not one of which refers to the Radical Honesty – SA Amicus, or that the Chief Justice had approved Radical Honesty SA Application to submit an Amicus, let alone its contents or arguments: A.

Don’t suppress the truth: FXI, Citizen Reporter, The Citizen68 (PDF69), Security (PDF70), 18 May 2010

Heavyweights enter the fray, Cedric Mboyisa, The Citizen71 (PDF72), 19 May 2010

New Turn in McBride legal battle, The Citizen73 (PDF74), 19 May 2010

The Citizen fights ruling on McBride’s history, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day75 (PDF76), All Africa77, 17 May 2010

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33785035/ PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33785107/ 68 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60024&catid=80:breakingnews&Itemid=132 69 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257683/ 70 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257714/ 71 http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8360:heavyweights-enter-thefray&catid=25:local-news&Itemid=34 72 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257697/ 73 http://www.citizen.co.za/index/News/1060117.page 74 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257710/ 75 http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=109057 76 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257667/ 77 http://allafrica.com/stories/201005170139.html 67

Editors Argue Free Speech in McBride Case, Franny Rabkin, Business Day78 (PDF79), All Africa80, 20 May 2010

When the logic of law is murdered, Carmel Rickard, Pretoria News83 (PDF84), 20 May 2010

When is a killer not a killer? Constitutional Court to decide whether Robert McBride can be called a murderer despite TRC amnesty, Carmel Rickard, The Star85 (PDF86), 20 May 2010

Even the elite cannot wipe clean the bloodstained slate of our history clean, Carmel Rickard, Cape Times87 (PDF88), May 20, 2010

The law of Unintended Consequences, DefenceWeb89 (PDF90), 24 May 2010

Waarheid word gestraf, se Sanef en FXI aan hof, Phillip de Bruin, Die Burger91 (PDF92), 16 July 2010

19.

On 24 May 2010, the Concourt Approves SANEF and FXIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Applications to be admitted as Amici.

McBride files Heads of Argument: 20.

ON 28 May 2010, Mr. McBride files Heads of Argument (PDF93). Subsequent news articles:

http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=109430 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257727/ 80 http://allafrica.com/stories/201005200060.html 81 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226801462.html 82 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257750/ 83 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804745.html 84 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257562/ 85 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804960.html 86 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257815/ 87 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-226804826.html 88 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257738/ 89 http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8119:he-law-of-unintendedconsequences&catid=53:People&Itemid=117 90 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257822/ 91 http://www.dieburger.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Waarheid-word-gestraf-se-Sanef-en-FXI-aan-hof-20100715 92 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258044/ 79

It is necessary to close book on the past, say McBride’s lawyers, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day94(PDF95), 18 June 2010 (Legalbrief Today96, 21 June 2010)

FXI & SANEF file Heads of Argument: 21.

On 08 June 2010, FXI and SANEF file their Heads of Argument (PDF97). Totally disregarding the fact that they are suppressing and censoring the Radical Honesty SA’s right to freedom of expression and access to media discourse, they advise the court on the fine points of the System of Freedom of Expression: A.

“...freedom of expression is an essential process for advancing knowledge and discovering truth. An individual who seeks knowledge and truth must hear all sides of the question, consider all alternatives, test his judgment by exposing it to opposition, and make full use of different minds. Discussion must be kept open no matter how certainly true an accepted opinion may seem to be; many of the most widely acknowledged truths have turned out to be erroneous. Conversely, the same principles applies no matter how false or pernicious the new opinion appears to be; for the unaccepted opinion may be true or partially true and, even if wholly false, its presentation and open discussion compel a re-thinking and re-testing of the accepted opinion. The reasons which make open discussion essential for an intelligent individual judgment likewise make it imperative for rational social judgment.”

22.

While censoring and suppressing the Radical Honesty SA Amicus’ argument and evidence, as to how the TRC Act failed to establish the ecological carrying capacity truth, underlying the Afrikaner ‘swart gevaar’ fears which motivated the establishment of apartheid, and the rapid population growth contributory factors toward the political violence; they instruct the court on the alleged importance of the search for the truth: A.

“it is deemed necessary to establish the truth in relation to past events as well as the motives for and circumstances in which gross violations of

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33112864/ http://www.businessday.co.za/Articles/Content.aspx?id=112165 95 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257830/ 96 http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100621160354575 97 PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33785122/ 94

human rights have occurred, and to make the findings known in order to prevent a repetition of such acts in futureâ&#x20AC;?. Joyce Mbizana & Mbasa Mxenge file Amicus Applications: 23.

On 15 June 2010, Ms. Joyce Mbizana and Mr. Mbasa Mxenge file their Application to be accepted as Amici (PDF98). Subsequent news articles: A.

Apartheid victims and survivors challenge McBride ruling, TimesLive99 (PDF100), The Star101 (PDF102), ICTJ (PDF103), 19 June 2010

Apartheid victims fight McBride case, Nathi Olifant, Sunday Tribune104 (PDF105), IOL106 (PDF107), Cape Argus108 (PDF109), Cape Times110 (PDF111), Mercury112 (PDF113), Pretoria News114 (PDF115), Daily News116 (PDF117), CSVR118 (PDF119), The Star120 (PDF121), Lawlibrary.co.za122 (PDF123), 20 June 2010 (Apartheid activists relatives to challenge McBride ruling, Legalbrief Today124 (PDF125), Mooney Ford Attorneys126 (PDF127), 21 June 2010)

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33785242/ http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article510624.ece/Apartheid-victims-and-survivors-challenge-McBride-ruling 100 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257862/ 101 http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=128&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 102 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36264009 103 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36263142 104 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-229387811.html 105 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257934/ 106 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=13&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100620072724632C152979 107 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257910/ 108 http://www.capeargus.co.za/?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 109 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257885/ 110 http://www.capetimes.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 111 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257895/ 112 http://www.themercury.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 113 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257944/ 114 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 115 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257924/ 116 http://www.dailynews.co.za/?fSectionId=540&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 117 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257905/ 118 http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1326&Itemid=26 119 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36264275 120 http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=549&fArticleId=vn20100620072724632C152979 121 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257955/ 122 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 123 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258038/ 124 http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20100621160354575 125 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36264412 126 http://www.mfp.co.za/page.asp?pg=news&newsID=399 127 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36264339 99

Slain activists relatives seek to join McBride defamation case, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day128 (PDF129), All Africa130 (PDF131), Lawlibrary.co.za132 (PDF133), LexisNexis134 (Cache135) (PDF136), 22 June 2010

McBride loses support in defamation case, Jason Warner, Pretoria News137 (PDF138), The Star139 (PDF140), IOL141 (PDF142), Independent on Saturday143 (PDF144), Lawlibrary.co.za145 (PDF146), 24 June 2010

McBride was convicted â&#x20AC;&#x201C; period, Eusebius McKaiser, Mail and Guardian147 (PDF148), 02 August 2010

International Center for Transitional Justice Amicus Brief for Sa Apartheid Defamation Case, ICTJ149 (PDF150), 02 August 2010

Radical Honesty SA File Heads of Argument: 24.

On 18 July 2010, I file my Amended Heads of Argument (subsequent to unequivocal confirmation that neither SANEF, the Citizen nor Mr. McBride object to me filing a Radical Honesty SA Amicus).

25.

In my Amicus, among others I allege that media editors act as Access to Media Resources Discourse Gatekeepers, whereby they censor151 the voices of those

128

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=112396 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257985/ 130 http://allafrica.com/stories/201006220474.html 131 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257975/ 132 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 133 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258038/ 134 www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=675&topicId= 112450003&docId=l:1211886819&start=10 135 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6YNr_rA9IcwJ:www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser%3FActio n%3DUserDisplayFullDocument%26orgId%3D675%26topicId%3D112450003%26docId%3Dl:1211886819%26start%3D10+%22Slain+ac tivists%E2%80%99+relatives+seek+to+join+McBride+defamation+case%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za 136 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257990/ 137 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=665&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 138 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258016/ 139 http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 140 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258035/ 141 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20100624045434761C698608 142 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36263356 143 http://www.independentonsaturday.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20100624045434761C698608 144 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258014/ 145 http://www.lawlibrary.co.za/notice/updates/2010/issue_14/recentjudgments_concourt.htm 146 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258038/ 147 http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-08-02-mcbride-was-convictedperiod?utm_medium=saDailynews24&utm_source=sadailynews24.com 148 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36257809/ 149 http://www.ictj.org/en/news/features/3938.html 150 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36258050/ 129

voicing nonviolent grievances and problem solving activism, so as to facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits. They do this knowing and applying the following principles: A.

‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’152;

‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’153;

‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse154;

Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection155; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism156.

26.

Media’s Responsibility to Inform / Public’s Right to Know News articles: NONE.

Radical Honesty SA Notifies SANEF Editors of Radical Honesty Amicus: 27.

On 26 July I contacted SANEF’s Chairman Mr. Mondli Makhanya to arrange an interview. The interview was arranged for Tuesday 27 July at 09:00 hrs, and I emailed [190157] his secretary the questions I wanted him to answer for me.

151

“The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence, documentary; “For revolutionary groups, the more murderous the deed, the more certain the media coverage.” -- Nicholas Partridge, Presenter, ANC: VIP’s of Violence. See: Transcript of ANC: VIP’s of Violence at: UA: [C.6] ‘If it Bleads, It Leads,’ Editorial Maxim [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739403] 152 Clark McCauley, Ph.D, Prof. of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College, in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?, by Benedict Carey, New York Times, March 26, 2010 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34271993] 153 Jean Pierre Mean, Group General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, SGS Group, In Confronting Corruption: The Business Case for an Effective Anti-Corruption Programme, by PricewaterhouseCoopers Intnl [PDF: www.pwc.com/anticorruption] 154 (I) Power and the news media, Teun A. van Dijk, Univ. of Amsterdam, D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication & Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34271955] ; (II) Ubuntu Amicus (UA) : [C] Right to ‘Free Speech’ Propaganda Profits Deception [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/32739403] 155 CCT 23-10: Statement of Consent by Dr. T. Michael Maher [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/31373074]; How and Why Journalists Avoid Population-Environment Connection, by T. Michael Maher, Ph.D. [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/33694415] 156 HC-WC 19963-09: 140 SA Elite Deliberate Indifference to Rule of Law [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34274197] 157 CCT 23-10: 1st Amicus Proof of Email Service & Correspondence: PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34064979/

28.

On the evening of 26 July 2010, and early morning of 27 July, I sent the following editors and journalists (whom I imagine are SANEF members) a form letter email providing them with a PDF copy of the Radical Honesty SA Concourt Amicus, as provided to SANEF attorneys, and informed them the Amicus was supported by the expert witness statements of (a) Dr. Brad Blanton, the worlds foremost expert on honesty, transparency and sincere forgiveness, bestselling author of Radical Honesty series of books, and former Honesty in Politics candidate for Congress in Virginia in 2004 and 2006, and (b) Dr. T. Michael Maher, the author and study of How and Why Journalists Avoid the Environment-Population Connection. I confirmed my interpretation that it appeared their editorial decision was to censor this information, and if I was incorrect in my assumption, would they please provide me with the information about where they had published the information. I enquired how their censorship decision-making was in accordance to SANEFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Code of Professional Practice which requires News Reporting to be ethically driven, to provide for an environment for ethics discourse in the media, to be in support of freedom of expression, to enable a culture of real debate of the highest standard, and were in accordance with SANEFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s alleged values of integrity, accountability and the public interest. (The emails can be found in full in First Amicus Proof of Email Service and Correspondence # 2 (PDF158)), the dates and titles as follows: A.

[188] 12:33 PM: Questions for SANEF Chairperson: Mr. Rantao: Re: Ind. Media Tribunal, media corruption and media censorship

[190] 01:09 PM: FW: Questions for SANEF Chairperson: Mr. Makhanya: Re: Ind. Media Tribunal, media corruption and media censorship

[191] 01:40 PM: Att: Ms. Deborah Patta, Exec. Prod.: 3rd Degree: Req 3rd Degree Position on media corruption and media censorship

[192] 01:53 PM: Att: Tim du Plessis, Editor: Beeld: Req Beeld Position on media corruption and media censorship

[196] 02:45 PM: Att: Mr. Peter Bruce, Editor:Bus Day: Req Bus. Day Position on media corruption and media censorship

[202] 03:42 PM: Att: City Press Ed: Ms. Ferial Haffajee; Req: City Press Position on media corruption and media censorship

158

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34064979/