Rainbow Illusions: Truth & Reconciliation Fraud 1. TRC Social Contract provides NO definitions for Multi Cultural Multi-Interpretation for Key Concepts of „Forgiveness‟, „Reconciliation‟ „Closure‟ and „Ubuntu‟. The following are excerpts from the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae1 filed in the SA Constitutional Court, in the matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10): Chapter [I] Legal Principles Addressed and Relied Upon: [A] Multi-Cultural Conflict of Laws Substantive Due Process: Clarity and Impartiality, and Chapter [IV] TRC Fraud: ‘Crime of Apartheid’ was a falsification of History: [A] Negligent or Intentional Avoidance of Key Concept Definitions? A. Multi-cultural Conflict of Laws Substantive Due Process: Clarity and Impartiality [..] [10] In Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom 2, 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).‖ [..] A. Negligent or Intentional Avoidance of Key Concept Definitions? [52] Conflict of Laws Definitions: Fundamental Concepts Not Defined: The TRC, perhaps intentionally?3, 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 ambiguous 4. 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.
1
Heads of Argument for Lara Johnstone; In Support of Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Interpretation of Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 2 Lithgow & others v. United Kingdom (1986) * EHRR 329 § 110 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/1986_lithgow-v-united-kingdom] 3 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.‖ 4 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
Hard Copy Print Version: Last Update: 09-01-2011: Other Translations Available from: www.african-white-refugees.co.nr
JSC.1