13-02-11: SCA: Review SGHC: 12-10142: Johnstone v HW & WN by Andrea Muhrrteyn

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case: ______________________ SGHC CASE NO: 12/10142 In the matter between: Lara Johnstone

Applicant

and H, WS

1st Respondent

W, N

2nd Respondent

NOTICE OF MOTION Take Notice that Lara Johnstone, of the Radical Honesty culture and religion, herewith applies to the above Honourable Court in terms of Rule 53 (Review) of the Uniform Rules of the High Court, for the following orders: [1]

For an Order to approve the Applicant, to Appear Pro Se (propria persona / pro per), including clarifying what exactly the Rules of Court are, for Pro Se applicants, or alternatively to: 1.

Order the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (â&#x20AC;&#x153;CRL Rights Commâ&#x20AC;?) to provide the Registrar with a list of South African Attorneys and Advocates, who are culturally qualified to legally represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture, ITO S 185: Function of the Commission1; for

Functions of the Commission: (1) The primary objects of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities are - (a) to promote respect for the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities; (b) to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among cultural, religious and linguistic communities, on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association; and (c) to recommend the establishment or recognition, in accordance with national legislation, of a cultural or other council or councils for a community or communities in South Africa. (2) The Commission has the power, as regulated by national legislation, necessary to achieve its primary objects, including the power to monitor, investigate, research, educate, lobby, advise and report on issues concerning the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities.

the Registrar to issue an In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Referral to such „Radical Honesty culture‟ qualified attorney, on behalf of the Applicant, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 1(a) of Rule 40 of the High Court. [2]

Permission to invoke2 cultural law3 in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 124; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.

[3]

Review of Judge Willis Judgement in H v W (12/10142) [2013] ZAGPJHC 1 (30 January 2013), as (A) unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and (B) in violation of South African Consumer Protection Act5, 68 of 2008, which provides for the “Right to information in plain and understandable language”.

[4]

An order to set aside Judge Willis, „Interdict Judgement‟ and Remit to the South Gauteng High Court for hearing of Further Evidence, if so required; for Judge Willis to clarify:

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. 3 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.‟ 4 12. Freedom and security of the person: (2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity.. 5 “Section 22. Right to information in plain and understandable language (1) The producer of a notice, document or visual representation that is required, in terms of this Act or any other law, to be produced, provided or displayed to a consumer must produce, provide or display that notice, document or visual representation— (a) in the form prescribed in terms of this Act or any other legislation, if any, for that notice, document or visual representation; or (b) in plain language, if no form has been prescribed for that notice, document or visual representation. (2) For the purposes of this Act, a notice, document or visual representation is in plain language if it is reasonable to conclude that an ordinary consumer of the class of persons for whom the notice, document or visual representation is intended, with average literacy skills and minimal experience as a consumer of the relevant goods or services, could be expected to understand the content, significance, and import of the notice, document or visual representation without undue effort, having regard to— (a) the context, comprehensiveness and consistency of the notice, document or visual representation; (b) the organisation, form and style of the notice, document or visual representation; (c) the vocabulary, usage and sentence structure of the notice, document or visual representation; and (d) the use of any illustrations, examples, headings, or other aids to reading and understanding”. 2

Which South African culture/s are the applicant and respondent members of?

Upon which South African culture/s definitions of abstract legal concepts of „dignity‟ „privacy‟ „defamation‟ and „reasonableness‟ is Judge Willis judgement based?

Reasonable Members of ordinary intelligence from which South African culture/s may have reasonably understand the words concerned in the Facebook Post “Letter to [WH] – for Public consumption” to convey a defamatory meaning?

Which culture‟s Jurisprudence orders that “(a) The respondent is to remove all postings which she has posted on Facebook or any other site in the social media which refer to the applicant; (b) The respondent is to pay the applicant‟s costs in this application.”?

How and why this culturally vague and arbitrary judgement order should be applicable to other cultures, whom were excluded from presenting evidence of their cultural definitions for the legal concepts upon which the judgement is based upon?

Whether the foundation of the particular cultures jurisprudence or dispute problem solving practices, upon which the judgement was founded, was patriarchal or matriarchal, and anthropocentric or Ecocentric?

That the members of the matriarchal Ecocentric Radical Honoursty culture are not bound by this patriarchal anthropocentric Judgement order.

[5]

An order to require Judge Willis to clarify his statements in paragraph 31 6, where Judge Willis implies that South African courts jurisprudence is considered „credible‟ and „legitimate‟ in the „eyes of the people‟.

What is Judge Willis / South African Jurisprudence definition of a „credible‟ judicial system; and how exactly is South Africa‟s legal system „credible‟?

Judge Willis / South African Judicial System to take Official notice that the South African Judicial System has no credibility with individuals from the Radical Honesty culture:

Radical Honoursty culture considers a „credible‟ judicial system, to be one which accurately applies the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance.

For example: A.

Anders Breivik and Carlos the Jackal were „credible‟ bomb making terrorists, in the sense of accurately following the recipe‟ for the laws of bomb-making and detonation.

A chef who wants to make a Crème brûlée, is not going to have a „credible‟ Crème brûlée, if he used the ingredients and recipe – i.e. cooking laws -- for road kill stew.

A credible legal system is one which (A) adheres to the laws of nature/ecology, recognizing that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights; and (B) adheres to the laws of human nature; recognizing that culture‟s7 and sub-cultures8 whose members

social media are all part of the electronic media but not all the electronic media are social media. The electronic media were, almost certainly, beyond the imagination of the court when Setlogelo v Setlogelo was decided in 1914. Not only can items be posted and travel on the electronic media at a click on a computer in a moment, in an instant, at the twinkling of an eye, but also they can, with similar facility, be removed therefrom. This can also be done at minimal cost. The situation is qualitatively different from the scenario where newspapers have been or are about printed in hardcopy and distributed. The law has to take into account changing realities not only technologically but also socially or else it will lose credibility in the eyes of the people. Without credibility, law loses legitimacy. If law loses legitimacy, it loses acceptance. If it loses acceptance, it loses obedience. It is imperative that the courts respond appropriately to changing times, acting cautiously and with wisdom. [32] Louis Brandeis, a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, together with his professional partner in a Boston law firm, Samuel Warren, wrote an article in 1890 in the Harvard Law Review in which they argued that: „Political, social and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of socirty...‟.80 7 Mosuo culture in SW China

practice

brutal

honesty,

self

sufficiency,

personal

responsibility,

transparency and commitment to root cause problem solving have far greater harmony amongst their members, than tribes or cultures whose members

practice

political

correctness,

sycophancy,

hypocrisy,

parasitism, denial of responsibility, secrecy masquerading as „privacy‟, and a focus on Public Relations Image Management Pretend problem solving. 6.

SA‟s Judicial System/courts „the law‟ -- Patriarchal Anthropocentric Flat Earth jurisprudence is not credible, according to the aforementioned definition of „credible‟, because – among others – it: A.

Ignores the laws of nature/ecology reality that the Earth is NOT FLAT, and that resources are not infinite. Although a majority of South Africa‟s problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution

urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste,

energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion are a consequence of overpopulation and overconsumption inducing scarcity, South African jurisprudence fails to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices,

and

legal

penalties

unsustainable

individuals,

corporations and organisations. B.

Ignores the laws of human nature; by discriminating against South African culture‟s9 and sub-cultures10 whose members practice brutal honesty, self sufficiency, personal responsibility, transparency and commitment to root cause problem solving, whose lifestyle‟s do not contribute to overpopulation and overconsumption; whereas it legally rewards cultures and subcultures whose members practice political correctness, sycophancy, hypocrisy, parasitism, denial of

Delancey Street Foundation Mosuo culture in SW China 10 Delancey Street Foundation 9

responsibility, self deception masquerading as „privacy‟ and „dignity‟, and a focus on Public Relations Image Management parasitism. 7.

The socio-political problem solving system of the Matriarchal Mosuo culture in South West China is plausibly the most credible on planet earth. The people of Mosuo have no rape (not even a word in their language for rape, because it does not exist), no murder, no suicide and no unemployment; as a result of abiding by (a) the laws of nature and tribal control of population and consumption, and (b) the laws of human nature, in terms of public problem solving, where members are not allowed the luxury of self-deception and hiding from their self inflicted problems, behind fragile ego masculine insecurity definitions of „dignity‟ and „privacy‟. Comparatively South Africa is the worlds rape capital11, leads the world in gun violence homicides12, and an unemployment rate of 29.8%13.

Metaphorically South Africa‟s political, legal and academic Emperor chefs‟ are following the cooking laws for road kill stew; while attempting to convince South Africans entering their court rooms, that the Justice being served is „credible‟ Crème brûlée justice; when in fact its just maggot filled road kill stew.

The only „eyes of the people‟ who consider South African Jurisprudence „credible‟ are those who psychologically, emotionally and intellectually consider the cartoon bombs made by Wile E Coyote the Road Runner as „credible‟ applications of the laws of physics related to bomb making. South African Jurists Jurisprudence should be taken as „seriously‟ as Laurel and Hardy; in terms of its ability to accurately apply the relevant natural or scientific laws, to attain a specific related required result of inter-human and intra-species harmony and balance. If the consequences

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/SA-remains-world-rape-capital-20120921 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop 13 http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/sa-unemployment-gets-worse-1.1414454#.URVH0h2-q7k 12

of South African Naked Emperor Syndrome Jurists were not so tragic, it would in fact be beyond Laurel & Hardy hilarious. TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the founding affidavit of Lara Johnstone, Member of the Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, filed herewith will be used in support of this application. TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that the Applicant is (a) indigent, and (b) a qualified paralegal, and (c) unaware of any South African attorney willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture; and (d) consequently Applicant shall be representing herself and her culture/religion (Radical Honoursty), as a Pro Se / Propria Persona / Litigant in Person Applicant; unless the court approves an order for the Registrar to issue an In Forma Pauperis – Radical Honoursty Culture Proceedings Referral on behalf of the Applicant, in terms of the provisions of SubRule 1(a) of Rule 40 of the High Court. TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that 16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6539, and/or Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za, is appointed as the address/email address at which the applicants will accept notice and service of all process in these proceedings, until, or in the absence of, an „In Forma Pauperis – Radical Honoursty Culture‟ order. TAKE NOTICE FURTHER that in accordance of Rule 53 of the Rules of the High Court: 1.

Any interested persons are hereby called upon to show cause why such decision or proceedings should not be reviewed and corrected or set aside, and

Judge Willis is hereby called upon to dispatch, within fifteen days after receipt of the notice of motion, to the SCA registrar the reasons as he is by law required or desires to give or make, and to notify the applicant that he has done so. Note: The full record of proceedings is not required, the factual information alleged in Judge Willis ruling being sufficient, for the issues addressed in the applicants Review application.

The applicant may within ten days after Judge Willis has made his reasons available to her, by delivery of a notice and accompanying affidavit, amend, add to or vary the terms of his notice of motion and supplement the supporting affidavit.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that: In terms of Rule 53, Respondents opposing the Orders requested: ((5), any person opposing the granting of an order sought in the notice of motion shall(a) within fifteen days after receipt by him of the notice of motion or any amendment thereof deliver notice to the applicant that he intends so to oppose and shall in such notice appoint either (a) an address within eight kilometres of the office of the registrar at which he will accept notice and service of all process in such proceedings; (alternatively: Radical Honoursty Ecocentric Zero Waste cultural practices shall accept electronic email addresses for notice and service of all process in such proceedings) (b) within thirty days after the expiry of the time referred to in subrule (4) hereof, deliver any affidavits he may desire in answer to the allegations made by the applicant. (6) The applicant shall have the rights and obligations in regard to replying affidavits set out in rule 6.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that: Where no notice of opposition is given or where no answering affidavit in terms of paragraph (a) (ii) is lodged within the time referred to in paragraph (a) (ii), the Registrar shall within five days of the expiry thereof place the application before the Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that:

The South Gauteng High Court registrar is requested to kindly place the matter before Judge Willis, to provide his written reasons to the Applicant, Respondents and Supreme Court of Appeal Registrar for his culturally vague judgement. The Supreme Court of Appeal Registrar is requested to kindly place the matter before the Supreme Court of Appeal, in due course, in accordance to aforementioned prescriptions. Dated at George, on this the 11th day of February 2013.

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se P O Box 5042 George East, 6539 South Africa T: +27-44 870 7239 | C: +27-71 170 1954 Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za Registrar Supreme Court of Appeal: Bloemfontein Cnr Elizabeth & President Brand Streets, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9301 PO Box 258, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9300 Tel: +27 51 412 7400, Fax: +27 51 412 7449 Judge Nigel Willis South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg Private Bag x 7, Johannesburg, 2000 Tel: 011 335 0000 | Fax: 011 336 6183 c/o: Registrar: Mr Vivendran Pather (VPather@justice.gov.za) 1st Respondent Counsel: Judith Elise Wilkins Wilkins Attorneys Palm Place, 22 Bram Fischer Drive, Linden, Johannesburg, Tel : 011 888 2218 | Fax : 086 671 6151 Email: judy@wilkinsattorneys.co.za 2nd Respondent Counsel:

Adv. Terese Engelbrecht Group 21, Sandown Village, Village Chambers, Sandton Tel: 011 895 9000 | Fax: 011 895 9001 Cell: 083 253 5194 Email: teresa.e@mweb.co.za

Kobus Swart JNS Attorneys JHB Law Chambers 5 Hunter Street, Ferndale, Randburg 2194 Tel: 011 326 1829 | Fax: 011 326 4193 Email: kswart@jhblaw.co.za

Adv. S. Van Aswegen Group 21, Sandown Village, Village Chambers, Sandton Tel: 011 895 9000 | Fax: 011 895 9001 Cell: 082 653 8915 Email: aswegens@law.co.za

TRANSPARENCY COPIES: Executive Director: Mark Ellis Deputy Executive Director: Tim Hughes BIC Project Manager: Elaine Owen Head of Legal Projects: Gonzalo Guzmรกn Human Rights Inst Co-Dir: Fiona Wilson & Phillip Tahmindjis Head of Legal Practice Div: Ronnie Hart International Bar Association 4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7842 0090 | Fax: +44 (0)20 7842 0091 Mr. Cameron Jacobs Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299, USA Tel: 1-(212) 290-4700 HRW NY (hrwpress@hrw.org) Birgit Schwarz (schwarb@hrw.org) HRW-SA (spiegel@gonet.co.za)

Secretary General: Salil Shetty Amnesty International 1 Easton Street, London, WC1X 0DW, UK Tel: +44-20-74135500 Fax: +44-20-79561157 AI UN-NY (aiunny@amnesty.org)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case: ______________________ SGHC CASE NO: 12/10142 In the matter between: Lara Johnstone

Applicant

and H, WS

1st Respondent

W, N

2nd Respondent

FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT 

RESPONDENT PARTIES



OVERVIEW AND CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS



IN FORMA PAUPERIS FACTS



INVOKING CULTURAL LAW: o Multicultural South Africa‘s Right to Invocation of Cultural Law:



RIGHT TO CULTURALLY QUALIFIED LEGAL REPRESENTATION: o South African Law Societies, Bar Associations, Media Editors and the CRL Rights Commission Endorse Denial of Cultural Legal Representation to Radical Honesty culture o International Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Independent Observation & Monitoring



FOREIGN LAW: PRO SE: RIGHT TO SELF REPRESENTATION o US Legal Consumers Pro Se Representation Justifications o South African Jurists: Any Credible Justice and Truth Seekers; or all Greedy, Manipulative, Corrupt and incapable of Policing the South African Legal Profession?



RADICAL HONOURSTY CULTURE



RADICAL HONESTY CULTURE o Joining the Radical Honesty Culture

o The Radical Honesty cult‘s Aim to Take Over the World for Honesty o Practicing Radical Honesty FAQ: Sincerely Insult & Offend o Practicing Radical Honesty: Motive of Forgiveness o Practicing Radical Honesty: Social Transformation Movement 

COMMONSISM: PROCREATION & CONSUMPTION LIFESTYLE: o Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons o Consumptionism: Consumption Vanity Disorder o Cultural Capitalism: Where the very act of egotist consumption, already includes the price for its opposite



COMMONSISM: ANTHROPOCENTRIC JURISPRUDENCE ERRORS: o Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Social Contract: Laws of Nature Sustainable Security Constitution or Breeding/Consumption War Suicide Pact? o Anthropocentric Jurisprudence in accord with the Laws of Nature would ensure a Sustainable Social Contract Constitution o Innocence Indulgences for Sale to Scarcity Combatant Profiteers of Consumptionism Anthropocentric Jurisprudence‘s deliberate failure to differentiate between Ecological Procreation and Consumption Innocents (Leavers) and Combatants (Takers) o Anthropocentric Jurisprudence‘s Conflict with Ecocentric Finite Resource Reality: Inaccurate Assumption: NNR Abundance: o Global NNR Scarcity Analysis: Global Collapse by 2050 o Scarcity: Our Next Normal: Catastrophe o Masculine Insecurity: Foundation of Anthropocentric Jurisprudence‘s Human Farming ‗Control of Reproduction‘ War Economy Racket: o Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Foundation: Masculine Insecurity o Eve‘s Seed: History and ‗Control of Reproduction‘ Religion of Masculine Insecurity o Anthropocentric Jurisprudence‘s Denial of Masculine Insecurity‘s Use of the Control of Reproduction as a Weapon of War o Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Denies Necessity for a Breeding Licence, thereby endorsing Masculine Insecurity‘s Control of Reproduction as a Weapon of War o Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Parasitism of the Reproduction Human Factory Farming War Economy

Control

o The Anthropocentric Socio-Political Elite Profit from the Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Cannon Fodder Population o The Anthropocentric Socio-Political Socio-Political Elite Profit from the Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Vote & Poverty Pimp Fodder Population



ECOFEMINISM o Mosuo: Ecocentric Gender-Balanced Culture with no murder, rape, war, jealousy, jails or unemployment



RADICAL HONOURSTY CULTURE: JUDGEMENT‘S ERRORS



Relief Requested

I the undersigned, LARA JOHNSTONE do hereby make oath and say: [1] I am an adult Radical Honoursty Ecofeminist Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security practicing paralegal (subsequently referred to as ―applicant‖), member of Friend of Wikileaks (FoWL) and the Radical Honesty culture1; resident in George, Southern Cape, RSA; where I run a small EcoFeminist pedal-powered wormery business. [2] I am married to African American prisoner Demian Emile Johnson, who has been incarcerated in the California Dept. of Corrections, on a sentence of 15-to-life for felony murder, since 1982. We met while I was working on providing educational information on rehabilitation issues to prisoners. (Sacramento County: Licence & Certificate of Marriage: Demian Emile Johnson and Lara Johnstone (PDF2); 31 May 1998: Sunday Times: US convict wins love and support in SA town (PDF3); 24 Sep 1998: YOU: Volksrust Farmgirl Doomed for Love of Black Convict)(PDF4). [3] I am neither anthropocentrically liberal nor conservative, but an EcoFeminist and founder of the ideology of CommonSism5: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons, and the unregistered Guerrylla Law Radical Honoursty Party, the aim of which is to establish a Green License to Vote, to elect a Green President, to transition South Africa into a Sustainable Voluntaryist (Honourable Free Society of Men and Women capable of ruling themselves) Green Republic. [4] The facts set out herein fall within my (sometimes referred to as ―Applicant‖) personal knowledge, unless otherwise indicated by the context, and are to the best of my belief true and correct.

SA Constitutional Court ruling of 03 May 2012 in CCT 23-10, reads as follows: ―Ms. Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture and Religion, is admitted as an amicus curiae‖ 2 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/090922_hc-ifp 3 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980513_stimes 4 http://issuu.com/js-ror/docs/980924_you 5 http://sqswans.weebly.com/guerrylla-law.html 1

RESPONDENT PARTIES: [5] First Respondent: H, WS is unknown to the Applicant. He is an insurance broker who filed the Interdict application with the South Gauteng High Court. [6] Second Respondent: W,N is also unknown to the applicant. She is the author of the posting on Facebook which gave rise to First Respondents Interdict litigation, against whom Judge Willis issued the order that ―(a) The respondent is to remove all postings which she has posted on Facebook or any other site in the social media which refer to the applicant. (b) The respondent is to pay the applicant‘s costs in this application.‖

OVERVIEW AND CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS: [7] First respondent is an insurance broker who is separated from his wife, currently involved in a messy divorce. He ―enjoys a good party and likes his social intercourse to be lubricated with alcoholic beverages‖. He is an active social networker in that he has both a Facebook and Twitter account on which he often communicates and therefore shares information.‖ [8] First respondent was a close friend of second respondent, whose friendship extends back prior to first respondent marrying his wife. First Respondent and his wife had jointly appointed the Second respondent to be the guardian of their three minor children in the event that both the 1st Respondent and his wife died or became incapacitated before their children attained their majority. First Respondent provided the Second respondent with guidance in starting her current business venture; whereas second respondent had lent First Respondent money to tide him over certain financial difficulties. [9] Second Respondent is the author of the posting on Facebook which gave rise to First Respondents Interdict litigation. On 27 February, 2012, she posted a statement on her wall, titled ‗Letter to WH – for public consumption‘, which stated: I wonder too what happened to the person who I counted as a best friend for 15 years, and how this behaviour is justified. Remember I see the broken hearted faces of your girls every day. Should we blame the alcohol, the drugs, the church, or are they more reasons to not have to take responsibility for the consequences of your own behaviour? But mostly I wonder whether, when you look in the mirror in your drunken testosterone haze, do you still see a man?

[10]

First Respondent then applied to the South Gauteng High Court for orders:

1. Interdicting and restraining the respondent from posting any information pertaining to the applicant on Facebook or any other social media; 2. In the event that the respondent fails to comply to the abovementioned order that the respondent then be placed under arrest for non-compliance for a period of 30 days or a period as determined by the Court; 3. Removing the postings so posted by the respondent from Facebook or any other social site it might have been placed; 4. If and in the event that the respondent fails, alternatively neglects, alternatively refuses to remove such postings from Facebook or any other social media site upon which it might have been posted that the Sheriff of Randburg be ordered and authorised to remove the postings so listed by the respondent… [11]

On 19 October 2012, the hearing occurred before Judge NP Willis.

[12]

On 30 January 2013, Judge Willis issued the following order: (a) The respondent is to remove all postings which she has posted on Facebook or any other site in the social media which refer to the applicant. (b) The respondent is to pay the applicant‘s costs in this application.

[13] On 2 February 2012, the South African media reported on the judgement: IOL: SA man who won Facebook slander case6; Business Tech News: Legal Trouble for Social Media Comments in SA7.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS FACTS: [14] My husband, Demian Emile Johnson, has been in prison in California, since October 1982, for felony murder. We married in Folsom Prison on 11 October 1997, whereupon I processed the paperwork to become a legal resident (INS # A77 177 281; CA Drivers Licence #: CA: B9644585). I was arrested by San Francisco INS on 31 January 2002, and deported to South Africa on 03 March 2002, denied the right to return for 10 years. Attempts to resolve the matter with Pretoria Embassy and Johannesburg Homeland Security Department have been unsuccessful, as they state that the INS have lost my file. Considering the reality that I probably shall never see my husband again, I considered filing for divorce. [15] The Cape Town High Court approved my application – Clerk Ms. VP Fassie on 22/09/2009 – for a divorce attorney from my husband in prison in America. The divorce application was amicable. 6 7

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/sa-man-wins-facebook-slander-case-1.1463004#.UQ9u6h2-q7l http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/30925/legal-trouble-for-social-media-comments-in-sa/

[16] The appointed Attorney‘s -- Malan Mohale Beyers -- withdrew after refusing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture. The attorney demanded that I sign documentation which was inaccurate and deceptive, which I refused to do, and he refused to allow me to submit a Radical Honesty affidavit, and so withdrew from representing me, stating I had insulted him by insisting that I tell the truth. [17] As a result of my Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist CommonSism worldview (simplified by Dmitry Orlov as ―being poor on purpose is much easier than being poor as a result of suddenly having less than you are accustomed to having. Voluntary poverty is a hell of a lot easier than involuntary poverty‖), I live a subsistence lifestyle wherein I grow food for me and my parents, barter (vermicompost and guano fertilizer which I receive from cleaning a pigeon racer‘s Aviary) for rent, internet access and food, and have as little contact with the financial Fiat currency Debt Based Economic Growth (exponential use of finite resources for short term profits) Consumptionist grid as possible. I run a small Vermicompost worm farm, all deliveries and transport is done by pedal power: bicycle and bicycle trailer. Consequently, my income source‘s, do not include any income from my husband. [18]

Self Employment: Average of approximately R500, or less per month.

Income from Real Property: R0. Interests and Dividends: R0. Gifts: R0 Alimony: R0. Child Support: R0. Retirement: R0. Disability: R0. Unemployment: R0. Public Assistance: R0. Other: R0. Total Monthly Income: Approximately R500.00 [19] Employment history for past two years. As above. Self Employed: Gross Monthly Income: Average: R500.00 [20] Spouse Employment History: California Prison, since 1982. Gross Monthly Pay: R0. [21] Money in Bank Account: Standard Bank: Savings Account: approx R4,000. Spouse: $0 (as far as I am aware). [22]

Assets: Home: Zero/None. Motor Vehicle: Zero/None Other Assets: Zero/None.

Other Real Estate: Zero/None Bicycle & Trailer: 1

[23]

Every person or business owing me money. None.

[24]

Persons who rely on me for support: Parents.

[25] Average Monthly Expenses: I live with my parents, whereby I pay rent by barter. In exchange for looking after the house, when they go away, growing food,

and providing compost and fertilizer, I receive free rent, electricity, toiletries and internet. Consequently: Rent or Mortgage Payment: R0. Cellphone: Approx R100/year. Home Maintenance: R0. Food: R0. Clothing: Secondhand: R200/year. Laundry: R0. Medical/Dental: R0 (Eat and live healthy & embrace death: be fully alive) Transportation: R0 (Pedal power) Recreation: R0 (Internet) Insurance: R0 Taxes: R0. Installment Payments: R0. Alimony: R0 / Other: R0. Regular Expenses: Bicycle service, broken bucket, etc): Approx: R200/year. Total: Approx: R50 per year; about R40 per month. [26] I expect no major changes in my monthly income or expenses, or in my assets or liabilities for the next 12 months. [27] I will not be paying an attorney any money for services in connection with this case. [28] I will not be paying anyone other than an attorney any money for services in connection with this case.

INVOKING CULTURAL LAW: “Judges do not enter public office as ideological virgins. They ascend the Bench with built in and often strongly held sets of values, preconceptions, opinions and prejudices. These are invariably expressed in the decisions they give, constituting „inarticulate premises‟ in the process of judicial reasoning”. -Edwin Cameron, Judicial Accountability in South Africa (1990) “To strike a mean between the Batonka fisherman living his primitive life in some remote spot on the Zambesi, and the professor at the University College of Rhodesia, is to set a task even an arch-exponent of the „reasonable man test‟ would shrink from attempting”. (R v Nkomo 1964 (3) SA 128 (SR) on 131 per Beadle CJ) “There is no doubt that equality is a component of justice, just as independence and impartiality are. All three require that judges take into account the social context of facts and law in order to render justice since people are contextual as much as law is … without social context, there is no

justice.” - Honourable Claire L‟Heureux-Dubé SCC, ret., Address to NJI, “Social Context: It is Not Law?” Montreal, 2003

Multicultural South Africa’s Right to Invocation of Cultural Law: [29] The South African Constitution is founded on the Apartheid premise that South Africa is a multicultural country, hence neither common law, nor cultural customary law are prima facie applicable in any dispute before any court. The Constitution provides for all citizens rights to invoke8 cultural law9 in S. 15(3)10, 3011, 3112, and 1813. When any party invokes cultural law, the court is required to proceed in terms of application of choice of law rules, to determine the applicability of one or other legal system, or combination thereof, on the basis of its inquiry into the relevant parties particular cultures, as determined from their lifestyles14. [30] For example: In Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others15 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 Mapalala16, who said that the animal‘s death was quick, unpainful and that no blood was shed. (Others disagreed17: Mapalala‘s expert 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. 9 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.‘ 10 Freedom of Religion, Belief and Opinion http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#15 11 Language and Culture http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#30 12 Culture, Religious & Linguistic Comm: http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#31 13 Freedom of Association http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#18 14 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.‖ 15 Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 Dec 2009) 16 Mkhize: Bull-killing ruling promotes cultural tolerance, M&G, 04 Dec 2009; Court Clears Ritual, Bare Handed Killing of a Bull – Does the Judgement Threaten Wider Environmental Problems?, Dave Harcourt, Eco-Localizer, 6 Dec 2009; S.A. Judge Compares Zulu Bull-Killing to Holy Communion, by C Szabo, 2 Dec 2009, Digital Journal; [www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 17 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 8

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.‖18). [31] 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 circumstances19. [32] Pivotal to the invocation of cultural law in South African courts is the constitution as the supreme law of the land. Section 15 of the constitution entrenches the right of everyone to freedom of religion, belief and opinion. Section 9 (the equality clause) outlaws any discrimination inter alia on account of religion, conscience, belief and culture. Section 36 (the limitation clause) states that no right is absolute and may be limited if it is inter alia reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Constitutional interpretation by the country‘s Constitutional court also dictates that there is a duty on the courts in general to develop the South African common law with reference to the constitutional values20.21 [33] It would therefore appear as though the constitution could be seen as a motivating force for the formal recognition of the invocation of cultural law albeit in context/and balance of the limitation clause. 22 [34] It is submitted that the South African legal system (through the constitution) in recognition of cultural pluralism, advances a strong argument for the formalisation of the invocation of cultural law for individuals from all South Africa‘s cultures. In accepting/recognising/formalising the invocation of cultural law in South African law, universalism is ousted in favour of cultural specificity, 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] 18 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, Eco-Localizer, 6 December 2009 [PDF: www.scribd.com/doc/34458079] 19Smit 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). 20 See Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security 2002 (1) SACR 79 (CC). 21 The Cultural Defense in Criminal Law: South African Perspectives, by Prof. Pieter A Carstens, Professor of Criminal and Medical Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Pretoria Pretoria, 0002, South Africa, Associate Member of the Pretoria Bar. 22 Ibid: The Cultural Defense in Criminal Law: South African Perspectives, by Prof. Pieter A Carstens

cultural pluralism, equality and individualised justice. It is notably with regard to the element of intention, elements of unlawfulness, capacity, element of fault, etc, that cultural laws will in all probability find application. 23 [35] The invocation of cultural law no doubt offers new challenges to South African courts, to balance justice and cultural pluralism. Ultimately the effective application of the defence will be in the hands of the judiciary objectively and free from their own cultural preconceptions and prejudices.24

RIGHT TO CULTURALLY QUALIFIED LEGAL REPRESENTATION: [36] The Constitution rights to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18, implies that if a court insists that a particular party be represented by a licensed legal representative, in making an argument before that court, that such party have the right to be represented by a legal representative culturally qualified (i.e. willing to set aside their own cultural preconceptions and prejudices) to accurately represent the cultural issues raised before the court, on behalf of their client, in the particular matter. [37] Any party invoking cultural law, before any court, should have the right to represent themselves Pro Se; especially, if or where: 1. None of the Law Societies or Bar Associations are capable of informing the party, of any attorney or advocate who is capable of, and willing to, accurately culturally represent that individual, in accordance to her cultural practices; and/or 2. The South African Media‘s actively discriminates against the parties culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the particular – in this matter Radical Honesty -- culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, including in a current case before the Constitutional Court; and/or 3. The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (―CRL Rights Comm‖) endorses the SA Legal establishment‘s denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to the party, and (b) the South African Media‘s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture. [38] The applicant has made the following attempts to ascertain whether there are any lawyers or advocates, or civil rights non-govermental organisations, in 23 24

Ibid: The Cultural Defense in Criminal Law: South African Perspectives, by Prof. Pieter A Carstens Ibid: The Cultural Defense in Criminal Law: South African Perspectives, by Prof. Pieter A Carstens

South Africa, willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture. South African Law Societies, Bar Associations, Media Editors and the CRL Rights Commission Endorse Denial of Cultural Legal Representation to Radical Honesty culture: [39] On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application for Review of the Supreme Court of Appeal ‗Kill Boere Hate Speech‘ Mediation Agreement entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA. On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met certain ‗Rules of the Court‘ (PDF25), of finding legal representation. [40] On 06 December 2012, I filed ―Appeal of Concourt Registrar’s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al‖ (PDF26), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar, requesting a Constitutional Court declaratory order confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture. [41] Therein I request leniency from the Justices for these ‗Rules of Court‘, in that I am a Pro Se Radical Honesty PP4PP culture applicant, and I cannot find any lawyer to represent me, I have not been able to find any lawyer to represent me for the past ten years, because there are no lawyers or Advocates in South Africa who are willing to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture. As proof, I I contacted the following Law Societies and Bar Associations to enquire whether they knew of any lawyer willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture: Legal Aid: Chair Vidhu Vedalankar (PDF27) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: (PDF28) | Cape Law Society (PDF29) | Cape Bar Council (PDF30) | Free State Law Society (PDF31) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF32) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF33) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF34) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF35) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF36) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal

sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_concourtregistrar_letter_to_lara_johnstone.pdf 26 sqswans.weebly.com/06-dec-app-reg.html 27 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-29_legal_aid-vidhu_vedalankar.pdf 28 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_g_jhb_bar_assoc__pf_louw.pdf 29 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_cape_law_society.pdf 30 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/_12-11-30_cape_bar_council.pdf 31 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_law_society.pdf 32 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_free_state_soc_of_advocates.pdf 33 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_general_counsel_of_bar_of_sa_-_exec_sec.pdf 34 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_h_kzn_law_society.pdf 35 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_law_society_of_south_africa.pdf 36 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-11-30_pretoria_society_of_advocates.pdf 25

- Dbn (PDF37) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF38) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF39). [42] I also submitted a Press Release to the SA Press Association (SAPA) Wire, to attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer (SAPA and SA Editors refused to publish it, saying it is ‗not news‘, that I am unable to find a lawyer to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture). [43] SAPA published the Press Release to their ‗news wire‘, but did not write a SAPA news story about it, which they generally do. Lawyers do not read the ‗news wire‘, they read the newspapers. I telephoned SAPA to find out why they did not write a story about it, whereupon the SAPA Journalist informed me that it was ―not news‖, that a member of the Radical Honesty culture cannot find a lawyer and is denied access to SA court‘s. When I asked why other SA media publications did not publish it, she said she thought, they also probably think it is ―not news‖. [44] I then wrote an email to all of the Editors, asking them whether they ―believe that the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court, is ―not news‖?‖ [45] None of them responded and none of them published a story to inform SA lawyers that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court. [46] There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Concourt Justices to my Radical Honesty culture appeal of the Registrar‘s decisions. [47] On 11 December 2012, I filed two complaints with the CRL Rights Commission: 1. Complaint: Discrimination and Denial of Access to Courts for member of Radical Honesty culture, by Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF40). 2. CRL Rights Comm Complaint: SAPA & SA Media Editors Discrimination Against member of Radical Honesty culture (PDF41)

sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_c_adv-soc-kzn-dbn.pdf sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-06_concourt_justices_encl_b_adv-soc-kzn-pmb.pdf 39 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1206_concourt_justices_encl_i_law_soc_of_n_prov_m_van_niekerk.pdf 40 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 37 38

[48] On 04 February, I sent a reminder to the CRL Rights Commission authorities requesting a status report as to my aforementioned complaints, in terms of CRL Rights Commission's procedures for 'ensuring that the rights of a community are protected', as detailed under: 4.1. Screening of Complaint, and 4.2 Complaints handling. [49] I also telephoned the CRL Rights Commission, and was informed by the receptionist to speak to a lady named Baqlolile (spelling?). I called at least 5 times, and every time the receptionist put me through to Baqlolile, I would ask to confirm whether I was speaking to the right person, and she would refuse to confirm her name, and put down the phone. [50] On 06 February 2013, I received an acknowledgement of receipt for my SAPA and SA Media Editors, discrimination complaint, from Mrs. Makgoba. [51] There has been no response from the CRL Rights Commission to my Discrimination and Denial of Access to Courts for member of Radical Honesty culture, by Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF42). [52] On 07 February 2013, Ms Makgoba ruled that ―the commission has taken strive to analyse your complaint with regard to the above subject matter. Based on the fact that you have been unable to state cultural or religious or linguistic right that has been violated, except for quoting the constitutional provisions, the commission has concluded therefore that your matter falls outside the commission's mandate. Accordingly the commision has dismissed your matter and proceed to close the file.‖ [53] On 07 February 2013, I filed an appeal of CRL Rights Commission, Mrs. Makgoba‘s ruling, to Rev. Dr. Wesley Mabuza, the CRL Rights Commission Chair: Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SAPA & SA Media: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 07 February ruling (PDF43): ―Request Confirmation CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Mr. Mabuza endorses Mrs. K. Makgoba‘s Ruling authorizing (a) the CRL Rights Commission‘s and SA Legal establishment‘s endorsement of the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media‘s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her,

sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-12-11_crlrightscomm_complaint_sapa__sa_media_encla.pdf 42 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/12-1211_crlrightscomm_complaint_concourt_registrar.pdf 43 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_crl-rights-comm_ref_9-1-1-1-46_rh-v-sapasamedia_enclabc.pdf 41

as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court. International Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Independent Observation & Monitoring: [54] On 12 December 2012, I wrote a letter to Mark Ellis, the Executive Director of the International Bar Association; requesting the IBA to provide Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process - or provide written reasons for their refusal -- a Pro Se application, from a member of the Radical Honesty culture, (II) who is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is ‗not news‘ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa. [55] On 07 February 2013, I also filed requests to Amnesty International (PDF44) and Human Rights Watch (PDF45), to ―Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation of my Radical Honesty culture appeal of South African Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Comm) Ruling to Endorse Denying me Access to Legal Representation & Courts, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in current Concourt case: Alien v. Afriforum et al (CRL Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: RH v SAPA & SA Editors)‖.

FOREIGN LAW: PRO SE: RIGHT TO SELF REPRESENTATION: [56] Pro se legal representation means advocating on one's own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer. This may occur in any court proceeding, whether one is the defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, and when one is a defendant in criminal cases. Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf". This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per"). In England and Wales the comparable status is that of "litigant in person". [57] In the United States, many state court systems and the federal courts are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se litigants.46 According to the National Center for State Courts 2006 report, estimates of the pro se rate of family sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_amnesty-international_ind-monitorobserv_crlr-comp_encl.pdf 45 sqswans.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/8/7/13878165/13-02-07_human-rights-watch_ind-monitorobserv_crlrc_enc.pdf 46 Madelynn Herman (September 25, 2006). "Self-Representation: Pro Se Statistics". National Center for State Courts. 44

law overall averaged 67% in California, 73% in Florida's large counties, and 70% in some Wisconsin counties. 47 In San Diego, for example, the number of divorce filings involving at least one pro se litigant rose from 46% in 1992 to 77% in 2000, in Florida from 66% in 1999 to 73% in 2001.48 California reports in 2001 that over 50% of family matters filings in custody and visitation are by pro se litigants.49 In the U.S. Federal Court system for the year 2010 approximately 26% of actions filed, 93% of prisoner petitions and 10.5% of non-prisoner petitions were filed by pro se litigants.50 Defendants in political trials tend to participate in the proceedings more than defendants in non-political cases, as they may have greater ability to depart from courtroom norms to speak to political and moral issues.51 [58] The right to represent oneself in United States federal courts can be traced to medieval England. In 1215, the Magna Carta raised the possibility of selfrepresentation, announcing that ―[t]o no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.‖52 Since the American legal system preserved much of the British common law system, it is unsurprising that the ability to proceed pro se was established early in U.S. history. [59] The Judiciary Act of 1789 proclaimed ―[t]hat in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively.‖53 Congress ultimately incorporated the right to proceed pro se into the United States Code, adopting much of the language of the Judiciary Act of 1789.54 Thus, federal civil litigants have a statutory right to pursue their claims either individually or with the assistance of counsel.21 [60] In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that "[i]n the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel.'" Madelynn Herman (September 25, 2006). Madelynn Herman (September 25, 2006). 49 Trends in Pro Se Litigation, 50 US Courts: "Civil Pro Se And Non-Pro Se Filings, by District, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2010". 51 Barkan, Steven E. (1976-1977), Political Trials and the Pro Se Defendant in the Adversary System, 24, Soc. Probs., pp. 324 52 MAGNA CARTA art. XL (1215). 53 JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 § 35 (1789), available at http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm. 54 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (2005). 47 48

[61] Most U.S. states have a constitutional provision that either expressly or by interpretation allows individuals to represent their own causes in the courts of that state. In many instances, state constitutional provisions regarding the right to petition the government for redress of grievances have been so interpreted. [62] The U.S. Judiciary Act, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,55 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure address the rights of the self-represented litigant in several places. [63] Section 1654 of title 28 of the United States Code provides: "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein." [64] Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also impact pro se litigants. For example, The State of California Judicial Council has addressed through published materials the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to self-represented litigants.56 The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertence by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. The Judicial Council justifies this position based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."57 It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" and says "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's specific accommodations have gone too far".The committee notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56 on summary judgements notes that "Many courts take extra care with pro se litigants, advising them of the need to respond and the risk of losing by summary judgment if an adequate response is not filed. And the court may seek to reassure itself by some examination of the record before granting summary judgment against a pro se litigant."58 [65] Starting November 1, 2011, the Federal Court for the Central District of California has allowed pro se litigants to get an Electronic Filing Account (ECF) from the Clerk's Office without getting permission from their judge. All they have

Guide to Judiciary Policy: Ethics and Judicial Conduct: Ch 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf 56 John Greacen, Greacen Associates LLC "Ethical Issues for Judges in Handling Cases with SelfRepresented Litigants" courtinfo.ca.gov 57 Ibid (quoting Gamet v. Blanchard) 58 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States#cite_note-9 55

to do is send in the form, have a PACER account, and provide a valid email address. 5960 [66] According to a June 2012 report from U.S. Courts, thirty seven of the ninety four federal districts allow pro se litigants to use ECF.61 US Legal Consumers Pro Se Representation Justifications: [67] According to the 1996 report on pro se by University of Maryland Law School, 57% of pro se said they could not afford a lawyer, 18% said they did not wish to spend the money to hire a lawyer, 21% said they believed that their case was simple and therefore they did not need an attorney.62 [68] An ABA Legal Needs Study shows that 45% of pro se believe that ―Lawyers are more concerned with their own self promotion than their client‘s best interest.‖ The ABA Legal Needs Study – Public Perceptions of Lawyers: Consumer Research Findings (PDF63) – clarifies the ‗self promotion‘ aspect as: 1. Lawyers are Greedy: Over two-thirds of respondents (69%) agree with the statement that ―lawyers are more interested in making money than in serving their clients.‖ Consumers report that lawyers are more interested in personal and financial gain than in serving either the public‘s interests or their clients‘ interests. Simply put, they believe that lawyers are motivated by greed. 2. Lawyers are Manipulative: Another common criticism is that lawyers are manipulative. They are believed to manipulate both the system and the truth. Nearly three in four respondents (73%) agree that ―lawyers spend too much time finding technicalities to get criminals released.‖ This manipulation of the system is believed to be motivated, in part, by lawyers‘ greed. Some consumers believe that it is an imperfect justice system that allows, and perhaps even encourages, lawyers to manipulate the system. Yet, because prosecutors, judges, and many politicians are also lawyers, they say that lawyers benefit from the very system they create. 3. Lawyers are Corrupt: In some instances, lawyers‘ tactics are said to border on the unethical, and even illegal. This idea does not just come from the media. Personal experiences bear it out. Consumers tell stories of http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/forms.nsf/ 0b2b50f03ce1d589882567c80058610a/1918784c9cff601b88257936005c5939/$FILE/G-80.pdf 60 http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Notice-from-the-Clerk-ProSe-ElectronicService.pdf 61 http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf p. 1 62 ACCESS TO JUSTICE IS RESTRICTED A Call For Revolution October 21, 2010, Remarks by John L. Kane, U.S. Senior District Judge, Addressed To The Faculty of Federal Advocates, Arraj U.S. Courthouse, Denver, Colorado, http://facultyfederaladvocates.org/downloads/1010_kane_accesstojustice.pdf …pp 4-5 63 http://www.cliffordlaw.com/abaillinoisstatedelegate/publicperceptions1.pdf 59

lawyers who stage accidents, send clients to doctors for injuries they don‘t have, and even offer to pay off judges or prosecutors. Some of these stories have the ring of ―urban myth,‖ but these respondents say that they are real experiences. Consumers also view with suspicion the connections that lawyers have. They say that lawyers are intimately connected to politics, judges and law enforcement, and believe these connections are as important to lawyers' success as the skills that lawyers have. 4. Lawyers Don't Police Themselves: This distrust about lawyers‘ connections also extends to images about professional self-regulation. Consumers say that lawyers do a poor job of policing each other. Just onequarter of respondents (26%) agree with the statement, ―the legal profession does a good job of disciplining lawyers.‖ The American Bar Association is viewed as an ―Old Boys Network,‖ more similar to a union or club than a professional association. Consumers feel that they have no recourse if their attorney fails to properly represent them. While they acknowledge that some bad attorneys give the rest of the profession a bad name, they blame the entire profession for not keeping its house clean. [69] I was unable to find any studies by South African Universities or Bar Associations to measure consumer confidence related to their Access to Justice, or the South African Judicial Systems‘ concerns regarding the perception of the Justice system by its consumers. The South African Justice system appears to be totally and utterly uninterested in consumer research to determine how its legal representatives actions are perceived by South African citizens. [70] Consequently, I am only able to rely upon my own experiences with Legal Representatives and the South African Justice system; the culmination thereof – failure to obtain cultural legal representation from SA Legal Societies, Bar Associations, or CRL Rights Commission, and the SA media‘s endorsemtn of this reality – being full agreement with the conclusions of Americans, of their Judicial System: South African Lawyers are Greedy, Manipulative, Corrupt and unable to Police themselves. [71] So far, my experience has shown that South African Jurists and Legal Representatives are not even remotely concerned enough about how they are perceived to do consumer research to determine how they are perceived; neither to grant those who are unhappy with the quality of service of their legal representation; the related rights and consequent due process ‗Pro Se Rules of Court‘ privileges – to represent themselves Pro Se. South African Jurists: Any Credible Justice and Truth Seekers; or all Greedy, Manipulative, Corrupt and incapable of Policing the South African Legal Profession?

[72] When a South African Judge is faced with a party before him, invoking cultural law; and the reality that s/he is incapable of ordering the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (―CRL Rights Comm‖) to provide the Registrar with a list of South African Attorneys and Advocates, who are culturally qualified to legally represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture, ITO S 185: Function of the Commission64; for the Registrar to issue an In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Referral to such ‗Radical Honesty culture‘ qualified attorney, on behalf of the Applicant, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 1(a) of Rule 40 of the High Court; because: 1. None of the Law Societies or Bar Associations are capable of informing the party, of any attorney or advocate who is capable of, and willing to, accurately culturally represent that individual, in accordance to her cultural practices; and/or 2. The South African Media‘s actively discriminates against the parties culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the particular – in this matter Radical Honesty -- culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, including in a current case before the Constitutional Court; and/or 3. The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (―CRL Rights Comm‖) endorses the SA Legal establishment‘s denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to the party, and (b) the South African Media‘s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture. [73] s/he can choose to be a credible Justice and Truth Seeker, to restore South African Jurists and Jurisprudence credibility in the eyes of that culture, and other cultures observing this injustice by demonstrating their commitment to Police their own profession; or s/he can choose to follow the herd in their path of Greed, Manipulation, Corruption, lacking the integrity and backbone to police the South African legal profession.

RADICAL HONOURSTY CULTURE: [74] An assessment of the invocation of cultural law in South African court proceedings necessitates an understanding of the relevant cultural worldview – in this case Radical Honoursty culture -- and practices in South Africa. [75] The Radical Honoursty culture is a combination of Radical Honesty cultural practices, combined with EcoCentric (a) CommonSism ideological perspectives, and (b) EcoFeminist matriarchal – among others, such as the Mosuo – problem solving practices and ecological principles.

RADICAL HONESTY CULTURE: Joining the Radical Honesty Culture: [76] I joined the Radical Honesty culture and religion in 1999, after reading Dr. Blanton‘s book Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling the Truth, going to one of his workshops; and learning how to be specific about my anger, and to share it honourably face-to-face to the individual I was angry with; with the commitment of remaining in the conversation until sincere sensate forgiveness had occurred. [77] I am the only member of the Radical Honesty 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 Forgiveness; as excerpted from: Practicing Radical Honesty. 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. [78] 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‘; (3) Pope of the Radical Honesty Futilitarian Church; i.e. ―Dr. Truth‖; and (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. The Radical Honesty cult’s Aim to Take Over the World for Honesty: [79] Dr. Blanton asserts Radical Honesty is a cult (a small culture) and he wants to take over the world: i.e. create a more honest transparent world. [80] Founder and CEO: Brad Blanton65: the Radical Honesty website describes Dr. Blanton as follows: Dr. Brad Blanton is a psychotherapist, author and seminar leader. He describes himself as “white trash with a Ph.D.” Armed with quick wit and an engaging Southern accent, he speaks with an unwavering honesty that is both disarming and challenging, a quality that has earned him admirers as well as detractors. His first book, Radical Honesty: How To Transform Your Life By Telling The Truth, became a nation wide best seller in 1996 and has been translated into seven languages. The new revised edition was just released by Sparrowhawk Publications in April 2005. His second book, Practicing Radical Honesty: How to Complete the Past, Live in the Present and Build a Future with A Little Help From Your Friends, about the relationship between personal transformation and social transformation, is the first cause of his current candidacy for congress. In 2002, consistent with that same theme, he published Honest to God: A Change of Heart that Can Change the World (with Neale Donald Walsch). Also in 2002 he published Radical Parenting: Seven Steps to a Functional Family in a Dysfunctional World, which is about child rearing, and Brad says it is the most radical book he has ever written. In 2004 he edited and published The Truthtellers: Stories Of Success By Radically Honest People which is made up of inspiring stories of what happened to people from all walks of life, who read Brad‟s books or graduated from his eight day residential Workshop called The Course in Honesty , when they tried being honest in the real world. His first novel, Beyond Good and Evil: The Eternal SplitSecond Sound-Light Being was released in the summer of 2005. Brad‟s most recent book, The Korporate Kannibal Kookbook, was released in late 2010 and proposes eating the rich in order to save the world. Brad has been interviewed on hundreds of television and radio shows in the US and abroad, including 20/20 with John Stossel, Dateline-NBC, CNN Talk Back Live, Montel Williams, Sally Jesse Raphael, Iyanla, Roseanne, and others. He has been written about

http://www.radicalhonesty.com/about/who-we-are/brad-blanton/

in Men‟s Health, Inner Self, Cosmopolitan, Family Circle, The Chicago Herald-Tribune, The Washington Post and many others. Brad earned his doctorate from the University of Texas in 1966 when he was 25 years old. He trained at Esalen Institute in California with Fritz Perls, Bob Hall and Jim Simpkin. He was founding president of the Gestalt Institute of Washington, D.C. in 1970. He spent 25 years in the private practice of clinical psychology and became the Director of The Center for Well Being in Washington, D.C. where he did psychotherapy with individuals, couples, and groups. He also served as a consultant to corporations, government and the media. In 1990 he moved to central Virginia and founded Radical Honesty Enterprises, a private corporation, and the Center for Radical Honesty, a nonprofit corporation that promotes honesty in the world. He created the Course in Honesty Eight Day Workshop and, for the last fifteen years, has conducted that and other workshops at the rate of six to ten times a year in the U.S., Canada and Europe. He has conducted workshops at the Rowe Camp and Conference Center, Omega at Rhinebeck, New York and Omega at the Crossings in Austin, Texas and other growth centers. He has conducted corporate trainings in the United States, Canada, Germany, Sweden and Denmark. Brad has spent many years as an activist in the civil rights movement (1959-1964), marching against the Vietnam war (19631972), traveling around the US and Canada as a hippie in an old school bus (1970′s) and the world (1980′s until current times) dedicating himself to honesty, self discovery and contribution to other people. This, along with being a 40-year veteran of the human potential movement, has helped him develop a unique perspective on human nature. All of these experiences helped form his views about radical honesty. He teaches that the primary cause of stress, depression and anger is, “living in a story and lying to maintain it.”

Practicing Radical Honesty FAQ: Sincerely Insult & Offend: [81] The following questions are compiled from interviews with Brad Blanton, Ph.D., and are posted on the website‘s FAQ66: Q: What is lying and why is it stressful? A: Lying is saying or withholding information in order to manipulate someone‟s opinion of you. It captures your attention by bringing your focus to the story you‟re telling, the image you‟re preserving, and the secret that you‟re hiding. You‟re no longer able to focus your attention wherever you want to focus

http://www.radicalhonesty.com/about/faq/

it; you‟re only able to focus your attention on the lies you‟re telling and the secret you‟re keeping. This captured attention creates stress. In Radical Honesty, I attempt to demonstrate that this secrecy, withholding and lying is the primary source of modern human stress, the primary cause of most anxiety and of most depression. Q: Does everyone lie? A: Yes. We are always telling some kind of story, building a case for ourselves and trying to put on a best face. We‟re trying to prove we‟re good little boys and girls and that we‟re knowledgeable. Four years ago in a nationwide survey titled “The Day America Told the Truth,” 93% of Americans admitted that they lie “regularly and habitually” at work and 35% admitted they have had or were currently having an affair which they were keeping secret from their mates. Q: Is it possible to be completely honest without hurting a person’s feelings? A: Probably not. If you are in an ongoing relationship with any person there will probably be times when you hurt their feelings. Probably the most often used rationalization for lying is “I didn‟t want to hurt anybody‟s feelings.” I recommend you hurt people‟s feelings and stay with them past the hurt. I also recommend that you offend people. We can all get over having our feelings hurt and we can get over being offended. These are not permanent conditions; they are feelings that come and go. On the other side of that reaction is a conversation in which your mutual honesty creates an intimacy not possible if you are hiding something for the sake of someone‟s feelings. Q: What if I get mad at someone’s reaction to my truth telling? A: Tell them you are mad. Say “I resent you for…” and be specific about what visible, audible part of their reaction you resent. People can actually get furious at other people and get over it in 15 or 20 minutes. People can avoid being angry at someone else for 10 or 15 or 20 years, and if they actually got angry at them, they‟d probably get over it in half an hour. Q: Do you feel we have to be honest with ourselves before we can have a relationship with someone else? A: You can‟t be “secretly” honest. Being “honest with yourself” is simply not separable from being honest with another. A person who says, “I was honest with myself, but decided not to tell…” is just another miserable liar and will have to suffer the consequences. Sharing honestly, with others present, is the way we can have an authentic relationship with another person.

Q: You require your therapy patients to go and tell the truth about things in their past to parents, siblings or spouses. Why? A: What I‟ve discovered in 25 years of working with people as a psychotherapist in Washington, DC, is that the primary source of their misery is lying. When I coached them to clean up their act and tell the truth they had a hard time going through it, but right on the other side of that hard time they were no longer depressed, they were no longer anxious-they were happier. They had their relationship worked out or a new job with a promotion. They had a brand new relationship with their spouse or a better relationship with their family. What actually occurs is that when you open up and share by telling the truth it frees you up from the jail of your own mind, which is the source of all human stress anyway. It‟s also just simply more efficient not to work so hard at all those poses. Q: In the case of someone who was abused as a child, they are supposed to go back to their parents-and their parents are 70 years old- and tell them they resent the abuse? A: You‟re damn right. I often have people bring parents in such cases into my office and tell them in front of me. We have twohour sessions with the parent and the child. The child begins first by asking the parent to keep quiet and listen. Then the child tells them everything that they specifically remember that they resent and everything that they appreciate. If there‟s something that they did, like they stole the car at two a.m. when they were 16 and took it out and got a dent in the front fender and brought it back and covered it over and got by with it, I have them tell the truth about it and other things they got by with too. And then I coach the parents to tell the truth to their child about what they resent and what they appreciate. And it works out quite well. It works out for a renewed relationship between the parent and child. As long as there are hidden issues and agendas and feelings, you can never be yourselves with each other. Q: Why do people have such a hard time being honest about sex? A: For people to be honest about their sexuality is one of the big hurdles for everyone to get over because sexuality is such a taboo subject. I tell people when I‟m attracted to them and they tell me when they are attracted to me to make sure that nothing is going on disacknowledged, that is, an avoidance of reporting feelings which is what we‟re trying to cure. Q: Suppose you met someone whom you found unattractive. How do you handle that?

A: If the person‟s outstandingly ugly, then that‟s an issue I‟m certainly going to bring up to talk about right off. I would say, “I think you look kind of ugly and this is what I think is ugly. I think that big wart on the left side of your face is probably something that puts people off and that you don‟t have much of a love life, is that true?” Then we‟ll have a conversation about it. That ugly person has probably always felt the negative unexpressed reaction from people. The idea is that they end up not avoiding the damn thing instead of living a life that‟s dancing on egg shells. They live life out loud and it‟s a whole lot better life.

Practicing Radical Honesty: Motive of Forgiveness: The motive for practicing radical honesty, by informing others of our honest possibly insulting or offensive opinions is forgiveness.

[82]

Practicing Radical Honesty: Social Transformation Movement: [83] A primary goal of Dr. Blanton‘s and Radical Honesty‘s Revolution of Consciousness is not only individual transformation from lying to telling the truth, but also social transformation: social institutions learning how to give up addiction to lying, public relations image management, in favour of sincerity: telling the truth. “The work is to correct financial institutions lying, health care institutions lying, the justice system lying. Allot of the fundamental problems of our society is not just individual lying, but institutional lying.” – Brad Blanton on KSWB FOX 5 San Diego, “Reviewing the Occupy Movement” on March 8, 201267

COMMONSISM: PROCREATION & CONSUMPTION LIFESTYLE: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws for a Sustainable Commons [84] Guerrylla Law -- or CommonSism (Common Sense Laws for a Sustainable Commons) -- is an ideology founded upon the Taker vs. Leaver ideas of the gorrilla Ishmael, in Daniel Quinn's books: Ishmael and My Ishmael; and the Tragedy of the Commons ideas, as enunciated by Garrett Hardin. [85] CommonSism Guerrylla Laws regulate human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, by means of legally defining the procreation and consumption

http://www.radicalhonesty.com/press/videos/reviewing-the-occupy-movement-on-kswb-fox-5-san-diegoon-march-8-2012/ 67

difference, and consequent related Sustainable Rights/Penalties, between a Leaver and a Taker, to ensure sustainability. [86] CommonSism asserts that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from the Consumptionist Left and Right Wing's war against nature, and the failures of Anthropocentric Jurisprudence. [87] Ecological Overshoot is a consequence of all other capitalist and communist ideologies and their adherents failure to legally (a) define the difference between sustainable and unsustainable procreation and consumption behaviour; and (b) provide legal rights to sustainable practices, and legal penalties to unsustainable individuals, corporations and organisations. [88] CommonSismâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Guerrylla Laws must (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of an Unsustainable Taker (Scarcity Combatant) vs a Sustainable Leaver (Eco-Innocent); (B) be used in courts to (a) provide legal rights and socio-political rewards of recognition to Sustainable Leaver's for their Heroic Peacenik lifestyle choices and practices; (b) confront Taker Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity induced socio-economic problems, by means of aggravated legal penalties, in direct proportion to their 'Taker Scarcity Combatant' status. [89] Guerrylla Laws define the Eco/Ego Footprint68 procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as a Sustainable Leaver (aka Eco-Innocent) or Unsustainable Taker (aka Scarcity-Combatant), based upon a sustainable consumption bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha)69 (60 % of 1.8 gha)70 in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan71; multiplied by an individuals Breeding footprint factor of 20 per child. EcoFootprint: The difference between the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint of a region or country. A biocapacity deficit occurs when the Footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available to that population. If there is a regional or national biocapacity deficit, it means that the region is importing biocapacity through trade or liquidating regional ecological assets. Global biocapacity deficit cannot be compensated through trade, and is overshoot. 69 Sustainable Footprint Biocapacity: A biocapacity of 1 gha assumes that 40% of land is set aside for other species. 1 gha is 60 % of 1.8 gha, therefore .8 hectares is set aside for other species. 70 International Biocapacity: In 2006, the average biologically productive area (biocapacity) per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. In 2008, there were ~ 12 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on Earth. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year (6.7 billion) gives 1.79 global hectares per person. This assumes that no land is set aside for other species that consume the same biological material as humans. If for example, there were only 3.5 billion people alive that year, that would have provided everyone with 3.5 gha. If there were only 1 billion people, their would be 12gha biocapacity for each persons needs. 71 Bhutan Proactive Conservation: Bhutan is seen as a model for proactive conservation initiatives. The Kingdom has received international acclaim for its commitment to the maintenance of its biodiversity. 68

[90] Sustainable Leaver / Eco-Innocent: 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20); or 1 child, consumption < 1 gha. [91] Unsustainable Taker / Scarcity-Combatant: 0 children, consumption > 20 gha; or 1 child, consumption > 1 gha. [92] For example: My Consumption Footprint72 using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 12.75 global hectares (gha). South Africa's average consumption footprint is 38.59 gha. I have no children, consequently my procreation factor is 0 x 20* = 0. [(Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 2073)]. My Consumption (12.75) x Procreation (0) = Eco Footprint of 12.75/0 gha. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like me, we would need 0.81 earths.74 Conversely, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Jacob Zuma, we would need 2090 earths75. [93] Sustainable Security: Sustainability is Security: ―There is no security without sustainability‖76: In the absence of an international new moral order77 where Ecocentric laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; ―overpopulation‖78 and resource scarcity79 will result in conflict and war80 (perhaps nuclear81) confronting regions at an accelerated pace82, and ―collapse This is reflected in the decision to maintain at least sixty percent of the land area under forest cover, to designate more than 40% of its territory as national parks, reserves and other protected areas, and most recently to identify a further nine percent of land area as biodiversity corridors linking the protected areas. Environmental conservation has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy, the middle path. It is not treated as a sector but rather as a set of concerns that must be mainstreamed in Bhutan's overall approach to development planning and to be buttressed by the force of law. - "Parks of Bhutan". Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation online. Bhutan Trust Fund. 72 http://myfootprint.org/en/your_results/?id=2559685 73 Paul Murtaugh (7-31-09): Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis, Oregon University http://sqswans.weebly.com/child--ecofootprint-x-20.html 74 http://sqworms.weebly.com/lara-johnstone-eco-081.html 75 President Zuma‘s consumption footprint using Sustainable Economy's Myfootprint.org quiz, is 65.66 global hectares (gha). President Zuma‘s Procreation Factor is 500 [President Zuma has 25 children. His procreation footprint factor is 25 x 20* = 500. (Each Child increases a parents footprint by factor of 20 )]. President Zuma‘s Net Consumption & Procreation Footprint is 33280 gha [Consumption (65.66) x Procreation (500) = Net Footprint of 33280 gha]. If accurate, if everyone consumed and procreated like President Zuma, we would need 2,090 earths. http://sqworms.weebly.com/jacob-zuma-ego-2090.html 76 Murphy (2006/10/24); Linkola (2009) 77 Hardin (1968/12/13); 1996: US Army War College: Parameters: The Culture of Future Conflict: Overpopulation & Resource Scarcity will be the Direct Cause of Confrontation, Conflict, and War: Major Ralph Peters | US Army War College: Parameters | Winter 1995-96, pp. 18-27.: ―Resource scarcity will be a direct cause of confrontation, conflict, and war. The struggle to maintain access to critical resources will spark local and regional conflicts that will evolve into the most frequent conventional wars of the next century. Gross overpopulation will destroy fragile possibilities for progress in much of the nonWestern world, and much of this problem is the West's fault. .. Basic resources will prove inadequate for populations exploding beyond natural limits, and we may discover truths about ourselves that we do not wish to know. In the end, the greatest challenge may be to our moral order.‖ 78 Hardin G (1991); Simmons, M (2000/09/30) 79 Koppel (2000); US Joint Forces Command (2010/02/18); Parthemore (2010/09/27); US Army & TRADOC (2012); Peters (1996) 80 Peters (1996); Bush (1986/02); Homer-Dixon (1993)

of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy‖83 by 205084. Consumptionism: Consumption Vanity Disorder: “Consumptionism: where State considers an individuals importance in terms of consumption, not citizenship” – The Century of the Self, Adam Curtis "We must shift America from a needs to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire. To want new things even before the old have been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America." - Paul Mazer “Cultural Capitalism: where the very act of egotist consumption, already includes the price for its opposite.” – Slavoy Zizek

[94] Consumption-Vanity Disorder85 is a disease spread not through a mutating virus or genetic predisposition – but through cultural ―Memes‖ – turning the world into a reflection of the advertising images broadcast daily by 90% of all media - a world of mini-malls, fashion obsessions, fake tits and belligerent gadgetry. [95] 1924: Samuel Strauss: Consumptionism: science of compelling men to use more and more things: Samuel Strauss was a journalist and philosopher writing in the 1920s. The November 1924 issue of The Atlantic Monthly carried Strauss' signature essay, "'Things Are in the Saddle.'" Following nineteenth century American transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose ode he quotes, Strauss contemplates the empire of "things" and the ethics of "consumptionism" he felt had overtaken the country. He defines "consumptionism" as "the science of compelling men to use more and more things." [96] Strauss was of the opinion that, despite their differences, both capitalism and socialism were moving society in the same damnable direction, in a competition to see "which can ensure the distribution of the most goods to the people." [97] Samuel Strauss suggested the term consumptionism to characterize this new way of life that, he said, created a person with ―a philosophy of life that committed human beings to the production of more and more things—―more this year than last year, more next year than this‖—and that emphasized the ―standard Hardin (1968/12/13) United States Army & TRADOC (2012) 83 Schultz (2010/09/01) 84 Clugston (2012): Preface, pg. ix 85 Consumption Vanity Disorder: http://youtu.be/iKkEjl-RSfc 81 82

of living‖ above all other values. [98] 1929: Keep the Consumer Dissatisfied - Charles Kettering, General Motors Research Director, in Nations Business: Charles Kettering wrote that: ―We hear people complaining because of new models in automobiles. If it were not for these new models these same people would be paying more for what they have. Recognition of the fact that progress is inevitable forces us to recognize that we must have improvements in motor cars. We, as manufacturers, must offer those improvements after they have been found to be capable improvements. The public buys and disposes of what it has. The fact that it is able to dispose of what it has enables us, as producers, to put a lower price tag on the new model. The law of economy in mass production enters here. We are permitted to turn out cars in volume because there is a market for them. If automobile owners could not dispose of their cars to a lower buying strata they would have to wear out their cars with a consequent tremendous cutting in the yearly demand for automobiles, a certain increase in production costs, and the natural passing along of these costs to the buyer. If everyone were satisfied, no one would buy the new thing because no one would want it. The ore wouldn't be mined; timber wouldn't be cut. Almost immediately hard times would be upon us.‖ [99] In The Century of the Self, Adam Curtis‗ BBC documentary documents how Edward Bernays86, the father of "Public Relations"87, developed public relations, by using his Uncle Sigmund Freud‗s discoveries concerning the unconscious "primitive sexual and aggressive forces" 88, to change the focus of advertising from the facts of a product89, to implying the product would fulfill the individuals psychological/sexual insecurities90 (Insecurity about small penis: purchase a large car91; Female penis envy insecurity: start smoking92). "Public Relations‗ worked to psychologically engineer and manipulate citizens into the "All Consuming Self": the illusionary belief the power is finally in their hands, they live in a "democracy"93; they are in charge94, while their sense of identity is

Curtis (2002): The Century of the Self (01/04) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo ".. If you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace .. propaganda got to be a bad word .. so I found another word .. public relations" (07:15-08:39) 88 "A hundred years ago, a new theory of human nature was put forward by Sigmund Freud. He had discovered, primitive sexual and aggressive forces, hidden deep inside the minds of all human beings" (00:10-21, 04:28-05:47, 09:10-10:20) 89 ".. a products practical virtues, nothing more" (15:40-16:10) 90 "He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn‗t need, by linking mass produced goods to their unconscious desires." (01:21) 91 ".. tell car companies, they could sell cars as symbols of male sexuality" (14:20, 18:45-19:00) 92 "Bernays set out to experiment with the minds of the popular classes .. "cigarettes were a symbol of the penis and of male sexual power" .. "connect smoking cigarettes to idea of challenging male power, women would smoke to have their own "torches of freedom" penis .. hence irrelevant objects could become powerful emotional identity symbols" (10:22-:14:25) 93 "[At Versailles] .. we worked to make the world safe for democracy.. that was the big slogan .." (07:1508:39) 86 87

subconsciously manipulated from citizen (individual authority/inner power of personal decision-making) to consumer (empty vessel addicted to consumption of external ideas and products for sense of identity and acceptance95), fueling the growth of the "Freedom is Debt-Slavery" mass-consumer society96. Cultural Capitalism: Where the very act of egotist consumption, already includes the price for its opposite: [100] In First as Tragedy, then as Farce97, Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoj Zizek shares his perspective on the problems of ‗Ethical Consumption‘: ―Like Soros, in the morning he grabs the money; in the afternoon, he gives half of the money back to charity. In today's capitalism, more and more the tendency is to bring this tendency together. So when you buy something, your anticonsumerist duty is to do something for others, for the environment and so on, is already included in the price. If you think I am exaggerating, walk around the corner, into any Starbucks coffee, and you will see how they explicitly tell you, I quote "Its not just what you are buying, its what you are buying into. When you buy starbucks, whether you realize it or not, you are buying into something bigger than a cup of coffee. You are buying into a coffee ethics. Through our Starbucks Shared Planet Program we purchase more fair trade coffee than anyone in the world, ensuring that the farmers who grow the coffee beans receive a fair price for their hard work.......‖ Its a good coffee karma. This is cultural capitalism at its purist. You don't just buy a coffee. In the very consumerist act, you buy your redemption from only being a consumerist. You do something for the environment, you do something for starving children in Guatamala. ..... For every act of consumerism, within the price you pay, you purchase your redemption. This generates almost a kind of semantic over investment or burden. Its not just buying a cup of coffee, you are fulfilling a whole series of ethical duties. This logic today is almost universalized. Why? It makes you feel warm, it makes you feel like you are doing something for … My point is that, this very interesting short circuit, where the very act of egotist consumption, already includes the price for its opposite.‖ [101] Documentaries exploring the psychological and ecological consequences of the ideology of Consumptionism include: Surplus: Terrorized into Being "Out of this would come a new political idea about how to control the masses, by satisfying people‗s inner selfish desires, one made them happy and thus docile; which was the start of the All Consuming Self .." (01:30) 95 Paul Meyser of Lehman Brothers wrote "We must shift America from a needs to a desire culture. People must be trained to desire. People must want new things before the old have been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America. Man's desire must overshadow his needs." (16:1018:03) 96 Consumptionism.. where State considers individuals importance in terms of consumption, not citizenship (20:30-20:50) 97 http://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g 94

Consumers98; On Modern Servitude99; The Good Consumer Slave100; The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Power and Profit101; Killing us Softly: Advertisings Image of Women102; Consuming Kids103; The High Price of Materialism104; Consumed: The Human Experience105; No Logo: Brands Globalization Resistance106.

COMMONSISM: ANTHROPOCENTRIC JURISPRUDENCE ERRORS: Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Social Contract: Laws of Nature Sustainable Security Constitution or Breeding/Consumption War Suicide Pact? [102] Anthropocentric ‗Rule of Law‘ courts exist, or pretend that they exist, to enable law and order, where ‗law and order‘ are considered to be a state of community relations that contribute to social conditions which reduce conflict. [103] If Anthropocentric legislation promulgates laws which contribute to social conditions of resource scarcity that increase conflict; then Anthropocentric legislation/jurisprudence cannot claim it exists to enable law and order or contributes to conditions which reduce conflict; and such legislation/jurisprudence is itself a ‗breeding war and consumption war combatant‘, upon nature and citizens who live in harmony with the laws of nature. [104] When Anthropocentric courts constitutionally endorse legislation which contribute to, or aggravate, social conditions of resource scarcity that increase conflict; their lack of courage to nullify legislation which contributes to social conditions of resource scarcity that increase conflict, implies a constitutional interpretation that endorses a Taker war upon the laws of nature and Leavers. [105] If or when a constitution is interpreted by courts as being at war upon the carrying capacity laws of nature, and those who obey the carrying capacity laws of nature (Leavers); such jurisprudence is no less than ‗breeding war and consumption war suicide freight train‘ jurisprudence, travelling full speed to its ‗suicide pact‘ collision with the Laws of Nature Ecological reality of finite resources.

http://youtu.be/bXmuWecIQos http://youtu.be/SdToaJtVNJg 100 http://youtu.be/A_ut93YYZu8 101 http://youtu.be/Y888wVY5hzw 102 http://vimeo.com/48800829 103 http://youtu.be/2XSaaQjuuK0 104 http://youtu.be/oGab38pKscw 105 http://vimeo.com/13535207 106 http://youtu.be/Lmmnknt4mCg 98 99

Anthropocentric Jurisprudence in accord with the Laws of Nature would ensure a Sustainable Social Contract Constitution: “In order to achieve this goal [of world domination], we must introduce universal suffrage beforehand, without distinctions of class and wealth. Then the masses of people will decide everything; and since it [universal suffrage] is controlled by us we will achieve through it the absolute majority, which we could never achieve if only the educated and possessing classes had the vote.” -- Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 10th Sitting, Wallstein Pub. House, ISBN 3-89244-191-x, p. 60

[106] Laws of Nature Jurisprudence refers to jurisprudence that demands a nations citizens live within the carrying capacity laws of nature, in terms of their procreation and consumption lifestyles. [107] The tragedy of the commons is the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's selfinterest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to their long-term best interests. Ecologist Garrett Hardin famously explored this social dilemma in ―The Tragedy of the Commons‖.107 [108] Social Trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole; such as for example overfishing, energy "brownout" and "blackout" power outages during periods of extreme temperatures, overgrazing on the Sahelian Desert, and the destruction of the rainforest by logging interests and agriculture. Social fence refers to a short-term avoidance behavior by individuals that leads to a long-term loss to the entire group. [109] Laws of Nature Jurisprudence recognizes that the nations resources are a ‗commons‘ and that increased population and/or consumption of resources can only occur up to the point of ‗carrying capacity‘ tipping points. Once ‗carrying capacity‘ laws of nature tipping points are breached -- Peak of Production, referred to as Peak Oil, or Peak NNR, etc -- resource scarcity occurs which – in the absence of equivalent voluntary population and consumption reduction - triggers resource war violence, which exponentially increases the problems of those tasked with ‗national security‘. [110] There is a fundamental difference between the resource war violence from temporary resource scarcity that results on the upward side of the Peak Oil/NNR resource curve, and the resource war violence on the downslope of the curve. If we use the analogy of a car collision, as the resource war violence, on the upward curve, the car has access to brakes (bring in resources from elsewhere) which 107

Johnstone (12-09-24): pg. 28-32

reduce the force of the collision (violence); on the downhill slope the car has no brakes (cannot import resources from elsewhere, Global Peak Oil), which aggravates resource scarcity similarly to a foot on the car‘s gaspedal, and no brakes, driving it faster and faster to collision, the crisis of conflict. [111] The ultimate consequences of the Tragedy of the Commons exponential growth of breeding/consumption war Takers – in the absence of a Military Coup to enact Guerrylla Laws to ensure a Sustainable Secure Constitution – is a ―Breeding War and/or Consumption War Social Contract Suicide Pact‖. [112] For a nation to avoid Takers morphing their constitution into a ―Breeding/ Consumption War Social Contract Suicide Pact‖; they must establish either a ‗Sustainable Democracy/Republic‘ Licence to Vote for Leavers, where the only individuals licensed to vote, would be those whose procreation and consumption lifestyle is below carrying capacity laws of nature (Leavers in Ishmael Language). Leavers voters refuse to elect ‗Taker Politicians‘ who steal future generations resources, by bribing ‗Taker‘ voters with corporate or individual welfare, for their own short term political status gain. Leaver voters act as a fuse to stop resource scarcity from overheating the Constitution. When resource scarcity is getting too hot, they elect stricter Leaver politicians who bring population and consumption down to a cooler level. [113] In a ‗Sustainable Democracy/Republic‘ system, no political party or politician who endorsed (a) the ―inalienable right to breed‖ (Human Farming of Economic and Military Cannon Fodder), or (b) corporate or military unsustainable use of nonrenewable natural resources; would ever be able to get elected to legislate breeding/consumption war legislation that endorsed the long term extermination of the Democracy/Republic and its resources, for short-term corporate or socio-political status profits for the Cheating Taker Politicians. Innocence Indulgences for Sale to Scarcity Combatant Profiteers of Consumptionism Anthropocentric Jurisprudence’s deliberate failure to differentiate between Ecological Procreation and Consumption Innocents (Leavers) and Combatants (Takers) [114] The 95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, is widely regarded as the primary catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. Luther considered the doctrine of Indulgences to be religious corruption. The sale by the church of indulgences (forgiveness) made the church huge profits. The archbishop of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg, sponsored such a sale in 1517 to pay the pope for his appointment to Mainz and for the construction of Saint Peter's in Rome. He selected Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, to preach the indulgences and collect the revenues. When Tetzel arrived in Saxony, Luther posted his famous 95 theses on

the door of the church of All Saints ("Castle Church"), at Univ. of Wittenberg. Copies of the 95 theses quickly spread throughout Europe and unleashed a storm of controversy. The Saxon Dominican provincial charged Luther with heresy, and he was summoned to appear in Augsburg before the papal legate, Cardinal Cajetan. Refusing to recant, he fled to Wittenberg, seeking the protection of the elector Frederick III, (Frederick the Wise) of Saxony. When the Wittenberg faculty sent a letter to Frederick declaring its solidarity with Luther, the elector refused to send Luther to Rome, where he would certainly have met imprisonment or death. [115] If Anthropocentric Jurisprudence has not been enabling, legislating on behalf of, and distributing ‗Innocence Indulgences for Sale‘ to the Scarcity Combatant Profiteers of Consumptionism; it should clarify its failure to confront what Dr. Jack Alpert refers to as Human Predicament: Better Common Sense Required: Social Conflict108, by answering the two questions Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Jurists sincerely concerned with the violent consequences of scarcity, have so far failed to ask themselves: 1. If Peace and conflict are defined not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person‘s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person. 2. There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the by-product of other people's behaviour. ‗All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,‘ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one. ‗The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,‘ and ‗The government is offering people welfare to breed more children‘ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group. 3. System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. A measure of South Africa‘s conflict is the sum of 50 million sets of intrusions. 4. Using this definition of conflict, any Anthropocentric Jurisprudence legislator or Jurist sincerely concerned about whether and how South Africa‘s socio-economic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; by determining the answers to the following questions: A. How many children per family leads to peace; or conversely how many children per family, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals‘ ‗breeding 108

youtu.be/sK8WxeGxkPk

war combatant‘ status? [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert109, the answer is one child per family] B. How much consumption relative to the nation‘s footprint carrying capacity leads to peace; or conversely how much consumption relative to the nations bio-capacity per person, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals ‗consumption combatant status‘? [116] In the absence of Anthropocentric Jurisprudence determining the answers to the aforementioned questions, and implementing Jurisprudence in accordance thereto; Dr. Alpert provides proof how Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Suicide Freight Train has as much chance of muddling through the coming ‗Falling Man Syndrome‘ (‗I‘ve fallen 90 stories in the past 5 seconds and nothing bad has happened yet‖ | ―In 200 years, our endorsement of the Inalienable Right to Breed and consume has resulted in the exponential consumption of over half of the Earth's resources, and nothing bad has happened yet...‖) Crisis of Conflict, as an individual sitting in an unbelted car crash. (Non-Linearity and Social Conflict110) [117] In Peace seekers have no plan for enduring peace111, Dr. Jack Alpert argues that Peaceniks failure to move society from conflict to peace, their establishment of never ending or honoured ―peace accords, moral codes, acts of economic justice, and environmental laws, are like traffic signals‖ which ―cause people to relinquish freedoms‖ but, ―do not stop (change) the behaviors that increase scarcity, conflict, and environmental destruction‖112: result from a faulty perception of what increases or decreases conflict. Where, peace seekers have acted as if conflict is caused by bad leadership maybe they should have acted as if trends in conflict are driven by trends in scarcity. Maybe they would have been more successful if they acted as if trends in scarcity are driven by the collective behaviors of 6 billion people. That while each individual acts benignly to achieve personal objectives the unintentional result is an increase in scarcity and conflict. Another reason for ignoring the above view of human conflict, is that peace seekers, even when successful at restraining the military or mediating hostilities, do not change our course toward conflict. They only delay it. In the process, peace seekers consume the very energy required to change the things that would make societies head toward peace.

http://sqswans.weebly.com/human-predicament.html youtu.be/W5capqGod9A 111 www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Peaceniks_Wake_up.html 112 Alpert, Jack (04/01/04): Footprint vs. Freedom: www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/Footprint_vs_freedom.html 109 110

Anthropocentric Jurisprudence’s Conflict with Ecocentric Resource Reality: Inaccurate Assumption: NNR Abundance:

Finite

“In the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite .. Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare .. I suggest that this is a good time to think soberly about our responsibilities to our descendants--those who will ring out the Fossil Fuel Age.” – Admiral Hyman Rickover, 14 May 1957113

[118] Anthropocentric114 Flat Earth Society115 Jurisprudence views the world from a firmly entrenched inaccurate anthropocentric (human-centred) perspective, where there is always a brighter future, because the implicit assumption of our anthropocentric political, economic and legal worldview is that there will always be ―enough‖ Non Renewable Natural Resources (NNR‗s) to enable a brighter future, and all politics and economics needs to concern itself with, is how to use these NNR‗s to provide ever improving material living standards for our ever-expanding global population116. From a broader Ecocentric117 Finite Resource Scarcity perspective, beyond Peak NNR118, there is no hope for a brighter future, the future is one of depletion, austerity, resource wars & socio-economic and political collapse;119 because the fundamental assumption of ever-increasing NNR‗s, underlying our limited anthropocentric jurisprudence perspective is inaccurate.120 Rickover (1957/05/14) Clugston (2012) (p.127): ―The anthropocentric perspective considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which natural resource inputs to a society‗s economy are converted into goods and services outputs (wealth creation). It also considers the philosophy, processes, and activities by which goods and services (wealth) are allocated among a society‗s population. The fundamental assumption underlying the prevailing anthropocentric perspective is that notwithstanding periodic temporary shortfalls, natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities will remain sufficient to perpetuate global industrialism indefinitely.‗ – Scarcity, Clugston Chris (pg. 127) 115 Bartlett (1993) (1996/09) (1999/01) (2002); Hardin (1999); 116 Hardin (1985); Bartlett (2006/09); Guillebaud (2007); Leahy (2003) 117 ―The ecological perspective considers natural resource inputs and natural habitat waste absorption capacities as the ultimate limiting factors governing a society‗s economic/political processes and activities, its attainable economic output (GDP) level, and its attainable level of societal wellbeing—i.e., the material living standards enjoyed by the society‗s population.‖ – Scarcity, Clugston C (127) 118 Bartlett (2006/09); Clugston (2012): Peak NNR: ―NNRs are finite; and as their name implies, NNR reserves are not replenished on a time scale that is relevant to humans. More unfortunately, economically viable supplies associated with the vast majority of NNRs that enable our industrialized way of life are becoming increasingly scarce, both domestically (US) and globally. While there will always be ―plenty of NNR‘s in the ground, there will not always be ―plenty of economically viable NNR‘s in the ground. In fact, there are ―no longer enough economically viable NNR‘s in the ground to enable continuous improvement in human societal wellbeing at historical rates.‖ –Clugston, C: Scarcity 119 Scarcity (p.4) 120 Clugston Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‗s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity, page 4 113 114

Global NNR Scarcity Analysis: Global Collapse by 2050: [119] Peak Oil is the end of cheap oil, it is the point where every barrel of oil is harder to find, more expensive to extract, and more valuable to whoever owns or controls it. As early as 2000, geological experts warned Peak Oil would occur sometime between 2000 and 2007121. Cheap oil is the oxygen of the ―economic growth‖122 global economic system and industrial food production123. [120] Domestic (US) & Global NNR Scarcity Analysis is based upon Mr. Clugston‗s124 analysis of the criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNRs, using data from USGS, EIA, BEA, BLS, Fed, CBO, FBI, IEA, UN, World Bank, etc; and concludes in general that ―absent some combination of immediate and drastic reductions in our global NNR utilization levels, ... we will experience escalating international and intranational conflicts during the coming decades over increasingly scarce NNR‗s, which will devolve into global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050.‖125 [121] Scarcity Global NNR Scarcity Analysis (pg.51-59) (pg 41-49126) summarizes global criticality and scarcity associated with each of the 89 analyzed NNR‘s: (a) An overwhelming majority, 63 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, were considered ―scarce‖ globally in 2008, immediately prior to the Great Recession; (b) A significant number, 28 of the 89 analyzed NNRs have peaked: are ―almost certain‖ to remain scarce permanently going forward; and a sizeable number, 16 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, will ―likely‖ remain scarce permanently; and (c) Global extraction/production levels associated with 39 of the 89 analyzed NNRs, are considered ―at risk‖. [122] At risk are: (a) Antimony: 8 yrs to Global Reserves exhaustion (used for starter lights ignition batteries in cars and trucks; (b) Bauxite: 40 years (only economically viable feedstock for aluminium); (c) Bismuth: 17 years (non-toxic substitute for lead in solder and plumbing fixtures); (d) Cadmium: 25 years; (e) Chromium: 26 years (stainless steel, jet engines and gas turbines); (f) Coal: 40 years (electricity generation); (g) Cobalt: 26 years (gas turbine blades, jet aircraft engines, batteries); (h) Copper: 27 years; (i) Fluorspar: 23 years (feedstock for fluorine bearing chemicals, aluminium and uranium processing); (j) Graphite (Natural): 23 years; (k) Iron Ore: 15 years (only On February 11, 2006 Deffeyes claimed world oil production peaked on December 16, 2005 Deffeyes (2006): "The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground." 123 Ruppert (2004): p.24: ―We eat oil. It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed.‗ 124 Clugston, Chris: Scarcity: Humanity‗s Final Chapter: The realities, choices and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource scarcity (Booklocker.com Inc 2012). Scarcity is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the realities, choices, and likely outcomes associated with ever-increasing non-renewable natural resource (NNR) scarcity. NNRs are the fossil fuels, metals, and non-metallic minerals that enable our industrialized existence. 125 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. ix 126 issuu.com/js-ror/docs/clugston_scarcity_pg31-55 121 122

feedstock for iron and steel); (l) Lead: 17 years; (m) Lithium: 8 years (aircraft parts, mobile phones, batteries for electrical vehicles); (n) Manganese: 17 years (stainless steel, gasoline additive, dry cell batteries); (o) Molybdenum: 20 years (aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors, tool steels); (p) Natural Gas: 34 years; (q) Nickel: 30 years; (r) Niobium: 15 years (jet and rocket engines, turbines, superconducting magnets); (s) Oil: 39 years; (t) Rhenium: 22 years (petroleum refining, jet engines, gas turbine blades); (u) Silver: 11 years; (v) Thalium: 38 years; (w) Tin: 18 years; (x) Tungsten: 32 years; (y) Uranium: 34 years (primary energy source, weapons); (z) Zinc: 13 years; (aa) Zirconium: 19 years (nuclear power plants, jet engines, gas turbine blades).

Scarcity: Our Next Normal: Catastrophe: [123] Scarcity concludes ―Our Next Normal is Catastrophe‖: Our Anthropocentric worldview does not recognize that ―from a broader ecological perspective, all human economics and politics are irrelevant,‖ to ―paraphrase Thoreau, we are ‗thrashing at the economic and political branches of our predicament, rather than hacking at the ecological root.‘‖127 [124] ―Because the underlying cause associated with our transition from prosperity to austerity is ecological (geological), not economic or political, our incessant barrage of economic and political ―fixes‖ – fiscal and monetary ―stimulus‖ – is misguided and inconsequential. Our national economies are not ―broken‖; they are ―dying of slow starvation‖ for lack of sufficient economically viable NNR inputs. [125] ―Our industrial lifestyle paradigm, which is enabled by enormous quantities of finite, non-replenishing, and increasingly scarce NNRs, is unsustainable – actually, physically impossible – going forward.128 [126] ―Global humanity‗s steadily deteriorating condition will culminate in selfinflicted global societal collapse, almost certainly by the year 2050. We will not accept gracefully our new normal of ever-increasing, geologically-imposed austerity; nor will we suffer voluntarily the horrifically painful population level reductions and material living standard degradation associated with our inevitable transition to a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm. [127] ―Ownership of the means of production—from private ownership to state ownership; the methods by which scarce resources are allocated—from free markets to central planning; and our forms of government—from democracy to autocracy—have no bearing on humanity‗s ultimate destiny. [128] ―All industrialized and industrializing nations, irrespective of their economic and political orientations, are unsustainable and will collapse in the not-too-distant 127 128

Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104 Clugston, C: Scarcity: Preface, pg. 103-104

future as a consequence of their dependence upon increasingly scarce NNRs. [129] We can voluntarily reduce population and consumption, or NNR scarcity depletion will force it upon us, in our inevitable transition to a sustainable, preindustrial lifestyle paradigm. [130] Confronting Peak NNR Scarcity requires Anthropocentric Jurisprudence to Confront the Masculine Insecurity Foundation Control – or the claim of control – over the means of reproduction, which has been more fundamental to history, than the control of the means of production. Masculine Insecurity: Foundation of Anthropocentric Jurisprudence’s Human Farming ‘Control of Reproduction’ War Economy Racket: Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Foundation: Masculine Insecurity “Masculine Insecurity: The moment in every man's life when he questions the size of his schlong.” - Urban Dictionary “The male does not have an erection .. The penis is in a state of erection, as long as the man is in a state of excitement. If something interferes with this excitement, the man has nothing. And in contrast to practically all other kinds of behaviour, the erection cannot be faked .. a man, after all, is a man for only a few minutes; most of the time he is a little boy .. in that aspect which for many a man is the proof that he is a man.” - Erich Fromm129 “Threaten a man's masculinity and he will assume more macho attitudes: Masculine overcompensation is the idea that men who are insecure about their masculinity will behave in an extremely masculine way as compensation. I wanted to test this idea and also explore whether overcompensation could help explain some attitudes like support for war and animosity to homosexuals. I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq War more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle.” – Daniel Aloi130

[131] In an Anthropocentric Parasitic Culture, Gender (Masculine or Feminine) Insecurity result from cultural memes surrounding a demand for the individual to focus on external physical and material issues as the source of their ‗security‘: physical attributes, sexual attractiveness, and perception of their material wealth. Erich Fromm (2000): To Have or To Be (pg 115-116) Daniel Aloi (02 August 2005): Men overcompensate when their masculinity is threatened, Cornell study shows, Cornell University http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/aug05/soc.gender.dea.html 129 130

For example: According to Dr. Nerd Love131, The five most common insecurities of men are: (1) Penis Size, (2) Sexual Ability, (3) Hair, (4) Finances, and (5) Body. [132] In such a Parasitic Culture, its members are in a continual state of heightened insecurity; since no matter how much effort they invest into their physical attributes, sexual attractiveness, and material wealth; all of these ‗securities‘ are external, impermanent and can easily be lost. Even members who attain ‗security‘ in such a parasitic culture, thereby are more insecure, related to the fear of losing their security, or it being stolen from them, by aging or sociopolitical circumstances. [133] The members of such a culture are extremely easily manipulated, by the Political and Corporate elite of such a culture, who endlessly focus on aggravating their insecurities, to purchase new products, to get longer penises, improve their sexual ability, faster cars, more money, etc; for the financial and socio-political profits of the Socio-Political Parasitic Elite. Socio-Political realities between the poor and the rich can be used to manipulate both the insecurities of the poor and the rich; the poor for being poor, the rich for losing their riches to the poor, if they do not abide by the cultural parasitic practices of the system. [134] In an Ecocentric Spiritual Culture, Gender (Masculine and Feminine) insecurity are a result of cultural memes encouraging the individual to focus their energies upon issues of character and living in accordance to the laws of nature. Consequently an individual who attains psychological security, from developing their character into that of an honest, honourable man or woman of their word, practicing what they preach, is rewarded with inner psychological security; which is based – not upon external factors which can be taken away – but upon internal factors: critical thinking, reason, logic, understanding, self awareness, etc. An individual who is secure based upon ‗knowing him/herself‘ cannot have their security undermined. The greater their efforts at knowing themselves, the greater their security, from confronting their self deceptions, confronting all their unexamined beliefs to be examined for their authenticity and veracity; from their courage to confront any problem, valuing those who practice tough love, to provide them with constructive criticism feedback; so that they are capable of knowing themselves ever better, on their path of existential security. Eve’s Seed: History and ‘Control of Reproduction’ Religion of Masculine Insecurity: “What is history? The lie that everyone agrees on...” – Voltaire Paging Dr. Nerd Love (16 April 2012): The 5 Most Common Insecurities In Men (And How To Overcome Them) 131

[135] In Eve’s Seed: Masculine Insecurity, Metaphor, and the Shaping of History, and Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History, Robert McElvaine described it thus: ―Karl Marx had it wrong. Class has, to be sure, been a major factor in history; but class itself is a derivative concept that is based on the ultimate causative power in history: sex. Marx‗s famous formulation must be revised: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of struggles based on the division of our species into two sexes, jealousies emanating from this division, exaggerations of the differences between the sexes, misunderstandings about sexual reproductive power, and metaphors derived from sex. Together, these closely related matters constitute the most important, but largely neglected, set of motive forces in human history. Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of reproduction has been even more fundamental to history than has control of the means of production... [136] In Eve‘s Seed, Robert McElvaine ―throws down the gauntlet to academics and non-specialists alike, daring a radical rethinking of the basic 'truths' on which cultures have been constructed.‖ He argues that ―there is nothing unique to Islam about male insistence on the subordination of and male control over women and their bodies.‖ McElvaine says misogynistic rulers may be religious fanatics, but their religion is not Islam, but Woody Allen‗s religion in his 2001 movie, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion: ―insecure masculinity‖. [137] Eve's Seed reviews ―some 94 centuries of human history, stretching from 8,000 B.C.E. and the invention of agriculture through the Middle Ages‖, to 20th century America, explaining how and why sexually insecure – ―not-a-woman‖ – men seek validation of their manhood by pursuing power, and have used their power to disproportionately influence the shaping of cultures. [138] According to John Pettegrew, Deepening the History of Masculinity and the Sexes: ―Vitally important to early economic and political history (bringing such changes as the creation of substantial material surplus and the rise of large states and war), agriculture—what McElvaine describes as the first of two "megarevolutions"—also sparked a massive male "backlash," as the female invention of planting crops and animal husbandry undermined the male role as hunter. Among the masculinist responses, men took over agriculture and invented war, as women became relegated to increasing the population needed for the new social order.‖ [139] Subsequent cultural consequences being the ―conception misconception‖, that men held all procreative power, and women were simply the dirt, wherein the seed was planted, which led to the assumption that the God-Creative-Force is male. The second mega-revolution occurred in the 16th century with the rise of geographic mobility and the marketplace. Manhood became associated with possessive individualism, however this conflicts with mans natural state towards association

and cooperation formed during humanityâ&#x20AC;&#x2014;s long history of hunting in groups. [140] Women can do all the important things that men can (although, because of physical differences, in some areas not as well, on average), but there are some essential things that women can do that men cannot: bear and give birth to children and nourish them from their bodies. [141] Because of this relative incapacity, many men suffer, largely subconsciously, from what might be termed "womb envy" and "breast envy," or even the "nonmenstrual syndrome." [142] To compensate for the things that they cannot do, men tell women that they may not do other things. Which activities women are excluded from varies from one culture to another, but some form of the procedure can be found in all societies. (A striking example of this practice in our own culture can be seen in a statement a Catholic bishop made in 1992: "A woman priest is as impossible as for me to have a baby.") [143] Because they cannot compete with women's capabilities in the crucial realms of reproduction and nourishing offspring, men generally seek to avoid a single standard of human behavior and achievement. They create separate definitions of "manliness" which are based on a false opposition to "womanliness." A "real man" has been seen in most cultures as "notawoman." [144] The "notawoman" definition of manhood leads men greatly to exaggerate the genuine, but small, differences between the sexes. Far from being gender-benders, men tend to be genderextenders. This produces the fallacious, but virtually universal, idea that women and men are "opposite sexes." This way of thinking can accurately be termed a bi-polar disorder. [145] Although this viewpoint actually begins with woman as the "standard" human and proceeds to define man by its supposed vast differences from that standard, people do not like to see themselves in negative terms, so men have generally sought ways to transform woman into a negative, thus making man positive. [146] These basic tendencies have existed throughout history, including what is inaccurately called "prehistory," but during the vast majority of human existence both sexes had obviously essential roles. Women seemingly produced the children, nourished and cared for them, and also provided a large portion of the food for the group through gathering. Men provided meat through hunting and had the bulk of the responsibility for protecting the group from predators. This added up in many hunter-gatherer societies to some approximation of equality between the sexes. [147] Human life -- and the situation of both sexes -- was radically changed by the invention of agriculture, which in all likelihood was accomplished by women. These

changes were so dramatic that they comprise one of two mega-revolutions in human existence. [148] Many ancient myths (including, most notably, chapters 3 of the Book of Genesis) constitute allegories for the invention of agriculture by women (Eve's eating from the Tree of Knowledge) and its long-term consequences (the loss of what seemed in distant retrospect to have been a pre-agricultural paradise in which people lived easily, without work, simply picking fruit from trees, and man having to go forth and till the soil to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow). The "Fall of Man" is a metaphor for an actual fall of men. [149] Agriculture moved Homo sapiens from what ecologists refer to as a Kselected reproductive strategy (limited resources make it appropriate to have a small number of offspring and invest heavily in each) to an r-selected reproductive strategy (abundant resources relative to population make it possible and desirable to have a large number of offspring). [150] This meant that the development of agriculture greatly enhanced the importance of one of the traditional female roles. Women would now be called upon to spend more of their lives in reproduction and less in production of food and other resources. [151] The development of methods for the intentional production of food (animal herding as well as agriculture) substantially devalued what men had traditionally done. Hunting was no longer needed and defense against other species declined in importance as groups of humans settled in growing numbers in farming areas into which predators ventured less frequently than their paths had crossed those of human hunter-gatherers. [152] The loss of value in their traditional roles left men adrift, seeking new meaningful roles, and increasingly resentful of women. The result was what can accurately be seen as a Neolithic and early Bronze Age backlash or "masculinist movement." [153] As men sought new roles, they took over what had previously been considered female roles. Agriculture itself was one of these. By the time plow agriculture began (ca. 4000 BCE), men were displacing women in the fields. [154] At this point there arose an almost irresistible metaphor, the very widespread acceptance of which has shaped (or, more accurately, misshaped) human life through all of recorded history. The apparent analogy of a seed being planted in furrowed soil to a male's "planting" of semen in the vulva of a female led to the conclusion that men provide the seed of new life and women constitute the soil in which that seed grows. This metaphor has remained with us throughout history and it continues to mislead us in profound ways down to the present.

[155] The seed metaphor reversed the apparent positions of the sexes in regard to procreative power. What had always appeared to be a principally female power was transformed into an entirely male power. No longer apparent bystanders in reproduction, men now claimed to be the reproducers, while women were reduced from the seeming creators to the soil in which men's creations grow. Women were left with all the work of procreation, but men now took all the credit. [156] During the Neolithic Age, then, women both ceased to be major producers (as men took over the production of plant food along with continuing their traditional responsibility for providing animal food) and ceased to be seen as having reproductive power. [157] The woman-made world of agriculture had, paradoxically, become a man's world to a degree unprecedented in human existence. Hell hath no fury like a man devalued. [158] The belief that men have procreative power led inevitably to the conclusion that the supreme Creative Power must also be male. The toxic fruit that grew from the seed metaphor was male monotheism. [159] The combination of the belief that God (or the god who is the ultimate creator) is male with the notion that humans are created in God's image yielded the inescapable conclusion that men are closer than women to godly perfection. Thus the line from the misconceptions about conception emanating from the seed metaphor to the belief, given its classic expressions by Aristotle, Aquinas, and Freud, that women are deformed or "incomplete" men is clear and direct. [160] As is suggested by the fact that the root of the word authority is author, it is the erroneous idea that men are the "authors" -- the creators -- that has formed the largely unspoken but pervasive basis for male authority throughout history. A clear example is the patria potestas that gave an ancient Roman man the power to "dispose of" his children. A father was thought to be the creator of "his" children and so he was granted the right to take away the life he was supposed to have given. [161] The seed metaphor and the mistaken conclusions that followed from it enabled men to stand womb envy on its head. The reversal was given its most influential religious authority in the Bible. The human female is named woman (meaning "out of man") in Genesis 2 because we are told that the first woman was born from a man. And in Genesis 3 woman's creative power is reclassified as a curse and burden: "in pain you shall bring forth children." [162] The reversal of womb envy found its strongest "scientific" authority in Aristotle's Generation of Animals, where he argued that the great defect in women is that they lack generative power. In earlier times, when the male role in

procreation was not comprehended, men had seemed like "infertile women" or "deformed women." Aristotle asserted that it was the other way around. By contending that menstrual fluid is a weak form of semen, lacking in the male fluid's life-giving powers, he also reversed the non-menstrual syndrome. He was saying, in effect, that men have the good genital discharge and menstrual bleeding is just a weak, infertile form of the powerful male secretion. [163] Once the seed metaphor had sprouted into the idea that God is male and so women are inferior, the original "notawoman" definition of manhood took on new and more menacing implications. Now what had been an essentially horizontal division became a clearly vertical one: traits and values associated with women were not simply classified as improper for men, but as inferior. [164] The total subordination of women throughout recorded history is but the first part of the devastating legacy of the Neolithic backlash and the seed metaphor. Equally important has been the concomitant suppression in men of all values, ideas, and characteristics associated with women and so defined as inferior. [165] Since many of the values classified as "feminine" (such as compassion, cooperation, nurturing, and self-sacrifice) are essential for the well-being of human societies, ways had to be found to bring them back, at least to a degree. This was accomplished principally through a series of male religious and philosophical figures, between the sixth century BCE and the first century CE, ranging from Confucius and the Buddha through the later Hebrew prophets and Jesus. These men preached the values that had been defined as feminine to men as well as women. [166] Religion has played a paradoxical role in the shaping of history based on sex. On the one hand, most religions since the rise of male monotheism have provided major weapons in advancing the argument of male superiority and female subordination. The paradox lies in the fact that religions have also been the principal means through which the more "feminine" characteristics and values have been urged upon society (especially men). [167] The need to appeal to men was at cross purposes with the objective of religions to restrain some of the maladaptive traits that are classified as "masculine" (e.g. quick resort to violence, hierarchical domination, and competitiveness). Men were unlikely to listen to women telling them to act in ways that had been defined as "feminine," so a male priesthood seemed essential. But the men who took over Christianity had by the fourth century gone a long way towards "efeminating" (removing its feminine characteristics) the religion. [168] The basic problem insecure males have with sexual equality is that it threatens to re-establish a single human standard, one that includes areas in which men are unable to compete. Hence such men react fiercely and attempt to reinforce

the wall they have erected between the sexes. [169] The desperate attempts of some men to re-institute a sexual apartheid with clear ideas of hierarchical difference between the sexes can be seen all around us. Examples include the escalation of violent misogyny in popular music, the rise of anorexic chic for women and super body-building as the ideal for men, the Catholic Church's reiteration of its insistence that women can never be priests, the redoubled efforts of the Nation of Islam, Promise Keepers, and the Southern Baptist Convention to subordinate women, widespread homophobia, the order of the Taliban government in Afghanistan that all women be veiled and all men grow beards, the immense sales of a book whose title asserts that men and women are from different planets, and the proliferation of vulgar sexual language that is rooted in the claim that men are superior to women. [170] The first step in attempting to deal with the misshaping of the human experience that has been a direct consequence of the misunderstanding of reproductive power that took hold some six thousand years ago is to reject the idea that God is male. The second is to try, at last, to realize just how catastrophic the consequences of accepting the implications of the seed metaphor have been and to accept instead the conclusions about sexual equality towards which our modern understanding of the true nature of procreative power point. [171] To confront how masculine insecurity‘s demand for the Control -- or the claim of control -- over the means of reproduction has been even more fundamental to our cultural history and cultural institutions, than has control of the means of production... Anthropocentric Jurisprudence’s Denial of Masculine Insecurity’s Use of the Control of Reproduction as a Weapon of War: “We must all understand that the most potent weapons of war are the penis and the womb. Therefore, if you cannot convince a group to control its population by discussion, debate, intelligent analysis etc., you must consider their action in using the penis and the womb to increase population an act of war.” - Former Municipal Court Judge Jason G. Brent, Humans: An Endangered Species132

[172] Insecure Male World Leader‘s advocacy/endorsement of the Control of the Means of Reproduction as a Weapon of War include President of Algeria: Houari Boumediene‗s ―wombs of our women will give us victory‖, PLO Leader: Yasser Arafat‗s ‗Palestinian womb is our greatest asset and weapon‘; ANC Leader: Nelson Mandela‗s ―Operation Production‖ forced sex and forbidden contraceptives policy; 132

www.jgbrent.com

New Black Panther Party Member: Dr. Khalid Muhammad ―kill the women as they are the military manufacturing center‖; Nazi Party: Adolf Hitler‗s ―importance of fertility to breed an above average number of children‖. [173] Houari Boumediene, President of Algeria, at the United Nations, 1974: ―The wombs of our women will give us victory.‖ [―One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.‖ (Boumediene was an ardent supporter of the ANC and SWAPO)] [174] Yasser Arafat: Palestinian Womb is his people‗s greatest asset [Arnon Soffer, a geography professor at Israel's Haifa University and a lecturer at the Israeli Army's Staff and Command college, first warned of the impending Jewish demographic minority in the 1980s, but was widely dismissed. He predicted Arabs would outnumber Jews in both Israel proper and the occupied territories by 2010. In February 2001, the night of his election, Sharon sent an aide to ask Soffer for a copy of his 1987 treatise about the demographic threat to Israel; it was the same study that had led Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to declare in the late 1980s that the "Palestinian womb" was his people's greatest weapon.] [175] Nelson Mandela‘s African National Congress (ANC): ANC ―Operation Production‖ Policy: During the ANC‗s ―liberation struggle‖ African women were forced (1) to have sex with ANC cadres, & (2) not allowed to use contraception. Any woman who refused sex from an ANC cadre or was caught using contraception was detained, accused of being an 'Apartheid agent', given a People‗s Court trial, the sentence was usually Necklacing, incl. broken bottles shoved up their vagina133. [176] Johannes Harnischfeger, Witchcraft and the State in South Africa134: ―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 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 Maki Skosana was an ANC comrade who was accused – for no observable reasons – of being an apartheid spy, given a people‗s court trial and publicly executed by necklacing in July 1985. The TRC made no effort whatsoever to investigate the motives for shoving broken glass bottles up women‗s vagina‗s who were necklaced. TRC Report: ―Moloko said her sister was burned to death with a tyre around her neck while attending the funeral of one of the youths. Her body had been scorched by fire and some broken pieces of glass had been inserted into her vagina, Moloko told the committee. Moloko added that a big rock had been thrown on her face after she had been killed.‖ www.doj.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/duduza/moloko.htm 134 German version of published in Anthropopos, 95/2000, S. 99-112 133

as ―operation production‖. Because of exactly this reason it was forbidden for the girls to use contraceptives. (Delius 1996:189; Niehaus 1999:250)‖ [177] New Black Panther Party: Dr. Khalid Muhammad: Kill the White Woman as the White Man‗s Military Manufacturing Center rolling out reinforcement from between her legs: In Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad‗s 1993 'Kill the White Man' speech, at Kean College in Union Township, New Jersey, he stated among others: ―Kill the women cause the women are the military manufacturing center; cause every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls out from between their legs. So shut down the military manufacturing center, by killing the white woman.‖135 [178] Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party: ―The selection of a racially highly worthy wife in itself still does not necessarily mean an improvement of the race. That only comes when the right mate selection is followed by the breeding of an aboveaverage number of children. For what would the elimination of bad hereditary factors from the folk help, if simultaneously a reproduction of the good hereditary factors was not preserved and expanded? ... The birth rate will determine the future of our folk. The number of cribs must be much larger than the number of coffins. Only then can we offer successful resistance against all arising dangers and turn into deed our right, which is due us on the basis of our leading position in Europe. … Two weapons are at the disposal of each folk in the struggle for survival: Its ability to fight and its fertility. Never forget that the ability to fight of a folk alone can never make it possible for a folk to survive into the far future, rather that the inexhaustible fountain of its fertility is also necessary."136 Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Denies Necessity for a Breeding Licence, thereby endorsing Masculine Insecurity’s Control of Reproduction as a Weapon of War: “The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” ― Voltaire “Every right must be evaluated in the network of all rights claimed and the environment in which these rights are exercised. If we hold that every right, ―natural" or not, must be evaluated in the total system of rights operating in a world that is limited, we must inevitably conclude that no right can be presumed to be absolute, that the effect of each right on the suppliers as well as on the demanders must be determined before we can ascertain the quantity of right that is admissible. From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Abdul_Muhammad www.metacafe.com/watch/456363/khallid_muhammads_speech_kill_the_white_man 136 SS Race Theory and Mate Selection Guidelines, translated from Original SS Publications by Libertarian National Socialist Green Party; original SS publication Glauben und Kampfen ("Faith and Struggle") 135

here on out, ours is a limited world. Rights must also be limited. The greater the population, the more limited the per capita supply of all goods; hence the greater must be the limitation on individual rights, including the right to breed. At its heart, this is the political meaning of the population problem.” – Garrett Hardin, Limited World, Limited Rights137 “It seems there is pretty much a consensus that when it comes to things that have the possibility to .. negatively impact the lives of people or society in general, regulation is desirable. Considering this, there is one sort of licence that is conspicuous by its absence: a licence to breed. .. Even the SPCA checks out prospective dog owners and their property before allowing them to adopt an animal. A system that requires prospective parents to demonstrate the necessary material means and parenting knowledge to look after children before being allowed to procreate would be the ideal solution to the problem. Unfortunately, uncontrolled breeding has left humanity far too stupid to implement something of the sort.” - Michael Coetzee, Licence to Breed138

[179] Anthropocentric Legal doctrine holds that individuals are issued licences - to own a gun, drive a car, practice Law, watch television, obtain credit, earn a living as a professional, fish, hunt, sell liquor, operate a business, get married – once they have fulfilled certain skills or informed consent commitment requirements required for the particular licence. [180] The Journal of Economic Perspectives article Occupational Licensing139, states the motive of Occupational licensing to be to improve the quality of competency for the specific occupation, for the physical, financial, emotional or psychological benefit of the consumer140. [181] The Department of Labour's 'Occupational Qualifications Framework" Draft Policy for the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (OQF)141, states its purpose being to provide for the certification of: • Occupational competence; • Limited World, Limited Rights, by Garrett Hardin, Biological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_limited_world_limited_rights.html 138 Coetzee (2009/08/12) 139 Morris M Kleiner (Fall 2000): Occupational Licensing; Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 14, Number 4, Pages 189-202 http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.14.4.189 140 ―Occupational licensing is defined as a process where entry into an occupation requires the permission of the government, and the state requires some demonstration of a minimum degree of competency. The state usually creates a nongovernmental licensing board with political appointees, public members and members of the occupation to oversee the regulated occupations. Generally, members of the occupation dominate the licensing boards. The agency must usually be self-supporting by collecting fees and registration charges from persons in the licensed occupations. [..] The main benefits that are suggested for occupational licensing involve improving quality for those persons receiving the service. Occupational licensure creates a greater incentive for individuals to invest in more occupation-specific human capital because they will be more able to recoup the full returns to their investment if they need not face lowquality substitutes for their services (Akerlof, 1970; Shapiro, 1986).‖ 141 http://www.sapoultry.co.za/pdf%20legislation/Occupational%20Qualifications%20Framework.pdf 137

Meaningful skills sets related to occupations. [182] It states that ―An occupational qualification represents the achievement of a planned combination of learning outcomes which is intended to provide qualifying learners with the applied competence to practice an occupation, to perform occupationally-related skills sets and to provide a basis for further learning.‖ [183] Occupational qualifications developed under the auspices of QCTO contain three components: • Knowledge and theory component; • Practical skills component; • Work experience component. [184] Finally: ―Occupations, which also include trades and professions, are defined by their position (classification code) and their descriptors in the Organising Framework for Occupations, which is maintained by the Department of Labour.‖ [185] The Food Beverage SETA Conference: Qualifications Council for Trades and Occupations142, says that an Occupational Qualification "means a qualification associated with a trade, occupation or profession resulting from work based learning and consisting of knowledge unit standards, practical unit standards and work experience unit standards." [186] Dozens of occupations require licensing for everyday uses: whether it is driving, hunting, serving liquor, or representing an accused in court. These licenses require the individuals to obtain a particular level of competency, before they are entitled to practice the particular occupation, with the aim of improved competency to benefit consumers. [187] If parenting is a form of occupation; Anthropocentric Jurisprudence requires no level of competency, to be a parent, for the benefit of any individuals children. Most people who become parents, are poorly psychologically, emotionally, intellectually and financially prepared to parent, who have made little or no preparatory planning for the stresses and demands of the parenting occupation. Many parents who choose to become parents, bring life into the world knowing full well they are not capable of taking care of that life - they assume the government, teachers, or family will pitch in and do their job for them. Parenting should probably be considered one of life‘s most challenging and demanding jobs; since you are unable to quit from it and do not get paid for it. It is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, and the easiest to get, and the one that does not require you to get a licence, irrespective of the fact that you may have no emotional, psychological, intellectual skills to provide adequate parenting to your children. [188] Put differently, when it comes to Anthropocentric Jurisprudence‘s concern for the consumer rights of children: Children have no rights to only be born to parents who ‗really want them‘. Children have no rights to parents who have made 142

22 September 2010: http://www.foodbev.co.za/documents/QCTO%20Overview.pdf

certain psychological, emotional, social and intellectual skills, prior to conceiving them. Children have no rights to be born to parents who have acquired a certain minimum level of responsible parenting. [189] Anthropocentric Jurisprudence provides Accused criminals with rights to a qualified and licensed lawyer. Sick individuals have rights to a qualified and licensed doctor. Taxi consumers have rights to a qualified and licensed driver. Airline consumers have rights to a qualified and licensed pilot. Anthropocentric Jurisprudence however, provides children with no rights to a qualified and licensed parent, whatsoever. [190] If, after having been born, it is deemed by Child Welfare services, that any child/ren are maltreated, then such child/ren, can be placed in foster care or sent to orphanages. However such parents are not legally restricted from breeding themselves more children to abuse. If such jurisprudence was applied to the rights of criminals, then any criminal would be entitled to the services of any individual who chose to call themselves a lawyer, who had no educational or practical experience for being a lawyer; who simply called himself a ‗lawyer‘, even though he was absolutely and utterly clueless about how to represent an accused. Only after the criminal had been maltreated by the unlicensed lawyer, would the lawyer be denied the opportunity of further representing that particular client; but the lawyer would not be denied the right to continue to practice being a lawyer. Anthropocentric Jurisprudence Parasitism of the Reproduction Human Factory Farming War Economy:

Control

[191] What would happen to the occupation of ‗social workers‘ and ‗child welfare‘ workers, if citizens decided to practice responsible breeding and parenting? What would happen to the occupation of ‗criminal lawyers‘; if all citizens obeyed the law? [192] If responsible parents chose to practice responsible breeding, eliminating the reality of abused children and surplus populations, which thereby eliminated the reality of a criminal underclass; such behaviour would eliminate the human misery source of profits upon which social workers, criminal lawyers and correctional authorities depend. [193] Social Workers, correctional authorities and Criminal Lawyers, within such an Anthropocentric Socio-Political Jurisprudence Systems – are consequently faced with a conundrum. If they do their job professionally by working to eliminate the root causes of the problems, upon which their professions sustain themselves, they shall thereby eliminate the need for their profession. Consequently, in order to sustain and perpetuate the need for their profession, they must sustain the public relations image, that their actions are focussed upon solving the alleged problems resulting from irresponsible breeding and parenting practices, by endless focus on

the symptoms and ignoring the root causes, thereby perpetuating the problems, while manipulating their customers into the false belief, that they are focussed on solving the problems. [194] In Doctors analogy terms; they are Legal Doctors who have patients with legal brain tumour problems, who choose to give their patients an endless supply of legal Aspirins, thereby placing their legal patients in a false state of pain reduction; while ignoring addressing the root cause of the Anthropocentric Jurisprudence‘s brain tumour: socio-political and ecologically irresponsible breeding and parenting. The Anthropocentric Socio-Political Elite Profit from the Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Cannon Fodder Population. “War as a general social release. This is a psychosocial function, serving the same purpose for a society as do the holiday, the celebration, and the orgy for the individual--the release and redistribution of undifferentiated tensions. War provides for the periodic necessary readjustment of standards of social behaviour (the "moral climate") and for the dissipation of general boredom, one of the most consistently undervalued and unrecognized of social phenomena. War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained -and improved in effectiveness.” Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability for Peace (paragraphs found respectively on p45 & p4) In Valour of Ignorance, Homer Lea„s perspective of a nations traitor enemies, are (I) those “high or low” who only regard [the Nation] in a parasitical sense, as a land to batten on and grow big in, whose resources are not to be developed and conserved for the furtherance of the Republic„s greatness, but only to satisfy the larval greed of those who subsist upon it„s fatness; and (II) International Arbitrationists and Disarmamentists who advocate on behalf of disarmament and arbitration without understanding the true origins of war: “Only when arbitration is able to unravel the tangled skein of crime & hypocrisy among individuals can it be extended to communities & nations. As nations are only man in the aggregate, they are the aggregate of his crimes and deception and depravity, and so long as these constitute the basis of individual impulse, so long will they control the acts of nations.”

[195] The Anthropocentric Legal Matrix - Attorneys, Prosecutors, Academics and Judges - avoid implementing ―Sustainable Democracy Licence to Vote and Breed‖

legislation, as a result of their endorsement of, and socio-eco-political profit from, the Human Farming143 of Economic and Military Cannon Fodder Racket ―the breeding of surplus youth bulge144 populations, to be converted into ―dumb, stupid animal pawns‖145 cannon fodder soldier armies – ―possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious‗ international profiteering racket; where their ―profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in military families lives‖; by sending ―dumb, stupid animal pawns‖ cannon fodder soldier armies, as the ―highclass muscle men for Big Business, Wall Street and the bankers‖146; frequently to fight corporately profitable, but militarily un-winnable wars147. The Anthropocentric Socio-Political Socio-Political Elite Profit from the Control of Reproduction of a Surplus Vote & Poverty Pimp Fodder Population. THE POVERTY PIMPS' POEM148 Let us celebrate the poor, Let us hawk them door to door. There's a market for their pain, Votes and glory and money to gain. Let us celebrate the poor. Their ills, their sins, their faulty diction Flavor our songs and spice our fiction. Their hopes and struggles and agonies Get us grants and consulting fees. Celebrate thugs and clowns, Give their ignorance all renown. Celebrate what holds them down, In our academic gowns. Let us celebrate the poor. “This is the poor „foreign the poor rich in cycle of

how the game works: public money levied in taxes from of the rich countries is transferred in the form of aid‟ to the rich in the poor countries; the rich in countries then hand it back for safe-keeping to the the rich countries. The real trick, throughout this expropriation, is to maintain the pretence that it is

Human Farming: Story of Your Enslavement youtu.be/Xbp6umQT58A Demographics & Violence: Youth Bulges: Numerous reports provide details how population age structures have significant impacts on a countries stability, governance, economic development and social well-being. 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 World, by Population Action International; (2) YouthQuake: Population, fertility and environment in the 21st Century, by Optimum Population Trust. 145 "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns" – Henry Kissinger, August 9, 2005 146 War is a Racket by USMC General Smedley D Butler (1881-1940) 147 Press TV, 26 May 2011: US military suicide rate exceeds combat fatalities www.youtu.be/J4SrziRCqyE 148 The Poverty Pimps Poem, by Thomas Sowell See: http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/poverty/923-The-Poverty-Pimps-Poem.html 143 144

the poor in poor countries who are being helped all along. The winner is the player who manages to keep a straight face while building up a billion-dollar bank account” – Lords of Poverty, Graeme Hancock

[196] Similarly vote or poverty pimp fodder armies are as beneficial to their political and poverty pimping academic and non-profit profiteering racket elite. [197]

According to Graeme Hancock‘s Lords of Poverty: 1. ―At $60 billion a year [in 1989]… aid is already quite large enough to do harm. Indeed, as this book has argued at some length, it is often profoundly dangerous to the poor and inimical to their interests: it has financed the creation of monstrous projects that, at vast expense, have devastated the environment and ruined lives; it has supported and legitimised brutal tyrannies; it has facilitated the emergence of fantastical and Byzantine bureaucracies staffed by legions of self-serving hypocrites; it has sapped the initiative, creativity and enterprise of ordinary people and substituted the superficial and irrelevant glitz of imported advice; it has sucked potential entrepreneurs and intellectuals in the developing countries into nonproductive administrative activities; it has created a ‗moral tone‘ in international affairs that denies the hard task of wealth creation and that substitutes easy handouts for the rigours of self-help; in addition, throughout the Third World, it has allowed the dead grip of imposed officialdom to suppress popular choice and individual freedom. 2. ―Aid has its defenders, not least the highly paid public-relations men and women who spend millions of dollars a year justifying the continued existence of the agencies that employ them. Such professional communicators must reject out of hand the obvious conclusions of this book: that aid is a waste of time and money, that its results are fundamentally bad, and that — far from being increased — it should be stopped forthwith before more damage is done. 3. ―Whenever such suggestions are made the lobbyists throw up their hands in horror. Despite some regrettable failures, they protect, aid is justified by its successes; despite some glitches and problems, it is essentially something that works; most important of all — the emotional touch, the appeal to the heartstrings — they argue with passion that aid must not be stopped because the poor could not survive without it. The Brandt Commission provided a classic example of this line of thought: ‗For the poorest countries,‘ it told us flatly in its final report, ‗aid is essential to survival.‘ 4. ―Such statements, however, patronise and undervalue the people of the

poor countries concerned. They are, in addition, logically indefensible when uttered by those who also want us to believe that ‗aid works‘. Through history and pre-history all countries everywhere got by perfectly well without any aid at all. Furthermore, in the 1950s they got by with much less aid than they did, for example, in the 1970s — and were apparently none the worse for the experience. Now, suddenly, at the tail end of almost fifty years of development assistance, we are told that large numbers of these same countries have lost the ability to survive a moment longer unless they continue to receive ever-larger amounts of aid. If this is indeed the case — and if the only measurable impact of all these decades of development has been to turn tenacious survivors into helpless dependents — then it seems to me to be beyond dispute that aid does not work. 5. ―On the other hand, if the statement that ‗aid works‘ is true, then presumably the poor should be in a much better shape than they were before they first began to receive it half a century ago. If so, then aid‘s job should by now be nearly over and it ought to be possible to begin a gradual withdrawal without hurting anyone. 6. ―Of course, the ugly reality is that most poor people in most poor countries most of the time never receive or even make contact with aid in any tangible shape or form: whether is it present or absent, increased or decreased, are thus issues that are simply irrelevant to the ways in which they conduct their daily lives. After the multi-billion-dollar ‗financial flows‘ involved have been shaken through the sieve of over-priced and irrelevant goods that must be bought in the donor countries, filtered again in the deep pockets of hundreds of thousands of foreign experts and aid agency staff, skimmed off by dishonest commission agents, and stolen by corrupt Ministers and Presidents, there is really very little left to go around. This little, furthermore, is then used thoughtlessly, or maliciously, or irresponsibly by those in power — who have no mandate from the poor, who do not consult with them and who are utterly indifferent to their fate. Small wonder, then, that the effects of aid are so often vicious and destructive for the most vulnerable members of human society.‖ [198] According to Ntokozo Khumalo, a business writer, producer & report who has been with CNBC Africa, Africa Bisiness Review and eNCA Africa Edition, in: The dirty -- breeding war -- games the South African government plays to win votes149, the African National Congress use welfare: child support grants to breed the ANC thousands of co-dependent poverty stricken ANC voters, or vote fodder. 149

http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2013/01/ntokozo-khumalo-dirty-breeding-war.html

[199] According to Meshack Mabogoane, the ANC pimps its own people into poverty by its conscious and deliberate ―abnormal government-sponsored population explosion of Malthusian poverty aggravation, moral degeneration and social disintegration‖.150 [200] Examining the African National Congress‘ Poverty Pimping social and political policies, it is easy to conclude that it remains one of the most successful professional Poverty Pimp Political Organisations and Movements in the world. It continues to pretend to act as an intermediary on behalf of ―liberating‖ the black SA poor, disadvantaged and alleged ―victimized‖ groups, but it has no serious intentions whatsoever of addressing the root population policy or psychoresponsibility causes of these groups socio-economic poverty or psycho-political ―freedom/liberation‖ babble ignorance. In fact the ANC derives its political power from pimping ever more black Africans into poverty; i.e. from sustaining and in fact increasing its alleged disadvantaged and victimized political power base, while deflecting the blame for its poverty pimping Malthusian resource war consequences upon the proverbial scapegoat of ―apartheid‖. [201] Succinctly: The poor are a commodity to ANC politicians and Anti-Apartheid religious and political activists, from those with impressive Archbishop titles to the Poverty Pimping Professors who suck up the research grants to ―support themselves and their cronies while they are studying, romanticizing or otherwise exploiting the [African] poor.‖

ECOFEMINISM: [202] Levantine -- Male God -- religious mythology holds the Earth to be profane & evil, and it‘s the duty of the faithful to study scripture to glean the least bit of truth. Ancient Aryan religion holds the Earth to be sacred & good, and its the duty of the Aryan to study nature, including the nature of people. [203] Levantine religions were designed to pander to the alpha male warrior elites with an alpha male tyrant concept of the divine who justifies anything done in his name. History gives you the idea European religion also pandered to the warrior elites- which it did with the Levantine import. Prior thereto, however there were vast forests in Europe where semi-matriarchal Aryan tribal families lived worshipping nature, for thousands of years. Mosuo: Ecocentric Gender-Balanced Culture with no murder, rape, war, jealousy, jails or unemployment: 150

Mbeki‟s Legacy Not His Alone, Meshack Mabogoane, 08 October 2008, Mail & Guardian

“It is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering, than it is to have sympathy with thought. People find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, ugliness, and starvation. It is inevitable they would be strongly moved by this. Accordingly with admirable, but misdirected intentions, they very sentimentally set themselves the task of remedying the problems they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease, they merely prolong it. Indeed, they are part of the disease. They try to solve the problem of poverty, by keeping the poor alive, or in the case of an advanced school, by amusing the poor. But this is not a solution, it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. It is the altruistic virtues which have prevented the carrying out of this aim. The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves. In doing so they prevented the core of the system to be realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it. Charity degrades and demoralizes.” -- Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

[204] The Mosuo language is rendered not in writing, but in Dongba, the only pictographic language used in the world today. The Mosuo language has no words for murder, war, rape, or jealousy, and the Mosuo have no jails and no unemployment.151 [205] Although the Mosuo culture is most frequently described as a matriarchal culture; in fact, its more accurate to refer to it as ―matrilineal‖, but still doesn't reflect the full truth. Accurately speaking have aspects of matriarchal culture, in that women are the head of the house, property is passed through the female line, and women tend to make the business decisions. Political power, however, remains in the hands of males, creating a gender-balanced society. [206] Mosuo women carry on the family name and run the households, which are usually made up of several families, with one woman elected as the head. The head matriarchs of each village govern the region by committee. [207] As an agrarian culture, much of the Mosuo daily life centers around tending to crops and livestock, with villages and households bartering between them for basic needs. [208] A typical Mosuo house is divided in to four separate structures around an open courtyard. Traditionally, families share the building with livestock, and the living and sleeping areas are communal.

Tami Blumenfield (May 2009): The Na of Southwest China: Debunking the Myths; Washington Univ http://web.pdx.edu/~tblu2/Na/myths.pdf 151

[209] Mosuo families have an incredible internal cohesiveness and stability; and Mosuo women do not (within their culture) face many of the struggles and barriers that women in many other cultures do. [210] Probably the most famous – and most misunderstood – aspect of Mosuo culture is their practice of ―walking marriages‖ (or ―zou hun‖ in Chinese), so called because the men will walk to the house of their ‗partner' at night, but return to their own home, within their own tribal family, in the morning. [211] The Mosuo generally live in large extended families, with many generations (great grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc.) all living together within the same house. For the most part, everyone lives within communal quarters, without private bedrooms or living areas. However, women between certain ages, after ―coming of age‖, can have their own private bedrooms. [212] Traditionally, a Mosuo woman who is interested in a particular man will invite him to come and spend the night with her in her room. The man will walk to her house after dark (thus the description of ―walking marriage‖), spend the night with her, and return home early the next morning. [213] Although it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes – and in fact, having only one sexual partner would be neither expected nor common – the majority of such couplings are actually more long term. In fact, few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time, described by some anthropologists as ―serial monogamy‖. [214] Even when a pairing may be long term, however, the man will never go to live with the woman's family, or vice versa. He will continue to live with and be responsible to his family, and the children of his sisters and nieces; she will continue to live with and be responsible to her family. There will be no sharing of property. [215] Significantly, when children are born, the father may have little or no responsibility for his offspring (in fact, some children may not even know who their father is). If a father does want to be involved with the upbringing of his children, he will bring gifts to the mother's family, and state his intention to do so. This gives him a kind of official status within that family, but does not actually make him part of the family. Regardless of whether the father is involved or not, the child will be raised in the mother's family, and take on her family name. [216] This does not mean, however, that the men get of scot-free, with no responsibilities for children. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every man will share responsibilities in caring for all children born to women within their own family, be they a sister, niece, aunt, etc. In fact, children will grow up with many ―aunts‖ and ―uncles‖, as all members of the extended family share in the duties of supporting and raising the children.

[217] The result – as different as it may be from other systems – is a family structure which is, in fact, extremely stable. Divorce does not exist …there are no questions over child custody (the child belongs to the mother's family), splitting of property (property is never shared), etc. If a parent dies, there is still a large extended family to provide care. [218] One particularly important result is the lack of preference for a particular gender. For example, in most Chinese and patriarchal cultures, the female will join the male's family when she gets married. The result is that if a couple has a lot of female children, they will lose them after marriage, and have no one to care for them in old age; but if they have male children, their sons (and their sons' wives) will care for them. So, in poorer populations in particular, there will be a strong preference for male children. [219] However, among the Mosuo, since neither male nor female children will ever leave home, there is no particular preference for one gender over the other. The focus instead tends to be on maintaining some degree of gender balance, having roughly the same proportion of male to female within a household. In situations where this becomes unbalanced, it is not uncommon for Mosuo to adopt children of the appropriate gender (or even for two households to ‗swap' male/female children). [220] Additionally the other focus is population control, avoiding overpopulation of the family, since the family is unable to kick the children out of the home, and wash their hands, as to the sustainable future of those children. The family matriarch has the responsibility to make sure that the family does not procreate beyond its capacity to support the entire family through difficult times. [221] Children are also raised with a gender neutral focus, where all the children dress the same and are treated in a gender neutral manner. At around the age of 12-14 years, the important event known as their coming of age ceremony occurs, where girls are given skirts, and men are given their pants; thus called the ―skirt ceremony‖ for girls, and the ―pants ceremony‖ for boys. [222] After coming of age, Mosuo females are entitled to their own private bedroom; and, once past puberty, can begin to invite partners for ―walking marriages‖. [223] According to patriarchal macho Argentinean writer Ricardo Coler152, who decided to find out and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China: ―Men live better where women are in charge‖ and ―Women have a different way of dominating.‖ [224] Coler asserts that while he expected an inverse patriarchy, he experienced something totally different, because women have a different way of dominating: ―When women rule, it's part of their work. They like it when everything functions Ricardo Coler (28 May 2009): The Mosuo Matriarchy: 'Men Live Better Where Women Are In Charge'; Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-mosuo-matriarchy-men-live-better-wherewomen-are-in-charge-a-627363.html 152

and the family is doing well. Amassing wealth or earning lots of money doesn't cross their minds. Capital accumulation seems to be a male thing. It's not for nothing that popular wisdom says that the difference between a man and a boy is the price of his toys.‖ [225] What astonished Coler the most, was that there was no violence in the Mosuo culture: ―I know that quickly slips into idealization -- every human society has its problems. But it simply doesn't make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don't know feelings of guilt or vengeance -- it is simply shameful to fight. They are ashamed if they do and it even can threaten their social standing. [If there is an altercation] The women decide what happens. Some of them do it more strictly and others in a friendlier way. They are strong women who give clear orders. When a man hasn't finished a task he's been given, he is expected to admit it. He is not scolded or punished, but instead he is treated like a little boy who was not up to the task.‖ [226] The Mosuo economy is largely agrarian, and they are capable of producing most of what they need for daily living; and consequently are by and large selfsufficient. In the past, Mosuo men would take trading caravans to other parts of China, to buy/trade products they could not produce locally. [227] The traditional Mosuo religion worships nature, is called Daba, with Lugu Lake regarded as the Mother Goddess and the mountain overlooking it venerated as the Goddess of Love. The Mosuo also practice Lamaism, a Tibetan variation of Buddhism. Most Mosuo homes dedicate a room specifically for Buddhist worship and for sheltering traveling lamas, or monks. Their focus is their close relationship to the land that supports them and with their neighbors, who also support them.

RADICAL HONOURSTY CULTURE: JUDGEMENT’S ERRORS: [228] First respondent is a member of an Anthropocentric Masculine Insecurity culture who suffers from psychological affliction known as Masculine Insecurity. [229] Judge Willis Judgement is based upon Masculine Insecurity Anthropocentric Jurisprudence definitions of ‗dignity‘ ‗privacy‘ ‗defamation‘ and ‗reasonableness‘. [230] Reasonable Members of ordinary intelligence from the Radical Honoursty culture did not reasonably understand the words concerned in the Facebook Post ―Letter to [WH] – for Public consumption‖ to convey a defamatory meaning? [231] To the contrary Reasonable Members of ordinary intelligence from the Radical Honesty culture reasonably understood the words concerned in the Facebook Post ―Letter to [WH] – for Public consumption‖ to convey a Meaning of

Tough Love True Honourable Friendship, by conveying constructive criticism publicly and transparently, in this case, facebook to facebook profile. [232]

Tough Love has its cultural adherents, such as in, among many others: 1. Russia: ‗Better to be slapped with the truth, than kissed with a lie.‘ – Russian Proverb 2. Catholic Church: ―I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies.‖ -Pietro Aretino

[233] In the Radical Honoursty culture, an individuals dignity is a result of their lack of self deception, their ability to confront themselves and hold themselves accountable. Their knowledge in the reality that they are – in fact -- ‗true to themselves‘. [234] According to the Radical Honoursty definition of dignity: If I am – in fact – true to myself (as opposed to bullshitting myself that I am true to myself), and I thereby have dignity; then nobody – irrespective of how they treat me – is capable of assaulting my dignity; since my dignity, is a result of my own cognitive, critical thinking and behavioural practices. [235] An individual can however contribute to my ability to have greater sense of dignity in my self; if they perceive that I am unconsciously deceiving myself on any aspect of my behaviour or thinking; and they make an effort to confront me with the constructive criticism evidence of my self deception. If I am willing to investigate the evidence of their constructive criticism, and find it to be accurate, and amend those aspects of my self perception, thinking and/or behaviour; then that individual has enabled me to reach a higher stage of dignity: self awareness of my ability to confront self deception. [236] It is only when I am bullshitting myself, and consciously attempting to manipulate and bullshit others, about ‗who I am pretending to be‘, that I am concerned about maintaining a false ‗image‘ as to whom, I am; and that I would be ‗offended‘, when others did not perceive me as the ‗Emperor image I wished to project‘; but in accordance to my nakedness reality. [237] Put differently, in cultures whose definitions of love, are based upon ‗tough love‘ communication practices: The most derogatory – and hateful -- response any individual, or organisation is not to provide them with face to face constructive criticism, which would be the highest form of love, honour and respect; but to withhold brutally honest constructive criticism, either by (a) two-faced sycophantic kissing them with a lie; or (b) pretending that they do not exist. [238] The Radical Honoursty culture would have challenged the First Respondent to confront the Second Respondent‘s constructive criticism, and determine the

veracity thereof. Is it true, is it accurate? If it is true and accurate, why is his psyche or masculinity so insecure, that he is demanding that individuals whom he clearly has identified as prior friends, refrain from providing him with honest feedback regarding his behaviour and choices? [239] A Radical Honoursty Judgement could have stated something to the effect of: The Radical Honoursty Cultural Court‘ hereby makes the following Declaratory Order: 1. The first Respondent has requested the Court, and thereby, all of his acquaintances, to take notice of, and publicly declare, that he suffers from masculine, psychological, and emotional insecurity issues, and consequent intellectual incapacity to hear or enquire into the constructive criticism, which would enable him to overcome his masculine and psychological insecurities. 2. The court consequently declares that ―Full Name‖ suffers from Masculine and Psychological Insecurity Syndrome (MPIS, also known as ‗Naked Emperor Syndrome‘), and is consequently incapable of adult responsible relationships, which require the psychological capacity for hearing and enquiring into constructive criticism. 3. As a result of ‗Full Name‘ MPIS legal status, the court orders the Respondent to remove all postings which she has posted on Facebook or any other site in the social media which refer to the applicant; and to take into consideration his fragile MPIS status, in any future communications and/or relationship endeavours. [240] Naturally of course, Masculine Insecurity cultures are entitled to encourage or legally brainwash and bribe their members to remain psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually insecure. [241] If all the cultures in any multicultural country are masculine insecurity cultures, then the multicultural jurisprudence need not necessarily reflect, that there are other cultures, who do not encourage their men to remain masculine insecure walking emperor little boys, but to become psychologically, emotionally mature men; that there are other cultures, who encourage all their adults to become emotionally and psychologically secure in hearing and appreciating the values of tough love constructive criticism, in enabling higher levels of selfawareness dignity. [242] In a multicultural country, which has both Masculine Insecurity cultures, as well as Matriarchal Mature cultures; any Jurisprudence based upon Masculine Insecurity‘s culturally insecure legal definitions of ‗dignity‘ and ‗privacy‘ and ‗defamation‘; should not be held to be applicable to Matriarchal Mature cultures.

[243] Any such Masculine Insecurity Judgement should clearly clarify how and why such a judgement should be legally binding upon other cultures, who have have different definitions for the relevant legal terms; whether such cultures are also Masculine Insecurity cultures; or Matriarchal Mature cultures. [244] Additionally a judgement based upon EcoFeminist and CommonSism principles would have required both parties to clarify the parties Ecocentric or Egocentric lifestyle status. Specifically are their procreation and consumption lifestyle practices that of (a) a Sustainable Eco-Innocent, or (b) Unsustainable Breeding/Consumption Combatant. [245] Under a CommonSist Problem Solving System, any Magistrate, Judge, or Community Problem Solving negotiator would be required to ascertain, verify, and transparently declare â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as part of the court record - the Eco-Innocent153 (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant154 (unsustainable) status of all parties (including the Judge, legal representatives and State Representatives) to any court proceeding; including consideration of such status, where relevant to the legal proceedings. Any Eco-Innocent is entitled to be tried by an Eco-Innocent Prosecutor and Judge, and in any dispute with a Scarcity Combatant, may require the court to take notice of Scarcity Combatants behaviour as a relevant155 aggravating factor to Scarcity related socio-political problems, such as: crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste, energy depletion. [246] Matriarchal Mature Radical Honoursty culture is the only culture, in South Africa, that requires its members to practice Sustainable procreation and consumption practices. All other Masculine insecurity cultures do not require their members to practice Sustainable procreation and consumption practices. Radical Honesty culture members therefore make no lifestyle contribution towards crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste, energy depletion; whereas Masculine Insecurity cultures do. [247] When a Masculine Insecurity Judgement further aggravates the hypersensitive level of Masculine Insecurity tolerated by such Masculine Insecurity culture, driving it into the stratospheric range of Masculine insecurity; the socioeconomic and political consequences of this heightened Masculine Insecurity inability to confront constructive criticism and inconvenient truths, shall further Eco-Innocent: * 0 children, consumption < 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption < 1 gha Scarcity Combatant: * 0 children, consumption > 20 gha ((1 gha) x 20) | * 1 child, consumption > 1 gha ((1 gha (2007)) ; anyone with 2 or more children. 155 Population Policy: http://sqswans.weebly.com/population-policy.html Scarcity and Conflict: http://sqswans.weebly.com/scarcity--conflict1.html 153 154

inhibit the culture‘s inability to confront the Masculine Insecurity foundation of its revolving overpopulation and overconsumption » more crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, food shortages, inflation, political instability, loss of civil rights, conformism, political correctness, vanishing species, pollution, urban sprawl, toxic waste, energy depletion » more psychological and masculine insecurity motivating more overconsumption and procreation » revolving door sociopsychological and gender-specific-economic problems. [248]

Relief Requested:

[249] I consequently submit that it is plainly in the interests of justice, gender equality, honest cultural relations, and sustainable security of South African citizens that this application be dealt with on its merits. In the circumstances, I humbly request the relief as set out in the Notice of Motion to which this Affidavit is attached.

Lara Johnstone, Pro Se Signed and Sworn to at George on this the 11th day of February 2013, 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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case: ______________________ SGHC CASE NO: 12/10142 In the matter between: Lara Johnstone

Applicant

and H, WS

1st Respondent

W, N

2nd Respondent

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Lara Johnstone, do swear and declare that on this date, 11 February 2013, I have served the NOTICE OF MOTION, FOUDING AFFIDAVIT on each party to the above proceeding or that partyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, per electronic service, the documents attached in PDF format. The names and addresses of those served are as follows: 1st Respondent Counsel: Judith Elise Wilkins Wilkins Attorneys Palm Place, 22 Bram Fischer Drive, Linden, Johannesburg, Tel : 011 888 2218 | Fax : 086 671 6151 Email: judy@wilkinsattorneys.co.za

Adv. Terese Engelbrecht Group 21, Sandown Village, Village Chambers, Sandton Tel: 011 895 9000 | Fax: 011 895 9001 Cell: 083 253 5194 Email: teresa.e@mweb.co.za

From: Teresa Engelbrecht [mailto:teresa.e@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:39 AM To: 'Lara' Subject: Read: HWS (c/o Wilkins Att & Adv T. Engelbrecht) & WN (c/o JNS Attorneys & Adv van Aswegen) - Electronic Service - SCA Applic for Review Your message To: 'HWS: Wilkins Att: Judith Wilkins'; 'HWS: Adv Terese Engelbrecht' Cc: 'WN: JNS Att: Kobus Swart'; 'WN: Adv S van Aswegen' Subject: HWS (c/o Wilkins Att & Adv T. Engelbrecht) & WN (c/o JNS Attorneys & Adv van Aswegen) - Electronic Service - SCA Applic for Review Sent: 2/11/2013 11:13 AM was read on 2/11/2013 11:39 AM.

2nd Respondent Counsel: Kobus Swart JNS Attorneys JHB Law Chambers 5 Hunter Street, Ferndale, Randburg 2194 Tel: 011 326 1829 | Fax: 011 326 4193 Email: kswart@jhblaw.co.za

Adv. S. Van Aswegen Group 21, Sandown Village, Village Chambers, Sandton Tel: 011 895 9000 | Fax: 011 895 9001 Cell: 082 653 8915 Email: aswegens@law.co.za

ELECTRONIC SERVICE: From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:13 AM To: 'HWS: Wilkins Att: Judith Wilkins'; 'HWS: Adv Terese Engelbrecht' Cc: 'WN: JNS Att: Kobus Swart'; 'WN: Adv S van Aswegen' Subject: HWS (c/o Wilkins Att & Adv T. Engelbrecht) & WN (c/o JNS Attorneys & Adv van Aswegen) - Electronic Service - SCA Applic for Review ELECTRONIC ACK OF RECEIPT: From: aswegens@law.co.za [mailto:aswegens@law.co.za] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:25 AM To: Lara Subject: Delivered: HWS (c/o Wilkins Att & Adv T. Engelbrecht) & WN (c/o JNS Attorneys & Adv van Aswegen) - Electronic Service - SCA Applic for Review Your message was delivered to the recipient. Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!

TRANSPARENCY COPIES:

Executive Director: Mark Ellis Deputy Executive Director: Tim Hughes BIC Project Manager: Elaine Owen Head of Legal Projects: Gonzalo Guzmรกn Human Rights Inst Co-Dir: Fiona Wilson & Phillip Tahmindjis Head of Legal Practice Div: Ronnie Hart International Bar Association 4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7842 0090 | Fax: +44 (0)20 7842 0091 Mr. Cameron Jacobs Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299, USA Tel: 1-(212) 290-4700 HRW NY (hrwpress@hrw.org) Birgit Schwarz (schwarb@hrw.org) HRW-SA (spiegel@gonet.co.za)

Secretary General: Salil Shetty Amnesty International 1 Easton Street, London, WC1X 0DW, UK Tel: +44-20-74135500 Fax: +44-20-79561157 AI UN-NY (aiunny@amnesty.org)

ELECTRONIC TRANSPARENCY NOTICE: From: Lara [mailto:jmcswan@mweb.co.za] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:58 AM To: Int Bar Assoc: ExecDir: Mark Ellis (mark.ellis@int-bar.org); Int Bar Assoc: HRI.Dir: Fiona Wilson (fiona.wilson@int-bar.org); Int Bar Assoc: HRI.Dir: Phillip Tahmindjis (phillip.tahmindjis@int-bar.org) Cc: HRW: Cameron Jacobs (schwarb@hrw.org); HRW: SA: Cameron Jacobs (spiegel@gonet.co.za); HRW: NY: Office (hrwpress@hrw.org); AI: UN-NY (aiunny@amnesty.org); AI: Geneva (uaigv@amnesty.org) Subject: IBA, AI & HRW cited in SCA Applic for Review - Electronic Transparency Notice ELECTRONIC ACK OF RECEIPT: From: Mark Ellis [mailto:Mark.Ellis@int-bar.org] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:03 PM To: Lara Subject: Read: IBA, AI & HRW cited in SCA Applic for Review Electronic Transparency Notice Your message To: Mark Ellis Subject: IBA, AI & HRW cited in SCA Applic for Review - Electronic Transparency Notice Sent: 11 February 2013 09:58:05 (UTC) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London was read on 11 February 2013 10:02:40 (UTC) Greenwich Mean Time : Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: 11 February, 2013

________________________________ Lara Johnstone, In Forma Pauperis, Pro Se P O Box 5042 George East, 6539, South Africa Tel: +27-44 870 7239 Cel: +27-71 170 1954 Email: habeusmentem@mweb.co.za

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: 12/10142

REPORTABLE DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) (2) (3)

REPORTABLE: YES / NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO REVISED.

…………………….. DATE

In the matter between:

………………………... SIGNATURE

Page 2

Applicant

H, WS and

Respondent

W, N

JUDGMENT

WILLIS J:

[1] The applicant seeks an order against the respondent in the following terms: 1.1.

Interdicting and restraining the respondent from posting any information pertaining to the applicant on Facebook or any other social media;

1.2.

In the event that the respondent fails to comply to the abovementioned order that the respondent then be placed under arrest for non-compliance for a period of 30 days or a period as determined by the Court;

Page 3

1.3.

Removing the postings so posted by the respondent from Facebook or any other social site it might have been placed;

1.4.

If and in the event that the respondent fails, alternatively neglects, alternatively refuses to remove such postings from Facebook or any other social media site upon which it might have been posted that the Sheriff of Randburg be ordered and authorised to remove the postings so listed by the respondent;

1.5.

Costs of the application.

[2] The respondent is the author of the posting on Facebook1 which has given rise to this litigation. It was posted on 27 February, 2012. Its rubric reads: ‘Letter to WH – for public consumption’. WH is the applicant in this matter. Included in the posting is the following: I wonder too what happened to the person who I counted as a best friend for 15 years, and how this behaviour is justified. Remember I see the broken hearted faces of your girls every 1

Facebook is a popular, free, social networking website on the internet which enables registered users to send messages to one another, upload photographs and videos, keep in touch with one another and send information about oneself (and others) to other registered users. This definition has been adapted (in an attempt to conform to the requirements of legal precision) from that given by Margaret Rouse on whatis.techtarget.com (Accessed 17 January 2013). It has 900 million users worldwide, 23% of whom visit their ‘Facebook page more than fives times a day. See: www.internetworldsats.com/facebook.htm (Accessed 17 January 2013). 250million photographs are loaded on to Facebook daily. See, again: www.internetworldsats.com/facebook.htm (Accessed 17 January 2013). In South Africa there are almost six million Facebook users. See http:/www.socialbakers.com/facebookstatistic (Accessed 17 January 2013). The largest single age group of users is between 25 and 34 years old, consisting of some 1,8 million persons. See, again: http:/www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistic

Page 4

day. Should we blame the alcohol, the drugs, the church, or are they more reasons to not have to take responsibility for the consequences of your own behaviour? But mostly I wonder whether, when you look in the mirror in your drunken testosterone haze, do you still see a man?

[3] It is common cause that the applicant enjoys a good party and that he likes his social intercourse to be lubricated with alcoholic beverages. The applicant is an active social networker in that he has both a Facebook and Twitter2 account on which he often communicates and therefore shares information. The respondent has relied on these facts as grounds of justification for publishing the posting in question. The respondent has refused to remove the posting, despite having been requested so to do by the applicant, acting through his attorney.

[4] The applicant is an insurance broker who is separated from his wife. The respondent had been a close friend of the applicant. This friendship extends back from the time before the applicant married his wife. In terms of a Deed of Trust, the applicant and his wife had jointly appointed the respondent to be the guardian of their three minor children in the event that both the applicant and his wife died or became incapacitated before their children attained their majority. The applicant had provided the respondent with guidance in starting her current business venture. The respondent had lent the applicant money to tide him over certain financial difficulties.

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Twitterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is dealt with in more detail in paragraph [22] below.

Page 5

[5] The applicant and his estranged wife are engaged in a divorce action. The applicant’s estranged wife is presently residing with the respondent. The applicant’s wife left him to stay with the respondent on 14 January, 2012. The applicant pays for the children’s medical aid, extra mural classes, stationery and a full time tutor to assist them. The three minor children born of the marriage between the applicant and his estranged wife are Z, born in 1997, M, born in 1999 and C, born in 2001. These minor children have been residing with the applicant for the last few months. The two minor daughters are both ‘friends’ on Facebook with the respondent. A ‘friend on Facebook’ is a ‘term of art’ to which I shall later refer. The applicant and the respondent were friends on Facebook but, consequent upon the applicant’s wife leaving him and moving into the home of the respondent, the applicant has ‘defriended’ the respondent. [6] The applicant complains that the posting in question publishes information which portrays him as: (i) A father who does not provide financially for his family; (ii) A father who would rather go out drinking than caring for his family; (iii) A person who has a problem with drugs and alcohol. The applicant’s attorney, in her letter dated 28 February 2012 addressed to the respondent, referred to the possibility of a claim for damages. The respondent claims that she posted the posting not to defame the applicant but in order for the applicant to reflect on his life and on the road he had chosen.

Page 6

[7] We have ancient, common law rights both to privacy3 and to freedom of expression.4 These rights have been enshrined in our Constitution.5 The social media, of which Facebook is a component, have created tensions for these rights in ways that could not have been foreseen by the Roman Emperor Justinian’s legal team, the 3

It may interest those who take pride in our Roman-Dutch common law heritage that it was not until 1890 that a right to privacy was recognised by the courts in the United States of America. The reason for this was that a right to privacy was not recognized in English common law, which was the law which was inherited in the USA. See: Anneliese Roos, Privacy in the Facebook Era: A South African Legal Perspective (2012) 129 SALJ 375. Our rights to privacy derive from the actio iniuriarum, an instrument that has descended to us from Roman law. That the actio iniuriarum protects privacy was first recognised in the South African courts in the case of O’Keeffe v Argus Printing and Publishing Company Limited 1954 (3) SA 244 (C) at 247H to 249E, especially at 249C. See, once again: Anneliese Roos, Privacy in the Facebook Era: A South African Legal Perspective (supra) at p377. 4

See, for example, National Media Limited and Others v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA) at 1210F. 5

Section 14 of our Constitution provides that: ‘Everyone has the right of privacy, which includes the right not to have – a) b) c) d)

their person or home searched; their property searched; their possessions seized; or the privacy of their communications infringed.’

Section 16 of our Constitution asserts that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression which includes – (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas...’. The importance of this right has been affirmed on several occasions by the Constitutional Court. See, South African National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Another 1999 (4) SA 469 (CC) at paragraph [7]; S v Mambolo (eTV and Others Intervening) 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC) at paragraph [37] Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others 2002 SA 294 (CC) at paragraphs [15] to [19] and Khumalo and Others v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC) at paragraph [21]; De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division, and Others 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC) at paragraphs [46] to [50]; Laugh it Off Promotions CC v SAB International (Finance) BV t/a SABMARK International (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae) 2006 (1) SA 144 (CC); Johncom Media Investments Limited v M and Others 2009 (4) SA 7 (CC) at paragraph [1]; Biowatch Trust v Registrar, Genetic Resources 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC) at paragraph [27]; Brümmer v Minster for Social Development and Others 2009 (6) 323 (CC) at paragraph [63]; Bothma v Els and Others 2010 (2) SA 622 (CC) at paragraph [92]In the Khumalo and Others v Holomisa case, at paragraph [28]. O’Regan J, delivering the unanimous judgment of the Constitutional Court said: ‘The right to privacy, entrenched in section 14 of the Constitution, recognises that human beings have the right to a sphere of intimacy and autonomy that should be protected from invasion. This right serves to foster human dignity. No sharp lines can be drawn between reputation, dignitas and privacy in giving effect to the value of human dignity in our Constitution’. See also: Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC); and Mistry v Interim Medical and Dental Council of South Africa and Others 1998 (4) SA 1127 (CC).

Page 7

learned Dutch legal writers of the seventeenth century (the ‘old authorities’) or the founders of our Constitution.

[8] It is the duty of the courts harmoniously to develop the common law in accordance with the principles enshrined in our Constitution.6 The pace of the march of technological progress has quickened to the extent that the social changes that result therefrom require high levels of skill not only from the courts, which must respond appropriately, but also from the lawyers who prepare cases such as this for adjudication.

[9] Counsel for the parties were ad idem that there is a dearth of South African case law on the question of the social media. Counsel are commended for responding so positively to my invitation that they should further research certain questions posed by me during the course of their argument. Not only did they undertake their research diligently and competently but also innovatively. For example, I received, via the electronic media, ‘footnotes to footnotes’ which contained entire copies of judgments and extracts from the learned texts to which reference was made in the usual sequence of footnotes. It will not be possible to do justice to the research of counsel without penning an unduly lengthy judgment which would detract from its accessibility to those persons, other than the litigants themselves, who use the social media. Both counsel referred me to helpful articles on the issue of Facebook. Especial mention deserves to be made of those 6

Sections 39 (2) and 173 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Page 8

articles written by Anneliese Roos, Professor of Private Law in the University of South Africa, ‘Privacy in the Facebook Era: A South African Legal Perspective’7 and James Grimmelmann, Associate Professor of Law in the New York Law School, ‘Saving Facebook’.8

[10] In the case of Dutch Reformed Church Vergesig Johannesburg Congregation and Another v Rayan Soknunan t/a Glory Divine World Ministries9 my sister Satchwell referred to the following extract from the case of Largent v Reed and Pena:10 Facebook is a free social networking site. To join a user must set up a profile, which is accessible only through the user's ID (email) and a password. Facebook allows users to interact with, instant message, email and friend or unfriend other users; to play online games; and to upload notes, photos and videos. Facebook users can post status updates about what they are doing or thinking. Users can post their current location to other friends, suggest restaurant, businesses, or politicians or political causes to 'like', and comment or 'like' other friends' posts. Social networking websites like Facebook, Google and MySpace are ubiquitous. Facebook which is only seven years old, has more than 800 million active users, 505 of whom are active on the site at any given day (Facebook statistics as at 25 October 2011). Facebook has spawned a field of academic research, books and a movie. Social networking websites also have a dark side – they have caused criminal investigations and prosecutions and civil tort actions . . . 7

(2012) 129 SALJ at 375

James Grimmelmann, Saving Facebook, 2009 (94) Iowa Law Review 1137 at 1137-1205

2012 (6) SA 201 (GSJ) at paragraph [42]

39 Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Franklin County 2009-1823 at 3-5

Page 9

Facebook has a detailed, ever-changing privacy policy. Only people with user account can access Facebook. For all practical purposes, anyone with an email account can set up a Facebook account. Users can set their privacy settings to various levels, although a person's name, profile picture and user ID are always publicly available. At the least restrictive setting, named 'public', all 800 million users can view whatever is on a certain user's profile. At an intermediate level, only a user's Facebook friends can view such information, and at the least restrictive, only the user can view his or her profile. Facebook also currently allows users to customize their privacy settings. Facebook alerts users that Facebook friends may 'tag' them in any posting . . . 'You can either approve each post individually or approve all posts by your friends. If you approve a post and later change your mind, you can always remove it from your profile. If you do not want someone to tag you in their posts, we encourage you to reach out to them and give them that feedback. If that does not work, you can block them. This will prevent them from tagging you going forward.' (Facebook Data Policy) Therefore, users of Facebook know that their information may be shared by default, and a user must take affirmative steps to prevent the sharing of such information.

[11] The respondent contends that Facebook is an international social networking site and service (‘SNS’) launched in 2003 and owned and operated by Facebook Inc.11 Facebook is among the most popular SNS worldwide. 12 A social network service, an SNS, is: a web-based service that allows individuals to:

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit.

Page 10

(a) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; (b) articulates a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (c) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.

The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.

[12] The respondent goes on to contend that it is characteristic of an SNS that a user creates what is known as a ‘profile’.14 This is made up from

personal

information.15

user’s

personal

information

encompasses basic information such as where a person lives, his or her birthday and may include political and religious affiliations views. The profile usually extends to pictures, the user’s relationship status and family members as well as tastes in music, books, films.16 Customarily, it refers to the user’s educational background and contains contact information such as e-mail addresses and telephone numbers.17 [13] The user adds what are known as ‘contacts’ in order to build relationships or a social network.18 A user can ‘traverse’ to other users’ sites and leave a private or public message on the site.19 On 13

Boyd DM & Ellison N “Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship” 2007 (vol 13 no1) Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication article 11. See also Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit. 14

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit.

See Grimmelmann’s article, op. cit.

Page 11

Facebook a message may be posted on what is termed a user’s ‘wall’.20 Everyone added as a ‘contact’ can view and respond to such a message left on a ‘wall’.21 [14] A perusal of readily accessible information on the internet as well as Facebook’s own promotional literature and the article by Grimmelmann ‘Saving Facebook’22 indicates that Facebook seeks to put existing friends in touch with each other whilst also creating new friendships or networks between people. The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has said that Facebook is all about being ‘social’.23 This ‘social’ quality of the social media has legal implications for publication therein (or should one, more correctly, say ‘thereon’) to which I shall refer later. [15] Facebook is a voluntary social network to which members subscribe and submit information.24 Facebook is distinguished from other online sites such as Twitter or search engines such as Google in that in order to become a member a subscriber must accede and agree to Facebook’s Data Privacy Policies and Terms.25 Once subscribed as a user the user creates an ‘identity’.26 In order to view a subscriber’s 20

See Grimmelmann’s article, op. cit.

See techcrunch.com/2012/09/11/zuckerberg-the-leader (Accessed 24 January 2013).

See Grimmelmann ‘s article, op. cit. especially at 1152-1160

Facebook’s Privacy Policies and Terms.

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit.

See Grimmelmann’s article, op.cit.

Page 12

information one must be connected to that subscriber as a ‘friend’ or a ‘contact’.27 The ‘contact’ function allows the user to form or maintain one-to-one relationships with other users.28 By adding a ‘contact’ the user gives the contact access to his or her ‘profile’.29

This has the

consequence that the user shares personal information with the contact.30

Sharing personal information with a ‘contact’ or friend

creates a sense of intimacy and strengthens personal ties. 31

[16] Facebook has created a worldwide forum enabling friends to share information such as thoughts, links and photographs with one another.32 These personal thoughts, and photographs are generally known as ‘posts’.33 These ‘posts’ can either be ‘posted’ to a friend on that friend’s page known as a ‘wall’ or on the subscribers own ‘wall’.34 On the user’s wall Facebook invites the user to comment.

A user’s

wall is a personal space allowing for expression on any subject of choice.36 One’s ‘profile’ can be set so that one’s ‘contacts’ are notified of any new ‘posts’ on one’s ‘wall’ and vice versa.37 27

Ibid.

Page 13

[17] A Facebook application called ‘photos’ also allows a user to share

photographs.38 This may entail a process known as ‘tagging’.39 ‘Tagging’ a person means that the application allows one to click on the photograph and then enter the person’s name.40 Tagging also enables one to post information which may be seen by one’s Facebook friends. 41 These friends can forward such information to others. 42

[18] Facebook subscribers can also gain access to posts by other Facebook subscribers depending on the privacy settings between the parties.43 A party who shares the original post is thus not necessarily the author thereof.44 A subscriber can choose between various ‘privacy settings’ choosing to make information available.45 Facebook states in its policies that, although it makes every effort to protect a user’s information, these privacy settings are however not fool-proof.46

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit. p383 to 385

Ibid.

See Grimmelmann’s article, op.cit.

Ibid.

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit., footnote 48

Page 14

[19] The act of disclosure of information is referred to as a user’s ‘visibility’.47 Users control their ‘visibility’ by their ‘privacy settings’.48 There are three ‘privacy settings’:

(i)

‘Everyone’ which is a ‘public’ setting which enables information and posts which are created to be available to all Facebook users, whether friends with that particular subscriber or not;

(ii)

‘Friends of friends’ which enables those who are in the subscriber’s immediate network also to view the posts, including photographs.

(iii)

‘Friends only’ which allows only those people whom the Facebook user has selected or whose friend requests the user has accepted, to see the posts. 49

[20] These privacy settings on Facebook enable a user to do the following: (i) To control the list of friends; (ii) To determine when to ‘check in’; (iii)

Remove oneself from Facebook search results where one does not want people to be able to search Facebook for information about one;

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit. p386-390

Allfacebook.com/facebook-privacy-settings_b31836

Page 15

(iv)

Remove oneself from Google;

(v)

Avoid the photographic/video tag mistakes;

(vi)

Enable HTTPS (internet security settings) where one can set up security alerts and login alerts;

(vii)

Make information about ‘contacts’ private;

(viii) Avoid embarrassing wall posts about oneself; (ix)

Gain access to information available to applications such as ‘Farmville’ and others;

(x)

Instant ‘Personalization’ through which one can stop other websites from viewing one’s personal profile. 50

[21] Accordingly, although one can control one’s own Facebook profile but there is no method, within the Facebook system itself, by which one can control what other people place on their profiles about oneself and who can look at that. [22] ‘Twitter’ is also commonly known as being part of the social media.51 It is an information sharing and micro-blogging site available on the internet.52 It was founded in 2006 by Jack Dorsey and Christopher ‘Biz’ Stone.53 Registered subscribers ‘tweet’ ( which means send messages or share information), limited to 140 characters or less,

Ibid.

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit.

See: Mashable.com/category/twitter/ (Accessed 24 January 2013)

Ibid.

Page 16

to their followers.54 Twitter has 517 million users worldwide, sending some 175 million ‘tweets’ per day.55 ‘Tweets’ are publicly visible by default. 56 Another example of the social media is LinkedIn. 57

[23] ‘Google’, on the other hand, is an international public search engine, owned by Google Incorporated, which collects publicly accessible content and information on topics and either hosts or provides links to that information.58 Searches made by Google leave traces, called ‘cookies’.59

When using a search engine through a

browser program on a computer, search terms and other information will usually be stored on a computer by default, unless erased.60 The 54

Ibid.

See: www.internetworldsats.com/facebook.htm (Accessed 17 January 2013).

See: Mashable.com/category/twitter/ (Accessed 24 January 2013)Ibid.

See Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit. It is appropriate that I disclose that I have not ‘joined’ Facebook but have subscribed to LinkedIn. All three of my children are ‘on Facebook’. There are two reasons why I am not a subscriber to Facebook. The first is that there is a considerable body of opinion among judges both in South Africa and abroad that Facebook necessitates too public a disclosure of private facts than is appropriate in the case of judges. Unless a matter of high moral principle is involved I think it better that when it comes to issues that may affect the reputation of judges collectively, it is better that they judges should try to operate ‘in phase’ with one another, rather than venture upon frolics of their own. The second is that I have been much affected by listening to a radio interview with a celebrity in which he expressed his horror at the thought of his father inviting him to be a ‘Facebook friend’. I have the impression that my own children would be embarrassed if I were to ‘join’ Facebook. Through my being a subscriber to LinkedIn, I have been able to experience, first hand, the benefits of the social media. I have re-established contact with long lost friends all around the world, with some of whom I last had exchanges more than 30 years ago. I also have the comfort and security of belonging to a worldwide network of highly influential people. 58

See, Simonwillison.net/2004/apr/5/whatisgoogle/ and www.stateofsearch.com/what-isgoogle-really-all-about/ (BOTH accessed on 17 January 2013) 59

See, www.google.com/goodtoknow/data-on-the-web/cookies/ www.google.co.za/policies/privacy/ads/ (BOTH accessed on 17 January 2013) 60

and

See, Simonwillison.net/2004/apr/5/whatisgoogle/ and www.stateofsearch.com/what-isgoogle-really-all-about/ (BOTH accessed on 17 January 2013)

Page 17

Internet Service Provider stores records with related search items to an IP address and a time.

Google may keep logs of the same

information.62 Google searches webpages, images, news websites, videos and maps. 63

[24] In the case of Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others NNO,64 the Constitutional Court held that ‘In South African law the right to privacy is recognized as an independent personality right which the courts have included within the concept of dignitas’.65 The Constitutional Court has also entrenched in our law the close link between human dignity and privacy.66 [25] In Janse van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger67 Harms AJA (as he then was) said ‘to determine whether a prima facie invasion of the right to privacy is justified, it appears that in general the principles formulated in the defences of justification in the law of defamation

Ibid.

1996(2) SA 751 (CC) at paragraph [68]

At paragraph [68]

See National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC) where it was said at paragraph [30]: ‘This case illustrates how, in particular circumstances, the rights of equality and dignity are closely related, as are the rights of dignity and privacy’; and Khumalo and Others v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC) at paragraph [21]; andDe Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division, and Others 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC) at paragraphs [46] to [50].. 67

1993 (4) SA 842 (A) at 850

Page 18

ought to apply’. In view of the imprimatur given by the Constitutional Court to the linkages between dignity and privacy, it may confidently be accepted that this approach of Harms AJA is correct. [26] In the recent case of Mthembi-Mahanyele v Mail & Guardian,68 the Supreme Court of Appeal (‘SCA’) affirmed the principle that the test for determining whether the words in respect of which there is a complaint have a defamatory meaning is whether a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence might reasonably understand the words concerned to convey a meaning defamatory of the litigant concerned.69 The words of the posting on Facebook which are in issue in this case indeed contain the defamatory meaning of which the applicant complains. [27] In our law, it is not good enough, as a defence to or a ground of justification for a defamation, that the published words may be true: it must also be to the public benefit or in the public interest that they be published.70 A distinction must always be kept between what ‘is interesting to the public’ as opposed to ‘what it is in the public interest to make known’.71 The courts do not pander to prurience.

I am

satisfied that it is neither to the public benefit or in the public interest 68

2004 6 SA 329 (SCA)

Ibid. at paragraph [25]

See Financial Mail (Pty) Limited v SAGE Holdings Limited 1993 (2) SA 451 (A) at 464C; Argus Printing & Publishing Company Limited and Others v Esselen’s Estate 1994 (2) SA 1 (A) at p25B-E; National Media Limited and Others v Bogoshi 1998 4 SA 1196 SCA at p1208G-J 70

Ibid.

Page 19

that the words in respect of which the applicant complains be published, even if it is accepted that they are true.

[28] The next defence which needs to be considered is that of ‘fair comment’. In Crawford v Albu72 it was held that in order to qualify as ‘fair comment’, the comment ‘must be based on facts expressly stated or clearly indicated and admitted or proved to be true’.73 When a defence to or a ground of justification for a defamation is raised in motion court proceedings, the assessment of facts differs from that set out in Plascon-Evans Paints Limited v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Limited.74 The respondent, having raised a defence of fair comment, bears a burden of rebuttal.75 This burden presents the respondent with an insuperable difficulty in the present case. She has been unable to justify her posting. Furthermore, malice or improper motive by the perpetrator of the comment also acts to defeat the defence of fair comment. 76 The background to the posting, together with the words themselves, indicates that the respondent acted out of malice when she posted the offending comments.

1917 AD 102

At 114

1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at p634E-635C

See: Borgin v De Villiers and Another 1980 (3) SA 556 (A); Marais v Richard en ’n Ander 1981 (1) SA 1157 (A); National Media Limited and Others v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 at p1218E-F; Khumalo v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 CC at paragraph [18]. 76

See Marais v Richard en ’n Ander 1981 (1) SA 1157 (A) at p1170A-C and Jansen Van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger 1993 (4) SA 842 (A) at 850H-I.

Page 20

[29] The posting by the respondent was unlawful. In coming to this conclusion I have been mindful of the following which was said by Corbett CJ in Financial Mail (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sage Holdings Limited and Another:77 In demarcating the boundary between the lawfulness and unlawfulness in this field (infringement of personal privacy) the Court must have regard to the particular facts of the case and judge them in the light of contemporary boni mores and the general sense of justice of the community as perceived by the Court. Often a decision on the issue of unlawfulness will

involve a consideration and weighing

competing

interests.78

[30] What is to be done? The first two requirements for an interdict set out in Setlogelo v Setlogelo79 have comfortably been satisfied. Insofar as an interdict is concerned, the applicant has a clear right to his privacy and the protection of his reputation. The applicant has indeed been defamed. What of the question of whether there is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;? The respondent has drawn attention to the fact that, previously, the applicant via his attorney, threatened to institute an action to claim damages. The respondent suggests that, if she has found to have defamed the applicant, his proper remedy is damages.

1993 (2) SA 451 (A)

At 462F -463A

1914 AD 221 at 227

Page 21

[31] It is in respect of the remedy where infringements of privacy take place in the social media that the common law needs to develop. The social media form a subset of the electronic media but are not coextensive with it: the social media are all part of the electronic media but not all the electronic media are social media. The electronic media were, almost certainly, beyond the imagination of the court when Setlogelo v Setlogelo was decided in 1914. Not only can items be posted and travel on the electronic media at a click on a computer in a moment, in an instant, at the twinkling of an eye, but also they can, with similar facility, be removed therefrom. This can also be done at minimal cost. The situation is qualitatively different from the scenario where newspapers have been or are about printed in hardcopy and distributed. The law has to take into account changing realities not only technologically but also socially or else it will lose credibility in the eyes of the people. Without credibility, law loses legitimacy. If law loses legitimacy, it loses acceptance. If it loses acceptance, it loses obedience. It is imperative that the courts respond appropriately to changing times, acting cautiously and with wisdom.

[32] Louis Brandeis, a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, together with his professional partner in a Boston law firm, Samuel Warren, wrote an article in 1890 in the Harvard Law Review in which they argued that: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Political, social and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the

Page 22

common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the demands of socirty...’.80

[33] In the case of Financial Mail (Pty) Limited v Sage Holdings Limited81 Corbett CJ said: In a case of publication in the press of private facts about a person, the person’s interest in preventing the public disclosure of such facts must be weighed against the interest of the public, if any, to be informed about such facts.82

[34] The historical reluctance of the courts to interdict publication in the media has its roots only in the issues relating to technology and economics that arise from ‘stopping the press’ but also a concern about the social consequences of stopping the free flow of news and information. This concern about the ‘chilling effect’ of court orders on freedom of expression has been manifested in the case of National Media Limited v Bogoshi83 recently decided in the SCA.

[35] Although major news items such as tsunamis, the outbreaks of war and the election of presidents may travel through the social media, the social media are not primarily news media. As the founder of Facebook said, it is all about being ‘social’. The electronic media is 80

Samuel Warren and Louis D Brandeis ‘The right to privacy’ (1890) 4 Harvard L R 193 At 195. See also, Anneliese Roos’ article, op.cit. at p376 81

1993 (2) SA 451 (A) At p462I-J 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA) at p1210G-I

Page 23

laden with news media. The social media are qualitatively different from the electronic news media. Such important news as may travel through the social media will also, in most instances, be widely and readily available in the news media as well. Attitudes by the courts to the removal of items from the social media may be justifiably different in the case of the news media, even where the news media appear in electronic rather than print form. As Lior Jacob Strahilivetz has pointed out in his publication, A Social-Network Theory of Privacy,84 mathematical and sociological analysis shows that the effect of publication is much dependent on its context within the actual media.

[36] As an instrument for spreading love, friendship, fun and laughter around the world, Facebook is incontestably a force for good. As the learned authors Grimmelmann and Roos have pointed out, however, Facebook is fraught with dangers especially in the field of privacy.85 Grimmelmann, although sceptical about the efficacy many other instruments (including legislation) to address the dangers of Facebook, believes that appropriate interventions by the courts can have a positive effect on the use of Facebook.86

[37] As was said by both the Constitutional Court in S v Mamabolo (eTV and Others Intervening)87 and the SCA in National Media v Bogoshi88 84

72. V.CHI. L. REV. 919, 923-24

Op. cit. (supra)

2001 (3) SA 409 (CC) at p429I-431B

1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA) at p1207D

Page 24

and Van Der Berg v Coopers and Lybrand Trust (Pty) Limited and Others,89 resolving the tensions between every human being’s constitutionally enshrined rights both to freedom of expression and to dignitas is all about balance. In the case of Le Roux v Dey Freedom of Expression Institute and Another as amici curiae)90 the Constitutional Court emphasized the need to take into account the context in which a publication occurs.91

[38] The respondent has contended that the applicant could have approached Facebook, reported the abuse and asked for the posting to be blocked. Her counsel, Ms Van Aswegen, submitted that, as a subscriber, the applicant must know of Facebook’s Data Policies and of the fact that he can report abuse to Facebook. There is nothing before me to assure me that Facebook would comply with such a request. Grimmelmann argues that it is better for the courts to focus on users rather than Facebook itself if intrusions on privacy are effectively to be curbed.92 I agree: if one wants to stop wrongdoing, it is best to act against the wrongdoers themselves. [39] As is to be expected of a case that was decided in 1914 on so vital a legal issue as the obtaining of an interdict and which has been affirmed consistently since then, the question of what is meant by ‘the

2001(2) SA 242 (SCA) at paragraph [23]

2011 (3) SA 274 (CC)

See paragraphs [39] to [51]

Op. cit. p1195

Page 25

absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy’ in Setlogelo v Setlogelo has been much considered.93? As Colin Prest notes, Van der Linden used the words ‘geen ander gewoon middel…waar door men met het zelfde gevolg kan geholpen worden’ and ‘geen ander ordinair middel…waar door men met het zelfde effect kan geholpen worden’.94 (Koopmans Handboek (Institutes) 3.1.4.7 and Judicieele Practijcq 2.19.1). In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that by issuing an interdict that the respondent is to remove the posting, the court will be providing a remedy for which there is no other by which the applicant, with the same effect, ‘kan geholpen worden.’ Besides, the interdict which I propose to make will resolve the issue without the needless expense, drama, trauma and delay that are likely to accompany an action for damages in a case such as this.

[40] Although judges learn to be adept at reading tealeaves, they are seldom good at gazing meaningfully into crystal balls. For this reason I shall not go so far as ‘interdicting and restraining the respondent from posting any information pertaining to the applicant on Facebook or any other social media’. I have no way of knowing for certain that there will be no circumstances in the future that may justify publication about the applicant.

References to these cases can conveniently be found in Herbstein and Van Winsen,’s th The Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, 4 edition (1997); Juta’s: Cape Town. at pp.1063-1077 and C.B. Prest, The Law and Practice of Interdicts, (1996); Juta’s: Cape Town, at pp 45-48. An already lengthy judgment will needlessly be extended by referring to all these cases individually. 94

Ibid.

Page 26

[41] It seems that the relief which has been sought which relates to placing the respondent under arrest, if she fails to comply with the court’s order, is ancillary to the making of a continuing order of prohibition on postings in the social media. In any event, I shall also not go so far as making an order, at this stage, that in the event that the respondent fails to comply with the court’s order that the respondent then be placed under arrest for non-compliance for a period of 30 days or any other period. At the moment I have no way of knowing whether or not the respondent may become incapable of complying with the court’s order. Besides, it is unseemly for the courts to wield their authority with a sledgehammer. Everyone knows that life can be made uncomfortable for those who do not comply with court orders. [42] I am not sure that it falls within the competence of the Sheriff of Randburg to remove the postings should the respondent fail to do so. At this stage I shall make no order in this regard but the applicant is welcome to approach me again on this issue should it become necessary. [43] Those who make postings about others on the social media would be well advised to remove such postings immediately upon the request of an offended party. It will seldom be worth contesting one’s obligation to do so. After all, the social media is about building friendships around the world, rather than offending fellow human beings. Affirming bonds of affinity is what being ‘social’ is all about. [44] It is to be anticipated that, in response to this exhortation to remove offending comments from Facebook when called upon to do

Page 27

so, there will be the following question: ‘but what about public figures?’ A few observations in this regard may be appropriate in order to avoid misunderstandings. Corbett CJ said in Financial Mail (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sage Holdings Limited and Another,95 that every case should be decided in the light of the boni mores of society.96 ‘Boni mores’ means, literally, ‘good customs/conventions’ but in this context it may more accurately be translated as ‘society’s sense of justice and fair play’. Ms Engelbrecht, counsel for the applicant, strongly relied the chapter on privacy in Johann Neething’s The Law of Personality.97 In that work he refers to a short article of his, written many years ago, in which he supports the standard that, in matters relating to privacy, parties persons must act reasonably (‘op ’n redelike wyse’).98 [45] The ‘truth plus public benefit/interest’ test will generally protect both public figures and those who write about them provided it is remembered that it is not in the public interest that every titbit of information and not every morsel of salacious gossip about a public figure be made publicly known. There is legitimate public interest in the affairs of public figures. Legitimate interest in what they do does not overshadow the fact that public figures have the same human rights as everyone else. They too enjoy a constitutional right to privacy. 95

1993 (2) SA 451 (A)

Financial Mail v Sage Holdings (supra) at p462F – 463B; Neethling (supra) at p246.

Neethling, J. (2005) The Law of Personality, Durban, Chapter 8, Right to Privacy. 98

edition, LexisNexis Butterworths:

1977 THRHR 101 at 104. He wrote a commentary on S v I 1976 (1) SA 781 (RA). Neethling, in his The Law of Personality (at p246) also endorses what Corbett CJ said in Financial Mail (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sage Holdings Limited and Another (supra at at p462F – 463B) about the boni mores test.

Page 28

Not only does our law protect every person’s right to dignitas (inner tranquillity)99 but also to fama (reputation).100 The ‘fair comment’ test will generally come to the aid of those who wish to express themselves lavishly and perhaps even extravagantly. Trenchant commentaries on the performances of politicians as politicians, entertainers as entertainers, musicians as musicians, artists as artists, writers as writers, poets as poets, sports stars as sports stars will generally pass legal muster, even if posted in the social media. When it comes to freedom of expression in South Africa, there are oceans in which to swim and upon which to sail as freely as the wind blows. [46] Above all, it is well to remember what Harms JA said in National Media Limited v Jooste,101 after referring to American jurisprudence, that the question of whether private facts are worthy of protection is determined by reference to ‘ordinary or reasonable sensibilities and not to hypersensitivities’.102 Grimmelmann sagely invokes the ancient maxim de minimis non curat lex (the law is not concerned with

In Melius De Villiers’ (1899), The Roman and Roman-Dutch Law of Injuries: A Translation of Book 47, Title 10, of Voet’s Commentary on the Pandects; Juta’s: Cape Town at p24, he describes dignity as ‘that valued and serene condition’ and goes on to say that ‘Every person has an inborn right to the tranquil enjoyment of his peace of mind,..’. This passage at p24 (or relevant portions thereof) has been referred to with frequent approval by the courts. See, for example, Minister of Police v Mbilini 1983 (3) SA 705 (A) at 715G-716A; Jacobs en ’n Ander v Waks en Andere 1992 (1) SA 521 (A) at 542C-E; Argus Printing and Publishing Company Limited v Inkatha Freedom Party 1992 (3) SA 579 (A) at 585E-G; Argus Printing and Publishing Company Limited v Esselen’s Estate 1994 (2) SA 1 (A) at 23D-H. 100

See, for example, Khumalo and Others v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC) at paragraphs [17], [18] and [19]. 101

1996 (3) SA 262 (SCA)

102

At p270I-J

Page 29

trivia).103 Delicate lilies are unlikely to bloom under the awnings of the courts when it comes to claims of damaged reputations. [47] The applicant has been substantially successful inasmuch as he came to court seeking an interdict and has obtained it. He is entitled to his costs. The following is the order of the court: (a) The respondent is to remove all postings which she has posted on Facebook or any other site in the social media which refer to the applicant. (b) The respondent is to pay the applicantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s costs in this application.

DATED AT JOHANNESBURG THIS 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013

______________________

N. P. WILLIS JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

103

Op. cit. p1197

Page 30

Counsel for the Applicant: Adv. T. Engelbrecht Counsel for Respondent: Adv. S. Van Aswegen Attorney for the Applicant: Wilkins Attorneys Attorney for the Respondent: JNS Attorneys Dates of hearing: 19 October, 2012 Date of judgment: 30 January , 2013