13-02-28: SAHRC: Concourt & SA Media Discrimination

Page 102

[4.7]

As stated in my complaint to the CRL Rights Commission (Annex B):

A.

I am unable to get access to a court, because I don‟t have a lawyer. I don‟t have a lawyer, because no lawyer in South Africa, that I am aware of, is willing to represent an individual from the Radical Honesty culture; yet the media deny me access to the publicity to find such a possible lawyer; or at least to unequivocally confirm that such a lawyer does not exist.

B.

Media editors hate the Radical Honesty culture, because we practice 100% transparency (so they are unable to threaten or frighten us with exposing any of our secrets, cause we ain't got no secrets) and because we don't practice “Public Relations”. The media don‟t believe it is their professional job to report on all cultures and all news with impartiality and fairness.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: Registrar in Afriforum v. Malema et al: Constitutional Court Review Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum et al, Refuses my Review Application, based upon the fact that I do not have Legal Representation. On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application17 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. The Respondents are: Afriforum, Transvaal Agricultural Union, Julius Malema, African National Congress, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, CRL Rights Commission, Norwegian Nobel Committee: Chair, Central Intelligence Agency: Director, and David Petraeus. 1: Agreement is Unconstitutional due to being culturally vague: My Review argument was that the Agreement is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, in that South Africa has many different cultures, with many perspectives on the „Kill Boere‟ issue, and the Mediation Agreement pretends South Africa is one happy monoculture family. The Mediation Agreement does not specify which cultures it is referring to. 2: Agreement ignores SA’s TRC Fraud Failure to Clearly Define ‘Reconciliation’ and address Ecocentric Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict Issues: Additionally, the Mediation Agreement had totally censored and ignored the evidence submitted to the Equality Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, exposing South Africa‟s fraudulent Truth and Reconciliation Commission process and a country‟s legal establishment who refuse to clarify what their legal definition is for „Reconciliation‟18, and the TRC‟s “failure to investigate demographic http://sqswans.weebly.com/cct-alien-v-afriforum.html Declaring the Truth and Reconciliation Report‟s failure to provide clear and concise cultural/religious definition of „reconciliation‟ -- i.e. whether Lutheran Christian, African, Boer Afrikaner, Kairos Black Liberation Theology, Frantz Fanon Liberation, Radical Honesty, etc -- to be 17 18

4


Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.