Radical Honesty White Refugee Complaint to SA Press Council

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


Complainant: Lara Johnstone, First Amicus in Concourt # 23-10


Respondents: Editors:

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

Issues covered in this Complaint:

[A] Complaint Publications and Dates of Publication

[B] Courts Reliance on Media to Inform Public’s Right to Know

[C] Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1; 1.2 and 1.3

[D] SANEF’s Editors Censorship & Bias: Negligent or Intentional?

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

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

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

[H] Editors Malicious Contempt for Culture of Sincere Forgiveness

[I] Is SANEF Media Corruption Greater than ANC Corruption?

[J] Newsworthy Inspirational Significance of Concourt’s (a) Approval of Radical Honesty SA’s ‘little guy citizen’s’ Amicus Application; (b) Possible Commitment to Sincere Truth and Reconciliation by enquiry into Radical Honesty SA’s TRC fraud Amicus arugments?

[A] Complaint Publications & Dates of Publication:

[001] 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen fights McBride in Concourt
[002] 10-09-29: SAPA-N24: Court to hear McBride ruling appeal
[003] 10-09-29: SAPA-Times Live: Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt
[004] 10-09-30: SAPA-Business Report: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’
[005] 20-09-30: SAPA-IOL: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[006] 10-09-30: SAPA-Pretoria News: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[007] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Argus: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[008] 10-09-30: SAPA-SA Star: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[009] 10-09-30: SAPA-Sunday Ind.: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[010] 10-09-30: SAPA-Daily News: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[011] 10-09-30: SAPA-Cape Times: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[012] 10-09-30: SAPA-Mercury: McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer
[013] 10-09-30: SAPA-N24: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’
[014] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: McBride murder accusation unfair
[015] 10-10-01: SAPA-Daily Dispatch: McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’
[016] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest
[017] 10-09-30: SAPA-N24: ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest
[018] 10-10-01: SAPA-IOL (Kenrichi Serino): Court weighs validity of TRC past
[019] 10-09-30: SAPA-Times Live : Citizen argues validity of TRC past
[020] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Times: Court weighs validity of TRC past
[021] 10-10-01: SAPA-Cape Argus: Court weighs validity of TRC past
[022] 10-10-01: SAPA-Pretoria news: Court weighs validity of TRC past
[023] 10-10-01: SAPA-The Mercury: Court weighs validity of TRC past
[024] 10-10-01: SAPA-Sunday Tribune: Court weighs validity of TRC past
[025] 10-10-01: SAPA-SA Star: Court weighs validity of TRC past
[026] 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Mobile: McBride Concourt case continues
[027] 10-10-01: SAPA-ECR-Newswatch: McBride Concourt case continues
[028] 10-10-01: Citizen: Concourt: truth versus law
[029] 10-10-01: Mail & Guardian (Faranaaz Parker): ‘If I see someone stealing, can I call him a thief?’
[030] 10-10-01: Eyewitness News: Stephen Grootes: McBride lawyer are playing with semantics

[B] Courts Reliance on Media to Inform Public’s Right to Know

In New Guide Books for Court Reporters, Independent Publishers write:

The Association of Independent Publishers (AIP) and South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF) have jointly published a practical pocket-guide and companion desk glossary to help journalists report on court cases. The Reporting the Courts books are a practical response to the demise of specialised court reporters in many newsrooms, and the lack of court reporting training at tertiary institutions.

South African Chief Justice Pius Langa formally launched the books at the Constitution Court on August 17. In his forward to the handbook, he writes:

“Judges and magistrates have little power outside of the courtroom to explain or defend their positions and are uniquely reliant on journalists to convey their decisions to the broader population … with this power comes responsibility, not to the courts, but to the public and to our young nation as a whole to report the work of the courts accurately and fairly but not uncritically.”

[C] Nature of Complaint: Violations of Press Codes: 1.1; 1.2 and 1.3

1.1: Reports were not truthful, accurate or fair; but particular facts were censored, indicating malicious bias.

1.2: Reports were not presented in context in a balanced manner, but were intentionally departed from the facts by (a) distortion; (b) exaggeration; (c) misrepresentation; (d) material omissions; and (e) summarisation.

1.3: Reports censored facts as presented from Constitutional Court Orders and Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae submission, consequently reports were not a fair and accurate report of all submissions before the Concourt, hence reports are deliberately biased in regard to context and importance.



[D] SANEF’s Editors Censorship & Bias: Negligent or Intentional?

Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae Application to Concourt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Radical Honesty SA File Heads of Argument:

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

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

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

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

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

B. The Truth about the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery

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

D. Complaints to Public Protector of TRC Handling of SADF, by Gen. J.J. Geldenhuys, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; Genl A.J. Liebenberg, SSA, SD, SOE, MMM; Genl M.A. de M. Malan, SSA, OMSG, SD, SM; and Gen C.L. Viljoen, SSA, SD, SOE, SM; January 1998.

They also refer to the TRC’s lack of enquiry into among others the: The Stuart Commission's Report; The Douglas Commission's Report; The Motsuenyane Commission; The Skweyiya Commission; Amnesty International Report; Mbokodo: Inside the MK: A soldiers Story, by Mwezi Twala; the book: Marching to Slavery: SA's Descent into Communism; and The Denton Hearings, by Jeremiah Denton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of the Committee on the Judiciary. They also filed a further submission to the TRC: Assessment of the Probable Results of Activities of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as perceived by Former Chiefs of the SADF IRO the SADF.

[14.] Additionally under IV: Fraud: ‘Crime of Apartheid’ Falsification of History, an evidentiary enquiry is made as to whether the ANC’s ‘liberation struggle’ was indeed legally – in accordance with Just War legal theory principles – a factually a legal ‘Just War’, considering among others the arguments of:

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

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

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

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

[15.] Under Chapter V. Radical Honesty: Culture and Religion or Refugee Status, part B. 40 SA Media Endorse Legal and Political Persecution of RH White Refugee details how in February 2010, Radical Honesty Amici contacted 140 of SA’s political, academic and media elite, to provide them with a copy of Radical Honesty author, ‘Dr. Truth’ psychologist and ‘Honesty in Politics’ Candidate for US Congress in 2004 and 2006, Dr. Blanton’s Affidavit filed in the HC-WC -19963-09, with a summary of his findings, that:

A. If South Africa does not value non-violent civil disobedience free speech dissent, as one of its hallmarks; then it is not a democratic country.

B. Hon. Mrs. De Lille and the NPA Senior Prosecutor conducted a political and legal prosecution and persecution campaign against [Johnstone].

C. The law of crimen injuria is a law so ridiculous; it appears to date back to a belief in curses from witchdoctors. Put differently, any society that values the principle of 'crimen injuria' (I think, I am unique); is one that values protecting the right of people with fragile ego's to not be offended as more important, than protecting the right of Galileo's and Voltaire's to offend.

D. The South African government are deliberately and intentionally punishing defendant for practicing her non-violent culture and religion of Radical Honesty.

E. The South African government are deliberately and intentionally denying defendant her right to a defence; and ignoring the justification and accuracy of her non-violent civil disobedience political necessity defence.

F. That there is a significant difference between posed forgiveness and real forgiveness and that this difference is almost always avoided by politicians, including South Africa’s alleged Truth and Reconciliation politicians. Put differently: S. Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation was not real & sincere; but fake & posed; a political fraud committed against SA citizens.

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

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

[17.] Those editors being: Saturday Star: Editor: Brendan Seery: 26 February 2010; 702 Radio: Manager: Ms. Pheladi Gwangwa: 01 Mar 2010; Die Burger: Editor: Henry Jeffereys: 27 Feb 2010; Cape Argus: Editor: Chris Witfield: 26 Feb 2010; Cape Times: Editor: Alide Dasnois: 26 Feb 2010: The Citizen: Editor: Martin Williams: 26 Feb 2010; City Press: Editor: Ferial Haffajee: 26 February 2010; Daily Maverick: Brkic Branco: 26 February 2010; Daily Sun: Editor: Themba Khumalo: 02 March 2010; Daily Dispatch: Editor: Andrew Trench: 26 Feb 2010; E-News: Head of News: Patrick Conroy: 04 March 2010; Financial Mail: Editor: Barney Mthombothi: 26 Feb 2010; Finweek: Editor: Colleen Naude: 26 February 2010; George Herald: Editor: Mandi Botha: 26 February 2010; The Herald: Editor: Jeremy McCabe: 26 February 2010; Ind. on Saturday: Editor: Trevor Bruce: 26 Feb 2010; Pretoria News: Editor: Zingisa Mkhuma: 26 February 2010; Rapport: Editor: Lisa Albrecht: 26 February 2010; SA Press Assoc.: Ed.: Mark van der Velden: 26 Feb 2010; Sowetan: Editor: Bongani Keswa: 03 March 2010; The Star: Editor: Moegsien Williams: 26 February 2010; Sunday Ind.: Editor: Makhudu Sefara: 26 February 2010; Sunday Times: Editor: Ray Hartley: 26 February 2010; Sunday Tribune: Editor: Philani Mgwaba: 26 Feb 2010; Volksblad: Editor: Ainsley Moos: 26 February 2010; Freedom of Expression Inst: Dir. M. Moore: 11/03/2010; Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities: Rev. Wesley Mabuza: 26 February 2010 .

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

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

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

B. Heavyweights enter the fray, Cedric Mboyisa, The Citizen, 19 May 2010

C. New Turn in McBride legal battle, The Citizen, 19 May 2010

D. The Citizen fights ruling on McBride’s history, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day, All Africa, 17 May 2010

E. Editors Argue Free Speech in McBride Case, Franny Rabkin, Business Day, All Africa, 20 May 2010

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

G. When the logic of law is murdered, Carmel Rickard, Pretoria News, 20 May 2010

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

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

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

K. Apartheid victims and survivors challenge McBride ruling, TimesLive, The Star, ICTJ, 19 June 2010

L. Apartheid victims fight McBride case, Nathi Olifant, Sunday Tribune, IOL, Cape Argus, Cape Times, Mercury, Pretoria News, Daily News, CSVR, The Star, Lawlibrary.co.za, 20 June 2010 (Apartheid activists relatives to challenge McBride ruling, Legalbrief Today, Mooney Ford Attorneys, 21 June 2010)

M. Slain activists relatives seek to join McBride defamation case, Ernest Mabuza, Business Day, All Africa, Lawlibrary.co.za, LexisNexis (Cache), 22 June 2010

N. McBride loses support in defamation case, Jason Warner, Pretoria News, The Star, IOL, Independent on Saturday, Lawlibrary.co.za, 24 June 2010

O. McBride was convicted – period, Eusebius McKaiser, Mail and Guardian, 02 August 2010

P. International Center for Transitional Justice Amicus Brief for Sa Apartheid Defamation Case, ICTJ, 02 August 2010

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

[20.] Of particular legal and media interest in regards to the difference between media editors and citizens condemnation of politically violent acts, is that media editors are known to play an active role in censoring and suppressing people voicing their non-violent grievances, thereby creating the pressure cooker atmosphere where some citizens feel the only way they get their grievances heard is by means of violence. Common citizens have no means of silencing and censoring the voices of non-violent protestors grievances. That is the huge difference between an editor v. a common citizens condemnation of Mr. McBride for being a ‘murderer’. The latter has no gatekeeper power access to media discourse. The former has the ability to provide the worlds Mr. McBride’s with access to the public media discourse, when he and his colleagues voiced their grievances non-violently, but chose to ignore their non-violent protests. Consider the footnote point in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus quote of Rev. John Gogotya in Nicholas Partridge’s documentary ANC: VIP’s of Violence:

“The moderate blacks were not selling the papers. We were presenting a non-violent strategy, that did not say ‘Burn, baby Burn’. A strategy that said people must come together and sit down around a negotiating table. And this is not sensational stuff; it does not sell the papers.” – Rev. John Gogotya, ANC: VIP’s of Violence

[21.] The Radical Honesty SA Amicus makes this point very clearly in paragraph 7:

Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud: Mainstream Access-to-Discourse-Gatekeeper Editors censorship of nonviolent political grievances and problem solving activism facilitate a pressure cooker socio-political reality for their ‘If it Bleads, it Leads’ corporate propaganda profits, in knowledge application of:

1. ‘As long as there is some possibility of getting results by political means, the chances that any political group or individual will turn violent are truly radically small, or maybe vanishingly small’; [Clark McCauley, Ph.D, Prof. of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College, in When Does Political Anger Turn to Violence?, by Benedict Carey, New York Times, March 26, 2010]
   
2. ‘The exposure in the media is what gets people’s attention. People follow what is happening in the news, not what is happening in the courts’; [Jean Pierre Mean, Group General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, SGS Group, In Confronting Corruption: The Business Case for an Effective Anti-Corruption Programme, by PricewaterhouseCoopers Intnl]
   
3. ‘[Editors] abuse of media power, by means of strategies whereby they abuse public discourse/free speech resources; by providing certain parties with preferential and special access to such public discourse, and severely restricting or denying others any access to such public discourse; [Power and the news media, Teun A. van Dijk, Univ. of Amsterdam, D. Paletz (Ed.), Political Communication & Action. (pp. 9-36). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995]
   
4. Mainstream media avoid addressing or enquiring into root causes of problems as reported in How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment connection; and censor non-violent root-cause problem solving activism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radical Honesty SA Press Release to SAPA Wire Service:

[24.] [From paragraph 53 & 54 of SAPS Complaint # 823-08-2010]: On 15 August at 12:39, 14:07, 15:25, 15:48, and 16:10; and on 16 August at 10:28 and 12:17, the following Press Release is published on SAPA’s Domestic and International Wire Services:

Attention: News Editor, Legal Editor, Court Reporters

For immediate release:

15 August 2010

Radical Honesty SA Amicus, in Concourt # 23-10

CONCOURT: POPULATION POLICY COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION OF TRC ACT

On 03 May 2010, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa approved the Application from Radical Honesty SA, to be admitted as Amicus in the civil defamation matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Radical Honesty SA application to intervene as Amicus had argued for a Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation (TRC) Act.

Radical Honesty is a small religion/culture founded on truth-telling and sensate forgiveness (Gestalt Therapy) by Dr. Brad Blanton, an American 'Honesty in Politics' politician, psychologist and bestselling author of the 'Radical Honesty' series of books. Dr. Blanton has filed an expert witness statement on behalf of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus.

The Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense Amicus, filed on 18 July 2010, argues that a healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights. Put differently, any legislation or jurisprudence such as the TRC Act, which professes to advocate on behalf of human rights, peace and social justice, while ignoring their ecological basis - a stable human population at slightly less than the eco-systems carrying capacity – is endorsing and practicing legal dishonesty and hypocrisy; i.e. fraud.

The legal precedence for the Radical Honesty Ecolaw argument is among others the International Court of Justice opinion of Vice President Weeramantry in the 1998 Hungary v. Slovakia case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project.

For this and other Radical Honesty and Population Policy Common Sense evidentiary reasons they ask the Concourt to acknowledge that a Radical Honesty Population Policy Common Sense interpretation of the TRC Act renders the TRC's 'crime of apartheid' conclusion, to be a falsification of history.

The Radical Honesty SA Amicus was also served upon various TRC Commissioners, including Archbishop Tutu and Rev. Borraine, and the Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk Foundations, on 20 July. As of date, neither the TRC Commissioners, nor the Nelson Mandela or FW de Klerk Foundations have disputed the allegations in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus to the Constitutional Court.

Other parties who have submitted Amicus Curiae's are the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), South African National Editors Forum (SANEF); Mrs. Joyce Mbizana and Mr. Mbasa Mxenge, and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development.

Interestingly, on 12 August, Xinhua reported that in response to a public interest writ to a Bangladesh High Court, it instructed the government to provide it with a population growth report for the last 10 years, and to explain why the goverment should not be directed to implement additional population control measures.

Radical Honesty SA Amicus Expert Witnesses include Dr. Brad Blanton on Radical Honesty: Being Specific about Anger and Forgiveness; and Dr. T. Michael Maher, Univ. of Louisiana Head of Educ. Dept, on Media's censorship of Population Issues.

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



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

[26.] The Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae and Chief Justice’s Order dated 27 September, provide the following details, related to the arguments (written and/or oral) made to the Concourt by Radical Honesty SA:

D. Estimate of the duration of oral argument of Lara Johnstone / Radical Honesty – RSA: None, unless a, or more, Justices have any questions. (Annex C: 18 July 2010: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae)

The first amicus, Ms. Lara Johnstone, will not be required to present oral argument.
(Annex D: 27 Sep 2010: Chief Justice’s Directions)

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

[28.] The following SAPA articles [001] & [002], states among others:

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

[001] Citizen fights McBride in Concourt: SAPA-Times Live, 10-09-29;

[002] Court to hear McBride ruling appeal: SAPA-N24: 10-09-29;

[29.] The following SAPA article [003] is an exact copy of the aforementioned articles, but includes the following:

Five friends of the court have been admitted.

[003] Citizen takes McBride appeal to Concourt, SAPA-Times Live; 10-09-29

[30.] [001] [002] and [003] only include the argument to be made to the Court by the Citizen, Mr. McBride’s argument’s to be made are totally ignored, as are all the arguments of the Amicus Curiaes.

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

[32.] The following SAPA article, syndicated as [004] to [015] includes reference to Mr. McBride’s argument related to ‘contrition’, i.e. a factor involved in forgiveness; The Citizen’s argument related to a ‘reasonable reader’, but totally ignores the Radiucal Honesty SA Amicus Curiae which deals in great detail on issues of sincere vs. fake forgiveness, as well as how such factors affect the legal common law principle of the ‘reasonableness test’; i.e. the ‘reasonable reader’.

[004] McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’, SAPA-Business Report, 10-09-30;

[005] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-IOL, 20-09-30;

[006] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Pretoria News, 10-09-30;

[007] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Cape Argus, 10-09-30

[008] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-SA Star, 10-09-30

[009] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Sunday Ind., 10-09-30;

[010] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Daily News, 10-09-30;

[011] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Cape Times, 10-09-30;

[012] McBride ‘murderer’ label unfair: lawyer, SAPA-Mercury, 10-09-30;

[013] McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’, SAPA-N24, 10-09-30;

[014] McBride murder accusation unfair, SAPA-Times Live, 10-09-30;

[015] McBride murder accusation ‘unfair’, SAPA-Daily Dispatch, 10-10-01;

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

[016] ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest, SAPA-Times Live, 10-09-30;

[017] ‘Skeletons’ can be raised in public interest, SAPA-N24, 10-09-30;

[34.] In the following Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA/IOL article [018] – [025], SAPA totally censors the argument by Radical Honesty on the irregularities and illegalities, bias, censorship and omissions committed by the TRC, which contributed to SA’s state of fake, two-faced hypocrisy ‘reconciliation’. The article totally censors any mention whatsoever of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae argument before the Constitutional Court, regarding the validity or not, or selective invalidities of the TRC in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus.

[018] Court weighs validity of TRC past, Kenrichi Serino, SAPA-IOL, 10-10-01;

[019] Citizen argues validity of TRC past, SAPA-Times Live, 10-09-30;

[020] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Cape Times, 10-10-01;

[021] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Cape Argus, 10-10-01;

[022] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Pretoria news, 10-10-01;

[023] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-The Mercury, 10-10-01;

[024] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-Sunday Tribune, 10-10-01;

[025] Court weighs validity of TRC past, SAPA-SA Star, 10-10-01;

[35.] The following articles in East Cape Radio, are amalgamations of ‘Skeletons’ [016] - [017] and ‘court weighs validity of TRC past’ [018] – [025] SAPA articles, and the same aforementioned arguments of bias and censorship apply:

[026] McBride Concourt case continues, SAPA-ECR-Mobile, 10-10-01

[027] McBride Concourt case continues, SAPA-ECR-Newswatch, 10-10-01

[36.] The following Citizen article [028] provides the details of the Citizen’s argument, that the TRC was allegedly about ‘truth-telling’ and promotion of national reconciliation. It totally censors the argument of Radical Honesty SA, which is directly to the contrary, that the TRC was a fraudulent PR publicity stunt, riddled with conflicts of interest, bias, omissions, censorship and that its focus – considering the TRC Commissioners response to Dr. Blanton’s allegations -- was not sincere reconciliation, but simply to label apartheid a ‘crime against humanity’ by irregular and biased practices. The article refers to all other Amicus Curiae’s and their arguments, but totally censors the Radical Honesty SA Argument before the Justices.

[028] Concourt: truth versus law, Cedric Mboyisa, The Citizen, 10-10-01

[37.] In the following Mail and Guardian article [029], Ms. Parker also provides details of the Citizen’s argument and Mr. McBrides argument. She also deals with The Citizens argument about the ‘reasonable reader’ and hence the reasonableness test, but totally censors the detailed argument related to sincere vs fake forgiveness and its relation to the reasonableness test, as made in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus. Similarly to SAPA and The Citizen, the Mail as far as the Mail and Guardian are concerned the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the Constitutional Court in this matter does not exist.

[029] ‘If I see someone stealing, can I call him a thief?’, Faranaaz Parker, Mail & Guardian, 10-10-01

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

[030] McBride lawyer are playing with semantics, Stephen Grootes, Eyewitness News, 10-10-01

[H] Editors Malicious Contempt for Culture of Sincere Forgiveness

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

[40.] If an individual is not sincerely committed to a practice of forgiveness (or any other practice), but is faking that practice for public relations benefits, to maintain a fake image of forgiveness, then if they come across someone who does sincerely practice forgiveness and whom consequently may expose their forgiveness fraud, then they generally resort to irregular and unethical practices of censoring, ignoring or vilifying the person, so as to prevent others from discovering their own fraud. Sadly they are generally unaware that it is exactly in going about these actions to shun the sincere individual, whereby they expose their fraud and hypocrisy.

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


[I] Is SANEF Media Corruption Greater than ANC Corruption?

[42.] Nobody doubts that a significant number of ANC officials are corrupt. Perhaps a Milgramesque* 92 % of ANC officials lack the skills and capabilities to either (a) resist the temptation from participating in the dominant corrupt paradigm, and/or (b) are able to resist actively participating in the dominant corrupt paradigm, but unwilling to risk exposing their fellow colleagues corruption. However, there have been, and continue to be ANC members who do have the courage to both resist actively participating in the corruption gravy train, and to cross the line, by exposing their fellow ANC colleagues corruption. [*See Annex C: Radical Honesty SA Amicus Curiae: [II] Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract Principles: (B). Stanley Milgram Studies on Obedience: Legal, Socio-Political Implications, para.29; (C). Common Law Reasonableness Test: Skills and Competencies, para.30; and (D). Rule of Law and Forgiveness: Individuality, Independent and Integrity, para.31-33]

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

[44.] Certainly in this Concourt matter, as demonstrated in paragraph 28 of the Complaint to the SAPS (Annex E), not one SA media editor or media professor contacted was remotely interested in making an impartial enquiry, or objecting about their fellow media editors corruption. Consequently in this matter, not one SA media elite possessed the skills and capabilities of the 8% of ANC members, who have the courage to cross the line, by exposing their fellow media elite’s corruption in this matter. Is this an isolated and exceptional case or is this kind of blind obedience to censorship and silence about media corruption fully entrenched in SA’s corporate media elite? It appears plausible, considering the allegations made in Mr. David Bullard’s columns, among others, The Hollow Men of Journalism , and A mosquito buzzing in the dark * , that indeed there is very little skills and capabilities on the part of the SANEF corporate media elite to expose their own peers corruption. Consequently, when it comes to resisting peer corruption, at least in this matter, and Mr. David Bullard’s legal matters, 100% of SA media editors are as ideologically obedient to their code of silence about fellow media editors corruption, and unquestioning of such obedience to their silence and censorship of media corruption, as Adolf Eichmann was to Nazism.


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

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

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

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

[48.] How exactly are the citizens and public supposed to make any fully-informed decision about the issues in the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the Constitutional Court Justices, regarding the difference between sincere and fake forgiveness and reconciliation, when they are being denied that information, due to a conspiracy of media censorship?

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

Respectfully Submitted,


Lara Johnstone
Member Radical Honesty Culture and Religion

Annexures:

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

B. 03 May 2010: Concourt Chief Justice Radical Honesty Order

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

D. 27 September 2010: Concourt Chief Justice Directions

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

» » » » [Complaint to SA Press Council (PDF)]