Andrea Muhrrteyn
Why We Are White Refugees
 |
Constitutional Court, Johannesburg (21-Jan-2011): On 19 January 2011 the Concourt Registrar Mr. Delano Louw issued the Concourt Reference Number CCT 06-11, in the matter of Radical Honesty SA and others vs. SANEF and others. The Concourt had been submitted with Proof of Service documentation proving that Radical Honesty SA had provided all the respondents with their Notice of Motion and Founding Affidavit documentation.
The Applicants in the matter are Lara Johnstone and Radical Honesty SA, who filed an Application with the Constitutional Court for direct access, as a Pauperis Propria Persona / Litigant in Person; for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review.
The Application was filed against 88 respondents: (a) three administrators of the SA Press Council; (v) SANEF and its chairman: Mr. Makhanya, (c) 36 SANEF and related media publications and their respective editors, managerial officials; (d) eight Media Professors from Univ. of Rhodes and Wits Journalism faculty departments; (e) Media Monitoring Africa: Mr. William Bird; and finally (f) Projourn Steering Committee.
The Respondents are as follows:
|
|
The Radical Honesty SA Application
[1] A Writ of Habeus Mentem
A writ of Habeus Mentem, means the right of a man or woman to their own mind. Radical Honesty has invoked this right in accordance with the SA Constitutional right to invoking cultural law and the right to Psychological Integrity; which is found in Sections 12, 15 (3), 30, 31, and 185.
Simply speaking: Whenever any citizen invokes cultural law, then this means that the court has to follow choice of law rules. Invoking cultural law, only exists in societies which the law considers multi-cultural. Monocultural societies do not require the need for a right to invoking cultural law, because the entire society has the same legal cultural principles. So 'choice of law' is a legal term for what Justices are required to do when two people come before the court, and they come from different cultures. The Justice is then required to make an impartial enquiry into the two different cultures and to make a ruling as to which culture's laws are going to be applied to the particular case; and more importantly why he is choosing this cultural law body of principles; rather than that cultural law body of principles.
The Writ of Habeus Mentem is founded on the Writ of Habeus Corpus. Habeus Corpus is an ancient writ, or legal action, by which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy of Habeus Corpus can be sought by the illegaly detained prisoner or by another person coming to his aid.
Mentem is Latin for Mind. So a writ of Habeus Mentem in this case is a writ to release the respondents from the prison in their minds.
Radical Honesty SA borrowed the term Habeus Mentem from Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World Revisited; where he describes the insidious conspiracy to manipulate the masses by propaganda and lies, so as to make them controllable under the “steadily increasing pressures of over-population and of the over-organization imposed by growing numbers and advancing technology”
The Story of Your Enslavement, by Stefan Molyneux We can only be kept in the cages we do not see. A brief history of human enslavement - up to and including your own. |
It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free -- to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel and act. There will never be such a thing as a writ of habeas mentem; for no sheriff or jailer can bring an illegally imprisoned mind into court, and no person whose mind had been made captive by the methods outlined in earlier articles would be in a position to complain of his captivity. The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.
What does the Writ of Habeus Mentem Ask the Court to Confirm?
A Writ of Habeus Mentem: The writ of Habeus Mentem shall confirm – for the record - in this matter:
- Lara Johnstone and Radical Honesty SA are members of the Radical Honesty culture, who provided all the media Respondents with the opportunity to resolve these matters, out of court, upon the Truth and Forgiveness Social Contract: Being Specific About Anger and Forgiveness (PDF); as excerpted from: Practicing Radical Honesty (PDF).
- Radical Honesty SA is founded on Radical Honesty Social Contract and Ecolaw principles: (a) A psychological integrity environment of philosophical courageous truth searching honesty and sincere forgiveness is a sine qua non for healthy, transparent relationships that result in the co-creation of a code of conduct that enables non-violent honest sincere resolutions to disagreements; (b) A healthy ecological environment, with due regard for carrying capacity laws of sustainability is a sine qua non for all other constitutional rights.
- Radical Honesty SA’s working hypothesis: First to Eighty-Eighth Respondents are imprisoned in their minds distorted and only partly conscious maps, but who are too psychologically incompetently unconscious – Dunning and Kruger Effect - to be aware of their mind-slavery. They are mind enslaved/imprisoned by their fragile ego’s, which are under the false impression that they act on their own initiative, but who are emotional and psychological slaves to their suppressed anger, resentments and politically correct ideologies. Their minds maps of reality are distorted by their repressed anger and resentment, their fake forgiveness and fake relationships, marketing character shame ; the greater the amount of suppressed anger, resentments and sincerity, the greater their distorted view of reality. Radical Honesty SA invites all respondents to liberate themselves from their Flat Earth intellectual, psychological and legal ego prisons of political correctness and denial.
- Radical Honesty SA definitions of the word ‘Kaffir’, relevant to this matter:
- ‘Kaffir Behaviour’: Cultural Beliefs and Procreation Behaviour Definition:
Individuals who either independently or as a result of their cultural value systems, are incapable of, or unwilling to, practice sexual restraint and procreation responsibility; who consequently breed cockroach-prolifically without personal financial or psychological responsibility to, or emotional concern for, their offspring; and/or who abuse women and children as sexual or economic slaves procreated for such purpose; and/or whose cultural ideal of manhood endorses non-consensual sex (rape) as their sexual slavery entitlement, etc.
- ‘Kaffir Etymology’: Original Etymological Definition for ‘Kaffir’:
The word kāfir is the active participle of the Semitic root K-F-R “to cover”. As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting; as they till the earth and “cover up” the seeds; which is why earth tillers are referred to as “Kuffar.” Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning “a person who hides or covers”; To conceal, deny, hide or cover the truth.
- ‘Kaffir Legislation’ = Inalienable Right to Breed’ Poverty, Misery and War legislation; pretending it advocates for ‘peace’ and ‘human rights’.
Kaffir Law/Legislation provides citizens with the Inalienable ‘Right to Breed’, but demands that Citizens need a Licence to Own a Gun, a Licence to Drive a Car, a Licence to Practice Law, a television licence, a credit licence, a licence to earn a living, a university exemption licence, a licence to fish, a licence to hunt, a liquor licence, a business licence, a marriage licence, etc, etc.
Kaffir Legislation covers up that an ‘Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control policy + No Social Welfare policies or practices provides for an equilibrium carrying capacity; whereas Inalienable Right to Breed/laissez-faire birth control within a welfare state, results in Runaway Growth, and ultimately greater misery, poverty and war.
[II] A Writ of Certiorari / Review
 |
Radical Honesty SA requests a Review of SANEF established SA Press Council and SA Press Appeals Panel administrative procedures, in regards to their commitment, or not to transparency, accurate record keeping, scientific journalism and public accountability.
Radical Honesty SA requests the Constitutional Court to Review the South African Press Council and SA Press Appeals Panel (SAPAP):
- lack of transparent administrative decision-making, and secrecy of complaints statistics;
- the 24 June 2009 ruling by Ombudsman: Joe Thloloe,
- the 11 October, 3 and 4 November 2010 rulings by Deputy Ombudsman: Johan Retief, and
- 17 and 24 November 2010 rulings by SA Press Appeals Panel Judge Ralph Zulman
Radical Honesty SA also requests the Constitutional Court to enquire by means of Review, SA Media Corruption:
- Media's endorsement of legal, political and cultural persecution of minorities: i.e. Radical Honesty/White Refugee legal and political persecution;
- Media's endorsement of negligent and/or deliberate intellectual incompetence, and
- Media's repudiation of scientific journalism and censorship of root cause problem solving regarding the socio-political and economic consequences of exponential population growth colliding with scarce and depleting resources; as demonstrated in thier censorship of the issues raised in Dr. T. Michael Maher’s expert witness affidavit to the Concourt, regarding his study: How and Why Journalists Avoid Population – Environment Connection;
- Media's repudiation of scientific journalism and censorship of root cause problem solving regarding the psycho-political and socio-cultural consequences of how sincere forgiveness vs fake forgiveness affects the common law ‘reasonable reader’, 'reasonable citizen', 'reasonable justice system', 'reasonable politicians'; etc.; as detailed in Dr. Brad Blanton’s expert witness affidavits to the Cape High Court and Constitutional Courts: Radical Honesty About Anger and Forgiveness
What does the Writ of Certiorari / Review Request from the Concourt?
Among others:
- 1. That the SA Press Council is ordered to provide the following documentation to the Constitutional Court, in these proceedings:
- The Names of all citizens who filed complaintswhose complaints were dismissed by the Ombudsman, prior to any hearing or negotiation with the media publication complained againsts; i.e. where the Ombudsman refused to accept their complaint for hearing, for whatever reason
- The names of all Complainants who filed Applications for Appeal and/or Review to the Press Appeals Panel, whose applications were denied, prior to any Appeal/Review hearing, in the following format
- If an impartial analysis of such statistics demonstrates that common SA citizens, who are not members of the SA elite, receive arbitrary, vague, and grossly irregular biased decision making by the Press Ombudsman in favour of SANEF editors and publications; to issue an advisory ruling in support of the establishment of an Impartial Media Appeals Tribunal which conducts its decision-making transparently and impartially, in the public interest of all;
- Alternatively to [2], to issue an order:
- Requiring the Press Council to give all complainants a reference case number; and that all Ombudsman decisions and Press Appeals Panel rulings include reference to such case number.
- Requiring the Press Council to publicize the information about all cases filed with the Press Council, including all cases refused a hearing by the Ombudsman, and/or refused appeals by the Press Council Appeals Panel (for past and future decisions), to be made publicly and transparently available on the Press Council website.
- In addition to [2] and [3], to issue an advisory ruling, with expert witness input from Wikileaks and/or OpenLeaks ‘scientific journalism’ experts, in support of a clear classification system of ‘media corporations’; similar to Hotel Star Ratings and Smoking Label warnings. For example:
- Three Star Media Corporations practice unbiased and politically incorrect scientific journalism;
- Two Star media corporations practice left or right ideological propaganda when it contradicts scientific journalism truths, and withhold from their readers access to the original documents they are reporting their bias upon
- One Star gutter yellow smear propaganda journalism, which has no interest whatsoever in scientific truthful reporting, only profiting from spreading gossip and malice.
All media corporations are required to publish their ‘scientific journalism’ hierarchical star status, in a designated space on their front page, clarifying their Star Status, and what that STAR status means regarding the scientific journalism or not quality of factual information being sold to the reader. For example: The Star Status warnings could say:
- 3 Stars: Reading this Publication could make you Intelligent, particularly if you verify the authenticity of the report, by means of checking the evidentiary documents provided for your access.
- 2 Stars: Reading this publication could enforce your left or right wing ideological biases, whenever the publication declines to provide evidence for its left or right wing biased allegations;
- 1 Star: Reading this publication will make you so intellectually, emotionally, psychologically and politically stupid, that you won't even know you are stupid; because you will just be an automatonic sheeple zombie.
Radical Honesty SA: Application to Constitutional Court for direct access, for a [I] writ of Habeus Mentem and [II] writ of Certiorari/Review:
Documentation filed with Respondents and Concourt Registrar in CCT 06-11
Disclosure: Andrea Muhrrteyn is the White Refugee blogger nom de plume for Lara Johnstone, of Radical Honesty SA
No comments:
Post a Comment