Judges don't want to hear about race censorship claim
Would-be litigant runs various websites featuring posts on the genocide of whites
15 February 2011
Sowetan / SAPA / Jenni O'Grady
The Constitutional Court has dismissed an application for an order finding that over 80 editors and journalism professors are censoring Western Cape woman Lara Johnstone, according to papers received on Tuesday.
“The Constitutional Court has considered the application for direct access and concluded that the application should be dismissed as it is not in the interests of justice to hear the matter,” read an order dated February 1.
Johnstone, who intended representing herself because she believes no-one in the country has the ability to grasp her arguments, had filed lengthy papers spanning various issues.
These included that argument in her previous applications to be a friend of courts hearing matters she was interested in, were not reported on. One was the “Reitz Four” case and another the “Robert McBride” case.
Johnstone runs various websites featuring posts on the genocide of whites and farmers, white refugees from Africa and media “prostitutes”.
She believes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a fraud because the underlying causes of the world’s problems — overpopulation and ecological sustainability — have not been addressed and that because of this, true forgiveness cannot take place.
The complaint against the SA Press Association, which was among those she had tried to have a ruling on, was that the news agency did not report on all aspects of her arrest on a crimen injuria charge.
She had allegedly sent SMSs to Independent Democrats leader Patricia de Lille, in the course of a lengthy attempt at seeking comment from politicians on her theories, and De Lille decided to lay the charge.
According to the court report filed by Sapa, based on the court proceedings, Johnstone refused to leave the holding cell and refused to participate in a forensic psychological assessment.
Her complaint was that Sapa did not report on why she did not leave the holding cell or co-operate with the psychologist.
In her Constitutional Court application she had wanted the judges to rule that the editors did not mind that she was being persecuted, that they were being deliberately indifferent to her.
She also wanted complaints she had made to the Press Ombudsman reviewed after they were dismissed.
There was no order as to costs.
» » » » [Sowetan] [News24] [IOL] [NewsTime] [Legal Brief] [The Citizen] [M&G] [African Crisis]
Radical Honesty SA v. SANEF Press Council, et al Concourt Documents
Woman wants editors in ConCourt over censorship
News 24 / SAPA, Jeny O'Grady
Johannesburg - A Western Cape woman is hoping to take 88 editors and journalism professors to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that they are censoring her.
She also accuses them of being part of what she describes as her persecution as a "Radical Honesty White Refugee".
The SA Press Association and its editor, Mark van der Velden, are listed as sixth and seventh respondents respectively.
Some of the editors are also guilty of bribery by not reporting on her issues, Lara Johnstone contends.
The papers she submitted detail lengthy unsuccessful attempts at getting editors to respond to or report on her assertions that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a fake and a fraudulent public relations "stunt".
This, she submits in her papers, is because no true peace or healing or advocacy of human rights can be achieved unless ecological and sustainability issues are properly addressed - most notably population control.
Interest of honesty
As the only representative of the group Radical Honesty SA in South Africa, she says that the group, whose leader is a Dr Brad Blanton in the US, also known as "the pope of the futilitarian church" advocates true forgiveness through non-stop face-to-face contact working through an issue until it is resolved.
According to Blanton's teachings on his website, this may include using speech considered offensive, in the interests of honesty.
She has previously submitted a "friends of the court" application to the Constitutional Court which was to decide whether Robert McBride can still be called a murderer - given that he was given amnesty by the TRC for his part in the bombing of the Magoo's bar in Durban during apartheid.
The object of a "friends of the court" application is to be of assistance to the court in deliberating a matter and to raise legal arguments that might help the judges.
Johnstone was unhappy that her written submission was given no coverage in the press and refers to this as censorship.
In that submission she argued that the Citizen newspaper which referred to him as a murderer, and judges who dealt with McBride who was challenging this, were confused because they did not realise the TRC was a fake.
Her theories are based on sustainability "ecolaw" issues and until these are resolved she considers other efforts at promoting or advancing human rights is futile.
In the McBride case she said the TRC had also made no attempt to find out how much of apartheid violence was actually caused by rapid population growth "colliding" with scarce natural resources.
This included what she termed the ANC's "breeding war policies".
McBride also apparently suffered from "battered TRC fraud syndrome" and that only a "social forgiveness contract" would work in South Africa, she continued.
Johnstone made another eleventh-hour "friends of the court" application to the "Reitz Four" case of student racist abuse before judgment in Bloemfontein last year.
In that matter she included her complaint that the media had censored her submission to the McBride case, the contents of which may have been relevant to the Reitz case, "had they been aware of it".
She revisited her argument about the "fake" TRC and wanted the court to clarify whether the defendants belonged to different cultures.
She questioned whether their counsel had told them of their constitutional rights to invoke cultural law and for the presiding officer to decide which legal system applied to them in the matter.
Johnstone believed the media's "censorship" of her organisation's concerns about the earth's sustainability would lead to instability and anarchy.
She is also unhappy that various complaints about media coverage and non coverage have not been heeded by the press ombudsman and she wants the court to have the ombudsman's decisions reviewed.
Johnstone's complaint against Sapa's editor Mark van der Velden relates in part to Independent Democrats' leader Patricia de Lille's crimen injuria complaint against her.
Aids is man-made
She had been trying to get various newspaper representatives and politicians to act on information she had that she said claimed that Aids was man-made.
According to lengthy background she provides on one of several websites she uses, including one called "media prosetitutes (sic), at times using different names which include Lara Braveheart and Andrea Muhrrtuyn, she had not been getting anyone to act on important information she had.
She then allegedly sent racially offensive SMSes to De Lille which led to De Lille laying the complaint and her having to go to court to defend herself.
According to a reporter covering the case for Sapa, an orderly told the presiding officer Johnstone was being hostile and would not go up to court leading to a warning that she might have to go for psychiatric evaluation if she continued in that fashion.
Johnstone writes on her website that the reason she did not go up was because there was no proper warrant for her arrest, and that this also meant she did not have to participate in an interview with a psychologist she was supposed to have seen.
She felt that Sapa refused to correct the report to give her side of the story, and accused Sapa of lies and fraud on the grounds of its slogan "if Sapa knows ... South Africa knows".
The press ombudsman would also not help with this, she submits.
Government punishing her
Van der Velden commented that Sapa's response at the time to Johnstone, in 2009, was that the news agency had reported, in good faith, on information available in the court and from authorised court officials.
Johnstone believes the law of crimen injuria is "ridiculous" and dates back to a belief in curses from witches.
Johnstone says the government is deliberately punishing her for her beliefs and asked editors for their comment on whether they objected to her "legal and political persecution by De Lille and the [National Prosecuting Authority]".
Many ignored her or said they were not going to comment.
In her papers to the Constitutional Court, she states that she made and later withdrew a complaint against the "Green Scorpions" because the Sunday Times was not publishing her views.
The bribery allegation is because "Sanef editors' conspiracy to censor the details of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus before the ConCourt from the people of South Africa, are an unlawful and intentional indirect offer to state officials (the ConCourt Justices, and other SA TRC elite politicians whose reputations would prefer the contents of the Radical Honesty SA Amicus to the ConCourt to remain censored) to pressure and/or bribe the justices with the opportunity to ignore the Radical Honesty SA Amicus in their deliberations, as if its arguments and allegations do not exist, because its contents have been censored from public discourse; in return for such officials' consideration in return for action or inaction in their official capacities."
Johnstone intends representing herself if granted access, because she believes there is no legal counsel in South Africa with the ability to understand her theories.
» » » » [News 24] [Mail & Guardian] [The New Age]
‘Conspiracy of Silence as David v. Goliath in Concourt: CCT #06-11 Blacklisted by SA Media’ Email to SA Legal Fraternity drives SAPA to Action
01 February 2011
Why We Are White Refugees
On 01 February 2011, the following email -- CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE AS DAVID vs. GOLIATH IN CONCOURT: CCT # 06-11 BLACKLISTED BY SA MEDIA; BLACKLIST ENDORSED BY TUTU -- was emailed to a few hundred of SA's Advocates, all the different Law Societies and Bar Councils; all the non-profit Legal Aid Agencies, from Afriforum to F.W's Center for Constitutional Rights.
On 02 February, the SAPA news article further below -- WOMAN WANTS EDITORS IN CONCOURT OVER CENSORSHIP -- was released, and published on News 24 and Mail and Guardian.
Can Goliath ANC's Political Correctness Cuckoo's Nest be Liberated?
In How Will World War IV be Fought, Mike Smith writes:The question to ask is whether we are intellectually, culturally, sociologically and psychologically prepared for such a war. The battlefield has shifted from jungles and desserts to the media and cyberspace, the prize to fight for is the minds of people. Arming yourself with rifles is one thing, but are we arming ourselves psychologically? The winners of World War IV will be the ones who possesses the most social and cultural intelligence.
So how do we win such a war?
I have a few ideas, but the most important is the training of our “soldiers” for this kind of war. Our educational institutions are where the soldiers are trained and armed and where we have to shape and form their minds, arm them with the best and sharpest tools.
Perception shaping is another. Let us face is that Whites in South Africa has more enemies than friends in the world. We need to change that perception, of what the world thinks of us. This should be a national effort from each and every White person in SA, driven by our Academics who understand these things. Not only should they change the perception the world has of us, but also that of our enemy.
In How David Beats Goliath: When underdogs break the rules, Malcolm Gladwell writes, among others:David’s victory over Goliath, in the Biblical account, is held to be an anomaly. It was not. Davids win all the time. The political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft recently looked at every war fought in the past two hundred years between strong and weak combatants. The Goliaths, he found, won in 71.5 per cent of the cases. That is a remarkable fact. Arreguín-Toft was analyzing conflicts in which one side was at least ten times as powerful—in terms of armed might and population—as its opponent, and even in those lopsided contests the underdog won almost a third of the time.
In the Biblical story of David and Goliath, David initially put on a coat of mail and a brass helmet and girded himself with a sword: he prepared to wage a conventional battle of swords against Goliath. But then he stopped. “I cannot walk in these, for I am unused to it,” he said (in Robert Alter’s translation), and picked up those five smooth stones. What happened, Arreguín-Toft wondered, when the underdogs likewise acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy? He went back and re-analyzed his data. In those cases, David’s winning percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win, Arreguín-Toft concluded, “even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn’t.”
In Increasing Your Odds by Rethinking The Rules, Casey Flanagan summarizes as follows:Power is good, but itʼs no guarantee. Davidʼs odds werenʼt as bad as youʼd think. Of the 200 conflicts studied between 1800-2003, David won 28.5% of the time.
The times (and odds) are changing. Between 1800-49, the stronger side won 88% of the conflicts studied. That number dropped to 80% between 1850-99 and dropped (again) to 65% between 1900-49. Between 1950-99, it dropped, wait for it, to only 49%. Now, on average, the strong side possessed ten times the power – where “power” is measured in terms of armed forces and population – than their adversaries. And between the years 1950-99, they lost more than they won.
Itʼs about making your own rules. Why would you play by the rules that Goliath has already won on (see: Google)? When a David wins, it tends to do so by changing the rules. In his study, Toft found that by choosing an unconventional strategy, the underdogʼs winning percentage went from 28.5% to 63.6%.
Whats more unconventional in a world of hypocrisy, sycophancy and public relations bullshitting, than simply telling the truth??
» » » » [Read Further]
- 10-04-02: [ConCourt: ‘Was SA's TRC a falsification of History’?]
- 10-07-24: [Archbishop Tutu announces retirement after TRC fraud allegations] :: [SA Concourt: Was ANC's 'liberation struggle' a Just War, or Spectacular Fraud?]
- 11-01-14: [Radical Honesty SA v. SANEF Press Council, et al: Radical Honesty takes 88 SA Media Elite to Concourt for Censorship of Media Corruption]
- 11-01-22: [Peak Oil & Ecological Overshoot raised in SA Constitutional Court Media Corruption case] :: [CCT # 06-11: Concourt to review SANEF censorship of TRC Fraud & Ecolaw Media Corruption]