‘Kill Whitey, ZASUCKS, and ILuvSA white supremacist social rejects with nazi-esque opinions, dressed as politics..’ - Adv. JP van der Veen
Adv. van der Veen gives notice of his intentions to file charges of Hate Speech against Why We Are White Refugees, in the Equality Court
03 March 2011
Why We Are White Refugees
In Rainbow Hypocrisy SA
To be, or not to be; a Racist
is no different than
In Anti-Apartheid Struggle SA
To be, or not to be; a Witch
A legal definition of 'racist'
is as irrelevant, as
a legal definition of 'witch'
For legal definitions require factual evidence
to prove guilt or innocence
for 'racism' or 'witchcraft'
And innocence is problematic
for the practitioners of
ANC Occult Struggle Witchhunt Politics
In a recent Google search, I came across a blog called the Troublemaker Times, written by “a lawyer, a dreamer, a writer, an atheist” JP aka The Troublemaker Times “(educated, part time faggot, jew wanna be, kaffir lover, friend to niggers and white as the driven snow).”
The most popular post on his blog is, a criticism of (in my interpretation) insincere liberals, in A Tribute to Winnie Mandela or Welcome Back to our Politics, we missed you Mamma Afrika, wherein he concludes his appreciation of Winnie with “welcome back Mamma Africa, we missed you. Thank you, for liberating us, with just a box of matches!” (Note: I differentiate between sincere and insincere liberals and conservatives. I have no problem with sincere liberals or conservatives, i.e. those who sincerely hold their beliefs, based upon the information available to them, who are willing to hear contradictory information, and if the contradictory evidence is of sufficient weight to change their minds/beliefs. I have little time for insincere (fake) fundamentalist dogmatic liberals or conservatives.)
Adv. JP seems to think that in this wonderful new 'democracy' brought to us by Mama Afrika's Anti-Apartheid Movement (sic), also known as the KGB's foremost Stalinist Front; the Supreme Court of Appeal is committed to Descartian Rule of Law principles of Evidence. For an Advocate, he is blisfully in denial about an entire Justice System, where political cases are given KANGAROO COURT RUBBER STAMPS, where Descartian Rule of Law EVIDENCE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Anyway, so on 09 April 2009, JP wrote a post: An open letter to my black president, from a long time white supporter or could you possibly fire Mike Sutcliffe.
JP is a friend of Jacob Zuma's son, Duduzane. JP was very involved in Zuma's election efforts, and one of Zuma's aide's had informed him that “its good to have a white boy like you here, very good, but don’t be mistaken, you are far from the only one....... While white people are very important, particularly as a stabilizing force in our country, they have become, other than that, in political terms, largely irrelevant.”
JP wanted Zuma to change the ANC's decision to deny white South Africans their historical South African history, which the ANC seem hell bent on eradicating as if it never existed.
Doberman, from I Luv SA; but I Hate My Goverment, wrote a response thereto (since deleted); wherein he described JP's letter to Zuma as “the pitiful level some whites have reached… pass me a bucket.” Doberman described JP's letter to Zuma as “Sir, sir, sir all the time. Sheesh, why not just say “Baas” My Kroon Zuma, My big navigator, I am begging for scraps, ‘semblief my baas… Se moer! That is why I left Azania, I REFUSE to go on my knees.”
JP took serious offense, and responded with: Klu Klux Klanning Around – The South African Franchise or Have you Met the Idiots at I luv SA, but I hate my Government.
I read JP's Klu Klux Klanning article, and sent him my perspective feedback: asking him to provide his definition of 'racism/racist'. The following is the verbatim text of our correspondence: [I] “You DUMB FUCK, stupid, uneducated, undereducated.. YOU ARE A RACIST” - Adv. JP van der Veen. Adv. van der Veen then indicated he had nothing further to say, and it was posted. He then changed his mind. Part II is here. Part III here. This is Part IV.
From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 7:41 PMNever mind.
I quote from a friend of mine, a real, published intellectual, of international repute, in fact regarded by many as a doyen in his field.
"J-P , when will you learn not to engage the lunatic fringe, I realise they make you laugh, but they are, well, the lunatic fringe."
I take his advice.
From: Lara Johnstone; Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:14 PMGood for you.
Unlike your esteemed friend, I am not such a bigot towards people with different points of views, that I label them as lunatics!
Nice esteemed ignorant bigot friends you have!
From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:08 PMIndeed, perhaps, which brings me to my problem that I have had for some time now.
I wrote a piece: http://thetroublemakertimes.com/2009/05/18/casting-your-pearls-before-talking-swine-or-lessons-in-stupidity-from-the-pig-sty-of-internet-anonymity/
Their trade of course is the organisiation of their lonely, stay at home, jobless, or recently employed janitorial mates with dreams of intellectual capacity into a united front of stupidity and cyber mugging.
These social rejects canvass and cow tow to the lunatics on the web, drawing them together in their campaign to unite stupidity and hatred into organized gangs of revisionist twits with revolutionary ideals and nazi-esque opinions, dressed as politics.."
Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction !!
Like location, location, location.
You can't shut these sites down, they are not here.
It then struck me... like a blinding light.
If you could get one of these cyber shadows to reveal themselves, and find their address then, whilst you cannot shut down their site, you could make them answer.
Answer in terms of the law. Just like Julias Malema.
What law ?
5 Section 16(2)(c) analysed
According to section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution the right to freedom of expression does not extend to
(1) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and
(2) that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
Both the above elements - the advocacy of hatred and the incitement to cause harm - must be present before an expression will amount to advocacy of hatred or hate speech. The constitutional test whether speech is to be judged as hate speech, can therefore be considered to be a stringent one.
5.1 Advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion
"Advocacy" probably implies more than merely a statement, and includes an element of exhortation, pleading for, supporting or coercion.38
"Hatred" may be interpreted to mean an intense, passionate or active dislike, ill-will, malevolence, or feeling of antipathy or enmity connected with a disposition to injure.39
Specific forms of hate speech are listed in section 16(2)(c). They are "race, ethnicity, gender or religion". De Waal, Currie and Erasmus submit that they are a numerus clausus, and will not extend to analogous forms of hate speech, such as homophobic and perhaps even xenophobic speech.40 This view is in accordance with the view that exceptions, such as section 16(2), are to be restrictively interpreted, and support for their view may be found in the Constitutional Court decision in The Islamic Unity Convention v The Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others41 discussed below. However, when one tries to find workable definitions for the prohibited bases for hate speech, the line between race and nationality, for example, becomes blurred.
If "race" is given a meaning in accordance with the definition of "racial discrimination" contained in article 1(1) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), namely "colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin",42 it is clear that race is not confined to biological criteria, but includes elements of a social and cultural nature.43 If this definition is accepted as the correct one, it could probably be argued that language groups and groups of a specific national origin would be included under the category of "race".
"Ethnicity" is defined by dictionaries44 to relate to races or large groups of people classed according to common traits and customs. Again, if one were to accept this definition as a correct one, it is clear that "common traits and customs" would probably include language and national groups.
"Gender" refers to male and female, but will it include categorisation on the ground of sexual orientation as well? As mentioned above, De Waal, Currie and Erasmus submit that the forms of hate speech contained in the Constitution will not extend to analogous forms of hate speech, such as homophobic speech. Burns, on the other hand, argues that the concept of gender will indeed include sexual preference or sexual orientation. Although she admits that the wording of section 9 of the Constitution (the equality clause) which names both gender, sex, and sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of unfair discrimination,45 indicates that the drafters of the Constitution were at liberty to adopt a similar approach in section 16 by expressly including categories such as sex and sexual orientation, she relies on the judicial approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, which calls for a generous and purposive interpretation "primarily concerned with the recognition and application of constitutional values and not with finding the literal meaning of statutes" and which "requires the courts to play a proactive role in changing society in accordance with the aims and spirit of the Constitution".46 She consequently submits that a purposive approach to section 16 will mean that hate speech directed as lesbians and gays will also be prohibited.47 In view of the decision by the Constitutional Court in The Islamic Unity Convention v The Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others48 discussed below, preference must be given to the more restrictive view of De Waal, Currie and Erasmus, namely that analogous forms of hate speech will not be covered by section 16(2)(c).
With regard to "religion", it must be mentioned that hate speech based on religion is underscored by the common-law criminal offence of blasphemy.49 Although hatred resulting from belonging to different religions has never been of great concern in South Africa, it may become so in future with the rise of fundamentalism.
Language, nationality or culture as prohibited bases of hate speech is not listed, neither is social or marital status or class mentioned. If one takes the approach of De Waal, Currie and Erasmus, it would seem that hate speech based on any one of these criteria would not enjoy constitutional protection. However, if one has regard to the approach of Burns, and the definitions discussed above, one would probably be inclined to include all or some of these criteria as unprotected forms of hate speech. They, along with some others, have indeed been included as prohibited bases for hate speech in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act50 discussed below. On the other hand, the Films and Publications Act51 contains a prohibition of hate speech based squarely on section 16(2) of the Constitution and lists only religion, race, ethnicity and gender.
5.2 Advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to cause harm
"Incitement" means to call for, urge, or persuade. Burns argues that "incitement" means to rouse, stimulate, put in motion, to move to action, to spur or to move on.52 She quotes two South African decisions relating to the Riotous Assemblies Act53 in which it was held that "incitement" connotes an element of persuasion by which some measure of reluctance or hesitation on the party incited is overcome, or which seeks to influence the mind of another to commit a crime. However, it has to be borne in mind that section 16(2)(c) deals with incitement to cause harm. De Waal, Currie and Erasmus argue that "incitement" should be interpreted to mean "directed" to cause the types of harm mentioned above, and not so much to encourage an audience to cause harm to the target(s) of the hate speech. It is the speech itself, and not what an audience may do in response to it, which causes the harm.
The concept of "harm" generally includes physical violence, and financial and emotional harm. Whether it will also include broad psychologically and socially harmful effects on the target(s) of the hate speech has been discussed by South African academics. De Waal, Currie and Erasmus54 submit that a broad concept of harm, as described by the Canadian Supreme Court in R v Keegstra,55 should be adopted as this better corresponds to the purpose of the hate speech exception. In the Canadian case the court stated that emotional damage caused by words may have grave psychological and social consequences, such as humiliation, degradation, a loss of self-worth and dignity, which are undesirable consequences in a society that values tolerance. The harm of hate speech matters to individuals, to the groups they belong to, to society generally, and to democracy.56 De Waal, Currie and Erasmus come to their conclusion despite the fact that the categories listed in section 16(2)(c) constitute exceptions to the right conferred in section 16(1) and that exceptions are usually restrictively interpreted. Burns also submits that the harm envisaged in section 16(2)(c) will generally be of a psychological nature, although physical assault and violence may be the ultimate result of hate speech. In this respect she refers to the "critical race theorists" (mostly writing from an 51 65 of 1996. American perspective) who argue that insults based on race are more threatening and consequently more psychologically harmful than other insults.57 This broad interpretation of the concept of "harm"view was recently adopted by
the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa.58
Then, if I could get one of these South Africans to publish something that would fall under this.
Well, then, it's a hop skip and a jump to litigation in the equality court.
So, what would a Judge, in our equality court think of this publication:>> No he is just black, let me quote you on blacks :
"“(1) Blacks cannot manage a modern industrial democratic society; (2) blacks know this and would never think of denying it were it not for white liberals insisting otherwise; (3) except for those black elites who hope to take power, black rule is in no one’s interest, especially not blacks; (4) blacks know this better than anyone and are terrified of black rule.”
You are quoting Dr. Braun, not me. Although I do agree with him, as does just about every single black person he has interviewed on this subject for over 16 years.
you posted.Excerpt from Attached Notice of Motion to Concourt (CCT 06-11):
[e] Radical Honesty SA definitions of the word ‘Kaffir’, relevant to this matter:
[i] ‘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.
[ii] ‘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.
[iii] ‘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 .
So, I guess you ain't a fan of Voltaire, right?
You prefer matches and necklaces!
You publish outside jurisdictional laws, but you are subject to our laws.
Then I thought, I need a vehicle:
And you gave it to me ... Bishop Tutu.
Then I needed a sponsor:
Look no further than the Legal Resource Centre.
Hmm ... and me for free, and wait till you see me in court.
Now all we need is quantum.
I have been trying to get those people for ZA Sucks to bite for two years.
You did it in one month.
Madam Lara Johnstone, with address.
Ps. I wonder if we will have some black Judges, perhaps you can ask them if they want to be managed by whites. That, my dear would be the cherry on the cake.
I am meeting with the LRC and other concerned people, tomorrow.
The time has come, and I have been waiting so patiently.
From: JP Vanderveen; Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:43 PMPs ... and you called Bishop Tutu a fraud ?
That alone enrages me.
Yes, it enrages me.
How dare you, how very dare you.
In any event, all card are on the table now.
We will see each other in court.... I swear upon all that is holy, and all that I have.
So, there you have Part IV of your answer, or not; for why Adv. JP van der Veen, considers me a “DUMB FUCK, stupid, uneducated, undereducated.. RACIST”.
And no doubt you also understand why; in Mama Winnie Mandela's Hypocrisy on Steroids Rainbow South Africa; political cases are adjudicated by Street Committee KANGAROO COURT RUBBER STAMPS matches and necklaces jurisprudence; because Descartian Rule of Law EVIDENCE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
Disclosure: Andrea Muhrrteyn is the Why We Are White Refugees nom-de-plume for Lara Johnstone, from Radical Honesty SA. (For a background on ANC's Occult “Struggle” Politics; see: Africanisation of RSA: : Witchcraft and the State in South Africa).