Should the Concourt Order The Citizen to Apologize to McBride, for calling him a murderer?
Radical Honesty argues: Only if SA's TRC intentions are “an ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite” to coverup their TRC Fraud
16 March 2011
Why We Are White Refugees
Radical Honesty submissions to the Constitutional Court, in the matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10). In directions dated, 7 March, the Justices asked all parties to make submissions on whether they should order The Citizen to apologize to McBride. More specifically:“Should the Court find that any statement The Citizen published about Mr. McBride was actionably defamatory, would it be appropriate, in view of the findings of the High Court and the nature of the submissions before the Supreme Court of Appeal and this Court, for the Court to order The Citizen to publish an apology?”
Radical Honesty Submission on Forced Apologies
Radical Honesty's submission (PDF) is as follows:
 As detailed in the First Amicus Heads of Argument: These submissions (a) address alternative legal arguments to those of both the Applicant and Respondent, i.e. from a Radical Honesty culture/religion perspective; (b) ‘argues points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by parties intent on winning their particular case’ ; (c) ‘apprises the court of broad-based legal, social, economic, ecological and cultural enquiry implications for its consideration to avoid unintended consequences for groups not before the court,’ (d) informs the court of information to base its decision on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate reality based natural law legal framework, so that the court’s final judgment shall include a fully-informed refined legal analysis, which provides equal protection to all SA’s tribes; and (e) provides a perspective from a culture practicing sincere sensate forgiveness.
First Amicus Cultural Forgiveness, Reconciliation and Apology Differences to Parties:
Pema Chodron: “The job of a spiritual friend is to insult you”
 First Amicus is not a member of either the Applicant (Citizen) or Respondent (McBride) culture of intellectual fake insincere ‘forgiveness’ and ‘reconciliation’; nor its hyper-sensitivity to ‘insults’. Radical Honesty are far closer to Pema Chodron’s views of ‘insults’ – “The job of a spiritual friend is to insult you” -- as detailed in Pema Chodron: Troublemakers.
 In Radical Honesty we very brutally clearly define what we mean by forgiveness, and no Radical Honesty member would ever pretend to another that they have forgiven them, until they have gone through the process of reaching sensate forgiveness. Sincere forgiveness is also a process of acute personal responsibility; so that we can honestly forgive ourselves for our contribution to the misunderstanding.
 Nobody in the Radical Honesty community would ever force anyone to make an apology; or even recommend that such an apology be made; for we believe that the only apologies that contribute to meaningful sincere spontaneous and loving relationships are those that are totally 100% sincere, from the gut and the heart. We do not do public relations – i.e. bullshit the public -- with fake insincere apologies.Radical Honesty Guru Scott Ginsberg describes Edward Bernaysian PR protocols as “the ever-rising tide of corporate and political bullshite”.
 First Amicus submissions in this matter were to provide the Applicant (Citizen) and their SANEF media – If It Bleads, It Leads and How and Why Journalists avoid the Population Environment Connection -- colleagues; and the Respondent (McBride) and his fellow ANC Frantz Fanon Black Liberation Theology Black Power Breeding War terrorist colleagues; an opportunity.If It Bleads, it Leads:
First Amicus Heads of Argument:  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’; (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’; (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; (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.
“For the native, life can only spring up again out of the rotting corpse of the settler.. [..] .. At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.” – Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth: Handbook for Black Liberation
Black Liberation Theology:
“The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods.” -- James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (p.62)
“While its true that blacks hate whites, black hatred is not racism” – James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power (p15)
“There will be no peace… until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’” – James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Preface)
There is no place in this war of liberation for nice white people who want to avoid taking sides and remain friends with both the racists and the Negro.” – James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power (p.15)
“Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto).” – James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power (p150)
“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
 To inform them – and the court -- that there is another form of forgiveness and reconciliation as practiced in the culture known as Radical Honesty; and how and why living in accordance to Radical Honesty’s principles; the South African ‘TRC social contract’ is founded upon TRC Fraud.
 Neither Applicant (Citizen), nor Applicants media (SANEF & FXI) colleagues; nor respondent (McBride) or his Black Liberation Theology Terrorist (violence on the rotting corpse of the settler reconciliation) colleagues were remotely interested. They are not required to be; but they might wish to take responsibility for the fact that they are not.
 It is my personal opinion that ordering the Citizen to give McBride an insincere apology could plausibly be a legal Black Liberation Theology public relations -- destroy ‘whiteness’ to cultivate White Guilt -- tactic. However there are many whites who may want to be black, some even call themselves ‘Wiggers’; so it is not for Radical Honesty to coerce any individual from another culture, or any other culture to amend their cultural ways of resolving disputes. If they are happy joining a culture that requires them to abolish their whiteness, and to fake ‘white guilt’, that is their prerogative. If Black South Africans prefer to avoid taking any personal responsibility for their own failures and [wish to] blame [every] piece of constructive criticism they receive on white racism, to foster white guilt; they shall never receive anything remotely resembling sincere respect. But maybe they are not remotely interested in sincere respect?
 Radical Honesty does not think that this ordering of fake apologies works, but perhaps because one of the things that Radical Honesty is very concerned about is: Does any practice work??? If it doesn’t work, then we ditch it. Our culture is not interested in hanging onto cultural practices for the sake of BS ourselves its some kind of tradition that we respect our ignorant ancestors to have done. If the practice does not work, then we ditch it. The Applicant and Respondents masculine insecurity cultures are far more concerned with manipulating the ignorant masses by means of public relations BS, to keep their fraudulent exponential population and economic growth breeding war ponzi schemes going. The Applicant requires fake reconciliation, for how else would the consequences of fake forgiveness make its If It Bleads, It Leads corporate profits front pages? The Respondent requires fake reconciliation, because they require “direct confrontation to mobilize their followers” (Wikileaks: CableGate: ANC avoid defining "one-man one vote"; & need direct confrontation to mobilize their followers). People who have sincerely forgiven, and who practice sincere forgiveness are impossible to mobilize into mobjustice groups!
Court Must Clarify Any Fake Forgiveness, &/or Reconciliation, and/or Apology Ruling as Binding on Applicant & Respondents Cultures Only:
 First Amicus arguments consequently have only been concerned with providing any party interested in sincere – in your gut – forgiveness and reconciliation, the opportunity to explore such sensate forgiveness, and to invite the other party to resolve the issue by means of sincere forgiveness.
Pema Chodron: True Freedom and Liberation in this Lousy World
 Any ruling on issues of forgiveness, reconciliation, dignity, ‘insults to dignity’, should not be binding on members of the Radical Honesty culture, who do not practice this fake intellectual BS public relations image management forgiveness of fake insincere apologies and fake reconciliation, and psychological and spiritual insecurity hyper-sensitivity to alleged ‘insults’.
 Radical Honesty culture members have different definitions and meaning for forgiveness – clearly defined – who require our culture’s members to acquire particular skills and competencies, and to practice what we preach in regards to our Truth and Forgiveness social contract.
Citizen Submissions on Apology Question
The Citizen argued (PDF) that an order for an apology could be appropriate under certain circumstances:The Applicants response to the Courts query is an acceptance that apology may be a competent remedy, but should only be employed against the media if the parties agree on the terms of the apology. To compel the media to publish an apology would otherwise be inconsistent with the right to freedom of the media.
The Applicants rely upon the following factors in support of their submission that it may well be appropriate, should the court find that any statement The Citizen published about Mr. McBride was actionably defamatory, to order the Citizen to publish an apology in the event that the terms have been agreed.
[..] In the result, the defendant does not object in principle to an apology in respect of an actionable defamation which may be determined on the facts, but attention may require to be given to the contents and form thereof in the particular context of the determined defamation.
Robert McBride submissions on Forced Apology
Mr. McBride argued (PDF) against the court making a ruling on forced apologies, because, among others; the apology would be hollow, and the issue had not been argued before the court:We accordingly submit that a court-ordered apology would, in the circumstances of this case, be hollow and serve no useful purpose. It would therefore be inappropriate for this Court to order The Citizen to publish an apology, whether in addition to an award of damages or in lieu thereof.
FXI and SANEF submissions on Forced Apologies
FXI and SANEF argument (PDF) agreed with The Citizen, that in certain circumstances forced apologies would be appropriate:The amici respectfully submit that the development of the law [of ordering apologies, as was done in Le Roux and Others v Dey] is a beneficial and welcome one, given that:
- an order directing an apology is a valuable and appropriate way of vindicating the rights of a plaintiff who has been defamed and is often more effective than an award of damages;
- such an order minimises the potential for chilling lawful and legitimate expression; and
- as far as media defendants are concerned, an apology as a means of correcting errors and/or defamatory statements is the accepted remedy employed by the Press Ombudsman and Press Appeals Panel under the self-regulatory system set up by the Press Council to deal with ethical and professional lapses by the print media. The issuing of apologies is also accepted by the media employing similar self-regulatory systems in more than 70 democracies throughout the world.
The Amici are therefore of the respectful view that, if the Court were to find that any statement about Mr. McBride was defamatory, it would be appropriate to order The Citizen to publish an apology.