CRL Rights Comm says 'Rules of Court' are Supreme Law of Land, above Constitution

CRL Rights Comm says 'Rules of Court' are Supreme Law of Land, above Constitution



19 February 2013 | SQSwans | Andrea Muhrrteyn

Correspondence to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Request Amnesty & HRW Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation and monitoring of CRL Rights Commission Complaint & Appeal: Ref: 9/1/1/1/49: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SA Concourt Registrar:

Appeal of Mrs. K. Makgoba’s Ruling endorsing the Constitutional Court Registrar’s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

Issues: | Overview: Facts Not in Dispute? | Chronology of Events | CRL Rights Comm Ruling | Fake v Authentic | Multiculturalism | Invocation of Cultural Law | Relief Requested

Appeal of CRL Rights Commission: Mrs. K. Makgoba’s 18 February 2013 ruling endorsing the Constitutional Court Registrar’s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18)

OVERVIEW: FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE?:

[1] I am a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, which is (a) a minority culture, (b) an Ecocentric culture, (c) practices Brutal Honesty Authentic Multiculturalism endorsing authentic diversity of cultures, and (d) does not endorse the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization of cultures.

[2] The ‘Rules of Court’ are the ‘Rules of Court’ of the dominant culture, which is (a) the Dominant culture, (b) an AnthroCorpocentric culture, and (c) which practices Fake Multiculturism endorsing the homogenizing of all cultures into PC Reverse Racism cultures; and (d) endorses the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization of all cultures.

[3] The AnthroCorpoCentric ‘Rules of Court’ from the Dominant culture, violates various Ecocentric cultural practices of my Minority Radical Honoursty culture.

[4] The Registrar refuses to process my Application for Review; or my Appeal of her Refusal, unless I violate my Radical Honesty Ecocentric cultural legal practices, in blind obedience to her AnthroCorpoCentric ‘Rules of Court’ Dominant cultural practices.

[5] The Registrar’s justification is that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[6] The CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) was enacted in S 185-186 of the South African Constitution, granting it the authority to protect the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities.

[7] In the matter of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture vs. Constitutional Court Registrar, AnthroCorpocentric Dominant culture; the CRL Rights Commission endorses the Registrar’s decision to refuse to process the Radical Honesty culture application for Review, and Appeal thereof based on the justification that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).


CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

[8] On 27 November 2012, I filed a Pro Se application with the Constitutional Court Registrar, for Radical Honesty culture Review of the ‘Kill Boer’ Hate Speech Negotiated Agreement between Afriforum/TAU-SA and Julius Malema/ANC, wherein I specifically requested an order from the court, for the “Permission to invoke cultural law in S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18; to enable the Applicant to honour the duty and responsibility to uphold the principles upon which her Radical Honesty culture is based; and Psychological Integrity in Section 12 ; the former which may require the application of choice of law rules.”

[9] On 29 November 2012, Concourt Registrar refused to issue my application a case number, or process it, unless I met certain ‘Rules of the Court’ (PDF), which include filing 25 printed hard copies via land mail, and finding legal representation.

[10] On 06 December 2012, I filed “Appeal of Concourt Registrar’s Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al” (PDF), to the Concourt Justices, via the Registrar, requesting a Constitutional Court declaratory order confirming that: (A) I am unable to find a lawyer to represent me as member of the Radical Honesty culture.

[11] Put simply my appeal can be stated as An Appeal of AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures Rules of Court, which violate the cultural practices of an Ecocentric Minority culture.

[12] Therein I request leniency from the Justices for these ‘Rules of Court’, in that I am a Pro Se Radical Honesty PP4PP culture applicant, and I cannot find any lawyer to represent me, I have not been able to find any lawyer to represent me for the past ten years, because there are no lawyers or Advocates in South Africa who are willing to represent me, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture. As proof, I I contacted the following Law Societies and Bar Associations to enquire whether they knew of any lawyer willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture: Legal Aid: Chair Vidhu Vedalankar (PDF) | Jhb Bar Ass: Pro Bono Chair: (PDF) | Cape Law Society (PDF) | Cape Bar Council (PDF) | Free State Law Society (PDF) | Free State Soc of Advocates (PDF) | General Counsel of Bar of SA (PDF) | KwaZulu Natal Law Society (PDF) | Law Society of South Africa (PDF) | Pretoria Society of Advocates (PDF) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Dbn (PDF) | Soc of Adv KwaZulu Natal - Pmb (PDF) | Northern Province Law Society: M van Niekerk (PDF).

[13] I also submitted a Press Release to the SAPA Press Wire, wherein I attempt to find a Radical Honesty lawyer (The media refused to print it, saying it is ‘not news’, that I am unable to find a lawyer to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture).

[14] On 10 December, I enquired from Concourt Registrar: Ms Stander, when the Justices would be responding to my appeal.

[15] She responded “I shall place your matter before the Justices for their consideration when you adhere to the Rules of Court. Kindly find the Rules of court attached hereto. I have marked the most important issues for your convenience.”

[16] I responded: “I shall be happy to adhere to the 'War is Peace Whore' Rules of Court, once the Justices provide me with such an order. Have you provided the "Appeal of Concourt Registrar's Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al." to the Justices? If so: Do they intend responding? If not: When do you intend informing the Justices of the "Appeal of Concourt Registrar's Refusal to Process My Concourt Application: Alien on Pale Blue Dot v Afriforum et al."?

[17] She did not respond. So I submitted a request to the Concourt Director: Mr. Vic Misser: “On Thursday 06 November I filed an appeal of Ms. Stander's Refusal to process my application, to the Justices. … Can you please ask Ms. Stander if she is also refusing to provide the Justices with a copy of the appeal of her refusal to process the application? If so, to provide such refusal on court letterhead?”

[18] There has been no response from the Constitutional Court Registrar, or the Justices to my Radical Honesty culture appeal of the Registrar’s decisions.

[19] On 11 December 2012, I filed two complaints with the CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) against the SA Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF : Annex A) and a dozen media Editors (PDF) in that they discriminate against the – Tourette Syndrome like – Radical Honesty culture.

[20] On 12 December 2012, I wrote a letter to Mark Ellis, the Executive Director of the International Bar Association; requesting the IBA to provide Independent Observation and Written Confirmation that (I) the SA Concourt refuses to process -- or provide written reasons for their refusal -- a Pro Se application, from a member of the Radical Honesty culture, (II) who is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa, to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture; (III) South African media believe it is ‘not news’ that a member of the Radical Honesty culture is unable to find a lawyer in South Africa.

[21] On 04 February, I sent a reminder to the CRL Rights Commission authorities requesting a status report as to my aforementioned complaints, in terms of CRL Rights Commission's procedures for 'ensuring that the rights of a community are protected', as detailed under: 4.1. Screening of Complaint, and 4.2 Complaints handling.

[22] I also telephoned the CRL Rights Commission, and was informed by the receptionist to speak to a lady named Baqlolile (spelling?). I called at least 5 times, and every time the receptionist put me through to Baqlolile, I would ask to confirm whether I was speaking to the right person, and she would refuse to confirm her name, and put down the phone.

[23] On 06 February 2013, I received an acknowledgement of receipt for my SAPA and SA Media Editors, discrimination complaint, from Mrs. Makgoba.

[24] There has been no response from the CRL Rights Commission to my Discrimination and Denial of Access to Courts for member of Radical Honesty culture, by Constitutional Court Registrar (PDF).

[25] On 07 February 2013, Ms Makgoba ruled that “the commission has taken strive to analyse your complaint with regard to the above subject matter. Based on the fact that you have been unable to state cultural or religious or linguistic right that has been violated, except for quoting the constitutional provisions, the commission has concluded therefore that your matter falls outside the commission's mandate. Accordingly the commision has dismissed your matter and proceed to close the file.”

[26] On 07 February 2013, I filed an appeal of CRL Rights Commission, Mrs. Makgoba’s ruling, to Rev. Dr. Wesley Mabuza, the CRL Rights Commission Chair: Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture v. SAPA & SA Media: Appeal of CRL Rights Comm: Mrs. Makgoba 07 February ruling (PDF): “Request Confirmation CRL Rights Commission Chairperson: Mr. Mabuza endorses Mrs. K. Makgoba’s Ruling authorizing (a) the CRL Rights Commission’s and SA Legal establishment’s endorsement of the denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to members of the Radical Honesty culture, and (b) the South African Media’s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the Radical Honesty culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in a current case before the Constitutional Court. [There has, as yet, been no response to the Appeal from the CRL Rights Commissioner]

[27] On 07 February 2013, I also filed requests to Amnesty International (PDF) and Human Rights Watch (PDF), to “Take Notice & Provide Independent Observation of my Radical Honesty culture appeal of South African Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (CRL Rights Comm) Ruling to Endorse Denying me Access to Legal Representation & Courts, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, and in current Concourt case: Alien v. Afriforum et al (CRL Ref: 9/1/1/1/46: RH v SAPA & SA Editors)”.

[28] On 11 February 2013, I filed a Radical Honoursty Culture Application for Review with the Supreme Court of Appeal, of Judge Willis Judgement in H v W (12/10142) [2013] ZAGPJHC 1 (30 January 2013), as (A) unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, and (B) in violation of South African Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008, which provides for the “Right to information in plain and understandable language”.

[29] The Application argues among others that:

“When a South African Judge is faced with a party before him, invoking cultural law; and the reality that s/he is incapable of ordering the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (“CRL Rights Comm”) to provide the Registrar with a list of South African Attorneys and Advocates, who are culturally qualified to legally represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture, ITO S 185: Function of the Commission ; for the Registrar to issue an In Forma Pauperis Proceedings Referral to such ‘Radical Honesty culture’ qualified attorney, on behalf of the Applicant, in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 1(a) of Rule 40 of the High Court; because:

“None of the Law Societies or Bar Associations are capable of informing the party, of any attorney or advocate who is capable of, and willing to, accurately culturally represent that individual, in accordance to her cultural practices; and/or

“The South African Media’s actively discriminates against the parties culture, by refusing to report the fact that a South African citizen member of the particular – in this matter Radical Honesty -- culture, has been unable to find a lawyer to represent her, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture, for the past ten years, including in a current case before the Constitutional Court; and/or

“The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (“CRL Rights Comm”) endorses the SA Legal establishment’s denial of cultural legal representation, and access to courts, to the party, and (b) the South African Media’s discrimination against Members of the Radical Honesty culture.

“s/he can choose to be a credible Justice and Truth Seeker, to restore South African Jurists and Jurisprudence credibility in the eyes of that culture, and other cultures observing this injustice by demonstrating their commitment to Police their own profession; or s/he can choose to follow the herd in their path of Greed, Manipulation, Corruption, lacking the integrity and backbone to police the South African legal profession.”

CRL RIGHTS COMMISSION RULING:

[30] On 18 February 2013, Mrs. Makgoba issued her ruling (Annex B),

The Commission would like to advise you that your complaint does not fall under the mandate of the Commission.

Be advised further that, following our investigation on the above matter, the Commission found that the Constitutional Court registrar's refusal to process your application for review was based on your non-adherence to the rules of the constitutional court. The refusal has no affliction on any cultural, religious or linguistic rights of communities which fall under the mandate of the commission.

FAKE MULTICULTURALISM VS AUTHENTIC MULTICULTURALISM:

[31] Communist Philosopher and Economist Slavoy Zizek argues in Multiculturalism: The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism (PDF), that fake Multiculturalism, is the ideal Egotist Consumptionism cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism, intent on colonizing all cultures into slaves to Egotist Consumptionism. Multinational Corporations wish to colonized all nations and their cultures, turning all culture’s primary cultural value into that of an egotist consumer, for the profits of multinational corporations.

Multiculturalism: How, then, does the universe of Capital relate to the form of NationState in our era of global capitalism? Perhaps, this relationship is best designated as ‘auto-colonization’: with the direct multinational functioning of Capital, we are no longer dealing with the standard opposition between metropolis and colonized countries; a global company as it were cuts its umbilical cord with its mother-nation and treats its country of origins as simply another territory to be colonized. This is what disturbs so much the patriotically oriented right-wing populists, from Le Pen to Buchanan: the fact that the new multinationals have towards the French or American local population exactly the same attitude as towards the population of Mexico, Brazil or Taiwan. Is there not a kind of poetic justice in this self-referential turn? Today’s global capitalism is thus again a kind of ‘negation of negation’, after national capitalism and its internationalist/colonialist phase. At the beginning (ideally, of course), there is capitalism within the confines of a Nation-State, with the accompanying international trade (exchange between sovereign Nation-States); what follows is the relationship of colonization in which the colonizing country subordinates and exploits (economically, politically, culturally) the colonized country; the final moment of this process is the paradox of colonization in which there are only colonies, no colonizing countries—the colonizing power is no longer a Nation-State but directly the global company. In the long term, we shall all not only wear Banana Republic shirts but also live in banana republics.

And, of course, the ideal form of ideology of this global capitalism is multiculturalism, the attitude which, from a kind of empty global position, treats each local culture the way the colonizer treats colonized people—as ‘natives’ whose mores are to be carefully studied and ‘respected’. That is to say, the relationship between traditional imperialist colonialism and global capitalist self-colonization is exactly the same as the relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism: in the same way that global capitalism involves the paradox of colonization without the colonizing Nation-State metropole, multiculturalism involves patronizing Eurocentrist distance and/or respect for local cultures without roots in one’s own particular culture. In other words, multiculturalism is a disavowed, inverted, self-referential form of racism, a ‘racism with a distance’—it ‘respects’ the Other’s identity, conceiving the Other as a self-enclosed ‘authentic’ community towards which he, the multiculturalist, maintains a distance rendered possible by his privileged universal position.

Multiculturalism is a racism which empties its own position of all positive content (the multiculturalist is not a direct racist, he doesn’t oppose to the Other the particular values of his own culture), but nonetheless retains this position as the privileged empty point of universality from which one is able to appreciate (and depreciate) properly other particular cultures—the multiculturalist respect for the Other’s specificity is the very form of asserting one’s own superiority.

[32] The motive for the foundation of the International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD) confirms Zizeks arguments related to fake Multiculturalism, being the ideal Egotist Consumptionism cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism, intent on colonizing all cultures into slaves to Egotist Consumptionism

[33] The International Network for Cultural Diversity (INCD) is a worldwide network of artists and cultural groups dedicated to countering the homogenizing effects of globalization on culture. The Proposed Convention on Cultural Diversity Prepared for the International Network for Cultural Diversity 2003, states, among others:

There is the need to ensure that cultural diversity is preserved in the face of the unprecedented challenges posed by rapid technological change, the convergence of telecommunications and media corporations, erosions of distinctions between content and carriage and the increasing global concentration of ownership over the production and distribution of cultural content. At the same time, efforts to dramatically expand the framework of international trade regimes to encompass services, investment, competition policy and government procurement, impose constraints on the capacity of governments to implement cultural policies in response to these pressures.
It is understandable then that all three proposals state the same fundamental purpose: to preserve the sovereign right of all nations to take such actions as they consider appropriate to preserve, promote and enhance cultural diversity.

All three drafts also state explicitly that cultural goods and services must not be treated as mere economic commodities as has been the case when trade dispute bodies have been called upon to adjudicate conflicts between trade liberalization policies and those necessary to achieve non-commercial cultural objectives.

There is also strong agreement about the need for the new international instrument2 on cultural diversity to be legally binding. A purely declaratory instrument will not be an adequate buffer against the coercive forces that now threaten cultural diversity. For this reason, meaningful enforcement procedures are seen as an essential component of the new Convention.

[34] If Multinational Corporations PC Multiculturalism, focused on converting all cultures to the ideology of Egotist Consumptionism, to enable their colonization of all cultures into ‘PC Multicultural Egotist Consumptionists’ is fake Multiculturalism, what is sincere and honest Multiculturalism, that is not motivated by Multinational Corporations desire to conquer and colonize all cultures into ‘consumptionist consumers’?

[35] In 'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other'; Slavoj Zizek writes that fake two faced tolerance, is the worst form of intolerance and cultural bigotry or racism, which treats other cultures as children, and unworthy of honesty and sincerity; whereas brutal honesty is the highest form of sincere multicultural tolerance:

Another thing that bothers me about this multiculturalism is when people ask me: 'How can you be sure that you are not a racist?' My answer is that there is only one way. If I can exchange insults, brutal jokes, dirty jokes, with a member of a different race and we both know it's not meant in a racist way. If, on the other hand, we play this politically correct game - 'Oh, I respect you, how interesting your customs are' - this is inverted racism, and it is disgusting.

In the Yugoslav army where we were all of mixed nationalities, how did I become friends with Albanians? When we started to exchange obscenities, sexual innuendo, jokes. This is why this politically correct respect is just, as Freud put it, 'zielgehemmt'. You still have the aggression towards the other.

You cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct terms

For me there is one measure of true love: you can insult the other. Like in that horrible German comedy film from 1943 where Marika Röck treats her fiancé very brutally. This fiancé is a rich, important person, so her father asks her why are you treating him like that. And she gives the right answer. She says: 'But I love him, and since I love him, I can do with him whatever I want.' That's the truth of it. If there is true love, you can say horrible things and anything goes.

When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children.

[36] I am not a child, and it is not necessary for Mrs. Makgoba to treat me like a child. I am capable of hearing her brutal honest criticism, if she has the integrity and courage to practice sincere brutal honest multiculturalism, which treats other cultures as worthy of brutal honesty.


INVOCATION OF CULTURAL LAW:

[37] It is my understanding that an individuals invocation of Cultural Law automatically invokes a Conflict between Common/Dominant & Cultural/Minority Law; requiring the court to enquire into the appropriate balancing of ‘dominant’ law vs ‘minority law’, through an investigation of the relevant cultural law and cultural lifestyle of the minority culture applicant:

[38] Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights:

[38.1] The launch of the Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights was held May 7, 2007 at the University of Fribourg and May 8, 2007 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The text was presented by the Observatory of Diversity and Cultural Rights (which headquarters are at the Interdisciplinary Institute of Ethnics and Human Rights at the Fribourg University) together with the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie and UNESCO.

[38.2] The cultural rights as expressed in the Fribourg Declaration of Cultural Rights, brings together, in one document, the cultural rights, currently recognized in a dispersed manner in a large number of human rights instruments; such as: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two International Covenants on human rights of the United Nations, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and other relevant universal and regional instruments; because it is important to assemble these cultural rights together in order to ensure their visibility and coherence and to encourage their full realization.

[38.3] The Fribourg Declaration is convinced that violations of cultural rights give rise to identity related tensions and conflicts which are one of the principal cause of violence, wars and terrorism; and Equally convinced that cultural diversity cannot be truly protected without the effective implementation of cultural rights. Among others it states:

The term “culture” covers those values, beliefs, convictions, languages, knowledge and the arts, traditions, institutions and ways of life through which a person or a group expresses their humanity and the meanings that they give to their existence and to their development;

The expression “cultural identity” is understood as the sum of all cultural references through which a person, alone or in community with others, defines or constitutes oneself, communicates and wishes to be recognised in one’s dignity;

“Cultural community” connotes a group of persons who share references that constitute a common cultural identity that they intend to preserve and develop.

Everyone, alone or in community with others, has the right: a. To choose and to have one’s cultural identity respected, in the variety of its different means of expression. This right is exercised in the inter-connection with, in particular, the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression;

Everyone is free to choose to identify or not to identify with one or several cultural communities, regardless of frontiers, and to modify such a choice;

No one shall have a cultural identity imposed or be assimilated into a cultural community against one’s will.
Everyone, alone or in community with others, has the right to access and participate freely in cultural life through the activities of one’s choice, regardless of frontiers.

Everyone, alone or in community with others, has the right to participate, according to democratic procedures: • in the cultural development of the communities of which one is a member; • in the elaboration, implementation and evaluation of decisions that concern oneself and which have an impact on the exercise of one’s cultural rights; • in the development of cultural cooperation at different levels.

[39] Cultural Defence and Culturally Motivated Crimes (Cultural Offences) (PDF), by Jeroen van Broeck:

[39.1] He defines a cultural offence as: “an act by a member of a minority group or culture, which is considered an offence by the legal system of the dominant culture. That same act is nevertheless, within the cultural group of the offender, condoned, accepted as normal behaviour and approved or even endorsed and promoted in the given situation.”

[39.2] He defines a cultural defense as: “‘[A] cultural defense maintains that persons socialized in a minority or foreign culture, who regularly conduct themselves in accordance with their own culture’s norms, should not be held fully accountable for conduct that violates official law, if that conduct conforms to the prescriptions of their own culture’. Besides this broad definition, which is always implicitly present when dealing with the problem, a second definition of the cultural defence is used. The cultural defence is then referred to as a specific doctrine that recognises the cultural background of the defendant as an excuse or mitigating circumstance in a penal case. The first can be called a substantial definition of the cultural defence, while the second is a formal definition.”

The invocation of cultural law, is therefore the invocation of cultural law by a member of a minority culture, which is not considered ‘law’ by the legal system of the dominant culture. Within the minority culture’s lifestyle, the minority law actions are condoned, accepted as normal behaviour and approved or even endorsed and promoted in the given situation.

This distinction has nothing to do with a quantitative approach. Nor has it anything to do with the question ‘who was there first?’. This distinction is closely related to what can be called the cultural and ideological background or basis of the ‘legal system’.

A dominant culture is considered the culture which provides the ideological basis of the penal law or the penal rule on which the defendant is tried. The minority culture denotes the cultural background of the defendant’s group that does not share the same cultural norms and values as the dominant culture with respect to certain issues. The cultural values that are incorporated in the ‘legal system’, and more specifically in its penal law, determine which culture can be seen as dominant.

.. These examples also show that, in order to reflect on the legal and moral norms of a member of a minority group, one does not have to look at the official law of the country of origin of this group. A study of the legal and moral rules of his of her group is needed.

.. Thus, in order to decide whether or not someone is a member of a minority culture, one has to look at his or her cultural values and whether or not these clash with the norms of the legal system on the basis of which that person is tried.

In regards to a cultural offence, he writes: “The offence, in order to be a cultural offence, has to be caused directly by the fact that the minority group, of which the offender is a member, uses a different set of moral norms when dealing with the situation in which the offender was placed when he committed the offence. The conflict of diverging legal cultures has to be the direct cause of the offence.”

On a theoretical level, we will now illustrate the essence of a cultural offence. This essential aspect lies in the fact that a cultural offence is caused by the adherence to a differing legal or moral norm. A cultural offence can not be regarded as caused by one culture, but can only occur when there are different legal and moral concepts at hand and there is a clash with another legal culture . The act of the offender has to be motivated by his cultural background. The word ‘motivation’ does not imply that it was actively caused, nor that this motivation is conscious. It means that there has to be a direct link with a moral norm. or value of the minority group. In other words: the actions and behaviour of the offender have to be in accordance with his or her background.

[40] In Ex parte Minister of Native Affairs: In re Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) at 397; the Appellate Division held that when any individual before any court, invokes cultural law, neither common nor customary law is prima facie applicable. Courts have to consider all the circumstances of a case, and, without any preconceived view about the applicability of one or other legal system, select the appropriate law on the basis of its inquiry.

[41] In Ex Parte Minister of Native Affairs in re: Yako v Beyi 1948 (1) SA 388 (A) Schreiner J.A. said lifestyle of is a choice of law factor. “Aside from an express choice of laws all connecting factors with conflict of personal laws are designed to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. Because the laws involved are conceived in terms of culture .... the connecting factors must be conceived in like terms. The most direct access to a person’s cultural leanings would clearly be his or her lifestyle.”

[42] In SALC, Sept 1999: Report on Conflicts of Law: P.22: ‘1.58. The Constitution now provides an entitlement for invoking customary law in legal suits. Because ss 30 and 31 specifically guarantee an individual and a group's right to pursue a culture of choice, it could be argued that application of customary law has become a constitutional right. [..] Now, however, the state has a duty to allow people to participate in the culture they choose, implicit in this duty is a responsibility to uphold the institutions on which that culture is based.’

[43] According to The Cultural Defense in Criminal Law: South African Perspectives (PDF), by Prof. Pieter A Carstens :

[43.1] Pivotal to the invocation of cultural law in South African courts is the constitution as the supreme law of the land. Section 15 of the constitution entrenches the right of everyone to freedom of religion, belief and opinion. Section 9 (the equality clause) outlaws any discrimination inter alia on account of religion, conscience, belief and culture. Section 36 (the limitation clause) states that no right is absolute and may be limited if it is inter alia reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Constitutional interpretation by the country’s Constitutional court also dictates that there is a duty on the courts in general to develop the South African common law with reference to the constitutional values .

[43.2] It would therefore appear as though the constitution could be seen as a motivating force for the formal recognition of the invocation of cultural law albeit in context/and balance of the limitation clause.

[43.3] It is submitted that the South African legal system (through the constitution) in recognition of cultural pluralism, advances a strong argument for the formalisation of the invocation of cultural law for individuals from all South Africa’s cultures. In accepting / recognizing / formalising the invocation of cultural law in South African law, universalism is ousted in favour of cultural specificity, cultural pluralism, equality and individualized justice. It is notably with regard to the element of intention, elements of unlawfulness, capacity, element of fault, etc, that cultural laws will in all probability find application.

[43.4] The invocation of cultural law no doubt offers new challenges to South African courts, to balance justice and cultural pluralism. Ultimately the effective application of the defence will be in the hands of the judiciary objectively and free from their own cultural preconceptions and prejudices.


LEGAL AND FACTUAL ERRORS IN CRL RIGHTS MAKGOBA RULING:

[44] Mrs. K. Makgoba’s Ruling endorses the Constitutional Court Registrar’s position that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[45] CRL Rights Commission does not dispute that I am a member of the Radical Honoursty culture, which is (a) a minority culture, (b) an Ecocentric culture, (c) practices Brutal Honesty Authentic Multiculturalism endorsing authentic diversity of cultures, and (d) does not endorse the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization on cultures.

[46] CRL Rights Commission is aware, or should be aware that: The ‘Rules of Court’ are the ‘Rules of Court’ of the dominant culture, which is (a) the Dominant culture, (b) an AnthroCorpocentric culture, and (c) which practices Fake Multiculturism endorsing the homogenizing of all cultures into PC Reverse Racism cultures; and (d) endorses the homogenizing AnthroCorpocentric Egotist Consumptionism effects of Multinational GlobalCorp induced Globalization on cultures.

[47] Based upon my Application for Review, and Appeal thereof, and complaints to the CRL Rights Commision, it is clear that

[47.1] the AnthroCorpoCentric ‘Rules of Court’ from the Dominant culture, violates various Ecocentric cultural practices of my Minority Radical Honoursty culture.

[47.2] The Registrar refuses to process my Application for Review; or my Appeal of her Refusal, unless I violate my Radical Honesty Ecocentric cultural legal practices, in blind obedience to her AnthroCorpoCentric ‘Rules of Court’ Dominant cultural practices.

[47.3] The Registrar refuses to admit that when an individual from a minority culture invokes cultural law before any court, neither common law (AnthroCorpocentric Dominant cultures ‘Rules of Court’) nor customary law (minority cultures laws) are prima facie applicable. The court has to consider all the circumstances of the case, and, without any preconceived view about the applicability of one or other legal system, select the appropriate law on the basis of its inquiry. The enquiry is required to determine, in an objective manner, the cultural orientation of the parties. The most direct access to a person’s cultural leanings are their lifestyle.

[47.4] The Registrar’s justification is that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[48] It is not disputed that the CRL Rights Commission (Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities) was enacted in S 185-186 of the South African Constitution, granting it the authority to protect the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities.

[49] In the matter of Lara Johnstone, Radical Honesty culture vs. Constitutional Court Registrar, AnthroCorpocentric Dominant culture; the CRL Rights Commission endorses the Registrar’s decision to refuse to process the Radical Honesty culture application for Review, and Appeal thereof based on the justification that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[50] All of the Registrar’s AnthroCorpoCentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are violations of my Ecocentric Minority Radical Honoursty culture practices.

[51] In the Registrar’s 29 November Letter (Annex C: 29 Nov 2011: Concourt Registrar Letter) her AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ reasons for refusal to process my Ecocentric Minority culture application are:

[51.1] "It is important that you seek legal advice on your matter so that you can be legally informed of your prospects of success in this Court. If you cannot raise funds for that Legal Aid South Africa will be able to assist you."

A. Not true. There are no lawyers that I am aware of – not even the Commission for the Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities – who are willing to represent a member of the Radical Honesty culture, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture. Nor can the Constitutional Court provide evidence of any lawyer in South Africa, who is willing to represent me, in accordance to my culture, as a member of the Radical Honesty culture.

[51.2] “Like any other court, this Court may only respond to an application properly lodge in terms of the Rules of this Court .. A case number will be allocated to your as soon as the application adheres to the Rules of this Court”.

A. Not true. On 28 January 2011 I filed an application for direct access, against the discrimination by various South African media against the Radical Honesty culture. Registrar Delano Louw accepted my application, which was only filed electronically (not one hardcopy was filed), and all respondents were served electronically; based upon Radical Honesty Ecocentric lifestyle justifications. He issued a Case Number: CCT 06-11, and the application was submitted to the Justices for consideration for direct access. On 02 February 2013, the Justices issued their order, refusing to enquire into the merits of the application. (Annex D: 02 Feb 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11: Radical Honesty v SANEF et al)

[52] The Registrar’s 10 December Reasons for Refusal to process my application for review, and to submit my appeal thereof to the Concourt Justices, are also based upon her justification that South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[52.1] Her required “lodging of 25 copies of all relevant documents .. with the Registrar.”

A. Not true. On 28 January 2011 I filed an application for direct access, against the discrimination by various South African media against the Radical Honesty culture. Registrar Delano Louw accepted my application, which was only filed electronically (not one hardcopy was filed), and all respondents were served electronically; based upon Radical Honesty Ecocentric lifestyle justifications. He issued a Case Number: CCT 06-11, and the application was submitted to the Justices for consideration for direct access. On 02 February 2013, the Justices issued their order, refusing to enquire into the merits of the application. (Annex B: 02 February 2011 Concourt Ruling: CCT 06-11)

B. Secondly, this AnthroCorpoCentric Dominant culture – waste of resources -- Rule of Court, violates my Ecocentric – conserve resources – cultural practices; which is the argument made in the Appeal; which the Registrar refuses to submit to the Concourt Justices.

[53] Her required “Notices, directions or other communications in terms of these rules may be given or made by registered post or by facsimile or other electronic copy: Provided that, if a notice or other communication is given by electronic copy, the party giving such notice or communication shall forthwith lodge with the Registrar a hard copy of the notice or communication, with a certificate signed by such a party verifying the date of such communication or notice.”

[53.1] Not True. In the Constitutional Court matter of The Citizen v. Robert McBride (CCT 23-10), I was admitted to the proceedings as an Amicus Curiae. The Concourt Registrar did not require me to submit all correspondence or notices or communications in hard copy; only in electronic copy. (Annex E: 03 May 2010: Concourt Ruling: CCT 23-10: Citizen v. Robert McBride)

[54] Conclusion: All of the justifications used by the Concourt Registrar to refuse to process (a) my application for Radical Honoursty Culture Review, and (b) my Ecocentric Minority culture Appeal of AnthroCorpoCentric Dominant Culture’s ‘Rules of Court’ are based upon her insistence that: South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[55] The CRL Rights Commission ruling endorsing the Concourt Registrar’s actions, as (a) not falling under the mandate of the Commission, and (b) endorsing the Constitutional Court Registrar’s refusal to process my application for review are based upon my non-adherence to the rules of the constitutional court endorse the Concourt Registrars argument that:

[55.1] South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).


RELIEF REQUESTED:

[56] Please confirm whether it is the CRL Rights Commission’s Official policy that:

[56.1] South African AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ are the Supreme Law of the Land; If or when the AnthroCorpocentric Dominant Cultures ‘Rules of Court’ violate a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[57] If not, please provide the following relief:

[57.1] overturn Mrs Makgoba’s ruling as being in violation of a Minority cultures right to practice their Ecocentric cultural practices, as enshrined in the Constitution Bill of Rights clauses granting citizens from minority cultures, access to courts (S 34), and rights to practice their culture (S. 15(3), 30, 31, and 18).

[57.2] Order Mrs Makgoba or an appropriate CRL Rights Commission Commissioner to process my CRL Rights Commission Complaint of Cultural Discrimination against the Constitutional Court Registrar, in terms of ICR Complaints Handling Proceedings, as being a complaint which falls within the CRL Rights Commission’s mandate:

4.2 Complaints handling

If the complaint falls within its mandate, the Commission shall within two (2) days of receipt acknowledge such receipt in writing. An allegation letter or a letter outlining the complaint to and requesting the alleged perpetrator to respond to the complaint shall be sent to the alleged perpetrator within five working (5) days after acknowledgement. Thereafter, the alleged perpetrator shall be given seven (7) days within which to respond to the allegations. Following the response, the complainant shall be notified of the response in writing within three (3) days of receipt of such response. The alleged perpetrator response shall be attached to the notice.
Should the alleged perpetrator fail to respond to the allegation within seven (7) days, a notice of reminder shall be sent within three (3) days after the expiry of seven days notifying the alleged perpetrator to respond within five (5) days of receipt of that notice.

In the event the alleged perpetrator fails to respond to the reminder within five (5) days, the Commission shall send a second reminder within three (3) days after the lapse of the five (5) days period. The said second reminder will be the last reminder which will contain, inter alia, the notice that, should the alleged perpetrator default to respond to the last reminder the Commission will invoke section 7(2) of the CRL Rights Commission Act 19 of 2002, to summon the defaulter to appear the Commission.

» » » » [SQSwans]