Transformation of Judiciary Debate: Red Herring Coverup of Fraud of Patriarchal AnthroCorpoCentric Jurisprudence

Transformation of Judiciary Debate: Red Herring Coverup of Fraud of Patriarchal AnthroCorpoCentric Jurisprudence

Correspondence to Judicial Service Commission & Izak Smuts SC: Re: Transformation of Judiciary Debate

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 12 April 2013

The Judicial Service Commission’s ‘transformation’ debate and Izak Smuts resignation is a red herring, obscuring the JSC’s ‘transformation’ agenda to (i) censor the Fraud and Failures of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; while (ii) simply transforming South Africa’s Jurisprudence from a European Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour to an African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric flavour. (Ref: White Men Can't Judge; JSC in talks on transformation; JSC's Izak Smuts resigns after transformation row; Why I'm resigning from the JSC - Izak Smuts.)

This ‘transformation’ dispute has absolutely nothing to do with significantly ‘transforming’ South Africa’s system of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence benefiting the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric elite; to a Credible system of Jurisprudence, based upon the results of that system, benefiting the consumers of the system: South African citizens, and the parties providing the ecological resources which are the foundation of all constitutional rights.

Any debate about transformation, must first (a) accurately identify what the current status of the system is, (b) then identify its strong points and its weak points, that improve/reduce its credibility; and (c) finally identify how to transform its weak points to strengthen them to improve its credibility, with the consumers of the system.

When identifying the ‘credible’ strong points, those seeking to transform the system, should ask what is ‘credible’ in the experience of the consumer of that particular system, not in the eyes, of the controllers or, or the profiteers from, the system.

All of South Africa’s judges endorse Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: How many of them can count their monthly pay-check; while holding their breath? Not one! Yet each one of them ignore the ecological foundation (the quality of air, water, soil and biodiversity of nature) when legislating/adjudicating their AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence; as if money gives them the opportunity to breathe!!!

Sincere Consumer Orientated Perspective to Juristic Transformation:

[1] SA’s current system of Jurisprudence is Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric. Patriarchy: A system of society or government, is Patriarchal to the extent that it regulates (a) the relations between humans, nature and other animals species and (b) the relations between humans amongst themselves, in terms of their gender, culture, ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts; for the (c) almost exclusive benefit of violent Anthropocentric humans and corporations.

[2] A Credible Judicial System for Citizens and Nature is one such as the Mosuo’s, who have no rape, no murder, no suicide, no prisons, no unemployed, no homeless. If illiterate peasant women are capable of regulating the relations between nature, humans and animals, so simply that they result in a society with no rape, no murder, no suicide, no unemployed, no homeless; why are Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric lawyers with Ph.D’s and seven years of university education incapable of the same results? Because South Africa’s legislators and jurists all endorse the Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric jurisprudence recipe of breeding and consumption wars, for resource scarcity and conflict creation, and their profits!?

[3] Fraud of AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence: Primary Beneficiaries: Anthropocentric males and corporations; Primary Losers: Non-Anthropocentric humans and nature.

[4] Transforming a system of Jurisprudence from Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric to Æquilibriaex: equal & balanced Eco/Anthropocentric law.

[5] Other Examples of Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurisprudence Transformations to Æquilibriæx Jurisprudence: (i) Example of the Application of Aequilibriaex Principles, from a submission to the Military Judge of the US Army First Judicial Court, Ft. Meade in the matter of United States v. Bradley Manning; (ii) New Zealand, Ecuador, Bolivia and US Counties grant Nature Rights; (iii) Pennsylvania judge rules that corporations are not people.

If you want a transformed Judiciary, not for the benefit of the South African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric elite, but for the benefit of South African citizens and nature; for a sustainable future, for a sustainable constitution; then you should only appoint people to the JSC who are Leavers: who consciously breed and consume below carrying capacity; irrespective whether they have a law degree, or even went to school! After all, a person who consciously breeds and consumes below carrying capacity, has more commitment to respecting the rights of nature, and other humans, in terms of her everyday procreation and consumption practices; than any Lawyer or Advocate, who breeds or consumes way above carrying capacity, who appears to believe that the earth is flat and resources are infinite.

Guardian Ed (Alan Rusbridger) false claims about Apartheid Univ. Educ for blacks; while his father (George) denied blacks Univ. Educ in N.Rhodesia

Apartheid and the universities

The Ratcatcher | Politicsweb | 17 January 2012

Was it really, as the Guardian claims, the ANC who opened the gates of higher education to all?

In a recent article on the tragic death of Gloria Sekwena in a stampede at the University of Johannesburg The Guardian of London claimed that "Under apartheid, all but a trickle of the country's black majority was shut out of higher education. When white minority rule ended, in 1994, the gates to universities were opened to all."

The British readers of that publication would no doubt have accepted this claim as fact. It would have confirmed established views on the horrors of Afrikaner rule in South Africa, and of the boundless virtues of the ANC.

The question is: how true is this claim?

Up until 1959 the Afrikaans-medium universities had traditionally limited admittance to whites. The University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Cape Town had however remained open to all races. The University of Natal admitted students of all races but segregated classes. Fort Hare meanwhile was a predominantly black institution.

As can be seen from Table 1 there was indeed only a trickle of black South Africans into higher education in the 1950s. The racial breakdown of the universities in 1958 was as follows:

‘Black African workers are retarded’ - Reits 4 State Prosecutor Johan Kruger

So, read between the lines; and don't expect an ignorant black African to be able to do so; is the message from State Pros. Johan kruger? Basically the Reits 4 State Prosecutor Johan Kruger says that if a white person in South Africa wants a ‘healthy’ relationship with a black person in South Africa; then in this ‘healthy’ relationship you must treat the black African like they are retarded.

Do not expect a black African to know what consent is. Do not expect a black African to take responsibility for thier consent and agreement to freely conduct a voluntary act; for which their was no pressure they participate in. Black Africans are moronically stupid, they do not know what consent is; because they are intellectually retarded. So it is your responsibility as a white person, to know that even if a black person tells you that they agree to do something; you are speaking to a retarded person, who is non compis mentis on the issue of consent. It is consequently your responsibility to be their adult (even if they are double your age; you as a young white person, are required to be their adult; because no matter how old a black African is; they are retarded and don't know what consent is; nor what a consensual honourable agreement is).

Not only do black Africans not know what consent is; or what it means to make an honourable consensual agreement; but they are also retarded in that they don't know what a joke is; or what satire is. Your ‘healthy’ relationship with a black person does not involve making a joke; because their retarded intellectual capacity does not allow them to be able to understand what a joke is. They will not understand your intentions to be a friend, to have a laugh together; that this is part of what in the rest of the world is considered a healthy relationship: to be able to laugh together and with each other.

So, the state Prosecutor implies that Black Africans are retarded; because they will never consider the possibility of the real motive of sincerity and friendship, when you joke with them; they will always conclude that your intentions are malicious. There is sweet fuck all you can do; it doesn't matter how honourable; or noble or kind your intentions were; they will interpret your intentions as the intent to insult them.

So, what you must do, is treat black Africans as if they are retarded; they are cognitively incapable of conscious consent; of making an honourable agreement; of understanding what satire and or humour contributes to a relationship.

The Reits-4 TRC Fraud Prostitution Circus:

1. Introduction: Politicians, Editors & Lawyers: Kangaroo Court Actors
   

2. Media Timeline of Events - Ignoring Anti-Lynching Voices
   

3. Ubuntu Kangaroo Court Justice – Evidence is Irrelevant
   

4. The Reasonable Initiation Satire Legal Fraud – Who cares about Evidence?
   

5. The Dolus Eventualis Legal Fraud – The Multiculti Boiling Frog
   

6. The Reconciliation Religious Fraud – Censoring TRC Fraud
   

7. What is Oprah's Position on Black Liberation Theology TRC Fraud?

A lynching is the practice of killing people by extrajudicial mob action, where a mob is generally considered to be more than five persons. The mob generally act under the pretext of service to justice, their race or tradition. They use lynching and other terror tactics to intimidate a particular racial, religious or cultural group into political, social or economic submission. A legal lynching has other names such as Stalin's Political Show trials, or Kangaroo Court Justice, etc.

The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s. There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials exhibit scant regard for the principles of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves.

Radical Honesty SA: Re: SlutWalk & Conspiracy of Academic Silence on Do-Sluts-Want-to-be-Raped Research

Moved to: EoP Leg Sub: 09 Jun: SlutWalk & Conspiracy of Academic Silence on Do Sluts Want to be Raped Research.