RH & YGL statement RE: SAHRC 'Hate Speech' Ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan

RH & YGL statement RE: SAHRC 'Hate Speech' Ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan

The Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries book: Die Raadplan | The Divine Plan, ‘statements’ do not meet any of the Radical Honoursty culture’s definitions for ‘Hate’ or ‘Racism’.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | SQSwans | 02 March 2013

Radical Honoursty Culture & Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party Dispute SAHRC ruling against Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries publication ‘Die Raadsplan’ | as offensive and amounting to hate speech; and all SA HRC ‘Hate Speech’, ‘Racism’ Rulings, based upon AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence’s definitions of ‘Hate Speech’ and ‘Racism’.

Official Notice to South African Human Rights Commission:

[1] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party dispute the SAHRC ruling against Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries publication ‘Die Raadsplan’ | ‘The Divine Plan’, as ‘offensive’ and amounting to ‘hate speech’; on the grounds that:

[1.1] The Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan statements do not meet the minority Ecocentric Radical Honoursty culture’s legal definitions for ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’.

[1.2] The SAHRC Commission’s ruling against Lewende Hoop: Die Raadsplan is based upon the dominant culture’s AnthroCorpocentric Common Law cultural definitions for ‘hate speech’ and ‘racism’ and ‘offensive’; without any recognition of alternative cultural definitions from minority South African cultures who are not Patriarchal or AnthroCorpocentric.

[2] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party dispute all past and future SA Human Rights Commission ‘Hate Speech’ Rulings, which were, or shall be based upon AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence definitions of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’, ‘offensive’, ‘insulting’ etc.

[3] Any SAHRC ruling of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ etc, which does not recognize or incorporate Radical Honoursty cultural definitions of ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ and ‘reconciliation’ in its rulings, consequently do not represent the views of the Radical Honoursty culture and the Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party.

[4] The Radical Honoursty culture and Yshmael Guerrylla Law Party recognize all other South African culture’s rights to their own cultural definitions for ‘hate speech’, ‘racism’ and ‘reconciliation’, etc; and believe that true authentic multiculturalism can only occur when all cultures are honest about what their culture’s specific legal definition of these and other contentious legal terms are, so that the members of all cultures, can be made aware, what other cultures definitions are of these terms and how to choose to relate to each other, or not, in recognition of such terms; instead of one or more dominant cultures, attempting to enforce their dominant cultural definitions down all other culture’s throats.

[5] In Radical Honoursty culture:

[5.1] Love: Love is to (a) tell another person your subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how ‘offensive’ to the listener, and (b) to do so publicly, to their face; as opposed to secretly or behind their back, and (c) to remain in the conversation with them.

[5.2] Hate: Hate is to (a) withhold your honest subjective truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no matter how offensive, to the listener; and (b) to do so to their face, particularly while expressing your subjective truth, behind their back, and (c) to bullshit yourself, that what you are doing is not ‘hate’; but ‘manners’ or ‘being nice’ or ‘being polite’ or ‘being professional’, etc.

[5.3] Racism: Any fact or verbal or written statement about racial differences – no matter how offensive or factually incorrect -- cannot be ‘racist’. Only a subjective belief about racial differences can be racist, if (a) it unequivocally subjectively known, by the holder of the belief, to be both factually and experientially false, yet (b) stated as factual or experiential truth, and (c) when confronted with possible alternative evidence and theories, the nature of the subjectivity of the belief is fundamentalist, as opposed to simply that of a working hypothesis conclusion. (Definition of Dr. Gedaliah Braun, as expressed in What is Racism? Or, how Philosophy can be ‘Practical’: in his book: Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit).

[5.4] Reconciliation: Radical Honoursty is a non-violent Fanon process, where reconciliation is a psychological and sensate physical experience of releasing of anger and resentments. It is the liberation of both the settler and the colonized minds, by release of both of their suppressed violence, not physically, but verbally: face to face, through expressions of resentments and appreciations, until all suppressed sensate anger is released. Radical Honoursty forgiveness occurs when two former enemies sit across from each other, and have verbally liberated their pent up sensate anger and rage, the body is in a state of released sensate tension, similar to the emotions released in a sexual orgasm, irrespective of however long it takes. Reconciliation occurs when the fragile ego mind is no longer colonized by the suppressed anger in the body (Definition as provided to Constitutional Court in Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, Malema, et al).

[6] The Lewende Hoop | Living Hope Ministries book: Die Raadplan | The Divine Plan, ‘statements’ do not meet any of the Radical Honoursty culture’s definitions for ‘Hate’ or ‘Racism’.

Legal PC Tyranny Avoids Clear definition for 'Racist': 7 Year Old is branded a bigot

When a seven year-old is branded a bigot

20 February 2012 | Melanie Phillips | Daily Mail

The word ‘Orwellian’ has become over-used to the point of cliche. Yet there is really no other way to describe the deeply sinister, upside-down onslaught upon common sense that has extended even into the school playgrounds of politically correct Britain.

The aim was originally to create a kinder, gentler world — with a commitment to eradicating racial or any other type of prejudice.

Supporters of these beliefs profess to loathe and detest bullying, with teachers instigating school playground patrols and ‘anti-bullying weeks’ to stamp out this hateful practice.

And yet, in pursuance of these aims, we have witnessed the rise of the widespread state-sponsored bullying of children.

The latest example was the experience of a seven-year-old boy from Hull, whose mother was astounded to be told by his primary school to sign a form admitting he was racist.

So what was the heinous act this child had committed to cause him to be branded in this way? Why, merely to have asked a five-year-old boy in the playground whether he was ‘brown because he was from Africa’.

What on earth is racist about that question? It does not express a hateful dislike of, or racial superiority over, another person on account of the colour of their skin. It merely wonders, in a child-like way, about the reason for that colour.

It is thus a perfectly inoffensive question from a curious child. The reason for the five-year-old’s brown skin is, indeed, that his ancestry lies in another continent.

So how can a correct assumption constitute a prejudice? The school’s gross over-reaction suggests that racism is being redefined to include not only hateful references to someone’s colour, but any reference to it at all.

TRC Fraud: (I) ANC’s Black Power Cannon Fodder Breeding War & (II) Black Liberation Theology ‘Forgiveness’: liberation on rotting corpses of settlers

TRC Fraud: (I) ANC’s Black Power Slave & Cannon Fodder Breeding War & (II) Black Liberation Theology ‘Forgiveness’ Definition: Violent Liberation on the Rotting Corpses of White Settlers

Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty | 17 February 2012

From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:41 PM
To: 'NGK: Franchk: Rev Bossie Minnaar'; 'NGK: Franchk: Sec Karen Minnaar'; 'Wendy Jasondacosta'
Cc: Desmond Tutu (**@mweb.co.za); Tutu Pce Ctr: Dan (**@tutu.org.za); Tutu - Assist: Vivian (**@tutu.org.za); Tutu Peace Ctr (**@tutu.org); Twinkie Moche - SACC (**@sacc.org.za); Joyce Mokoena - SACC (**@sacc.org.za); Mothomang D - NMF (**@nelsonmandela.org); Verne Harris - NMF (**@nelsonmandela.org); Sello Hatang - NMF (**@nelsonmandela.org); Nelson Mandela Foundation (**@nelsonmandela.org); Adv. Nikki de Havilland (**@cfcr.org.za); Dave Steward - FWF (**@fwdeklerk.org); Shan Wolksky (**@fwdeklerk.org); Patricia Brand-Adams - FWF (**@fwdeklerk.org); Coptic Orth. Ch (**@icon.co.za); Dr Clement Fugh (**@ame-church.com); NG Kerk (**@ngkerk.org.za); NG Kerk (**@bmedia.co.za); Methodist Ch in SA (**c@methchurch.org.za); Mariane Simpson - Angus Bucham (**@shalomtrust.co.za); Anglican Ch of SA (**@anglicanchurchsa.org.za); Padraig Smyth - Catholic Bishops (**@icon.co.za); Fr. Mike Deeb - Cath Bishops Conf. (**@sacbc.org.za); LeadSA: Adriaan Groenewald (**@towerstone.co.za); J - SA Zionist Federation (**@ctjc.co.za); J - SA Zionist Federation (**@djc.co.za); J - SA Zionist Federation (**@beyachad.co.za); 'IOL: Wendy Jasondacosta' (**@inl.co.za)
Subject: Franschoek Transformation Charter: Mandela, Tutu & De Klerk's TRC FRAUD

Rev Bossie Minnaar
Sec Karen Minnaar
Franschhoek Valley Transformation Charter


Radical Honoursty submission to the Board of Directors and Members of the Franschhoek Valley Transformation Charter; c/o & via: Rev Bossie Minnaar and Secretary: Karen Minnaar

Honourable CC: Tutu Fnd, Nelson Mandela Fnd, FW de Klerk Fnd.

Dear Sirs/Ladies,

The Dutch Reformer Church Franschoek website states:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at launch
of the Franschhoek Valley Transformation Charter.
Thursday 16 February 2012 at 17:30
in the Dutch Reformed Church Franschhoek

All the inhabitants of the Franschhoek Valley are invited to the official launch of the Franschhoek Valley Transformation Charter on February 16th at 17.30 in the Dutch Reformed Church in Franschhoek. Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, who, on getting to know about the Charter process has offered to be the patron of the Charter, will speak at the launch.

I doubt Archbishop Desmond Tutu has practiced transparency to inform you of this information; honourable transparency is -- unfortunately -- not high on his list of priorities or value system.

Etymology and Geneology of the word 'racism': Origins of Racism: Curious beginnings of a useless word.

The Origins of ‘Racism’

The curious beginnings of a useless word.

Samuel Francis | American Renaissance

The Oxford English Dictionary is a multivolume reference work that is one of Western scholarship’s most remarkable achievements — the standard dictionary of the English language on what are known as “historical principles.” Unlike most dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary also provides information on the first historical appearance and usage of words. The range of the erudition in the Oxford English Dictionary is often astounding, but for AR readers, one of its most interesting entries is for the word “racism.”

According to the second edition (1989) of the Oxford English Dictionary, the earliest known usage of the word “racism” in English occurred in a 1936 book by the American “fascist,” Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism. The second usage of the term in English that the Oxford English Dictionary records is in the title of a book originally written in German in 1933 and 1934 but translated into English and first published in 1938 — Racism by Magnus Hirschfeld, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. Since Hirschfeld died in 1935, before the publication of Dennis’ book the following year, and had already used the word extensively in the text and title of his own book, it seems only fair to recognize him rather than Dennis as the originator of the word “racism.” In the case of the word “racist” as an adjective, the Oxford English Dictionary ascribes the first known usage to Hirschfeld himself. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld and what did he have to tell us about “racism”?

LHR: ANC Gov's new legal definition of "relevant" 'will undermine transparency'

New rules ‘will undermine transparency’

Lawyers for Human Rights warn new rules on what documents a person is entitled to when planning to challenge a government official’s decision in court will make it harder to hold government to account for its decisions

Franny Rabkin | Business Day | 2012/02/06 07:10:31 AM

NEW rules on what documents a person is entitled to when planning to challenge a government official’s decision in court will make it harder to hold government to account for its decisions, said Lawyers for Human Rights in court papers.

Effective judicial review is widely viewed as an essential part of ensuring the government acts lawfully when it takes administrative decisions — such as the awarding of mining rights or tenders.

The "record" of the official’s decision, the documents upon which the decision was based, is a key weapon in the arsenal of the person who wishes to challenge the decision in court. Obtaining the record is the first step of the court process to review and set aside an administrative decision.

The new rules, yet to come into force, say that before a person challenges an administrative decision, he is entitled to ask for only those documents that are "relevant" to his grounds for believing the decision to be unlawful. The decision maker decides what documents are relevant.