Gender Comm. Complaint: Patriarchal Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling

Gender Commission Complaint: Patriarchal Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling

Gender and Gender Ideology Discrimination by ICASA who refuse to consider/hear the submission from the Radical Honoursty culture, a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture, as part of its hearings on Top TV’s application to publicize three Pornography channels.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 24 April 2013

Complaint to Gender Commission: Subject: CGE Complaint: Discrimination by ICASA in TopTV/COSATU Pornography Ruling (PDF):

Please find attached PDF Complaint: (A) CGE Complaint Form, (B) Complaint: Gender and Gender Ideology Discrimination by ICASA who refuse to consider/hear the submission from the Radical Honoursty culture, a gender balanced AntiCiv Ecocentric (Anti-Patriarchal civilization) primitivist culture, as part of its hearings on Top TV’s application to publicize three Pornography channels.

ICASA’s Ruling is Patriarchal Discrimination: The ruling is patriarchal discrimination, in terms of:

A. The Committee’s decision to rule exclusively in favour of TopTV, On Digital Media, Kopano Ke Matla Investment Company and Cosatu, who are all (a) unsustainable corporations, run by persons who are members of (a) Patriarchal Anthropocentric cultures. The ruling was consequently exclusively in favour of benefiting (a) violent (b) Anthropocentric men and (c) unsustainable corporations.

B. The Committee’s decision to refuse to consider the submission from a non-Anthropocentric, non-Patriarchal sustainable culture: Radical Honesty culture.

C. The Committee’s Patriarchal secretive decision-making process: failing to provide clear transparent closing date for public comment, and then deciding to refuse a non-patriarchal culture’s submission for failing to know when the alleged secret closing date was.

Patriarchy Definition:

[1] 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] Consequently a legal, political or social system is Patriarchal to the extent of its (a) failure to provide automatic equal legal personhood and rights to nature and animal and plant species; (b) disregard for the objective and scientific carrying capacity truth of the laws of nature/ecology; and (c) disregard for the laws of human nature; when they contradict the AnthroCorpocentric – breeding and consumption war – objectives of the holders of subjective AnthroCorpocentric Truth.

[3] A society has violent Patriarchal breeding and consumption war objectives, to the extent that its socio-political status symbols involve breeding war, consumption war and violent warrior mythology: (a) breeding war procreation above carrying capacity: i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood virility status, which are based on the man breeding a family above carrying capacity levels; (b) consumption war consuming above carrying capacity; i.e. cultures that reward their male members with concepts of manhood intelligence/virility status, which are based upon the man consuming above carrying capacity levels, to demonstrate his ‘large consumption penis’; (c) warrior mythology, where violent men are rewarded with ‘freedom fighter’ or ‘soldier’ socio-political status symbol medals and awards; particularly if the warrior mythology censors and ignores information to educate the culture’s members, that scarcity induced resource war violence can be avoided by the culture’s members choosing to breed and consume below carrying capacity levels. A culture which teaches a purely defensive warrior mythology; i.e. based purely on defense of its landbase and resources, i.e. which educate the members of the culture to avoid overpopulation and overconsumption scarcity inducing lifestyle’s within its culture, would not be considered a patriarchal culture.

CLC 2013: “‘Transformation’ (and ‘reconciliation’) does not even require to be defined.” - Justice Mogoeng

CLA Secretariat & CLC 2013: Req for Info: Re: SA's Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny

Commonwealth Law Conference endorses African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists demand to be the Masters of SA’s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny: “‘Transformation’ (and ‘reconciliation’) does not even require to be defined (by the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Masters).” - Justice Mogoeng

Andrea Muhrrteyn | TYGAE | 16 April 2013

Correspondence to Commonwealth Lawyers Assoc.: President: Boma Ozobia and Vice President: Mark Stephens. CC: Keynote Speakers & Invited Speakers: Subject: CLA: Req for Info: Re: African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurist Masters of SA’s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny?

Please find attached PDF: Commonwealth Law Conference endorses African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists demand to be the Masters of SA’s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny: “‘Transformation’ (and ‘reconciliation’) does not even require to be defined (by the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Masters).” - Justice Mogoeng

Issues covered: (a) Apartheid’s Legal Tyranny of ‘vague and ambiguous’ definitions; (b) Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny: Who is to be Master?; (c) African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists demand to be the Masters of SA’s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny

Do the Commonwealth Lawyers Association endorse the African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurists demand to be the Masters of SA’s Alice in Wonderland Legal Tyranny?

Does CLA believe SA citizens are entitled to clear and succinct definitions for the legal terms of ‘reconciliation’ and ‘transformation’; from our African Patriarchal AnthroCorpocentric Jurist masters? Or, don’t the CLA hold African Patriarch masters to the same standards as Boer Patriarch Masters? When can we expect you to release a statement, clarifying your position?

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.

AUM Prof Steven Gish: Request withdrawal of Tutu nomination for Templeton Prize

AUM Prof Steven Gish: Request withdrawal of Tutu nomination for Templeton Prize

Radical Honoursty Culture and TYGAE Request for Withdrawal of your Nomination of Desmond Tutu as Recipient of Templeton Prize, due to your (a) biographer conflict of interest, and (b) failure to provide the evidence of Archbishop Tutu’s involvement in the cover-up and censorship of South Africa’s TRC Fraud.

Andrea Muhrrteyn | SQSwans | 11 April 2013

[1.20] Colonialism is a product and symptom of Patriarchy’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars. Colonialism, whether it is the colonialism of Europeans conquering African tribes, or the colonialism of African tribes who conquered other African tribes, or the colonialism of both Europeans and Africans who conquered the gender balanced Bushmen tribes.

[1.21] All Colonialism, whether it resulted from the conquering wars of Columbus, or Shaka Zulu, or Mohammed, were a product and symptom of Patriarchy.

[1.22] A patriarchal society, or a society which does not address the causes of masculine insecurity, cannot and will not ever be sustainable. Any ideology, whether political or religious, founded upon masculine insecurity (patriarchy) will result in (a) breeding and consumption war concepts of power and domination (to provide insecure males with social/psychological penis extension status symbols, their fragile ego's lack).

[1.23] Consumption wars require exponential expropriation of land, natural resources and knowledge. Breeding wars require a war against sustainable consciousness (ecological and political balance) and a human factory farming war economy racket culling. Colonialism is a symptom of Patriarch’s addiction to breeding and consumption wars; i.e. consuming above carrying capacity, and then using the surplus population as cannon fodder to conquer another culture’s resources.

[1.24] The argument that Apartheid and European colonialism was morally reprehensible, and had massive destructive psychological and physical consequences for the Bushmen and African tribes conquered; is a very valid argument; if those making such an argument, hold all other African, Chinese, etc cultures to the same standard, by condemning those culture’s patriarchal conquering and colonization of other tribes resources.

[1.25] An honourable impartial argument against European Colonialism, including apartheid, must also admit that all Patriarchal colonialism is morally reprehensible, irrespective of who the patriarchal colonialists were who were doing the breeding war, consumption war conquering!

[1.26] When an individual argues that only European and Boer colonialism is morally reprehensible, while ignoring the patriarchal reprehensible colonialism of African Tribes conquering and colonizing other tribes, including African tribes, then the implication of that argument is that African Patriarchy and Colonialism and African Patriarch’s are morally inferior and incapable of criticism of their Patriarchal Colonizing behaviour.

[1.27] Put differently, when European or Africans argue that only European and Boer Colonialists should be considered morally reprehensible, they effectively agree with European and Boer Colonialists that Europeans/Boers are superior to Africans, and that Africans are inferior and incapable of being held to the same Patriarchal colonialists standards as white men.

[1.28] If you object to Colonialism and Apartheid (the symptom of Patriarchal culture’s) and want a world where one group of people are not constantly being colonized by another group of people, anywhere and everywhere on the planet; then you must be consistent and object to all patriarchy (the root cause of colonialism).

YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’!

Letter to YCLSA & SAHRC: YCLSA complaint to SAHRC: One Racial Patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ calling another racial patriarchal definition of ‘beauty’ ‘racist’!

To test whether a man or woman support violence as superiority; or rule of law/reason and logic, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they support rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreation above carrying capacity, they support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s definition of superiority: violence!

Andrea Muhrrteyn | 06 April 2013 | SQSwans

Sustainable Problem Solving vs Unsustainable Violent Colonialism: Patriarchal Capitalism and Communism

There are some who view a superior civilization as one in which the men do not suffer from fragile ego addictions, and can discuss a matter honourably and based upon reason and logic, if or where they find their reasoning to be in error, to admit such, and amend their working hypothesis conclusion.... such a society is capable of problem solving most problems... such as for example the Mosuo culture in SW China who have no murder, no rape, no suicide, no homelessness, no unemployment, who live in harmony with nature.

A gender balanced culture based on logic and reason concludes that we live on a finite resource earth, and hence if we wish to avoid conflict from resource scarcity, then we must consume and reproduce at a level below carrying capacity. Put differently we do not have the right to ‘fuck’ and ‘consume’ to our hearts content. No patriarchal culture on planet earth has ever been based on logic and reason and required their tribe to breed and consume below carrying capacity.

Then you have patriarchal societies/cultures where men suffer from fragile ego's and are incapable of resolving issues by means of logic and reason. Put differently, they do not want to take control of their penis, either physically, by breeding below carrying capacity, or psychologically, by consume below carrying capacity (social status symbols which psychologically are equivalent to their belief in an extension of their penis/virility). They consider superiority, not superiority of logic and reason and honour and intellect and integrity, but superiority of violence and force. However they do not have the honour or integrity to admit their addiction to violence as a symptom of their masculine insecurity to evaluate their ‘status’ in terms of honesty or honour. Violence is simply another patriarchal status symbol. It is one of the masculine insecurity social status symbols by which they measure any other patriarchal male’s worth, or another tribe’s superiority/inferiority.

I have large respect for a man who is honest about his view of violence being the pinnacle of any civilization, even though I disagree with them... but at least he is honest, and his enemies know.. that is the measure of his values. He has no regard for ‘rule of law’ or ‘logic and reason’. He settles every dispute with his fists. And when he is beaten by a stronger opponent, he does not turn into a victim and starts whining about how he is now oppressed, since he takes responsibility for his choices; that he lost the game of violence is superiority.

I have no respect, and a huge amount of disgust for men who do not have the honour and integrity to admit that they measure a culture's superiority by the level of its inflicted violence, happy to be earning the fruit of the culture’s colonialist violence, while their violence is winning the raping, pillaging wars, breeding and consuming wars... but all of a sudden turning into whining victims when they lose the game of violence and are now oppressed.

To test whether a man or woman support violence as superiority; or rule of law/reason and logic, ask them whether they procreate and consume below carrying capacity. If they do, they support rule of law/reason and logic. If they consume or procreation above carrying capacity, they support – consciously or unconsciously – patriarchy’s definition of superiority: violence!

Either you support the rule of law, i.e. logic and reason, which means you must confront that we live on a finite resource planet, and all tribes must breed and consume below carrying capacity, to avoid scarcity and internal or inter-tribal conflict.

Or you support the patriarchal breeding and consuming game of violent superiority. If so, then at least be honest and admit it, and if you lose, don’t whine.