SAHRC, CRL Rights, FVP & ANC AnthroCorpocentric Definitions of 'Racism' & 'Hatespeech' not endorsed by RH & YGL
Any past or future 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.
Andrea Muhrrteyn | Radical Honoursty Culture | 07 March 2013
[3] AnthroCorpocentric Multiculturalism: Cultural Definitions:
[3.1] The ANC and other Political Parties and African and European South African cultures adhere to AnthroCorpocentric dominant common law cultural jurisprudence, including its endorsement of AnthroCorpocentric Multiculturalism , or MultiCorpCultural Colonialism, in accordance to the dictates of Multinational Corporations.
[3.2] As dictated by Multinational Corporations, and their addiction to ‘Public Relations Image management’ and cultural colonialism hegemony, these parties assert that there is one and one only definition for ‘hate speech’, their corporate colonial masters definition. Similarly there is one and only one definition for ‘racism’; their corporate colonial masters definition. No culture is allowed its own cultural historical definitions for abstract concepts of ‘racism’, or ‘hate speech’ or ‘love’ or ‘hate’ or ‘reconciliation’; because everyone must be blindly obedient to the Corporate Colonial Masters and their Cultural Colonization of all cultures into Zombie Consumers, obedient to the Corporate Masters AnthroCorpocentric Legal Tyranny.
[3.3] A Legal Tyranny occurs in any society when its (a) jurisprudence has vague and abstract legal definitions, denying its citizens clear and concise simple language definitions for clear understanding of those particular terms, such as for example ‘terrorism’ or ‘exterminate’, or ‘communist’, etc; and/or (b) multicultural jurisprudence which adopts the dominant culture’s legal terminology of any legal concept, such as for example ‘hate speech’ or ‘racism’, as being the one and only legal definition relevant to all cultures; when in fact it is the dominant culture’s legal definition and is in conflict with minority cultures legal definitions; and does not recognize that minority cultures have different legal definitions for the particular concept.
