DACA … for dummies … peeling the onion

DACA means ‘Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals’.

The ‘children involved’, over 900,000 of them are now adults.
Their children are also in the onion.
They are popularly referred to as “Dreamers”.

To unpeel this onion, we are going to use “jurisprudence”.  Jurisprudence is the “science” of law. That is why universities classify law as a “social science”.

A.  The History.
Over 900,000 humans were brought into America illegally by their parents. At the time they were children.

B.  The law.
A child is doli incapax; Latin for “incapable of committing a crime”. So, none of the now DACA adults is guilty of anything whatsoever.

C.   Jurisprudence
It is fundamental jurisprudence that a human being cannot be visited with a punishment or divested of any of the basket of human rights that otherwise accrue except as a consequence of wrongdoing, proved by a fair due process.

Article 1 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) prohibits persons from being treated “unequally”. Equality is a cornerstone of the UDHR.

Article 2 prohibits discriminating against a person on the basis of that person’s “national or social origin” and/or “international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs…”

Article 7 states that – “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. “

Article 9 states – “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

Article 10 states – “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations…”

Patricia De Lille ... on trial

The “trial of De Lille” by the Democratic Alliance (“DA”) is playing out in the media. Her guilt or innocence is an issue in the court of public opinion and now, at last, before a constituted disciplinary committee, that she has welcomed.
She has welcomed it as she sees DC as her only chance at justice.

However truth and justice may yet prove as elusive as ever, given our propensity for appointing dubious adjudicators as regards “political” matters. The sham Seriti Arms Commission springs to mind. Its findings are widely regarded “as a joke”.

“The 2004 Hefer Commission - set up to investigate allegations of spying against the then head of the National Director of Public Prosecutions - turned out to be little more than a cynical exercise in personal retribution and the silencing of troublesome political opponents.”

It is therefore a truism that everything depends on which persons are appointed to adjudicate on the De Lille DC. I’m not holding my breath.

Personally, I am infused with scepticism from start to finish about the whole thing.

To be fair I will first confess a bias … a pro-De Lille bias. I first made contact with this lady when, as a head of a parastatal, I was required to report to Parliament. De Lille was on the Portfolio Committee for Transport. The sessions with her were marked by her diamond hard commitment to the public interest … from A to Z. She spared you no hiding place on this issue.

Later I had the privilege of sharing a breakfast with her in the wondrous shadow and aura of Table Mountain. I was mesmerized by the sensitive, gentle human spirit that was otherwise masked by that seemingly hard exterior. The “warrior” woman had the heart of a loving child. It was not long before her eyes welled up when explaining what terrors she and her family had been subjected to on their path to truth and justice.

And we all know who exposed the rotten Arms Deal.

So I have never had any reservations about this lady’s commitment to the public interest and her crusade for truth and social justice.  That is my bias.

That bias is augmented by my perception of politicians. I do not believe that one can be a politician and act with complete proprietary at all times. Even “Honest Abe” Lincoln, who is credited with abolishing slavery, was implicated as regards slaves and as regards bad treatment of Blacks. Our somewhat “perfect” human standards can never apply to politicians. President Barrack Obama made “mistakes”.

So I do not expect that De Lille’s conduct, as a politician, was ever completely above the board we set ourselves. Alas, we have to face the fact that they operate at a lower standard of functional integrity. It is the nature of the game. It is why Jacob Zuma is still President. It is why Donald Trump is still President.

So the question that arises is by what standard will De Lille be judged?
Will political misdemeanour(s) be elevated to political crime(s) … unforgivable political crimes?
I suspect that they will.

On this central issue there is a huge elephant in the room. You see, it is a reality that there is an agenda of control and domination at play here. It has been in the room from 1994. It is fuelled by an ideology that social justice is synonymous with Black domination to supplant White domination.

In this equation, Coloured folk are somewhat irrelevant. Blacks are “us”, Whites are “them” and Coloureds are “the others” … others on the periphery, ambivalent, irrelevant and inconsequential … like shadows. If there was ever any doubt about this, then Chief Government Spokesman, Jimmy Manyi, removed this quite emphatically in his “Coloureds are overrepresented in the Western Cape” tirade.

And the DA is fully complicit in the culture of Black domination. It is why Mmusi Maimane was selected as leader over the more mature experienced Wilmot James. James is Coloured. Coloureds are why the DA has the Western Cape. It counts for nothing at a certain point. To beat the ANC at “blackening” the WC the DA had to have Mmusi. So De Lille’s “otherness” is a certain though unarticulated problem for her.

I have real life experience of this. I was hounded out of the Road Accident Fund for my culture of commitment to truth, justice and the public interest not being seen as synonymous with Black domination.

The other elephant in the room is that of misogyny. Like America, we are deeply misogynistic, as much as we don’t realize this. It is why we can have a man with six wives, and guilty of fathering a child in an extramarital affair, as our President. In America, Hilary was held to all kinds of real and imaginary standards while Trump was held to none.

So, given all these underlying realities, it is my considered view that Patricia De Lille is up against it. No one will be more surprised than me if she survives.

Land Appropriation … Cyril Ramaphosa… Don’t do it!!

I met your personal assistant, who served with me on the panel of legal experts as regards Carte Blanch coverage of the Oscar Pistorius Trial. I cannot believe that she is advising you to even consider grabbing land without compensation.

Such course of action is illegal under international law, United Nations conventions and policies of international agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition the human rights sector expressly forbids this.

This now universal prohibition is founded on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the World got after two (2) World Wars and the Holocaust. This paradigm shift in human culture is the direct product of millions having spilled their blood and given their lives. It is a most precious commodity that is simply not negotiable.

1. Grabbing property from Whites will, in the first instance be an express violation of Article 7 of the UDHR that expressly states ---

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

2. It will also be an express violation of Article 2 -

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

3. It will also be an express violation of Article 17 -

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
4. The above rights are limited in terms of Article 29 ONLY by …
law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

In so far as this Article is being proffered as justification for land grabbing the short jurisprudential argument is that there is nothing moral or good or democratic about grabbing land from “innocent humans” without compensation.

Yes, Whites are in disproportionate possession of land. However, they are no more to blame for this than those suffering from land hunger. Neither groups can be held responsible for the capriciousness of history.

CONSEQUENCES ---- If you start grabbing ln without compensation the World, led by the UN and its agencies, WILL react to the extreme detriment of South Africa. Understand that international agencies, such and the IMF and the World Bank, now have policies that expressly bind them to react to the detriment of any country violating the sacred Articles of the UDHR. They do not have a choice.

South Africa will become a pariah State overnight, as did Zimbabwe.

The Consequences will be emphatic and disastrous.

Is that what we want?

Have we really not learned anything from the judgment of our own African Judges who sat as the SADC Tribunal and ruled against this as regards Robert Mugabe’s land grabs??

Don’t do it.

It is madness to even consider it.

PS: --- why do you think, imagine or suppose Emmerson Mnangagwa has now committed to compensation for the White farmers that were dispossessed of land???

The Other

“The Other” is a term I chanced upon as a title for my book after I had finished writing it. When I started writing I had no idea what the title was going to be. In the end the title was self-suggestive. This was in 2010.
Since then the term has crept into occasional usage by political commentators in the international media when referencing human rights situations. I suspect that it will gain traction and be more widely used in the future. So here I want to attempt to define it.
The starting point is to recognize that ordinarily humans deal in assets, power and influence. They do this to a greater or less extent, depending on the “goodness” or “badness” of the socio-economic realities of the countries they live in. With good governments, such as those of Norway and Sweden, they are more or less in equal competition as regards assets, power and influence. With bad governments, such as Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, it is not so much a competition, but a lottery.
 
The USA is now undergoing "trumpism" that seeks to posit anybody, such as Mexicans, dreamers, Muslims and those that are not White male Americans, as "others"
Trumpism, the rise of the Alt-Right and Brexit in the UK guarantees an exponential increase in the incidence of “others”.
However, whatever the overall situation, “others” still exist. As an “other” you are a sort of peripheral player in the socio-economic competition. You drift or ghost in an out. There might even be periods when it seems that you are indeed an equal competitor but you never really are. 
This is because there is an organic ambivalence about an “other”. You are regarded as being somewhat irrelevant. Like a shadow, you exist and can be seen, but are irrelevant … inconsequential. The main or dominant group tolerates you as long as you are not a real threat to their unfettered right to be dominant in the competition for assets, power and influence. Once you are perceived as a real threat action is taken to your detriment, as a matter of course. In this way you are mostly kept out of the main competition and tolerated as a matter of convenience from time to time.
This phenomenon can be either “systemic” or “organic”. In Rhodesia it was systemic as regards the status of Coloured folk, with Black folk being perceived as real competitors. So too as regards racist apartheid South Africa where this unequal status was legislated.
It is organic when it exists despite there being no systemic or legal prohibition against full equality. That is largely the situation for Coloured folk in current South Africa where, despite the seeming absence of legal impediments, Coloured folk are no more than peripheral players in the competition between the Black and White groups.
South Africa’s current racialized reform model guarantees that Black folk become “us”, White folk become “them” and Coloured folk become “others”. As said there is a kind of ambivalence and irrelevance about them on just about all fronts. Substantive achievement becomes opportunistically incidental … not in terms of full equality as a human or citizen. Blacks and Whites take each other seriously. Coloureds are not taken seriously.
These days we see many Coloured embracing the “Black” label just as, in the past, some "played White". This is an organically induced attempt to join a dominant group so as to become relevant. It is naive as those groups will still regard them as “others”.
“Others” are never taken seriously unless posing as an actual threat situationally.
So when “the other” is being assessed for a post or advancement of any kind, it is never only about merit. There is a “glass ceiling” that has to be smashed through. This has been the story of my life.
When you are “the other” you are not specifically oppressed. You are just treated as “almost human” or as an “almost citizen”
Other minority groups find themselves in the same situation. Jews are a striking example of this. Anti-Semitism is a widespread phenomenon. Its starting point is “the other” phenomenon. The “anti” kicks in or becomes keen when these “others” then prove so resourceful as to “beat” the phenomenon at the expense of the dominant groups. At that point, Jews cease to be “others” and are perceived as rivals. In this way a difference between Jews and “others” kicks in. Jews are then taken seriously, and anti-Semitism becomes a norm. “Others” are never taken seriously.
Even members of the dominant groups can drift in and out of being “the other”. We see this as regards women. They have been in this position from time immemorial in a World that has been traditionally patriarchal. Today women are theoretically equal but often find themselves “situationally unequal". This explains the current sensational exposés we are seeing as regards sexual predators such as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Donald Trump et al.
The fact that Trump's victims remain victims, proves my point beyond a shadow of doubt.
It also explains the vexed matter of unequal pay for women that has been a matter of organic reality, even in a highly democratic institution like the BBC.
So I realize that, at a certain point, just about anyone can become “the other”. This is when those with systemic, organic or situational power exercise it to your detriment, because you are perceived as “naturally” unworthy of full equality. It might be because of your ethnicity. It might be on account of your sex, or sexual orientation, or religious persuasion...
Protesting about this, or drawing attention to it, invites opprobrium to be heaped upon you for being “a feminist” or a “reactionary” or, as in my case, “having a chip on my shoulder”.
At the heart of being “the other” is “powerlessness”. This can degrade to the point where humans are then stripped of their rights and become victims, persecuted and oppressed, as we are seeing with the Rohingya in Myanmar, who started off as just being “others”.
Have you ever been “the other”?
Have you known that you are being cheated as a human being but are "powerless"?
Have you known that you are being "screwed" just for being who and what you are and could do precious little about it?

___________________________________________________________________________

The Patricia De Lille saga plays out on account of her being  "the Other" ---- https://www.heraldlive.co.za/news/2018-06-27-patricia-de-lille-wins-in-court/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to --- http://proudlyzimbabwean.orgfree.com/The%20Other%20-%20without%20fear,%20favor%20or%20prejudice.html