Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-07-24 19:09:00 +02:00 | Amanda | No I do not | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | ||
2026-07-15 07:17:36 +02:00 | Gayle | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-07-10 20:26:33 +02:00 | Trudie | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-07-09 18:45:12 +02:00 | Aletta Maritz | No I do not | All of the above | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | |
2026-07-09 18:45:12 +02:00 | Aletta Maritz | No I do not | All of the above | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | |
2026-07-06 20:45:28 +02:00 | robert-louis-isak | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ? UN Recognition of Self‑Determination - The United Nations Charter (1945) already enshrined the principle of self‑determination in Articles 1 and 55. - The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (both binding treaties) reaffirm that “All peoples have the right of self‑determination.” - In 2020, the UN General Assembly adopted resolutions reaffirming self‑determination, particularly in the context of decolonisation and indigenous peoples. These resolutions did not create a new right but re‑affirmed existing international law. - South Africa is a signatory to these instruments, meaning it is bound to respect the principle of self‑determination. Subject: Comment on Repeal of Section 235 Introduction I submit this comment as an emancipated human being, exercising my civil responsibility. Section 235 is not redundant—it is the constitutional expression of South Africa’s binding international obligation to respect the right of self‑determination. Principle-Based Objection - The UN Charter and ICCPR affirm self‑determination as a foundational human right. - In 2020, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed this principle, making it clear that states must protect it. - Repealing Section 235 would place RSA in direct violation of international law and undermine the legitimacy of our Constitution. Strategic Context - Section 235 is the Shield: it protects communities’ right to territory and autonomy. - Section 25 is the Assegai: it is being prepared as the weapon to seize property. - Removing the Shield first is a deliberate strategy to weaken constitutional protections before striking with expropriation. Call to Action - Reject the repeal of Section 235. - Affirm South Africa’s commitment to international law and constitutional integrity. - Scrap any laws or proposals that contradict the principle of self‑determination. Declaration of Non‑Consent I do not consent to the erosion of self‑determination or property rights. Any attempt to repeal Section 235 or amend Section 25 in violation of international law will be treated as unlawful interference with inherent rights. | |
2026-07-04 08:27:16 +02:00 | Grisselda | No I do not | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | ||
2026-06-18 07:57:22 +02:00 | Magrieta | No I do not | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | ||
2026-06-13 07:05:11 +02:00 | Elizabeth | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | |
2026-06-12 19:08:23 +02:00 | Slav | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-06-04 17:25:46 +02:00 | Bronwyn | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-06-04 06:34:12 +02:00 | Elizabeth | No I do not | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | ||
2026-06-03 13:57:39 +02:00 | Howard | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | Section 235 is a “non-derogable right” and a cornerstone of the 1994 constitutional settlement. The individual rights (Sections 30 and 31) are fundamentally different from the collective right of a community to sustain and govern itself. Removing this “safety valve” will not eliminate the demand for self-determination but will instead push it toward more radical, extra-constitutional paths. |
2026-06-03 11:03:22 +02:00 | peter | No I do not | Enclave Risks: Preventing 'Racist Enclaves' | No I do not agree that anyone has the right to alter any of the clauses within the Constitution. All the parties who signed the said Constitution on behalf of all the Citizens of South Africa had ample time to review the drafts. When they signed said Constitution into law it was and is bidding on all the Citizens then and now and into the future. Why do the parties not concentrate on governing rather than spending their time on promulgating unnecessary new laws which they are not policing and enforcing said laws? The citizens are hungry for parliament to govern and stop promising jobs which are not forth coming, because all they are interested in are themselves. So please leave the said Constitution as it was signed into law and to govern all the citizens equally and fairly . | |
2026-06-02 18:44:59 +02:00 | Thabisile | No I do not | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient |
-
- Supporters, led by the MK Party, argue that Section 235 is a “dormant” provision that has never been turned into law. They believe it creates a “theoretical basis” for “territorial fragmentation” and allows communities like Orania to operate as “exclusionist enclaves” outside the spirit of a unified South Africa. For them, the Bill of Rights is the only protection needed for cultural and linguistic diversity.
-
- Opponents, including the Cape Independence Party and the Freedom Front Plus, argue that Section 235 is a “non-derogable right” and a cornerstone of the 1994 constitutional settlement. They contend that individual rights (Sections 30 and 31) are fundamentally different from the collective right of a community to sustain and govern itself. They warn that removing this “safety valve” will not eliminate the demand for self-determination but will instead push it toward more radical, extra-constitutional paths.