Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-04-19 10:38:13 +02:00 | Justin | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | It has been a fundamental part of the constitution since the beginning, this is just an attempt by the Mk party to undermine peaceful enclaves like Orania. They have always been against Orania and this is about nothing more than that. |
2026-04-19 10:25:24 +02:00 | Audrey | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 10:24:20 +02:00 | Derrick | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | I support the right of the people in Orania to self-determination and to live out their culture, language, and beliefs peacefully. I believe every group and individual should have the freedom to pursue their way of life, just as I value the freedom to live mine and associate with whomever I choose. Respect for others means we don’t have to agree on everything, but we can coexist without interfering in each other’s communities. For that reason, I don’t support the MK party’s position on removing Section 235 from our Constitution, nor the proposals under the 24th Amendment Bill that would impact it. Section 235 protects the right to self-determination for communities, and that principle matters in a diverse country like ours. Upholding it helps ensure all South Africans feel their identity and choices are respected under the law. We build a stronger South Africa when we protect each other’s freedoms while treating one another with dignity. |
2026-04-19 10:10:24 +02:00 | Leon | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 10:04:48 +02:00 | Lindie | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 10:03:55 +02:00 | Klaus | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ISIPHETHO SOMPHAKATHI ESIBHALWE NGOMPHAKATHI Isihloko: Ukuphikisa ukususwa okuhlongozwayo kweSigaba 235 kuMthethosisekelo Ngithumela lokhu ukuphikisa kwami ngokususwa okuhlongozwayo kweSigaba 235 kuMthethosisekelo weRiphabhulikhi yaseNingizimu Afrika, 1996. ISigaba 235 siqinisekisa ukuthi imiphakathi eyabelana ngamagugu olimi namasiko afanayo ingasebenzisa ilungelo lokuzibusa ngaphakathi kweRiphabhulikhi. Ukususwa kwalesi sigaba kubonakala njengokulungisa kwezobuchwepheshe kuphela, kodwa empeleni kubonisa ushintsho olujulile lomthethosisekelo—ukusuka ekuqapheliseni ukuzimela kwemiphakathi kuya ekuhlanganisweni kwamandla kuhulumeni omkhulu. Lolu shintsho luthwala ingozi enkulu emiphakathini emnyama yaseNingizimu Afrika, lapho izinhlelo zokuphatha umhlaba, ubuholi, namasiko zisekelwe ezinhlelweni zomphakathi ezihlanganyelwe. Izikhungo ezifana ne-Ingonyama Trust azizona izakhiwo ezingaqondakali; ziyizinhlelo eziphilayo lapho izigidi zabantu zithola umhlaba, zixazulula izingxabano, futhi zigcina ukuqhubeka kwamasiko azo. Ukususwa kokuvikelwa okucacile komthethosisekelo kokuzibusa komphakathi kungaholela ekutheni lezi zinhlelo kancane kancane zifakwe ngaphansi kwezinhlelo zikahulumeni ezifanayo nezingenzi mehluko. Uma kubhekwa kanye nezingxoxo ezikhulayo mayelana nokuguqulwa komhlaba, kuhlanganise nezinhlelo zokuthathwa komhlaba ngaphandle kwembuyiselo, ukususwa kweSigaba 235 kudala ingozi ebonakalayo: yokuthi imiphakathi ingase ithole ukuthi izinqumo ezithinta umhlaba wayo nokuphatha kwayo sezithathwa ngaphandle kwemvume yayo eqondile. Lokhu kuthinta ngqo umbuzo wokuthi ingabe imiphakathi isagcina amandla ayo phezu komhlaba wayo, noma lelo gunya selidluliselwa ezikhungweni ezimaphakathi. UMqulu Wamalungelo uvikela amalungelo abantu ngabanye, kodwa awuthathi indawo yesidingo sokuvikelwa okucacile kwamalungelo omphakathi njengamaqoqo. ISigaba 235 sinikeza ibhalansi ebalulekile, siqinisekisa ukuthi ubunye eNingizimu Afrika abudingi ukufana okuphelele, nokuthi ubunikazi bomphakathi kanye nokuzimela kunendawo esemthethweni ngaphakathi komthethosisekelo. Ukususwa kwalesi sigaba kungase kudlulise umyalezo—kungaba ngenhloso noma cha—wokuthi izinhlelo zomphakathi, ikakhulukazi lezo ezisemiphakathini emnyama, azizinzile noma zingaphansi kwezinye izinhlelo. Lokhu kungakhulisa ukungathembani futhi kujulise ukuhlukana ngesikhathi lapho ukubumbana kwezwe kubalulekile khona. Ekugcineni, ngicela ngokuhlonipha ukuthi iSigaba 235 sigcinwe. Ukususwa kwaso kudala ingozi engadingekile yomthethosisekelo, kwehlisa ukuvikelwa kwezinhlelo zomphakathi, futhi kungaba nemiphumela engalindelekile ekuzinzeni, ekwethembaneni, nasekubumbaneni komphakathi waseNingizimu Afrika. Kuthunyelwe ngenhlonipho. |
2026-04-19 09:57:56 +02:00 | Laurens | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | |
2026-04-19 09:42:57 +02:00 | Pieter | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 09:42:47 +02:00 | Helen | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 09:42:12 +02:00 | Carlos | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | Not supporting |
2026-04-19 09:33:38 +02:00 | Janet | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | |
2026-04-19 09:20:42 +02:00 | Heleen | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | 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. |
2026-04-19 08:56:28 +02:00 | Primrose | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 08:44:54 +02:00 | Leon | No I do not | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | ||
2026-04-19 08:40:29 +02:00 | Karen | No I do not | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | Where does it stop? If you open the rights for one thing, it will be manipulated for everything. There is no justice or fairness, it will be abused by government and individuals. | |
2026-04-19 08:37:27 +02:00 | Elizabeth | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | The new bill removes the right of cultural and language of communities especially of minority groups but is creating a stairway to remove our rights to own property and to expropriarte our our property and houses where we live in. It is a breach of the constitution and land ownership. I worked from when I was 14 to own n house so tfat I have a place to stay when I tetire. Now I have retired and now the MK party is taking steps towards removal of my right to culture tp languagecand to own a hoyse meaning that my entire life' goal of 50 years to live in my community in my culture where i can speak my language and children can attend schools in my language is taken away by the majority and my entire life is being taken away from ke and without any compensation. Shame on you goverment which I served for 43 y Section 235 is a cornerstone of the negotiated settlement that allowed for a peaceful transition to democracy; removing is a breach of that foundational promise as it is the only provision that protects a community’s right to sustain itself and its heritage. Byy removing constitutional avenues for autonomy, the government authorises the majority to treat us like animals remove us from our hard earned house and kill us if we resist take over our homes without compensation |
2026-04-19 08:36:46 +02:00 | P | No I do not | All of the above | Legal Clarity: Removing Confusion and Ambiguity | The Bill of Rights already guarantees the right of everyone to use the language of their choice and participate in the cultural life of their choosing. The Bill argues that the section creates “contradictions and ambiguity” because it suggests a right to self-determination that is not clearly defined by legislation.Supporters of this concern feel the Constitution should be streamlined by removing “inoperative” sections that create false impressions about what the law allows. This concern suggests that repealing the section is a move to “shut down” a promise made during the transition, potentially undermining the trust between different communities and the state. |
2026-04-19 08:34:44 +02:00 | Willem | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-04-19 08:32:38 +02:00 | Wendy | No I do not | Other | It will cause a war in SA, nobody who has worked hard to buy their properties r ever going to allow others to come in and take it away, it is ridiculous to think that that is ok it will never be ok, how in yr right mind do u now think its ok to walk in and decide well this is now mine after the owner has worked hard and paid huge money for the property, its madness, it is totally against the law. | |
2026-04-19 08:23:16 +02:00 | Corleen | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | There will be no trust if land can just be taken away from individuals. From local and international perspective Government is there to serve communities and individuals. |
2026-04-19 08:15:02 +02:00 | Riaan | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | Within the black culture, they have land that they control where the kings and clan leaders etc control land where they rule over that land for their people (clans etc), so should the white people also be allowed to have their own land so that we can live according to our culture and see for our own race and progress in our country as we are a people that can build and not destroy as the other culture in our country. |
2026-04-19 08:13:39 +02:00 | Shane | No I do not | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | Enclave Risks: Preventing 'Racist Enclaves' | |
2026-04-19 08:12:03 +02:00 | Colin | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-04-19 08:07:10 +02:00 | Heath | No I do not | All of the above | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | |
2026-04-19 07:51:05 +02:00 | Harry | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-04-19 07:50:47 +02:00 | Gayle | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 07:50:03 +02:00 | Melané | No I do not | All of the above | Collective Rights vs. Individual Rights | |
2026-04-19 07:46:35 +02:00 | Debbie | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-04-19 07:40:36 +02:00 | Karen | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-04-19 07:37:33 +02:00 | Lindie | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement |
-
- 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.