Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | ||
2026-06-02 18:44:58 +02:00 | Thabisile | No I do not | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | ||
2026-06-02 13:29:24 +02:00 | Leon | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | It is obviously a sign of power seeking and mass voting power and has nothing to do with democracy. Study the history of the various black races.. The tribal ruler thinks and speaks for his tribe,and the tribe may feel it is not a good decision but the leader has spoken and we will concurr; If this becomes policy south Africa is lost,, a direction they have already taken, judging by the bleak economic expectations caused by wrong government policy as we sea it now.My heart bleds for the jobless who stand begging every day,again caused by wrong econmic and other policies followed by the present govenment and their cronies.It is the first time in history that the RSA is in dire strates. |
2026-06-02 13:29:24 +02:00 | Leon | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | It is obviously a sign of power seeking and mass voting power and has nothing to do with democracy. Study the history of the various black races.. The tribal ruler thinks and speaks for his tribe,and the tribe may feel it is not a good decision but the leader has spoken and we will concurr; If this becomes policy south Africa is lost,, a direction they have already taken, judging by the bleak economic expectations caused by wrong government policy as we sea it now.My heart bleds for the jobless who stand begging every day,again caused by wrong econmic and other policies followed by the present govenment and their cronies.It is the first time in history that the RSA is in dire strates. |
2026-05-28 13:00:43 +02:00 | Claude | No I do not | Other | Until they become honest and go back to the real history, no matter what they want and try to achieve history will keep on repeating itself, what they are trying to achieve is a way to steal whit the law on their side, land has been bought and paid for and has been upgraded at costs, it is immoral and wrong to just take without compensation, all land needs to be compensated for as there is no more land that was taken for free anymore, | |
2026-05-28 09:40:56 +02:00 | Nollie | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-05-27 23:27:14 +02:00 | Brenda | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | Why change what is not broken! |
2026-05-27 17:52:53 +02:00 | Claudette | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | I reject this racist policy because it infringes on the rights of individuals, families and communities. Everyone has the right to self - determination as stated in our constitution and agreed upon duri g the 1994 negotiations with the abolishing of apartheid. The contents of this policy is extremely dangerous and should be rejected with contempt it deserves. | |
2026-05-27 17:52:51 +02:00 | Claudette | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | I reject this racist policy because it infringes on the rights of individuals, families and communities. Everyone has the right to self - determination as stated in our constitution and agreed upon duri g the 1994 negotiations with the abolishing of apartheid. The contents of this policy is extremely dangerous and should be rejected with contempt it deserves. | |
2026-05-27 08:39:28 +02:00 | Abraham | No I do not | Other | The rights of the of the people and and there vote should be heard. no need to change that as that will protect each culture and way of life. | |
2026-05-25 14:27:58 +02:00 | Cornelia | No I do not | All of the above | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | |
2026-05-25 08:15:34 +02:00 | Adriaan | No I do not | All of the above | Enclave Risks: Preventing 'Racist Enclaves' | |
2026-05-24 16:18:40 +02:00 | Retha | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-05-24 08:00:23 +02:00 | Russel John | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | This would lead South Africa to disaster | |
2026-05-23 01:06:15 +02:00 | Ansu | No I do not | All of the above | Redundancy: The Bill of Rights is Sufficient | |
2026-05-21 10:37:42 +02:00 | Des | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | To whom it may concern, South African citizens voluntarily gave up their minority government rights to enable the implementation of a broad based democratic transition. Section 235 was a fundamental part of the deal that brought South Africa into this democracy. I agree with minority rights advocacy groups such as the CAPEXIT Party and Afriforum among others,, that this section forms part of the “negotiated constitutional settlement” intended to accommodate the country’s diversity. The Constitution 24th Amendment Bill is a move to “shut down” a promise made during the transition, potentially undermining the trust between different communities and the state. I would urge MKP to focus on building a prosperous South Africa and stop trying to destroy the important fundamental bastions of the present democratic dispensation. | |
2026-05-21 09:24:41 +02:00 | Don | No I do not | Breach of Trust: The 1994 Negotiated Settlement | ||
2026-05-21 08:30:02 +02:00 | Wesley | No I do not | Democratic Pathways: Closing Peaceful Avenues | MK is a demonic evil party that is built on bribery, corruption, injustice and headed up by a tyrant, communist and dictator name Jacob Zuma. He and many others since the takeover over of South Africa by the ANC since 1994 has absolutely destroyed and bankrupted our country. They have opened up our borders to everyone and looted this country, leaving it broken and the people of South Africa without jobs. |
-
- 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.