Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
-
- 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.