Ik schaam me voor die 80 Nederlandse parlementsleden

Open brief aan de volksvertegenwoordigers in de Tweede Kamer –

Mijn naam is Adriana Stuijt. Ik ben een doodgewone kiezer, maar ook een ex-journaliste van de Sunday Times in Johannesburg, Zuid-Afrika –  en woon nu in Dokkum.

Ik was gisteren zeer beïndrukt door het feit dat 68 volksvertegenwoordigers  op 29 november ‘ja’stemden voor de motie Begroting Buza 24-11-2011 door Van der Staaij  – en dat deze ja-stemmers ook zo’n interessante mix vertegenwoordigden van SGP, ChristenUnie, Partij voor de Vrijheid, GroenLinks, D66, SP en Partij voor de Dieren.

Zij stemden voor de motie: ‘ hoe Nederland en waar mogelijk in internationaal verband op het gebied van onder meer preventie, opsporing, justitiële ondersteuning en expertise een bijdrage kunnen verlenen aan het bestrijden van discriminatie en (racistische) geweldsmisdrijven, mede jegens de Afrikaners, en tevens kunnen bijdragen aan het borgen van grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid, in Zuid-Afrika.’

Uiteraard schaam ik me ook zeer dat er toch nog 80 volksvertegenwoordigers zijn die het huidige ondemocratische, genocidiäle gedrag van ZA-ANC-regime zo aanvaardbaar schijnen te vinden dat zij  ‘nee’ tegen deze zeer milde motie stemden. Dit waren volksvertegenwoordigers bij de Christen-Democraten, de liberale VVD en  Partij van de Arbeid.

AFRIKANERS in krottenkampjes ANTI AFRIKANER discrimination by ANCregime AM I TOO WHITE TO GET A JOB

Dat er zelfs nog 80 volksgenoten in onze tweede kamer zitten die het schijnbaar volkomen in orde vinden  dat de Afrikaners zo lafhartig onderdrukt en uitgemoord worden door zwarte jeugdbenden die actief aangemoedigd door de haatspraak-dreunzangen van ‘Vermoord de Boer’ door de partijgenoten van Dhr Nelson Mandela —  dat er nu vele duizenden per jaar afgeslacht worden en er bovendien ook  een-derde van alle 3-miljoen Afrikaners  nu bezig zijn om in ellende met hun kinderen te creperen in armzalige krottenwijkjes alleen vanwege de ‘anti-blanke’ — en dus zeer rassistiese — zogeheten ‘zwarte-economische-bemachtigings’ wetgeving van het ANC-regime.

Zelfs de allerbegaafste jonge Afrikaners worden toegang naar de twee overgebleven ‘Afrikaner-universiteiten’ geweierd in Pretoria en Stellenbosch. link

anti afrikaner hatespeech on township walls NO WHITES

Deze 80 Nederlandse volksvertegenwoordigers schijnen hun eigen geschiedenis volkomen vergeten te zijn: deze BEE wetgeving van de ANC-partij in Zuid-Afrika heeft vooral het onmiddellijke effect om alle zogeheten ‘blanken’ bijna volledig uit het openbare leven te verbannen: zij krijgen geen banen, hebben geen grondeigendomsrechten, hun kinderen mogen geen onderwijs krijgen in hun moedertaal, het Afrikaans. Zelfs de allerarmste Afrikaners worden zelfs voedselhulp geweigerd door het ANC-regime en zelfs het ZA Rode Kruis.

AFRIKANER POOR WOMAN 65 DENIED FOODAID BY RED CROSS BRAKPAN NOV92011

Onthouden we het in Nederland eigenlijk nog? Dat deze ‘black-economic-empowerment’ wetgeving van Zuid-Afrika is op dezelfde lees geschoeid als de ‘raszuiverheidswetten’ van de Nazis voordat de Joden van Europa naar de Holocaust-kampen werden afgevoerd?

Net zoals de Joden onder nazi-Duitsland, mogen de Afrikaners als zogeheten ‘blanken’ bijna geen  banen meer bezetten; zelfs hun slimste kinderen worden universiteitsplaatsen geweigerd; hun taal wordt overal heel doelbewust uit de scholen, universiteiten en het openbare leven geweerd; zij mogen zelfs hun godsdienst niet in hun eigen kerken bedrijven zonder dat het ANC-regime de Afrikaners erop wijst dat hun kerken ‘veel te blank’ zouden zijn. Zelfs  die Afrikaner-entrepreneurs die hun eigen kleine zaakjes opzetten om hun gezinnen nog aan het leven te kunnen houden, worden dikwijls op een zeer buitenproportioneel percentage van de demografiese vertegenwoordiging van hun kleine volkje vermoord: afgeslacht in moordaanvallen door zwaarbewapende ‘militia-stijl’ bendes die de Afrikaner mannen, vrouwen en kinderen zonder pardon afslachten, dikwijls gepaardgaand met de allervreselijkste haatspraak en langdurige martelingen.

De verminkingen die de overlevenden hieraan overhouden overschrijden de  perken van de ‘gewone misdaad’ zo ver dat de “Trauma society of South Africa’ deze verminkingen beschrijft als ‘de soort wonden die meestal alleen tijdens burgeroorlogen gezien worden”. 

Men hoeft alleen de fotos maar te zien van de Tabita-hulporganisatie die werd opgezet door Lita Fourie, wiens eigen ouders gruwelijk werden doodgemarteld, om te beseffen dat dit geen ‘doodgewone misdaden’ zijn zoals de ANC-regime dit nog steeds blijft volhouden.

TABITA De slachting van blank Limpopo LITA FOURIE Nederlands artikel Het ANC-regime weigeren zelfs ook om de zeer gewelddadige ‘boerderijaanvallen’ als aparte statistieken bij te houden — met de bewering die ze niet kunnen bewijzen, dat het allemaal maar ‘gewone misdaad’ zou zijn en dat ‘zwarten de grootste slachtoffers van de misdaad zijn’. 

Ja ongetwijfeld: er zijn ten slotte bijna 39-miljoen zwarte mensen in ZA en maar zo’n 4-miljoen ‘blanken’ ( meer dan 1miljoen zijn al weggevlucht onder het ANC-bewind) 

ANTI WHITE ATTACKS SOUTH AFRICA URBAN AND RURAL COMNBINED NOV 2010 TO NOV 2011 FARMITRACKER

Grafiek hier boven: Daarom is het juist zo bevreemdend dat bijv. in de dichtsbevolkte provincie vab Gauteng, het voormalige Transvaal, er buiten-proportioneel veel ‘blanken’ aangevallen en vermoord worden, zoals de zelfstandige-criminologie-website Farmitracker de afgelopen 18 maanden kon aantonen: en dat deze aanvallen begonnen binnen een dag na het beëindigen van de FIFA WK2010.

Sedert Nov 2010 werden 920 zogeheten ‘blanken’ aangevallen in Gauteng provincie alleen al: dat vertegenwoordigde 23,5% van de ZA politie’s moord-statistieken voor deze provincie…terwijl ‘de blanken’ beslist niet meer als 9,5% van de ZA bevolking van 49-miljoen vertegenwoordigt.  En dit patroon van buitenproportioneel geweld wordt over heel ZA waargenomen. De internationale expert op het gebied van genocide, Prof Gregory Stanton, heeft deze situatie in ZA al sinds 2002 in de gaten gehouden met zijn zelfstandige organisatie, en waarschuwt dat ‘de blanken’ in ZA nu in ‘stadium 6’ – het voorlaatste stadium van voluit volksmoord – zijn. http://www.genocidewatch.org/SouthAfrica.htm

GENOCIDE WATCH REASON FOR UPDATING SA TO STAGE SIX GENOCIDE SEPT 20 2011

Samen met deze misdaden tegen de mensheid is er ook nog de doelbewuste demoniserings-taal in de nieuwsmedia tegen de Afrikaners, en dan natuurlijk de constante stroom oproepen door de ANC-lidmaten zelf om ze allemaal te vermoorden.

Zelfs de zwarte Afrikanen die de allersterkste ondersteuners van het ANC-regime zijn, beginnen zich nu zorgen te maken over deze slachtpartijen en rassistische haatspraak:

Zo schreef de zekerheids-analist, de Al Jazeerah columnist  David Africa onlangs:  “The ANC, once a bastion of non-racism, descends into racial politics: Malema targets Boers; Jimmy Manyi targets Coloureds… “  David Africa werkte zijn leven lang tegen de apartheid — in de ‘ondergrondse’ intelligentie-dienst van de ANC-partij. Ik reproduceer zijn artikel in het oorspronkelijke Engels met de bronverwijzing onderaan deze brief.

Ik kan het dus doodgewoon niet begrijpen dat die 80 volksgenoten in de Tweede Kamer die ‘Nee’ stemden, nog steeds menen dat dit gedrag door de ANC-regering zo volkomen aanvaardbaar zou kunnen zijn. Dit was een zeer milde motie van Dhr Van der Staaij van de SGP waarin de Nederlandse regering gevraagd werd om ‘onder meer (met) preventie, opsporing, justitiële ondersteuning en expertise een bijdrage kunnen verlenen aan het bestrijden van discriminatie en (racistische) geweldsmisdrijven, mede jegens de Afrikaners, en tevens kunnen bijdragen aan het borgen van grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid, in Zuid-Afrika.’

Als Nederlander schaam me werkelijk diep vandaag dat er nog zelfs nog 80 parlementsleden in ons land te vinden zijn die dit gedrag door het ANC-regime aanvaardbaar vinden — terwijl zelfs een intelligentie-expert zoals David Africa dit gedrag zeer scherp veroordeelde. Menen ze dus om de ZA situatie beter te weten als David Africa zelf?

Bronnen en verwijzingen:

“Motie Afrikaners nipt verworpen

De Tweede Kamer heeft de (gewijzigde) motie Van der Staaij vanmiddag net aan verworpen. De motie wijst  op het geweld tegen Afrikaners en de onder druk staande vrijheid. Het was de eerste maal dat een motie inzake Afrikaners werd behandeld door het Nederlandse parlement. Voor de motie stemden: SGP, ChristenUnie, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV),  GroenLinks, D66, SP en Partij voor de Dieren. In totaal 68 parlementariërs. Tegen stemden PvdA, CDA en VVD – 80 zetels. Opvallend: de brede steun van linkse partijen- met uitzondering van de PvdA. Ook was het niet volgens de verwachting dat de coalitiepartijen CDA en VVD tegen stemden, terwijl minister Rosenthal de motie nota bene had ‘omhelsd’.

De tekst van de motie luidt:

GEWIJZIGDE Motie van het lid Van der Staaij (SGP)

Begroting Buza 24-11-2011 (De wijziging is onderstreept) De Kamer, Gehoord de beraadslaging,

Constaterende, dat Zuid-Afrika kampt met hardnekkige vormen van discriminatie en vele ernstige geweldsmisdrijven, waaronder racistisch geweld, mede jegens Afrikaners, maar ook grote zorgen bestaan over elementaire grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid;

Overwegende, dat Nederland in het verleden de Zuid-Afrikaanse overheid met juridische kennis en expertise heeft bijgestaan ten aanzien van de bescherming van mensenrechten, het tegengaan van geweld en discriminatie, alsmede het respecteren van grondrechten;

Verzoekt de regering te bezien hoe Nederland en waar mogelijk in internationaal verband op het gebied van onder meer preventie, opsporing, justitiële ondersteuning en expertise een bijdrage kunnen verlenen aan het bestrijden van discriminatie en (racistische) geweldsmisdrijven, mede jegens de Afrikaners, en tevens kunnen bijdragen aan het borgen van grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid, in Zuid-Afrika

En gaat over tot de orde van de dag. – Van der Staaij

www.tweedekamer.nl

www.houseofrepresentatives.nl

Lita Fourie van de Tabita hulporganisatie voor getraumatiseerde overlevenden van moordaanslagen

–  Nederlandse artikels: Waarom worden de boeren zo wreed gemarteld? http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2011/05/waarom-worden-de-boeren-zo-wreed.html

–  De marteling van blank Limpopo:

—  http://www.depers.nl/buitenland/490412/De-marteling-van-blank-Limpopo.html

David Africa, volledig artikel in Al Jazeerah:

“The recent court judgment in a South African court declaring the singing of a popular liberation struggle song, “Shoot the Boer”, as hate speech has brought renewed attention to the racial dynamics that are so pervasive in this society. While no one should be surprised that race informs so much of the political discourse in a country with a history such as South Africa’s, the increasingly antagonistic nature of this discourse should be a matter of concern to all South Africans – as well as to those who seek to hold the South African “miracle” as an example of a country dealing successfully with the trauma of more than 300 years of colonialism and apartheid.
   The “miracle” transition that South Africa experienced in the mid-1990s was extraordinary, in the sense that an oppressed population, having suffered the brutality of an inhuman system of apartheid and colonialism since 1652, felt not the slightest need for revenge, wide-scale violence or the expulsion of their white compatriots. This is especially notable – bordering on miraculous – given the fact that the transition itself was marked by a level of violence against black communities not even seen at the height of apartheid rule.
Racial antagonism:
And yet we are now witnessing a racialisation of South African politics that is extremely dangerous and threatens to take us down a route of racial antagonism, the outcome of which we are unable to predict.

Needless to say, history is replete with examples of miraculous transitions gone horribly wrong. It is about time that South Africans are liberated from their false exceptionalism – the idea that we are really different from all those other countries where the potential for fundamental transformation was swept away by the discourse of race, ethnicity, and tribe.
   The relatively peaceful nature of the political transition in South Africa has been variously ascribed to the greatness of the political leaders of the two principled political formations, the African National Congress’ Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk, the leader of the apartheid National Party. While Nobel Peace Prizes are awarded to great men such as Mandela and De Klerk, the real motive force behind the peaceful transition, and the absence of a race war in South Africa, was the African National Congress.  The ANC used to expel prominent black members who preached a racially-defined struggle…
  While it has become fashionable for everyone to preach non-racialism in contemporary South Africa, the ANC was the only major political party, together with its communist allies, that preached an unflinching non-racism for most of its 100-year history. Its adoption of the Freedom Charter in 1955 cemented the non-racialism of the ANC and provided the political platform on which the organisation challenged the apartheid system in the ensuing four decades. During its long years in exile, the ANC expelled prominent black members who preached a racially-defined struggle, suffered a significant breakaway with the formation of the Pan-Africanist Congress by disenchanted Africanists, and had to explain to thousands of angry youth, fresh from the battles of Soweto in 1976, why the struggle against apartheid was not a struggle of black against white.
  Although race has been one of the fundamental contradictions of South African society, and its most apparent one at that, the ANC never based its political programme on pitting one race against another. The presence of white, coloured and Indian leaders in the ANC was never a token presence. Anyone who witnessed the reverence with which Joe Slovo, the white chief of staff of the ANC’s military wing, was received in South Africa’s townships would easily dispel that notion.
What has thus far been a blessing to South Africans, and the main factor in preventing a racial polarisation, might now become a part of the racialisation of South African politics. Traumatised and divided societies often have one institution that commands the respect of a vast majority of the populace.
  These institutions are key centres around which transformative political projects can coalesce. In Latin America, the church often played this role in the struggle against the right-wing dictatorships; likewise, the monarchy in Spain after the death of Franco, the military in Egypt, and the clergy in Iran during the 1979 revolution provided the institutions and legitimacy that profound changes in these countries required.
   In South Africa, the ANC has historically played this role without wavering. The cohesion of the South African political system remains dependent on the cohesion of the ANC, and the continued commitment of the ANC to its legacy of non-racialism. Whatever opposition parties or the chattering classes say, there is no institution that commands the level of historical loyalty and legitimacy as this organisation.
  What has thus far been a blessing to South Africans, and the main factor in preventing a racial polarisation, might now become a part of the racialisation of South African politics.

The fact that most opposition parties represent the interests of particular racial groups, despite their protests to the contrary, means that they can never have the impact of a party such as the ANC. It is in this light that the emergence of an openly racial discourse within the ANC, and the organisation’s increased use of racial categories, becomes disconcerting.

Coloureds targetted by ANC chief spokesman Jimmy Manyi:
The utterances by the ANC government’s chief spokesman Jimmy Manyi earlier this year, targeting the minority coloured community, and the ruling party’s subsequent attack on cabinet minister Trevor Manuel ( also a man of colour) for defending the non-racism of the ANC against Manyi’s ethnic politicking, is indicative of at least a tolerance for racial politics within the organisation.
  The ANC’s knee-jerk response to any criticism, blaming white interests or parties, and an automatic defence of ministers, party leaders or judicial candidates because they are black, intensifies this polarisation. Of course there are lots of white racists in South Africa, and race clearly remains a fundamental factor in the distribution of resources and opportunity in the country.
Not all criticism against the ANC is based on race:
  This does not mean that all criticism of the ANC is based on race, or that our defence against such racism must mimic the very racial categories we are trying to defeat. Certainly, black South Africans also deserve competent ministers, judges and civil servants.

Even in the Western Cape province, where the ANC lost power to the opposition Democratic Alliance, the organisation is attempting to regain power by adopting the principles of ethnically-based mobilisation by focusing its efforts on the coloured community, which constitutes a majority of the population in this province. Non-racism has been overtaken by political expediency and the rush for power.

Racial mobilisation tactics:
A non-racial South Africa cannot be built without a non-racial ANC, and the recent history of the organisation indicates that this dream is in danger of being washed away by a combination of populist Africanist rhetoric, ill-considered defence of whomever is black in government or the civil service – simply because they are black, and the adoption of racial mobilisation tactics.
   It remains to be seen whether an ANC that has lost its political moorings and its firm foundations of non-racism – and instead has become a battleground for factional and material interests – can reposition itself at the vanguard of the struggle for a non-racial society.
Let no one be fooled that this mantle can simply be picked up by any of the myriad of opposition forces. The death of non-racism in the ANC means the withering away of this dream for the country as a whole.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201191811586746710.html

Beware of real cops at fake roadblocks- squeezing bribes out of you…

A network of SA police officers is setting up FAKE roadblocks, using a complex scheme to get restaurant patrons to hand over their money.”…

Surviving the festive crime season: police-intimidation, fake roadblocks…

November 28 2011  Sharon Gill writes: “The festive season is one of extremes. On the one hand we have general merriment, goodwill to all and an over-indulgence of food and alcohol. On the other hand we have criminals – both in and out of uniform – who have a different idea of what “Christmas giving” is all about.

According to eBlockWatch, reports of police intimidation and bribery are common, and festive season roadblocks are not always what they seem.

Fake roadblocks
There appears to be a network of police officers setting up fake roadblocks, using a complex scheme to get restaurant patrons to hand over their money.
According to eBlockwatch’s Andre Snyman, a group of sector police from Randburg, Sandton and metro police officers are allegedly using unmarked police cars to stake out expensive vehicles leaving expensive restaurants, and reporting the direction in which they are travelling to a second marked police car which follows the target car and pulls the driver over to warn them of a roadblock ahead.
Snyman said that numerous reports have indicated that the officers then try to intimidate the drivers, whether they’ve had a drink or not, threatening them that the roadblock personnel will arrest them for driving under the influence.
The drivers are told that they can drive off using an alternative route that will take them away from the roadblock if they pay a bribe.
However, the upcoming roadblock is also manned by the scammers, using another police van with blue lights flashing lights a bit further down the road.

Your rights
If a single police vehicle tries to pull you over, you have the right to slow down and continue driving at the legal speed limit to your nearest police station if you don’t feel comfortable pulling over on the side of the road. However, there’s a chance that if it’s a genuine police officer, he may misinterpret this as an attempt to evade arrest.

If a roadblock has been set up on a main road with multiple police vehicles and personnel, you are obligated to pull over. Police officers must be willing to identify themselves, as well as show physical identification. If they are not wearing full uniform or don’t have an identity badge displaying their name, you are within your rights to ask for another officer to attend to you.While it may be unnecessary, you are legally obliged to take a breathalyser test or be taken to the surgeon general.

Legal alcohol limit in SA: 0.24mg/litre

The legal alcohol limit in South Africa is 0.24mg/litre, or roughly one beer or shot of harder liquor every three to four hours for the average person.
Remember that number. 0.24mg/litre. The officer must show you the breathalyser reading. If you’re tested and register under the limit on a breathalyser, you cannot be arrested for drinking and driving. Any attempts by an officer to extort a bribe from you should be reported to your nearest police station, and there are ways in which you can gather evidence for your case.

  • Snyman advises that you make a note of the licence plate number of the police vehicle and its service number, which is painted on the side of the vehicle next to the precinct name. Don’t have a pencil and paper? Save the numbers on your cell phone somewhere. Also, make a mental note of the number of officers, their race, names and any other identifying features that can be reported if a bribe is solicited.

Police the Police
The panic button calls for help and can pinpoint your location. Designed to provide drivers with the ability to record a conversation or bribery attempt, eBlockWatch’s system also sends out a message that you may be in trouble to four people designated by you, and reports the incident to your local police station.
To use the service, all you need to do is register as a member of eBlockwatch for free on their website. Once you are registered and set up on the eBlockwatch system, you are protected if you follow some basic steps.

  • If you are pulled over, dial   082 236 0003. The call goes through to a line that records your conversation for as long as the call is held.
    It will also send an SMS to four friends or family members and they will be able to follow some basic instructions to listen to the recording and determine if you need help.The call also triggers a message to your local police station, which can also determine if the situation has turned illegal or even violent and will allow eBlockwatch to trace your phone. Even if you are not a member of eBlockwatch, the conversation will still be recorded and reported to eBlockwatch. They will just not have your information and won’t be able to trace you from their side.However, you will be able to contact them for a copy of the recording at a later stage if necessary.

So you’ve managed to take down the details of the officers and their vehicle and recorded the conversation, and still you are threatened with arrest or thrown into the back of a police car. What do you do now?

  • The Justice Project South Africa also offers a service – Priority Assist – that provides 24-hour roadside assistance, 365 days a year, to anybody pulled over by the police and who feels threatened.
    If you are threatened or arrested unlawfully, you or a family member can call the JPSA call centre, which can send legal help or provide assistance at any time of the day. People under the age of 30 years, women travelling on their own and senior citizens are usually the most likely to be targeted by corrupt police, but Priority Assist does not discriminate.“The service is not designed to interfere in any way with legitimate law enforcement, but is designed to actively and effectively deal with issues of corruption and abuse and give motorists the peace of mind in knowing that they are no longer alone when they become the target of a traffic stop,” the JPSA website reads.
  • To access this service, one needs to sign up with the JPSA on their website which costs R50 a month per main member with an additional R25 for Priority Assist.

Panic button
eBlockWatch is actually an all-round emergency response team.  You can set up a panic button on your cell phone that links you to four pre-selected people.
If you set up the Track Your Mate function, which enables phone tracking, hitting the panic button sends two SMS messages to your pre-selected four people: the first says you need help, the second gives your location. I tested it, writes Gill

“My son, who was more than 1,500 km away from me at the time, hit the panic button on his phone. Within a few seconds the first SMS came in saying he needed help, it gave his cell phone number to call to find out if he was in trouble, and gave the eBlockWatch emergency number to call if he did need help.  The second SMS arrived while I was reading the first, and it gave his location down to the street and suburb he was in, as well as the nearest intersecting street.

That’s as far as the automated system goes unless you take further action. Since ours was a test, we left it at that. However, in the event that the person really is in trouble, one of the designated four would call the given emergency number, which would have eBlockWatch mobilising the troops.
It would also trigger the system to update the person’s location at regular intervals.

A spin-off to the panic button is the ability to install the Phone Home application on laptops and PCs, which can be used to track and recover these items if stolen.
The beauty of eBlockWatch is that it harnesses the collective clout of the closest communities and cuts through red tape, enabling an instant response to assist people in trouble.

I like it. It works. Just choose your designated four people carefully. Not much point nominating someone who spends so much time at fancy restaurants that he’s probably caught up in one of those fake roadblocks.
http://www.tellitlikeitis.co.za/index.php/2011/11/28/surviving-the-festive-crime-season/

Duvha powerstation turbine blowup: SA

Duvha coal-fired turbine exploded because of ‘operator error’ – finding:

  • Update Nov 25 2011 – The Duvha coal-fired power station’s turbine explosion happened because of an ‘operator’s fault’ which caused a 600 mW shortage, the investigation into the accident has revealed:  link: 

  • We already revealed this information in February 2011, based on a from a well-informed, close observer of this photographed turbine-explosion at the 3600MW fossil-fuel power station in Mpumalanga. The source wrote:“They were doing a test of the turbine overspeed protection system, and in short, the protection did not kick in. Conventional wisdom tells me that there should be a better way to test a protection system than to try and destroy the turbine and see if it feels like protecting itself, but that’s basically what they did. “…

“The turbine has a governor valve which controls the amount of steam coming into the turbine In order to keep it running at the right speed (3000 rpm for our grid frequency) and then it has a main isolation valve to shut the steam off completely. The protections systems (of which there are 3 independent systems, and a dude with his finger on the emergency button) are supposed to close this main isolation valve in a fraction of a second when the turbine overspeeds.

DUVHA coalpowerstation SA UNREPORTED ACCIDENT TURBINE1
TESTS OF 3000 RPM TO 4500 RMP OVERSPEED, all three systems failed – yet the guy who was supposed to push the manual-trip button wasn’t even at his post…

“So they get ready for the test, they dump a helluva lot of steam onto the turbine, speed starts going crazy, it went from 3000 RPM to 4500 RMP in ten seconds (they are generally only designed for 10 to 15% overspeed, all three protection systems should have kicked in by the time you get to 110%). Anyway, I don’t know why, but all three systems failed, and the dude with his finger on the manual trip button wasn’t at his post. So the result was a big bang, some fire and a lot of steam going where it shouldn’t go.”

DUVHA coalpowerstation SA UNREPORTED ACCIDENT TURBINE roof ———–

DUVHA has a shared turbine hall… all six units neatly placed in one long line without missile shields in between…

Scary thing is Duvha has a shared turbine hall. (picture below). All six units are placed in one long straight stripe, with no missile shield between them. And if you look at the third last pic you can see how big that shaft is, if that landed on another turbine it would have destroyed that too. They are very lucky they didn’t lose the entire station.” So anyway, what gets reported in the news? “Unforeseen maintenance” at one of the units at Duvha requires it to remain shut down for 18 months.” …  understatement of the century in my book. “

DUVHA coalpowerstation SA UNREPORTED ACCIDENT TURBINE DESTRUCTION

BELOW IS THE OFFICIAL SA GOVERNMENT VERSION OF EVENTS:

  • ‘Repairs to Eskom’s Duvha Power Station to Take Time”
    February 11, 2011 – Eskom has warned that a unit which burst into flames this week at Eskom’s Duvha Power Station during a routine test will take extensive time to repair. Eskom spokeswoman Hilary Joffe said Unit 4 of Eskom’s Duvha Power Station was “damaged last night in the course of a routine test. No one was injured but the unit is expected to take extensive time to repair,” she said. Joffe said the other five units of the 3,600 MW Duvha power station were running normally and the national grid remains in ‘green’ status, meaning that Eskom is generating enough power to satisfy the demand in the national grid. The incident happened when the 600 MW units at Duvha had been taken off load to perform a required turbine test.“This is a statutory test that is carried out in every power station. In the execution of the test, the protection of the unit failed, causing severe mechanical damage and starting a fire, which was brought rapidly under control by the power station’s fire team,” said Joffe. Eskom have since launched a “technical review “ of the incident. Eskom’s divisional executive for power-generation, Thava Govender, said: “The technical review is aimed at finding the cause of the unit failure, so that we may take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents in future.” Source: Nthambeleni Gabara at BUA News agency.
    http://www.netnewspublisher.com/repairs-to-eskoms-duvha-power-station-to-take-time/

SA media harmed by self-censorship of racial friction

SA news media’s excessive self-censorship of racial friction leaves readers guessing… and invariably ill-informed:

Nov 27 2011 – By Adriana Stuijt a.j.stuijt@knid.nl – A coloured pupil of Mooifontein Primary School  in Norkem Park was  allegedly badly beaten up by Jeugland Afrikaans High School pupils near a shopping centre on Nov 4 2011. Two Jeugland pupils were charged for the offence. The coloured mother of the injured pupil alleged that the attack was racially-motivated: yet the local Kempton Park Express has applied self-censorship in two articles about the incident — by failing to mention the race of the perpetrators. Yet in this case, it is entirely relevant.

The Express’ two articles merely IMPLY it — but its readers are still left guessing: saying the attackers allegedly were pupils of the Jeugland Afrikaans Christian High School in town: a school which has ‘coloured’ and ‘white’ Afrikaans-speakers. 

And while the newspaper has the names of the attackers, it also apparently failed to obtain comment from the Jeugland parents whose children were charged – to find out whether any pre-existing racial frictions may have occurred between the pupils of the two Kempton Park schools before these incidents.

And this self-censorship continues:  several weeks later,  when the child’s angry mother has an interview with the newspaper in which she lambasts all the authorities who have dealt with this incident which had put her youngster in hospital, the Express STILL fails to write all the relevant facts about this case. One is STILL left guessing as to the race of the perpetrators. Why?

Why don’t the SA news media stop their self-censorship of racial frictions?

Are the South African news media failing in their duty to fully inform their readers in cases of racial frictions such as this with their excessive self-censorship? Is there some unwritten code floating around in the news rooms of South Africa which prohibit the SA news media from ever mentioning the race of any people involved in such racial incidents – even when it’s clearly very relevant?

Death threats against Farmitracker editor for daring to mention ‘race’ :

The reason we raise this question —  is because specifically journalists from Caxton newspapers — to which the Kempton Park Express belongs, have been lambasting the independent criminology-website http://www.farmitracker.com  for daring to mention the race of perpetrators and victims: and personally attacking the editor  with verbal diatribes against his site, claiming he was  ‘raping its news reports’ ; and demanding that the links to their news-items about specific incidents be removed. The editor of the site has even received death-threats on his cellphone and had to take measures to protect himself and his family.

ANTI WHITE ATTACKS SOUTH AFRICA URBAN AND RURAL COMNBINED NOV 2010 TO NOV 2011 FARMITRACKERFarmitracker is trying to do the work the SAPS statistics should be doing — but isn’t:

Yet this site has a very specific purpose:  it has for the past 18 months, been logging the great many violent attacks against ‘white’ residents in South Africa —  because the South African Police Service refuses to do so.  Yet the ANC-regime is constantly issuing propaganda statements claiming that all the the attacks against South African whites are just  ‘ordinary crime’ without any kind of ‘racial motivations’ – yet the SAPS has also been totally unable to provide ANY  statistics which could back up the ANC-regime’s propaganda with any kind of statistical evidence. They even from 2005, have stopped logging ‘farm-attacks’ against Boer-families seperately, saying that these were all ‘just ordinary crime incidents’.

Yet there are also many rapidly-growing accusations that the often exceedingly gruesome and violent attacks against South African whites – but especially against the Afrikaners – are often accompanied by a great amount of racist hatespeech towards the victims – that they are genocidal in nature. Many of the top-educated Afrikaners have already fled the country because of this, and more than 400 of them have already obtained political asylum in other countries because of these recorded incidents against them. link And Dutch-language countries in Europe – Flanders and the Netherlands – have raised questions in their parliaments about this very worrying development. link

Farmitracker was set up just before the World Cup 2010 tournaments, specifically to log such incidents —  to establish whether the attacks against ‘whites’ and indeed also against South African Indians – may be genocidal in nature or not. Its task has been made nearly impossible because of the SA news media’s self-censorship – in many cases totally impossible: as the following recent incident in Kempton Park will demonstrate:

AFRIKAANS PUPILS AND COLOURED PUPILS JEUGLAND RACE ATTACKS NOV 2011 CAXTON NEWSPAPER REPORT

 The mother told Kempton Park Express newspaper: “The boys came towards my son, pulled him and just started beating him without saying anything.

“Apparently the boys came towards my son, pulled him and just started beating him without saying anything,” recounted the mother in her interview with Kempton Park Express. Capt Lesibana Molokomme, Norkem Park SAPS spokesman, was also quoted as confirming two incidents of friction between the pupils of the two schools: and that both ‘incidents’ had occurred near Birchgate Shopping Centre along Kwartel Street and the P91 in Kempton Park.

He also said that ‘police did not believe it was a racially motivated assault but would continue to investigate the incident.’

Molokomme was quoted as saying that ‘ two girls, aged 13 and 12 from Mooifontein Primary School, were walking home the day before when three Jeugland pupils pushed them off their bicycles. “The girls were walking home with the 13-year-old boy when they met the same boys again the next day. The boys grabbed and started beating the boy. “When the police arrived, two of the suspects ran away,” said Molokomme. A charge of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm was brought against the two Jeugland pupils who were later released into their parents’ custody.

Yet despite this implication, the Express STILL did not mention the race of the attackers – even though it’s clearly now become very relevant to the story:  the newspaper’s apparent excessive self-censorship leaves its readers guessing and accordingly, ill-informed.

After the attack on her child – for which the youth  required hospitalisation – the mother (quite rightly too: I would have also marched straight into his office as any parent would have done in such a case ) — visited the deputy principal of Jeugland, Mr Schalk Bezuidenhout, together with the parent of the two Mooifontein HS girls who were also allegedly beaten a day earlier by Jeugland pupils. “We gave him the names of the pupils involved and the case number. As a responsible parent I would have expected him to have called the parents of the kids but we never heard from him, neither did we hear from the parents,” the mother was quoted as saying.

In her interview with the Express, the mother also slammed comments by Dr David Morris, principal of Jeugland: “He seemed more concerned about the reputation of the school than the human factor involved. He is not worried about the bullies or remedial action to be taken against them. “My son was hurt and landed in hospital and he did not seem to care. I am very much into intercultural learning and am willing to host those boys through community service so they can understand what life is about.”

She further lambasted the police’s handling of the matter, stating they had failed to communicate effectively with her and the schools.

Jeugland High School’s principal’s comment:

Speaking to EXPRESS nespaper, Mr Morris said he believed ‘he did not need to respond to the victim’s mother as an authoritative body had already been established in the form of the police.’ Morris was quoted as saying that ‘if the outcome of the case was a guilty one , he would bring forth remedial action towards the pupils and communicate to the rest of the school the seriousness of the incident and its repercussions: . Morris said he would ‘only react to facts and would not jeopardise the school’s name since the incident was out of his jurisdiction. The incident did not happen on the school grounds. A disciplinary hearing at this point would be inferior to a court hearing.”

On whether the incident was racially motivated, Morris did not actually admit whether it had been or not:  instead he said that ‘racism had no place in his school’s way of thinking. We have coloured pupils here and there is no such thing as racism here. We teach our pupils morals and values and the proper way to act. We have expressed regret about this as we place a high value on respect. It is still very sad that this happened,” said Morris.

The newspaper also did not fully explain what ‘Jeugland’ was. It’s also not known from its two articles about this incident,  whether there had been any ‘friction’ between the pupils of the two schools before this horrific incident – and if so why. The newspaper didn’t say.

And while the Express newspaper also claimed that they ‘knew the pupils’ identity’, they apparently failed to obtain comment from the parents of these children: in any case, there’s no mention in their report that they ‘d tried to contact the parents to find out whether they may be more to the story. And while journalists cannot write about court-cases while they were ‘sub-judice’ at that time, the Express apparently failed to establish whether there may have been incidents of racial friction before this attack – certainly this should have been done to establish a clear picture of the entire event?

Background: Jeugland is one of only a handful of  Afrikaans-language Christian-Education High Schools (CVO) now left in the country:  http://www.jeugland.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=33

The Norkem Park police comment:

Col Nelson Manewa, Norkem Park branch commander, was quoted by the Express as saying that ‘a case of common assault to do grievous bodily harm was still being investigated”;  that “two Jeugland pupils were charged and briefly appeared in court.” Manewa also said that ‘social workers were involved in the case as the two pupils were under age”. He also that that ‘arrangements would be made to visit the two schools.”

YET even now,   the Express’ excessive self-censorship still leaves its readers guessing — and forced to read  between the lines:  by  leaving out  the racial identification of the perpetrators – even when as in this case it’s very relevant indeed.

The South African news media is doing its readers a great disservice by not reporting ALL the facts, in this case and many others: and those facts should include the race of the individuals involved.

links to both Caxton items:

Are attacks against Afrikaners genocidal in nature? The International campaign to Prevent Genocide, Genocide Watch, is a US-based organisation which since 2002 has gathered sufficient independent evidence to place Afrikaner ‘whites’ at the penultimate stage of all-out genocide:  it’s now in the ‘preparation’ stage: http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

Dutch, Flemish MPs raise issue of ‘Afrikaner genocide’ in European, Dutch and Belgian parliaments: http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2011/11/support-for-afrikaner-plight-from-dutch.html

Support for Afrikaner plight from Dutch Minister Rosenthal, and MPs

Nov 25 2011 – THE HAGUE. Last night, Dutch foreign affairs Minister Rosenthal ’embraced’ a motion submitted by SGP-party MP Kees van der Staaij to raise their voices in support of the Afrikaners in South Africa. This opens the way for the motion’s acceptance in the Dutch House of Representatives.

DUTCH MP KEES VAN DER STAAIJ Mr Van der Staaij, picture left, pointed out in his motion that there was a considerable amount of violence taking place against the Afrikaners and that the country’s press-freedom was under great pressure..

In the previous two weeks, the PVV-party also made a point of highlighting the plight of the Afrikaners in the European Parliament (Lucas Hartong); in the Dutch house of representatives (MP Johan Driessen) and MP Martin Bosma in the Dutch Language Union.

The PVV-parliamentarians pointed out the very violent character of the ‘farm-murders’, the destruction of Afrikaans under the ANC –0 and the undemocratic nature of the South African regime. In the European Parliament, MP Lucas Hartong of the PVV also called for a ‘political-climate-change’ in South Africa. And his colleague in the PVV Johan Driessen also raised a motion to end all development-aid to South Africa.

The text of Mr Van der Staaij’s motion on Thursday-night was:

 “Motion by member Van der Staaij (SGP) submitted during foreign affairs budget discussions Thursday 24-11-2011:

“The Chamber, noting that South Africa is struggling with stubborn forms of discrimination and a great many serious violent crimes, amongst which are racist-violence also against Afrikaners; and that great concerns exist about fundamental constitutional rights such as press freedom; considering that the Netherlands in the past has assisted the South African authorities with judiciary knowledge and -expertise in regards to the protection of human rights, the combating of violence and discrimination, as well as respecting basic rights; requests the government to examine how the Netherlands, and possibly also the EU in regards to the prevention, tracking down, judiciary support and expertise, could provide a contribution to combating discrimination and racist crimes of violence also towards the Afrikaners – and how at the same time they could contribute to guarantee baisc rights such as press-freedom in South Africa – submitted by Kees van der Staaij.  http://www.parlement.com/9291000/biof/02252

Dutch text:

Steun voor Afrikaners in Nederlands parlement, inclusief Minister Rosenthal
—-
De Nederlandse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Rosenthal heeft donderdagavond een motie die opkomt voor de Afrikaners ‘omhelst’. Hiermee is de weg vrij dat deze motie dinsdag wordt aangenomen in het Nederlandse parlement, de Tweede Kamer.

De motie van de SGP is ingediend bij het debat inzake de begroting Buitenlandse Zaken. SGP’er Kees van der Staaij wijst in zijn motie op het geweld tegen Afrikaners en de persvrijheid die onder druk staat in Zuid-Afrika.

 Bosma Martin Nederlandse MP pleit vir oorlewing van AfrikaansHartong Lucas MEP attacks SA climate conference pleads for survival of AfrikaansDRIESSEN JOHAN DUTCH MP WARNS SA MAY NOT BECOME SECOND ZIMBABWE

De afgelopen weken bracht de PVV ‘s parlementariërs Lucas Hartong (foto midden) in het Europees Parlement; in de Tweede Kamer  (Johan Driessen, foto rechts) en in de Nederlandse Taalunie (de PVV-er Martin Bosma, foto links) de zaak van het Afrikaans en de Afrikaners voor het voetlicht.

Ook de PVV’ers wezen op de ‘plaasmoorde’, het uitwissing van het Afrikaans en het ondemocratische karakter van het ANC-bewind. In het Europees Parlement riep PVV’er Lucas Hartong op tot ‘klimaatverandering in Zuid-Afrika’. Zijn partijgenoot Johan Driessen riep op de ontwikkelingshulp aan het ANC-regime onmiddellijk te staken.

De tekst van de motie luidt: Motie van het lid Van der Staaij (SGP)
Begroting Buitenlandse Zaken: 24-11-2011:
De Kamer, Gehoord de beraadslaging, Constaterende, dat Zuid-Afrika kampt met hardnekkige vormen van discriminatie en vele ernstige geweldsmisdrijven, waaronder racistisch geweld, mede jegens Afrikaners, maar ook grote zorgen bestaan over elementaire grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid;
Overwegende, dat Nederland in het verleden de Zuid-Afrikaanse overheid met juridische kennis en expertise heeft bijgestaan ten aanzien van de bescherming van mensenrechten, het tegengaan van geweld en discriminatie, alsmede het respecteren van grondrechten;
Verzoekt de regering te bezien hoe Nederland en waar mogelijk de EU op het gebied van onder meer preventie, opsporing, justitiële ondersteuning en expertise een bijdrage kunnen verlenen aan het bestrijden van discriminatie en (racistische) geweldsmisdrijven, mede jegens de Afrikaners, en tevens kunnen bijdragen aan het borgen van grondrechten, zoals de persvrijheid, in Zuid-Afrika
En gaat over tot de orde van de dag. Van der Staaij
http://www.parlement.com/9291000/biof/02252

Map and graphic: lethal attacks/murders targetting ‘whites’ in Southern AfricaNOVEMBER 2010 TO NOVEMBER 25 2011

ANTI WHITE ATTACKS SOUTH AFRICA FARMS ONLY NOV201O TO NOV 2011 FARMITRACKER ANTI WHITE ATTACKS SOUTH AFRICA URBAN AND RURAL COMNBINED NOV 2010 TO NOV 2011 FARMITRACKER

Map left: attacks against white rural residents showed a dramatic rise from two attacks a day before WC2010 FIFA tournaments, to 40 attacks a day; Map right: the attacks logged against whites in the cities and the countryside together, showed that for instance in Gauteng province, where 921 attacks were recorded within a year; this attack-rate represented 23.5% of all the murders recorded in the province’s SA police statistics that year. Yet ‘whites’ only represented 9,5% of the total population of 49-million people in South Africa – and probably even less because at least 1-million have emigrated since 1994 to flee from the violence and the suppressive effects of the black-economic-empowerment anti-white hiring laws under the ANC-regime.

Nov 2010 to Nov 2011: Gauteng is the most dangerous province for ‘whites’:

Summary of findings after one year: the attacks against whites  are much higher than warrants their low proportional representation of 9.6%

This log shows that the murderous attacks against ‘whites’ in rural and urban Gauteng represented 23.5% of the SAPS statistics for that province in 2011: whereas the ‘white’ population in towns and the countryside represents only 9.6% of the population.

It’s also noticed that whereas there were only 12,000 commercial farmers remaining by 2010 out of a population of 49-million, the number of daily incidents —  often very aggressive, gruesome violence and long-term torture — against this very small food-producing minority soared from an average two attacks a day from just before the World Cup 2010 FIFA tournaments; to the present 40 attacks a day average.

It was noted in the countryside that just at the end of WC2010 there was a sudden peak of 50 farm-attacks in just one day. Farmitracker also logged a high level of anti-white hatespeech by black-South Africans on Face book since the WC2010 especially – and this has since that time, not abated.here,     here ,     here,      one white infant one bullet: hatespeech by ANC-officials

HIJACKING hot-spot N17 Toll Road KweThema Springs

Nov 23 2011: Our family car was pelted and damaged boulders — by hijacking gang around 10:00pm: N17 Toll Road passing Kwa Thema township, Springs

SPRINGS. Resident Tom Klaassen writes: “One group of guys will throw stones, rocks and boulders from above the bridge – and another vehicle waits for you – and follows you — to stop so that they can descend on you – to hijack, rob, kill you.

“As we were bombarded with rocks last night, we saw a car waiting underneath the bridge start up, put on bright lights and started following us – just waiting for you to stop after the boulders rained down from above, to hijack you and your family. Whenever this happens, DON’T stop driving! Beware of a white City Golf with dark tinted windows parked under the bridges at these sites, as photographed below:

“And remember: Pray before you drive!”

KLAASSEN TOM10 KLAASSEN TOM11 KLAASSEN TOM2 KWATHEMA HIJACKING N17 NOV 232011 10PM TOLL ROADKLAASSEN TOM6KLAASSEN TOM7KLAASSEN TOM5KLAASSENTOM9  KLAASSEN TOM1 KWATHEMA HIJACKING N17 NOV 232011 10PM TOLL ROAD

ANC passes draconian Protection of Information Act

 

Parliament, Cape Town. The ANC regime on Nov 22 2011 passed its draconian Protection of Information Act  with an overwhelming majority – despite a massive public outcry and impassioned petitions from senior editors of all the news purveyors and deeply worried citizens countrywide. South Africans were so depressed about the passing of this Bill that the day now is widely referred to as ‘Black Tuesday’. Depressed senior editors of all the major SA publications walked out of Parliament in protest after the Act was passed.  Legal expert Marieke Ehlers explains why they are all so upset.

Some ramifications of the Protection of Information Act

Marieke Ehlers:

“Access to information is an indispensable right that needs to be protected in order to guarantee democracy. The right of access to information is provided for in Section 32 of Chapter II (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of South Africa 1996.

“Without transparency and accountability in government, democracy is at risk – if citizens do not have access to information, government cannot be held accountable for its actions, and the media’s role as ‘whistle blower’ becomes dormant. Without transparency and accountability, corruption is inevitable.

Tje Protection of Information Bill (B6-2010) was introduced in the National Assembly (and was approved by the majority of ANC-MPs on November 22 2011. Only two abstained…).

The Bill replaces the old Protection of Information Act, No. 84 of 1982 that still dates from the apartheid era.

Unconstitutional: There have been numerous outcries by the public, scholars, the media, non-governmental organizations and international stakeholders arguing that the proposed Bill is unconstitutional and unfairly limits the right of access to information. In order to determine the merits of these claims, one should analyse the wording of the provisions in the Bill.

The Bill sets out standards for when and how information may be classified; i.e. the procedure that needs to be followed in order to determine whether the right to access to information may be limited.

  1. WHAT CAN BE CLASSIFIED?

The Bill provides for two categories of classified information: information that requires protection against alteration, destruction or loss; and information that requires protection against disclosure.

  1. Information that requires protection against alteration, destruction or loss

Such information is called ‘valuable information’ and should therefore be classified in order to prevent its destruction, alteration or loss.

  1. Information that requires protection against disclosure

This category of information is divided into two types of information that may be classified, namely sensitive information and commercial information.

  1. Sensitive information

Sensitive information should be protected from disclosure in order to protect the ‘national interests’ of South Africa. ‘National interest’ is defined in Section 11 of the Bill to include (but is not limited to):

  • the advancement of the public good;

  • the protection of all things owned or maintained by the State;

  • the pursuit of justice, democracy, economic growth, free trade, a stable monetary system and sound international relations;

  • the security of the State and its citizens (i.e. protection against crime, foreign attacks or interference);

  • military operations;

  • details regarding police investigations and methods;

  • political and economic relations with international organisations and foreign governments

  • economic, scientific or technological matters relating to the State’s stability, security, integrity and development; and

  • all matters that are protected under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA).

  1. Commercial information

Commercial information of an organ of state should be protected against disclosure if such disclosure can jeopardise the commercial, financial, business or industrial interest of that organ of state, organisation or individual. Commercial information that may be classified includes (but is not limited to) trade secrets, information that if released will cause financial loss, information that can endanger the national interest of South Africa, as well as government reports that restate classified commercial information.

  1. WHO CAN CLASSIFY INFORMATION?

According to the Bill, any head of an organ of State has the authority to classify information, or to delegate the classification of information to a subordinate staff member.

  1. HOW CAN INFORMATION BE CLASSIFIED?

The Bill provides for three levels of classification, namely:

  • confidential information

  • secret information

  • top secret information

The Bill sets out a number of guidelines that should be followed when classifying information. The first one the list reads: ‘secrecy exists to protect national interests’. Classified information may only be accessed by individuals that have a legitimate need to access the information and who hold the relevant security clearance.

  1. IMPLICATIONS – Ministers and heads of State organs given unlimited discretion to decide what is ‘secret’

The Bill assigns broad competences to the Minister and heads of state organs. At first glance, the Bill seems viable, logical and practical. However, once the provisions are accurately interpreted, it becomes evident that practically any information may be classified in order to protect the ‘national interest’. The term ‘national interest’ has an extremely vague and broad definition and almost everything can be dubbed as being in the ‘national interest’ of a country.

Furthermore, the Bill provides for instituting legal action against individuals who disclose classified information or commit a broad range of other ‘offences’. Sentences include fines as well as imprisonment ranging from three to 25 years. The irony is that the offence of improperly classifying information only carries a sentence of a maximum of three years imprisonment or a lesser fine.

The Bill allows government officials almost unlimited discretion regarding the classification of information – which could lead to extremely long and costly court proceedings to appeal a classification decision. It paves the way for corruption, for instance where illegal transactions are concluded by government; where the government secretly conspires with rogue states; where officials can enrich themselves and where the public is arbitrarily denied the human right to access to information – all of this whilst the citizens remain blissfully unaware of such state action and are thus unable to access important evidence regarding corruption.

Any information can be labelled as ‘classified’

There is an obvious contradiction between the preamble and what is provided for in the remaining part of the Bill; the proposed act is aimed at regulating the manner in which State information may be protected and reiterates that transparency and accountability should be promoted, however, it also leaves an open door for any information to be labelled as ‘classified’ in the national interest. Instead of promoting ‘national interest’ and ensuring effective government, the Bill would in fact endanger democracy in South Africa. In countries with single party dominance (as is the case with the  ANC, South Africa’s ruling party), national interest can easily be confused with the interests of the ruling political party.

Protection of Information act:

http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=118894