Message from @Scatmån
Discord ID: 600725299226869772
An ENCA reporter yesterday said that more than 60Mil ballot papers were printed. Yet we are only 26.7mil registered voters????
Am I missing something?
Jesus the EFF have 44 seats
Going to be an exciting next 5 years...
DEATH TO AMERICA
oh sh*t wrong discord sorry guys
Helen Zille is about to become the SA Trump of Twitter. Gotta love it when people challenge political correctness.
meerkat jou BLIKSEM
waar jy
@Arcade_Hustle hoekom
@everyone check ou DA leader mmusi maimanes speech https://youtu.be/RaKNg0xVux4
I found some propoganda
succesful land claim
@Scatmån this is one of those 3% of successful land claims. 97% failed
lol
not even surprised
history is doomed to repeat itself
thats one big effing claim tho, pics it didnt happen my dude
while displaying the old flag is in poor taste
it should not be the governments job to ban someone from flying a flag that has no direct incitement of violence
Is anyone surprised?
GG @Gapin Mcanus, you just advanced to level 2!
As far as I understand the judge said the following: "The judgment is a carefully guided prohibition, not a ban, says judge"
Not sure how / what the exact difference is between it being banned or it being placed under "carefully guided prohibition" 🤔
Sounds like a very grey area, not sure how a flag can be seen as hate speech, but what do I know
Apparently because it was the flag from 1928-1994 and was used during apartheid...
i guess we have to ban everything used during apartheid , break down parliament it was used to write the apartheid laws
REEEE
I get their argument in terms of it was the flag that was associated with apartheid etc. in the same type of way the Nazi Party flag was associated with WWII and everything.
I'm just trying to understand the judge's statement / ruling.
I mean it reads as follows:
Section 10 of the Equality Act:
Prohibition of hate speech
(1) Subject to the proviso in section 12, no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to-
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) promote or propagate hatred.
Specifically it says "publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words" and this is a flag and then the judges goes on to say the following:
"Judge Mojapelo says the restriction of hate speech to words only would not achieve the purpose of the Equality Act" - News24
So does that mean the Equality Act is now going to be adapted because it only says that hate speech is expressed through words, and not a flag or image?
It then ends with "The judgment is a carefully guided prohibition, not a ban, says judge" - News24
So again, I'm not sure what the technically difference is between it being banned vs prohibited (when specifically saying it's not banned).
Confusing much if you ask me 🙈
I wonder how this applied to BLF in equity court today.