Comments on: Hypocrisy rules again

By: Sonny Cox

Sonny Cox — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:38:57 +0000

Yes Mr Vos,

As my good old Daddy used to tell me.

Politics stinks.

Never trust a politician to ruin a country, they just do!

A good example is Jacob Zuma.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:53:03 +0000

Well, Pierre, the full bench verdict of the High Court striking down the politically-motivated Erasmus Commission as unconstitutional and unlawful also implies that Helen Zille was right and you were wrong.

Can we expect an apology?

By: amused reader

amused reader — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:13:13 +0000

So the Pierre

Helen was right all along, and you……

The Erasmus commission was unconstitutional, Erasmus was wrong to accept the position as chair due to seperation of powers, much as Zille suggested, Rasool was acting out of political self interest, and the police acted illegally by giving evidence to Rasool.

Helen Zille 1 Pierre VD Vos 0

(Not that you’ll have the grace to admit it, you are just too ‘small’ for that).

By: Sonny Cox

Sonny Cox — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:25:45 +0000

Pierre
Hypocrisy rules again……..
George Fivaz, who’s company investigated these ‘facts’ published an interesting article in the Sunday Times (13/07/2008)(page 19), Where he launches an attack on the Scorpions.
One should just follow his track record to find that he was the worst commissioner of the SAPS second to Jackie Selebi, since 1913.
He is now tauting Jacob Zuma for a job if/when he becomes president of SA.
Fivaz was a run-away-come-back to the SAP. He wore two hats and could be regarded by some as a traitor of Apartheid, which he served loyally.
He then refused to wear the SAP uniform post 1994 after becoming commissioner. What a hero, or fool!
What about his investigations skills into RDP fraud, spying (I though only the NIA was licensed to do this), using Apartheid investigators in his company? Word has it that he could not take a proper statement…
Then, recently he sacked half of his detectives and forced them to sign away their rights to compensation against him.
He was also involved in the investigation into fraud in the Road Accident Fund. What was the results? Zero productive conclusions.
He had to make use of a SAB official Maiya (the bee) Khan, who was replaced because of affirmative action in SAB.
Oh, my point?
Hypocrisy rules again…..

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:06:17 +0000

Zille COULD go to court to challenge Erasmus’s decision to chair the quasi-legal kangaroo court convened by Rasool under the Provincial Commissions Act 10 of 1998.

Or she could save herself the time and money and just say “Stuff you. I’ll simply have nothing to do with this kangaroo court and the robed political lackey hired to give it a gloss of respectability.”

That’s the sensible way to do it.

By: z

Thu, 08 May 2008 12:11:12 +0000

I said:
“I did not realise that what you wrote was a response to Helen Zille, since it was not posted here but on your blog.”

Sorry Helen’s response was here, I missed it somehow. I duly apologise.

By: anton kleinschmidt

anton kleinschmidt — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:41:59 +0000

@ Pierre

“The Commission of Enquiry was not appointed by the ANC but by Premier Ebrahim Rasool in terms of the Provincial Commissions Act 10 of 1998 in his capacity as Premier.”

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With regard to the right to criticise a judge, we will agree to differ

With regard to another new blog on the subject….3rd time lucky?

By: z

Thu, 08 May 2008 10:35:35 +0000

Pierre

Unfortunately on my previous comment I did not realise that what you wrote was a response to Helen Zille, since it was not posted here but on your blog.

Here is the link to Zille’s answer on Pierre’s blog for those interested: http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=534

Though I think your response would have been a better starting point, I see that you once again failed to answer her on a point for point basis. You did make many more accusations in this blog than merely the criticism of a judge and I believe you have failed to respond to them.

Here are some of your other allegations:

1. You have accused her of setting up a biased commission to clear herself. (yes it is directly implied)
“Now Zille seems to suggest that she does not believe in freedom of expression because she does not trust the truth to come out in the end. She therefore argues we should stop a commission of inquiry because allegations might be made there that are untrue and damaging to her and the party. This is a deeply illiberal stance and flies in the face of the values espoused by the DA and Zille, and creates the impression of serious hypocrisy.”

2. You have accused her of not believing in freedom of expression. Yes you did use the words “seems to suggest”, but they were merely used to inoculate yourself against this criticism as in the very next sentences you imply it to be true (“therefore”). At the very least she has said that it is untrue and therefore you should feel obligated to defend or revoke your “seems to suggest”.

Will you respond to these and her other points?

By: Pierre de Vos

Pierre de Vos — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:28:59 +0000

The Commission of Enquiry was not appointed by the ANC but by Premier Ebrahim Rasool in terms of the Provincial Commissions Act 10 of 1998 in his capacity as Premier. If Judge Erasmus made a mistake in accepting to chair this Commission or if Mr Rasool exceeded his powers or if the Act is unconstitutional Mrs Zille should be free to say so and to give reasons for her argument, but of course it is ultimately for a Court to decide on these matters (I have never expressed a definitive opinion on any of these matter so will rather keep my job even if Rasool loses on any of these points). For me the main question is when and how should one criticise judges (because judges are NOT above criticism). I have written a more comprehensive piece about this question which will hopefully be posted on Thought Leader in the next day.

By: Lyndall Beddy

Lyndall Beddy — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:11:03 +0000

Pierre

If Helen takes this to the Constitutional Court, which she may, and wins – you, as a lecturer in Constitutional Law, should loose your job.