Not all countries were founded equal, and while many founding constitutions promise to ensure liberty and equality for its citizens, the ideal expressed in a constitution and how these laws are interpreted are often at odds. In South Africa, for example, the rights of an individual are often viewed within the context of historic events associated with your ethnic group. Especially if those events were immoral or atrocities of some kind.
In fact, you may be indebted to society the minute you are born based on your skin pigmentation.
An example would be the race-based policies in South Africa that discriminate against white people in the workplace and in business. The South African constitution literally prohibits the practice, yet discriminatory laws are implemented and observed all the time using an atrocity from the past as justification.
READ MORE: Black Economic Empowerment
Twenty Seven Years of Democracy: Non-negotiable that ‘new SAA’ be flown by black pilots: Gordhan
An extreme form of this type of discrimination would be the KhoiSan, who apparently do not deserve a history or right to ownership of their native land. Black tribes that migrated to South Africa from the north may claim land under South African law, while the human rights of the Khoisan who have lived in the country for thousands of years are simply ignored.
READ MORE: Khoisan Lives (don’t) Matter
History too is often rewritten or conveniently forgotten to suit a particular interpretation of a constitution. For example few people today recognize the horrendous genocide committed between 1818 and 1828 when over two million people were slaughtered in South Africa during the Zulu Mfekane.
Some atrocities can be inflated or exaggerated while others, no matter how horrendous may be dismissed as if they never happened when the rights of an individual are being determined under a constitution.
List of Massacres in South Africa
The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – the US First Amendment.
The First Amendment of the United States also espouses an ideal that may be impossible to ever achieve. Listening to Megan Kelly advocating Hate Speech is a great example. Can one still air your opinion without losing your job, ruining your career or without being villainized? Should the right to free speech take precedent, or will one’s thoughts, no matter how truthful be forever suppressed by the thought police?
HELP SAVE SOUTH AFRICA:
CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE FRIENDS OF DEMOCRACY
Be the first to know about more crime in South Africa
The WCSTG report to the following organisations on a daily basis:
READ MORE: Formal Framework of Genocide
[Disclaimer: as a small publisher relying on volunteers – our reports are non-exhaustive of the Crimes against Humanity in South Africa – we report as much as we can and advise readers to do their own diligence]