“If we have to move to Wolverivier it would be a setback in my life and for all my children”
By Masixole Feni
27 July 2017
The new is replacing the old in Woodstock. But with gentrification comes eviction.
Woodstock is swiftly changing. New modern
developments are replacing old, often dilapidated, blocks and houses.
Property value is increasing and new businesses are moving in.
But not everyone benefits from the changes. Families
living on Albert and Gympie Streets live in anticipation of eviction, as
they cannot afford to rent or buy their homes. Masixole Feni met and
photographed some of these residents.
The residents of 53 Albert Road have received eviction notices. They are contesting their evictions in court.
Delia Adrian, Theresa Wattson and Sedick Harris live in 53 Albert Road.
They received an eviction notice from the Sheriff. Adrian says the
eviction reminds her of her childhood when her parents were
forcefully removed from their home at 29 Horsley Street, District Six.
Fayrooz Sign and Deno Hansen (who works as a car guide outside the
building) have been living in the building for five years after being
homeless for ten years. They used to live in Bonteheuwel.
Annamarie and Alicia Dube have lived in the building for three years. They share it with four other people.
Maggie and Gavin Solomons have been living on Albert Street for 15
years. They grew up in District six. Before they lived in these rental
units they were homeless. They say their water has been cut off by the
landlord, so they decided not to pay rent. They share their unit with
ten other people.
Kasiefa Watson and her children Tamy, Lukeman, and Raldia have been
living in their apartment for 13 years. She moved from Brooklyn to
Woodstock to start a new life. She says it is convenient to live in
Woodstock because her children go to a nearby school and her husband
works at the harbour. “If we have to move to Wolverivier it would be a
setback in my life and for all my children,” she says.
Zaida Wolhuter has been living in this unit on Albert Street for four
years. Before she stayed here she had a Wendy house on Gympie Street.
After evictions on Gympie Street, she decided to move to Albert Street,
where she is now facing eviction.
June Peterson is 64 and cleans this block of student apartments
on Gympie Street. She says she used to live here, but she was one of
many people who were moved to Blikkiesdorp in Delft (near the airport).
Labieba Marley is 60. She lived on Gympie Street for 17 years. Here, she
is visiting her family in Gympie Street. She now lives in Lavender
Hill. Her grandchildren prefer living in Woodstock because it is close
to their work in town.
By Natalie Pertsovsky and Lilly Wimberly
26 July 2017 People march from Keizersgracht Street to Parliament chanting, “Free, free Palestine!” Photo: Ashraf Hendricks
Over 2,000 people marched from Keizersgracht Street to
Parliament chanting “Free, free Palestine!” and “Down Netanyahu, down!”
on Wednesday. They were marching against the installation of metal
detectors and other security measures at the al-Aqsa Mosque in
Jerusalem.
Protesters said recent security measures at al-Aqsa, including the
use of security cameras, are unfair. “They’ve got high-resolution
security cameras that can see through the clothing of our men, and more
so, of our women… it is undignified and we will not allow that,” said
Anwah Nagia from the Palestine Museum in Cape Town.
The metal detectors were removed Tuesday after Muslim worshippers boycotted the mosque.
The mosque is located in the Old City of East Jerusalem. Nagia
addressed the protesters: “It is not [an issue of Jewish
versus Muslim]…it is an issue of occupation and human rights
violations.”
“We know the pain of state capture in South Africa, but this is state
capture of the Holy Land of the Muslims,” said Sheikh Riad Fataar,
third-in-charge at the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC). “Today we have
shown that we stand together as oppressed people,” he said. “We will
march until we see relief for the Palestinian people.” Protests were held in Cape Town against recent security measures at al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Photo: Ashraf Hendricks
Published originally on
GroundUp
.
Friday is deadline to send your comments to Parliament
By Murray Hunter
26 July 2017 Friday 28 July is the final day to comment on the the
Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill. Image: <a
href="https://pixabay.com/en/hacker-cyber-crime-internet-2300772/">Hypnobay
on Pixabay</a> (public domain)
The Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill
will affect every internet user in South Africa – but at 139 pages
long, there’s a lot to go through. But if you haven’t yet, now is the
time! There’s just two days left to give Parliament your comments on the Bill.
Why has this Bill been introduced? The government says it will help
fight cybercrime and make South Africa’s cyberspace more secure.
In 2015, Right2Know criticized the draft version of the Bill
for threatening internet freedom, and thousands of internet users
signed a petition denouncing it. The 2017 Bill has some welcome changes
from its 2015 draft version, but a lot of remaining concerns.
Good changes are:
The “secrecy bill clauses” in the 2015 draft Bill, which would have
criminalised journalists and whistleblowers for accessing classified
information, are gone.
The copyright offences in the 2015 draft Bill, which could have criminalised you for posting a meme, are gone.
But there’s some bad stuff.
Section 17 of the Bill makes it a criminal offence to send or resend “malicious communication”,
which includes messages that could be harmful in various ways. This
part of the Bill is new. This is what State Security Minister David
Mahlobo was talking about when he proposed social media regulation – a
proposal that has been widely rejected on social media under the hashtag
#HandsOffSocialMedia. (You can add your name to that call here!)
Don’t insult Mr Trump
Section 17(2)(c)
of the Bill makes it a crime to send or resend a message that
“intimidate[s], encourages or harasses” a person to harm themselves or
someone else.
While we appreciate the intention to protect vulnerable people from
harassment online, this could have a chilling effect on freedom of
expression, which includes robust political expression that is often
crude and unpleasant. For example, it is not uncommon for offended
Twitter users to send messages to @realDonaldTrump (the President of the
United States of America) to “go kill yourself”. These rowdy rejections
of the politics of an unpopular leader would be criminal offences under
this provision.
In any case, genuine cyberbullying should be dealt with in the
Protection from Harassment Act of 2011, which allows someone to get a
protection order against their harasser – after which, continued
harassment is a criminal offence. Unfortunately the implementation of
that Act has been extremely poor and has not delivered its promised
protections to victims of harassment. But that is a failure of the
justice system itself, not the existing law. The additional criminal
penalties imposed by the Cybercrimes Bill give no further protections.
Section 17(2)(d)
of the Bill criminalises “fake news”, defined as the sending or
resending of any message that is “inherently false in nature and … aimed
at causing mental, psychological, physical or economic harm”. This is,
evidently, the state’s response to “fake news”.
While this provision should have the programming manager of ANN7
feeling nervous, it is a bad idea. Even if the intention behind the Bill
is noble, in practical legal terms it’s a mess. Who defines ”inherently
false”? What is the borderline with “misleading”, “debatable”, or
“unverifiable”? Would the law look at the intention of the message or
the consequences? How is the “harm” measured?
Given the rise of politically motivated and vexatious prosecutions, a
“fake news” clause would provide another avenue through which the state
could intimidate investigative journalists and voices of dissent.
Criminalising retweeting
The Bill also makes it a crime to resend a message of which you were
not originally the author. This could include forwarding an email or
WhatsApp message, retweeting something on Twitter, or re-posting
something on Facebook.
If there is something in the message that could be seen as
threatening or inciting violence or property damage, or intimidating
someone to harm themselves, or if the message is “inherently false in
nature”, you are as guilty of an offence as the person who originally
wrote it.
This does not take into account your intention for re-sending such a
message. It would be very common for social media users to repost an
offensive or irresponsible or even criminal message in order to draw
attention to it.
More surveillance
The Bill tries to reform RICA, South Africa’s main surveillance law, but without addressing any of the problems with RICA that have led to serious surveillance abuses and pointless SIM card bureaucracy for all of us.
More power to State Security
This Bill gives the Ministry of State Security a large role in
governance in South Africa. Placing cyber security under the domain of
the intelligence agencies makes cybersecurity initiatives less
transparent and harder for the public to have a say in them.
The law threatens freedom and could be used to intimidate government
critics. But does it make us more secure? In an article to be published
tomorrow I will explain the law’s shortcomings when it comes to making
the internet more secure.
P.S. If you’re worried about how this Bill will affect freedom of expression, add your name to our Awethu campaign: Hands Off Social Media!
Land reform remains a divisive subject 23 years after democracy in South Africa. Filckr
A more than 365 year history of colonialism and apartheid have indelibly affected land, heritage and human rights in South Africa.
Among the vast array of discriminatory laws was the Land Act of 1913 that spatially segregated people through land dispossession. It amplified the vast canyon of inequality, further shattered the social fabric of communities and radically compromised economic development of the black majority.
It was only after the 1994 democratic elections that the vast majority of citizens could hope for constitutional restitution of their land.
Significant socio-economic advances have been made since 1994, but several challenges need to be overcome as indicated by recent trends. Much more needs to be done. This is particularly true when it comes to land distribution and restitution.
The 2013 state land audit report illustrates why. By 1994 about 87% of the land was owned by whites and only 13% by black people. By 2012 only 7.95 million hectares had been transferred to black owners through land reform. This represented only 7.5% of formerly white-owned land.
The National Forum focused on whether it was possible to achieve effective land reform through Section 25 of the South African Constitution, which deals with property rights. The National Forum also examined the bureaucratic, legal and constitutional constraints that slow down land redistribution and restitution. It also explored the policy and legislative options necessary to address the complex challenges.
The National Forum concluded that South Africa’s constitution doesn’t stand in the way of land reform. However, it’s clear that political negligence has fuelled undue bureaucracy, mismanagement and corruption, which have severely hampered meaningful land reform. It reached consensus on a 10-point plan for constitutionally accelerated land reform. The hope is that it can help break the long-standing impasse over land, and move the country toward radically inclusive socio-economic growth.
Accelerating land reform
Aspects of the 10-point plan include:
A human rights approach to land redistribution, grounded in the effective implementation of Section 25 of the Constitution. This could still guarantee a life of dignity, equality and freedom for all citizens.
Existing land reform legislation is not effectively implemented. The Land Claims Commission and Land Claims Court, which were created through the Restitution of Land Rights Act (1994), have not been effective. Unnecessary bureaucratic bungling, significant corruption and limited expert skills have been exacerbated by cadre deployment. This is the practice of appointing party political loyalists to government positions irrespective of ability. In addition, these institutions have yet to be made more accessible and more representative.
The possibility of adopting further laws to accelerate land reform is not being used. This is the case even though Section 25(8) of the Constitution specifically indicates that it can be done.
The possibility of repealing existing legislation that’s inconsistent with or hampering land reform is not being pursued. This should be rectified.
There is a need for national legislation on expropriation. A bill is before Parliament – the Expropriation Bill – but it’s been introduced late and processed without urgency. The possibility of effecting appropriate amendments to the 1975 Expropriation Act should also be considered.
There should be improved communication and coordination between various government departments. Currently, the location of relevant land reform mandates and competencies are spread across several departments. These should be aligned to accelerate the pace of the process.
A draft bill on cultural and spiritual access to land must be developed to enable citizens’ access to cemeteries and related holy sites where their family members are buried.
The courts should pronounce on the meaning of “just and equitable” compensation in Section 25 of the Constitution, to provide for better definition and interpretation of this provision within the context of land reform.
Communal Property Associations, community and traditional leader tensions must be resolved through meaningful engagement. Communication channels must be open, all role-players included and all relevant information made available to every stakeholder. Furthermore, all affected parties must be able to influence the decisions taken. In addition, skills training for officials dealing with land restitution is necessary, whilst an updated land audit is required.
There is need for a Land and Economy Convention, similar to the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). This was held to negotiate the country’s peaceful transition to democracy. A role for the new convention would be to address poverty, inequality and unemployment. The aim would be to restore citizens’ dignity, strengthen the economy and advance democracy.
The National Forum envisions the 10-point plan being effected within the context of the country’s National Development Plan’s Vision 2030. The plan was drawn up to provide a roadmap for the country to 2030. Its central aims are to reduce unemployment, poverty and inequality.
If land reform is realised, South Africa could present a more humane, just, peaceful, prosperous and democratic face to the world.
The Nyaope drug is destroying the youth of South Africa and is
forcefully given to children of all ages. The drug consists of rat
poison mixed with heroin – dagga and antiretroviral drugs. The Nyaope
drug can include detergent powder, milk powder, and pool cleaner leading
to many social ills. HIV-positive people who use the drug are at risk
because treatment is stopped, and Nyaope contributes to the spread of TB
and HIV. It is a highly addictive, and dangerous street drug, unique to
South Africa. Drugs are a cause of the lunatic actions and by getting people hooked
onto addictive substances, this will enrich the drug lords. As drugs
are a problem in South Africa and an increasing nightmare for parents
trying to prevent, children being swirled into the evil world of
narcotics. Drugs are readily available in South Africa, and children are
influenced from an early age to take illegal substances. Peer pressure,
social inabilities and poor living conditions contribute to the
children becoming involved in the dark world of drugs.
Key dialogue leaders at the National Forum were: 