# Social Category > South African Politics Forum >  Making your own Country 'ungovernable!'

## Citizen X

_Prof Snyman_, the leading criminologist in South Africa, _in my opinion_,  defines public violence as follows:
_Public violence is the unlawful and intentional performance of an act or acts by a number of persons, which assumes serious proportions and is intended to disturb the public peace and order by violent means, or to infringe the rights of another_.


(1) an act

(2) performed by a number of persons
(3) which assumes serious proportions
(4) which is unlawful, and
(5) intentional, and more specifically, includes an intention to disturb the public
peace and order by violent means, or to infringe the rights of another
Now call me crazy but if one threatens to make ones very own country ungovernable you cutting your nose off to spite your face. In much the very same way as police brutality needs to stop and police needs to deal with crowds in a manner not similar to the apartheid government so too does the way in which we protest need to change. The under-pinnings here is Constitutional democracy! Just go and tell mad bob you going to make his country ungovernable and see what he does to you!!!

----------


## Dave A

And this is the future problem they're creating for themselves:

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/20...rs-burn-school
http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfri...tests-20120827

Stupid enough at the best of times. Bloody moronic when your aim is to get to govern...

----------


## AndyD

"The government must stop watching children's education been blown away by the wind."

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that. 

Looks like another generation of people going uneducated that will be protesting for government handouts in a few years time. I wonder if they'll also set fire to their kids school and keep the cycle rolling.

----------


## adrianh

Aye well, the cANCer taught them to burn down schools. They are only doing what they were taught by their leaders. Now the cANCer has its hands full trying to untrain them....

I think its quite funny that people would burn down a school and then pitch up to be taught...I mean: How's your brain...

Its just them burning the trains and then waiting for the train the next morning...eish...

Another thought...Where is the cANCer joooths leeg, why don't they go and march and toi toi in that province, I mean, the cANCer is doing a really bad jop there.

----------


## Citizen X

High Treason: With the ‘boeremag,’ been found guilty of high treason, it’s an interesting exercise to revisit this definition as used in our high court: Prof Synman defines high treason as follows:  “A person commits high treason if, owing allegiance to the Republic of South Africa, he unlawfully engages in conduct within or outside the Republic with the intention of :
a)Overthrowing the government of the Republic;
Coercing the government by violence into any action or inaction;
Violating, threatening or endangering the existence, independence or security of the Republic or;
Changing the Constitutional structure of the Republic.”
Now, call me crazy, but if any says, “I’m going to make the Western Cape ungovernable, to me this means, kids won’t be able to go to school, employees won’t be able to go to work, property will be damaged, law and order will be disrupted, people will be preventing from using public roads and engaging in lawful trade and other lawful activity..Isn’t this a crime of high treason???

----------


## Citizen X

Kuruman, Parents are preventing their own kids from going to school because of service delivery concerns such as quality roads! We treated the textbook saga or debacle very seriously! Is this not as serious? In the first instance, those shady characters threw books away, here we have parents stopping their own children from going to school. So I ask you, who is better or worse from the characters who dumped the books to the parents who today are adamant that they won't send their kids to school until they get roads!

----------


## adrianh

Leave them, let their children be as stupid as them, it's their choice.

----------


## Justloadit

Adrian,

True, but stupidity breeds contempt and contempt breeds civil unrest, civil unrest leads to total destruction of the country. Not a place any one of us would like to be in.

----------


## Blurock

> High Treason: With the boeremag, been found guilty of high treason, its an interesting exercise to revisit this definition as used in our high court: Prof Synman defines high treason as follows:  A person commits high treason if, owing allegiance to the Republic of South Africa, he unlawfully engages in conduct within or outside the Republic with the intention of :
> a)Overthrowing the government of the Republic;
> Coercing the government by violence into any action or inaction;
> Violating, threatening or endangering the existence, independence or security of the Republic or;
> Changing the Constitutional structure of the Republic.
> Now, call me crazy, but if any says, Im going to make the Western Cape ungovernable, to me this means, kids wont be able to go to school, employees wont be able to go to work, property will be damaged, law and order will be disrupted, people will be preventing from using public roads and engaging in lawful trade and other lawful activity..Isnt this a crime of high treason???


I agree, this is treason. Why does the Government not see it as such and act upon it? Because the ANC is playing political games and want Cape Town at all costs. The ANCYL is the ANC's instrument, but their indiscipline is already coming back to bite the ANC. :Frown:

----------


## Citizen X

I get that people are angry with poor service delivery, I get that we have issues but in much the same way as you would never say you'll make your own house unmanageable or your own business unmanageable, it's absurb that anyone can threaten to make the place when he/she lives and works and all his/her family/friends live and work 'ungovernable!' You can't threaten your own self, people need to realise that such actions will only harm you at the end of the day. Even the hawker who doesn't even have a total inventory of R3000 for the month and only sells sweets, chappies, some loose cigarretes and perhaps some fruit knows that when such activity starts , they can't feed themselves and their family for those days!

----------


## Citizen X

> Adrian,
> 
> True, but stupidity breeds contempt and contempt breeds civil unrest, civil unrest leads to total destruction of the country. Not a place any one of us would like to be in.


How very true, Justloadit! It's this very contempt that we must in earnest try to prevent..

----------


## Blurock

41 Schools in the Northern Cape remain closed because of "service delivery" protests. Parents are preventing their own children to study because they have a gripe against government?! How crazy and stupid can you be?

I believe in cause and effect. Every action has a counter reaction. The effect of this is that they will stay disadvantaged for another 10 generations. Stupidity can not be taught.

----------


## IanF

> The effect of this is that they will stay disadvantaged for another 10 generations. Stupidity can not be taught.


Stupidity is encouraged which is sad. When will people learn the lessons and improve and change behaviour from mistakes. To me it looks like never.

----------

Citizen X (01-Sep-12)

----------


## adrianh

> Stupidity can not be taught.


When stupid people teach then stupidity is taught.

The cANCer teaches stupidity every day, so do many of the unions and so do many teachers.

When you teach a child, or any person for that matter, to destroy their own infrastructure when they don't get their way then stupidity is taught. The cANCer taught the parents to do this against Apartheid and now the parents are teaching their children to do it against the cANCer. This is called the the cANCer cirle, stupidity goes round and round becomes more powerfull the faster it spins.

----------


## wynn

> You can't threaten your own self


I have come across a few self mutilators and suicide threats in my life, it seems it is a desperate cry for attention.
If attention is not forthcoming the threat often gets carried out with tragic consequences.

I just fear that when the local township decides to carry out the threat it doesn't include me or mine.

----------


## Dave A

This piece by Nic Dawes doesn't give much cause for optimism either.

----------


## Citizen X

> This piece by Nic Dawes doesn't give much cause for optimism either.


Yes, it most certainly doesn't!

"It has happened to almost all the parties of uhuru – and it will happen here. Recent elections have begun to see the erosion of the ruling party's super-majority, and the near-daily uprisings we domesticate under the rubric of "service delivery protest" send a message that electoral choices are not yet capable of registering.
In the dust of the platinum belt we now have a stark illustration of how difficult, and how dangerous, this transition will be."

----------


## wynn

Aaah! you see, if you don't listen I will cut off your ears!!

----------


## Dave A

I guess I'm going to be called naive, but for a while there I didn't think it was going to work out that way. I really had expected the ANC would have learned from the lessons so obvious elsewhere.

----------


## desA

The patients are running the asylum.

----------

Citizen X (04-Sep-12)

----------


## Citizen X

> The patients are running the asylum.


The Doctrine of common purpose: Unpacking a controversial matter!
Firstly, the legal definition of murder is extremely wide. One of the most wide definitions of a crime that actually exists in criminal law!
The definitional elements(which must be proved in court) of murder are:
(1) the causing of the death
(2) of another person,
(3) unlawfully
(4) intentionally[1]
The source of this definition is Prof Snyman.[2] The leading case on the doctrine of common purpose is Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A).
In this case the facts were the following: A crowd of about one hundred people attacked Y, who was in his house, by pelting the house with stones, hurling petrol bombs through the windows, catching him as he was fleeing from his burning house, stoning him, pouring petrol over him and setting him alight. The six appellants formed part of the crowd. The court found that their conduct consisted inter alia of grabbing hold of Y, wrestling with him, throwing stones at him, exhorting the crowd to kill him, forming part of the crowd which attacked
him, making petrol bombs, disarming him and setting his house alight.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Botha JA, the Appellate Division confirmed the six appellants' convictions of murder by applying the doctrine of common purpose, since it was clear that they all had had the common purpose to kill Y. It was argued on behalf of the accused that they could be convicted of murder only if a causal connection had been proved between each individual accused's conduct and Y's death, but the court held that where, as in this case, a common purpose to kill had been proved, each accused could be convicted of
murder without proof of a causal connection between each one's individual
conduct and Y's death. If there is no clear evidence that the participants had agreed beforehand to commit the crime together, the existence of a common purpose between a certain participant and the others may be proven by the fact that he actively associated
himself with the actions of the other members of the group.[3]
The existence of a common purpose between two or more participants is proved
in the following ways:
. On the basis of an express or implied prior agreement to commit an offence.
Since people mostly conspire in secret it is very difficult for the state to prove a
common purpose based on a prior agreement.
. Where no prior agreement can be proved, the liability arises from an active
association and participation in a common criminal design (Thebus 2003 (2)
SACR 319 (CC) 336).[4]
My thoughts, whilst the NPA can still charge anyone with this crime, whether a court finds such an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is quite another situation! The loss of life under any circumstances will always remain tragic. Protestors should learn that in a Constitutional democracy you cant damage property, assault and intimidate non striking employees, block roads etc. They should protest peacefully. If you shoot at the police, you most certainly not protesting peacefully? Why were some miners armed? This concept of human shield, comes to mind, a group of people agree to protest, a few takes guns( presumably unlicensed), the police arrive, they try to control the crowd, a few people in that crowd start shoting at the police, surely the police cant still use water cannons! They should not return fire indiscriminately, they should ideally have sharp shooters who can take out the criminal elements of this crowd i.e. the ones shooting at police1 Just my 2 cents!


[1]Vide Criminal Law: Specific Crime Study Guide.* Muckleneuk, Pretoria. University of South Africa. 2010.Page 131*

[2]Vide Criminal Law. Cr Snyman. Lexis Nexus Butterworths. 2007. Page 421.

[3]Op Cit n 1. Page 11. Taken verbatim.

[4] Op Cit n 1 Page 9. Taken verbatim

----------


## Citizen X

According to Prof Snyman, there are 5 principles relating to the doctrine of common purpose:-
1. If two or more people, having a common purpose to commit a crime, act together in order to achieve that purpose, the conduct of each of them in the execution of that purpose is imputed to the others;
2. In a charge of having committed a crime which involves the causing of a certain result such as murder, the conduct imputed includes the causing of such result;
3. Conduct by a member of the group of persons having a common purpose which differs from the conduct envisaged in the said common purpose may not be imputed to another member of the group unless the latter knew that such other conduct would be committed, or foresaw the possibility that it might be committed and reconciled himself to that possibility
4. A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons in a common purpose is not dependant upon proof of a prior conspiracy. Such a finding may be inferred from the conduct of a person or persons;
5. A finding that a person acted together with one or more other persons in a common purpose may be based upon the first mentioned persons active association in the execution of the common purpose. However, in a charge of murder this rule applies only if the active association took place while the deceased was still alive and before a mortal wound had been inflicted by the person or persons with whose conduct such first mentioned person associated himself;[1]
I submit, in my professional capacity as* LAYMAN*, that even if the NPA files these charges again, the court won’t find those miners guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt! Just my layman opinion!


[1] Vide CR Snyman: Criminal Law: Lexis Nexis Butterworths. 2008. Pgae 260

----------

