EoP Amicus Request to CCT: The Citizen v Robert McBride is one of the EoP Legal Submission cases, involving EoP scientific and cultural law recommendations to shut down the WiP Ponzi profiteering of resource conflict and misery economy, by ‘turning off the tap’ — i.e. the breeding / consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits — causes of resource conflict and war; by implementing an Ecology of Peace New World Order Social Contract that requires all the worlds citizens of all races and religions to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; enabling humane and orderly deindustrialization and depopulation return to ecological carrying capacity limits.
Summary: CCT23-10: The Citizen v Robert McBride:
The case is about a dispute between Robert McBride and the Citizen Newspaper. During Apartheid Robert McBride was a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress, who was convicted of terrorism after he bombed the “Why Not” Restaurant and Magoo’s Bar in Durban on 14 June 1986; and sentenced to death. He was later released after applying for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which provided for amnesty in return for complete disclosure of acts of politically motivated violence after the ANC changed its early denials of involvement to a claim that they ordered the bombing. This case involved Robert McBride suing the The Citizen for calling him a murderer; even though he had been pardoned by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Supreme Court of Appeal granted McBride’s defamation request and issued a judgement for damages. The Citizen then appealed the SCA Judgement to the Constitutional Court. The Citizen argued that the SCA erred in its interpretation that the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, which states that amnesty expunges the conviction and sentence from all official records, and also that “the conviction shall for all purposes… be deemed not to have taken place.” and hence reference to the McBride’s ‘murder’ conviction was considered as ‘defamation’, because it was false. The Citizen argued that the SCA ruling shall require that a falsification of history be required, and deny the Media the right to freedom of expression of the truth.
The EoP Amicus argued that South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a fraud, denying both sides – Apartheid and Anti-Apartheid – sides an honest enquiry into the root — breeding & consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits — causes of racial, religious and class resource conflict; including South Africa’s Apartheid and Anti-Apartheid resource conflict.
The case received a huge amount of news coverage from South African media who reported on the content of all the arguments, including all Amicus parties arguments; except for the EoP Amicus.
All parties to the proceedings; including other Amicus parties, ignored the contents of the EoP Amicus or expert witness arguments. The Judges had no questions regarding any of the EoP Amicus arguments.
Please Note: As noted at LJ v Brad Blanton; As of 17 October 2013, Lara Johnstone is no longer a member of the Radical Honesty culture; but is a member of the Ecology of Peace: Radical Honoursty culture.
- 06 May 2010: Constitutional Court Justices Order: Lara Johnstone admitted as an Amicus Curiae [PDF].
- 18 July 2010: Amicus Curiae Brief of Lara Johnstone, Member of Radical Honesty Culture & Religion, in Support of a Common Sense Population Policy Social Contract Interpretation of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995 [PDF]
- 22 May 2010: Written Statement of Consent of T. Michael Maher, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness for How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection and Media Framing and Salience of the Population Issue [PDF].
- 18 May 2010: Written Statement of Consent of Brad Blanton, Ph.D, to testify as expert witness to: Practicing Radical Honesty and Futilitarianism; i.e. Radical Honesty about Anger and Forgiveness; and Paradigmsand Contexts: The Revolution of Consciousness [PDF]; withdrawn by Applicant as per notification to Concourt Justices of expert witness Blanton’s possible perjury [PDF].