In response to ChristianView Networks request to hold hearings again in Polokwane, the hearings have been rescheduled. Nevertheless, parliament doesn't seem to have advertised them properly second time round either. Please advertise to others.
The Civil Unions Bill public hearings in Polokwane
Library Gardens, Hans van Rensburg Street
Friday 6th October 2006
10 am to 2pm
Showing posts with label hearings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hearings. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Monday, October 02, 2006
The Kwa-Zulu Natal hearing by Keith Downs
Keith’s Blog, following a day in Dusty New Hanover
There was a lot of confusion surrounding the date place and time, but following the confusion caused by badly publicised venue changes, our intrepid group of activists finally found the venue of the kwaZulu Natal public hearings into same sex marriage. It required the diligence of a Sherlock Holmes to pin it down after we were informed that the venue was the New Hanover Hall in Pietermaritzburg. It was actually at the Community Hall in New Hanover about 60 km out of PMB in a very rural area. The existence of a notice to the members of the KZN legislature informing them that the hearings were to be held in the parliament buildings in Pietermaritzburg the next day added to the confusion wrought earlier in the week when we were told that the hearings would be held in Ulundi.
The Gay activists were also able to penetrate the wall of confusion and found their way there in more than representative numbers......... although one gay group seemed to have had a bit of bother with their slogan emblazoned minibus which was conked out on the side of the road. This was understandable as the Gauteng provincial number plates indicated that it had travelled quite a long distance.
The hearings started late and the hall was packed to capacity when the meeting was opened by the local Mayor, resplendent in his chains, who declared the hearings to be part of the programme to "Bring Parliament to the People". The senior clerk then pronounced the venue to be a Parliamentary precinct and then explanations continued in Zulu. There were requests from non Zulu speakers for a translator, but they were informed that this would take too long. It is to be hoped that the members of the panel with non-Zulu names and surnames were able to understand the proceedings.
The first up to speak was a local Islamic cleric who gave a clear and scholarly presentation which was followed by a round of applause from the community. The speaker called for order and reprimanded the crowd saying that members do not applause in parliament, and he instructed the assembly to refrain from doing so.
Believing their own PR, the gay activists had come to present the media trumpeted line that aligned their plight to the liberation struggle and the discrimination of the past. It soon became clear that in the rural heartland of kwaZulu Natal, people were not willing to buy into this. Having endured the family and community destroying effects of apartheid they were not happy with another assault on the integrity of their homes.
The speaker repeatedly denigrated the use of scriptures, both from the local community and the people who had travelled in from Pietermaritzburg and Durban. He did not acknowledge that the matter before the assembly was that of a compromise of a holy religious union and therefore religious input was justified.
An order ruling was made that they were there to hear inputs and not answer questions, which was an insensitive way of dismissing the traditional Zulu manner of emphasising statements in the form of a rhetorical question: Statements such as “Why are you here?” “Why do you bring this foreign thing upon us?” “This is not an African thing, it is of the Umlungus (Foreigners)” soon brought me to a realization that the reason behind the changes of venue were probably not part of a sinister plot to evade the input of Evangelicals. The political career of the District Mayor had clearly taken a bad turn when he welcomed the strange foreign ideas of the government into this area. The speaker was trying to mitigate this effect. A Mayor from a place further into the cultural heartland, such as Ulundi, would have been committing political suicide if he entertained these proceedings.
Input from the gay people who had traveled a long way was limited to impassioned pleas for acceptance. The Christians heard them, the pain was evident, but healthy lifestyles, happy children and the union of marriage between a man and a woman as representative of God and His Church are also an important matter. Calls to “respect our choices” were at variance with the “It’s not an attitude, it’s the way I am” slogans on a vehicle outside.
The speaker queried the presence of one pro gay marriage person whose submission had evidently been heard in Soweto Gauteng Provincial hearings.
A woman rose to present the highly publicized case of a lesbian couple that had severely abused a child who had refused to address one of his custodians as Father. A follow up submission was presented by a frenzied woman who declared that lesbians will make better mothers. Showing a lack of control, that surely would not be conducive to good motherhood, she said “Give us the children and we will be better mothers, just give us the children, just give us children” Unrecorded comments in the crowd were translated as “No because you are ugly” and “But you will not make better fathers”
Michael Cassidy was there with his team as well as a good sprinkling of ACDP stalwarts from the area including Guy Solomon, Richard Savage and my stalwart friend Rev. Mfano Ndlovu. Mike Atkins took copious notes and his analysis was as well reasoned as usual and you may expect a separate document from him. I was reassured that our fellow members who were present made frank and honest statements from their personal viewpoint and this chairman did not need to intervene. I think that we came away with the impression that in the heartland of the nation, where people are trying to change the quality of their lifestyles without changing the wonderful character, the same sex message is not finding tenure. Family life is regaining prominence.
For the good people of the Zulu heartland, as in other areas, the options that are presented in the bill for registered domestic partnerships and non-registered domestic partnerships are what really represent a second class marriage to them. A father who respects the integrity of his daughter would not allow her to be trapped within the framework of the proposed system which offers them no security, and strangely hands custody of any offspring to the male parent …….. and thus gets into legal confusion with regard to the situation of same sex couples who somehow manage to have a child together. An upstanding father would likewise not be proud of a son who divested himself of his responsibilities by entering into one of these second class marriages.
I do not think that they are keen on the concept that a priest may refuse to bless a strange union, but only if he gets permission from a government minister first. (Assuming that he will have the secretariat to do this) There is a lot of “but if” and “notwithstanding” in this bill.
There was a great fashion show outside and the hearings were a great social event for the gays who retired to the verandah area for a more consensual debate among themselves, raising the tone of their voices when this 50 year old veteran of 25 years of marriage to an extremely loyal woman walked by. It seems that in rearing and fathering three natural children and one adoptive child I have earned the contempt being called a “Breeder” I guess that the young men had not really listened to the substance of the debate inside.
They are a forgiving people, the people of The Beloved Country, they forgave me for being part of an oppressive white system and they will forgive gay people for their problems, but they are clearly not willing to see their re-emergent society tinkered with. The fast tracking of the hearings and the hastily concocted laws means that things are moving a little too fast for them, as well as the rest of the nation. They just do not see it as a “Better life for all”
Oh and the Lunch of traditional Zulu steamed fresh chicken served by a local family of Zulu matrons was really enjoyed by one who hates the bland tasting battery reared fare of the city - Ngiyabonga Khakhulu.
There was a lot of confusion surrounding the date place and time, but following the confusion caused by badly publicised venue changes, our intrepid group of activists finally found the venue of the kwaZulu Natal public hearings into same sex marriage. It required the diligence of a Sherlock Holmes to pin it down after we were informed that the venue was the New Hanover Hall in Pietermaritzburg. It was actually at the Community Hall in New Hanover about 60 km out of PMB in a very rural area. The existence of a notice to the members of the KZN legislature informing them that the hearings were to be held in the parliament buildings in Pietermaritzburg the next day added to the confusion wrought earlier in the week when we were told that the hearings would be held in Ulundi.
The Gay activists were also able to penetrate the wall of confusion and found their way there in more than representative numbers......... although one gay group seemed to have had a bit of bother with their slogan emblazoned minibus which was conked out on the side of the road. This was understandable as the Gauteng provincial number plates indicated that it had travelled quite a long distance.
The hearings started late and the hall was packed to capacity when the meeting was opened by the local Mayor, resplendent in his chains, who declared the hearings to be part of the programme to "Bring Parliament to the People". The senior clerk then pronounced the venue to be a Parliamentary precinct and then explanations continued in Zulu. There were requests from non Zulu speakers for a translator, but they were informed that this would take too long. It is to be hoped that the members of the panel with non-Zulu names and surnames were able to understand the proceedings.
The first up to speak was a local Islamic cleric who gave a clear and scholarly presentation which was followed by a round of applause from the community. The speaker called for order and reprimanded the crowd saying that members do not applause in parliament, and he instructed the assembly to refrain from doing so.
Believing their own PR, the gay activists had come to present the media trumpeted line that aligned their plight to the liberation struggle and the discrimination of the past. It soon became clear that in the rural heartland of kwaZulu Natal, people were not willing to buy into this. Having endured the family and community destroying effects of apartheid they were not happy with another assault on the integrity of their homes.
The speaker repeatedly denigrated the use of scriptures, both from the local community and the people who had travelled in from Pietermaritzburg and Durban. He did not acknowledge that the matter before the assembly was that of a compromise of a holy religious union and therefore religious input was justified.
An order ruling was made that they were there to hear inputs and not answer questions, which was an insensitive way of dismissing the traditional Zulu manner of emphasising statements in the form of a rhetorical question: Statements such as “Why are you here?” “Why do you bring this foreign thing upon us?” “This is not an African thing, it is of the Umlungus (Foreigners)” soon brought me to a realization that the reason behind the changes of venue were probably not part of a sinister plot to evade the input of Evangelicals. The political career of the District Mayor had clearly taken a bad turn when he welcomed the strange foreign ideas of the government into this area. The speaker was trying to mitigate this effect. A Mayor from a place further into the cultural heartland, such as Ulundi, would have been committing political suicide if he entertained these proceedings.
Input from the gay people who had traveled a long way was limited to impassioned pleas for acceptance. The Christians heard them, the pain was evident, but healthy lifestyles, happy children and the union of marriage between a man and a woman as representative of God and His Church are also an important matter. Calls to “respect our choices” were at variance with the “It’s not an attitude, it’s the way I am” slogans on a vehicle outside.
The speaker queried the presence of one pro gay marriage person whose submission had evidently been heard in Soweto Gauteng Provincial hearings.
A woman rose to present the highly publicized case of a lesbian couple that had severely abused a child who had refused to address one of his custodians as Father. A follow up submission was presented by a frenzied woman who declared that lesbians will make better mothers. Showing a lack of control, that surely would not be conducive to good motherhood, she said “Give us the children and we will be better mothers, just give us the children, just give us children” Unrecorded comments in the crowd were translated as “No because you are ugly” and “But you will not make better fathers”
Michael Cassidy was there with his team as well as a good sprinkling of ACDP stalwarts from the area including Guy Solomon, Richard Savage and my stalwart friend Rev. Mfano Ndlovu. Mike Atkins took copious notes and his analysis was as well reasoned as usual and you may expect a separate document from him. I was reassured that our fellow members who were present made frank and honest statements from their personal viewpoint and this chairman did not need to intervene. I think that we came away with the impression that in the heartland of the nation, where people are trying to change the quality of their lifestyles without changing the wonderful character, the same sex message is not finding tenure. Family life is regaining prominence.
For the good people of the Zulu heartland, as in other areas, the options that are presented in the bill for registered domestic partnerships and non-registered domestic partnerships are what really represent a second class marriage to them. A father who respects the integrity of his daughter would not allow her to be trapped within the framework of the proposed system which offers them no security, and strangely hands custody of any offspring to the male parent …….. and thus gets into legal confusion with regard to the situation of same sex couples who somehow manage to have a child together. An upstanding father would likewise not be proud of a son who divested himself of his responsibilities by entering into one of these second class marriages.
I do not think that they are keen on the concept that a priest may refuse to bless a strange union, but only if he gets permission from a government minister first. (Assuming that he will have the secretariat to do this) There is a lot of “but if” and “notwithstanding” in this bill.
There was a great fashion show outside and the hearings were a great social event for the gays who retired to the verandah area for a more consensual debate among themselves, raising the tone of their voices when this 50 year old veteran of 25 years of marriage to an extremely loyal woman walked by. It seems that in rearing and fathering three natural children and one adoptive child I have earned the contempt being called a “Breeder” I guess that the young men had not really listened to the substance of the debate inside.
They are a forgiving people, the people of The Beloved Country, they forgave me for being part of an oppressive white system and they will forgive gay people for their problems, but they are clearly not willing to see their re-emergent society tinkered with. The fast tracking of the hearings and the hastily concocted laws means that things are moving a little too fast for them, as well as the rest of the nation. They just do not see it as a “Better life for all”
Oh and the Lunch of traditional Zulu steamed fresh chicken served by a local family of Zulu matrons was really enjoyed by one who hates the bland tasting battery reared fare of the city - Ngiyabonga Khakhulu.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
CALL TO SCRAP CIVIL UNIONS BILL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND START AGAIN
28 September 2006
CALL TO SCRAP CIVIL UNIONS BILL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND START AGAIN
Today 28 September 2006, Defend Marriage, a coalition of pro-marriage organisations, called on parliament to abandon the disastrously organised public hearings on the Civil Unions Bill and start again. Information for the location times and venues has in many cases only been available with 24 hours or less notice from the Committee Secretaries. Newspaper advertisements did not give specific venues or times. The times, venues and locations of many hearings have been changed at the last minute, sometimes even after the hearings were supposed to have started. Sometimes they were only finalised the day before the hearing took place. The organisers in many cases do not know the street address of the venues and referred people to the local municipalities to find out. The main method of advertising has been word of mouth, where interested organisations phone the parliamentary officials to update on changes and then phone or email to notify others.
In Polokwane, parliament was not ready for the hearing at 11:30 when the hearing was supposed to have commenced at 10am and the venue and time was moved to the local township to commence later that afternoon. Interested parties were only notified of the new venue that same afternoon. Hearings advertised for Ulundi and Upington have been cancelled. Interested parties who asked for information by the email address advertised have not been replied to. This email address is not being accessed while the officials are travelling for the hearings. The Pietermaritzburg hearing scheduled originally for Saturday 30th September has been moved to Friday 29th September, but most interested parties in Kwa-Zulu Natal do not yet know of the change. The parliamentary officials have not notified interested parties of the date and venue changes and cancellations even when asked to do so. Interested parties have had to phone repeatedly to keep up to date on changes. In Polokwane on 21st September, ChristianView Network requested new rescheduled public hearings and parliament agreed to do this on 6 October 06. Nevertheless, parliament has not yet been able to confirm the new venue. The disaster should not be blamed on parliamentary officials, since they were given unreasonable time frame to organise this and have never organised such provincial hearings before.
This poor advertising, venue and date changes unreasonably infringes on the rights of interested parties to have their voices heard. Many do not know about the opportunity or did not hear in time to schedule to be present. We believe it therefore does not comply with the Constitutional Court ruling of 17 August 2006 requiring provincial public participation.
‘Defend Marriage’ therefore calls on parliament to abandon the current disastrously organised public hearings and start again. To be fair, public notification should follow the standards accepted by the Department of Environment Affairs for environmental public meetings, with all venues and times properly advertised ten days in advance of the public meeting. It is suggested that parliament should employ professional public participation consultants to ensure the hearings are properly organised to comply with the Constitutional Court requirements. Parliament should ask the Constitutional Court for an extension of time to undertake the process in a reasonable time frame.
Despite this very poor advertising and organisation there has been enormous interest in attending the hearings and many leaders have changed their busy schedules to be present at only 24 hours notice. The best-attended hearing was Soweto on 20th September 06. Some organisations wanted to but could not attend hearings because they were not properly notified in advance.
The deadline for written submissions is 6th October 2006 by 16:30. Organisations should send your written submissions and requests to make oral submissions to dmartin@parliament.gov.za
‘Defend Marriage’ encourages interested parties to participate in these hearings despite the problems as we don’t have a guarantee that new hearings will be granted.
To add to the confusion, the name of the ‘Civil Unions Bill’ itself is misleading and most members of the public are unaware of its content. Firstly unlike ‘Civil Unions’ overseas, it essentially grants all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples and even allows the use of the word ‘marriage’ in the ceremony. Secondly, about half of the Bill deals with rights for opposite sex couples in the form of registered and unregistered ‘domestic partnerships’, which create a controversial marriage alternative and rights for unmarried couples. These rights compete with the rights of those in customary marriages, which is concerning Traditional leaders and religious communities using customary marriages. Most of the public is completely unaware of these additional radical social engineering proposals, which in themselves deserve extensive public consultation.
The latest information we have for the hearings is:
All provincial hearings from 10 am to 2 pm.
* Friday 29 September: Pietermaritzburg: New Hanover Hall, Next to welfare department, R33 Greytown Road.
* Monday 2nd October: Umtata: Umtata City Hall, Leeds Road, Umtata
* Wednesday 4th October: Phokeng in Rustenburg, Mose Kotane Municipality Chambers, Phokeng, Rustenburg.
* Thursday 5th October: Kimberly: Galeshiwe Civic Hall, Galeshewe, Kimberly.
* Friday 6 October: Polokwane (Venue not confirmed yet)
* Monday 9 October: Woodstock, Cape Town: Woodstock Town Hall
10 - 11 Oct - Parliament
12 - 13 Oct - Stakeholder public hearings - Parliament
16 - 19 Oct - Committee Deliberations
The above national hearings & deliberations in parliament take place 9:00
hrs to 16:00 hrs
20 October - vote in the Committee (9:00-13:00hrs)
After this, the National Council of Provinces needs to conduct their own process and it needs to be passed by both houses of parliament before 1st December 2006 in order to meet the deadline set by Judge Albie Sachs on 1st December 2005. ‘Defend Marriage’ says there is not enough time left to do this process properly to comply with the constitutional court ruling of 17 August 2006 and therefore, Home Affairs should request the Constitutional Court to grant an extension of time. The Constitutional Court has granted extensions of time for passing of other legislation in the past.
For more information, please contact: Ms Dineo Martin, (021) 403 3601; Fax (021) 403 2808;
dmartin@parliament.gov.za Cell:072 2312337 or Mr Mangke 072 1864205 to get
up to date information on exactly where and when the public hearings are
taking place. The above schedule could change at the last minute.
Mr Patrick Chauke, the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee Chairperson can be contacted at 073 827 5375
CALL TO SCRAP CIVIL UNIONS BILL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND START AGAIN
Today 28 September 2006, Defend Marriage, a coalition of pro-marriage organisations, called on parliament to abandon the disastrously organised public hearings on the Civil Unions Bill and start again. Information for the location times and venues has in many cases only been available with 24 hours or less notice from the Committee Secretaries. Newspaper advertisements did not give specific venues or times. The times, venues and locations of many hearings have been changed at the last minute, sometimes even after the hearings were supposed to have started. Sometimes they were only finalised the day before the hearing took place. The organisers in many cases do not know the street address of the venues and referred people to the local municipalities to find out. The main method of advertising has been word of mouth, where interested organisations phone the parliamentary officials to update on changes and then phone or email to notify others.
In Polokwane, parliament was not ready for the hearing at 11:30 when the hearing was supposed to have commenced at 10am and the venue and time was moved to the local township to commence later that afternoon. Interested parties were only notified of the new venue that same afternoon. Hearings advertised for Ulundi and Upington have been cancelled. Interested parties who asked for information by the email address advertised have not been replied to. This email address is not being accessed while the officials are travelling for the hearings. The Pietermaritzburg hearing scheduled originally for Saturday 30th September has been moved to Friday 29th September, but most interested parties in Kwa-Zulu Natal do not yet know of the change. The parliamentary officials have not notified interested parties of the date and venue changes and cancellations even when asked to do so. Interested parties have had to phone repeatedly to keep up to date on changes. In Polokwane on 21st September, ChristianView Network requested new rescheduled public hearings and parliament agreed to do this on 6 October 06. Nevertheless, parliament has not yet been able to confirm the new venue. The disaster should not be blamed on parliamentary officials, since they were given unreasonable time frame to organise this and have never organised such provincial hearings before.
This poor advertising, venue and date changes unreasonably infringes on the rights of interested parties to have their voices heard. Many do not know about the opportunity or did not hear in time to schedule to be present. We believe it therefore does not comply with the Constitutional Court ruling of 17 August 2006 requiring provincial public participation.
‘Defend Marriage’ therefore calls on parliament to abandon the current disastrously organised public hearings and start again. To be fair, public notification should follow the standards accepted by the Department of Environment Affairs for environmental public meetings, with all venues and times properly advertised ten days in advance of the public meeting. It is suggested that parliament should employ professional public participation consultants to ensure the hearings are properly organised to comply with the Constitutional Court requirements. Parliament should ask the Constitutional Court for an extension of time to undertake the process in a reasonable time frame.
Despite this very poor advertising and organisation there has been enormous interest in attending the hearings and many leaders have changed their busy schedules to be present at only 24 hours notice. The best-attended hearing was Soweto on 20th September 06. Some organisations wanted to but could not attend hearings because they were not properly notified in advance.
The deadline for written submissions is 6th October 2006 by 16:30. Organisations should send your written submissions and requests to make oral submissions to dmartin@parliament.gov.za
‘Defend Marriage’ encourages interested parties to participate in these hearings despite the problems as we don’t have a guarantee that new hearings will be granted.
To add to the confusion, the name of the ‘Civil Unions Bill’ itself is misleading and most members of the public are unaware of its content. Firstly unlike ‘Civil Unions’ overseas, it essentially grants all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples and even allows the use of the word ‘marriage’ in the ceremony. Secondly, about half of the Bill deals with rights for opposite sex couples in the form of registered and unregistered ‘domestic partnerships’, which create a controversial marriage alternative and rights for unmarried couples. These rights compete with the rights of those in customary marriages, which is concerning Traditional leaders and religious communities using customary marriages. Most of the public is completely unaware of these additional radical social engineering proposals, which in themselves deserve extensive public consultation.
The latest information we have for the hearings is:
All provincial hearings from 10 am to 2 pm.
* Friday 29 September: Pietermaritzburg: New Hanover Hall, Next to welfare department, R33 Greytown Road.
* Monday 2nd October: Umtata: Umtata City Hall, Leeds Road, Umtata
* Wednesday 4th October: Phokeng in Rustenburg, Mose Kotane Municipality Chambers, Phokeng, Rustenburg.
* Thursday 5th October: Kimberly: Galeshiwe Civic Hall, Galeshewe, Kimberly.
* Friday 6 October: Polokwane (Venue not confirmed yet)
* Monday 9 October: Woodstock, Cape Town: Woodstock Town Hall
10 - 11 Oct - Parliament
12 - 13 Oct - Stakeholder public hearings - Parliament
16 - 19 Oct - Committee Deliberations
The above national hearings & deliberations in parliament take place 9:00
hrs to 16:00 hrs
20 October - vote in the Committee (9:00-13:00hrs)
After this, the National Council of Provinces needs to conduct their own process and it needs to be passed by both houses of parliament before 1st December 2006 in order to meet the deadline set by Judge Albie Sachs on 1st December 2005. ‘Defend Marriage’ says there is not enough time left to do this process properly to comply with the constitutional court ruling of 17 August 2006 and therefore, Home Affairs should request the Constitutional Court to grant an extension of time. The Constitutional Court has granted extensions of time for passing of other legislation in the past.
For more information, please contact: Ms Dineo Martin, (021) 403 3601; Fax (021) 403 2808;
dmartin@parliament.gov.za Cell:072 2312337 or Mr Mangke 072 1864205 to get
up to date information on exactly where and when the public hearings are
taking place. The above schedule could change at the last minute.
Mr Patrick Chauke, the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee Chairperson can be contacted at 073 827 5375
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)