Tweet
This might be an interesting forum to put this story into, but to an extent it comes down to the selective application of existing legislation.
This story in M&G online sets the background.
And I'm going "Hold on. Am I reading that right".
The Gatherings Act has been in place for some time. Part of the principle of being able to gather/march is that organisers are responsible for malicious damage caused by the gathered mass. Could it be true that this area of responsibility has been ignored for all these years?
This story in M&G online sets the background.
The South African Transport and Allied Workers' Union (Satawu) will oppose any attempt by the City of Cape Town to sue it for damages caused in a march that turned violent in May, the union said on Wednesday.
However, it had yet to received any summons or letter of demand, said Satawu spokesperson Ronnie Mamba.
" ... Our position is and has always been that when they do sue, we will oppose it."
Satawu was reacting to a report on Tuesday that 248 people had reported personal injuries and damage totalling R1,15-million as a result of the May 16 rampage.
--and--
The Gatherings Act gives claimants three years to bring action. Until now, no one has tested this legislation.
However, it had yet to received any summons or letter of demand, said Satawu spokesperson Ronnie Mamba.
" ... Our position is and has always been that when they do sue, we will oppose it."
Satawu was reacting to a report on Tuesday that 248 people had reported personal injuries and damage totalling R1,15-million as a result of the May 16 rampage.
--and--
The Gatherings Act gives claimants three years to bring action. Until now, no one has tested this legislation.
The Gatherings Act has been in place for some time. Part of the principle of being able to gather/march is that organisers are responsible for malicious damage caused by the gathered mass. Could it be true that this area of responsibility has been ignored for all these years?