The Western Cape Provincial Government has submitted an application to have the land rezoned from Community Open Space and Open Space to General Business 6. This would allow for general business activity, such as restaurants, shops and office spaces in tall buildings. In terms of spatial planning and land use law (any building or development must take place in-line with these laws), the City of Cape Town, is the authority that must either: • Accept the application • Reject the application • Accept the application with conditions attached. Furthermore, there are a number of things that are wrong with the proposed development, namely: 1. Little public benefit The proposed development prioritises the economic value of the land over its social value. As a result, the proposed plan paves the way for the site to be privatised with very little public benefit. The Provincial government is treating this prime piece of public land just like a for-profit private developer would. 2. A step backwards The regional hospital is moving from the site and will be replaced by a small community day clinic (2500m² in size). This represents a significant step backwards in terms of the public benefit that Provincial government’s most expensive piece of land will provide. 3. The plan is vague The plan does not give enough detail, which means that the City will not be able to understand the full impact that the development would have. 4. Too little affordable housing The plan says that it will include ‘at least 300 affordable housing apartments’. Research by local and international experts found that the Tafelberg site in Sea Point could fit 316 affordable apartments together with 120 market-rate apartments. The Tafelberg site is six times smaller than the Somerset Hospital Precinct, which shows that the development proposal is not serious about providing a decent amount of affordable housing The other big problem is that affordable housing is not defined. Who will it be affordable for? At the end of the day much more housing can go onto the site – this is not realising the full potential of the site for poor and working class people. 5. Broken promises Helen Zille and her Cabinet ‘promised’ that the land would be released on the specific basis that as much affordable housing as possible must be included. 6. Business as usual Since the beginning of democracy there hasn’t been a single subsidised housing unit created in Cape Town’s inner city and surrounds. Cape Town’s spatial apartheid remains unchanged. The Somerset Hospital is perhaps the most important piece of publicly owned land for addressing spatial apartheid in Cape Town’s inner city, and this decision will have enormous impacts on South Africans for generations to come. This development proposal shows that Helen Zille’s government remains uncommitted to achieving spatial justice in Cape Town and that it has been captured by a style of exclusive property development for the rich. The main idea of the development is to generate funds from the site to pay for social amenities ‘elsewhere’. This approach to the development of well-located public land ensures that ownership, occupation and use of central city land remains only in the hands of the rich. This corrupted approach entrenches spatial apartheid and contradicts provincial Government’s own policies. 7. Zille’s Rogue Department of Transport of Public Works The applicant is the Western Cape Government’s Department of Transport & Public Works, through the Regeneration Programme – a programme aimed at developing strategic pieces of Provincially owned land. Despite spending millions of Rands on consultants and repeated studies, the programme has still not broken ground on a single site since it was established 7 years ago. This is the same government department that has to date never handed over any Provincially owned land to the Department of Human Settlements. This is the same programme that attempted to unlawfully sell the Tafelberg property in Sea Point, even though the Department of Human Settlements requested the site to develop affordable housing. Tafelberg was sold to help pay for a R1,2 billion office block for Provincial government. This is the same programme where Gary Fisher was both a senior public official responsible for land disposal and a private property investor and developer. Despite these serious conflicts of interest, there has still been no investigation. 8. De Lille rolls out red carpet for spatially violent developments By law, the City of Cape Town must consider the principle of spatial justice. The City can place conditions that have to do with to the social impact of any development – whether on public or private land. The Mayor, Patricia de Lille can require any development to include some affordable housing. However, she has never used this power before because she believes land is for profit not for people!

The South African Schools Act says that the governing body of a public school must determine the admission policy of that school. While this is the case, schools still turn away learners due to their disabilities and special needs [1]. The Act further says that no learner should be put on the waiting list; their names are supposed to be placed on a central database if schools cannot accommodate them. It also states that all children between the ages of 5 and 15 have to go to school, this includes children with disabilities and special needs. The Constitution, the National Development Plan, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the Incheon Declaration of the World Education Forum all confirm that the state has a commitment to provide schooling for children with disabilities. The Department of Basic Education needs to ensure that the Act is adhered to, and that governing bodies do not violate the children's rights to an inclusive and special education. [1] Disabled and out of school, Stephanie Kelly for Groundup News. 13 June 2016.

The proclamation, which has been ready since May, will enable the interim board to begin to unpack the extent of fraud, irregularities, and wasteful, fruitless expenditure at the SABC. The SIU investigation is a critical component in the process of restoring the SABC, holding wrongdoers accountable and recovering monies due to the public broadcaster. According to the ad hoc committee report [1] on the inquiry of the SABC released in February this year, the SABC has deviated from its mandate as the public broadcaster. During his tenure as the SABC’s GCOO, Hlaudi Motsoeneng flouted several governance rules, codes and laws, including judgments from the courts and ICASA. Hlaudi’s mismanagement and abuse of power has resulted in a public broadcaster that is financially unsustainable and has compromised the editorial integrity of the SABC. Furthermore, in 2013 the SABC and MultiChoice signed a R533m contract to give the pay-TV company the right to air two of the public broadcaster’s channels. In December 2016, it was revealed that, after the deal was contract in 2014, the SABC’s Hlaudi Motsoeneng scored an alleged R33m bonus, R11.4m of which he has already been paid [2]. As it stands, the interim board only has two months left before the end of its tenure, and this SIU investigation is central to the work that it has been commissioned to do. It is unacceptable that at this stage in the process, the President still hasn’t signed the proclamation. The need for a reliable and accurate public broadcaster cannot be overstated in a country like South Africa, where a substantial number of people receive their information primarily through the broadcast media. This means that broadcast news may be the only media which is accessible for the majority of South Africans. A dysfunctional SABC, therefore, prevents us from truly protecting and enhancing the fundamental rights of all citizens to freedom of information. * http://www.soscoalition.org.za/media-release-mr-president-just-sign-the-proclamation/ [1] https://pmg.org.za/page/https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/2898?via=homepage-feature-card [2] SABC, Multichoice deal must be probed - leaked Parliamentary inquiry document, Thulani Gqirana for News24. 18 January 2017.

South African Breweries recently launched a ‘Beers for Africa 8‐pack’ campaign to raise money in support of an NGO called Stop Hunger Now SA. They claim that the money will be used to help food‐challenged students. Helping the students is a welcome initiative. However, the way they are raising the money is a problem. SAB/AB InBev are encouraging people to buy their 8‐packs, which contain beers from six different Southern African countries, with the message that: "the more beer you buy, the more money we give to hungry students". This marketing campaign is first and foremost in the commercial interests of SA Breweries (AB InBev) and should not be supported. It is unethical to make a link between buying alcohol and feeding children. It also promotes an existing problem by encouraging people to drink more when we already have a drinking problems in the Southern African region. Help us – the Southern African Alcohol Policy Alliance (SAAPA) – to stop SAB/AB Inbev from using poverty and hunger to promote their ‘Beers for Africa 8‐pack’ sales.

A basic income grant will provide families with assistance to send their children and young girls to school, access to opportunities that will end generational poverty traps, increase basic education as a priority and achieve greater gender equality. The introduction of a universal cash transfer, predominantly funded through extractive industries, will be a remarkable stride towards poverty eradication, reduced inequalities among Africans, equal economic participation and overall African unity.  The SADC BIG amount will be US$15 per person, per month on introduction and should be inflation indexed. A functioning social protection system that embeds basic income as a fundamental human right to the benefit of all who reside on the continent should not be reduced to hand-outs to the poor, but rather conceptualised and accepted as a developmental policy mechanism to promote economic justice, reduce poverty and inequality and stimulate human and economic integration, as well as harness social cohesion across our porous regional borders. Examples of social grants in countries such as Namibia, South Africa and Malawi have shown the importance of alternative social protection initiatives such a SADC Basic Income Grant (BIG) to tackle poverty.  The SADC BIG Coalition shares a common vision to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality in SADC and promote the roll out of social protection in the region in accordance with the SADC Social Charter. This will enable the continent’s poorest households to better meet their basic needs through providing everyone with a minimum level of income thus affirming and supporting the inherent dignity for all.

The MPRDA of 2002, even though it was later amended, still does not afford any opportunity for consultation with and consent by communities as prescribed in Free Prior and Informed Consent(FPIC). This infringes on the rights of communities to influence decisions about old and new mining in their areas. It contains limited rights on community consultations (It only addressed mitigation of environmental impacts). Communities are still not given space to negotiate the contents of the old and new rights. The MPRDA of 2002 also separates the surface rights from the mineral rights, and converted old order rights of mining companies to mine on communal land to new ones without consulting communities to listen to their views. The Act states that the conversion is automatically granted for as long as the company can show that it has a Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) partner and that the Municipality has agreed to a social labour plan providing for housing and local economic development plans. Once this has been checked, new mining can happen without any consent by the community. All that is required under section 5(a) is a 21 days written notice before mining commences. This cannot be right.

The Constitution recognises the informal or customary rights of people living in the former homelands yet the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has failed to legislate a communal land rights law that will strengthen and protect these rights. As a result; * Big cooperates are grabbing land in the communal land without any compensation for loss citing development. * Nature of individuals and family rights within a broader community are not clarified, and overshadowed by majority in the community. * People are not adequately compensated when land is sold or awarded for big developments * Consultation and Consent of land occupiers is not respected because of the weak nature of the rights provided by current law. In 1996, Parliament passed the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPILRA) to provide protection for all people living on communal land in the former Bantustans, people living on trust land, people who previously had Permissions to Occupy (PTOs) and anyone living on land uninterrupted since 1997 “as if they were the owner”. This was a big milestone in the protection and recognition of customary land rights and the empowerment of families to be part of bargaining and negotiations of any socio-economic development happening in their land. Although people are protected by IPILRA, the fact that it is temporary and can be renewed annually, deprives people of their rights to say NO to development that disadvantages them. This makes it easy for "developers" or Government to easily expropriate the land. It is also worth noting that the law also states that the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform can make regulations in terms of IPILRA to provide more detailed processes and procedures.

Any law that seeks to facilitate recognition of previously marginalised group or any development of land belonging to the people must ensure that community consultation and consent is at the centre. The TKLB closes down that space and excludes ordinary people from being consulted and give consent on decisions that will affect their lives. There needs to be meaningful public participation. As it stands, the TKLB only highlights consultations with high profile structures such as the House of Traditional Leaders, royal families and traditional councils and there is no mention of rural citizens who are land buyers and customary land rights users. The TKLB supports rural elites' access to wealth and resources. It does not put in place mechanisms that holds leaders accountable to their people. The discovery of mineral wealth in the land that was once considered dry and not productive has brought about disputes where people’s peace is disrupted by big mining companies, and when people react they are suppressed and criminalized.

If Parliament can pay its security personnel, popularly known as 'bouncers', can be paid danger allowance [1] then nurses working psychiatric patients and other public servants can be paid the same.  If the government paid its employees well then maybe the attitudes of those employees would drastically change when they deal with members of the public. Presently, in the ongoing strike by mortuary workers, danger pay has once again been one of the demands made [2].  Danger pay was first introduced during the 1999 wage negotiations for state employees such as traffic inspectors, prison warders and social workers. [1] EFF rejects danger pay for Parliamentary bouncers, Mxolisi Mngadi for News24. 7 May 2017. [2] Agreement to end mortuary strike on the cards, eNCA. 21 June 2017.

Racism should not be tolerated, ever. There is no excuse. Real and permanent changes must be made. Read more about the incident here: https://www.thedailyvox.co.za/racism-thrives-at-pietermaritzburg-girls-high-school-ndapwa-alweendo/

"Work it out..”, according to sources, this is what the police said to Karabo Mokoena who had opened a case of assault against her boyfriend [1]. One month later, she went missing and was found dead allegedly at the hands of the very same man. Like many other women and children, the institutions meant to protect Karabo effectively sent her to her death. Everyday women are killed, raped and brutalised, not by monsters, but the men with whom we share our beds, homes, workplaces, churches and streets. The men in our daily spaces. Across the country, thousands are raising their voices in outrage, saying this has to come to an end. Right now we have a real shot to take our collective outrage and call for Minister Shabangu to commit to the development of a National Strategic Plan on Gender Based Violence. Karabo Mokoena, Lerato Moloi, Bongeka Phungula and Popi Qwabe are just of few of the many who have been murdered in 2017 so far. We are tired of being killed, maimed and brutalised at the hands of men. We call for an end to this senseless violence unleashed on women’s bodies. We want effective justice now! Let's stand together and call for Minister Dlamini to commit to a National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence (GBV). No more women must die on our watch. Violence against women has always been a serious problem in Mzansi. Recently there has been more coverage of gruesome rapes and murders everywhere in our country. From 3-year-old Courtney Pieters [2], who was raped and murdered by a family friend and tenant earlier this month, to the rape of elderly women in Willowvale [3] and recently the rape of Tambai Moloi, a lesbian from Soweto [4], it is clear that all women are at risk and it is a matter of "when" not "whether" it will happen. These cases, and the many more that occur each year, show that we are still a very long way from eradicating GBV in South Africa. This calls for everyone to stand together and demand that the Department of Women commit to a National Strategic Plan on GBV now.  [1] https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/news/2017-05-14-horrific-details-of-karabo-mokoenas-gruesome-murder-emerge/ [2] http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/courtney-pieters-was-raped-twice-before-being-murdered-court-hears-20170517 [3] http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/eastern-cape-man-20-arrested-for-rape-of-woman-76-20170108 [4] http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2017/05/18/lerato-was-killed-by-people-she-knew-it-was-a-hate-crime The following organisations are part of the campaign as of August 2016: Sonke Gender Justice MOSAIC Amnesty International South Africa Centre for Sexuality AIDS and Gender People Opposing Women Abuse South African Care Workers Forum New World Foundation Access Chapter 2 Love 167 Thando Care Service and Development Centre Justice and Women TB/HIV Care Association Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Taskforce Centre for Human Rights Medecins Sans Frontieres South Africa Thohoyandou Victim Empowerment Programme Treatment Action Campaign Trauma Centre for Survivors of Violence and Torture World AIDS Campaign International Sekwele Centre for Social Reflection Greater Rape Intervention Programme People Against Suffering Oppression and Poverty Gender Links Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation Women’s Legal Centre Pietermaritzburg Agency for Social Community Action Grassroot Soccer Gender, Health & Justice Research Unit South African Faith and Family Institute Tears Foundation Rape Crisis Cape Town Trust Sun of Joy Foundation Rock Girl Soul City NACOSA amandla.mobi

Enviroserv has been in the news a lot lately for their toxic waste landfill site, which has angered the residents of Shongweni. But Enviroserv’s crimes are not only limited to those in the current new cycle. They have been polluting in black communities, such as Ntshongweni, Dassenhoek, KwaNdengezi, Buxfarm and Cliffdale, for over 15 years and have left struggling communities with a mountain of health issues including; headaches, fatigue and nose bleeds. There is has been no science-specific research that measures the long term impacts of Enviroserv’s pollution and the health issues experienced by communities. A targeted surveillance system that maps out the social, health and environmental impacts created by hazardous waste needs to be developed to avoid far more serious health issues like cancer in the future. Enviroserv’s legal appeal process that is challenging DEA’s decision to suspend their operations license, sends a clear message that Enviroserv thinks our lives are cheap and that profit matters more to them then our health, environment and quality of life. EnviroServ is ignoring our constitutional rights and the increased incidence of illnesses apparently related to the foul odour, not to mention the psychological effects living in the stench of a toxic landfill is having on us. By refusing to tell us what is going into the landfill and what its possible toxic effects on humans are, you are only serving to increase our fear that the health effects are being caused by the hazardous, ineffectively or untreated waste being accepted at the landfill.