Hacker News Reader

Comment by shswkna | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Please make your substantive points without crossing into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The trick here, for the uninitiated, is that “race-based law” or “race law” means the law refers in some way to race. That is legally and logically distinct from “laws that discriminate on the basis of race,” which is how most foreigners read the term.

Here’s a more reasonable point of view: https://cthulhucachoo.substack.com/p/does-south-africa-reall...

[flagged]

You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. Can you please not do that? We're trying for a different sort of internet forum here, not the kind where people bash each other for being wrong and/or bad.

If you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are, we'd appreciate it.

What does "historically disadvantaged communities and persons" mean in ZA? Any racial bias present in this phrase, which is apparently in multiple laws?

I just started looking and, for example, when issuing licences to extract water, the authorities must, in accordance with the law, "consider [...] the need to redress the results of past racial and gender discrimination". Why would a water licence need such a consideration, and is it discriminatory in ZA's context?

In your example, because many businesses (majority white owned) have riparian rights and those who live on the land need equal access despite being historically disadvantaged from gaining access to said water rights.

I understand the concept of "riparian rights", but I fail to see how gov't entities who issue water licences (or any government service, for that matter) would need to "consider [...] the need to redress the results of past racial and gender discrimination".

I'm trying to apply that logic to any of my gov't services, and it would be outrageous to have any random thing responsible with redressing past racial discrimination, water rights, maternity rights, access to public information, literally any government service. It couldn't possibly be in their purview to take such a thing into consideration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com