Huis van wanorde
Ons parlement, in besonder die Nasionale Vergadering, is vir geruime tyd al nie bekend vir die kwaliteit en intellek van debat nie.
Daar is natuurlik uitsonderings.
Met die toetrede van jonger, radikale lede tot die huis het onderonsies vanjaar in tempo en die graad van venynigheid toegeneem.
Die vraag is – en ook álle agbare lede moet die hand hieroor in eie besoem steek: Is ons tevrede met die weerspieëling van ons politiek, nasionale huishouding en gemeenskappe op voetsoolvlak? Hierdie huis is groter as die Swapo-konstruksie van Harambee.
Ons behoort nie die Suid-Afrikaanse parlement as voorbeeld na te streef nie. Vir hekel, satire en selfs vurige teenstand moet daar altyd plek in gesonde debat wees. Maar iewers moet ‘n streep getrek word.
Voetseks, stampgevegte oor maskers en spoeg, aansporings tot xenofobie en persoonlike belastering het dalk kortstondige, onthutsende en komiese waarde, maar so ‘n kultuur voorspel ‘n ramp vir alle Namibiërs.
Is ons huis een van tweespalt – bloot om stryd se eie onthalwe? ‘n Huis van onvergenoedge woede, haatspraak en belediging?
Jonger geslagte het dalk ‘n ander siening oor parlementêre fatsoenlikheid. Die redes hiervoor is opsigself goeie rede vir selfondersoek.
Uitlokking is nie noodwendig ‘n verskoning nie. Bygesê: ons kan doen met absolute streng objektiwiteit in die Speakerstoel.
Om tot dieselfde vlak as die Swapo-stoomroller te daal, is weens getalle gedoem. Ons land benodig praktiese, goed deurdagte en welbewoorde alternatiewe.
So sê ander
30 Junie 2020
What the ruling on abortion is – and isn’t
In a narrow ruling, the Supreme Court rejected another of the relentless challenges from states seeking to limit access to abortion by making it more difficult for doctors and clinics to provide the service.
With Chief Justice John Roberts providing the deciding vote, the court refused to overturn a sweeping 2016 ruling on an identical Texas law requiring doctors to have hospital admitting privileges. That opinion came before Donald Trump was elected president.
After abortion foes lost in the courts on waiting periods and spousal consent, their tactics shifted to regulatory roadblocks.
If justices could so quickly dismiss precedent, the court’s reputation as a principled arbitrator would be severely damaged.
The slim margins, however, show how fragile abortion rights might be. There are at least a dozen challenging cases working their way through the courts, and the winner of the 2020 election is expected to have several court vacancies to fill. That’s why Trump, who claims he made the court more conservative, is seeking to shore up support with his evangelical base by promising to soon release a list of potential nominees for his second term.
For now, this is mostly a win not for either side in the abortion wars, but for the view that the court as an institution can refuse to bend to political will.
• NEWSDAY
Daar is natuurlik uitsonderings.
Met die toetrede van jonger, radikale lede tot die huis het onderonsies vanjaar in tempo en die graad van venynigheid toegeneem.
Die vraag is – en ook álle agbare lede moet die hand hieroor in eie besoem steek: Is ons tevrede met die weerspieëling van ons politiek, nasionale huishouding en gemeenskappe op voetsoolvlak? Hierdie huis is groter as die Swapo-konstruksie van Harambee.
Ons behoort nie die Suid-Afrikaanse parlement as voorbeeld na te streef nie. Vir hekel, satire en selfs vurige teenstand moet daar altyd plek in gesonde debat wees. Maar iewers moet ‘n streep getrek word.
Voetseks, stampgevegte oor maskers en spoeg, aansporings tot xenofobie en persoonlike belastering het dalk kortstondige, onthutsende en komiese waarde, maar so ‘n kultuur voorspel ‘n ramp vir alle Namibiërs.
Is ons huis een van tweespalt – bloot om stryd se eie onthalwe? ‘n Huis van onvergenoedge woede, haatspraak en belediging?
Jonger geslagte het dalk ‘n ander siening oor parlementêre fatsoenlikheid. Die redes hiervoor is opsigself goeie rede vir selfondersoek.
Uitlokking is nie noodwendig ‘n verskoning nie. Bygesê: ons kan doen met absolute streng objektiwiteit in die Speakerstoel.
Om tot dieselfde vlak as die Swapo-stoomroller te daal, is weens getalle gedoem. Ons land benodig praktiese, goed deurdagte en welbewoorde alternatiewe.
So sê ander
30 Junie 2020
What the ruling on abortion is – and isn’t
In a narrow ruling, the Supreme Court rejected another of the relentless challenges from states seeking to limit access to abortion by making it more difficult for doctors and clinics to provide the service.
With Chief Justice John Roberts providing the deciding vote, the court refused to overturn a sweeping 2016 ruling on an identical Texas law requiring doctors to have hospital admitting privileges. That opinion came before Donald Trump was elected president.
After abortion foes lost in the courts on waiting periods and spousal consent, their tactics shifted to regulatory roadblocks.
If justices could so quickly dismiss precedent, the court’s reputation as a principled arbitrator would be severely damaged.
The slim margins, however, show how fragile abortion rights might be. There are at least a dozen challenging cases working their way through the courts, and the winner of the 2020 election is expected to have several court vacancies to fill. That’s why Trump, who claims he made the court more conservative, is seeking to shore up support with his evangelical base by promising to soon release a list of potential nominees for his second term.
For now, this is mostly a win not for either side in the abortion wars, but for the view that the court as an institution can refuse to bend to political will.
• NEWSDAY
Kommentaar
Republikein
Geen kommentaar is op hierdie artikel gelaat nie