Michael Osborne says:November 1, 2010 at 22:42 pmHey Michael,My views about Fagan, however, rmneias as I have said until there are compelling reasons to change (for example if he acknowledges that he was wrong).Nevertheless I agree with you, in the main, that engaging over Fagan's antics detracts from the essence of the debates which are or ought to be about the SAHRC and its findings, the assault (ad homein attacks as you call those) on the character of the commissioners, the failure of government to deliver effective (and legally compliant) services and host of other political and social issues in South Africa, mostly from the perspective of Constitutional Law.
Comments 1
Mami
December 8, 2012Michael Osborne says:November 1, 2010 at 22:42 pmHey Michael,My views about Fagan, however, rmneias as I have said until there are compelling reasons to change (for example if he acknowledges that he was wrong).Nevertheless I agree with you, in the main, that engaging over Fagan's antics detracts from the essence of the debates which are or ought to be about the SAHRC and its findings, the assault (ad homein attacks as you call those) on the character of the commissioners, the failure of government to deliver effective (and legally compliant) services and host of other political and social issues in South Africa, mostly from the perspective of Constitutional Law.