What if...

A "workshop" which changed my life as an attorney and protagonist of peace...:

 I published this blogpost on my personal blog as well but purely for this blog, I have included this interesting thought experiment:

 What if all legal professionals were given a suggested way of thinking, which paradoxically ended up proving them wrong, but which also would lead to more productive, efficient, positive, and spiritual representation of people / communities / interests / groups?

 Now, what if our judges, magistrates, court staff, and drafters of legislation were given a means to change their lives as well as the lives of all those people over whom their legislative means operates?

 Is it so impossible to imagine a world where all legal professionals do not impose on the public their own beliefs / opinions / attitudes (which on their own are derived from their past experience)? This perpetuates the negativity that this world is trying to eradicate. This goes further: the legislators themselves perpetuate their own beliefs / opinions / attitudes when enacting law!

 What if we have a society which acts only on consciousness and not on past experience of fear, anger, rejection, etc. Would it not also create a world worth raising our children in, and to soon expect them (as leaders) to perpetuate positivity?

 Now THAT would be an "Ah-Ha!" moment...

 Please read my blog on TURNING POINT to read further about this...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can the Hague Convention help me see my child?

The ever-present problem of child abduction persists in many countries. “Abductions” has a wide meaning in terms of Child Law to include keeping a child away in another country from a parent who has rights to see his/her child. South Africa became a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction on 1 October 1997 (“the Convention”). Prior to the Convention, even if a parent had a court-ordered right to a child, it was exceptionally difficult to enforce that right outside of the Country which granted the order, being it of ‘access’ or ‘custody.’ The major limitation with respect to the Convention is that it is only applicable to countries who are signatories to it and whom therefore have an obligation to ratify the Convention into its own law. These countries are called “Contracting States.” This means that each country that agreed to abide by the Convention must create its own ‘local’ laws to give effect to the Convention, so that their o...
Read more

The Frustrations of Interim Orders

In my very short-lived but extensive experience of the Maintenance Courts, Gauteng, I have sadly become disappointed with what has recently transpired. Magistrates and Maintenance Officers from certain jurisdictions have taken an antagonistic approach towards "Interim Orders" and "Provisional Orders" for maintenance of a child pending finalisaton of those proceedings. This problem arose as a result of the Pents v Ilsley judgment out of the South Gauteng High Court where the Randburg Maintenance Court (and thus any other court following the same procedure) was penalised for issuing Subpoenas to Respondents for their " First Appearance " at court. This " First Appearance " is an informal inquiry before a Maintenance Officer in terms of Section 6 of the Maintenance Act. In terms of the Regulations to the Act, this process is indeed the incorrect procedure. The nature of a Subpoena in terms of the Act is for the the purposes of calling upon the...
Read more

Breather for Creditors; Beware for Debtors

Commercial debtors and creditors (veteran and inexperienced) are generally aware of the Golden Rule when it comes to debt collection. It is a very old yet deadly rule; it would appear, however, that creditors and debtors alike appear to have limited understanding of this rule in the practical sphere. The Golden Rule : As a general rule, Section 11(d) of the Prescription Act, 68 of 1969 declares that if a debt is owed by person A ( the debtor ) to person B ( the creditor ), and unless person A is a State entity, person B is granted a period of three years from due date to claim the debt from person A in a Court of competent jurisdiction before the debt shall be deemed to have become legally extinguished. It is essential that creditors and debtors alike are aware of this Rule. For the creditor, it indicates the time allowed to enforce its rights to claim the said amount from the debtor. For the Debtor, it indicates whether or not there is a valid defence against a debt wh...
Read more