What am I missing?

I think I am losing my mind. There are two stories in the media which completely befuddles me. I am not even sure if they are stories worth telling in the first place (well, maybe as snippets) let alone the analysis and the interviews that I now have to be bombarded with.

The first is the analysis of whether soldiers may or may not belong to a union or participate in a strike or protest. Well, now that you have heard hours worth of debate on this issue, allow me to remind you of what our law provides. Contrary to popular belief, the law is fairly straightforward on this issue. Firstly, the right to belong to a union and to strike and to protest and so on, is conferred on every employee by our constitution. Secondly, this right is then regulated and protected under the Labour Relations Act. So, if you are an employee, you will be protected by the LRA from all manner of evil often visited upon employees by employers; one such evil is the denial of the right to form and belong to a trade union. Now how do you know if you are an employee? This is no simple matter. Well, thankfully the LRA tells us what an employee is. So, if according to the LRA you are an employee then you will be protected from the evils of the capitalists.

Now, here is the thing: the LRA specifically states that "This Act does not apply to members of the National Defence Force". This I would have thought is the end of the matter. Apparently not because for the last two days I have heard all manner of arguments of how the soldiers in question were peacefully exercising their rights. Rights they of course do not have, but hey let's not get technical.

So I ask, what am I missing?

The second story is about a certain Mr Huntley. Well, it is a nice story of how creative this oke from Mowbray can be and don't forget to credit the immigration lawyer that represented him. But, similar to the marching (striking) soldiers, everyone (including me) is throwing their five cents' worth of wood into the fire. Now we have a bonfire building up nicely and in the classic SA style, the lines are once again drawn. Here is the thing, Mr Huntley, ably represented (I guess) told the Canadian authorities a story that entitles him to refugee status. The authorities believed him and granted him protection as a refugee that has fled persecution from back home. I have no idea what test (if any) did the authorities apply but that doesn't matter, it is their test, their country, their laws.

So I ask once again, what is there to analyse?

Nothing; this is fairly straightforward: the Canadian authorities believe that white South Africans on the basis of being white stand to be persecuted by black South Africans. And of course they are doing their bit to help.