Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Kenneth Clarke, "This bill is solely about asserting a fact to be a fact, regardless of any evidence, and regardless of the fact that the supreme court judges, five of them, unanimously considered that evidence and came to the conclusion that Rwanda is not a safe country" "It's no... good blaming the Human Rights Act. I do not believe it would be in any way probable that the British courts would reach any other conclusion" "And if the Labour party allow this bill to go through I very much hope there will be a legal challenge. And the supreme court will consider it obviously objectively again. But I think its likely they will strike it down again, as incompatible with the constitutional arrangements which we prize so much in this country"show more

Farrukh

125,984 subscribers

534,815 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

Education News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Comments

Mark Bentley💙2 years ago

When someone like Ken Clarke - in direct conflict with the government - stands up for what is clearly right, we see how far removed the current Tory Party is from traditional conservatism. This is why they’ve lost their traditional voters. It’s now the National Front rebadged.

Paul Whitehead2 years ago

I disagree with Ken Clarke about most things (not this obviously) but as a genuine political heavyweight and a man of integrity and principle he must be ashamed at what today’s Tory Party has become.

Chris Rennard 🔶💙🇺🇦2 years ago

👇👇👇

peter hurst2 years ago

When you have a Tory government 'won' with blatant lies, and run by the blatant liars from Johnson to Sunak, it is no surprise they will try to enact legislation that is blatant lies. Even more astonishingly Labour are not opposing it.

Simon Rae-Scott @simonraescott.bsky.social2 years ago

Ken Clarke delivering his speech in the Lords emphasises the absurd, Alice Through the Looking Glass, nightmare to which the Tory Party has reduced us. His words rebut Michael Howard's absurd attack on our judiciary and today's SCOTUS Trump decision emphasises the dangers faced.

Stuart Gregson2 years ago

When a decent Tory (yes - there used to be some once upon a time) is going to vote against this section of the Bill surely Labour should do the same?

Little Old Wine Drinker2 years ago

@Blueerryforest If Rwanda was a safe country why do we need to accept their refugees as part of the Agreement? Does that clause in the Agreement not confirm Rwanda isn’t a safe country?

Stephen Barker2 years ago

If only the Tory party in the Commons still had members with the calibre of Kenneth Clarke.

Martyn R-Slater2 years ago

@RishiSunak it’s time to start listening to those who talk sense and have credibility like Ken Clarke unlike you who lack credibility and very rarely if ever talks sense. #ToryLies #ToriesBrokeBritain #ToriesDestroyingOurCountry #ToriesUnfitToGovern

Related Videos

PS Raymond Omollo: I don’t think I would want to respond to Osotsi; he is a leader, a senator, a legislator. We are a constitutional country with processes, and if anyone, not just in the name of the PS, is involved in any criminal activity, there is a process that needs to be undertaken. If there is any evidence that you were involved, I would go to a police station, report, and follow the matter. Up to this point in time, I am not sure if anything like that has happened. As it is, I would consider it street talk. The question is, what would be the interest of PS Omollo in attacking Senator Osotsi? What is it that Osotsi is doing that affects my work? #CitizenExplainer

PS Raymond Omollo: I don’t think I would want to respond to Osotsi; he is a leader, a senator, a legislator. We are a constitutional country with processes, and if anyone, not just in the name of the PS, is involved in any criminal activity, there is a process that needs to be undertaken. If there is any evidence that you were involved, I would go to a police station, report, and follow the matter. Up to this point in time, I am not sure if anything like that has happened. As it is, I would consider it street talk. The question is, what would be the interest of PS Omollo in attacking Senator Osotsi? What is it that Osotsi is doing that affects my work? #CitizenExplainer

Citizen TV Kenya

29,432 views • 3 months ago

.NEWSMAX: “Jim Banks introduced a bill that would codify President Trump’s Day One Executive Order, the Citizenship Act of 2026.” Rich Valdés 🇺🇸: “This is a slam-dunk and I think this one will likely work if it makes its way to the Supreme Court… I think the language is clearer.”

.NEWSMAX: “Jim Banks introduced a bill that would codify President Trump’s Day One Executive Order, the Citizenship Act of 2026.” Rich Valdés 🇺🇸: “This is a slam-dunk and I think this one will likely work if it makes its way to the Supreme Court… I think the language is clearer.”

Senator Jim Banks

27,666 views • 1 month ago

"It is equally important to note that this Supreme Court could not have ruled any other way and held on to its legitimacy as the nine supreme members of the judicial branch. The only outcome that would have been constitutional is the one that we saw today."

"It is equally important to note that this Supreme Court could not have ruled any other way and held on to its legitimacy as the nine supreme members of the judicial branch. The only outcome that would have been constitutional is the one that we saw today."

Laura Coates

15,357 views • 1 month ago

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump is going HARD against the Supreme Court, getting visibly angry at the thought they'd allow birthright citizenship for foreign invaders "We're a LAUGHING STOCK! And if the Supreme Court approves that decision, they have done a GREAT disservice to the United States of America, just like they did a great disservice by costing us $149 billion on tariffs by saying do it a different way!" "We have another one coming up, birthright citizenship. It would be a DISGRACE, it would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen." "Remember when I said 20 to 25 percent of the people coming into our country will come in through birthright citizenship. They'll become citizens through birthright citizenship, and it'll cost us numbers that are – I don't even think they're doable!" "And it's all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what's right. Birthright citizenship is a disgrace, the fact that – look at the people that are bringing this suit. Study the people that are bringing this suit. These are not people that love our country. I can tell you that."

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump is going HARD against the Supreme Court, getting visibly angry at the thought they'd allow birthright citizenship for foreign invaders "We're a LAUGHING STOCK! And if the Supreme Court approves that decision, they have done a GREAT disservice to the United States of America, just like they did a great disservice by costing us $149 billion on tariffs by saying do it a different way!" "We have another one coming up, birthright citizenship. It would be a DISGRACE, it would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen." "Remember when I said 20 to 25 percent of the people coming into our country will come in through birthright citizenship. They'll become citizens through birthright citizenship, and it'll cost us numbers that are – I don't even think they're doable!" "And it's all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what's right. Birthright citizenship is a disgrace, the fact that – look at the people that are bringing this suit. Study the people that are bringing this suit. These are not people that love our country. I can tell you that."

Eric Daugherty

15,406 views • 3 months ago

STATEMENT FROM THE LABOUR PARTY Abure rejects Appeal Court decision, Heads to Supreme Court Excerpt of his statement. We have seen what transpired today at the Appeal Court and we want to say very clearly that the judgement is not acceptable to all of us in the Labour Party led by my humble self. I want to say very clearly that the judgement is against all known principles of law. The courts, the Supreme Courts and all courts in Nigeria have stated very clearly that the issues of leadership of a political party is an internal affairs of a political party. It is also not true and I disagree when people say that the tenure of this executive has expired. That is untrue and very unacceptable to us. Nigerians will recall that on the 27th of March 2024, we had a valid convention that was held in Nnewi and that convention is still valid and subsisting for 4 years. I want to say that the court today didn't look at that before arriving at the conclusion that the tenure has expired. I must also say clearly that the Umuahia meeting which produced the Caretaker Committee was also against the Labour Party constitution. It is only the National Chairman and National Secretary of a Political Party who has the power to convene any NEC meeting of any of sort. I want to say very clearly that we are going to appeal that decision. Today's decision of the Appeal Court is not acceptable to us and we reject it in its entirety. We have put our legal team together and we are going to file an appeal and move to the Supreme Court. Thank you and God bless you. Sign: Barrister Julius Abure National Chairman Labour Party. 21/04/2026

STATEMENT FROM THE LABOUR PARTY Abure rejects Appeal Court decision, Heads to Supreme Court Excerpt of his statement. We have seen what transpired today at the Appeal Court and we want to say very clearly that the judgement is not acceptable to all of us in the Labour Party led by my humble self. I want to say very clearly that the judgement is against all known principles of law. The courts, the Supreme Courts and all courts in Nigeria have stated very clearly that the issues of leadership of a political party is an internal affairs of a political party. It is also not true and I disagree when people say that the tenure of this executive has expired. That is untrue and very unacceptable to us. Nigerians will recall that on the 27th of March 2024, we had a valid convention that was held in Nnewi and that convention is still valid and subsisting for 4 years. I want to say that the court today didn't look at that before arriving at the conclusion that the tenure has expired. I must also say clearly that the Umuahia meeting which produced the Caretaker Committee was also against the Labour Party constitution. It is only the National Chairman and National Secretary of a Political Party who has the power to convene any NEC meeting of any of sort. I want to say very clearly that we are going to appeal that decision. Today's decision of the Appeal Court is not acceptable to us and we reject it in its entirety. We have put our legal team together and we are going to file an appeal and move to the Supreme Court. Thank you and God bless you. Sign: Barrister Julius Abure National Chairman Labour Party. 21/04/2026

LabourPartyNG

41,506 views • 4 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On the Supreme Court asking High Courts to decide contempt petitions over the alleged violation of bulldozer action guidelines, Advocate Anas Tanweer says, “After the bulldozer guidelines were issued, there were certain states that did not follow those guidelines… Today, the Supreme Court, taking into account that there could be questions of fact—and the Supreme Court will not go into questions of fact—has remanded those matters to the jurisdictional High Courts. It has given them the power to entertain it as contempt of this Court, as well as asked them to take help from the sessions judge or the district judge concerned in case of fact-finding. The grievance must be addressed in the High Courts first, and obviously, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against their order can be filed before the Supreme Court if the state or the parties are not satisfied.”

#WATCH | Delhi: On the Supreme Court asking High Courts to decide contempt petitions over the alleged violation of bulldozer action guidelines, Advocate Anas Tanweer says, “After the bulldozer guidelines were issued, there were certain states that did not follow those guidelines… Today, the Supreme Court, taking into account that there could be questions of fact—and the Supreme Court will not go into questions of fact—has remanded those matters to the jurisdictional High Courts. It has given them the power to entertain it as contempt of this Court, as well as asked them to take help from the sessions judge or the district judge concerned in case of fact-finding. The grievance must be addressed in the High Courts first, and obviously, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against their order can be filed before the Supreme Court if the state or the parties are not satisfied.”

ANI

31,680 views • 1 month ago

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ka’aji: “I believe there is no such thing as a limited attack. Any act of aggression will be considered an act of aggression, period, and every country will respond to such an act as part of its natural right to self-defense, and powerfully. That is what we will do.” “I think it is fairly clear that the central part of such an agreement will be the lifting of sanctions, which must be carried out by the U.S. On the other hand, there will be clear steps from Iran to ensure that its nuclear program never becomes military.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ka’aji: “I believe there is no such thing as a limited attack. Any act of aggression will be considered an act of aggression, period, and every country will respond to such an act as part of its natural right to self-defense, and powerfully. That is what we will do.” “I think it is fairly clear that the central part of such an agreement will be the lifting of sanctions, which must be carried out by the U.S. On the other hand, there will be clear steps from Iran to ensure that its nuclear program never becomes military.”

Open Source Intel

31,649 views • 6 months ago

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, as this law is a direct attack on the country's constitution, which not only provides equal rights to its citizens but also grants them complete religious freedom. This bill is a dangerous conspiracy to strip Muslims of their religious freedom. Therefore, we have challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, and the state units of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind will also challenge the constitutional validity of this law in the High Courts of their respective states. We are confident that just as the court has delivered justice in many cases, we will also get justice in this important and unconstitutional law. #WaqfBoardAmendmentBill

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, as this law is a direct attack on the country's constitution, which not only provides equal rights to its citizens but also grants them complete religious freedom. This bill is a dangerous conspiracy to strip Muslims of their religious freedom. Therefore, we have challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in the Supreme Court, and the state units of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind will also challenge the constitutional validity of this law in the High Courts of their respective states. We are confident that just as the court has delivered justice in many cases, we will also get justice in this important and unconstitutional law. #WaqfBoardAmendmentBill

Arshad Madani

70,843 views • 1 year ago

Batya Ungar-Sargon: “If he lost the [2020] election, what is the problem with looking at the evidence? All the evidence will suggest that. Right? All of the evidence will be there to back up that claim… There are millions and millions of Americans who feel that our elections are not safe. Now, if I was in charge, this is not the way I would go about reassuring them that our elections are free and fair. “ “ would focus on the SAVE Act. I would focus on citizenship. I would focus on voter photo ID, which is something that the vast majority of Americans support. So this is not the avenue I would choose.” “But he is representing millions and millions of Americans who have a lot of doubts about how things went down.”

Batya Ungar-Sargon: “If he lost the [2020] election, what is the problem with looking at the evidence? All the evidence will suggest that. Right? All of the evidence will be there to back up that claim… There are millions and millions of Americans who feel that our elections are not safe. Now, if I was in charge, this is not the way I would go about reassuring them that our elections are free and fair. “ “ would focus on the SAVE Act. I would focus on citizenship. I would focus on voter photo ID, which is something that the vast majority of Americans support. So this is not the avenue I would choose.” “But he is representing millions and millions of Americans who have a lot of doubts about how things went down.”

RedWave Press

72,171 views • 6 months ago

Trump: I would like to sign an executive order that I will write myself and we will be sued and we will go before a court and may be, maybe we will have a judge that is realistic, reasonable and wants to do a favor for the country because that is the only way this will be solved.

Trump: I would like to sign an executive order that I will write myself and we will be sued and we will go before a court and may be, maybe we will have a judge that is realistic, reasonable and wants to do a favor for the country because that is the only way this will be solved.

Acyn

72,849 views • 5 months ago

VIDEO Democratic Front (DF) president Mathias Mpuuga on #TheGrindPodcast with Patrick Kamara 933 KFM: 1. "...I am an active politician, I have moved in every inch and space of this country. I know where his [General Yoweri Museveni support is, it is not 71% it is not even 50%, and he knows it too." 2. "I am on record before and after the elections for having spoken out. I went out of my way and wrote to every political party in the opposition, warning and inviting them for a commonality of purpose...Immediately after the elections, I held a press conference spoke about the same issues, I had warned colleagues about that we never cared about and they happened. So, I feel that I am vindicated to the fact that I raised the alarm. Those who didn’t care, there is no much I could do to drag them." 3. "Also I could have raised the challenge about that election in the supreme court, but I was not a presidential candidate and I did not have permission to raise the same on behalf of any candidate. Remember that in one of the amendments that I had intended in the presidential elections act probably out of ignorance or excitement, was to amend the law to the fact that a citizen can challenge the election in a supreme court as long as that citizen is a voter and there is a proof that his challenge is not a waste of court’s time. I had intended that when that happens when presidential candidates are either compromised or timid, a courageous citizen can challenge that election. That didn’t happen, and the opportunity was lost." 4. "What have I done as DF? The DF is is going to challenge particular actions leading to that election and our petition to the Constitutional court is ready, if you want to know how we have moved and that we are not sleeping as the DF." #RealChangeActNow

VIDEO Democratic Front (DF) president Mathias Mpuuga on #TheGrindPodcast with Patrick Kamara 933 KFM: 1. "...I am an active politician, I have moved in every inch and space of this country. I know where his [General Yoweri Museveni support is, it is not 71% it is not even 50%, and he knows it too." 2. "I am on record before and after the elections for having spoken out. I went out of my way and wrote to every political party in the opposition, warning and inviting them for a commonality of purpose...Immediately after the elections, I held a press conference spoke about the same issues, I had warned colleagues about that we never cared about and they happened. So, I feel that I am vindicated to the fact that I raised the alarm. Those who didn’t care, there is no much I could do to drag them." 3. "Also I could have raised the challenge about that election in the supreme court, but I was not a presidential candidate and I did not have permission to raise the same on behalf of any candidate. Remember that in one of the amendments that I had intended in the presidential elections act probably out of ignorance or excitement, was to amend the law to the fact that a citizen can challenge the election in a supreme court as long as that citizen is a voter and there is a proof that his challenge is not a waste of court’s time. I had intended that when that happens when presidential candidates are either compromised or timid, a courageous citizen can challenge that election. That didn’t happen, and the opportunity was lost." 4. "What have I done as DF? The DF is is going to challenge particular actions leading to that election and our petition to the Constitutional court is ready, if you want to know how we have moved and that we are not sleeping as the DF." #RealChangeActNow

Democratic Front (DF)

20,824 views • 4 months ago

#WATCH | Delhi: On Supreme Court’s clarification on the violence during student protest, Cockroach Janta Party Chief Spokesperson Saurav Das says, "Today, in yet another major victory for the students and the young people of this country, the Supreme Court has clarified that the states, including Delhi and other states, will be at liberty to withdraw the FIRs, or close the FIRs, or file closure reports through any legal method possible. They will be closing all the FIRs. Along with that, in the previous order, there was a line stating that no action will be taken against any protestor who does not have criminal antecedents. Today, the court clarified that criminal antecedents would only mean heinous crimes like murder and rape…it ensures that regular students, protestors, and even students who have engaged in political protests in the past will not face any legal problems in the future, and all FIRs against them will be closed…we are waiting for the written order to come. However, whatever has been orally pronounced in the court by the judges, we welcome it.”

#WATCH | Delhi: On Supreme Court’s clarification on the violence during student protest, Cockroach Janta Party Chief Spokesperson Saurav Das says, "Today, in yet another major victory for the students and the young people of this country, the Supreme Court has clarified that the states, including Delhi and other states, will be at liberty to withdraw the FIRs, or close the FIRs, or file closure reports through any legal method possible. They will be closing all the FIRs. Along with that, in the previous order, there was a line stating that no action will be taken against any protestor who does not have criminal antecedents. Today, the court clarified that criminal antecedents would only mean heinous crimes like murder and rape…it ensures that regular students, protestors, and even students who have engaged in political protests in the past will not face any legal problems in the future, and all FIRs against them will be closed…we are waiting for the written order to come. However, whatever has been orally pronounced in the court by the judges, we welcome it.”

ANI

263,265 views • 25 days ago

President Trump warned of the elected Democrats’ plans to pack the United States Supreme Court if they win the midterms: “I think if Democrats took control of the Congress, I believe that this country is finished… You will have Washington, D.C., and you’ll have Puerto Rico as a state, which would be a disaster… But they want to go to 21 Supreme Court justices.” Back in September we warned about the left’s plans to pack SCOTUS. The upcoming midterms are important!

President Trump warned of the elected Democrats’ plans to pack the United States Supreme Court if they win the midterms: “I think if Democrats took control of the Congress, I believe that this country is finished… You will have Washington, D.C., and you’ll have Puerto Rico as a state, which would be a disaster… But they want to go to 21 Supreme Court justices.” Back in September we warned about the left’s plans to pack SCOTUS. The upcoming midterms are important!

Loomer Unleashed

107,577 views • 3 months ago

Leavitt: Nothing will change the fact that Garcia will never be a Maryland father… The supreme court ruled unanimously that the president of the United States and secretary of state cannot be compelled to forcibly retrieve this citizen of El Salvador

Leavitt: Nothing will change the fact that Garcia will never be a Maryland father… The supreme court ruled unanimously that the president of the United States and secretary of state cannot be compelled to forcibly retrieve this citizen of El Salvador

Acyn

2,363,869 views • 1 year ago

Shermichael Singleton absolutely schools the CNN panel on birthright citizenship. He drops the receipts showing that Democrats once agreed it was a loophole Congress needed to shut down. SINGLETON: “Philosophically, I fundamentally disagree with the court on this. To me, I go back to subject to the jurisdiction of, going back to the original intent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act forward the 14th Amendment being passed.” “What was it to address? What was it to codify?” “It was freed slaves who did not have citizenship. It wasn’t freed slaves and any and everybody else across the globe.” “Of the 27 EU countries, NONE of them, none of the civilized Western countries allow or permit unconditional immigration. None of the Western countries allow it. With the exception of the United States and Canada.” “Now, that is not to say that we should not have an immigration policy where we welcome people. I think we absolutely should. It’s made our country very strong.” “But does it mean we should allow anyone to just come into the country, merely have a child and that child be granted citizenship? I would say not.” “And in fact, Democrats actually believed the same thing.” “You go back to 1993 when Harry Reid introduced Immigration Stabilization Act. His argument at the time was, you’re allowing people to take advantage of our country.” “Senator Dianne Feinstein agreed at the time. Several other Democrats agreed at the time.” “So once upon a time, there was bipartisan support that this is a problem that should be addressed by Congress.” “Now, I would agree that the that the executive branch should not have carte Blanche authority to just do whatever he or she will...I would agree there.” “But Congress needs to act on this by passing an amendment, again, I disagree with the interpretation by the court.” Shermichael Singleton

Shermichael Singleton absolutely schools the CNN panel on birthright citizenship. He drops the receipts showing that Democrats once agreed it was a loophole Congress needed to shut down. SINGLETON: “Philosophically, I fundamentally disagree with the court on this. To me, I go back to subject to the jurisdiction of, going back to the original intent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act forward the 14th Amendment being passed.” “What was it to address? What was it to codify?” “It was freed slaves who did not have citizenship. It wasn’t freed slaves and any and everybody else across the globe.” “Of the 27 EU countries, NONE of them, none of the civilized Western countries allow or permit unconditional immigration. None of the Western countries allow it. With the exception of the United States and Canada.” “Now, that is not to say that we should not have an immigration policy where we welcome people. I think we absolutely should. It’s made our country very strong.” “But does it mean we should allow anyone to just come into the country, merely have a child and that child be granted citizenship? I would say not.” “And in fact, Democrats actually believed the same thing.” “You go back to 1993 when Harry Reid introduced Immigration Stabilization Act. His argument at the time was, you’re allowing people to take advantage of our country.” “Senator Dianne Feinstein agreed at the time. Several other Democrats agreed at the time.” “So once upon a time, there was bipartisan support that this is a problem that should be addressed by Congress.” “Now, I would agree that the that the executive branch should not have carte Blanche authority to just do whatever he or she will...I would agree there.” “But Congress needs to act on this by passing an amendment, again, I disagree with the interpretation by the court.” Shermichael Singleton

Overton

39,297 views • 1 month ago

Yes, indeed, this is lawlessness by any standard. Even by banana republic standards, this is still lawlessness. Your country has a constitution, it has a government, it has a police service, and it has a ruling party. I am sure you can see that some of the people there are actually wearing ruling party T-shirts. It is lawless regardless of whoever does it. It is an embarrassment to South Africa as a country, what you are doing and what you are encouraging people to do. Your country has an immigration service. If people are in your country illegally, they should be arrested and deported through lawful processes. You do not go around destroying property, tearing down markets, and attacking people. It is illegal regardless of whoever does it. It is not illegal because I have said so. It is illegal because the laws of your country make it so. This is vigilantism, pure and simple, and it is tainting the reputation of South Africa, not only across Africa but across the world. If you have got satellite television in your home, you can see that these actions are being reported everywhere. It is not good for your country. This kind of barbarism undermines the rule of law, fuels division, and damages South Africa’s standing as a constitutional democracy. It is the actions of a few that are tainting the reputation of many. The average South African is not mindless like this. They respect the law, and they respect the fact that among them, in their communities, there are people from other countries. If those people are in the country illegally, you report them and the law takes its course through proper processes of arrest and deportation. You do not descend into mob justice, lawlessness, and destruction. That is not who South Africans are, and it must not be normalised.

Yes, indeed, this is lawlessness by any standard. Even by banana republic standards, this is still lawlessness. Your country has a constitution, it has a government, it has a police service, and it has a ruling party. I am sure you can see that some of the people there are actually wearing ruling party T-shirts. It is lawless regardless of whoever does it. It is an embarrassment to South Africa as a country, what you are doing and what you are encouraging people to do. Your country has an immigration service. If people are in your country illegally, they should be arrested and deported through lawful processes. You do not go around destroying property, tearing down markets, and attacking people. It is illegal regardless of whoever does it. It is not illegal because I have said so. It is illegal because the laws of your country make it so. This is vigilantism, pure and simple, and it is tainting the reputation of South Africa, not only across Africa but across the world. If you have got satellite television in your home, you can see that these actions are being reported everywhere. It is not good for your country. This kind of barbarism undermines the rule of law, fuels division, and damages South Africa’s standing as a constitutional democracy. It is the actions of a few that are tainting the reputation of many. The average South African is not mindless like this. They respect the law, and they respect the fact that among them, in their communities, there are people from other countries. If those people are in the country illegally, you report them and the law takes its course through proper processes of arrest and deportation. You do not descend into mob justice, lawlessness, and destruction. That is not who South Africans are, and it must not be normalised.

Hopewell Chin’ono

80,812 views • 4 months ago