In defamation proceedings, courts apply strict evidentiary standards requiring parties to produce primary evidence rather than relying on hearsay or secondary sources; the admissibility of evidence depends on its purpose and the specific legal context, with official documents and public statements receiving special consideration under evidence law. Courts also examine whether new arguments raised in reply constitute impermissible new matter that should be struck out, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing parties from introducing fresh cases after initial pleadings.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
LIVE: Cape Union Mart and Philip Krawitz VS Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Added:first as Mr. Jamie has alluded to already is to identify those publications which the applicants admit have named.
The second would be to deal with the respondents application to strike out >> sorry identify the publications that the applicants the respondent >> respondents both the PSC and the two individual respondents who are not PSC members I'm indebted secondly I propose to address the respondents application to strike out thirdly the applicant application to strike out.
I have been sensitized to the time pressures that we're under. And so on the third issue, I have prepared a note.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Which means with each of the 37 items sought to be struck, which I don't leave to hand.
>> Thank you. as well as the eight conditional strikeout uh points. I have David learned friend for the copy and I have also found in the small hours of the morning a relevant paragraph from the on evidence.
I beg to hand it out. It has been pageionated for key insertion into the bundle and the learned friends do have a copy of it.
As to the first topic, the applicant's case repeatedly slides from this is what happened at a protest to PSC published it.
But the actual field of dispute is much narrower.
And I propose to take the court through the papers only to note the references and the court can consider the agreements in its own time.
Up front, it would be worthwhile noting that PSC admits making the following statements. Quote, they fund genocide.
Quote, stop the genocide.
Third quote, boycott a need to write this down >> as it please.
>> Number one, >> they fund genocide.
>> Yes.
>> Number two, stop the genocide.
Number three, boycott apartate Israel.
The poster at C32 and of course its own invitation to members to attend protests.
The first respondent impliedly admits that she displayed the Kway killer way backard. The references are founding affidavit, page 28, paragraph 66, Alexia C13.
The admission is in Miss Oart's answering affidavit.
I'm going to omit the first three numbers if that's all right.
>> That's fine. Thank you.
>> Page 848, paragraphs 7 to 10.
The PSC of course denies having made that publication.
The next admission relates to paragraph in the founding affidavit page 29 paragraph 68 and C15.
The PSC admits some of those publications but not all. It admits stop the genocide, boycott apartate Israel, and they fund genocide. Those are the three that the court has taken a note of already. The reference is the PSC's answering affidavit, page 18, paragraphs, 52.1 to 52.2. two and page 71 paragraph 302.
The next admission by the PSC relates to the chant. Philip, Philip, what do you say? How many kids have you killed today?
The farming affidavit of verment is at page 29 paragraphs 69 to 70 and the PSC does not expressly admit having made that statement but it is implied by a non-denial that the court will find the reference at answering affidavit 71 that's page 71 paragraph 303 Three.
Next admitted statement is admitted by both first respondent Miss Oards and the PSC.
The statement is boycott Cape Union Mart will stop Bund genocide.
The reference in the following affidavit is at page 31 paragraph 76 anious C21 as a admission that's first respondent is at page 852 paragraph 25 and the PSC's admission is at page 18 of its affidavit, paragraphs 51.2 and 52.2.
The next is the first respondent's admission to having held up posters Philip Kravitz genocide thunder which bore the Cape Union Mart and Kway logos and included the words they fund genocide.
The founding affidavit reference is page 31, paragraph 78, addicture C23.
And Miss Aard's admission is in her affidavit at page 852, paragraphs 25 and 27.
The next is the synagogue of Satan poster bounding affidavit reference is page 31 paragraph >> sorry who who does this relate to >> this is >> yes and the first arch okay >> qualified sense and I'll explain presently >> okay sorry I missed the reference yeah >> publication is the synagogue of Satan poster bonding affidavit page 31 to 32 paragraphs 79 to 80 C 24 now Miss Aards denies authorship but what she admits is having put up the blackard on behalf of another organization.
Next is a further admission by Miss Arts in relation to the publications equals Killer's Way and Kway equals Killer's Worth that included a photograph of Mr. Kravis. The founding affidavit reference is at page 32, paragraph 82.
Alex C 26 of 27.
The admission by Miss Aarts is it per her affidavit 853 to 854.
Paragraphs 32 and 33.
The next admission is a partial admission by the PSC in relation to the publication Murders of Kids with Mr. Kravitz's name and the Cape Union Mart logo and Cape Union Mart supports the killing of children in Palestine.
References founding affidavit page 34 paragraphs 88.1 to 88.2 2 and lecture C32.
PSC denies having made the first but admits the second that is KP's killing of children in Palestine. The reference is answering affidavit page 73 paragraphs 321 to 322.
The next publication which Miss Aards admits to having held is the altered photograph of Mr. Krabbits with devil's horns the killer's way and the alleged misquote I would be proud to be a bigger donor to Israel and in brackets genocide references founding affidavit page 34 to 36 paragraphs 89 9 to 96 annexures C34 and 35.
The admission subject to the date corrections ars is at page 854 paragraph 34.
The next admission is by Mr. Gina the third respondent it concerns the publication Cape Union Marta they fund genocide and boycott Cape Union Mart they fund genocide.
The reference is founding affidavit page 37 paragraph 102 lecture C36 and the admission is in PSC's answer at page 74 paragraph 326. Six.
Next is an effective admission by the second respondent Mr. Kamit.
The publications are poetry old khaki cape union m fun b fun b fun b fun b fun b fun b fun b fun b fun b fun bund gen genocide and other material alleging links between Mr. Kravitz and the IDF.
The references founding affidavit page 38 paragraph 105 annexes C38 to 39.
Mr. Kavit did not produce the posters but he was standing behind them when the picture was taken.
And these are not PSC posters.
The admission effective admission is at page 74 to 75 paragraphs 327 to 329.
Next is an admission by Miss Aart, first respondent.
This was a graffiti poster that said Israel kills slash starves bases.
And it had an arrow spray painted on it.
The implication being to the applicants Founding affidavit page 38, paragraphs 108 to 109, an extra C42.
I should say that is the alleged imputation.
It's not clear from the photograph that the arrow was pointing to the applicants.
Miss Aart's reference is at page 855, paragraphs 39 to 14.
She admits having made the poster but denies that it is of the uh platus. I beg your pardon the final admitted publication is that by Mr. Muhammad the fifth respondent.
It relates to his Instagram post in which he was depicted holding a poster which said Cape Union Mark supports genocide proudly supports murders of kids.
The Red Prince is founding a lab page 39 paragraph 110 anious C43.
Mr. Muhammad's admission is in his affidavit page 868 paragraphs 7 to13 and that's the instance where he says he put it down when he was still all other publications are denied by the participating respondents And so the field of undisputed publications is limited to those that I've enumerated and it is there for focus lies.
purposes of the next trunch of the argument that is the respondents application to strike out. There are some sanitary principles I'd like to mention. The first is of course it must relate to undisputed obligations.
Secondly, there is no asymmetry in the papers the applicants have had the opportunity to answer.
The objection lies to the expansion of the foundation of their primary case.
Third, the reconstruction of the primary case is where the attack lies and for that purpose we rely on Telane and Filan.
Fourth, the material is admissible because the correct question has not yet been asked in relation to admissibility.
If Mr. Z's and Mr. Ashiri's affidavit don't make the material in the replying in the answering affidavit disappear.
What they do is they don't seriously and unambiguously deny the publications because they were never invited to read Mr. Chick's affidavit and I will take the court to the refle.
So the weight that one can attach to their affidavit will be limited.
There was a concern that the court raised and I took a note of this.
Justice Clity underneath you asked the question is is it the case that the respondents are wanting to rely on hearsay evidence but then trying to preclude the applicants from replying.
and your leadership asked another question and it I reading between the lines it seems to me that your ladyship in asking Mr. Jamie, is it is it the case that the interdict cannot issue because you say that the articles relied on support your defense?
And I think subject to correction where your leadership was going is if the articles are inadmissible then the defense fails.
I will deal with that point squarely now. First I'd like to start off with the authority that Malern friends site that is the Dennis case.
They don't wave their right to reply. Of course not. No one's suggesting that.
But the challenge the response to the challenge lies not at the level of what they can say or whether they dispute the contents. It's about whether the material is probably before the court.
The respondents say that the court is being invited to answer a different question.
It's about whether a new attribution case can properly be advanced at this stage. That is, is convenership equivalent to publication?
Secondly, is a republication case based on materials not in the founding affidavit permissible as the basis of the cause of action? And thirdly, can the respondents rely on undisclosed records which were within the kenan control of both Mr. Z and Mr. Ashiri without disclosing those documents? Can the applicants >> I beg you p can the applicants through their witnesses the deponents to their supporting applicants there are two authorities that has referred to the first portal know well it's tane in that case the administrator's decision was challenged on grounds of audi under the old law and the administrator said no I did give you a hearing and it was an adequate hearing The challenge was based on the absence of a hearing, not its adequacy. But in reply, the applicants came back and said, "Hang on, why would they have given us a hearing that was inadequate?"
And that was the basis on which they advanced their case. And the AD said, "You can't do that. No new case in reply." And it's enforced under our constitutional dispensation by Gilan versus Pilan, a a case close to my heart. In Pilan, a final intellect was sought to restrain a group of people from a traditional community who wanted to secede from the main community and they wanted to call themselves the bakhata.
That was the name that was their identity. The community had a history, a tradition of cessation. So often breakaway groups would move off with new leadership and new structures and that was part of their tradition. The respondents in that case the incumbents of the existing community wanted to interdict the applicants in the concort from using that name.
And it is only in reply that they say actually according to customary law according to our law of the you need to meet certain requirements to have a valid meeting at which you can make certain decisions. That meeting was called for and in this part of the world we would call it an imbe.
So the debate as to whether the iniesel was valid was one that arose only in response to the answer and the comport quite forcibly said impermissible.
Impermissible because you raised it in the slide and also because of the trenching effect on the identity of the persons who are affected and their associational rights. Although the associational rights were expressed through the customary law and that's is a function of subsidiarity, a topic that your leadership was exploring with a bel friend um yesterday.
The founding papers overreach in three ways.
In the first way they propound a funding falsity theorem.
Mr. Zoma's affidavit and Mr. Ashiri's affidavit were procured in response to the answering affidavit. The answering affidavit was designed on the basis of the founding affidavit's reference to Karan Hyers as well as to the absence of disclosure by Mr. Kravitz of his membership of other Israeli bodies. So the replying in reply the applicants procured the affidavit of higher as well as the unmentioned body in the founding affidavit that's Jan and they have placed their versions before the court under in an affidavit avering that Mr. Kravitz does not donate to any non-rinkfensed uh projects and Mr. Ashiri advances his summary theory of what Jaffy actually does that expands the evidential architecture of the case because it forms the basis of the cause of action that was argued before the court on Monday.
The danger, however, is that neither Mr. Zar nor Mr. Ashiru have placed before the court the primary evidentiary material upon which they make their assertions.
And I'd like to take the court very quickly to their affidavit. It's pagination 010 139.
In fact, the call need not turn there.
I'll just read it into the record if I may. This is the affidavit of Mr. Z. And at paragraph three, Mr. Zmer says the following. He says, "I have under my control and have perused the record relating to the high dealings with Mr. Philip Previs." And I summarized them here.
We know from establishing law in the Supreme Court of Appeal that that's the case of Whiteitman paragraph 13. When someone puts up a denial or any averment that intends to contradict an earlier affidavit where particular facts lie within their knowledge and control, it is incumbent on them to assert those facts and to produce the relevant evidence. Whiteman was about a denial, but the principle Yes.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But the relevant evidence really is the because is it suggested?
Well, it seems to be suggested as part of this part of the striking art that they were obliged in reply under what Whiteitman refers to as it's it's if it's something within your own knowledge, you are expected to deal with it head on. And if you don't, well then the court is at liberty to say, well, you're going to fall on your own sword.
That's just using my very basic um summary of whitening. But I have never understood whiteman to mean that you then have to at the same in order to pass that threshold to produce every single source document on which you rely. And that seems to be the complaint because Mr. Kravitz and Cape Union M come along and you I agree with you. They propound in your with the way you've put it a funding um falsity theory.
The respondents come back and they produce all of this stuff and they say, "Well, here it is. This shows you funding. leave the J AFI out of it for the moment.
In reply, these two gentlemen come back and they say, "No, we confirm that Mr. Kravitz and or Cape Unim haven't done these things."
The crux of the respondent's complaint, as I understand it, and I may have got it wrong, is well, we can't actually place any weight on what you say because you haven't produced what we all commonly refer to as the source documents.
Now, is that is that what you say?
Whiteitman means >> um with respect your leadership has the point in part the primary submission on the authority of Manoadu versus Mano. It is in the heads of arguments which is an SEA case.
The first submission is that the court may disregard their evidence in respect of the financial matters altogether because it is secondary evidence not primary evidence.
The next submission which would align with the proposition that the court has put to the >> I'm asking you I'm not challenging you.
I'm just trying to understand it. Yeah.
>> Is that if the court does not outright disregard that evidence altogether it may assign very limited weight to it.
So whichever way the court goes in some not much store and declares Mr. Za's affidavit for the purpose of the cause of action.
similar.
>> Yeah. You see, you see, I think that's that's for me part of the difficulty with a striking art application because we know what what material can be struck.
But weight and striking out are not always the same thing.
>> They're distinctly different. I agree.
There's sometimes the overlap, but they they they're not the same thing. So, so when it comes to weight, that's one thing, but then does one strike it out on the basis that the primary facts, as you put it, which would be, as I understand your argument, the source documents have not been produced. But that's enough to to strike it. I'm just trying to find that reference to the sea judgment. Manu >> it isn't a bundle.
>> I'm just trying to get to where you deal with the striking in your heads. Sorry >> perhaps >> to orientate the debate. The primary objection is that this is new matter in the fly.
>> Yeah, that's what I'm debating with you.
>> And on that basis, it's liable to be struck or disregarded as the Concord did in Pilan.
And as much as it is not disregarded, manu says you needn't have regard to it in any event because it is secondary material, not primary.
>> I just want to get to that authority in your heads. Why can't I seem to find your section on striking must be here?
>> Here we are. Sorry, it's I've got it.
It's page starts at 11 of your heads where you deal with Pilani.
When I say page 11, the page number at the bottom page. Yes.
>> Um, if you could just take me to that particular Okay, there's >> it's paragraph 42 of Manadu. And >> where where's Manadu? here >> in your heads.
Here we go. Paragraph 49 and that's the SCA decision last year.
>> Yes, it was recent decision.
>> You see because as you see this is what I'm raising with you. court held that as a general rule where the contents of a document are an issue, secondary evidence may be rejected if the better evidence was readily available and there's reason to think it is unsafe to accept the secondary evidence. So there are two requirements. I have the point bel the what the court is not saying there is that >> this court or that court >> the sea >> okay >> what the sea is saying there is don't reject the evidence out of hand consider its contents which presumes admissibility and disregard it um I don't disregard it because it's not the best evidence >> but that goes to weight really >> that that is I I accept >> as opposed to being the standard >> scandalous vexacious is irrelevant etc. But there's sometimes an overlap with irrelevancy. Yeah, I get that >> as it relates to the >> Okay, >> the next submission relates to Mr. Ashiri. I won't bellay the point. It has been canvased in the notes that I handed up and in our strike art application.
I need to take the forward back. The next point is the theory of republication and attribution.
What reply does as Mr. Jamie has already outlined is shift the focus from a direct act of commission by the PSC and the other respondents.
the commission be publication to what appears to be a case that irrespective of whether or not the PSC and its members made the commission themselves, the PSC is nonetheless liable because it's the convenor and that I called the convenership publication. inflation.
So irrespective of the PAC made the publication itself >> it's nonetheless love as convenor >> as conven theory if it were supported in the statute but what the theory appears to do is conflate the gatherings act liability or things like riot damage with the law of defamation and defamation requires a direct and intentional act of publication.
So apart from being impissible matter raised in reply for purposes of shoring up the cause of action, it is in any event doctrinally unsound.
Similarly with republication, it's almost axiomatic that new material can't fall out of the founding case and one therefore finds oneself directly in pilane territory.
The next and third aspect of the new matter in reply point I beg your pardon. I've dealt with that already. It's the post institution incidents.
So I want to turn to the court's postulate to a learned friend that is >> which of your many learned friends >> Mr. Mr. would >> okay >> the postulate was well you we want to rely on hears say the respondence but then we're denying you the right of reply and I hope by the analysis that I have just undertaken with the court the second aspect of that postulate stands out as a mischaracterization the matter sought to be struck reply >> is different case.
>> It's not a denial, confession and avoidance >> on your argument >> indeed as as my submission was.
>> I now turn to the hearsay element which deals with the first aspect of the court's postulate.
You can rely on clear sake, but you're denying them their rights of replies.
In the bundle of authorities, there is an excerpt from Schwickard, my former lecturer on evidence, and she'll be very unhappy if I get it wrong.
Then you will find the extract from the textbook at page 6 762.
Text is tiny tiny um but I can still read it.
What is here? This goes to that preliminary question I mentioned at the outset is the starting question.
Do we admit this because it's here? And my submission is no. The starting question is what is the purpose for which the evidence is tended?
And the authority for that >> I think I'm just going to listen. Your eyes are clearly better than >> it is painfully small. The authority for that is an old privy council case which finds application in our law. It's subraman versus public prosecutor and there which our courts have referred to with approval. The proposition is that a statement is not hearsay when intended to prove that it was made the fact of the statement or to show a state of mind rather than for the truth of its contents.
But you see the difficulty is it not here is that certainly the impression one gets from the respondent's papers is the material relied upon and I'm using that in the very broad sense of the word with all your taking into account the admissions I'm not I'm not trying to discount on what you've said there. But just for purposes of our discussion is the truth of the contents.
You know, it's like you get in a normal trial, >> the standard recordal in a pre-trial minute. Documents are what they purport to be. they can go in subject to one of the parties requiring proof as to the truth of the contents. And I think that's really the nub of what I'd like you to assist me on. I can't speak for my colleagues.
>> It's a question that troubled me too yesterday. And I think I submit that for the purposes of a deponent of an organization, any deponent, any lay opponent, it is a very nice distinction to make between the fact of a publication and its contents.
a distinction that most lay people wouldn't make in their ordinary day-to-day delays with public statements of official bodies made by officials in the exercise of a duty or judgments or reports of the UN by institutions making self-referential statements and self-referential statements about the state of their affairs when there is a duty to disclose to the public what their affairs are and how they account for it.
And there's also perhaps to a lesser degree um the reliance that one can allow for when it comes to newspaper thoughts and articles.
The the the latter do depend on the author, the credibility of the author or their probitative value. And so a reasonable person would say, "Oh, the radical newspaper says X, but the spectator says why." And my opinion, my reliance on either is going to be approached watchfully with a grain of salt. Not so when it comes to public and official reports.
And that's where helpfully Zephfort comes to the rescue.
Zephot is in it's the authority that I handed up this morning. It's pageionated page 773.
The conceptual framework is how do we know what we know? There is the fact of a statement being made and then there is the correctness of its contents.
As to the first element, Subramanyu provides a complete answer. I submit as to the second element the truth of the contents. When it comes to official reports, I'd like to invite the court to paragraph shade at page 468 of Zebit, >> the law of evidence amendment act.
>> Well, that is the statutory answer I select. over to page >> except of course you you you will also agree that there are certain criteria that need to be met under that piece of legislation for evidence to be admissible. That's the whole purpose of it. It starts from the premise that there is evidence certain evidence is hearsay. For example, a statement of a person who since passed away in a criminal matter you got to go through the whole application to have it admitted and you've got to satisfy them.
I think they're the criteria in section three from what I can recall.
>> Yes.
>> What they are exactly I can't recall offh hand but I I know they're in section three somewhere I think A to E or F or something. But I but but leaving that aside because that's not an issue in this case. No one's asked for it to be admitted.
Have you?
B >> the reference.
>> Ah, >> page 749 of the bundle 7 page 75° of body.
>> Is this is this the microscopic? It is painfully.
>> Aren't you supposed to what's it called? The aged person's act or the older person's act.
>> 750. What? I can barely read the number.
Yeah.
>> 753.
>> Okay. No, when when I'm in my chambers, I can read more easily than I can in here. So, I listen to what you have to say. Yeah.
>> Even I got it wrong. Exactly 756 at the fifth of page section three begins and clear evidence.
That act came into operation in 1988 but before that the common law applied and Zeph helpfully summarizes the common law position at page 775 of >> you say the common law runs along with the yes >> what what Zephfort observes is that what Zephfort observes is that courts don't consistently apply the law of evidence amendment act and that's not by invitation but what Zephit observes is that courts very often rely on the common law to allow or official statements by public officials in the execution of a public duty to be received by a court without further ado the common law test is set out in this document and I won't take the court through the elements.
>> Sorry, where where are we looking at?
What are we looking at now?
>> Zephert >> because I'm looking at the Law of Evidence Amendment Act at 756.
>> Oh, this this one. Sorry. Thank you.
Okay. Not >> sorry.
>> As it pleases, my ladies.
The test war admissions under the common law coming from a judgment of incj and northern m rifles versus O'alahand is I submit the approach the approach the courts take as a matter of course to official public material unless there is some basis on which to doubt the authenticity of the document its provenence and so on. That's not the case here.
My submission therefore is that as far as the ministerial press releases are concerned >> okay just just help me if you would Mr. Uh, Okay. Look, we what the authors say until the Law of Evidence Amendment Act came into operation.
They talked about misability of foreign documents and because the court still seems still to be guided by the common law in this area. Is that what you're referring to?
>> Illegal.
>> Okay. And since the term public documents kept alive by surviving legislative provision that facilitate their proof, it is worthwhile considering the common law requirements of the public document and then we deal with the judgment of inner CJ which is long ago. Okay.
And so is there can you direct me apart from this author to any authority a decision of ours which says that in partic in depending on what the circumstances are and then what those circumstances are courts can basically not ignore but say fine the law of evidence amendment act is is that what it's called law Urbans act is there >> but we are still at liberty to apply the common law that applied before 1988. Is there any such authority other than the author's opinion? No, because that would be implicable the statute binds the court. And so the submission is that to the extent that the truth of the contents of the documents is needed to support Cape Union mods defense.
>> Cape Union mods defense.
>> The respondent's defense. I apologize.
Sorry. So to the extent that the truth of the documents is required >> is required to support the respondent's defense.
As far as those documents come from public sources by public officials exercising the public duty in making those statements, the court may in the interests of justice have regard to it under section three of the law of evidence amendment act.
the interests of justice being influenced by the variables under the common law as it existed and was applied before 1988 >> because section three as I understand it that codifies the what was previously the common law position I don't understand the law to be and I think we're on the same page that the common law now just carries on running alongside the act Okay.
>> No, it's rather like how one read the grounds of review in pad with reference to older cases. Mutatus mutanis.
>> Okay. But except Yeah. Yes. I suppose so because it codifies it. Okay. So are you now from the bar moving for an applica moving an application under section three >> in the alternative lady? The first position >> is that it isn't it is sufficient for the respondents to say we rely on the facts of the publications which are facts in the public domain.
That's the basis for our advocacy for purposes of the answering affidavit.
Therefore, if the court is with me, it is unnecessary to obtain a confirmatory affidavit from the United Nations, from Justice Navi Pelle, from the Minister of Durko, from Mr. Netanyahu himself to rely on statements that they made in their official capacities.
>> But but sorry to interrupt you, just taking that a step further. This case is about not about what Israel is or isn't doing. We've been there. We've looked at Msuku.
It's not a justitiable issue. We're not permitted to deal with it.
What this case is about is Mr. Pravitates's links to these organizations and to use the terminology adopted um yesterday and this morning by extension and also as it appears in fairness in the affidavit. Okay.
So it's one thing is it not to say okay here's a a statement by some organization by the way they're not statements also they're websites okay this is I understand with the UN special rapeter those kind of things those are those are statements of a sort ICJ rulings IC ICJ rulings you know that acronyms are not my strong point. Okay, let's accept all of those.
But what this court is being asked to do, and I'm not saying exclusively, I accept there are other articles as well, is to look at a website and to say that website's good enough.
And sadly, we are now also dealing with the era of AI.
I mean, if you Google yourself, you'll be quite astounded to see what you've managed to achieve in your life. I'm apparently forwarded things that I've done. All sorts of things I wasn't aware of. Okay.
But what I'm That's just But I mean, is it not isn't doesn't it call for more caution rather than less when it comes to websites? And can websites ever be evidence? I understand if some public official puts out a statement, but when you are looking at websites, how do we know who these people are and what they're doing and how they say it?
Not not I'm not saying that they're necessarily misleading on purpose, but it's c and that's that's the problem with these things these days. Anyway, I digress, but I think >> your leadership has passed.
>> Mr. wants to get his own back. Some of us I'm indebted for your forbearance.
Justice is your leadership has asked two questions of me. And if I may paraphrase, the first question was, is this case not about connecting Mr. credits to the organizations and not about the bigger conflict between Israel and Palestine Alamasuku with reference to paragraphs one and two.
The second question was about how much credence can one place on print outs of websites.
I'd address the first question and foreshadow that there is a statutory answer to a leadership second question.
As to the first, my submission is that the case, the legal case that's before the court is not limited to wheat and the organizations.
It is also what that connection entails and signifies and to reorientate oneself with reference to the binding authorities of the SCA.
So you said what that connection embraces and entails.
>> Entails and signifies.
>> Entails and signifies. Thank you.
And to that end is for the respondents to put up sufficient evidence to sustain a colorable defense, not to discharge any bonus of proof.
As to the website discomfort, I submit that one can draw sucker from parliament's pronouncement on the matter and I'd like to refer you leadership to the microscopic bundle of authorities or >> I will note the page reference >> the bundle of authorities with microscopic text like little ants and the statute in issue. is the electronic communications and transactions act 20 202 and there are three provisions that I would like to read out if I may but I am mindful of the time and the learned friends that need to reply so I will move quickly the first is the definition of a data message.
The second is a definition of a web page.
Web page is a data message and the substantive rules related to data messages genuine.
The first substant of rule of law is is section 15 which concerns the advisibility 15 >> 1515 the advisibility and the evidential weight of data messages.
And the whole point of this act was to disabuse the disbelieving of the notion that data messages, electronic messages are somehow of lesser significance.
Section 15 says that in any legal proceedings, the rules of evidence must not be applied so as to deny the admissibility of a data message, which includes a website in evidence on the mere grounds that it is constituted by a data message, or if it is the best evidence that the person aducing it could reasonably be expected to obtain on the grounds that it is not in the original form. Now as to the the the last qualification, this is the original form to the best of the respondents knowledge, but your relationship's concern I submit is answered completely by section 15 of this act. So the nature of the of the material that comes from online matters not.
The next provision I would like to address is over the page page 755 of section 25.
It provides a data message that is I beg you pardon. A data message is that of the originator if it was sent by the originator personally or person who had authority to act on behalf of the originator in respect to that data message and I submit that sent by also includes generates that's for I submit by the definition of originator An originator means a person by whom or on whose behalf a data message purports to have been sent or generated prior to storage. And so the submission is by virtue of section 25. The fact that these organizations have put up have designed web pages to reflect to the public what they do, what their programs are and how they have spent public money is sufficient for the admissibility of those documents.
>> Your alternative would be section three.
>> Indeed. So the fact that documents is sufficient for the respondents reliance on the point the next point I wish to turn to and the final one the penultimate one is the applicant's theory that because no affidavit has been put before the court to confirm the content of these documents that they may not be relied on. I'd just like to point out something that occurred to me this morning.
There's an irony here because the applicants themselves rely on exactly the kind of material that they say the respondents may not.
And I refer in that regard to the PSC's own website and social media pages which are next to the founding affidavit without a confirmatory affidavit from PSC on which the applicants rely.
And common sensically I submit what it exposes is >> the good for the goose good for the gander >> not in kettle but it it exposes an unworkable situation because on the applicant's theory an applicant must first get confirmation of any document emanating from an opposed closing party before it can rely on that document in litigation that I submit would conduce to an unworkable and insensible situation.
Another choice example is the applicant's reliance in their founding affidavit on the victims of terror fund and on the articles from the Jewish report without an affidavit from the author.
Granted, the applicants did obtain an affidavit from Mr. Zoma in relation to the victims of terror fund, but not from the author of the Jewish report, and neither did the respondents.
While an affidavit would have been desirable, the fact remains that the article was published and put into the public space for public consumption.
and exercising their discernment.
Members of the public can rely on that.
Your leadership mentioned how long ago Justice Inis was around, but his jurist prudence still rings very true to this state and he uses a choice word which is also favored by Mr. Justice Pon.
>> I thought you were going to say Justice Vins.
>> No hearing would be complete without our touch.
>> Such a great man.
And the point is petty fogging. What the applicants are attempting to do is to gut the respondent's answer with reference to laws of evidence, rules of evidence which are either plainly inappropriate and have fallen into desertude or which they themselves fl the >> but then M Mr. Naidu um and maybe I'm jumping ahead here, but just thinking this through. I mean, apart from the argument that the case shifts in reply, that should be the end of the striking out applications on both sides based on your submissions.
I would think >> as it pleases you.
Of course, there is another battery of matter that sought to be struck out and that is on the basis of scandalous and vexacious matter and irrelevant matter.
I'm less concerned about those than the new matter in McLuff.
This is an august court which can exercise its sagacity to discount those matters without more.
The point I wish to focus on is one alluded to in my exchange with the court earlier on and that Yes.
If Mr. Z's and Mr. Ashir's affidavit are before the court, what weight to attach to them?
And in our preparation I noticed the Fenz Mr. Kravitz invited Mr. Ashiri and Mr. Zoma to make their affidavit on a limited basis and with a narrow invitation.
I struggle to find the reference now.
Oh, it's paragraph 34 of the replying affidavit and if I then the invitation to those gentlemen was this I have this is Mr. private speaking he asks Mr. Zoma and Mr. Ashiri to ex to confirm that he has not made donations to any non-ring fenced projects in respect of Mr. Zoma and Mr. in respect of Mr. Ashiri to explain what Jaffy does.
Paragraph 35 and 36 are also relevant.
When one turns to Mr. Zmer's affidavit, he confirms which documents were before him, what he read. And at paragraph three, he says, The submission being or is going to be I know I I imagine that their confirmatory affidavit go further than what they were invited to confer not >> with respect lady the the submission is that they were not invited to read the answer >> and they make no audience that they ever read the answer >> and so it would be unfair fair to criticize either of them for not having disabused the court of any doubt or to confirm any doubt as to the status of the organization's public facing documents.
And there the whitman point acquires a different flavor because neither Mr. Zum nor Mr. Ashiri were asked, please look at these website printouts. Are they accurate? Are they current? Have they been misread?
Look at the 2023 impact report. What do you have to say about this? Is there anything in the answering affidavit which misleads?
In which case, one would have expected them as appointed officials of their respective organizations to say as the appointed representative this is wrong.
This is misapplied. I confess and avoid and so on. And they haven't done that.
So my submission is whatever weight the court attaches to it should it should the affidavit be considered as part of evidence should be minimal indeed. Miy may I have agreed and as Mr. Jamie rightly points out it would be for them to say that the website image or print out has been manipulated.
That simply doesn't arise because Mr. Kravitz didn't empower them to make those statements. They were disempowered from doing anymore.
Um lastly on the conditional strikeout application as my learned friend Mr. Woodro accepts it is unusual and it is unusual for this reason.
The request is if Mr. Zur's affidavit and Mr. Ashir's affidavit are struck.
There will be forensic asymmetry in the case because the applicants will still have the websites or rather the respondents and therefore the condition will be met on their request and those websites the evidence and the PSC's avers based on those websites should be struck.
That's not the function of rule 651.
If the applicants fail in putting up a proper reply, that cannot retrospectively make the answer irrelevant, scandalous, vexacious, or hearsay.
Objectively it is either any of those things or it isn't. And so to that extent the conditionality is incompetent.
Members of court unless there are further questions.
Just one question. Can we have a blown up version of Shriard >> as it please?
>> That can be sent to us in due course. I can't remember if I've got Schwick in my chambers.
Probably unlikely >> see >> given our austerity measures, but it would be nice if we could. Thank you very much. Northern I do.
>> Um Mr. Woodro, would this be a convenient time?
>> Thank you. Good. See, it's it's 1:00.
>> Okay. Um, you are you not going to be longer than an hour and a half in reply?
>> Do my very best. I need to be shorter than >> Okay. No, I just wanted to if you if you need an extra 15 minutes, we can come back at 2.
>> No, 2:15 is is I'll pick have some time to look at the new matter.
>> Thank you. I would be very grateful if whoever is having a WhatsApp conversation would either put it on silent or stop. Thank you. We adjourned until 2:15.
Justice I'm really sorry justices um I admitted to round off my argument for dealing with the other two substantive grants for for relief dignitations I've got to say on that justices our principle submission in that regard is on the basis of what we placed in dispute. They then claim the starting blocks on either one of those lines of attack in relation to dignified statements that give on the papers on the affidavit that give rise to Mr. Kravitz's feelings of insult and his dignity being impaired or attributable attributable to my class. That should be if you're with us on pass that is the end of that inquiry.
Um if you are not then there is still a requirement um that an applicant who comes to court with a cause of action based on lithus must prove the act of omission or omission which gives rise to a duty to have acted or not act. And in this case, in as much as a principal submissions, nothing that we've done could give rise to the feature of Mr. President.
If you are prepared to give any credence to the attribution and organizational arguments which you've heard today, then our failure would lie in an omission to control etc etc. And those allegations have to be pleaded in order for the court to make bings in that regard. That is the authority for that is COVID which is in the >> is this not in your heads of argument cuz when you stopped arguing you said for the rest you stand by your heads of argument.
>> U I'm pointed out to me because of the view we took that it wasn't a properly pleaded case of dignity.
>> Yeah. Just just tell me Mr. Jamie. Is it or is it not in your heads the >> not in the heads?
>> Very well. Take us to where we need to insert it please.
the authority justice that we rely upon or the requirement that you have to plead the elements of dignitas which include wonderfulness is called administer law.
>> Yes. But we just need to orientate ourselves where you deal with this particular issue in your heads of arguments if you take us there.
>> We haven't dealt >> you haven't dealt with it at all.
>> Is that what you say? Yes, that is so because we did not understand liidosa the separately pleaded course of action.
So I'm simply alerting or giving the court the relevant authority if you are to consider >> No just just hold on Mr. Jamie, you finished arguing.
>> Uhhuh.
>> When you've completed your argument, you said to us, "For the balance, you stand by your heads."
>> Then you sat down and was denied you argued.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Now you are advancing an argument that isn't dealt with in your heads of argument.
>> Am I correct?
>> Um, yes. I'm simply we have not lost the digning cause of action. We did not understand it to be such which is why the main argument is that they haven't cleared it.
>> No, it wasn't that you did not understand it to be such. You said it was not there.
>> Yes.
>> That's different from not understanding it. And you heard what Mr. Woodro said to what we raised with Mr. Woodro. My concern, Mr. Jamie, is we're not going to be detained for another half an hour >> on the last day of this hearing which is cutting into Mr. Woodro's time. This is >> so just take us to where we should insert it in the heads of argument.
>> It's not been found. So I can't take it where it should be.
>> You not deal with it at all.
>> The assault on Mr. Kravitz's dignity.
We've dealt with it justice on the basis that many assaults dignity is not to be found in or on speeches of the we accept that Mr. Kravitz in founding has referred to dignity and we know what the you've heard from Mr. Woodro and I'm not trying to argue the point in extent so I simply want to point our distance and our simple submission is this we accept that there's reference to dignity we did not understand it to be a cause of action but if the court is going to entertain it as a cause of action then we have two responses and the one you will find throughout our and it's part what Mr. n dealt with it's not attributable to us the complaints about synagogue about Satan etc which give gives rise to the dignity complaint they're not attributable to us and we're given the reasons for that so that is the first answer the second response to if you found there is a dignified plan that's been depleted the Only point we make is that on the authority of Carter there must be allegations which give rise to the duty not to have so act allegations as the fact and to the extent that and the authority for that proposition proposition of law is minister of law and order which is in our bundle at page 764.
So that is those are submissions that I want to make in relations to dignitas.
>> Yes. But we're trying to find a place to orientate ourselves. You flooded us with 900 pages between the lot of you plus more pages plus heads of argument plus authorities bundles. And now you stand up and you say but if this is an issue then we must deal it on this basis and kam take me to where we can fit it in somewhere in your heads of argument so that we are ourselves able to consider this there was an allegation somewhere and I'm not sure if it was in the answering papers or if it was in the heads of argument because one of the very reasons why I raised it with Mr. Woodro right during his argument when I said the assertion or the admission is made that there is no case made out.
I think those were the words I used Mr. Woodro please correct me if I'm wrong for the infringement of Mr. Kravitz's dignity. There's nothing in the affidavit and I asked Mr. Woodro about that and he gave me specific references.
So there must be something in your heads of argument which makes that assertion.
>> I've just been given a copy of the heads to me very quickly and I'm sorry I'm taking up the time of this. I meant to facilitate you or to be brief both.
>> Yes, you might be brief but we need to understand why it's being raised now and where we fit it in.
Unless Mr. Woodra is able to assist me.
No, >> I'll assist you.
section in your Mr. J after paragraph 90 assault from Mr. Prog's beginning.
Sorry, that's >> that's the applicant's heads.
>> Yes, >> anyway. Perhaps perhaps the only the way the best way to deal with it then is we'll just make a note, Mr. James. You say that in the event >> of the courts >> finding that a case was made out on theing papers in respect of the assault on Mr. Kravitz's dignity.
>> Yes. In in the event that you find that justices, >> you would do that on the basis of reference to as you've heard the principal argument and the argument advanced by Mr. N of what was published and who published it.
And we say that on an consideration of those of evidence in the papers on the best of plastics, you will not make a binding against any of our parts.
>> If you could just please give us the reference to Kada or Carter.
>> Carter is in our um >> Yes. But just give us the case reference.
>> Yes. The case reference and the paragraph number.
>> The case reference card.
>> Case reference is min. This is Cardo K A D I R. M >> it's 19951 SA 303 division that's 764. The bundle >> 764.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
Paragraph.
>> Um the sorry.
Yes, the irrelevant page is at 771 of the bundle and the it's not paragraphs.
>> Oh, it wouldn't be because it's 1995.
>> That's correct. So page it's a bit difficult to seems to be page 319. Justice is um it also doesn't have the usual par um >> you can just tell us what it starts with.
>> What the paragraph starts with the words? Um it's the it's the second last full paragraph after the quotation and it reads that a legal duty to act positively in order to avoid harm to another may arise from from a party's prior conduct cannot be doubted but where specific prior conduct is invoked in support of the existence of legal duty such conduct must obviously be properly pinned.
And then the court the court deals with the specifics of that case. So that's the authority to that proposition justice is that it's not been pleaded and one of the elements of a dignitus breach is as the pool is aware with regard to the regulations of gathering act. We make the same submissions on a consideration of the evidence that's in you will not find that any breach of the regulations of gathering sites has been committed by the response from my Sorry, I know the court asked for copies of card intend to make them.
>> That's fine. I said they can be sent to us later.
>> Those are >> Thank you, Mr. Jamie. Mr. Woodro, >> please.
I may start where my learning friend left off. uh I've located the uh place in his heads where the aspect of u common law infringement of dignity or dignity is located paragraph 102 heads and if I may begin there uh the submission was made that none of the allegations in respect of his clients reach dignitus uh and that if wrongfulness needs to be pleaded That's correct. I remember now because the the assertion was made in their heads that you raised the assault on Mr. Kravitz's dignity for the first time in the heads of argument. It was never pleaded and I said, "What do you say?" And you took us to all the the references in the founding affidavit.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh we submit that the allegations, the statements made those which impair the dignity of our clients.
any any decent human being told that he or she is a baby killer or involved in a funding a genocide or a genocide would feel that his or her feelings h have been impaired his his dignity uh we submit that that is relatively trit and in line with the relevant test which is whether a reasonable observer would agree with that person feeling that way we submit that it is relatively obvious that that would in fact occur.
Uh the what has been said both by the clients of Mr. My Learned Friend um including uh the statements associated or adopted by the PSC which they have admitted uh constitute an infringement on a person's dignity.
We've also seen a verification by our learned friends that most of the statements in question constitute a comment.
If if the court is to accept that submission is correct for current purposes, we submit that the short answer to the matter is that the defenses raised by the respondents or that the respondents have not raised the proper defense.
It was referred to in detail to the alleged facts which were within the knowledge of the protesters.
But but the real the relevant question is um and the test is that to lay a defense based on protected comment, it is an immutable requirement that the facts on which that comment are based is based must be truly stated must be truly stated. And for that proposition, we respectfully refer the court to the MacBride decision paragraph 88 >> is that McBride Constitutional Court or SDA?
>> Sorry, the constitutional court. Mark, >> thank you. A paragraph >> paragraph 88.
>> Thank you. Defense of means that the defense of protected or fair comment requires at the outset the facts be truly stated.
This means that to receive the benefit of the defense, it must be clear to those reading a publication what the facts are and what comments are made upon them.
commentator is not protected if he or she chooses to publish an expression of opinion which has no relation by way of criticism to any fact before the reader.
We respectly refer also to the authorities refer to in our heads of argument at paragraph 75.2 to 75.4 four uh which are authorities referred to in uh a decision um which which deal with this but McBride is authority for for the proposition.
The respondents do not even attempt to make out a case that they somehow communicated the underlying facts or the receiver of the messages and in that regard they do not get out of the starting box with respect of the defense.
It's also not something which can be repaired fixed at a later stage. The respondents cannot attempt to find more evidence during a trial. For instance, we also know that the respondents when asked to provide their campaign literature, we know what their answer was to that and that's dealt with in paragraph 81 to 83 of our heads. They provided all that they rely on.
And we submit that on this basis alone, it must be uncontroversial that the respondents have not set out a sustainable defense.
If the court is inclined to consider what our learned friends refer to as uh the the uh defense based on truth and public um public benefit.
Um then it's important to look at what they say.
Everything that is said is based on speculation.
There's not one positive adverment that Mr. Kravitz or I beg you pardon there's no not a positive verment instead they say or they suggest um that the donations may be funable answering affidavit paragraph 194 but this is this is dealt with and refuted by Mr. Kravitz himself who also provides confirmatory evidence from both Jaffy and Karen Hes.
And our submission in this regard is that in life in the face of of the evidence presented the speculation has to be rejected outright.
It also renders the further speculation about the activities of Karen Han Joot.
If one views the documentation that our learned friends seek to rely on, for example, in paragraph 150 of the answering affidavit, Mr. Chika claims without any evidence that Karen Hassad has financially supported Jewish settler organizations operated in operating and occupied East Jerusalem and then refers to UC 38, UC 39 and UC 40. Clay pause here.
Port Paul notes that averments are made in the affidavit and then annexes are often referred to without referring to a particular portion. Although there are some uh some annexes where particular portions are referred to but you see on this score UC 38 39 and 40 do not mention Karen A let alone an allegation that Karen Asot is operating outside of the pre 67 border.
Uh in paragraph the answering academia paragraph 168 the respondents alleged that Telford is recruiting soldiers.
You're then referred the basis of this is a reference to UC 5050 which is a magazine.
We are then referred to page 770 which is an opinion piece by one lieutenant A writing about why he found military service satisfied.
The hearsay alleged is not evidence at all.
The Electronic Communications Act doesn't change that fact.
And the fact that it's a data message doesn't make it suddenly either admissible doesn't make it admissible evidence.
It doesn't cure the hearsay nature or the opinion nature of a single piece of evidence that is presented to the school.
And we know that Mr. does not bear personal knowledge of any of of much of what he sets out and specifically in respect of the aspects dealing with a defense of of truth in respect of what is said from his own affidavit and what we were taken to this morning by my learned friend Mr. Jamie because he says so himself answering affidavit paragraph 73 he tells us where he got his information from public sources including recall correctly media interviews Paragraph 73 of the answering affidavit.
>> I'm just trying to find >> Sorry.
It is volume two.
>> Paragraph 17.
>> Paragraph 73.
>> Sorry, I'm going to page 73. Apologies.
>> Page 22.
>> Thank you.
>> He tells us we learned of Mr. to cover his affiliations through public sources in brackets media interviews and reports referred to below.
And we see from the nature of the documentation attached and from these statements made that that is where the opponent obtained his so-called information. All of which we submit in respect of media interviews and and reports that he consulted constitute documentary hearsay events.
One looks for example at UC 51, sorry, 52 looks at UC52 as a further example. I'm not going to belabor the court with with all everything, but in the replying affidavit at page 785, it's a document titled lone soldiers.
It is referenced in the answering affidavit.
in fact referenced in paragraph 169 with a reference of um it refers to Juicy 51 a print out from the Mahal web page.
And if one opens the document at page 785, we note that the document is an article in the Jerusalem Post.
It it states that it's published or produced in August 22nd of August 2004.
And it purports to deal with why North American kids want to serve in the IDF.
It is hearsay contains the views of of of a writer and it is inadmissible for purposes of sustaining a factual foundation to a defense of truth and public interest.
I think a learned friend made much of the fact that his clients rely on the matter of MMA versus Rahula, which we were told is the relevant test and makes provision for and I'm paraphrasing what my learn friend submitted uh fact that inadmissible evidence hearsay hearsay evidence is in fact evidence that can be used to support a defense of truth and public interest public benefit The case is contained in our authority bundle at page 200.
And the court was taken to paragraph 38 onwards.
We respectfully submit that the decision, the majority decision of Alma versus Raula is entirely distinguishable and illustrates graphically why the current case, current defense raised has to fail.
The Mr. Raula paragraph 59 was a member of the EFF and served on the highest decision making body.
He had p he had personal knowledge and he as he put it I quote from paragraph 39 a quote from his statement port will note that I have privileged information because I was sitting in the highest structure of the EFF and information could not be manufactured but could be received as communicated by the applicant himself he was told there was an admission made by Mr. in that body. That was the evidence that that's part of the evidence they presented.
If we look at and I'm not going to deal with all of the evidence because there's substantial evidence that was presented, admissible evidence that was presented that met the yard stick for a factual foundation of a defense truth.
In paragraph 42, we see that Mr. Raul's respondent's version was confirmed by Mr. Salisa, a member of the EFF and MP also on the uh CCT and the wall council and he produced a handwritten affidavit in which he he confirmed uh a number of facts which are set out in paragraph 42.
Paragraph 43 of the judgment uh we see that the court considered that evidence and made certain decisions based on on that evidence. But the point is that evidence was produced, admissible evidence.
court wasn't taken to the admissible evidence that was presented in MMA and Raula which stretches from paragraph 40 through to practically the end of the decision.
The second distinguishing factor is that and I use simply an example because there are more reference references to it but that that evidence was simply met with bold denials by the respond the respondent in that order paragraph 60 neither was the respondent statement price of alkaline inflated and true the very reason why the alcohol was not fought. Appalent's reply once more was a bold denial.
Further on the court says despite this he did not produce a single document to show that these costs have been inflated or to rebut the allegation that there was no there were no financial reports sorry no financial reports tabled since 2014. paragraph 61 refers to the the ball denial the minority decision and the majority decision in male versa in my submission our submission doesn't uh they don't depart in respect of the principle to be applied Mr. Rogers his lordship Mr. Justice Rogers as he as he then was uh refers to in paragraph 79 of the major the minority decision he asks what admissible evidence did the respondent put in support of his allegation that the aptitude was corrupt stole money and was of a base moral character. There's a there's a disagreement between the courts between the court and the majority the minority decision on what admissible evidence was was put up. But the the underlying premise is that admissible evidence has to be raised to create set out a factual foundation for a defense of truth and public interest.
My learned friend referred to possible defenses.
Um, and if I understood the reference correctly, it was to the potential of developing the law in one way or another in respect of further possible defenses.
>> But but Mr. Woodro, that's not a case that's advanced before us.
>> We're not just here at liberty to develop the common law as we see fit.
There must be a case made out >> for the development of the common.
>> Yes, that yes and no case is made out for that.
>> I could take a step back and I'm not going to spend very much time at all with the anacus submissions except to say this. there seems to be a an overlap in respect of uh the an argument if I understood my learn friend Mr. Jamie to make it seem to overlap to some extent that if there isn't a prohibition in terms of the subsections or the prohibited speech in section 16 then whatever is said can be said the protest >> that's the argument here where the law of defamation fits into that argument >> yes it does >> is is is is a difficult question the the pro the problem with the submission for for kels and and and for the respondents in that that regard is that there there are in fact three three letters there there are certain exceptions to free speech in terms of section 16 um which are prescribed by by section 16 um incitement for example to hatred uh etc. Um but the fact that it doesn't fit into one of those prescribed categories doesn't mean that you that the that one can say anything or as the amicus said um that there's no constitutional imperative to speak the truth or prohibition to lying and we see the difficulty one gets into if one follows that sort of belief because that is where one ends up the uh the law the law for freedom of speech is not absolute.
It can be limited as we we know and and defamation is one of those areas um which which which limits free speech because of the weighing up of the uh legal interests involved. um dignity and and privacy as opposed to freedom of speech.
So the fact that it's not prescribed by section 16 does not mean and I I submit it's relatively trit that it cannot be prescribed by virtue of uh the fact that it infringes on somebody's rights as happened in >> which section of the constitution deals with the right to dignity is it 10 >> 10 my lady I believe >> so if one were to accept the proposition that the only limitations on freedom of expression are those contained in section 16 and I can't remember offh hand what's in 17 but it's section 16 I think the one we've been talking about that would then necessarily I would imagine involve diluting another right in the bill of rights which is section In other words, put differently, dignity somehow occupies a lower level of importance than section 16.
>> Yes. Which is >> that's not how I understand constitutional law or the bill of rights. But that would seem to be the logical conclusion if one is to take the approach that the only limitation >> yes >> are the limit in this context. Let's just deal with freedom of expression leaving out right to associate or right of association. The only limitations would be those in section 16.
>> Yes. And that one's right to dignity, which is a separately entrenched right in the Bill of Rights, must yield to section 16 and must be viewed as only being applicable as a right if it falls within one of the exceptions under 16.
>> Yes.
which is we respectfully submit clearly not not not how law works or how constitutional law applies. And the dangerous part of it is if and when one applies that sort of thinking then one arrives at the conclusions that amus set out that they say anything including things that impaired dignity, reputation etc. And I say that only from a constitutional law perspective without expressing any view on the merits of this case. That's how I understand the constitution. You're talking about a balancing of rights, not one right to operate to the exclusion of another equally entrenched right in the bill of rights.
>> Yes. Freedom of expression is is a factor that is is is >> one of the ones that goes into the mix, but >> it's not a veto those judgments.
>> Yes.
The submission was made that arguments made on the fact that um republication was raised for the first time in reply.
There was publication referred to of others posters in the founding affidavit founding affidavit paragraphs 61- 62 read together with annex C11 >> sorry founding affidavit par 61 >> 61-62 uh >> and read together with annex C11 which is referred to in those paragraphs deals with the publication by means of posting on Instagram by the PSC 61 deals with the fact that the posters the VNA store sorry the protesters held posters stating Cape Union Mart supports the genocide in Gaza and a banner stating Kravitz way kway killer wake as is evident from the pictures attached uh marked and C11 and then the statement is made. The pictures were posted on the Instagram account of PSC Cape Town PS Cape Town. The seventh respondent paragraph 62 I'm advised that to any reasonable reader of the poster the meaning of the words that was that Cape and M supports a genocide in Gaza and that I personally killed in killing human beings. So that is not a a republication referred to in the for the first time in the replying affidavit.
It was raised in the founding papers. Um the submission was that in respect of Laru versus Bay that that was trial action. the the onus uh in respect to the fact that the respondents bear an onus is dealt with in in the application setting in MMA versus Raula.
We dealt with that in our heads of argument. Um it's paragraph 53 of MMA versus Raula.
um deal dealing with the fact whether the applet made out a case for an interdict.
Sorry, paragraph 31 of Malma versus Raula where it is confirmed that the onus was that thus upon the respondent to raise and establish an offense to rebut either wrongfulness or intention.
that that bonus remains in application settings.
Then in so far as references to um hex were made, we simply refer to the fact that the usual rules apply.
Uh and that we also respectfully refer to the POTS decision um which is a in at page 142 of our bundle um that where a final interdict is sought. my paraphrase, the court has very little discretion once the requisites requisites have been met for such a uh for such relief referred to the print media case at 569 of our learned friends bundle of authorities.
We simply highlight the words in paragraph 44 of the print media case uh in respect of the argument on prior restraint uh which refers to before to see in the light of day.
If we may also refer to the matter of the EFF versus manual. The court was taken from paragraph 87 of the judgment in in arguing the prior restraint argument by our learned friends versus manual at page 96 of our bundle of authorities.
Page the Supreme Court of Appeal decision.
uh court, we we respectfully refer the court to the ne very next paragraph in relation to the prior restraint argument uh which reads that in the present case the statement complained of was first published more than two months ago two months prior to the matter being heard by the court below despite protestations by Mr. the manual. The applicants remain defined and drew even more attention for the original bun publication.
>> Could you just give us that paragraph number again? Sorry, I didn't write down.
>> Sorry. Paragraph 88 of EFF versus manual.
>> That's the one you've just quoted.
>> Exactly. And I haven't finished. I'm not going to read the entire >> That's fine. That's fine. My learned friend, if I understand correctly, made the submission that including words uh such as the prohibition of defamation or or stating words to the effect of of of genocide or of of killing, etc. In other words, an interdictive that doesn't simply uh prevent his clients from raising a particular poster. If I understood the submission correctly, he his argument was that uh it's a it's an unconstitutional order to ask for anything more general than an interdict stopping somebody raising a particular poster with particular words in it. and he referred to the case of of of Manuel.
Um this morning I provided my learned friend with the with the high court judgment or decision and it's simply the cover page and the order because it's the order to which I strictly wish to refer the court if I may. uh hand copy of >> uh and while it's being handed up may I make this submission the as we know that the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the interdicctory part of the order of his lordship Mr. Justice Montjani in the high court and one can one can simply look at the headnote in this in this matter uh oh sorry in the when I say the headnot matter the Supreme Court of appeal headnote refers to amongst other things um as relief he sought its removal from the Twitter accounts a retraction and apology and then an interdict of future publication I I leave it there um the high court granted relief um and it also interdicted the respondents making further similar statements.
One may have reference also to the Supreme Court of Appeal decision at paragraph 3 an interdict against future and further publication and then of course his lordship Mr. Just as much Johnny's order was not set aside was upheld in so far as it related to the intellect.
Paragraphs 1 to four of of interest, but paragraph five is important.
Uh and it reads, "The respondents are intericted from publishing any statement that says or implies that the applicant is engaged in corruption and nepotism from the selection of the commissioner of the South African Revenue Service."
And and we submit that the orders that we seek uh are to the effect that the respondents are not to publish statements that are u defamatory uh in so far as they relate to publications of making claims in respect for the funding of genocide, complicity of respondents in respect of killing of children. I'm paraphrasing but but the submission really is that such an order can be made that it is constitutional uh and and based on my learned friend submission of course an interdict covers future conduct we we we have we have respondents represented represented respondents uh seek to defend all of the all of the allegations that they that they've been making and they continue to make these allegations despite them undertaking having been given in court in respect of the conducting of of gatherings.
We we we we see that that has not been um complied with.
Uh very briefly um just to point out that in paragraph 89 of the judgment of EFF versus MMA, my friends rely on the child judgment and and simply to point out that some caution needs to be uh used um because what what in fact happened in in Tao perhaps simply to quote um that from paragraph 89 of the EFF versus um sorry training support um EFF versus manual um halfway down paragraph 89 the applicant's reliance on this court's decision in Tao versus Mashala and others is misplaced that case concerned an application for interim relief pending an action for defamation and damages. The court below in that case uh before allowing for possible defenses to be addressed granted a declaratory order and an interdict in final terms.
This court predictably set those orders aside. That case is far from the facts of the present application. In the present case, Mr. The manual satisfied the requirements ordered the territory and in victory relief sought.
Consequently, those orders are not liable to be set aside.
Then in so far as the arguments raised and much was made of paragraph 5 and 114 of the founding affidavit as it has been throughout these proceedings. Um and and our learned friends have now adopted the position that the the fact set out there that Cape Union Mart is is a Jewish company is somehow dispositive of a finding that the I paraphrase the corporate veil ought to be pierced or there ought to be a collapsing of of uh of the the line between the Kravitz and um and Cape Union Mart. Uh If we if I may uh make the submission that those statements reflect we submit the pro reflect the protesters's position um perception that Cape Union Mart is a is a Jewish company. It one turns to and must be read in context. one turns to paragraph sorry because the statements are made that in in essence the applicants cannot see any other reason and I'm adding some words here that they can't see any other reason why they have been targeted apart from the fact of this perception that well the fact that Mr. Travis is Jewish and the perception that that it's a Jewish company. The founding app paragraph 132 spells this out further.
Paragraph 132 of the founding affidavit reads that the display of the swastika alongside criticism of me adds insult to injury in light of the well-known history of the holocaust committed against Jews and the hate implied through that symbol. The fact that the display of the swastika is directed at Cape Union and me because I am Jewish and the company is therefore perceived to be a Jewish company is egregious and unacceptable in a free and democratic society. And then paragraph 6.4 before the founding papers um and applying the uh approach adopted by our learned friends now in argument that because they haven't answered the other paragraphs um these are now admitted with paragraph 6.4 Four of the founding affidavit reads, "Cape Union Mart being a juristic entity and well-known business with recognizable brands is continuously suffering unlawful reputational damage and economic losses through false claims of the protesters.
Of course, C1 sets out a resolution."
>> Sorry, Mr. W. What I understood Mr. Jamie's submission to be >> yes >> when we dealt with the seriatum response was yes well we haven't dealt with them head on paragraph by paragraph but you can find them elsewhere and then we were taken to where we could find them elsewhere I mean leaving aside of course that that's not how one >> should deal with um allegations in an affidavit just leaving that aside for the moment because it makes the court's life very difficult. Of course, it's fine to have an introduction and say a few things, but then you're supposed to deal squarely with each and every paragraph and where you don't say I've already dealt with this in paragraph X above. We don't have that advantage here as a court. But I I did not understand Mr. Jamie's submission to be well to the extent that we haven't dealt with it.
Somewhere in our affidavit, it's taken to be admitted. I mean I'm aware of what Whiteman says and put that to one side but just in fairness to Mr. Jamie, I don't think it was his submission that well, if we haven't dealt with it, then we can take it to be admitted.
>> I I may have misunderstood him, but um having having heard what he submitted regarding the collapsing of the corporate identity and that it was our case that or our client's case that u that it's Jewish company. Um and he was he specifically Well, there was specific reference to paragraph 5 and 114.
>> Yes.
>> Um, >> we were told that was the case they had to meet.
>> And I I believe they that the submission was made that they accepted our version in that regard. There's no answer to that. So I suppose it it's we can accept that there wasn't a concession in that regard. But the legal the legal the legal consequence of not of not not dealing with something is in fact that it is admitted. Um but I I make a different point. I I submit in so far as that was the argument that the context of the rest >> Yes, I get that point >> shows that that's not what we were saying in those paragraphs. Um and and of course we we see there are nine.
>> Well, you see paragraph five itself says for no apparent reason other than >> Yes.
Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Yep.
>> Uh because we we We we see the resolution at C1 and the director signing it. Um it is obviously a corporate entities. On page 50 of the 50 of the the papers we see and at page 65 at the bottom we see the the directors referred to in the um in the letter written uh the nine directors. Um and in reply uh this is all further set out that it's a separate corporate entity um with with nine directors. The the shareholding is also dealt with um in in replying affidav paragraph 186 and 364.
And so with with respect >> Mr. Woodra we can accept I think that it is a separate corporate entity.
>> Yes. I mean the objective documents speak for themselves. My understanding of Mr. Jaime's argument was that because Mr. Kravitz himself I'm I'm I'm not quoting him verbatim. I don't want him to think I'm quoting him verbatim. But because Mr. Kravitz himself open refers to Cape Union Mart as us and we >> that bias he in a sense associates Cape Union Mart with his own activities which the respondents find unacceptable.
>> That's why I understood the argument.
>> Yes. Yes. Uh >> because it's the sorry to interrupt again but it's the by extension. That's what we keep hearing. By extension. By extension.
>> Yes.
>> The vicarious liability argument appears to have gone.
>> Yes.
>> The derivative complicit complicity argument also appears to be gone. Mr. Jamie placed on record this morning that the respondents do not suggest that Cape Union Mart independently funds the offensive activities. the offend what they consider to be the offensive activities.
>> So what we left with as I understand it is the assertion that because Mr. Kravitz himself publicly again I'm using my own words associates union m with him. it >> me us we we that therefore he he in a sense has brought Cape Union Mart into the picture that that's how I understand the argument >> yes >> possibly incorrectly but that's what I could understand um my lady the it um the the argument is is misplaced in the sense that it is a separate corporate entity there are nine directors the fact that Mr. Kravitz refers to it um and is proud of the fact that he built this company from from very little um in into a a substantial entity um and and is proud of that fact doesn't necessarily impute his conduct to the company. Um the fact of the matter is >> No, I'm I'm not saying that it does. I'm saying that's how I understand the argument.
>> Yes, >> that's something we need to think about.
>> And I'm M >> sorry I'm countering the the >> No, no, that's fine. I just want to make it clear I'm not >> expressing a view one way or the other.
Okay.
>> Um there was a >> I'd like you just to expand on that. I interrupted you. You said look it doesn't necessarily mean that. Maybe you could just >> give us your response on that. um there is not a basis to attribute um what Mr. Kravitz has done uh to the the company and let me start with saying that on the papers on the on the facts and on the truth Mr. Kravitz has donated to various humanitarian organizations or and and specific projects I took which I took the court to in respect of the argument uh when I began uh on Monday.
Uh so there's there's no there's no there's no negative conduct to be attributed but assuming there is conduct of of one in one way or another. Um and there is certainly positive conduct.
We take that. Um he he is a director.
you were taken to a document this morning about why they say they are entitled to to allege that um there's complicity in respect of of Mr. Kravitz and and Kate Gimman that document reads and it's a document dated 2015 that Mr. Kravitz is stepping down and I'm paraphrasing >> and taking a non-executive role so that he can date more devote more time to charitable causes >> it did not escape by notice >> uh we we we submit that Cape Union Mart with its nine directors if if if one were able to impute uh conduct in respect of of each of the directors to a particular company we would and use that as a defense to a claim on defamation in respect of the truth of funding a genocide or publicity with killing. Um well we submit that isn't a a proper defense to uh a not a proper defense in respect to truth and public interest because it's it it is from a factual point of view simply not true.
It it it brings us to the submission made that because if I understood the submission correctly because uh certain documents have been read by by the respondents uh and they have a firm belief a belief in what is set out. they are entitled to make statements as to what they what they believe as opposed to what they can show is true. Uh with respect that's that's not how the law works. They need to be able to lay a factual basis of truth uh in terms of what has been what they are saying to justify uh their defamatory statements.
There's a submission was made that of a notorious fact. Notorious facts were relied on the Krem Kravitz family is in charge. that that submission was preceded by um the latest submission in respect of uh the Jewish company that that Miss Bulgman is is a director of of the company. Um the submission was made that it's a notorious fact that that is not set out. uh we we submit in the the papers um in the answering affidavit and the submission was made that a simple Google search would reveal would reveal that that defeats the the argument that it's a notorious fact. Mr. Kravitz is not Mr. ride where there are notorious facts in the public domain in respect of the person. Um there were submissions made in respect of requesting documents um from our clients.
uh in terms of of discovery.
But just to orientate the court in respect of what what in fact happened uh with those requests for documentation.
the there were requests were made in terms of certain notices um and and the court will find these requests and the application that was then brought certain requests were answered um and there's an application that was served in terms of uh rule 3511 and or 35,13 and 14.
Um documentation was produced including at page it's 048- 117 the page 117 of volume 7.
um the entities to which Cape Union Mart had um funded provided funding for charitable purposes. There was an answer provided >> and that was prior obviously it would have been prior to the answering of the day if it's been filed.
>> Yes. Yes. and >> not dealt with in the answering affidavit.
>> I beg you >> not dealt with in the answering affidav that's what you're going to submit >> and and in fact further um the application was withdrawn and the court will find that in volume 7 at page 213.
Um >> page sorry what?
>> 213.
>> Apologies for turning my back but limited space.
It was a a reference to sorry he says I understood the the submission this morning. I may have misunderstood it that documents were requested but they weren't produced.
>> Yes, >> the the papers show that documents were requested.
Documents were produced without going into what exactly was produced and then the notice of withdrawal of the application to compel read in terms.
It's coming back to me now pursuant to the applicant's response.
>> Yes. Uh, I need to double check to I've got it in front of response.
Um, thank you.
>> Page 213 to 4. Kindly take notice that the first to fifth and seventh respondents hereby record their withdrawal of the interlocuary application to compel under the above case number. I assume this is the 351 12 come 13 come 14 one >> and then over the page pursuant to the applicant's response under the notice in terms of 3512 3611 alternatively 351314 with cost to be cast in the calls is that what you're referring us to >> so so if I'm if I may just make the following submission there there were there were documents uh requested um certain of which were indicated to be irrelevant or or defenses raised to not no reference for example. There were certain documents provided, but just to be clear, not all of the documents were that you were requested to provide.
>> But but the point you said, >> the point I think you're making is that whatever you produced, they were prepared to live with because they didn't pursue their application >> to say you say this is irrelevant, but we say it is, produce it. That's the point you're making.
>> Yes. Thank you.
>> Okay, I have it.
and and that uh what was produced was not dela.
Um again if I may uh the court was referred to the aspect of the reser being coming back from S Paulo. Um that is a document you the court was referred to page 714 of the answering papers. Um again a news a newspaper article um in the Jerusalem Post uh the court was able to point out or pointed out the date uh the the document reads that Kart Salo funded the >> I saw that >> and so I I I shouldn't speculate myself but that is the danger of relying on hearsay evidence and in In fact, on the first day of this hearing, um I I read the newspaper report on on what had been submitted to the court in a newspaper article and there was the first sentence um indicated that I had indicated that um dignity had been I'm paraphrasing had been impaired by virtue of of the defamation.
>> Mr. Yes, Mr. Woodro little bit of friendly advice what one reads in the press with all due respect to the press >> not necessarily entirely indicative of what happened in court that day and >> one learns it would not be able to raise it as truth and public interest in respective of >> careful you're going to walk into the hearsay problem.
>> Yes.
>> Yes. That is the the risk of relying on on on these documents. That's the problem that the respondents have in this case in respect of what they are presenting to the courts.
>> Are you going to deal with the so-called section three application in the alternative from the bar?
>> Yes.
>> In argument still or do you want to deal with that briefly now?
>> I'll deal with it. Uh I I'm not sure whether that application was made but in so far as it >> Well, Mr. But I do not nod. So I'm assuming it was some sort of application from the bar.
>> We submit.
>> Yeah, I know in the alternative. Yes, >> it's in the alternative. But the f what the the first part was in relation to public documents if I I understood correctly. Uh and a docu that the extract was handed up to the court.
The requirements for public documents have not been met in respect of what has been sent out in the papers. there no factual allegations in that regard as to the documentation upon which they they rely that wasn't that was never their case in in in their in their papers. Um the requisites for uh the documents being public documents uh we're not told well none of the none of the newspaper articles are made by a public official in execution of a public duty etc. Uh we are not told which documents they contend are in fact public documents. Um and with respect uh we see certain certain opinion pieces uh we see a range of of of documents uh that we submit they don't make out a case for these things constituting a public document um in the execution of a public uh they don't get out of the starting blocks in that regard. we respect submit.
Then in terms of the alternative section three of the act uh if one no proper application has been made for the admission of PSA evidence. Um, it the Sorry, I can't seem to find the don't we don't have an application dealing with the requisit in terms of section 31C.
Um but if one has regard to the the the provisions of 31C 1 through to 7.
Um we respectfully submit that the the nature of the the evidence nature of the proceedings and the purpose for which the evidence is tended um and the pro importantly the probative value of the evidence uh we respectly submit uh there is not a proper application made out >> is is the answer not the following but that wasn't the case in the answering affidavit the case in answering affidavit was truth and public benefit alternatively protected comment based on these publications and other things. So there was no case made out in the answering affidavit to say we accept that there may be problems with the evidential value of these sources if I can put it that way that we rely on. But we say that to the extent that there are difficulties or the court may cons be concerned with the admissibility of these publications and the like, we say they should go in under 31c for the following reasons and then they are normally identified and the reason is provided.
But what we have here is, as I understand the position, some a different a different basis for why they should be admitted argued today.
>> Yes.
>> Yes. And the additional difficulty just on the face of it is that it puts the court in a very invidious position because now we must troll through every single one of these and and determine what category it may or may not fall into.
A without an a proper application before us and b without it even having been foreshadowed in the answering affidavit.
I'm talking strictly from a procedural point of view now.
>> Yes.
Yes.
>> Am I wrong?
>> No. No. Absolutely. That that is why the first submission was there is no there was no proper application before the court because it puts the it puts the uh opposing uh party in a invidious situation as well and in respect of prejudice we we we suffer uh it is a is to an extent a concession on the hearay part of it but uh >> no but it's the alternative argument >> it's an alternative concession to the Yes.
>> No, it's a primary concession in the alternative.
>> So, sorry now my gun's got caught under my chair. Apologies.
>> And in the context of the proceedings before the court when attempting to tr prove truth, relying on PSA is is is problematic to be respectfully submit. Um the main judgment in Raula refers to evidence.
Mr. Lord, Mr. Justice Rogers then was stresses the fact that it is it's a court of law and it's admissible evidence that must be presented because if it's not admissible evidence the respondents don't get out of the starting blocks for the purposes of truth either You pardon my face.
made the submission.
Well, sorry. In respect for striking application that those the grants have been sent out and they and we persist with them in respect of our striking application.
In so far as the respondent strike application is concerned, the answering affidavit deals with each and every ground on which uh that is resisted and sets out facts in that regard in the answering papers. Uh the the answer is located the answer to the the respondent striking application. The board will find at at um page 324 sorry 34 in volume 8 and we we persist with what is set out therein.
Um I have taken the call to sorry perhaps a submission was made by our learned friends that in reading last night my learned friends junior uh noted a an evidential uh gap I think words to that effect given the so far as the supporting academics of Mr. Zoma and Mr. Sherry were concerned those those affidavits and the evidential gap that was identified was that it did not appear that the that those opponents had read the answering affidavit. If I may pause to make this submission that I'll take I I'll take the court to where you say that that submission is has is flawed. But even if we were to accept that that was correct, the facts are set out dealing with uh that which is which is raised and specifically dealing with truth of what has in fact taken place in so far as donations or funding is concerned, involvement is concerned. But the the primary submission is in fact we submit not correct. Um the affidavit proposed to by Mr. Jaffy of uh sorry Mr. Shiri of of Jaffy is replying affidavit in volume six at page 147.
And we see from that affidavit that the opponent deals with paragraphs in the answering affidavit at page 150 paragraph 15.
Uh for example um the opponent says in response to paragraph 162 of the answering affidavit hes is a 20% stakeholder in the Jewish agency for Israel. Paragraph 16. In response to paragraph 165.1 of the answering affidavit, Garin Sabad not a program of Jaffy. Jaffy provides its own absorption services for new immigrants etc. in response to paragraph 165.3.
The submission is that there is not an evidential gap in that regard and in so far as Mr. Z's affidavit is concerned which the court will find uh from page four page 128 the Karen Had affidavit page 131 paragraph 4 reads I've read the the affidavit of of Mr. Kravitz confirm the correctness so far as they relate to Karen Hart. And then the same um and then if one turns to page 135 following is stated I I understand sorry 135 paragraph 22. I understand from the answering affidavit in this matter that the respondents raise issues about the lone soldier and met programs and then the deponent deals with those programs in the affidavit and sets out the facts in relation to those programs.
Um, also at paragraph 29 of that affidavit, he refers to paragraph 150 of the answering affidavit, um, Karen Hes does not operate programs beyond the post 67 borders. Um, paragraph 30, from time to time, various donors ear donations to specific organizations throughout Israel, including the LA Association for its educational purposes. Neither Mr. Travis nor Karanasot South Africa has ever been involved in any way of any of these donations. The fact the fact that there are the opponent to each of these affidavits states why they have personal knowledge of what they in fact say in the beginning of each of the affidavit.
They say who they are. Uh and so for example, Mr. No, Z says that he is the chief financial officer of Karen ASO.
Paragraph one. He says in paragraph 3 that he derives his knowledge from the position that he holds within the organization and he's involved in all of the functions of the organization discussed in this matter that he has under his control and has perused all records relating to hes dealings with Mr. Kravitz and Kaneov South Africa his opponent through the the further a Mr. Shiri page 148 confirms that he is the chief financial officer of Jaffy um and that he's involved in all the functions of the organization discussed in the matter that he derives his knowledge from the position he holds within the organization etc. So they say they have personal knowledge of the facts. They say why they do. And as chief financial officers of each of the entities, those facts we respect, we submit stand as evidence and defeat any speculation or opinions based on on hearsay or otherwise.
That's a quick instruction, please.
We submit that Mr. Kravitz and Kun Martin have have endured conduct of the respondents for almost three years.
They've attempted to reason with the respondents certain of the respondents.
They've attempted to ignore them.
They've attempted to correct the misconceptions, placed those facts in the public domain.
All of those have failed.
The applicants have brought the application as a last resort and the respondents have set out what they contend is their justification for their conduct.
The respondents have been invited to tell the court why they are entitled to say that the applicants are amongst other things baby killers and genocide funders.
We submit that they have failed and failed entirely in setting up any rational or sustainable base for doing so.
They raise no defense to conduct which set out in common pause on the papers.
And in our submission, our clients are entitled to an order in terms of the relief that this sort in terms of the draft order that we have been handed out to court in this matter.
The relief could be sought and the balance. It's not a matter of one right or the other.
Mr. Kravitz believes in the right to protest. He has said he has there's no objection raised to protesting. No objection to in fact advancing any boycott. But people cannot misrepresent the truth and lie about individuals or the company that is caping in March.
And so we respectfully submit that the order granted is an order balancing rights and not an order destroying one right or another.
Those are submissions in the team of any questions. Right.
Thank you very much, Mr. Yes. Um we just like to express our appreciation to all the legal representatives um and to those others who are in the courtroom for the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the decorum of the court.
Um you will you will understand that we will take time to cons recess starts tomorrow or recess. Um so for those of you who have traveled from elsewhere travel back safely Mr. Jamie Mr. Naidu Miss Essa walk back safely and um judgment is reserved. Court is adjourned.
Related Videos
JAMIA BA LLB 2026 Offline Mock Interview | Final Interview Round Preparation
MLSLAWACADEMY
104 views•2026-06-16
6/15/26 Lively v. Wayfarer - Full Settlement Agreement is now public
littlegirlattorney
11K views•2026-06-15
HOA Demolished My Yacht for “Unauthorized Docking” — Too Bad I Own the Entire Marina!
Pro-RevengeStories
423 views•2026-06-15
JACKSON KIHARA'S SECRET DEAL: The Deal That Brought Out Jackson Kihara From Jail | LifeLens TV
LifeLens254
5K views•2026-06-14
Guelph's New Renoviction By-Law Explained.
CallCodyRE
807 views•2026-06-14
SCOTUS Rules 9-0 on Gun Rights for Marijuana Users
TheReloadSite
164 views•2026-06-18
A Family Tradition of Federal Time
LoneWolfUsul
603 views•2026-06-14
YouTuber Alexander Zabel Jr arrested again near Nancy Guthrie’s home amid investigation disruption
StarBuzzHD
136 views•2026-06-15
