Madam Deputy Speaker, what had to be said about this Bill has mainly been said, and not much would be added by my echoing and repeating it. So, I shall limit my contribution to two points.
The first is that I would like to remark on clause 8 of this Bill, which is perhaps the noblest aspect of this piece of legislation, compared to the existing legislation. The other clauses do not create new crimes; they merely create a new framework for those crimes, a new characterisation and more severe sanctions. However, clause 8 makes it a crime and creates an obligation for the state not to expel, return or extradite people to where they could be facing the threat of torture. This seems to be a remote possibility for the activities of the South African government, but I urge you, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to consider it so.
There are rumours - and I do not attest to the validity of those rumours, I only attest to the existence of those rumours - that in co-operation between the SA Police Service and the Department of Home Affairs, only people from specific regions of the Congo are being deported, and there is a programme of renditions between the South African government and the Congolese government, in terms of which the Congolese government provides planes to bring back these people who are in the country illegally, who, however, are from areas in which there is political dissent and opposition to the government. Those reports suggest that those who return to the Congo are being tortured and surely, imprisoned.
Therefore, democratic vigilance is extremely important. It is not sufficient for us all just to pass a Bill in respect of something that we all agree is wrong, horrendous and horrifying. We need to commit ourselves to supporting that legislative action with democratic vigilance, to see what happens on the ground in respect of the most vulnerable segments of our population today, which are the undocumented, illegal immigrants.
The second point I wish to make flows from what the hon Landers said, and offers me the opportunity of placing on record what has been one of my pet battles. It is in respect of the redrafting of the preamble. In our committee, great effort has been made to what has been called "modernise the language", by eliminating words such as "whereas", and to substitute them with the word "since"; and to resist my echoing call to back in our legislation the word "shall" instead of "must".
We are doing a disservice by eliminating the difference between "shall" and "must" in our legislation, because it will soon be eliminated from the rest of the country. This will not enable future generations to understand the difference between a duty from within and a duty from without, possibly reducing their appreciation of the difference between Kant and Schopenhauer or Beethoven and Brahms, for instance.
The same goes for "since". We are dumbing down our legislation with the risk of dumbing down our English language, and with the further risk of bringing the entire discourse within our country down to the common denominator. I have objected strenuously in this respect in the committee - I do not see the hon John Jeffery, who has been the champion of this process, here. [Interjections.] Oh, there you are! You are hiding! [Laughter.] He has been the champion of dumbing down legislation, eliminating Latin expressions, making us sound as we should not, and getting us out of step with international trends as well as legal practice in the private sector. Thank you. [Time expired.]