You do have a problematic relationship with the truth. Nobody agreed about this. You made a list of laws that were ostensibly race-based and subtly put race law in the website address. You do not link the legislation you list, the impugned sections are not indicated, no layperson is going to properly comprehend the meaning of "ancillary" in light of the Constitution, and even then the vast majority of those laws are not race-BASED. You've used a broad criteria to demonise concepts of equity, representation, diversity and redress where race is not mentioned. It may also feature in one permissive provision of an Act, which in no way renders the entire law race-based. At no point have you stepped in to clarify the incredibly misguided belief or ill-founded agenda of racial persecution against white South Africans by explaining the nature of the legislation and how it is race-based in any way at all. Those Acts about libraries, for example, are impacting nobody's daily life and I'm sorry, but you'd have to be dreaming to suggest, or allow somebody to think, that anything in that legislation, or most of the others listed, is discriminatory in any way. Practically, there is no material evidence of discrimination. If there was, most of the laws would've been taken to the CC before you could snap your fingers. I don't know if you've ever practised, either, but when interpreting legislation in light of the Constitution, you need to interpret it in a manner that would not render it invalid or absurd. Ergo, the assumption that the law to be used or read is prima facie valid. There is not one single law there - not even BEE- that furthers this persecution nonsense. The numbers simply don't back you up. And honestly, why do we have that index of race laws that are barely race laws? It isn't information we don't already have. Why not spend that time writing your LLM thesis instead? This kind of thing reminds me of a 50s housewife who writes shopping and to-do lists that run beyond one or two pages because they need to find something else to do.

It is vibes-based to point out that the same race law index is put out by the head of policy at FMF who is also the columnist who wrote a piece with a screaming "Persecution" image? In fact, vibes based is what I would call your index at the moment and you know perfectly well why. And not even on ideological grounds. You've unashamedly not only allowed people to weaponise that list, which has the subheading "Colour Discrimination Law" despite no actual investigation or explanation into why you allege they are discriminatory. You do not clarify but raise your hands as if you're just providing a public service. The reason for inclusion is out of line with various aspects of the index itself but there are yet more problems before we even get there. Why not mention the sections that bring race into the law? Why not link the legislation? Why not indicate against whom it discriminates and how? Why claim the test is whether it is a positive law that makes race legally relevant when it does not match the description of the index at all - the very subheading is, as stated, "An Index of Colour Discrimination Law in SA".? Why not define legal relevance in layman's terms, for that matter? People have taken as gospel and weaponised what has not even been subject to independent review. It is not even possible to review independently because one would have to guess what you were thinking when certain laws were included. So, no. It's not vibes. And if you think it is, given how people have manipulated it in the wake of your silence, having 50% or more be misclassified may well put you into propaganda territory, especially given that you use your "legislated discrimination" in columns about persecution in your column. Ever taken the oath as an admitted attorney? If you have, you should know that misleading the public or feeding them pseudo-intellectual explanations that do not align with what you are doing certainly doesn't form part of it.