MR KINCAID
Thank you Mr Chairman, then there's an aspect of my address which I can leave by the wayside but Mr Chairman, the sub-section 3 is the base upon which one determines whether an act is associated with a political objective or not and I think it's quite clear from the applicants' testimony that their motive when they committed the act was to acquire weapons, was to intimidate the farmers.  That was in consequence of this resolution that was taken.  Now I think most of them were candid enough to have mentioned that they didn't really foresee that a cordial invitation would be effective, that by going to the farmers and saying "look please leave your farms now and before you go, hand over your weaponry".  They didn't foresee that that was actually going to materialise.  So intimidation was very much part of the strategy to get the farmers off the land and that is why obviously they would have gone armed to achieve that particular objective.  If one looks at the four incidents involving the farmers, Mr Hansel and Mr Cobus, Mr Pretorius and Mrs Marulia, then there is nothing to dispute, nothing to suggest that obtaining ammunitions was not a purpose.  From Mr Hansel they did retrieve and did secure a firearm and ammunition.  From Mrs Marulia likewise they got arms and ammunition.  Mr Cobus and Mr Pretorius frustrated their efforts and nothing was taken from those properties but when you look at what was taken, firearms certainly enjoyed prominence.  The applicants have all distanced themselves from other items which were removed, items of a normal household nature and there's only one count which really supports the fact that there were other items taken, items of a household nature and that is the count involving the attack on Mrs Marulia.  Mr Hansel, all that they were convicted of was the robbery of the twelve bore shotgun.  The annexure to the charge sheet alleged other items but there was no evidence placed before court that those items were taken so their conviction was solely of a firearm.  The Marulia incident, they were convicted of robbery and it also involved items unrelated to firearms.
	Now  it is my submission that there's nothing to dispute that their motive was to carry out the order, the community decision.  The only incident which might give the lie to that submission would be the Marulia incident.  Now the context in which the act or omission or offence took place ...[intervention]