MR SMUTS
My submission, with respect, would be that if there is ill will directed against a group the knowledge of the identity of an individual would not be a requirement to fall within that.  If by way of example, the act is merely an act of racism directed at all of a particular race, that would be an act acting out of ill will.
	Mr Chairman, to expand on the consequences of the Committee's rejecting or disregarding the AWB involvement, then one is left with the retaliation or revenge attack.  In the circumstances that I've illustrated where information was sought and obtained as to the identity of the persons who were subsequently attacked and my submission then is that an examination of the provisions of Section 23 (f) which deal with the question of proximity and proportionality would be fatal to the applicants.  This was not, Mr Chairman, Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald shortly after his arrest for the assassination of President Kennedy.  This is a random attack, three days after the shooting of Mr Hani, directed at holidaymakers who turn out because the applicants couldn't be bothered to find out what they were or what they stood for, to have been themselves opponents of those who were old enough to have a political view, opponents of the regime at the time and as the columnist put it, Mr Chairman, the killed a new South African.  Nothing in the evidence before the Committee in my respectful submission would suggest that this violent murder of two of the party and the attempt to murder the two children and the other adult could be considered an act proportional to the objective, the political objective pursued.  That, the Committee will recall, was expressed to have been sending a message to the Government.  There was not an attack on a Government institution which could have avoided any loss of life, there was not attack on any Government office bearer or political leader, there was not even an attack on the forces supportive of the regime of the day.  This was an attack on defenceless holidaymakers and it would in my respectful submission be nothing short of an obscenity to suggest that it met the proportionality test enunciated in Section 23(f).  
	Mr Chairman, that there are aspects of Section 23 which count or can be taken into account on behalf of the applicants, I would not dispute, particularly 23(b) which deals with reaction.