Name the biggest asses – the laws, the custodians, or the flouters?

It took me 10 minutes to drive the 15km from our house to drop Ronèl at Cape Town International Airport at 7.30am the other day (Friday, April 13!) then 63 minutes to retrace my route – along a triple lane motorway with a fast lane for buses, taxis, police cars, ambulances AND many motorbikes AND many motorists deliberately flouting the law forbidding their use of the lane during the ill-termed rush hour(s).

Indeed, that particular law is clearly spelt out on vast notice boards. Miscreants face heavy fines; for about 11km there are enfiladed cameras to spot offenders. Do drivers care? Some do; many do not and run the gauntlet. Some even brazenly chat on cells; others drink coffee – all at high speed. We “good citizens”, burning petrol and clutches, frustrated, but law-abiding, just sit and gaze … dare we attempt that?

Had I pulled out into that outside lane I am sure I would have been immediately nabbed? I actually wound down my window and spoke to three police officers gridlocked next to me in their marked patrol car. When I queried had the law changed, they laughed.

No well, okay.

Flouting the law occurs every day everywhere –minor, medium, some serious. The point about is it’s like a Mad Max film scenario – get away with it if you can, after all the custodians of the law these days often appear (perhaps not as often as they should) bloated, conveniently “blind” or bewildered.

In all that time I edged my way homewards along the busiest morning road in Cape Town I did not see traffic officer.

If the law can be manipulated or a loophole found then it must be a badly formulated law? After all, in business all sorts of fun and games takes place; it is often said a bad businessman is one who is caught!

I would no more consider cheating my insurance company (Warwick of course!) than be racist, not because some idiot once said laws were meant to be broken, but because laws are intended to provide and prolong healthy, orderly social infrastructure; in the main they do.

But laws in the new South Africa (well almost 20-year old new South Africa) do not mean much to those who are unemployed, uneducated and desperate … 10 000 of those every month flood the Mother City – laws also have to contend with those who truly hold entitlement as part of their uhuru. Also to the 70% illiterate in this nation who do not understand the law … are they bound by the same strictures?

But then again, so many laws (as opposed to life skills “norms”) are complicated, unclear, hopeless, obscure or draconian … not, perhaps, always in that order.

Does Mr Bumble in Dickens’ Oliver Twist not aver “…The law is an ass, as it is frequently both stupid and stubborn …?”

Do you know in our wonderful country a license is required to buy a TV set, almost as perverse as an apartheid era dictate when young people in swim suits were obliged legally to sit more than 12 inches (30+cm) apart.. (Can I do the measuring please sir!?).

A wag commented: ‘Two 2012 court cases described how someone was fined R1 000 for not having a TV license; another released on bail for R500 after being arrested for murder.

The moral may be, if you do not have a TV license and an inspector visits, kill him … save R500, perhaps…”It’s the Right Thing to do…?”’

In South Africa, as in other African nations, traditional marriage practice to this day involves lobola and polygamy.

Lobola means a man must pay for the right to marry. Serious negotiation amid great ceremony arrives at consensus on a price (traditionally cows) to be met by a suitor. Many modern couples opt instead for cash so a bride might set up a home … a sort of “cash cow” perhaps?

Many modern, educated women in South Africa believe it provides protection; women’s rights activists were strong proponents of a 2001 Act which recognises African customary law to protect women living in common-law union (often with children). Payment of lobola, however, means the bride is “paid for;” thus divorce is rare unless the lobola is repaid, often leaving women in unhappy or abusive marriages.

The same Act recognised polygamy; President Jacob Zuma’s fifth marriage raised many eyebrows, possibly stemming from today’s views on sexual promiscuity and Aids; Septuagenarian Zuma’s decision, his detractors say, impacts on convincing the public single-partner sexual relationships helps prevent spreading the curse.

In America there are myriad crazy laws.

An article I read suggested … ‘Five states travellers should avoid …’

In Maine, there is no Christmas in July…or in February, March, or any other time of the year than the standard December. You face a fine if your Christmas decorations are up past January 14.

In Arkansas, if you mispronounce the state name (it’s ARKENSAW) you’re throwing sand in the face of an old Congress compromise from 1881; lol, who cares?

New York might offend prudish tourists and religious citizens for permitting women to go topless in public – even on the subways. It’s an equal rights thing, but don’t try to make any money from it, you will be arrested. For those who want to revel in the topless view, the time to do so is during Coney Island’s Mermaid Parade in late June.

San Francisco Is “copyrighted” and if you want to make some SF souvenirs to sell, you must pay city dues – SF annually rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars.

No 21st century for Florida where missionary is the only officially “legal position” while at famous Daytona Beach that Mecca for the drunken, frolicking set, “molesting trash cans, swimming while drunk or on drugs, drinking and doing drugs at the same time,” are no-nos! (http://www.jaunted.com). But almost everyone flouts such laws.

Nearer (well, almost) to home, thousands of people in Mali capital, Bamako and elsewhere in the West-central African state, have protested a law giving women equal rights in marriage and strengthening inheritance rights for women and any children born out of wedlock.

One of the most contentious (especially in regard to traditional African way of life) issues in the new legislation is a wife need no longer obey a husband.

A Mali Muslim women’s association says only a minority – “the intellectuals” – supports the law. “We have to stick to the Koran, a man must protect his wife, a wife must obey her husband … real Muslims – are against it,” a spokesperson said (http://news.bbc.co.uk). She would!

So, should citizens flout laws in response to specific instances of perceived injustice? If so, what about repercussions?

The Texas Law Review once grandiosely declared: “The idea general lawbreaking can emerge from one unjust legal doctrine or decision has intuitive appeal … constitutional doctrines that allow untrammelled police discretion – such as that which led to the beating of Rodney King (four officers were later acquitted of using filmed undue force) in Los Angeles (1992) or the tragic police shooting of Amadou Diallo (mistaken identity) in New York – can undermine public perception of the legitimacy of law enforcement generally. This loss of legitimacy and distrust of the fairness of the legal system, can in turn lead to more widespread lawbreaking … as both did with horrendous riots and carnage.

Then again, how do you feel about this mysterious piece of serious jargon from Janice Nadier professor of law at North-western University School of Law, Chicago?

“What happens when a person’s common-sense view of justice diverges from the sense of justice he or she sees enshrined in particular laws? In particular, does perception of one particular law as unjust make an individual less likely to comply with unrelated laws?” she asks.

She advanced the Flouting Thesis – an idea that perceived legitimacy of one law or its legal outcome can influence one’s willingness to comply with unrelated laws.

She goes on: “…results suggest willingness to … flout unrelated laws commonly encountered in everyday life (such as traffic violations, petty theft, and copyright restrictions), as well as willingness of mock jurors to engage in juror nullification …” only a lawyer could write that and understand it.

Maybe the Welsh should have the final say, with concern raised over cafes and pubs flouting the law in allowing customers to smoke shisha pipes indoors (oh my goodness!) – outlawed in 2007. A serious situation no doubt?

You decide. For me, I’ll skip the pipe, but I still fancy that fast lane; then what red-blooded male doesn’t?