An accidental tourist - Egypt's military kills Mexican nationals

The Egyptian military mistakenly attacked a convoy of vehicles transporting tourists in the western desert near the popular Bahariya oasis on 13 September. The assault killed 12 people, including 7 Mexican nationals. A further ten people were wounded, including a dual US/Mexican national.
The Egyptian government was quick to admit that it had conducted the attack and described it as an accident. The Egyptian authorities stated that a military force in the area was pursuing militants when they came across the convoy, misidentified it as a militant band and fired upon it.
The Egyptian government has also stated that the tourists were operating in a restricted military zone. The official position has been disputed by the tour operator who has claimed that not only did they have the requisite police permit to operate in the area but they also had a police escort.
The incident serves to underscore the elevated risk of operating in Egypt's western desert area. The region has been affected by a number of mass casualty attacks since 2014. On the 19^th of July 2014, assailants attacked the El-Farafrah border security post in the New Valley governorate, killing 22 people and wounding four others. The attack was claimed by Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis. On the 31^st of May 2014, six soldiers were killed by gunmen in the 'al-Wahat' area. Since these attacks the military has been on a heightened state of alert in the western desert of the country.
Despite these incidents and the increasing risk, tourists have continued to visit the area. The local police have acted to guide local tour groups and provide some security but the risk has not been fully mitigated. Indeed, the ability of the government to safeguard tourists will continue to be undermined due to the ongoing instability in Libya and the growing insecurity in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Nile-centred towns.
The recent accident will also serve to further erode confidence in the ability of the authorities to safeguard tourists. The incident is a major embarrassment for the government which is seeking to eliminate militants in the country and present a façade to its domestic and international audience that it is in control and that Egypt is a safe place to visit.

Discrimination - One view, there are others.

In South Africa's constitution (Bill of Rights, Chapter 2) it reads "Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair." (http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights).

This illogical line poses one of the greatest risks to South Africa's future. When it was written there was certainly no doubt that it was included in order to ensure that the wrong's of the past could be corrected in some way. While the motive may have been pure it lacked long term wisdom. One of the key fruits of this provision has been BEE and its newest manifestation BBBEE. The fundamental principle of these policies remains sound and the majority of South Africans support attempts to redress the past and to ensure that all South Africans, young and old, enjoy freedom, education, work, basic necessities of life and the right to vote for your representatives. The policies do, however, serve a divisive purpose and there is a section of the population that remains uncertain as to the true objective of the policies.

Indeed, opposition groups have argued that both BEE and BBBEE are tools for the ruling party to secure the position of a small group of rich entrepreneurs. Certainly, the risk of a small group of rich black businessmen is undisputed. While this is great, for them, the actual goal has failed with the white minority still dominating business and owning a disproportionate amount of capital.

The youth are also at pains to understand these policies. Non-black persons born in the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s should view the legislation as wholly unfair. Access to jobs is difficult and they cannot compete with their black fellows on an equal footing. Merit serves a decreasing purpose.

The legislation also does not make provision for black persons who have benefited greatly since the end of Apartheid. The growing black middle class has grown phenomenally. Yet, legislation still favours people who are already 'on track' economically. These same people can benefit from legislation that aims to redress past imbalances.

Finally, for any major policy of redress there should surely be an end point? Some sort of time period? Perhaps a point when all is balanced or most previously disadvantaged have been given access to opportunity? Sadly, there is not. There is no hint at it. In fact, the number of people classed as disadvantaged is growing. And yet it is not the policies of Apartheid that are leading this downward trend. It is the very party which is ruling the country. Parastatals are under severe strain, corruption is at an all time high, ghost state workers number in the thousands, the economy is tanking/has tanked and yet somehow we are still managing to grip to the idea that white capital / business needs reform and if we do that all the ills will be solved. This argument falls off of an overused and obvious political template by the government against the DA run Western Cape. The DA does not care about the poor, they say. The DA's service delivery record is poor they say. Yet, the DA province is one of the best run in the country. Stats SA will back up this narrative with reference to jobs creation alone. So what are we to make of all of this? The proof, I suppose, will be in the pudding.