S Africa follow Mugabe

[brockley]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-white-south-african-farmers?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[Burgey]

Yeah this is terrible.

 

[brockley]

ANC is turning in2 a monster.All Mandellas' good work undone,S Africa very divivded right now.

 

[Burgey]

Mind you, I don't see how these people are inherently more deserving of being fast-tracked for refugee status than some of the folks in Myanmar who are being ethnically cleansed.

Apart from them being white, of course.

 

[brockley]

We take in many Chinese and Indian and Black people.
Why not some whites too.
We have had white farmers from Zimbabwe before,hardly any different.

 

[Burgey]

It’s no different. The issue is who gets priority to come here. Do you reckon Dutts would be as keen to get them here if they were black?

 

[brockley]

Maybe not.
But with the Syrians their was a preference for taking christians,.
I guess this is no different in that regard.

I have met many S Africans and Zimbabweans who has fled those countries,we have always taken them.
Unless labor makes a point of it sure it will happen,as they took white rhodesians and white S Africans too.
More likely the Greens will make a hullabooloo.And they would only do that because its not politically correct to take whites.

 

[Spikey]

"white rhodesians"

 

[Athlai]

Has the mass emigration of white Zimbabweans and South Africans typically been as "refugees", I always just assumed they more or less just technically emigrated?

 

[brockley]

Some emigrated due 2 crime,financial.
Some were farmers,and they came as refugees.
Their have been black refugees from Zimbabwe.

The thing is ANC just can't say the masses,take the farms,and do what you want.Thats anarchy,no rule of law.
Same thing when ANC did not act when S Africans attacked foreigners or foriegn owned busineses,it was pure anarchy ppl died,busineses were looted,ransacked and burnt out.
Another thing when Mugabie said his cronies could have the farms,then the farming production went downhill,because the veterans did not know what to do.

 

[Athlai]

Looks like since about 2012 most Zimbabwean refugee claims have been getting declined.

https://www.worlddata.info/africa/zimbabwe/asylum.php

Haven't been able to find out any sort of details on if a majority where white in the big years of 2005-2011. Though as the white population of Zimbabwe at it's peak was only 275k and in 2002 was only 50k. I suspect not.

I'm also struggling to find any record of the exodus in the 90s being ever labelled as "refugees" rather than emigrants.

 

[Flem274*]

We take in many Chinese and Indian and Black people.
Why not some whites too.
We have had white farmers from Zimbabwe before,hardly any different.

is that why all the refugees are in prison camps on offshore islands?

 

[Gnske]

I'm with Julius Malema on this one unfortunately, those whites just have to go.

 

[Burgey]

Looks like since about 2012 most Zimbabwean refugee claims have been getting declined.

https://www.worlddata.info/africa/zimbabwe/asylum.php

Haven't been able to find out any sort of details on if a majority where white in the big years of 2005-2011. Though as the white population of Zimbabwe at it's peak was only 275k and in 2002 was only 50k. I suspect not.

I'm also struggling to find any record of the exodus in the 90s being ever labelled as "refugees" rather than emigrants.

Brown and black people in the same position as the SA and Zimbabwean farmers are what the Right like to call "economic refugees" who are unworthy of a place in Australia

 

[StephenZA]

Just for those who can actually be bothered to learn about this what is going on in SA, it is nothing like what happened in Zimbabwe...... but if it makes nice headlines for an Aus minister who does not care about the realities, let`s take a really complex problem and give it a headline of 'take white farms'. That is about as good as what Malema is doing.... probably a similar level of political nuance, just one of them is dressed better.

 

[watson]

It’s no different. The issue is who gets priority to come here. Do you reckon Dutts would be as keen to get them here if they were black?

The thing with Identity Politics is that you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. There’s no winning, least of all for European farmers in South Africa because who is going to bother to stand-up for them? China, India, Egypt or another African State perhaps? Fact is, if Australia doesn’t stand-up then it is likely that no-one will.

 

[StephenZA]

The thing with Identity Politics is that you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. There’s no winning, least of all for European farmers because who is going to bother to stand-up for them? China, India, Egypt or another African State perhaps? Fact is, if Australia doesn’t stand-up then it is likely that no-one will.

You realize SA farmers are not European....

 

[Spark]

The description on that video...

If a White President ever dared to whisper even a hint of genocidal racist glee the Jewish-run media and governments would mark them for death. It is only when White people show hatred that it is "racism"

There is literally zero chance that translation is accurate.

 

[Uppercut]

Just for those who can actually be bothered to learn about this what is going on in SA, it is nothing like what happened in Zimbabwe...... but if it makes nice headlines for an Aus minister who does not care about the realities, let`s take a really complex problem and give it a headline of 'take white farms'. That is about as good as what Malema is doing.... probably a similar level of political nuance, just one of them is dressed better.

What is going on?

 

[StephenZA]

What is going on?

More nuanced explanation.
https://www.news24.com/Columnists/G...out-compensation-what-does-it-mean-20180304-5

The motion established an ad hoc Constitutional Review Committee, comprised of different political parties, to “review and amend section 25 of the Constitution to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation”.

But the Constitution already makes it possible to do so. The Constitutional amendment is not needed. If it is “just and equitable” that compensation be set at zero, that is allowed under the existing “property clause”. The litmus test is what is just and equitable in a given case.

This is a reality that has been glossed over in the populist push towards blaming the Constitution for political failure.

So the ANC is proposing that government should have this as one option among others – such as buying on the market, negotiating, expropriating and paying compensation.

The EFF interprets “expropriation without compensation”’ as not just one option for the state, but that it is to be applied across the board. The EFF wants the state to be the “custodian of all South African land”, which is ironic given its own experience of how state power has been used and abused.

State custodianship is an entirely different matter from expropriation with or without compensation in specific cases. It is doubtful that the two parties can find common ground on this.

The property clause constitutes a powerful mandate for transformation: expropriation, land redistribution, restitution and security of tenure, and it explicitly states that no provision can impede the state from embarking on reforms to address historical inequalities.

The notion of a right of “equitable access to land” establishes property rights for those without property. This constitutional framework imposes a positive obligation on the state to provide suitable land and housing for the landless and homeless, empowering them to press their claims, and shape the behaviour of state officials to facilitate a responsive land reform. But it has been an uphill struggle in practice.

The motion in Parliament is about providing greater powers for what the state may do. But given the track record of the past 24 years, it is clear that we have a state that, to make it listen, must be cajoled and pleaded with, repeatedly taken to court, protested against and punished at the polls.

Those whose land claims are still languishing in limbo, the farm dwellers evicted without recourse, the landless pleading for access to farms, the millions living insecurely in informal settlements are concerned with what the state does not do. And what it has not done to date is override private property rights in the interests of the poor and the dispossessed.

In contrast to this pussyfooting around private property, government routinely dispossesses poor and black people of their land in informal settlements. Having also failed to secure customary land rights in law and practice, government has allowed traditional authorities to do so in communal areas. Having also failed to enforce tenure rights for farm dwellers, it has allowed more than 2 million people to be displaced from farms. This means that expropriation of land rights without compensation is happening on an ongoing basis – but it is poor and black people whose rights are being expropriated.

It may appear that there is convergence between the ANC and the EFF, but this is a mirage. Yet the current moment offers an opportunity to open up a wider conversation across society. Let’s debate this. What is the alternative to expropriation with “just and equitable” compensation?

More than half of commercial farmland has changed hands since 1994 – so, should those who bought property last year be treated the same way as those who inherited land from across the generations? Who should be prioritised for land access? How are the rights and interests of owners, tenants and occupiers to be weighed up? How can the state be held to account? These are the questions that should animate the debates in Parliament and on the streets in the coming months. The real debate starts now.

At its root, the demand for expropriation without compensation is a demand that white people should not benefit again from colonialism and apartheid. That seems entirely fair. A pro-poor land reform process could have been implemented after 1994, but has not been.

So to put some context to this, the EFF (who's figure head, Malema, is a scary individual), can be equated to say something like what UKIP was in the UK, and is pushing the land issue because they need another beat stick now that Zuma is out of power, to maintain a semblance of their power, and are to a certain extent forcing the ANC agenda (similar how UKIP forced the Brexit vote). The EFF in reality is a more socialist party, ideally wanting to put everything under state ownership; very scary thought but it is unlikely that SA will go that way. If Zuma was still in power I would be very scared, but the December ANC election changed the direction of the party and thus SA again, for the better. The political infighting of the ANC is still a big issue, but at the moment (by a slim majority) the intellectuals have control of the party.

The important points to note here is that this discussion has been going since '94; the constitution need not be changed to allow the expropriation of land without compensation, much like any government may do, it can take land away if for the benefit of the community. The constitution does however have problems, and does need to be fixed, because it has no clear mechanism of how to redress the economic imbalance in the country, and compensate individuals new and old, this is because it is such a hot topic that it was just left vague. This effects black individuals and farmers as much as white individuals and farmers. For example, like most countries a majority of the land is already under state control, but many small black farmers, for historical reasons, still pay rent or tithe to the state.... many of those sorts of problems need to be addressed.

This is an important conversation and land issues need to be rectified , but the government has since `94 because of incompetence, corruption and just plain poor governance not done enough and now we have many unhappy people. And whenever you have unhappy people you will have people, like the EFF, use it for political gain. If we were still under Zuma (land issues or not) we would have very little chance. Under Ramaphosa we have a very good chance of fixing many of our issues but like all places you will have the rabid, irrational talk. Yes it is scary to hear and people think of what happened Zimbabwe. But SA has a strong constitution that has withstood a huge battering under Zuma and still stands. And pseudo-democracy or not, we have now our 4th president brought about through democratic means, unlike Zimbabwe which has/had a despotic leader brought about through a pseudo-democracy off the back of a very violent civil war.

Can things still go wrong, of course, but SA has a much better chance of fixing things compared to most countries in SA position. And I can promise you, having people like this idiotic Aus minister use SA`s problems to grab his own personal headlines is truly contemptible.

Appropriately I will quote Hawking; “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”