I was made aware that Guyon Espiner had interviewed Arno Nel about an Auckland protest he’d helped to organise about South African land seizures and the supposed widespread murder of white farmers. So I gave it a listen. In short, Espiner gave Arno Nel a free run to peddle utter bullshit.
This post is a rushed attempt to counter the crap that Nel and others are running with. And I have to say, (though it wont be popular) there are a lot of people who engage with this blog who deserve to get it in the neck for stupidly aiding and abetting the rise of this nonsense. Let’s go back a few weeks.
Remember Lauren Southern? She has a documentary called Farmlands that pushes the idea that white farmers in South Africa are being slaughtered. In the head long rush to brand her a fascist and stop her from speaking, there was no conversation or debate about the veracity of those claims (which she would have surely talked about) and neither was there any questioning of where those claims originated.
So, very quickly.
There is a group in South Africa called The Suidlanders. They are a Protestant, ‘prepper’ group who (at least in part) follow the ranting prophesies of a dead guy called Siener van Rensburg and who believe in a coming race war.
The South African paper, the Mail and Guardian did a piece way back in March that covered the emergence of the line about white South African farm murders. To quote –
Simon Roche, the spokesperson for the Suidlanders, said the promulgation of the message of South Africa’s “white genocide” to Europe and Australia could be directly attributed to his group’s protracted tour of the US last year.
And then, from Vice and also from March of this year .
On the back of a wildly successful tour, Suidlanders reached out to Southern and Hopkins. “With Lauren, we didn’t pay for her ticket,” says Roche. “But we said: you come out here, and we will show you everything; we’ll cook for you, we’ll give you an experience you can’t buy.”) Southern stayed at his house. He took her hunting, put a few sosaties on the braai for her. She swallowed the entire narrative. “It actually looked like she wasn’t going to come at one point. She said she was unsure about the facts of our case. But then she changed her mind.”
And off the back of all this crap, we have (from the same Mail and Guardian piece from March, as above) –
Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton told Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp publication The Daily Telegraph that he was considering fast-tracking visas for white South African farmers, who he said needed to flee “horrific circumstances” for a “civilised country”. He said the farmers “deserve special attention” because of land seizures and violence.
Then, just last week, there was Donald Trump asking the US Sec of State to –
closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers.
And yesterday, protests in Auckland and pap interviews on Radio New Zealand today.
So this is quite a “result” that has been obtained by those who merely bayed at Southern and Molyneux for being fascists, and tried to shut them down without informing themselves about what Southern and Molyneux were actually saying and not countering or engaging with any of the ideas they sought to promulgate; allowing the narrative to become (for them) a favourable one about free speech.
I’d like to think that the next time some idiot with vile ideas seeks the limelight, that if they are to be given it and elevated in any way, then the attention afforded them will be a lot more intelligent than was the case with Southern and Molyneux.
One final thing that’s worth mentioning. The other night, off the back of a lengthy sub-thread exchange with McFlock) I google searched Lauren Southern across various mainstream news outlets (The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Stuff etc). There were numerous hits from all the publications I looked at. However, when I googled the same publications for Suidlander, I came up blank, bar one hit from The Guardian from the 24th of August.
At least that piece explains in part, or attempts to explain in part, how it may be that the whole South African farm murder line is being reported on without any explanation being given on its origins. But given that the links I’ve provided are for news pieces from as far back as March, I don’t think any journalist has any excuse whatsoever for not providing context for these stories about white genocide in South Africa.
There is a slight degree of hyperbole around South African farm murders it is true but there are a few issues that your article fails to address.
While crime is high in South Africa and White farmers don’t suffer disproportionately compared to other victim groups the attacks against farmsteads tend to be particularly brutal. Given the isolated nature of farming and the lack of close support it is understandable that these sorts of attacks get publicity.
The EFF has effectively caused the ANC to start scapegoating the White community for their failure to deliver. This is why they are now starting the process to expropriate farmland without compensation. This despite the fact that the problem in South Africa is not a lack of land for Black South Africans but their being not enought jobs and economic growth.
Whilst their may be a case for land compensation and return for some Black African groups the current land distribution in South Africa was laid down well before the country even existed (1910). Taking land from one group and giving it to another now is as racist as the Apartheid regime doing the same post 1948.
Did you gather data from South Africa while you were volunterring in Zimbabwe, Gosman ?
No. I was a member of the Africa Information Center board from 1993 -1995 though
If you read the links I provided, you’ll find the points you raise are covered.
This link (that I’ve already provided in the post) highlights that “slight degree of hyperbole” in the first paragraph.
“White Farmers Slaughtered In South Africa” – Stefan Molyneux
“White farmers are being hunted to extinction” – Katie Hopkins
“The only real refugees: White South African farmers facing genocide” – Ann Coulter
And The Spectator piece linked to in that same paragraph runs –
“Genocide in South Africa: now that’s a black-and-white issue”
You and I obviously have different ideas over what constitutes “slight”.
You miss the key point about the whole Genocide element. If you look at the rest of Africa there are far less White people than there was 100 years ago. In many places they have been almost all completely disappeared. South Africa has a distinct European heritage culture that feels at home in Africa as any Xhosa or Zulu does. The issue with land reform and farm attacks goes to the heart of the fears of that community. They feel strongly that many want to get rid of them completely from the continent of Africa. I have debated many people who actually do want to do that as well. They think any White person has no right to ANY land in Africa. This is what the EFF believes.
What farm attacks?
Provide the links and quality data that shows, without any doubt, that white farmers are being murdered at a rate statistically above the murder rate for South Africa, that the murders,when they do occur, aren’t committed by family members, and that the murder rate is above that for black farm workers.
Just a wee heads up.
I’m not arguing that farm murder statistics prove a genocide
I’ve read you OP twice Bill and remain a little confused. Exactly what are you saying about what is happening in SA?
As you may know I’ve worked alongside quite a number of South Africans (usually Boer or Anglo, but several were Indian extraction) who without exception ALL had some very personal horror story to tell. On the basis of these first hand conversations I’m highly persuaded that right now SA is a relatively dangerous and tense place for everyone living there. Especially if you’re living on an isolated high veldt farm.
(On the few occasions I’ve related this here, the general response seems to be along the lines ‘who cares if white racists are murdered, they pretty much all deserve it’. And given the left wing idea that white people are responsible for all the evils in the world I can see where ethically bankrupt idea comes from.)
At the same time I’d be open to the idea that there will be some hard-line types who’ve leveraged this tragedy into something more sinister, a ‘white genocide’ to which they plan a ‘race war’ in response. All very ugly and readily refuted.
But neither does this justify the binary opposite idea that all is fine and dandy in SA, that anyone who warns of troubled waters ahead is necessarily therefore a fascist pig. In this light Bill, I’m still trying to decode exactly what you’re saying here.
You worked alongside South African Afrikaner farmers have you?
I work in a global industry; I meet ordinary engineers, techies and tradies from all over the world, including SA.
Boers are not the same as Afrikaners. A Boer is a farmer. It is also a term used by some Black African’s to denigrate any White person living in Africa (e.g. ‘Kill the Boer’).
Fair enough, apologies for my lack of precision, over a few beers I generally just call them all yarpies. 🙂
What is not happening in South Africa is the bullshit peddled by The Suidlanders through such people as Southern, Hopkins, Molyneux et al.
What’s happening here is that mainstream media is taking their lines and uncritically feeding them on to us through supposedly respectable outlets. (eg – Espiner’s interview this morning, or just the fact that the search “suidlander” turns up zero in google searches across mainstream outlets that have reported quite extensively on Southern.)
That’s what my post is about.
No, what is happening in South Africa is an entire ethnic community is being deliberately targeted for discriminatory policies such as expropriation without compensation and being left out of economic development measures. I seem to remember people marching against those sorts of things back in the 1980’s in NZ.
There is no current policy that expropriates land without compensation. SO there goes your discrimination right there.
As for “economic development measures”, are we talking like how Pakeha here would have been left out of any “closing the gaps” policies that Helen Clark’s government might have initiated back whenever?
There is a policy. There just isn’t a legal framework in place
http://aidc.org.za/expropriation-without-compensation-implications-anc-policy/
NZ never had a policy like this
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-africa-45388661
Bill: “….taking their lines and uncritically feeding them on to us through supposedly respectable outlets. (eg – Espiner’s interview this morning….”
Indeed. I heard that interview and rolled my eyes at it. I expect no better from Espiner and Morning Report: they’ll grill local pollies, but when it come to anything to do with international affairs, they just report or do uncritical interviews. No attempt to question interviewees’ assertions.
There are no foreign affairs specialists at RNZ. And it shows.
Just a quick look at some sources, it looks like the underlying problem is inequality and poverty.
The motives for attacks on farms seems most often to be robbery, and the legacy of white ownership of land. Also, black people in South Africa generally are main victims of violence.
Wikipedia
Aussie ABC 1 August 2018
On my brief check on google, I found little to do with Southern and Molyneux, and reports that go back to at least May of this year from Aussie Media.
I think you are over-egging the role S&L have had in publicising this, Bill. As one ofyour links says, the Suidlanders reached out to Southern and Hopkins after a successful tour of the US, in which they got others on board in publicising their propaganda.
the BBC reported in June:
There was plenty of stuff out there in the news media, before the Southern-Molyneux thing happened here. And calling for silencing them, and the discussion that followed, had little to do with shutting down the info about it.
Not owning land does not make someone poor. In fact many wealthy countries have very little land ownership (e.g. Singapore and Hong Kong). Land distribution does not cause poverty in South Africa. Bad economic policies and corruption do.
It’s a source of poverty in countries where there is a lot of land ownership e.g. in nZ as in SA.
And, what exactly are you saying about countries with little land ownership? that they have poverty, too? But then, the causes are to do with their economic policies. And the problem economic policies in countries like NZ and SA are to do with the centrality of land ownership in these economies.
What a muddled comment, Gos.
No it’s not. Places where people have lots of access to rural land there tends to be lots of poverty. The problem with Maori poverty in Northland is not because they don’t have access to land. In fact Northland and the East cape are two of the locations where the amount of land still controlled by Maori is the highest. Why are they the two places where Maori poverty is highest?
Yeah. like some of my relations that were South Island runholders.. “poverty stricken they were”. Only at tax time though.
The Maori rellies in Northland, however could never get access to the capital required to develop their land.
Exactly. They couldn’t get access to working capital to make the land more productive. The reason for that lies at the heart of poverty in Northland and East Cape.
The reason was almost entirely racism.
Whereas the Pakeha run holders, are now being gifted the same land they leased, at peppercorn rentals, by the way, so they can sell formerly publicly owned land, for huge profits.
Incorrect. It was because they couldn’t easily capitalise their assets
Translation. Their assets were too hard for the banks to steal.
Maybe but you have seen the result of them not accessing that capital.
Exactly. I could nit pick on the relative contribution of poverty vs inequality, but yes the general economic failure of SA certainly is the root cause here. And of course given the population is 80% black it’s would completely expected they would also comprise the majority of victims of violence too.
But regardless the political motive, when you hear your husband drive into the garage, then 10 minutes latter, puzzled at where he is, you go out to find his bloodied corpse hacked to pieces next to the car … you don’t stop to wonder about the reasons why. You get yourself and the children the hell out of the country and find a job in Australia.
I know it must be an irksome reality for all those who marched against apartheid, who perhaps hoped that once the colonial white oppressors lost power that South Africa could flourish to it’s true potential. Such was Mandela’s vision and moral authority we could dare to dream this. Well almost 30 years later the Rainbow Nation shows precious few signs of fulfilling this dream.
Right now the idea of ‘white genocide’ is an overreach; but given the path the country is on it’s not a fantastical notion either. Absolutely the only way to turn this around is to deal to the economic dysfunction and start fulfilling some dreams. It’s not at all clear that a continued process of marginalising and murdering the white population is the optimum way to achieve this however.
From what I gather, the ANC has a significant corruption problem which (it seems to me) makes doing a Mugabe a profitable distraction.
But it might be able to hold itself back, and do reasonable land redistributions rather than running people off and handing the land to incompetents, like Zanu-PF did.
If an inequitable land distribution was the sole cause of SA’s poverty problem, then it would be easy to solve; chop up the land mass into around 20 million small landholdings and give one parcel to every black family.
But in any modern economy, land ownership is absolutely not the sole means of wealth generation. (It may well be important for other symbolic reasons, but not economic ones.)
The problem the ANC face is that simply shifting land from a few white owners to a similarly narrow slice of black owners is very unlikely to improve matters. The vast majority of black people will remain in poverty.
It’s not a sole cause or solution, but it can be a reasonable step. The trouble is that it’s also a flagship move with bells and whistles and news coverage and votes, which encourages a rush job if you just exist in government on a “desperate for today, worry about tomorrow if it comes” basis.
I don’t really have an opinion on SA at the moment – it can be a good move depending on landholding size and how it’s done, but we also saw the flipside in Zimbabwe (although a lot of that was waiting for Mugabe to die/retire for 10-15 more years than expected).
The ANC has a significant corruption problem because they have bought in to the idea that Big government solutions will lead to poverty reduction. It hasn’t worked and in fact has made things worse over the past 10 or so years.
The ANC, was never allowed to disrupt the economic paradigm that keeps a few rich, and many poor. In the end, they simply joined in the endemic corruption which already existed.
A white upperclass simply added a few black upperclass, and retained all the economic levers.
Of course blaming a few white farmers is a useful distraction. Just like blaming boomers, in New Zealand, instead of the real cause,. Neo-liberal tax cuts for the wealthy.
White farmers at least, have the option of leaving. Black people in the townships, not so much.
The ANC had every opportunity to disrupt the economic paradigm. They have been by far the largest party in Parliament and have controlled government by themselves for almost 20 years
Just like Labour/NZF/Greens, Eh!
Self interested kickback from our corporate rulers happening as we speak.
Couldn’t agree more. Root cause = Neoliberalism.
I might add, the ANC sold out the revolution in 1994 by doing a deal with big capital thus ensuring ongoing white ownership of the SA economy.
In short, the Neo-Libs in London representing global capital subverted the whole exercise – just another version of gangster capitalism at work.
South Africa does not require land redistribution. Making more people subsistant farmers will not reduce poverty.
Of course not.
What is required is wealth redistribution.
Equality of opportunity.
Wealth redistribution will not help. Poverty is too great. All you will achieve is mass exodus of capital and skills
Without a fairer allocation of wealth. The mass exodus is already happening.
It is merely a trickle that will happen if you attempt a more radical approach.
South Africa’s tax base is very narrow. Threatening to squeeze it more is not going to help sort out inequality
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/businesstech.co.za/news/finance/207631/this-is-who-is-paying-south-africas-tax/amp/
South Africa is a hugely resource rich country. Where did all that wealth go? Tax free?
Foreign corporations….
Lots of countries are resource rich but poor. Being resource rich guarantees nothing in terms of wealth generation. Zimbabwe is incredibly rich resource wise but is poorer today than it was in 1980 at the time of independence.
Skills? Think you over estimate absentee farm overlord as a skill. The land was originally taken in 1913 from black farmers with no compensation and given to white farmers whose descendants now are screaming about wanting large amount of money from “their” farms.
No. Very little land changed hands after 1913. Most land ownership patterns in South Africa were established by the mid 19th Century.
You really have no clue about South African history Lucy.
Are you aware that the ancestors of today’s Afrikaner community arrived in the Cape around 350 years ago?
There is a reason the Boer War/s (There were two of them) were called that. Do you know why?
Lucy: “The land was originally taken in 1913 from black farmers with no compensation and given to white farmers whose descendants now are screaming about wanting large amount of money from “their” farms.”
No. That’s not what happened. Go look at the history of SA. Gosman has it right.
The whites of SA have as much right as the blacks to be considered as native to that country. None of them alive today is responsible for the past, whatever crimes were committed by their ancestors prior to the 1910 founding of the Union of South Africa.
Land expropriation without compensation is as unjust a notion as were land seizures from blacks in the past. Even if it’s a proposal eventually not put into practice, the suggestion of it would be enough to scare the shit out of the whites. It isn’t pointful or ethical for the government to perpetrate another injustice, in an attempt to rectify an earlier injustice.
History, huh.
Perhaps the most visible impact of the Act was that it denied Africans access to land which they owned or had been leasing from White famers. Sol Plaatje wrote, “As a result of the passing of the Natives Land Act groups of natives are to be seen in the different Provinces seeking for new land. They have crossed over from the Free State into Natal, from Natal into the Transvaal, and from the Transvaal into British Bechuanaland” (Native Life in South Africa, p.99). Evidently, the Act seized the very asset which was central to lives of African people and rendered them destitute.
The Act also “minimized competition by denying blacks the right to purchase land and the opportunity to become shareholders on white owned land.” In essence, the Land Act marked the end of the limited independence which African farmers had on White-owned land. In spite of the Land Act, sharecropping and labour tenancy continued. This was because of the long delay in its implementation and because White landlords who wanted to keep sharecroppers or rent tenants found ways of getting round the law.
Meanwhile African farm workers struggled to hold on to a land of their own, no matter how small the piece. Thus, the impact of the Land Act to black people was profound. It dispossessed and locked black people in servitude. As Solomon Plaatjie wrote, ““The section of the law debarring Natives from hiring land is particularly harsh. It has been explained that its major portion is intended to reduce Natives to serfs” (Native Life in South Africa, p.100). African people forced to move to the reserves often could not find enough fertile land to use for crops
Immediately after the passing of the Land Act, White farmers began issuing notices of eviction to Black people. R.W. Msimang documented some of these notices in his book Natives Land Act 1913, Specific Cases of Evictions and Hardships etc. The position of African farmers was weakened further when the government began to offer low-interest loans to White farmers. These loans enabled White farmers to make improvements to their farms and buy agricultural machinery. They could now farm directly on land which had previously been allocated to sharecroppers. By 1936, nearly half of the African workers in towns had migrated from White farms.
African farmers who owned land inside and outside the reserves did not receive any aid from the government in the form of loans. They therefore found it increasingly difficult to compete with White farmers who could use improved methods and expand their farms.
Lastly, the Act laid down the foundation for separate development through the development of Bantustans, or Homelands
https://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/natives-land-act-1913
joe90: “Perhaps the most visible impact of the Act was that it denied Africans access to land which they owned or had been leasing from White famers.”
Then there’s this: “Anti-apartheid organizations have turned it into a potent narrative of a large and prosperous black peasant class abruptly snuffed out by the Land Act. In recent years, the idea of a vanquished peasantry has been modernized and metamorphosed within the African National Congress (ANC) government into a “class of black commercial farmers” that the Land Act destroyed and land reform must “rekindle.”18 This popularized account, however, overstates both the relative strength of the black peasantry and the importance of the Natives Land Act in the demise of African agriculture after 1913.
The passage into law of the Land Act on June 19, 1913, was certainly a politically significant assertion of white power in the new Union, but it was not a decisive moment in the history of black dispossession. That had already occurred. According to William Beinart and Peter Delius, “land alienation was neither the major intention nor the outcome of the Act”; rather, it was “an interim measure … to change the terms on which Africans could occupy white-owned land and to extend the areas reserved for Africans.”19 What the act did was demarcate some 9 million hectares20 (approximately 7.3 percent of the total area of the country) as “scheduled native areas,” and prohibit “a native person” from buying or renting land outside these areas, except with the permission of the governor general (representing the British monarch as head of state).21 A “native person” was defined in section 10 of the act as “any person, male or female, who is a member of an aboriginal race or tribe of Africa.” The act also prohibited non-natives from acquiring land in the scheduled areas, thereby, arguably, securing these lands against further alienation. The areas that were scheduled excluded more than 1.3 million hectares of African- and mission-owned land,22 as well as large areas under African settlement that were formally owned by the state or white landowners. In recognition that the initial allocation was inadequate, the act made provision for a Natives Land Commission to investigate additional land to add to the 1913 schedule.”
http://africanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-79
Sometimes, the narrative depends upon who is telling the story.
I’m not defending the Act, nor its effects on the black people. It’s important to note, however, that the history of colonisation and land acquisition in SA is much more complex and nuanced – and the roots of which are centuries further back – than some anti-apartheid activists would have us believe.
I reiterate: the whites of SA are as entitled to be considered native to that country as are the blacks. And it would be a catastrophic misstep to remedy one injustice – land loss – by the creation of another – expropriation without compensation.
What self-serving arguments for SA whites against blacks D’Esterre brings up.
Perhaps the title of terra nullius would be given to certain lands that were chosen to be allocated to blacks. The lands that were not claimed or used much as they lacked necessary fertility or water.
In New Zealand the authorities would designate some land as ‘waste land’ because agriculture had not been carried out there by Maori. Other lands had to be claimed by Maori and they might have to find their way to a town where a hearing would be held to decide on their land rights and boundaries. And they might have to hang around for weeks in a strange place where they had no food or accommodation. They were not part of the cash economy. They might even be induced to sell off part, to pay for their living requirements while they waited to be called before the arrogant plotters of the colonial powers.
Land desire can lead to diverse tricks, strategies and misunderstandings – that is why there is a provision in law called contra proferentem, which can be called on when there can be a case against the draughtsman of a misleading contract.
It’s all in the way that the powerful choose to regard it. ‘Look the Emperor has no clothes. ‘ ‘Yes he has you fool, and if you can’t see them it shows you are not a good respectful subject.’
Greywarshark: “What self-serving arguments for SA whites against blacks D’Esterre brings up.”
Nope. No self-serving arguments for whites against blacks in this neck of the woods. I’m making the case for whites being considered native to SA. And I’m making the case against the remedying of one gross injustice by creating another.
I take it that you’re a pakeha NZer. As am I. I was born here, have spent all of my longish life here, and consider myself a native. If you were born here, I’ll bet you feel similarly. I’m not responsible for the large-scale land theft and alienation that took place here: that happened before I was born. I’d add that my ancestors weren’t responsible for any of it, either.
So: given that we don’t hold people responsible for the sins of their ancestors, it follows a fortiori that I’m not responsible for the sins of other people’s ancestors.
The same applies to the whites of SA.
There may well be a case for land redistribution. But expropriation without compensation is a priori unjust. Contemporary farmers are as much native as the members of ANC or EFF, who want to divest the whites of their land. The government needs to treat whites as they’d treat blacks, and negotiate in good faith over land redistribution.
Oh dear
I met a white South African out walking the dog the other day who claimed that they were all preparing for combat and survival training, and white genocide
Guess he was bullshitting, just like all those white women in Sweden and Germany who claim to have been raped by migrants.
It’s all a far right conspiracy
Pretty much.
German neo-Nazis are using pictures of American and British domestic abuse to falsely accuse immigrants of attacking white women.
At a violent, two-day anti-immigrant rally in Chemnitz, Germany last weekend, fascists threw Nazis salutes next to a banner showing the faces of abused women. The pictures are part of a growing meme purporting to show German women who have been beaten by immigrants. But the pictures in the collage are either of uncertain origin, or of women from other countries (often the U.S. and the U.K.), many of whom have been beaten by their partners, police, or in the case of one English woman, by a Scottish man who opposed English immigrants.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/german-neo-nazis-say-these-women-were-abused-by-muslim-immigrants-theyre-actually-american-victims-of-domestic-violence
So meeting a person in real life is a conspiracy? Are you a Holocaust denier ?
Your bullshit is denied. You have zero cred.
So meeting a real person in real life is a “right wing conspiracy”
I do get worried about you lot. You appear to be mentally ill.
Or thick as pigshit.
It’s hard to tell the difference. But then NZ is a country full of mentally retarded people. Many of them are in the government
Lol yet still you came – what a weak tosspot you are.
Golly did you andy?
South African blacks want the whites gone, that’s the facts and are making life very difficult for the white people that remain
The South African whites that are still in SA have nowhere to go, they’d all be gone in a heartbeat if countries such as NZ opened their borders and let them in.
It’s not that you’re the only one spouting bullshit despite the post header, and obviously not reading any of the links provided but…
It’s not bull shit, how about you get off google and actually talk with a few saffers or people who have been over there recently.
You do realise that the SA govenment won’t deal with any company that isn’t black-owned, white-owned companies can’t bid for government work.
It’s reverse apartheid over there.
And you’re going to provide links that will illustrate or explain this contention that only black owned companies can bid for government contracts, right? And you’re also going to put up a sensible argument that explains and illustrates this “reverse apartheid”, right?
No. I thought not – just racist fuckwittery trying to pass as informed opinion.
https://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights/government-contracting-and-public-sector-procurement/black-ownership-requirement-business-government/
https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/2017/dispute/dispute-resolution-alert-23-august-changes-to-preferential-procurement-law-in-south-africa.html
Burning a lot of energy defending a bunch of racists…..
And the links you provide call bullshit on your assertion that the SA government won’t deal with any company that isn’t black-owned, white-owned companies can’t bid for government work. 🙄
It’s not bullshit.
I know of a few white-owned companies that had had to hide behind a black-owned shell company to be able to bid for government work.
The problem here is that you’re a chap with a very heavy left wing bias,
blacks good guys, whites bad guys, you see what you want to see, you’ll never agree with what I write it goes against what you believe are the “facts”, so I’ll leave it at that.
The procurement process takes more into account than mere cost. And companies that don’t satisfy the other criteria suffer disadvantage in relation to those that do. And whether it’s fair or not fair, the fact remains that nothing prevents a white company from bidding for contracts.
A bit like immigration then, it’s a points system that favours some and not others depending on the criteria being applied.
That criteria is race. Do you not have a problem discriminating based on race?
Bill. The engineer I got to know closest on my last big project was looking to get his family out urgently. He’s a skilled HVDC power systems engineer and he talked quite a few hours about his options. Not in any hypothetical sense, as in urgent choices he needed to make within weeks.
He did have a business in SA specialising in design, build and commissioning, but in the past few years the government had forced him to sell the majority of it to others (for a fraction of it’s worth), then employ people with very low competency and reliability and within a short period it all collapsed.
There was nothing to go back home to anymore.
Why is that Trade Union go8ng on strike again Bill?
When members of the SA government sing songs stating “Kill the Boer”, one assumes it is meant literally
Anyway, “Bill”, assuming that you are white, no one will come when you are cut to death by a machete. No one cares, No one gives a fuck
You and your White Settler mates in NZ are vermin and need to die
#KILLTHEPAKEHA
[And you just picked up a one year ban for writing that. Don’t be surprised if another mod ups it to permanent.] – Bill
Learn to spell toady.
“Espiner gave Arno Nel a free run to peddle utter bullshit.”
If only we had a government that dealt with the clear political bias that has developed under Griffin’s stewardship.
Griffin needs to be fired.
And Espiner told to be a journalist, not a pimp.
Guyno didn’t snigger much but he sounded a tad sceptical about Nel currently in Australia.
Ed: ” Espiner told to be a journalist, not a pimp.”
Heh! some of us have written to Espiner, saying as much. But perhaps couched in diplomatic language. Maybe I should have been more direct?
Burning a lot of energy defending a bunch of racists…..
Despite the hyperbole employed by the likes of S+M the fact that the law has changed to enable expropriation without real compensation cannot be denied nor the likely result.
As with all radical actions the original aims have been lost to the revolutionaries who have no foresight and seek to replace one mindless injustice with another….god help the whole country.
Actually the law hasn’t changed yet but the policy has been communicated
It hasnt yet been passed, agreed though the previous law requiring compensation has been repealed (allowing for the lowball offers of farms currently) and the ANC are in favour.
“Despite this, ANC secretary-general Ace Magashule said on Friday this was nevertheless an indication that the nation is in fact overwhelmingly in favour of constitutional change, and it should go ahead.”
though it may not go far enough for the EFF..
“However, Professor Ruth Hall from the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (Plaas) at the University of the Western Cape, was quoted in Rapport as saying that the end result of the process may still not be “radical” enough for the EFF, which wants all private ownership of land in South Africa to end, and for the state to become the custodian of lan”
https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/2003607/how-ancs-land-expropriation-plan-may-fail-because-of-eff-report/
The currently bad situation is only likely to deteriorate
I agree.
Gosman: “Actually the law hasn’t changed yet…”
I thought I’d read somewhere that constitutional changes are required before the law can be introduced. Am I right? Or did I misread that…
You are technically correct although it looks like the ANC may TEST the extent of the current law first by expropriating a few farms and see what happens. If the court rules against them they will then loom to change the Constitution.
Gosman: “If the court rules against them they will then loom to change the Constitution.”
If expropriation breaches the current constitution, I’d expect the court to rule against them. So I guess that constitutional changes are inevitable, given that there seems to be popular support for that.
But it looks as if the EFF wants large-scale nationalisation of land; how much support do you think they’d have among the citizens in general? I can’t see that one flying in the modern world, but who knows…
It’s a desperate situation altogether; not the outcome we expected all those years ago, when we in NZ supported the anti-Apartheid movement.
The issue is that the EFF is eating in to the ANC’s traditional support base and bacause the ANC is such a monolithic political organisation it can’t abide them doing that. Hence why it is trying to outflank the EFF on this subject despite the EFF representing no more than 15 to 20 % of the electorate. The EFF gets the benefit of setting the agenda without the downside of being accountable.
Gosman: “Hence why it is trying to outflank the EFF on this subject despite the EFF representing no more than 15 to 20 % of the electorate. The EFF gets the benefit of setting the agenda without the downside of being accountable.”
OK. So very high stakes politics, then. The ANC has little choice but to press ahead with the “expropriation without compensation” agenda. And that will end badly. Many of us recall the disaster of farm seizures in Zimbabwe. I can’t see it being any better in SA.
John Oliver did a piece on this a few weeks back, White Farmers in South Africa are dying, but at the same rate as any other group… its a pretty violent place :/
Following the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp my japie neighbour noted that the couple lived in one of the safest communities in SA, and called murder.
But because everyone’s armed, nervous, and they shoot first, familial shootings happen every week in SA. Someone arrives home outside of the time they’re expected and they’re shot to death.
Might be an idea to mitigate the Gosman stuff ? Hardly perfect me but picking up a hint of hounding. Gosman’s a right wing polemicist; stubbornly resolved never to be seen beyond that. Enough said.
Well, here’s the Zionist perspective on SA:
“Next year, South Africa — now one of Israel’s harshest critics in the international arena — will begin a two-year term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-palestinian-attempt-to-oust-israel-from-the-un-would-be-quixotic-and-fail/
“While we, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and the SA Zionist Federation, regret the loss of life of civilians, we recognize that Israel as a sovereign state has the right to defend its own border and its own citizens,” a statement said. “Israel is facing a real danger with the incitement by Hamas of its own population to storm the security fence and attack Israeli civilians.
“By withdrawing its ambassador,” the statement went on, “South Africa is essentially walking away from playing any meaningful role in finding a sorely needed resolution to the conflict. The rhetoric used by the government has already has spilled into anti-Semitic comment on various social media platforms and the biggest losers are the South African Jewish community, and other peace loving South Africans.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/south-africa-says-it-wont-reinstate-israel-envoy-for-now/
So don’t expect Mossad et. al. to be helping SA maintain stability.
You know that the real people who control state law are the public servants who stay in power when governments change they convince the new governments that if they change thing to much the sky will fall on our head’s these people have been practicing
there deceitful game’s for decade’s Is it that hard to see this .
That is my explanation for The DNC party not changing the system to distribute SA Vast wealth fairly ka kite ano
eco moari: “You know that the real people who control state law are the public servants who stay in power when governments change they convince the new governments that if they change thing to much the sky will fall on our head’s….”
That’s what’s been happening in the US over many years. It explains the persistence of its neocon foreign policy direction.
“So this is quite a “result” that has been obtained by those who merely bayed at Southern and Molyneux for being fascists, and tried to shut them down without informing themselves about what Southern and Molyneux were actually saying and not countering or engaging with any of the ideas they sought to promulgate; allowing the narrative to become (for them) a favourable one about free speech.”
Nah. They weren’t shut down and they still peddle the same lies now, today – I could link to them here. The people who empower these types are the ones who want to debate – as if sensible discussion can be had. That is naive and dangerously disingenuous imo.
So there can be no sensible discussion around land reform in South Africa then?
Ha I was talking about lefties but you sad sack rwnjs rejects can’t discuss with integrity anyway. I hope that answers sufficiently.
Nope. Do you think discussing land reform in the South African context can be discussed sensibly – Yes or No?
Not with you in the vicinity.
So you can only discuss sensibly with people who already agree with you?
Hell no, I’d never talk about anything.
But the more complex an issue, the more good faith is required from all participants.
Gosman has none whatsoever.
The longer I’ve been here the less I demand of others, the more I expect of myself. WIP 🙂
A fair point.
But then there’s gosman.
Yeah … you may have to be very patient.
Not. With. You.
Just wanting to clear something up here Gos. On an almost a daily basis you derail and deflect on other peoples posts and generally just annoy the shit out of a lot of people, but now there is a topic that you feel quite strongly about and have some knowledge about, you expect people to play by your rules on this one?
The moral vacuum feels strongly about nothing.
No … Gosman does have his own internally consistent moral system. It just doesn’t align exactly with yours.
I know this will infuriate a lot of people here to say it out loud; but conservative right wing people comprise roughly 40% of the population and are here to stay. They may well be our political opponents with whom we contend and contest ideas; but they are NOT our enemy. They’re not there to vilify and dehumanise.
It’s really pure hubris to imagine the right is absent it’s own viewpoint and ethics; worse still it makes the left blind to what is important to them and this makes us weak and ineffective in negotiating with them.
No, I’m talking about Gosman.
For example, PR is a wind-up merchant, but occasionally makes serious points.
Wayne, I think, is consistent and usually argues in good faith, but I believe he is wrong outside a very narrow area of expertise.
Alwyn is a nat BS cheerleader, but at least seemed to be upset at their loss – ISTR it was Alwyn’s comments that really dove in quality after the loss. Grieving is a process.
But Gosman is in a league of his own. If he can’t bog a thread down with demands to “prove this” or “cite that” while never explicitly stating what his own position is (so he can then say “but I’m not arguing that” if you’ve made an assumption based on the normal meaning of the words he used), he’s sliding the slightest humane policy into communism and ‘Venezuela is bad, m’kay?’
Regardless of topic.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen gosman contribute constructively to a thread. In ten years. It’s theoretically possible, but as far as I can recall he just prevaricates, dissembles, and disrupts, with no passion about anything.
Wayne, I think, is consistent and usually argues in good faith…
Such as when he smears people as antisemitic without a skerrick of evidence to support such smears? Oh, that’s right, you don’t see anything wrong with that, do you?
whoops, sorry folks, I tracked something in from open mike. My mistake.
mozza: not the right thread for this
Oh I see. He usually argues in good faith. Just not when he’s telling lies and trying to destroy people.
Sorted. After a fashion. Sorry to those who had made half decent comments that were caught up in this sub-thread that your comments have dropped off to the bottom too.
If he can’t bog a thread down with demands to “prove this” or “cite that” while never explicitly stating what his own position is
Heh … he’s certainly not the only person round here who’s good at that. I’d go further to say most of us employ the ‘make a small target’ gambit to some degree or another. It’s a consequence of the debate prioritising ‘gotcha’ point scoring over ‘sensible’ discussion. You know like Gosman asked for above.
In the interests of being open on my position here; I’m firmly locating myself as a moderate leftie on this. And the primary characteristic of ‘moderate’ in this context is that I’m willing to engage in good faith debate with pretty much anyone across the political spectrum who isn’t advocating mass murder.
Oh and the Venezuela thing …. yeah it got boring there for a few years. But all we had to do was acknowledge that indeed he had a point, like all radical left wing revolutions it spun badly out of control and is having bad consequences. It’s the truth so why not accept it gracefully?
And that opens the door to unravelling the complexities and nuances of exactly what IS happening in that benighted country and having an interesting discussion where everyone might learn something. (And before anyone leaps down my throat … save your energy it’s not all the socialists fault either.)
lol you made an assumption – he didn’t ask for a sensible discussion, he merely asked whether it was possible to have a discussion on a topic that was tangential to the post. And look where we are now 😉
Yeah, some of us fail to make our position clear sometimes, or latch onto the phrase that stands out to us. But with G it’s an art form: delay, distract, disrupt. But “discuss sensibly”? Lol.
I feel very strongly about this topic and am incredibly knowledgeable about it. I am also aware of the exaggerated claims made around it. If you think you are unable to have an informed debate about the topic with me that is your loss.
And that would be the first time in ten years that discussing anything with you would be something other than a waste of time.
I think I can afford to miss this single golden opportunity for enlightenment. Another might come along in 2028.
I’m not complaining about anybody’s behaviour.
Gossie doesnt really give shit all about anything – it’s all a big game to him – there is no end game the fun is in playing. I’ve interacted with gossie for over 10 years – he’s a slow learner like his middle of the road pretend left mates. Harmless but irritating – even the right laugh at him I’m told.
lol this is getting funny – folks will think one of us is the other’s sock puppet.
I wondered why I was walking gingerly today.
I did read yours first that time – I thought they were different angles – the other one upthread was classic.
With you?
That’s a joke.
You never debate. You derail.
well here is
your big chance to kick it off. go for it
as if sensible discussion can be had. That is naive and dangerously disingenuous imo.
You understand that “constructing a narrative” or “promoting a narrative” isn’t necessarily about sitting down with (in the recent example) Molyneux and Southern and having polite conversation with them over elevensies, yes?
Right now, the accepted narrative is that white South African farmers are being murdered in their droves. That’s a lie. And it was a lie that was never exposed as such, partly because idiots, instead of informing themselves and engaging properly, flapped around mindlessly hollering “fascists!”, and partly because the quality of media and reporting in NZ is utterly abysmal.
The shit they’re spouting, and that they’ve attained huge penetration with (both the US and Australian governments have responded “favourably”) really ought to be sitting in there alongside Twin Tower stuff and whatever.
But it’s not. It has currency. And there are identifiable reasons as to why that’s the case.
I don’t accept the narrative nor do you. I don’t for probably different reasons and different sources to you. Who cares about how – the fact is we both don’t accept the narrative. Oh look we disagreed on the other issues. Well blow me down maybe just maybe that disagreement had nothing to do with our acceptance of this narrative we both don’t accept. Got to move the train off the tracks to get your head around it yes?
No, the accepted narrative is the White community in South Africa is being steadily marginalised and attacked across the board. Farm murders just tend to be a physical representation of that because of the emotion both sides have around land and The nature of many of the attacks. The real issue is that South Africa is heading towards a Zimbabwe style catastrophe as a result of the failure of the ANC.
so what are you going to do about that gosman except burble on ad nauseum.
R.P McMurphy: “so what are you going to do about that gosman except burble on ad nauseum.”
I’d have thought it better to know what’s really happening in SA, as opposed to the comfortable myths about everyone getting on just famously, and there not being any problems between blacks and whites, as propagated by some reports here in NZ.
In any event, there isn’t much in the way of any reportage here from SA, let alone unvarnished, warts-and-all coverage. It’s good to get the perspective of someone who actually knows about the situation there.