Posts Tagged ‘South Africa’

Murderous racist South Africa – but not as the BBC sees it

Thursday, March 14th, 2013

LIFE IN SOUTH AFRICA TODAY

MSM run by the censors themselves

By Jan Lamprecht
“I killed them because they were white.” These famous words were spoken last year by William Kekana, who participated in one of the most horrendous incidents in which the entire family of Mr. Clifford Rawstorne was wiped out, consisting of his fiancée, baby, as well as his own mother. Even this massacre of an entire family would not have made headlines, were it not for the fact that one year-old Kayla was executed on her very first birthday with a shot in the head. Needless to say, the two adult women were first raped before being killed.

What strikes me about the relentless killings of educated whites, is that the criminals are indeed “burning down the libraries” of this country and physically exterminating the intellectual class, much like Pol Pot did in Cambodia. No government spokesman has ever condemned such killings; so we may assume that the present regime is completely indifferent to them, where such killings do not enjoy their tacit support.

South Africa’s Minister of Safety and Security, His Excellency Mr. Charles Nqakula, whose official résumé proudly states that he was once “a waiter and wine steward”, has immortalised himself by euphemistically stating that there was no real crime problem in South Africa, except that it was “a little on the high side”.

At the height of apartheid under Hendrik Verwoerd, South Africa was almost as peaceful as Switzerland but she was immoral. Today we are the apotheosis of racial morality and political correctness, yet as violent as the Congo or Liberia. Crime our biggest industry – bigger than gold-mining or manufacturing – it also stimulates consumption as stolen goods are replaced; it is a boon to the insurance and security industries and ultimately makes surgeons and undertakers rich. The government earns billions of rands in Value-Added Tax on stolent goods being replaced with new ones. So crime pays.

During the time of National Party reforms in the seventies and eighties, the cliché “adapt or die” used to do the rounds. Nowadays, given the highest murder rate in the world, this should be modified slightly to read, “adapt and die”. For the endemic social violence in South Africa is probably incurable.

Optimists think that violent crime can be solved through better policing, more efficient courts and more secure prisons. Even assuming that such improvements were possible under conditions of hard-core affirmative action, it must be admitted that criminal justice treats the symptom and not the cause of social violence. The Department of Correctional Services, for one, has lost 496 out of 500 former Deputy Directors since 1994, representing most of the intellectual capital in the department. Newcomers may learn their job properly, or they may not, but they have to be flown to overseas countries to find out how prisons work as most of those previously involved in managing our prisons are no longer there.

South Africa used to have a problem of political violence. It was not as bad as elsewhere in Africa, but for some reason elicited hysterical international condemnation. However, actors in political violence are mostly driven by some sort of creed or belief system. Whether such a person is a communist, an anarchist, a neo-Nazi or an ethnic or religious guerilla fighter, he is usually amenable to persuasion or compromise. Even a group of Muslim suicide bombers might declare peace if they were given a territory in which to set up an Islamic theocracy, governed only by themselves and not subject to any outside influence.

In the same way, South Africa’s so-called liberation movements who were at one time fanatically convinced of the need for violent and bloody revolution, laid down arms and bombs upon being told that F.W. de Klerk would surrender power unconditionally. So living political violence is often intractable, but not impossible.

Not so social violence. Endemic crime, the breakdown of the social fabric, a sense of drift regarding norms of good conduct, point to a far deeper problem. The freedom fighter or urban terrorist is ultimately rational, despite a value system that normal society might find idiosyncratic.

But what is “normal society”? It is only the sum-total of behaviours prevalent in any given society at any given time. The Aztecs, infamously, practised daily human sacrifice to appease their sun god. It might revolt many of us today, but to them it was entirely normal. South Africa currently sacrifices about 87 humans per day to violent crime, or 32 000 per year. Those are only the ones who actually die. Scores of others are injured, maimed, traumatised, robbed, raped, burgled and so on.

However, some time ago a Johannesburg newspaper engaged in chronicling some local history in the suburbs of Westdene and Lakefield in Benoni. Nearly every resident had a story to tell, an entire litany of mayhem. Mr. John Gee miraculously survived a shot through the eye, but now feels traumatised. His wife says, “One lives in fear in one’s own home. One does not sleep. One prays for protection, yet only more fears come.”

But who are the authors of South Africa’s social violence? Even asking this question presents one wit! h a sense of discomfort, because most violent criminals in South Africa are young black men between the ages of 16 and 36. As one surgeon who had stitched together at least three child rape victims, two of whom were infants, said recently, “Probably white men commit such acts too; it is just that no-one in South Africa has come across such a case.”

Explanations for such deviancy are manifold. The ubiquitous answer of it being due to apartheid might have been satisfying if other African societies never subject to group areas and a homeland system did not display similar traits. The Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone come to mind. There is a whole nature/nurture debate around black violence, except that no adherent of the “nature” side would publicly admit to being one, for fear of being branded a racist.

Even though mainstream American cancer research has conclusively shown that black men have higher levels of testosterone than their white counterparts, few would hazard the notion that this might be linked to their greater propensity for violent crime.

America has a gargantuan prison population of two million, over half of which consists of African-Americans. This is despite their minority status in the USA, comprising only 12% of an overall population amounting to 290 million.

South Africa could neither afford nor succeed, given the dire state of our criminal justice system, in jailing a similar number of black male offenders. Currently, only 10% of murderers in South Africa get arrested and only 6% are convicted. Any murderer therefore has a! 94% chance of getting away with it.

If by some miracle, all serious criminals in the country had to be caught and imprisoned, the prison population would surely treble or quadruple from the present 200,000, which is already high by world standards. Not only is such an improvement inconceivable under current conditions, but it would also be politically unpopular with the ruling ANC who would be incarcerating large numbers of young black males who are mostly its own supporters at the polls.

Few whites, if any, commit violent crime and there are only 3,900 of them in prison, mostly for white-collar offences such as fraud or insider trading on the stock exchange. All that remains in the world’s most violent society, is precisely to adapt and die. Twice as many South Africans of all races now die of murder than of road accidents – even though the road accident rate is also the highest in the world, surpassing that of Turkey. Crime extends to trade in driver’s licences, so that a large number of drivers use so-called “bought licences”, hardly a contribution to road safety.

There are some people naive enough to think that “something can be done about crime” in South Africa, mostly opposition politicians who dream about diverting funds from arms procurement to policing, but this would be futile. There are already three times as many private security personnel as state-employed policemen, and even they do not succeed in containing what has become Africa’s only peacetime killing field.

“I killed them because they were white.” These famous words were spoken last year by William Kekana, who participated in one of the most horrendous incidents in which the entire family of Mr. Clifford Rawstorne was wiped out, consisting of his fiancée, baby, as well as his own mother. Even this massacre of an entire family would not have made headlines, were it not for the fact that one year-old Kayla was executed on her very first birthday with a shot in the head. Needless to say, the two adult women were first raped before being killed.

Both William Kekana and his accomplice, Charles Fido Baloyi, fell into the high-risk group of young black (and Coloured) males who commit almost all violent crime in the country. South Africa actually has a Minister of Safety and Security, which to some might seem like an example of absurd humour. His Excellency Mr. Charles Nqakula, whose official résumé proudly states that he was once “a waiter and wine steward”, has immortalised himself by euphemistically stating that there was no real crime problem in South Africa, except that it was “a little on the high side”.

All in all, South Africa has got remarkably used to its new-found status as the crime capital of the world. The high-rise districts of Hillbrow and Berea in Johannesburg have been officially designated by Interpol as having the highest murder rate in the world, that is, 600 people per 100 000 population members per annum. Consider for a moment that such a figure represents 12 times the rate found in inner-city ghettoes in the United States, often seen as no-go zones by many Americans.

One British immigrant to South Africa who has survived three car hijackings, refuses to emigrate, stating that he is now accustomed to having Kalachnikovs pointed at him from pointblank range. Everyone knows a relative or friend who has been killed or at least subjected to some form of violent crime, and no South African can remotely imagine a society where people do not live behind razor wire, electrified fences, high walls, burglar bars and similar decorative props.

Outsiders might find our lifestyle bizarre, but many pundits in South Africa consider our society to be much more “normal” now than at any time in the past, which was tarnished by ethnic separation albeit without the present large-scale violence. At the height of segregation and apartheid under Hendrik Verwoerd, South Africa was almost as peaceful as Switzerland but she was immoral. Today we are the apotheosis of racial morality and political correctness, yet as violent as the Congo or Liberia. Surprisingly, however, our economy continues to function amid the carnage. No economist has ever studied this as far as I know, but not only is crime our biggest industry – bigger than gold-mining or manufacturing – it also stimulates consumption as stolen goods are replaced; it is a boon to the insurance and security industries and ultimately makes surgeons and undertakers rich. The government earns billions of rands in Value-Added Tax on stolent goods being replaced with new ones. So crime pays.

News about killings or shoot-outs no longer elicits the slightest surprise. It is part of our daily existence, and one assumes the lethal risks attending to something as simple as going shopping or driving to work. My wife, for example, has twice been to the local shopping centre where in the one instance a shoot-out was taking place in the parking area so that she had to hide between the cars with our 18 month-old son in her arms; in the second case an armed robbery had just taken place with the robbers casually strolling by with their guns and their loot.

Everyone knows someone who has been killed, raped or maimed. Just this week, the wife of a friend and former literary editor of Die Burger, François Smith, was stabbed to death with a screwdriver in their home in Wellington, near Cape Town. Her murderer was a 16-year-old squatter camp resident whose race was omitted by the press but presumably few, if any whites, reside in his particular squatter camp which is dedicated to black Africans. Lisbé Smuts-Smith was a well-known academic and head of the Afrikaans literature department at the University of Cape Town. Just two weeks ago, another UCT academic, mathematician Brian Hahn, was attacked by a former student, dr. Maleafisha Steve Tladi (35). Hahn died in hospital a week later, while Tladi was release! d on bail of R500 (about $80).

Two years ago Louw Rabie, a brilliant albeit reclusive geologist and brother of author Jan Rabie, was beaten to death with a fence pole by two Coloured men to whom he had lent some money a week earlier. Police in the small Cape town of Montagu readily caught his murderers because they happened to have drinking money during the week, taken from his home. He was 80 years old, but in good health. He is reputed to have been one of the most brilliant geologists and intellectuals this country has ever produced, writing copiously throughout his life but disdaining publication and public esteem. Africans with their oral tradition are fond of saying that “when an old person dies, a library burns down”.

What strikes me about the relentless killings of educated whites, is that the criminals are indeed “burning down the libraries” of this country and physically exterminating the intellectual class, much like Pol Pot did in Cambodia. The media are celebrating youth, dance, colour, being black and exuberant – as opposed to the quiet studiousness of middle-aged and elderly whites, the bearers of knowledge and understanding. Are these learned whites who are being killed in exuberant, paradisiacal outbreaks of violence simply the remnants of a civilisation that is being eradicated in the name of decolonisation? No government spokesman has ever condemned such killings; so we may assume that the present regime is completely indifferent to them, where such killings do not enjoy their tacit support.

Farming in South Africa is now arguably the most dangerous profession in the world with more than 1600 farmers murdered since 1994, often in macabre and dehumanising ways.

To the outside world, white South Africans are congenitally evil. If our murderers and rapists had been white and their victims black, Europe or the United States would long ago have sent an expeditionary force to put a stop to it.

At present, news of white suffering in South Africa inspires the occasional yawn in Western capitals. This is why a recent article in The Despatch, detailing the rape of a dog by three black men, gave me some hope that a chord will be struck somewhere in the coolly indifferent breasts of our fellow-Westerners.

Even if the lives of Louw Rabie, Brian Hahn, Lisbé Smuts-Smith, Kayla Rawstorne and tens of thousands of others are of no value to them, perhaps they will take pity on the mongrel bitch in Grahamstown that was recently raped by three black men. Cycling has become a popular sport in South Africa. However, its practitioners regularly get shot at by gangs of black youths in the street, so that many of them carry guns and knives for self-defence on their bicycles.

Members of the Johannesburg mountain-bike club were outraged a while ago when two cyclists, Scott and Lloyd Griffith, were charged with murder after an armed battle with their four black assailants, one of whom succumbed to his wounds. Most of the time, however, whites are helpless victims of crime.

The government has recently passed a new gun law which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to own a firearm. They have also abolished rural commandos of military reservists entrusted with crime-prevention in the country, without any police units replacing them. Occasionally the newspapers carry stories of crime victims successfully defending themselves against attacks, offering armed resistance. As a result of the new gun law, this will soon end and we shall simply be able to hide or flee from our assailants. Defending oneself against a marauding robber or rapist might be a manifestation of racism, and is therefore frowned upon as being a kind of “right-wing” response.

Being robbed of one’s vehicle or household belongings is now considered quite normal, and often people ascribe escaping with their lives to their own astuteness, such as being friendly to the robber, helping him load the effects into a vehicle, not looking him in the face so as not to recognise him afterwards, et cetera.

A friend of mine in Kempton Park kept up a reasonable conversation with the thieves emptying his house, tied up as he was with a gun pointed at him. He survived, although his elderly mother was badly roughed up and had to be hospitalised. In other instances, of course, people are not so lucky and they become just another murder statistic. Then they simply adapt and die.
_____
*The first draft of this article was submitted to the British Spectator, which turned it down about a year ago. I have now updated it with references to more recent incidents. Probably no mainstream newspaper in South Africa will publish it, because it refers to the race and gender of violent criminals, which is taboo here as elsewhere in the Western world.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/03/murderous-racist-south-africa-but-not-as-the-bbc-sees-it-2592854.html?currentSplittedPage=0

As George Orwell said, however, “during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
In the interest of drawing attention to the anarchy that exists in South Africa, the author qualifies his copyright on this article and invites everyone to post it on his or her website, copy it and mail it to friends and mailing lists, translate it into other languages and to distribute it far and wide.

The only condition is that no element must be changed or censored.

Posted By Jan Lamprecht AfricanCrisis Webmaster Author of: Government by Deception

Enhanced by Zemanta

South African Farmers Fearing for Their Lives

Wednesday, December 5th, 2012

On Saturday, in an unprecedented move to mark the second anniversary of the slaughter of a farming family, survivors of farm attacks marched in Pretoria and called for attacks on South Africa’s mostly white farmers to be designated a crime of national priority.

Since the attack on Attie Potgieter and his family, the simple stone farmhouse where they lived has stood empty and crumbling, with nobody wanting to live in the home where one of South Africa’s most disturbingly brutal crimes took place.

Mr Potgieter, a farm caretaker, was stabbed and hacked 151 times with a garden fork, a knife and a machete near Lindley in the Free State—the agricultural heart of the country.

His wife, Wilna, and two-year-old daughter, Willemien, were both made to watch him die, before being shot in the head, execution style.

All for pocket money, and possessions of relatively little value—a too-common story in South Africa’s rural areas, where mostly white Afrikaner farmers feel they are being targeted in gratuitously violent attacks on their remote farms and smallholdings. They accuse police and government of failing to make these crimes a priority. And as the horrifying murders continue, they are growing increasingly angry.

“If you kill a rhinoceros in South Africa, you get more time in jail then if you kill a person,” said Susan Nortje, 26, Mrs Potgieter’s younger sister. “I don’t think people understand. We must show people what’s really happening.”

The murder last weekend of British engineer Chris Preece, 54, who was born in Southgate in north London and found his dream on a piece of rolling farmland bordering Lesotho’s Maluti mountains, is the most recent farm killing to make headlines.

Mr Preece spent his weekdays working in Johannesburg before retreating to his beloved farm near the town of Ficksburg, where he and wife Felicity dreamed of starting a nature reserve to save raptor birds and cheetahs.

He was stabbed and hacked to death by men who stole just £210 and a mobile phone. Felicity was left severely traumatised with a skull fracture, and has not yet been able to talk about the attack from the Bloemfontein hospital in where she is being treated.

The couple’s son, Robert Preece, and his wife, Jeanne, are now considering leaving their native South Africa, because they don’t want to raise children in a country “where a man can be hacked to death for no reason”.

“This isn’t something we’re going to get over,” Jeanne Preece, 29, toldThe Sunday Telegraph. “It is a bottomless weight in all our souls.”

On Saturday, in an unprecedented move to mark the second anniversary of the slaughter of the Potgieters, families of murdered farmers and survivors of farm attacks marched in the capital Pretoria and called for attacks on South Africa’s mostly white farmers to be designated a crime of national priority.

Carrying photos of dead relatives and friends, 200 protesters—many wearing the khaki shorts and short-sleeved shirts that are the unofficial uniform of white South African farmers—sought to deliver a memorandum to the country’s police minister, Nathi Mthethwa, urging that farm attacks be given the same elevated police attention already accorded to rhinoceros poaching and copper cable theft.

“These murders are marked by a unique level of brutality—often worse than that found in terrorist attacks,” the memorandum said. “The argument that farm murders are ‘only murder’ does not hold water.”

South African police stopped releasing separate figures on farm attacks in 2007, and incorporated them into wider violent crime statistics.

But according to the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa, there have been 2,863 farm attacks and 1,592 farm murders since 1990, and independent think-tanks put the true number of farmers murdered at closer to 3,000.

It is now twice as dangerous to be a farmer as it is to be a police officer in South Africa, according to Johan Burger, a senior researcher with the Pretoria-based Institute for Security Studies’ crime and justice programme. Last year the country had a murder rate of 31.9 per 100,000 people, almost 30 times higher than Britain, according to police statistics. For police officers, this rate rises to 51—and among farmers, a staggering 99 people killed per 100,000.

What troubles many South Africans is the horrific and unnecessary violence that’s a grim hallmark of farm attacks ostensibly staged to steal money—blamed by some on resentment at the yawning gap between rich and poor, 40 per cent unemployment in some rural areas and the legacy of ill feeling bequeathed by the former apartheid system.

Ernst Roets, deputy CEO of the Afrikaner civil rights group AfriForum and an organiser of the campaign, complained that the government had tried to declare the march an illegal gathering. “They are taking active steps to stop us from speaking out about the problem,” he said.

The police minister was not in his offices on Saturday to receive the memorandum. But a spokesman, Zweli Mnisi, accused AfriForum of “grandstanding”.

Mr Mnisi said: “They are only representing people based on their colour. For us, racialising crime is problematic. You can’t have a separate category that says, farmers are the special golden boys and girls.

“You end up saying the life of a white person is more important. You cannot do this.”

South African farms are still overwhelmingly owned by whites, mostly Afrikaner—who are descended from the country’s first Dutch settlers and speak their own language. The government’s efforts to encourage a gentle method of land reform, known as “willing buyer, willing seller” in stark contrast to the state-sponsored violent takeovers in neighbouring Zimbabwe, has been a flop.

Prof Burger rejects claims by some in the Afrikaans farming community that the attacks amount to a genocide on white farmers. He said there is also no evidence of political involvement in the attacks.

“The perception is that farmers are all rich, and these criminals know the vulnerability of these remote farms, and so they see it as relatively low risk,” he said.

However, he added, in some attacks the perpetrators “take out their hatred for all those past wrongs, and show who’s in control now”. Farmers claim their attackers are stirred by the old black struggle song “Shoot the Boer”, the subject of a court case on hate speech brought against the former African National Congress party youth leader Julius Malema after he took to singing it at rallies.

Among those on the march was Magda Pistorius, 53, who still grieves for her husband Wybrand, killed in an attack in June last year.

The couple were asleep at their new home on a smallholding in Muldersdrift, near Johannesburg, which they had moved into just 12 hours earlier, when they awoke at 3.50am to find two men standing over the bed. One of the men said “Hello, boss”—and then shot and killed Mr Pistorius, 53, before shooting his wife in the stomach.

Their daughters were also at home, but unharmed. The robbers fled with just a mobile phone and a torch.

The bullet was removed from Mrs Pistorius’ stomach four months after the June 2011 attack. Today, she lives around the corner from the smallholding, and finds daily life hard because of the constant reminders of her husband.

“Physically, I have recovered,” she said. “But emotionally, it will never go away.

“The government has to do something to stop this whole story. This whole country is so lawless. It’s easy to rob and steal. The justice system is a mess. Everyone else here has got their human rights. But what about ours?”

Also protesting were three generations of the Pretorius family, ambushed when they returned home from a church service to their smallholding in Muldersdrift, near Johannesburg, one night in 2005.

Unbeknown to them, members of their extended family had been held captive at the house. A worker ran out to warn that a gang of armed men were inside, but while Coenie Pretorius, 36, was trying to drive off, the men opened fire.

Mr Pretorius died from gunshot wounds in front of his family and his wife, Petro de Kock, was shot in the lower back while protecting their two young children. She survived the injury, but the family still has deep scars from the trauma of the attack, especially since no one was ever convicted.

The slain farmer’s parents have since moved to Perth, Australia, saying they can no longer live in South Africa, but returned to join in yesterday’s protest.

Their grandson—also called Coenie, who is now 20 and lives in Johannesburg, said: “It makes it so difficult for us, because they wrecked our lives.

“Something needs to be done. This isn’t just happening to our family—look at how many families there are here today.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9716539/South-African-farmers-fearing-for-their-lives.html

Enhanced by Zemanta

South Africa’s Census: Racial Divide Continuing

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

The income of white South African households is six times higher than black ones, new census figures reveal.

President Jacob Zuma said the census showed the black majority is still at the “bottom of the rung”, 18 years after white minority rule ended.

The statistics showed that while the income of black households had increased by nearly 170% in the last decade, they still earned the least.

The population now stands at nearly 52 million, 79% of whom are black people.

It has risen by seven million since 2001.

Great strides’

The 2011 census statistics showed that children below the age of five number nearly 11 million, making them the largest age group.

“It could be that HIV [infection] rates have levelled out and fertility has begun to recover,” said Statistics South Africa’s demographic analysis executive director, Diego Iturralde.

The average annual income of a white household is about 365,000 rand ($42,000; £26,000), followed by Indians at 251,000 rand, people of mixed race at 251,500 rand and blacks at 60,600 rand, it showed.

Other key findings include:

  • Nearly 30% of the labour force is unemployed
  • More than three million children (nearly 4%) are orphans
  • More than nine million people live in homes while the number of shack-dwellers has risen since 2001 to nearly two million
  • The number of homes with flush toilets has increased from 50% in 2001 to 57%
  • The number of people who have completed higher education has increased to 11.8%, from 8.4% in 2001
  • The number of homes with electricity has increased from 58.2% in 1996 to 84.7% in 2011
  • Paraffin is the main energy source at 7.5% of all homes
  • Mobile phone ownership has increased from less than 32% a decade ago to nearly 90%.

Mr Zuma said the census showed that while “great strides” have been made since racial segregation ended in 1994, much still needed to be done to end inequality.

“These figures tell us that at the bottom of the rung is the black majority who continue to be confronted by deep poverty, unemployment and inequality, despite the progress that we have made since 1994,” he said.

“Much remains to be done to further improve the livelihoods of our people especially in terms of significant disparities that still exist between the rich and poor.”

Mr Zuma pledged that by 2030 the African National Congress (ANC) government would make sure that each community had a clinic, school, library and police station.

Enhanced by Zemanta

S African convicted in Mandela plot

Friday, July 27th, 2012

The mastermind of a white supremacist plot in to kill Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first black president, has been convicted of treason. A Pretoria court ruled that Boeremag group leader Mike du Toit was involved in nine bombings in Johannesburg’s Soweto township in 2002. He is the first person to be convicted of treason in S Africa since white minority rule ended in 1994. Analysts say race relations in S Africa are still tense. However, white extremist groups like Boeremag, which means Afrikaner Power in Afrikaans, have very little support. The Pretoria High Court handed down its verdict against Du Toit, a former academic, following a nine-year trial.
Witnesses told the court that Boeremag had carried out a spate of bombings in Soweto in 2002 and had planned to assassinate Mr Mandela, who became South Africa’s first black president in 1994 and acted as a unifying force after decades of white-minority rule. The Boeremag also intended to shoot whites who opposed their vision of a racially pure nation, the witnesses said.

Enhanced by Zemanta

South Africa Keeps Miners in Dark on Nationalisation

Saturday, July 7th, 2012

A major conference of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) last week was billed as the final nail in the coffin for a drive to nationalise the country’s mines. Instead, the policy corpse appears to be alive and kicking.

While “blanket nationalisation”—a sweeping buyout that would cost the state, by its own reckoning, $132 billion, or nearly an entire annual budget—and a windfall tax appear to be off the table, the week-long ANC talk-fest has left almost everything else up in the air.

Amid confusion about reports of more state mining firms, partial nationalisation and “strategic” minerals, Enoch Godongwana, the head of the ANC’s ‘Economic Transformation’ Committee, took to the airwaves on Thursday to offer some clarity.

It didn’t help.

“I do not know what kind of clarity people want,” Godongwana, a big-hitter in ANC policy circles, told Talk Radio 702, adding that nationalisation “remains as a weapon for the ANC, as a tool, an instrument, as an option.”

Since the meeting concluded on Friday, various ANC factions have come out to claim victory in their fight to screw more rent out the mines, the economic backbone of the white-minority apartheid state that ended in 1994, and no friend of South Africa’s overwhelming black majority.

Business Day reported on Thursday that delegates from six of South Africa’s nine provinces pushed for mines and firms in the steel and energy sectors to be taken over—to the delight of the ANC Youth League, the most vocal proponent of the idea.

The conference also endorsed the idea of “strategic nationalisation” if backed by the “balance of evidence”—whatever that may mean.

However, the possibility remains that keeping everybody guessing—including ANC rank and file—is actually part of the plan for the party’s top brass as it moves towards the December internal vote and a general election in 2014.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Police arrest 42 illegal immigrants

Friday, July 6th, 2012

Forty-two foreigners have been arrested while escaping a crackdown on illegal immigrants in neighbouring Tanzania.

Loitoktok DC Harsama Kellol said the arrested include 39 Ethiopians and three Somalis.
He said an ambush was laid at Embarara near the border early in the morning

“We initially arrested 21 Ethiopians and three Somalis in the 4am ambush. The rest were arrested at 9am,” he stated.

Mr Kellol said the three Somalis had documents indicating they were from Dadaab Refugee Camp while “None of the Ethiopians had documents.”

Speaking to The Standard on the phone, the DC noted the crackdown on illegal immigrants is still on, adding that it will even be intensified.

“I appeal to the public to provide information on people who might be in the country illegally,” he added.

He further said his office was working closely with the Tanzanian counterparts to fight illegal immigration. “We know these people may be fleeing famine and war but rules and regulations must be adhered to.”

Last month, dozens of Ethiopians died after suffocating in a container truck and their bodies dumped on the roadside in Tanzania.

Up to 45 bodies were dumped along a busy forest highway, a local newspaper reported. Another 72 were found alive and taken to hospital.

Tanzania is a major transit route for migrants and is used by smugglers to ferry Somalis and Ethiopians to South Africa and Europe.

The truck was probably on its way to the south-western border with Zambia and Malawi, officials said. Illegal immigrants are often smuggled by local truckers from Tanzania’s commercial capital Dar es Salaam to border towns.

In January, 20 Somali migrants suffocated to death as they were being smuggled in a truck.

Enhanced by Zemanta

South Africa: The Last of Mandela’s Nation

Wednesday, May 30th, 2012

As the controversy over The Spear peters out, an opportunity is here for South Africa to assess the events of the past few weeks and what they have revealed about the country. Apart from re-uniting most of the Polokwane brigade that carried Jacob Zuma to victory in 2007, the painting bared a festering wound of racial animosity and anger where once there existed national reconciliation.

The irony of the contrast between two mass gatherings in Johannesburg on Tuesday did not go unnoticed. At Nelson Mandela Square in Sandton, people gathered to record a birthday song for Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s greatest symbol of reconciliation and national unity, for his 94th birthday in July.

Across town, thousands of ANC supporters, led by the senior leadership of the alliance, marched from Zoo Lake to the Goodman Gallery in Rosebank in protest against The Spear painting, which had been on display there earlier this month.

On social networking sites, some people remarked on the juxtaposition between the two events, especially in light of the divisive posters on display at the march such as “Whites hate blacks” and “Draw your white father naked not our president”.

The crowd at Mandela Square was a multi-racial one, singing in harmony to rejoice another year of life of the great icon. The ANC march was mostly African, militant and spewing bile. The wrath was directed at everyone associated with the artwork, which the ANC and others perceived as promoting an attack on all African people.

The leaders who spoke on behalf of the ANC, SACP, Cosatu, Young Communist League and the South African National Civic Organisation all beat the war drums, emphasising the racial divide – because the artist is white, the subject is African and most of those who want the painting banned are black.

According to ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe they were there to assert the “right to defend African values and culture”. But the approach of the ANC and its alliance partners throughout the debate has been to attack, intimidate, seek revenge and manipulate the national psyche. They have now successfully scared off all the parties associated with the painting by terrorising them into submission.

Whether the painting is indeed racist and a mockery of black bodies will always remain a matter of perspective – no matter what the courts, the Film and Publications Board, the art critics and the ANC say.

It took the emotional breakdown of Zuma’s lawyer in court last week to expose how raw emotions still are over the pain, humiliation and devastation of apartheid and the lack of closure for many South Africans. Since the end of the TRC process, there has been no attention given to healing the wounds of apartheid, to nursing the scars, to making amends and to building social cohesion.

As a result, South Africa is now a shadow of the illustrious nation it was under Mandela’s presidency – a nation which triumphed over apartheid and set off on a journey to work and heal together. Since 1999, the reconciliation project was elbowed out of the way as the pursuit of power, social status and wealth became the national obsession.

And the very custodian of our non-racial democracy, the ANC, is primarily responsible for the changing nature of South African society as it knowingly abandoned national reconciliation in favour of economic transformation. The process of healing and reconciling, as far as the ANC is concerned, is something Mandela did successfully and is over and done with.

If legislation can ensure that places of learning and work become fully racially integrated, no laws can change attitudes or remove racial prejudices. Random acts of racism and prejudice which are publicised give the impression that these are out of the ordinary. Yet in homes and communities across the country, racial animosity festers and is disregarded as long as it remains unseen.

So when Brett Murray‘s painting was publicised by City Press, it triggered a series of events which placed race at the centre of the debate. Ironically, it is the ANC which is screaming racism and condemning the artist’s intent to display Zuma’s flaws as being motivated by racial malice.

The ANC leaders who have led this charge and have repeatedly made sweeping statements about white people in an effort to keep The Spear controversy alive, seem not to be cognisant of how much they are further eroding Mandela’s ideals and vision for a country distinguished by national reconciliation and respect for all races.

Even if they were correct in interpreting the painting as insulting and an assault on all Africans, would “Mandela’s people” push the country to the brink by spewing racial invective or provide responsible leadership to get the nation past this divisive issue?

It is in this context that the head of the Catholic Church in Southern Africa, Cardinal Wilfrid Napier made a public call to the president to lead a national dialogue on reconciliation and dignity.

“The furore over the painting The Spear by Brett Murray has exposed a number of fault lines in our South African civic discourse. I wish to express my horror at the tone and temperament of the language around this painting,” Napier said in a statement.

He was particularly horrified by comments by a leader of the Shembe Church: “Calling for the ‘stoning’ of someone who has created an expression of his own vision is tantamount to hate speech and is a very clear incitement to violence.”

“The jump to the language of race has once again allowed us to default to the easy position of blame without having to make any effort to understand or to attempt a broader dialogue.

“Let me be clear. I don’t like the painting, its graphic subject matter or the slur on the character of the president. But simply reducing this incident to the level of race is a sad indicator that we have, once again, allowed the easy card to be played because it serves to deflect us from the real issues of national reconciliation and the building of a community that chooses the highest possible good rather than the lowest and basest human instincts,” Napier said.

According to Napier’s spokesman, Father Chris Townsend, the presidency has not acknowledged or responded to the cardinal’s call.

While Zuma was deputy president, the government launched a Moral Regeneration Movement “to facilitate, encourage and co-ordinate programmes in society that work towards restoring the moral fibre of South Africa”. The MRM was one of Zuma’s responsibilities and was meant to “co-ordinate moral renewal activities in South Africa in an effort to build an ethical, moral, caring and just society”.

Ten years later, few people know about this initiative and it has little if any resonance on the ground. It is precisely because government is failing to take the lead to build social cohesion that religious organisations have to step in and take the lead, says Townsend.

But national unity is not a “nice to have”. The Constitution states that, among the president’s responsibilities, he must “promote the unity of the nation and that which will advance the Republic”. It is perhaps then the greatest irony that it was the president’s image that caused such divisiveness and discord in the country, and did not in any way “advance” the republic.

As the remnants of Mandela’s nation progressively diminishes, there appears to be no will to preserve the elements of reconciliation which made South Africa a miracle nation.

On Tuesday, the presidency announced that Mandela had left Johannesburg to return to his home in Qunu. With the former president very frail with age, there is always trepidation when he travels and questions about whether he has adequate medical care at his rural home. And of course there are always fears about how much longer he will be with us.

One of the few consolations we have is that Madiba is probably not aware how bad things have turned out and how his nation has been broken. If Qunu can protect him from finding out how divisive the rest of South Africa has become, long may he live there.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism

Thursday, May 24th, 2012

There’s no doubt that the majority of the Netanyahu administration’s policies with respect to the Palestinians in their midst are unconscionable. But to effectively attack the Israeli government, the mainstream media in this country – and the left-leaning media in the West – need to be consistent. Unfortunately, the media’s double standards sometimes smack of the very racism of which they accuse others.

When does anti-Zionism count as anti-Semitism? The question has been eating at me these last two weeks, mostly because of the responses to an article I published in the Mail & Guardian

entitled “Who will shake SA Jewry’s faith in Israel?” My line in the piece, which appeared on 7 May, was twofold.

First, I argued that from 1948 until 1994, the semi-official bodies representing the Jewish community in South Africa had been consistently mute on the apartheid question, and that this moral failure went a long way towards explaining their unwavering muteness with respect to the policies of the Netanyahu administration in the occupied territories.

Second, I argued that when Israeli fighter jets fly over Auschwitz on Holocaust Memorial Day, there’s nobody in the local community shouting loud enough that what’s being celebrated is in fact the opposite of victimhood – that Jews are no longer persecuted, that we can no longer look for justification of Israel’s actions to a devastating, pre-1945 past.

As I knew it would, the article drew heavy criticism from the Jewish mainstream in South Africa. An entire editorial was dedicated to my heresies in the SA Jewish Report, and the M&G ran a weak rebuttal from the associate director of the Jewish Board of Deputies, who called my claims “distasteful” and “a clever sleight of hand”.

There was also a response from the editor of a newspaper in Israel, who, after insisting from afar that South African Jews are not “monolithically Pavlovian defenders of Israel”, went on to make the following statement: “And if it seems to Bloom that many South Africans defend Israel’s positions ‘right or wrong,’ it may have something to do with the conversely monolithic approbation Israel receives in the South African press, civil society and government, no matter what Israel does – ‘right or wrong’.”

At the risk of getting caught in the same web of non sequiturs in which the Israeli editor (his name is Amir Mizroch) seems to have landed himself, he was way off beam, although for valid reasons. Where he was mistaken was in his suggestion that I said “all” South African Jews defend Israel “right or wrong” (I didn’t, I said most of them do, as indicated by his use of the word “many”). Where he was on more solid ground was in his assertion that the South African media are developing an indiscriminate Israel-bashing habit.

For instance, this week the Mail & Guardian republished an article that appeared in the UK Guardian of 20 May, which in the tenor of its title alone veered uncomfortably close to the anti-Semitic. “Israel PM: illegal African immigrants threaten identity of Jewish state,” screamed the Guardian header, as if Britain and the rest of the enlightened world welcome illegal immigrants with open arms.
To the Mail & Guardian’s credit, they ran the article under a different header – “Netanyahu: African refugees threaten Israel’s identity, security” – hopefully because a smart editor recognised that the conflation of “illegal immigrants” and “Jewish” in the same context was a bit much. But whatever the M&G’s reasons for toning down the headline, the body of the piece was identical, and was so full of obvious prejudices as to be open to litigation.

“The Israeli prime minister has stoked a volatile debate about refugees and migrant workers from Africa,” the piece began, “warning that ‘illegal infiltrators flooding the country’ were threatening the security and identity of the Jewish state.

“‘If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state,” Binyamin Netanyahu said at Sunday’s cabinet meeting. ‘This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity.’ Israel’s population is 7.8 million.”

Why the emphasis, as per the quotes, on “illegal infiltrators”? Is it because an “infiltrator” is somehow more odious than an “alien”? And what about the placement of the factoid on Israel’s population? Did it just make sense to put it at that point in the article, or was the journalist, Harriet Sherwood, maybe thinking to herself that 60,000 out of almost 8 million isn’t all that much?

Further, has the Guardian forgotten what its own readers make of the “immigration problem”? Has the Mail & Guardian?

For the former, perhaps a quote from its archives (not too long ago, only 2009) would act as a refresher: “More Britons than anyone else (47% against a 27% European average) wanted to deny legal immigrants equal social benefits; more Britons than anyone else (44% against an average 24%) favoured reinforcing border controls to combat illegal immigration; and fewer Britons than anyone else (28% against a 43% European average) supported legalising the status of illegal immigrants.”

As for the latter, the less said about the attitude of South Africans to illegal immigration, the better. Instead, a quick run-through the policies of the nations that are seen as the world’s most progressive might help.

In Australia, illegal immigrants are commonly referred to as “boat people” and they make weekly headlines. If these news stories are anything to go by, Australians believe they are being “overrun” by illegals, with almost half the population viewing the problem on a par with education, health services and the economy. To appease its nervous voter base, the Australian government spends $1.06 billion a year keeping “boat people” in mandatory detention while processing asylum applications.

Thing is, less than 3% of asylum seekers actually arrive in Australia by boat, and a large proportion of illegals are from the UK and the US. One might also want to remember, with respect to Ms Sherwood’s article on Israel, that Australia too has around 60,000 illegals – out of a population of 22 million.

Then there’s Canada, where estimates range from 35,000 to 120,000 illegals, out of a population of 35 million (still a lot less percentage-wise than Israel). Illegal immigrants that are caught by the authorities of this fine country are given a mandatory one-year prison sentence. In the United States, estimates range from seven million to 20 million out of 313 million, admittedly one of the highest in the world, which might account for the fact that an average of 31,000 non-Americans are held in detention centres on any given day.

And Europe? We can dispense with most of the continent (including the famously liberal Scandinavians) by noting that a new EU immigration law allowing for the detention of illegal immigrants for up to 18 months before deportation has triggered outrage across Latin America.

But Israel, of course, is the villain. Noted Sherwood near the bottom of her piece: “Israel is also constructing the world’s largest detention centre for asylum seekers and illegal migrants, capable of holding 11,000 people. The ฃ58m building, close to the border, will receive its first detainees by the end of the year.”

What she didn’t note – although there was a link to the statement – was the response of Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev when asked about the detention complex: “We are a small country of 8 million. Last year we had more illegal immigrants than legal ones. We are currently the only first-world economy and the only democracy in the region. But for people coming from countries like Somalia and Sudan, we cannot be the solution.”

While the remark about Israel being a democracy is questionable, the argument has to stand – if the tolerant West can have tough immigration policies, why can’t Israel? In this sense, Sherwood and the Guardian (and by extension the Mail & Guardian) revealed their hand in the closing line of the piece, which was easily its most offensive: “Amid the anti-immigration clamour, some Israelis have argued that, in the light of Jewish history, their state should be sympathetic and welcoming to those fleeing persecution.”

To refer again to the argument in my piece for the Mail & Guardian a few weeks ago – the Holocaust doesn’t count as a valid excuse for the Netanyahu administration’s unconscionable treatment of Palestinians, so it certainly can’t count as a reason that Israel should throw open its doors to illegal immigrants.

Which is not to say, as per Mizroch, that I have now become one of those Jews from the Left who has seen the light and folded. I haven’t. Netanyahu, in terms of his treatment of millions of people who have a right to live as equal citizens within his country’s boundaries, very often comes across as a bigot. It’s just that sometimes the well-intentioned left-leaning media has racist tendencies too. DM 

Enhanced by Zemanta

South African Convicted in White Supremacist Death

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012

A South African court on Tuesday convicted a farm worker of killing white supremacist, Eugene Terreblanche. A second worker was acquitted of the most serious charges of murder, but was found guilty on other charges.

Chris Mahlangu, the man convicted of the April 2010 murder, said that he acted in self-defense and said the dispute was over wages, and was not because Terreblanche was a white supremacist.

“There was no conspiracy, no political intrigue, no racial undertones, and no hidden agenda,” Judge John Horn said, according to the London Telegraph.

The second man, Patrick Ndlovu, was found guilty of breaking and entering. He was 15 at the time of the crime.

Andre Nienaber, a relative of the victim, told the Telegraph the family was dismayed with the court’s ruling on Ndlovu.

“He was with the older one the whole time so I cannot believe he was not involved,” he said. “There were two murder weapons so there must have been two murderers.”

The judge ruled found however that Ndlovu was a passive bystander and not active in the murder, based on examining the blood splatters at the crime scene.

“To say that he intended to kill would not accord with the facts,” Horn was quoted as saying by South Africa’s Independent Online.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Indian’s older population set to double by 2050

Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

India‘s population aged 50 and over is expected to double by 2050 when nearly one-third of its total population would fall in this age group, according to a US census.

As per the 2010 census, 19,18,53,000 people in India were of 50 years and above, which made about 16.4 per cent of the total population.

According to the US Census Bureau, this is projected to increase to 20 per cent (26,49,13,000) in 2020 and 24.3 per cent (35,55,96,000) in 2030; 28.5 per cent (44,82,23,000) in 2040 and 32.6 per cent (54,04,24,000) in 2050.

The bureau, in its first-ever report to use data from the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE), said health levels varied greatly among people 50 years and older in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, Russia and South Africa, but hypertension and arthritis were the two most common chronic conditions in all six countries.

‘The wide range of health levels is evident when looking at the prevalence of disability.

‘The percentage of people 50 and older in SAGE countries reporting a disability ranged from 68 per cent in China to 93 per cent in India,’ the report said.

According to the report, high levels of risky health behaviours often continued into older ages, particularly for men.

For instance, more than half of older Chinese and Indian men still smoked tobacco and the majority of older Ghanaian, Mexican and Russian men reported daily moderate or heavy alcohol consumption.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta