South Africa - Land Expropriation.

a reply to: ketsuko

I got your point. You would want to remove people you disagree with or feel are dragging the country down.iyho

Mine was that i am reading lots of reports of homeless blacks in cali. and other places that would prolly take a ticket to sa if givin the chance.

a reply to: Involutionist

How I understood your post your first post the other night, is that these tribunals or hearings aren't happening, but they are, and neither were any of my sources biased (I even included the SABC - the pro-ANC state broadcaster, which the ANC ideologues virtually bankrupted - pretty much like everything else they touch).
en.wikipedia.org...

In SA, the elites (not just the whites or Afrikaners) can still rely on private big business, security, shopping malls, education (80 per cent of public schools are a failure, and universities are in crisis) and public hospitals and health-care is in such dire straits it probably deserves its own thread.
To sum up, a vast array of topics (including water and sanitation), if you can rely on private money while still being over-taxed you can live life in a privileged security estate of sorts, but woe betide you if you are dependent on anything the ANC state runs, such as public transport (I mentioned the trains, never mind the taxi wars), hospitals or policing (arguably the state has lost total control of policing regionally). Yet the farmers were not allowed to keep their commando system of mutual support over sprawling rural lands.

And hence I didn't want to start this thread with ancient history in SA (which has been discussed ad nauseam on ATS). I wanted to start with the land tribunals, and what this means for the future of food security.
You can get private security, car tracking (these days), alarms, burglar bars, private schools, and even entire security complexes if you are rich.
Assuming you can condense your entire existence behind a fortress.
And those fortresses are under direct state and ideological duress.

You can even get private electricity, water tanks and boreholes.
But you cannot grow your own food on suburban plots.
And never mind the tribal wars between the Boers and British, or the 9 ethnic groups among each other in the 19th century (now vastly complicated by the resurgence of Khoisan identity, who claim to be the only truly indigenous people of southern Africa, since the black tribes invaded here from central and western Africa).

Consider the growth of the black population from around 40 million at the end of apartheid (and their population increased 1000 percent under apartheid) to well into 50 million today (never-mind the influx of "migrants" from other failed African states - violent black-on-black xenophobia is a constant issues).
And yet the the number of commercial farmers has decreased thus:

South Africa’s 35 000 remaining commercial farmers (from 120 000 in 1994) are vital to the food security of 54 million South Africans. They also contribute 3,9% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and employ more than 650 000 people, mostly unskilled. Commercial farmers underpin the rural economy and the prosperity of small rural towns.

www.farmersweekly.co.za...

Anything but subsistence farming in SA is highly skilled (meaning our expat farmers are welcomed across the globe), and the short-fall was saved by the sheer expertise of the remaining commercial farmers.
In the former "Bantustans" or reservations (where whites could never own land) most of the land belongs to tribal chiefs, without individual ownership.
Here 18 million people are living on the subsistence breadline, while their chiefs and kings are living in luxury (they get lavish taxpayer salaries).
The ANC has already promised the Zulu chiefs, for example, that the Ingonyama Trust won't be targeted for expropriation (although Ramaphosa is a Venda, and all you need is one tribe to put their toe onto what another regards as their territory, and you have potential tribal war).
We have a potential unsolvable Syria situation (and the ANC got quite a shock from the Arab Spring being partially caused by food insecurity - the first time they sought talks with white commercial farmers, most of them in any case now over 50 with few willing younger replacements, although the sanity was soon once again thwarted by ideologues and race-baiters).

In fact, some of the first land occupations this year were on black trust lands, and some of the leading politicians preaching white dispossession (including Julius Malema) own farms and palaces on land run on trusts that aren't clearly racially defined at all. Let alone sorting out what clan or tribe lived where in the 19th century, since their lifestyle was partially nomadic, and there were constant tribal wars and displacements. Considering the black population was only 3 million then they could be fighting over land that nobody ever owned at all before colonialism.
en.wikipedia.org...

We have a surplus of empty, or underused land, and most of it turns from productive farms to subsistence farming (at best), or rural squatter camps, when the commercial farmers are gone. And many have already left voluntarily. There have been a few success stories, but nothing that could feed the nation.

I'd like to hear the opinions of your Afrikaner friends of what will happen when the supermarket shelves run empty and the food riots start, and due to to disinvestment (the ANC has caused more disinvestment with their policies since apartheid, than their apartheid sanctions), the remaining imported food will be so expensive only the elites can afford it. We're already on the brink.

But it seems we can at least agree that the tribunals or "hearings" are in fact taking place, within a highly ideological Marxist context that has nothing to with actual food security or production, but it's simply a lot of misleading historical invective aimed at whites.

As long as the world is aware of the tribunals and hearings - argue whatever you like.
Although, I would say, this has been a total disaster wheresoever it was tried, and it has no precedent of success.

Added to this is the head-ache of even defining "race" in SA, since several surveys on racial landownership were taken by surname, and if the surname didn't sound "African" or "Bantu" enough it was assumed to be white-owned, but most of the Khoisan and mixed race people have Afrikaans surnames, and so do many black people, and many Afrikaner families aren't totally white ancestry (Afrikaners are partly a creole people). Indians by proxy built up very successful farming and business empires too, and they used poor whites as title owners and managers. So little is really clear-cut. In fact regionally this seems like "Bantu" colonization of lands they never occupied, rather than "black" empowerment.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ketsuko

I got your point. You would want to remove people you disagree with or feel are dragging the country down.iyho

Mine was that i am reading lots of reports of homeless blacks in cali. and other places that would prolly take a ticket to sa if givin the chance.

Why so they can be homeless in an even more poor and destitute place, thats soon to have a severe food shortage?

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Sometimes a change of scenery can do wonders.

Maybe they would be welcomed with open arms.

As has been well noted in this thread South Africa seems to following Zimbabwe down the path of land appropriation.

Many of you probably also know that there have been recent elections in Zimbabwe.
Here is a very interesting read regarding the elections.
www.bbc.co.uk...

One of the things that stood out for me was the section telling how white farmers were now supporting Mugabe's successor Emmerson Mnangagwa.

And while Mr Mugabe was endorsing his former enemy, the same white farmers that he reviled were in their hundreds at Borrowdale Race Course in Harare embracing his successor Emmerson Mnangagwa, a Zanu-PF stalwart who was once Mr Mugabe's right-hand man.

Then comes the really interesting part;

It would have been understandable for those former white farmers to stick with the MDC.

But they now see their political interests safer with Mr Mnangagwa, who has promised 99-year leases to those who want to return to farming.

Has Zimbabwe recognised the MASSIVE mistake they have made and are they beginning to make efforts to redress this?

If so will South Africa take heed and stop their journey down the same road to what will inevitably prove disastrous for its people.

a reply to: halfoldman

I hear they are moving on farms in the Stellenbosch area? Don't like these land grabs anyway but this seems weird even if you support them - grape land is not easy land to farm! If you are beginner (which all these land grabbers are), surely you start somewhere simple?

If i was a Bok farmer, i would salt my land when i got forced off it.

a reply to: Flavian

Yip, it's happening (never mind show tribunals and hearings).

The ANC has selected 139 commercial farms for expropriation already.
www.news24.com...

What a debate!

Two young SA men discuss the country.

Flip bros, that blew my mind!

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: halfoldman

I have heard from a SA mate that farmers are actually killing a lot of invaders but it is not being reported as the invaders seem to have Police issue weapons (somehow!). Reporting it would lead to serious questions about how they are getting hold of the Police weapons in the first place, so it is just swept under the carpet. If true, that to me seems like a very dangerous escalation of an already dangerous situation.

An interesting historical documentary - Tainted Heroes.

Some scenes may upset sensitive viewers, but nothing that wasn't on the news before, or alleged scenes from Syria or Yemen today.

Since it may not concur with the current dogma, I do encourage people to download and save it.

As I understand it, there's some background movement of some alliances against this ANC driven nonsense.

The Zulus shouldn't be disregarded in this.

There is no love loss between the Zulu and ANC... Given the history, I'd rather have the Zulu on my side, than not.

I think we may be looking at a Balkanization of South Africa. That's just my opinion as a rank outsider with no real knowledge of the region, and it's peoples.

May be of interest!



Yeah there's cell-phone jammers involved by video evidence.

This suggests, there must be militarily intelligence involved.
Never mind the R4 rifles.
Different story, if they're signed out.

In a void of strong and effective police leadership, the SAPS has consistently failed to enforce the law, either through deliberate fraud and corruption or a dereliction of duty; while many gun owners have sought and exploited loopholes in the law to bypass controls and accumulate guns.
www.dailymaverick.co.za...

As far as I understand it, legally we were supposed to hand in our firearms, although renewing licenses was made impossible.
www.timeslive.co.za...
But an interdict says, since there is no safe place to put them, we may keep them for now.

They just admitted, oh but if you hand them in, who will keep them safe?
If you handed a weapon in, do not expect it back (duh).
I don't think anybody did.
If you haven't handed it in, keep it locked up in your safe until further notice.
maroelamedia.co.za... usbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e1727fcba5-5b8facd1bc-105130481&mc_cid=5b8facd1bc&mc_eid=e8de1716a2

No really!

Land Expropriation:

I'm quite astounded by some of the responses... I doubt people get how serious the matter is. Words like "civil war" and "genocide" are doing the rounds in serious conversations...

Perhaps it's because people don't understand what "land expropriation without compensation" means. In simple English it means that if the constitution is changed the government will have the power to take anyone's property and simply give it to whomever they please, leaving the original owner with nothing.

As I'm sure everyone knows the reasoning behind the threat of "land expropriation" is Apartheid and the atrocities committed during those years. The ruling National Party institutionalized racial segregation in 1948, oppressing black people – which lasted for about 40 years.
I cannot pretend to know how this happened. How a minority group (white people) managed to segregate the majority of the country’s population. I guess it started happening long before 1948. We can trace the oppression through centuries starting with the Dutch and slavery, several wars and conflicts between black and white over the centuries and so on. The bottom-line is it happened...

During the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, the government implemented a policy of "resettlement", to force people to move to their designated "group areas". Millions of people were forced to relocate. These removals included people relocated due to slum clearance programs, labor tenants on white-owned farms, the inhabitants of the so-called "black spots" (black-owned land surrounded by white farms), the families of workers living in townships close to the homelands, and "surplus people" from urban areas, including thousands of people from the Western Cape (which was declared a "Colored Labor Preference Area") who were moved to the Transkei and Ciskei homelands. The best-publicized forced removals of the 1950s occurred in Johannesburg, when 60,000 people were moved to the new township of Soweto.

There were no “civilized” public hearings that allowed input from the public to discuss the removal of millions upon millions of people from their homes. It just happened. The government just came in and forcefully removed black people – children, women, men, elderly people – from their homes and relocated them elsewhere. Do I blame black people for now wanting “their” land back? No, I definitely don’t. Heck, if I was in their shoes, I’d probably be demanding that my ancestors’ land be given back as well…

But, just to get some perspective: Back in the day when all the atrocities of Apartheid happened there was no Internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube or anything of the sorts. There were two ways of spreading information: Word-of-mouth or state-owned media. This means that the majority of (white) people were completely clueless about what happened with black people. Thanks to the then government’s stringent (and very successful) policy of media censorship most white people had only a vague idea of what was going on in the townships. The majority certainly had no clue what the NP government, and specifically the South African Defense Force (SADF) and South African Police (SAP), were up to. It was only in the 1990s that the shocking truth of what the NP government was really busy with became public knowledge. The horrors of Vlakplaas for example. Death-squad network to assassinate its opponents? It all sounded too horrible, too unbelievable and just did not match the image law-abiding white South Africans had of their "leaders"...

I can understand why South African black people would hate white people. The older generation grew up in a world where the “white man” is the villain. And the older generation of white people were brainwashed by the politicians and government propaganda that “Apartheid was good” and “black is evil”. The idea of hating each other were so indoctrinated into their minds, their beings that it would be nothing short of a miracle if they didn’t have a dislike for each other to this day. Unfortunately, some people – on both sides – continued the hate by passing it on to their children. We all know that children are “color-blind” (race blind) and that racism is taught. And our vast cultural doesn’t help either. We often judge each other for behavior that is culturally “unacceptable” in our own culture, but perfectly normal in another culture.

That being said, it must be appreciated that when white South Africans finally had the opportunity to vote on Apartheid a resounding 68.73% percent of (only white) voters said they didn’t want apartheid in 1992. That’s correct the majority of white South Africans did NOT want apartheid. They wanted reconciliation and equality – or in other words the majority of white people are not racist. (I might add that, this move was initiated by FW de Klerk, which for some reason is seen as the villain of Apartheid? I don’t get it.)

The reality today is that I will always battle to apply for a job because I am a white male. At the very bottom of the list in terms of "Affirmative Action". I will never be able to tender for government (or other large) tenders because I’m white. I will never be president, because I’m white. I will never be considered for a managerial position in government. Because I’m white. Does this not ring any bells? You know – Apartheid much? And now the government wants to forcibly remove “me” from my property? Property that I bought and still pay for month after month?

Does this generation of white people deserve what is happening? Just remind me again what those born in the past 40 years did to be treated like a second-class citizen? My only fault is that I was born white. Not that I had much say in that… How is what is happening any different than 50 years ago? The government (politicians) telling the population that white people are “bad”. How long before they want to segregate white people from the black population? Where are they going to send people that are removed from their land? Internment camps? Homelands?
Apartheid didn’t happen overnight. It happened slowly over years and by constant brainwashing and propaganda. Want to know what the beginning of Apartheid looked like? Just take a look at what's happening in SA. Look at what is happening.

History is repeating itself. Whites will be more and more oppressed. Blood will be shed and perhaps after decades they will be in power once again to in turn oppress black people? Are we going to repeat this cycle until the end of time?

Who gained from the forced removals years ago? The people that received agricultural land in those years are no longer alive (or no longer living on those farms). The farms were sold - often several times - throughout the years. Some where developed into towns or suburbs. Does the government now, decades later, have the right to take the property from its current owners - people that bought the property from someone that bought it from someone - etc.

Take my little square of suburban property. I bought it. I pay my bond each and every month. I work my ass off to be able to afford the bond. Is my property part of land that belonged to a black family 60+ years ago? I don't know. But the government could now allow a black person to claim that their ancestors lived where my house now stands, and kick me out, leaving me with nothing and nowhere to go. (Don't ask me who is going to take over the bond, because I'm sure as hell not going to pay it. The Government isn't going to pay it, seeing that it's "land expropriation without compensation". See where this is going? Yep. The banks are all going to go bankrupt.)

Right now, the constitution still protects property owners:
It states “No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property. Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application for a public purpose or in the public interest; and subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.”

The Section makes detailed provisions on compensation by stating “The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances.”

They took a vote in parliament, the majority won and they are going to rip that page right out of the constitution. The government's main focus will be to take agricultural land. Sure, there were "tribunals" to hear what the public had to say, but it became clear that this was a farce, seeing that the president announced that they will go ahead with the change in the constitution - before the tribunals were even over!

This video gives an idea of the sentiment currently...



Or in short "We don't like white people. We will take the land by force whether the constitution is changed or not"...

Land grabs (or attempts) are happening daily around the country.

Random example:

...A group of people have invaded a wine farm in Stellenbosch and erected informal structures, despite being evicted from the same area several months ago....

Source

Small towns, such as Hermanus, are becoming war-zones (to use an overly dramatic term)...

Over the weekend there was an attempted land-grab in the suburb one over (about 4 kilometers from us)... They managed to start building a "house" (in very broad terms) overnight. The land is municipal property - not private property... The police and several politicians arrived and got rid of them. It wasn't a big group of people - so I'm assuming it was not a politically organized attempt.
The interesting point, is however that these were not poor or homeless people... They drove off in a Mercedes, a VW Golf and a Range Rover - which are not cheap cars...







Your initial reaction would be: "They're trespassing. Just remove them!"
Only, it's not that easy. Squatters have more rights than the land owner...

As per the Constitution:

...The right to housing is an established fundamental human right that is enshrined in section 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The Constitution further extends the right to housing by affording a person the right not to be evicted from his home, or have his home demolished, without an order of court.
...
The second recognition of 'squatter's rights' is evident in the laws preventing a landowner from evicting squatters off his property or land. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 or 1998 (PIE), dictates that only a court has the discretion to grant an eviction order and only insofar as it is just and equitable under the circumstances.

'Land-grabbers' and 'squatters' fall within the definition of an 'unlawful occupier' in terms of section 1 of PIE and as such, the temporary right referred to in PIE can be said to be the same as 'squatter's rights'. The landowner must therefore first obtain an order of court to evict squatters.

PIE thus affords the unlawful occupier or squatter a temporary, limited right of occupation and entitlement to remain on the land without the landowner's consent. This protection for 'squatter's rights' persists until the government can provide alternative accommodation to the unlawful occupier who would be left homeless as a result of the eviction.
...

You can't simply remove a squatter from your property...

...Although the limitation of property ownership is generally temporary, in certain circumstances this limitation may have a permanent effect in instances where the government fails to provide alternative accommodation or permanent housing on alternative property. In such a case, the landowner will be entitled to compensation from the government...

That's why the "land expropriation without compensation" issue is so dangerous. With the responsibility of the government having to provide alternative accommodation OR compensation falling away, it would mean that someone can put up a "house" anywhere they want, and if your eviction order fails (the legal costs are the responsibility of the landowner) the squatter gets to stay. Just like that.

There are also other incidents, that are seemingly unrelated to the "land expropriation" issue, that have me concerned.

For example a month ago a huge part of the city I live in - Pretoria - with a majority white population was left without electricity after a substation was sabotaged and as a result burned out.





A week ago an Afrikaans radio station - Groot FM - was sabotaged which resulted in them being off-air for most of the weekend.

In my opinion these tactics indicate something else... And I don't like where it's heading...

All of this is happening. The media won't cover it, it's clear they chose "a side" years ago. It's not propaganda or fake news. It's a reality. And (at least for South Africans) is predicts terrifying things to come - UNLESS the course is changed right now...

a reply to: Gemwolf

A truly awful situation to find yourself, your loved ones and country to be in.

Does anyone point out the obvious and ask the government and its agencies to look at your northern neighbours and observe the obvious consequences of the policies they seem so intent to implement and enforce?

A very good friend of mine spent about a month in South Africa during The World Cup back in 2010.
Fell in love with the place and its people.
He went back last year for a holiday and revisited some of the places he'd been before. He said he barely recognised the place and the people seemed less friendly and were generally less cheerful.

Unfortunately I've never been there - and looks like I probably never will.

a reply to: Gemwolf

Because much like racial grievance in the US, this is labeled to be about "righting past wrongs" but when you look under the surface all that really is is a nice label for revenge or vengeance.

And, yes, it will get ugly. I am sorry for that. Two wrongs don't ever make a right, but it seems that's where we're all aiming to go.

a reply to: Freeborn

If you removed the politicians from the country, this would be the best country in the world. (I suppose that could be said about any place... ) It's still an awesome country, and most people just go about their business. It's the politicians that are creating the racial divide and hate along with the media that tends to focus only on white against black racism which gives a skewed perception of reality.

Does anyone point out the obvious and ask the government and its agencies to look at your northern neighbours and observe the obvious consequences of the policies they seem so intent to implement and enforce?

It's been pointed out to them numerous times. According to them "it will be different"...

“We cannot copy other countries because they did not have the same conditions that we experienced in South Africa. We are coming up with solutions for South Africa informed by our historical conditions of colonialism and apartheid,” Shivambu said.
Example

“We’re not going to go the Zimbabwean route.”
Nkosi-Malobane says the resolution on land expropriation without compensation is non-negotiable.
...
Nkosi-Malobane says however that those in charge of giving black people their land back will be responsible.
“But we’ll also make sure that our people don’t end up suffering after the land has been taken back to them.”
Example

Good luck trying to get an answer on how exactly it will be different...

The kicker - there has been an ongoing "Land reform program" in SA for the past - almost - 25 years... It's been a miserable failure. Even this is ignored.

As of 2016 the South African government has pumped more than R60bn [403 Million US $] into land reform projects since 1994. Despite this investment, the land reform programme has not stimulated development in the targeted rural areas. A report by the South African Government's Financial and Fiscal Commission shows that land reform as a mechanism for agricultural development and job creation has failed. A survey by the commission in Limpopo province, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape found that most land reform farms show little or no agricultural activity; the land reform beneficiaries earn little to no income, and the majority of these beneficiaries seek work on surrounding commercial farms instead of actively farming their own land. Where farming is taking place on land reform farms, these farms operate below their full agricultural potential and are mainly used for subsistence agriculture. On average, crop production had decreased by 79% since conversion to land reform. In the three provinces surveyed, job losses averaged 84%, with KwaZulu-Natal suffering a 94% job haemorrhage.
Source

Apparently facts, logic and common sense are irrelevant.