Online users
???: Message   

Ah, those negroes! What's a white person to do?
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

03/11/2018, 15:43:41

Author Profile Mail author Edit

South Africa Land Theft: Constitution All But Allows It

Ilana Mercer

Up until, or on the day, a predictable calamity unfolds in South Africa, you still find Western media insisting that,

* No, there's no racial component to the butchering of thousands of white rural folks in ways that would make Shaka Zulu proud.
No, the mutilated, tortured bodies of Boer and British men, women and
children aren't evidence of racial hatred, but a mere artifact of good
old crime. No hate crimes. No crimes against humanity. Move along. Let
the carnage play on.

And the latest:

To listen to leftist,
counterfactual, ahistoric pabulum served up by most in media, a decision
by South Africa's Parliament to smooth the way for an expropriation
without compensation of private property came out of ... nowhere.

just so happened—pure fluke!—that the permanently entrenched, racialist
parties in parliament used their thumping majorities to vote for
legalizing state theft from a politically powerless minority. Didn't see
that coming!

And still they beat on breast: How did the mythical land of Nelson Mandela turn into Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"?

How did that country's "vaunted" constitution yield to "the horror, the horror" of land theft?

Easily, even seamlessly—as I've been warning since the 2011 publication of "Into the cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,"
which provided the analytical edifice for what's unfolding. You can
pile more murders, more state corruption, more horror atop the same
analytical foundation; but, distilled to bare bones, the truth about
South Africa remains unchanged.

One of Cyril Ramaphosa’s
presidential campaign promises was to finally get down to the business
of the people: stealing private property. Since replacing Jacob Zuma as
president, Ramaphosa has openly endeavored
to "speed up the transfer of land from white to black owners after his
inauguration two weeks ago." Yet, this inherently aggressive, coercive
act was studiously finessed by the news cartel. 

Before Ramaphosa, Zuma, too, had "called on parliament to change South Africa’s Constitution to allow the expropriation of white-owned land without compensation."

so many celebrity journos involved, both men know that said
constitution is no bulwark against state expropriation. Or, against any
"public" or private violence, for that matter. As a protector of
individual rights to life, liberty and property, the thing is worse than
useless—a wordy and worthless document.

Take Section
12 of this progressive constitution. It enshrines the "Freedom and
Security of the Person." Isn't it comforting to know that in a country
where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed,
hijacked, murdered, or all of the above—the individual has a right to
live free of all those forms of violence?

Here's the rub: Nowhere does the South African Constitution state whether its beneficiaries may defend their most precious of rights. Recounted in "Into The Cannibal's Pot"
is example after example of innocent victims of crime punished and
prosecuted by those who swore to uphold the constitution. These victims
are punished for merely and minimally defending their so-called
constitutionally enshrined rights.

The African National Congress (ANC) has always, not suddenly,
disregarded the importance of private property, public order and the
remedial value of punitive justice. Innocent victims of crime under its
regime are regularly forced to defend themselves in their own homes on
pain of imprisonment.

Implicit in the right to life is the right to self-defense. A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only.

It's why I contended that South Africa's Constitution is descriptive, not prescriptive—full
of pitch-perfect verbal obesities that provide little by way of
recourse for those whose natural, individual rights are violated.
Certainly, self-defense verges on an offense in the new constitutional

As for equality before the law: The South African Bill
of Rights is contemptuous of it. It enshrines group rights and allows
for compensatory and distributive “justice.” The state’s confiscatory
powers may be used to redress “past injustices." "… To promote the
achievement of equality; legislative and other measures designed to
protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by
unfair discrimination may be taken."

The Constitution already
allows a good deal of mischief in the name of the “greater good,” land
expropriation, included. Thus the Expropriation Bill of 2008: It’s the
precursor to the current land expropriation process. Where, pray tell,
was the news cartel when it was floated as an impetus for land

With the 2008 Bill, the dominant ruling party had
empowered itself—and "any organ of state, at any level of
government"—to take ownership and possession of property "simply by
giving notice to the expropriated owner." "The state would make the
'final' determination of the compensation due, subject only to a limited
form of court review."

Both movable and immovable property has
always been up for grabs—"livestock and farming implements, residential
homes, business premises and equipment, patents, and shares." The 2008
Bill was temporarily shelved before the 2009 elections, but not
forgotten. It led naturally to talk about nationalization. (“Cannibal,” p. 74.)

March 2010, a plan was tabled in Parliament for turning "all productive
land into a national asset leased to farmers." Such sentiments are
hardly new. True to a promise made in Mandela's 1955 communistic Freedom
Charter, the ANC has already nationalized the "mineral wealth beneath
the soil" and the water rights. (Has the mummified media ever wondered
out loud why Cape Town has run dry?)

Thereafter, to supplement the
Expropriation Bill, the Party had published a policy paper that warned,
among other planned infractions, of the need to water-down the already
weak property-rights provision in the Constitution.

All along had
the entrenchment of a property clause in the South African Constitution
angered judicial activists, who conflate the protection of private
property with the entrenchment of white privilege. Their fears
were overblown. Back then, I wagered that nationalization would
necessitate but a minor tweak to the Constitution, since the latter
already allows all the mischief mentioned.

The Hobbesian choice
which the ANC had always planned to present to white farmers was between
making them mere tenants of the state (by declaring all productive land
a national asset under state control) and, on the other hand, "placing a
ceiling on how much land individual farmers can own."

Which, in practice, limits economies of scale, and with them successful commercial agriculture.

"One farmer, one farm" was how Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF thugs described this policy. 

South African government still asserts that it is merely putting in
place a "mechanism for taking back failed farms from black farmers."
Echoing the ANC’s claim is fellow South African, Breitbart's Joel
Pollak. He has seconded the ANC in
explaining the "target of land reform ... [as] 'unused' land," black
and white—assurances even the liberal "South African Institute of Race
Relations had exposed as 'a red herring to conceal the State’s more
plausible intention to wrest control of agricultural production from
white commercial farmers." (“Cannibal,” p. 74.)

Since the
dawn of "freedom," in South Africa, commercial farmers, mostly white,
have been terrorized and threatened with land claims. As if this were
not bad enough, they can now expect nationalization.

In case
Zimbabwe is a distant memory, the nationalization of South Africa’s
farms will increase unemployment in the agricultural sector, and with
it, rural poverty. That will guarantee mass migration to the cities,
with all the attendant problems which this exodus poses. Also, it will
undermine South Africa’s ability to meet its food needs and deter
investment in the country.

And these, so help us, are the positive aspects of land parity.

damningly, the country’s constitution has a clause devoted to
“Limitation of Rights.” Apparently, the constitutional “scholars” who
compiled the document saw no need to protect the rights of minorities
“that [had] not been victims of past discrimination.” The possibility
that the fortunes of hitherto un-oppressed minorities might change did
not occur to the occupants of the Bench.


The material is adapted from "Into the cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa" (2011) by ilana mercer, where citation are provided.



Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message