S.Africa: Boers: Is there a place in the sun in SA for Afrikaners?
(005320.38-:E-003569.93:N-HO:R-SU:C-30:V)
White Shop: Poster of Hitler at a victory parade review
A colour photograph of Hitler taking part in a victory parade review. Reproduced on 100z vinyl so suitable for use outdoors as well as indoors.
[The author of this is a Hoffman – so there's a strong chance this is a Jew. Jan]
The fluidity in politics worldwide seems to be stimulating push-back in SA against the 140 odd race based laws introduced since uhuru in an attempt to redress the imbalances of the past and “to protect or advance persons or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.” The quoted words are drawn from Section 9(2) of the Bill of Rights which is Chapter Two of the Constitution. Reverse discrimination is the perceived result of the application of the affirmative action measures. The abuse of affirmative action has spawned state capture, fronting and other forms of corrupt activities. The “its our turn to eat” phenomenon (or pandemic) feeds on Section 9(2).
Section 9(3) does go on to provide that the state may not unfairly discriminate on a host of grounds that include “race … ethnic or social origin … religion, conscience …culture, language and birth.”
Just to make the point more strongly, Section 9(5) stipulates that discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. In other words, the onus of proving that discrimination is fair is on the state when it introduces the type of measures envisaged in the equality clause of the Bill of Rights.
However, the Constitutional Court has in its decision in Van Heerden’s case in 2004, in effect stripped whites of their protection against racial discrimination in cases arising from affirmative action measures, as pointed out by Dave Steward in politicsweb on 26 February, 2025. The notion that affirmative action measures cannot be unfair in law has been stretched to its limits by the excesses of a national government, before May 2024, determined to implement its National Democratic Revolution (NDR) agenda.
Whether the GNU in the seventh parliament will reveal a similar appetite for revolution, remains unclear at this stage. Of all the ten members of the GNU, only the ANC subscribes to the NDR. It has announced its intention to continue to do so, despite not mentioning the NDR in its “lets govern in accordance with the rule of law and the Constitution” invitation to parliamentary political parties to join a GNU.
The complexity of the current situation is compounded by other provisions in the Bill of Rights. Everyone has inherent human dignity under section 10; language and culture of individuals is restricted somewhat in that Section 30 gives everyone the right to use the language or participate in the culture of their choice “but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.” In similar vein cultural, religious and linguistic communities are allowed and may “form join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society, but not in a manner inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.”
Under Section 234 of the Constitution, Parliament may adopt Charters of Rights consistent with the provisions of the Constitution in order to deepen the culture of democracy which the Constitution establishes. This provision has not yet been acted on by Parliament. On the contrary, a great deal of effort goes into closing down Afrikaans language instruction in universities, removing the autonomy of the School Governing Bodies of Afrikaans language schools in favour of giving the state the power to determine the language of instruction in all schools, quite apart from the avalanche of affirmative action measures and laws, anti-Afrikaner sentiment and inappropriate ditties that the EFF is fond of chanting, with impunity, against Afrikanerdom. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that EWC is aimed at curtailing the property rights of Afrikaners.
The topic of Self-determination comes up in Section 235 of the Constitution. It needs to be quoted in full:
“Self-determination
235. The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the notion of the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.”
This section came under the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court in its Second Certification judgment at the dawn of the new constitutional order:
“[219] It is not necessary for us to decide whether the New Text is obliged to keep the idea of territorial self-determination alive. The fact is that the Constitutional Assembly chose to do so in terms of New Text 235,” [ now Section 235 as quoted above] “which ensures that the permissive door opened by the Constitutional Principles is kept ajar.
It is obvious that any arrangements which could be made to establish a territorial entity and to define its boundaries will have to be negotiated with an existing government within the framework of the New Text (including the permissive provision). This is contemplated by Constitutional Principle XXXIV.1 itself, which underlines the “recognition therein of the right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination” and says that the more limited right to self-determination of a particular community shall not be precluded “within the framework of the said right”.
To sum up succinctly, the right to self-determination contemplated in the Constitution will only be realised if a majority in parliament is prepared to do so in any given case.
The latest polling data suggests that the era of dominant party politics in SA is a thing of the past and that the give and take of coalition politics is in prospect for the foreseeable future. Whether those pursuing a self-determination agenda are able to negotiate the necessary majority in parliament is a matter of conjecture at this stage. The lobbying internationally that is currently being engaged in has to be seen in the context of what the law allows. The right to self-determination is recognised in international law but it has been diluted in the SA polity to the extent that is set out in the Bill of Rights and the self-determination clause, all as summarised above.
AfriForum states on its website that:
“AfriForum follows a double strategy with actions and campaigns that it undertakes on national and local level to manage and influence the current political realities on Afrikaners. At the same time, AfriForum establishes sustainable structures through which Afrikaners can ensure their survival in an independent manner.”
A recent delegation to Washington consisting of the Solidarity Movement, AfriForum and Solidarity Trade Union released a memorandum stating that:
“During the visit to the White House, the Trump administration was requested to intensify pressure on ANC leaders to, among other things:
End discrimination against Afrikaners by, among other things, revising the anti-Afrikaans Bela law and racial legislation.
Act strongly against hate speech that incites violence such as farm murders in which Afrikaners are the target.
Respect the right to property ownership by, among other things, revising the Expropriation Act.
Enter into a cultural agreement with Afrikaners that will provide cultural space for Afrikaners in South Africa, which includes the existence of Afrikaans educational institutions.
The following requests were also made to the Trump administration:
That humanitarian assistance offered to Afrikaners by the US will also include assistance to Afrikaners who envision a future for themselves at the southernmost tip of Africa.
That ordinary South Africans should not be punished by stopping AGOA and other aid to ordinary people – the focus should instead be on political leaders who are responsible for reckless policies, and those who are responsible for the large-scale corruption identified by former Chief Justice Zondo’s commission.
If the USA were to continue to stop South Africa’s participation in AGOA, that direct bilateral agreements are entered into with, for example, agricultural organisations and non-state actors in other sectors to try to limit the negative impact on ordinary citizens of the country.”
The Washington Memorandum quoted from above does not raise the self-determination topic covered by Section 235 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the Cape Independence Movement does seek self-determination by what it calls peaceful, democratic and lawful means. According to the website of the Cape Independence Advocacy Group:
“The movement for Cape Independence is not merely about secession but represents a profound call for self-determination in the face of perceived neglect and inappropriate governance. As the debate continues, both locally and internationally, the eyes of the world watch to see if the Western Cape can chart a new course towards autonomy, setting a precedent for other regions with similar aspirations globally. This complex issue encapsulates the challenges of balancing national unity with regional self-governance in an increasingly decentralized world.”
Now that the DA, which has governed the Western Cape since 2009, is part of the GNU, it remains to be seen what impact this will have on the agenda of the secessionists in the Western Cape.
The bottom line remains: a majority of the national parliament, not a plebiscite or referendum, is the chosen and only legal route to self-determination of any community sharing a sharing a common cultural and language heritage in the SA Constitution. Those in the Western Cape “community” have several cultures and languages between them.
Paul Hoffman, Accountability Now.
Pic: AWESOME MEME: 1934 Machine Guns When White Society was responsible Gun Laws
Whites have never been babies. We do many dangerous things without even thinking about it. In 1934, even a child could order a machinegun by mail order. There were zero school shootings back then.
