South Africa and its anti-white legislative structure

Prof. Hercules Booysen - 9/16/2009

A hysterical reaction occurred in South Africa because of the Canadian Immigration Board's decision to grant the South African, Brandon Huntley, asylum status in Canada. The black ANC government regards the decision as absurd because, in its view, the wave of criminality, which plagues South Africa since the black government took over in 1994, effects both black and whites, not only whites.

Besides the fact that the government's view is an admission that it cannot fulfill the basic function of a government, viz., to protect its citizens, it is also an oversimplification of the situation and a distortion of reality. The government tries to ignore the consequences of its own legislation adopted since 1994.

Just as the white government before 1994, the black government itself chooses to make race determinative of the content of South African citizenship. It is its legislative structure and political policies that should be scrutinized in order to determine whether or not the system is oppressive against whites on account of their race. The high criminality, especially against whites, and an inability to protect its citizenry in this regard, is just one effect of the legislation and policies.

One of the first serious signs of an anti-white political scene was when the ANC member, Peter Mokaba, began with the political slogan, "kill a farmer, kill a Boer" after the black government took power in 1994. He was later appointed a member of Nelson Mandela's government. This political slogan became regular features at ANC meetings and was also shouted at his funeral and in the presence of various high functionaries of the state. Nobody was reprimanded by the state for allowing, participating or acquiescing in this practice and no official resigned because of it. Anywhere in the world, except South Africa, such behavior would have been regarded as instigation to murder. Although it is an offense to instigate murder, nobody was prosecuted for this practice. It was originally simply regarded as an exercise of the right to free expression. The influence of the slogan on young and illiterate, and not so illiterate, blacks was never determined or tested in a court of law.

The legislation adopted since 1994, has the effect that the civil service, openly and as stated policy, discriminates against whites, that numerous, almost about all, whites lost their positions in the public services on account of their race, that on account of race managerial positions in white owned companies must be granted to blacks, that a certain number of shares in white owned companies must be transferred to blacks, that white owned farms must be expropriated on behalf of individual blacks and not for public purposes as is internationally required and that the study places for whites at universities, especially for the professions, are limited.

These are just few examples explaining the purpose, and effect, of the legislative program adopted since 1994. The government describes its policies openly as the Africanization of South Africa. The similarities between this policy as reflected in legislation and that followed in Nazi Germany after 1933 are amazing. The Nazis called their policy Arisierung, or Germanization, and it was aimed at the Jews. On the international level it is difficult to regard Africanisation as legitimate if Arisierung is also not so regarded. Because nobody considers Arisierung to be legitimate, it is objectively difficult to view Africaniszation to be anything else than unlawful. The German policy of Arisierung underwent a change for the worst after 1939, which can even be seen as a dangerous pointer to what might be the end result of Africanization if it is not timely identified for what it is.

The view that the South African constitution legitimizes the race-based legal structure originates from the black governing elite: it is the political correct thing to say according to the black governing party for those subject to its policies. Affirmative action, however, can only be justified on an individual basis, that is in respect of individuals whose rights were in reality violated previously. These violated rights should be remedied by affirmative action and then only on an individual basis. Affirmative action cannot be used as justification for legitimizing a totally race-based legal system in which the beneficiaries can even be foreigners, provided that they are black, as is the case in South Africa. The purpose with the new constitution was to abolish a race-orientated legal structure, not to entrench it. If a government creates a legal structure which allows people to chant slogans openly to kill members of another race, that your job can be taken on account of your race, that your land can be expropriated on account of your race, that companies and shares can be taken over on account of the race of the owners, it is certainly one that also sends a clear message to criminals that they may attack the members of that race, who are legally regarded as untermenschen, with impunity. The structure in its totality is then oppressive against whites; the criminal consequences are just one element thereof.

Prof. Hercules Booysen is an eminent South African legal consultant.