The #Afrikaner nightmare: #Genocide, #Xenophobia or #ANCracism?
November 3, 2013
This week an interesting debate about how Afrikaners perceive their current struggles in South Africa – ensued.
It is actually an ongoing discussion that started during the #RedOctober campaign, held on October 10, 2013 during which thousands of people rallied to support a protest by white South Africans against many perceived threats. Many came out in support against brutal farm murders, while others stressed the current political situation of oppressive regime legislation, geared at curbing white influence and control of the Southern African economy.
Afrikaners (and white South Africans in general) feel that the ANC’s program of redress and transformation is nothing other than black racism dressed up to look respectable. The Afrikaner Journal, has over the years written extensively about the result of current government legislative intervention, to address so-called imbalances of the past, and have re-blogged many stories, to support this claim of politically designed injustice.
But how should we perceive this ongoing onslaught against our tiny minority?
Should we address it as criminal racist injustice, or should we describe it as a serious attempt at genocide?
This week a new, alternative approach raised its head on social platforms that may influence the future perspective of both victims and supporters of minority rights in South Africa – that, of the possibility that Afrikaners may also be the victims of xenophobia at the hands of black South Africans.
It may come as a surprise to many readers that xenophobia is actually a huge problem in South Africa. We often read about xenophobic attacks by black South Africans against other foreign blacks, most notably people from our neighboring countries, as well as Somali and Ethiopian traders in the various townships. In many cases these people are killed and/or driven from their homes, and their businesses torched by marauding local black looters.
This is then the backdrop for this discussion: “The #Afrikaner nightmare: #Genocide, #Xenophobia or #ANCracism?”
I’m copying the original article here, as well as selected commentary that contributed to the discourse about this very interesting topic.
Feel free to join in with your perspective at the end of the article.
Please leave your comment on the Afrikaner Journal Facebook page featuring this link, to facilitate the debate in real-time, as comments on the blog are queued for approval.
Black-on-White violence vs Xenophobia! Sx.
Source: Sunette Bridges News page
There was ‘n huge outcry after the Red October protest marches and gatherings that highlighted the plight of the White Ethnic Minority in South Africa… Apparently it is racist to take a stand against the brutal torture, rape and killing of white people by black attackers… but somehow the brutal murders aren’t?
I have record of 178 White People who have already been murdered by Black attackers this year… and hundreds more that were attacked, raped and tortured, but survived.
136 of the Victims were male.
42 of the Victims were female.
80 of the Victims were older than 60.
On average 18 White people are murdered by black attackers every month… that is more than 4 a week!
While Black-on-White murders are labeled “Normal Crime”, the opposite is true for what is considered “Xenophobic” attacks. These are defined as:
“A racially charged attack of one group on another.”
…although the attackers and victims are of the same race but different nationalities…
In a special report on Xenophobic attacks in South Africa, the Human Rights Commission stated the following:
“It has been five years since 2008, when co-ordinated attacks exploded across the country and led to the deaths of 64 people.” …that is over a period of 5 years!!!
During that same period more than 800 White South Africans were murdered by Black attackers. Yet this is considered “normal”?
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released figures showing that three incidents of Xenophobic attacks (NOT MURDERS) a week were reported in 2012.
The figure for Black-on-White attacks for the same period were 10 attacks a week.
There are special task forces dealing with Xenophobic attacks, while the murders of White South Africans by Black attackers are disguised as “normal crime”. Race is no longer mentioned in police reports but ethnicity is? Why is the fact that we are also an “Ethnic group” being ignored?
noun – a group of people with a particular race or nationality living in a country or area where most people are from a different race or nationality.
(Definition of ethnic minority noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus Cambridge University Press)
Ms Bridges then published a list of all known Afrikaners murdered since the beginning of this year (2013) (available after the story, at the given link).
Commentary and discussion:
The first comment (by myself) stressed the similarities between the xenophobic mindset of local black South Africans towards Afrikaners:
You could, in addition to the above, have mentioned that the white (Afrikaner) minority are also labeled as non-Africans, despite our citizenship, by ANC propagandists and members of the executive. We are marginalized and “mentally stripped” of our citizenship by these very same wanna-be génocidiares. In essence “African nationalism” is “racism” enacted against áll people (of all races) who are not perceived to be a “South African black”.
They are openly calling for foreign-looking people (like us) to be murdered.
Another commentator then elaborated by stating that the victims of xenopbobia and genocide are treated very differently, although he outcome in many cases is the same:
Johan PB Prinsloo:
Thing is that the xenophobic attacks on African foreigners thus far have been violent and war-like, not torturous, inhumane, dehumanising, accompanied by rape, skinning them alive, dragging them behind bakkies, placing them in boiling water after having raped them, forcing family members to watch as the rest of the families are being raped and tortured to death, etc.Genocide is the combination of rape, torture, the vicious inhumane nature of the killings, together with destroying culture and banning them from the economy and job-market. That is not xenophobia, that is genocide!Xenophobia and genocide are often closely associated. Xenophobia leads to genocide. One nation, tribe, group, trying to annihilate another group which is seen as a threat, as someone stealing their work, food or women.
Neither xenophobia, nor genocide need be related to race. In fact both xenophobia and genocide are often same race, different tribe, religion or nationality related.Genocide and xenophobia should not be confused:”Xenophobia is the irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.”Genocide is often confused with Mass Killings, which simply are the later, more drastic and more dramatic stages and forms of genocide. Xenophobia can lead to genocide, but that does not make genocide mere xenophobia.Refer to this article for a clear definition of genocide:
Johann Theron The genocide as xenophobia argument is as valid as the genocide as social justice argument, because we do not live in a western context but indeed an african context. The remaining white churches, businesses, and civil organizations are all in social justice danger resulting in all presenting defensive posturing. Therefore the genocide as such is of a “special” kind where it is imbibed in a “dark” tribal culture as social justice that applies to immigrants and special white people. However, it is possible to confront it because this “special” kind of genocide and the accompanying ubuntu has a fatal flaw.
While Margaret Barnard insists that this [genocide] ….”is a well orchestrated strategy”… [by the ruling African Nationalist regime.]
All statistics point towards it. It is very easy to see what is happening in our country. Of course the government won’t admit it.
The fact that white South Africans (Afrikaners) are suffering (just like foreigners) at the hands of South African blacks who have adopted the dark mindset of “blackness” as national identity and more specific, “South African blackness” – coupled with an “entitlement mentality” has led to behaviour by blacks that is reminiscent of the feelings and behaviour expressed by the German population, just before the nazi takeover and eradication of the local jewish population, during the second world war.
This mindset clearly absolve all black South Africans, from any responsibility for their own racist behaviour, and allow them to act in public with impunity against any foreign-looking person or group, who are perceived to be “exploiters” of the official “protected” group.
“We have suffered and are still suffering, therefore we shall take what we think is rightfully ours”…. seems to be the call of the black victims. This compounds the issues of “victimhood”, because it defines the latter in terms of race and excludes anyone else from claiming the same ‘special treatment’ (sympathy) allowed for victims.
“Victimhood” has, very successfully been hijacked by black South Africans and used as a shield to hide their own racism.
Government is exploiting these stereotypes and continue to fuel the flames of discord, to divert attention away from their own incompetence and failure to address issues related to the living conditions of the black majority.
In the meantime, whites (Afrikaners) have to be content with living a nightmare life of official discrimination by government and continuous threats of violence against their person, family and community. In addition, they’re also not allowed to express outrage and publish comment about their “pain and suffering”, because they’re not really “victims” – and any attempt to do so will be met with outrage and may successfully labeled as “racism”.
Have your say. Give us your opinion and comment to this story, here:
Convicted Boeremag members, sentenced
29 October, 2013
Story compiled by Jacques Mare, for the Afrikaner Journal:
Boeremag leaders get long sentences
October 29 2013, 15:38
BOEREMAG leader Tom Vorster and five members of its bomb squad, which blew up numerous targets in 2002, were sentenced to an effective 25 years’ imprisonment by the high court in Pretoria on Tuesday.
Vorster shrugged and told reporters he had not expected such a severe sentence, as he had already been in prison for more than a decade.
Bombers Herman van Rooyen, Johan and Wilhelm Pretorius, and Rudi Gouws received the same sentences as Vorster.
The third Pretorius brother, master bomb maker Kobus Pretorius, was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, of which 10 years were suspended.
This was because Kobus Pretorius had a change of heart during the trial, broke away from his past and expressed remorse for what he did.
The members of the bomb squad were sentenced to an additional 13 years’ imprisonment on charges of culpable homicide and conspiring to murder former president Nelson Mandela.
Soweto mother Claudia Mokone was killed in her shack by a piece of steel dislodged by a bomb the Boeremag planted on a railway.
Judge Eben Jordaan said Mr Mandela would have been killed by a land mine planted by the Boeremag bomb squad if he had not arrived by helicopter to open a school in Bolobedu, Limpopo.
This would have caused chaos and bloodshed in the country. He said the Boeremag’s aim had been to destroy democracy in South Africa.
How dangerous they were was evidenced by the fact that they carried on committing violent crimes some had said were incapable of being carried out.
The bombers already had five large car bombs ready for targets in the city centres of Pretoria and Johannesburg, and were planning further bomb attacks when they were caught.
Boeremag leaders Mike du Toit, Dirk Hanekom and the Pretorius brothers’ father, Dr Lets Pretorius, were each sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment, of which 10 years were conditionally suspended for five years.
Mike du Toit’s right-hand man, Andre du Toit, and Dion van den Heever were sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment of which 10 years were suspended.
Rooikoos du Plessis and Jurie Vermeulen, who also played important roles in planning the coup, got 15 years’ imprisonment, of which 10 were suspended.
One of the Boeremag’s most active members and the Boeremag chaplain, 74-year-old Vis Visagie, was sentenced to five years of correctional supervision.
Five of the Boeremag members who played a lesser role, including the youngest member Jacques Jordaan, walked out of the court free men after being given suspended sentences.
They are the Boeremag “weakling” Adriaan van Wyk and former defence force officers Giel Burger, Jacques Olivier and Pieter van Deventer.
The sentences were met with outrage by some, but acceptance by others.
Dr Lets Pretorius’s wife, Minnie, cried inconsolably. Friends shielded her from the cameras.
Van Wyk’s wife expressed relief that her husband would be coming home.
Revisiting the past; – The ANC’s own treason trial
(How the ANC killed people to achieve their political goals)
The Boeremag trial cannot be seen in isolation though. It is necessary to revisit the past to understand the motives and the reasons behind the treasonous acts of these Boers.
Why would anybody want to commit such heinous acts, in the name of freedom and struggle for human rights?
The Censorbugbear.org website gives us an idea of the atrocities committed by the current governing party of South Africa in their quest to “liberate” South Africa and institute communist socialism.
Throughout their campaign to destroy apartheid, they maintained that violence had been necessary to remove the illegitimate (and undemocratic) regime of the Afrikaners, oppressing the majority blacks. Now that Boers are expressing the same violent tendencies to oppose African nationalism – it is deemed an act of treason geared at destabilizing South Africa, according to the ANC government.
The pictures below (and in the attached links) are the work of sitting ANC parliamentarians …… in fact, some of the same violent criminals, who planned and implemented the following acts of violence, still form part of the current ANC executive. and some are honourary members – revered throughout the world and acknowledged as upstanding citizens and politicians.
Nobel Peace Laureate Nelson Mandela’s bombs – for the record
For the testimony submitted to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the [ANC] terrorists themselves about the war they waged against the peoples of South Africa, view the TRC website – but also note that Nelson Mandela has never personally had to testify about his role in approving of these atrocities:
However, in his book,” Long Walk to Freedom”, Mandela writes that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism – the results of which can be seen below. So look at these scenes on the pictures and videos below to view exactly what Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. The late SA president P.W. Botha told Mandela in 1985 that he could be a free man as long as he did just one thing: ‘publicly renounce violence. Mandela refused. That is why Mandela remained in prison until the appeaser Pres F.W. de Klerk freed him unconditionally. The bottom line is that Nelson Mandela never publicly renounced violence.
When Mandela was arrested on his Rivonia farm hideout near Johannesburg, the following munitions and bomb-making equipment were confiscated with him and his courageous comrades.
(Read his ‘Rivonia trial’ transcripts for all the details, starting with his heroic opening statement: “I am prepared to die…’ :http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html – clearly he didn’t care whether all those innocent civilians whose tortured and mutilated bodies can be seen below, died either)
- 210,000 hand grenades
- 48,000 anti-personnel mines
- 1,500 time devices
- 144 tons of ammonium nitrate
- 21,6 tons of aluminium powder
- 1 ton of black powder
Nelson Mandela had been found guilty, and rightly so, but not-withstanding his violent past became president of South Africa in 1994, without publicly denouncing violence, or apologising for the pain and suffering his terrorism has caused innocent victims. In fact, Nelson Mandela can be seen singing the “hate speech” song “Kill the Boer!” after his release, very clearly not convinced about his own supposed personal ideology of “peace and reconciliation”.
How should one interpret these actions of this icon for “human rights”?
Should we accept that violence is sometimes a justified method of bringing about change?
How should we interpret the new Boer threat to the stability of the South African state?
The new struggle for freedom
(When restorative intervention, becomes deadly)
“African nationalism” has become the new scourge, threatening the livelihood and existence of minorities in South Africa, according to activist from minority communities. The ANC had insisted (during the so-called struggle), that they were the only, real champions of “freedom”, “equality” and “basic human rights” for all South Africans, but what has happened to those noble ideals and principles since liberation?
Since coming to power in South Africa, the ANC has promulgated and signed into law 108 race-based laws, geared at infringing the rights of minority populations, like the Afrikaners and Boers, as well as the minority Indian, Khoi-san and coloured communities, in opposition to the social equality they purported to bring about in South Africa
These laws are designed to restrict Afrikaners in everything they do, and the way they live – from property confiscation, employment reservation, dissolving communities through spatial restrictions, language restrictions, school transformation, reigning-in of mother-tongue education, restricting welfare to vulnerable communities, and even creating life-threatening conditions by promoting “hate speech”, calling for the murder of Afrikaners in general.
As recently as October 10, thousands of Afrikaner protesters and international supporters protested the extreme violent nature of Afrikaner farmer murders, which is widely believed to be linked to ANC government transformation, and land redistribution policies. In order to popularize these policies,the ANC has created the fiction that Afrikaner farmers have “stolen the land” from blacks and therefore, it may be confiscated and redistributed to poor black South Africans. This has created conditions of immense distrust and tension, and has lead to increased incidents of friction in these rural communities. In addition, many rural supporters of the ANC (encouraged by ANC executives singing banned “hate speech” songs) feel justified in violently liberating the land, by killing the Afrikaner farmer and looting his belongings.
Afrikaners/Boers are asking themselves why this new dispensation of “codified government thuggery”, should not be seen as severe oppressive measures, designed to eradicate this community. Many activist are asking whether the ultimate goal of “African nationalism”, isn’t perhaps to bring about Afrikaner genocide under the guise of the ANC’s “transformation” agenda.
One activist, put is this way:
Apparently, Afrikaners do not have the right to protest against African Nationalist oppression because [according to popular opinion] there’s just, NOT ENOUGH:
1) Job reservation laws
2) Tortured and murdered victims
3) Spatial laws designed to dissolve their communities
4) Afrikaans schools transformed
5) Afrikaner businesses looted [of assets], by means of forced BBB -EE (Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment) shareholding
6) Poor and destitute Afrikaners
7) Hate Speech directed at this vulnerable minority.
The activist then ventures this question;
“When exactly will we reach that point where we qualify to be called victims?”
This question is indeed valid and important, in that it addresses the urgency of identifying human rights infringements in the current discourse about perceived “victimhood” in South Africa.
When does restitutive interventions of government, infringe so severely on the livelihood of minorities that it becomes oppressive and deadly?
When does the “legislating victim” – become the “oppressive monster”?
When does it become justified, to resist oppression … violently
Blood service may no longer ban whites from applying – Solidarity
Blood service may no longer exclude whites when advertising vacancies
The Labour Court in Braamfontein today issued an order in terms of which the South African National Blood Service (SANB) may not exclude whites when advertising vacancies in the future. The implication of the court order is that any person from any racial group will be able to apply for vacancies at the SANBS in the future.
According to Dirk Hermann, Deputy General Secretary of Solidarity, the trade union represented Theodore Reyneke and Sanet Schönfeldt who have worked for the SANB for 28 and 24 years respectively. ‘Solidarity took the blood service to court after the applicants had been prevented from applying for promotion posts because they were white. The court issued the order following negotiations between the parties out of court. During the negotiations the blood service gave its assurance that vacancies would be open to all applicants in future. This undertaking was at the centre of the Labour Court’s order.’
‘We are very pleased with the court order. The Employment Equity Act does not make provision for quotas or promotion ceilings. We trust that this order of the court will send a message to other employers as well,’ said Hermann.
The blood service offered severance packages to white employees over the age of 55 last year, thereby creating 14 vacancies. The vacancies were subsequently advertised and it was stipulated in the advertisement that only black Africans could apply for the jobs in question.
Statement issued by Dirk Hermann, Deputy General Secretary: Solidarity, October 24 2013
Bloody racial court case
Written by Peter Church
While 75% of blood donors in South Africa are white, the South African National Blood Service (SANBS) do not want to employ whites.
This is the sad facts and basis of a court case starting this week in the Johannesburg Labour Court.
Trade union Solidarity’s case against the SANBS over its absolute ban on certain racial groups’ applications for vacancies will get underway in the Johannesburg Labour Court on Thursday, 24 October 2013.
The case has started controversially, says Dirk Hermann, Deputy General Secretary of Solidarity: ‘The SANBS refused to meet Solidarity’s request for the disclosure of its blood donors’ racial demographics. Solidarity understands that approximately 75% of the blood service’s donors are white. We believe the blood service should take the demographics of its blood donors into consideration when appointing personnel.’
In the case Solidarity is representing Theodore Reyneke and Sanet Schönfeldt who have worked for the SANBS for 28 and 24 years respectively. ‘Last year the blood service embarked on a space-creation strategy and offered severance packages for white employees over the age of 55, thereby creating 14 vacancies. The vacancies were subsequently advertised and in the advertisement it was stipulated that only black Africans could apply for the jobs in question.
Solidarity will request the court to concede that Reyneke and Schönfeldt were unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race and that the blood service should be prevented from applying similar practices in future.’
Hermann says the principle according to which people are barred from applying for posts if they are not of a specific race must be tested in court. ‘If we succeed in setting a precedent through this case, it will apply to all companies that follow this practice. This practice amounts to a quota system which is not permitted by the Employment Equity Act. An absolute ban may not be placed on the promotion of white people.’
*As a foot note to this story, do yourselves a favour and go to the SANBS website’s photo gallery honouring those who have reached milestones in giving blood, like more than 200 blood donations. It’s a rather “pink” affair.
We say blood is red, not black or white.
Let’s continue to
Fight the SA government’s obsession with race
#BANC (Boere-Afrikaner national council): Reporting back from special meeting at Carletonville, South Africa
#BANC (Boere-Afrikaner national council): Reporting back from special meeting at Carletonville, South Africa
By J. Maré
21 October 2013
The BANC – as the only elected council with a mandate to speak for #Afrikaners (#Boers), assembled at #Carletonville last week, to discuss important issues and proposals.
According to #AbelMalan, counselor and spokesperson for the body, three important issues have been resolved.
The first suggestion was a motion tabled, to forward additional information to the South African state, as requested by its legal council. This pertains the councils original request to dialogue with the regime about the councils mandate to seek self-determination for its members. This motion was accepted.
The second very important issue was the motion to lay a charge of #HateSpeech against the #EFF and its leader #JuliusMalema for singing and propagating hate speech against the Boere-Afrikaner #minority at its founding meeting, held last week. This motion was also accepted and the BANC will lay a charge at the #Nelspruit SAPS (police station) this week.
The council then decided to accept a motion to continue with the third phase (international phase) of its plan to secure freedom for this beleaguered minority of South Africa, within the confines of international law.
The last important issue discussed was that of the importance of holding regular elections to renew the original mandate of the council and expand the scope of the councils work. In this regard the council requests all eligible voters to register for next year’s elections.
Informal discussions then followed on the councils facebook page, about ways and means to secure funds for the upcoming elections. Those who would like to contribute financially, can do so by donating to the Freedom Fund (Vryheidsfonds) a fund specially created to fund the working of the council.
We urge all our readers to consider donating as well, to further this worthy cause.
You can access information for the fund here:
SOURCE (Story and Photo):
Facebook page, Boere-Afrikaner National Council
FW DE KLERK FOUNDATION WELCOMES LABOUR COURT RULING ON EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
FW De Klerk Foundation
The FW de Klerk Foundation (the Foundation) welcomes a recent judgment handed down by the Cape Town Labour Court in Solidarity v Department of Correctional Services to the extent that the Court held that using national racial demographics as the only measure for determining and implementing affirmative action targets, was unfair practice.
In June 2011, the Department of Correctional Services (the Department) issued its latest Employment Equity Plan, which gave strict instructions for the attainment of equality targets throughout the service. The targets – 79.3% for black South Africans, 9.3% for white South Africans, 8.8% for brown South Africans and 2.5% for Indians – would bring employees into line with national – and not regional – demographics. This, despite the fact that brown South Africans comprise 54% of the population in the Western Cape. As a result, the Commissioner of Correctional Services prohibited the appointment or promotion of any more brown or white South Africans – despite the fact that brown and white applicants were often the best qualified and most experienced candidates for vacant posts.
The Foundation viewed the Department’s Employment Equity Plan as illegal, unconstitutional and simply unfair. Non-racialism is one of the founding values in the Constitution. In terms of section 9(3) the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on the basis of race – among other grounds. Section 9(5) determines that discrimination is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. The Foundation accordingly helped a group of aggrieved employees to challenge the manner through pro-bono legal representation by Bagraims, a leading firm of labour attorneys in Cape Town. The case was subsequently joined with a similar case that was being conducted by Solidarity.
In this joined case, Labour Court Judge Hilary Rabkin-Naicker found in favour of Solidarity and nine of the 10 employees of the Department of Correction Services on whose behalf Solidarity acted. It accordingly held that the nine brown employees (excluding the remaining employee – a white man), had suffered unfair discrimination. The Court hence ordered that the Department must take immediate steps to ensure that both national and regional demographics are taken into account in respect of members of the designated groups when setting equity targets at all occupational levels.
Apart from dealing with the question of whether national and regional demographics should be taken into account, the Court was also asked to consider whether the Department’s Employment Equity Plan was compliant with the Employment Equity Act (the Act) and the Constitution; and whether the application of the Employment Equity Plan amounted to unfair discrimination. Not surprisingly, the Court, bound by the Constitutional Court’s judgement in Minister of Finance & Another v Van Heerden and the High Court’s judgement in SA Police Service v Solidarity on behalf of Barnard (and absent an argument that certain provisions of the Act were unconstitutional), held that affirmative action measures in conformity with the purposes of the Act were indeed aimed at achieving substantive equality. Judge Rabkin-Naicker hence rejected the notion that the restitutionary measures promoted by the Act by itself amounted to equal opportunity for designated groups. The Court was therefore unwilling, on a technical point, to declare the Department’s Employment Equity Plan (as such a restitutionary measure) to be in breach of the Act. In addition, the Court also failed to make an order as to the promotion or appointment of the respective individual applicants and refrained from making a cost order – despite the Court having found that the brown individuals were indeed discriminated against.
Section 195(1)(i) of the Constitution quite rightly requires that “public administration must be broadly representative of the South African people, with employment and personnel management practices based on ability, objectivity, fairness and the need to redress the imbalances of the past to achieve broad representation.”
The Department’s Employment Equity Plan, by contrast, aims at mathematical representivity down to the first decimal place – and not at broad representivity; it would not be representative of the South African people in the Western Cape; it is not based on recognition of ability, since it ignores the fact that the affected employees had been assessed as the most capable for the advertised posts; it is not based on objectivity but on the implementation of the ANC’s subjective racial ideology; it is clearly not fair since it once again entrenches race as the sole criterion for promotion and would require brown employees of the Department to move away from their communities if they want to be promoted; and it does not redress imbalances of the past because it creates new racial imbalances between the profile of the people of the Western Cape and the officials who are intended to serve them.
The Constitution, from the outset, recognises that equality in our society is yet to be achieved and that restorative measures aimed at achieving such substantive equality may be utilised. The Constitution, however, does not require demographic representation. Hence, although the finding in favour of the brown employees of the Department is a victory for the constitutional value of equality in this instance, the premise upon which the Act is seeking to find equality according to demographic representation, falls short of the constitutional values of non-racialism and remains to be tested in a higher court.
Issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation
19 October 2013
#Solidarity wins affirmative action (#AA) case against #DCS
Oct 18, 2013
The Cape Town Labour court this morning ruled in trade union Solidarity’s favour in its affirmative action lawsuit against the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). The court found that using the national racial demographics as the only measure for implementing affirmative action was an unfair practice.
Dirk Hermann, Deputy General Secretary of Solidarity, said Judge Hilary Rabkin-Naicker ruled that the DCS’s unfair practices should be revised immediately. ‘The DCS must therefore revise its affirmative action processes. The ruling will not only affect the DCS, but also the rest of the public service.’
Solidarity indicated, however, that it would appeal against certain aspects of the judgment. ‘Certain constitutional issues were not dealt with by the judge. We can’t expect the Labour Court to pass judgment on important constitutional matters and therefore we still want to go to the Constitutional Court. This victory is significant, but it’s not the end of the road,’ said Hermann.
The judge moreover, among other things, ruled that Peter Davids, the only white applicant in the case, was not included in the judgment, as white men are not part of the designated group. ‘The judge based this decision on the Labour Appeal Court’s ruling in the Renate Barnard case. The Barnard case is due to be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 6 November. In the meantime we will make the necessary arrangements to appeal against certain aspects of today’s judgment.’