I guess they didn’t look up what happened to Zimbabwe when they did this crazy stuff.
It’s amazing in this day and age that this stuff happens.
Quote:We are not calling for the slaughter of white people - at least for now': South African parliament votes to SEIZE white-owned land as experts warn of violent repercussions
By Ben Hill For Mailonline and Afp 00:24 EST 28 Feb 2018, updated 20:52 EST 28 Feb 2018
Latest From MailOnline
EXCLUSIVE: Nashville mayor's cop lover is the REAL victim in sexts, lies and overtime scandal says his family - as officer's wife...
Deadpool actress sues a production company after suffering a huge gash on her face when she fell through glass on the set of...
White South African farmers to be removed from their land after parliament vote
The motion for 'expropriation without compensation' passed by a landslide
It was brought about by Julius Malema who said white farmers are 'criminals'
White South African farmers will be removed from their land after a landslide vote in parliament.
The country's constitution is now likely to be amended to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation, following a motion brought by radical Marxist opposition leader Julius Malema.
It passed by 241 votes for to 83 against after a vote on Tuesday, and the policy was a key factor in new president Cyril Ramaphosa's platform after he took over from Jacob Zuma in February.
Mr Malema said the time for 'reconciliation is over'. 'Now is the time for justice,' News24 reported.
'We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.'
White South African farmers will be removed from their land after a landslide vote in parliament
White South African farmers will be removed from their land after a landslide vote in parliament
The country's constitution is now likely to be amended to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation
The country's constitution is now likely to be amended to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation
A 2017 South African government audit found white people owned 72 per cent of farmland
A 2017 South African government audit found white people owned 72 per cent of farmland
Mr Malema has a long-standing commitment to land confiscation without compensation. In 2016 he told his supporters he was 'not calling for the slaughter of white people - at least for now'.
A 2017 South African government audit found white people owned 72 per cent of farmland.
Rural affairs minister for the ruling African National Congress party said 'The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation'.
Related Articles
'I'm not an angel ... just a small girl in a big world': Inside the colourful lives of the heavily tattooed 20-something cousins at the centre of a savage gang feud - BEFORE and AFTER they became bikie babes
The physiological reason for Australia's boom in 'late blooming lesbians': Why a record number of women in their 50s are leaving their husbands and coming out as gay
'There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.'
Freedom Front Plus party leader Pieter Groenewald said the decision to strip white farmers of their land would cause 'unforeseen consequences that is not in the interest of South Africa'.
The deputy chief executive of civil rights group Afriforum said the motion was a violation of agreements made at the end of apartheid.
The deputy chief executive of civil rights group Afriforum said the motion was a violation of agreements made at the end of apartheid
The deputy chief executive of civil rights group Afriforum said the motion was a violation of agreements made at the end of apartheid
White farmers control 73 percent of arable land compared with 85 percent when apartheid ended in 1994, according to a recent study. Pictured is South African farmer Piet Swanepoel
White farmers control 73 percent of arable land compared with 85 percent when apartheid ended in 1994, according to a recent study. Pictured is South African farmer Piet Swanepoel
'This motion is based on a distorted image of the past,' Ernst Roets said.
'The term "expropriation without compensation" is a form of semantic fraud. It is nothing more than racist theft.'
The ANC is increasingly under pressure to speed up land redistribution to help shore up its support among poorer black voters ahead of the election next year.
The country's constitution is now likely to be amended to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land following a motion brought by opposition leader Julius Malema
The country's constitution is now likely to be amended to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land following a motion brought by opposition leader Julius Malema
Parliament ordered its constitutional committee to report back on the issue by August 30.
Botched and often violent redistribution of land in neighbouring Zimbabwe under ex-leader Robert Mugabe left many farms in ruins, and the drop in production triggered an economic crisis that still haunts the country.
White farmers control 73 percent of arable land compared with 85 percent when apartheid ended in 1994, according to a recent study.
'The time for reconciliation is over; now is the time for justice,' EFF leader Julius Malema told parliament.
'It is about our dignity. We do not seek revenge... all that our people ever wanted is their land to which their dignity is rooted and founded.'
Cyril Ramaphosa is elected as the new president of South Africa
The policy was a key factor in new president Cyril Ramaphosa's platform after he took over from Jacob Zuma in February
The policy was a key factor in new president Cyril Ramaphosa's platform after he took over from Jacob Zuma in February
If it's what the elected officials decided who am I to disagree. Kudos to SA for at least getting its parliament to do their job. So i join the consensus in this thread suggesting this is a good thing and those minorities that are disadvantaged by the majority should just kick rocks.
But with all things I will say: Be careful what you ask for
(03-07-2018, 11:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If it's what the elected officials decided who am I to disagree. Kudos to SA for at least getting its parliament to do their job. So i join the consensus in this thread suggesting this is a good thing and those minorities that are disadvantaged by the majority should just kick rocks.
But with all things I will say: Be careful what you ask for
(03-08-2018, 12:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is horribly racist and likely to damage the nation and progress they've made since Apartheid.
I'm sure there's also a better person to quote than a white supremacist. Their views are really no different than these politicians.
Agreed. This issue is a very complex one and I am having a hard time with my view of it. The people that are leading some of these movements are not people that you want to be hitching any movement to. In addition to that, there is anti-white violence in the country that has been ignored by the government for the most part.
On the other side of this issue is that something like 75% of agricultural land in the country is owned by white people, which make up around 8% of the population. The land was acquired through European colonization which is theft when you boil it all down. With the current population still having a significant number of people that were alive during apartheid, those wounds are still very raw.
I disagree with any violence, that is a given. I would like to know more about the constitutional framework for the country before really digging into the issue of reparative takings for redistribution. It's easy to apply our norms to the situation, but our country ties liberty to property in a perverse way. I don't know if they do the same and that can create a totally different situation.
Edit: Upon a cursory reading of the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, I don't see how something like this could pass muster. Their courts should shoot this down if they are going to retain the rule of law in the country.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
I guess they didn’t look up what happened to Zimbabwe when they did this crazy stuff.
It’s amazing in this day and age that this stuff happens.
I don't think this is right at all, but I don't see how Lucie can complain about it when he said it was fine for the white people here to take all the property from the Native Americans.
(03-08-2018, 09:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed. This issue is a very complex one and I am having a hard time with my view of it. The people that are leading some of these movements are not people that you want to be hitching any movement to. In addition to that, there is anti-white violence in the country that has been ignored by the government for the most part.
On the other side of this issue is that something like 75% of agricultural land in the country is owned by white people, which make up around 8% of the population. The land was acquired through European colonization which is theft when you boil it all down. With the current population still having a significant number of people that were alive during apartheid, those wounds are still very raw.
This is a complex issue, one that I have a hard time with. I disagree with any violence, that is a given. I would like to know more about the constitutional framework for the country before really digging into the issue of reparative takings for redistribution. It's easy to apply our norms to the situation, but our country ties liberty to property in a perverse way. I don't know if they do the same and that can create a totally different situation.
Edit: Upon a cursory reading of the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, I don't see how something like this could pass muster. Their courts should shoot this down if they are going to retain the rule of law in the country.
I think this is very similar to my views on the subject. It's always complicated to figure out how to balance historical wrongs to provide opportunities to those who have been wronged, but this blanket policy of just kicking out people who have established themselves in an industry within the country (whether it was originally fair or not) doesn't seem equitable either. The only way imo to handle these tasks is by consensus among the whole country and by making persuasive arguments to the populace(the whole, not one segment, regardless of the numbers of that segment) along "moral" lines to help come to a solution that is agreeable for everyone.
But then again, I don't see a group (majority or minority), of people in advantageous positions just voluntarily saying "you're right, I'm just going to hand over my advantage", or "I'm going to be willing to discuss how I can reduce my advantage to make it better for everyone else but me." Chalk this up as a pessimistic and cynical view based on historically how people have been in these situations.
(03-08-2018, 09:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think this is right at all, but I don't see how Lucie can complain about it when he said it was fine for the white people here to take all the property from the Native Americans.
Come on man. This is a ridiculous comparison on so many levels. Not even close
(03-08-2018, 01:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Come on man. This is a ridiculous comparison on so many levels. Not even close
You're right. How the white people got the land in the first place is more like what was done by European settlers to those indigenous to the Americas. They just weren't as efficient at eradicating the indigenous population so now they are taking it back.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(03-08-2018, 09:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed. This issue is a very complex one and I am having a hard time with my view of it. The people that are leading some of these movements are not people that you want to be hitching any movement to. In addition to that, there is anti-white violence in the country that has been ignored by the government for the most part.
On the other side of this issue is that something like 75% of agricultural land in the country is owned by white people, which make up around 8% of the population. The land was acquired through European colonization which is theft when you boil it all down. With the current population still having a significant number of people that were alive during apartheid, those wounds are still very raw.
I disagree with any violence, that is a given. I would like to know more about the constitutional framework for the country before really digging into the issue of reparative takings for redistribution. It's easy to apply our norms to the situation, but our country ties liberty to property in a perverse way. I don't know if they do the same and that can create a totally different situation.
Edit: Upon a cursory reading of the constitution, specifically the bill of rights, I don't see how something like this could pass muster. Their courts should shoot this down if they are going to retain the rule of law in the country.
British Colonization was a great thing around the world. The fact that you dismiss it is pretty crazy. The developed world should be thanking them. Now if you want to complain about colonization the.ln certainly the Spanish colonization has left something to be desired.
(03-08-2018, 01:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're right. How the white people got the land in the first place is more like what was done by European settlers to those indigenous to the Americas. They just weren't as efficient at eradicating the indigenous population so now they are taking it back.
They were able to actually do something with the land. It’s called progress. Even now we see what happens when these populations are left to their own desires.
(03-08-2018, 01:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: British Colonization was a great thing around the world. The fact that you dismiss it is pretty crazy. The developed world should be thanking them. Now if you want to complain about colonization the.ln certainly the Spanish colonization has left something to be desired.
I don't dismiss it. I just call it what it was: theft.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(03-08-2018, 01:49 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They were able to actually do something with the land. It’s called progress. Even now we see what happens when these populations are left to their own desires.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](http://media1.giphy.com/media/9EmYYw6o9cmsM/giphy.gif)
![[Image: maxresdefault-3.jpg]](http://madison365.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/maxresdefault-3.jpg)
