Bible Based Ministries

Canada grants asylum to a white South African, Microsoft Word format
Canada grants asylum to a white South African, Rich Text format

The recent granting of refugee status to a white South African man by the Canadian authorities has caused a huge storm in South Africa and stirred an international hornet’s nest. But many white South Africans feel it’s the best news they’ve heard in a long time. For it has brought a huge spotlight to bear on the dangers faced by white South Africans under the black Marxist-dominated ANC government. It has ripped the mask off the ANC’s carefully crafted but totally undeserved international reputation as the miracle “rainbow nation”. No wonder the South African government is spitting mad.

Claiming he would be persecuted if he returned to South Africa, Brandon Huntley (31) told his story. He said he had been attacked seven times by black South Africans, and was called a “white dog” and a “settler”. And after listening to him, the Canadian immigration and refugee board panel ruled on August 27 that he had presented “clear and convincing proof of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect him”. The chairman of the panel said Huntley’s evidence “showed a picture of indifference and inability or unwillingness” of the South African government to protect white South Africans from persecution by black South Africans. He added, “I find that the claimant would stand out like a ‘sore thumb’ due to his colour in any part of the country.”

The accuracy of that last statement would depend on the chairman’s meaning. If he meant that Huntley would stand out because there are only a handful of whites in South Africa, this would be inaccurate, for in reality there are some four million of them. It is a very common misconception in much of the West that all Africans are blacks. But English and Afrikaans South Africans, the two “white tribes” of Africa, are as African as any blacks living here. This is their home and they have no other. But if he meant that Huntley would stand out as a target for criminals because he is white, this would be accurate, because this is precisely what’s happening. White South Africans are being targeted simply because of the colour of their skin.

But the panel was entirely accurate when it ruled that the South African state was unable or unwilling to protect him and other white South Africans from persecution by black South Africans. This is absolutely correct. Since the ANC came to power in 1994, whites have been targeted in a huge number of cases for no other reason than their race, and thousands have been assaulted, murdered and raped. Many blacks deeply hate whites in SA, and many whites are attacked for no other reason than that they are white. And instead of truly protecting them as citizens of the country, the government seems to go out of its way to do the very opposite: ridiculing them, accusing them of being racists, calling them the “oppressors”, etc.

As for Huntley himself, it may yet be found that he was not entirely honest. As reported in the editorial of a South African newspaper, “It does seem that [his] conduct has not been altogether above board. His claim for refugee status was made after a previous visit when he stayed on illegally for a year after his visa had expired. That record certainly undermines his credibility. So too does the fact that he never reported to the police any of the seven alleged attempted robberies in which he was assaulted and subjected to racial insults while in South Africa.”ⁱ However, as the editorial goes on to rightly point out, “On the other hand, his explanation for this will strike a chord with many local people. Innumerable crimes go unreported because the victims simply don’t believe that the SAPS [SA Police Service] will take effective action.” They are convinced that the police are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it. So it is entirely plausible in itself that a South African could have been attacked seven times, incredible as it may seem to people living in safer, Western countries, where violent crime is far less frequent than it is in SA, and most people live their entire lives without experiencing a single incident of it. As the same editorial put it, “This fact [that so many crimes in SA go unreported because people do not believe the police will take action] should prompt consideration of the possible Canadian perspective on the situation. Canadian society is essentially egalitarian and law-abiding. As it looks towards South Africa, it sees a crime rate among the highest in the world, with an abnormal incidence of violence and a distressingly poor record for successful prosecutions.”

South Africa is a violent society.ⁱⁱ It has been branded as the most violent country in the world outside of a war context. As we have often reported, the murder, rape, and other violent crime statistics are many, many times higher than in most other countries of the world.ⁱⁱⁱ Many times, over 20 000 people are murdered in a single year!^iv Over 50 000 women are raped!^v It is a lawless, violent place. And yes indeed, many people have been attacked more than once. A close personal friend of mine was held up at gunpoint twice in one week. As for being called a “white dog” and a “settler”, this happens all the time to white South Africans. Black South Africans use such names on them, and more besides, in countless attacks, which most definitely are racially motivated, contrary to all the bleatings by the government and by liberal “human rights” groups and others.

The editorial also said: “Huntley’s complaint… has been repeated many times. Canada’s immigration officials, like their counterparts in Australia and elsewhere, must surely have noticed the growing migration of South Africans, many of them young, skilled, and white, moving away…. Nor can it go completely unnoticed abroad that… minority groups [in SA] are increasingly subjected to threatening racial stereotyping that the political executive does precious little to curb.” No matter how much the SA authorities scream and shout, the fact is that the state is failing, and failing dismally, to protect its citizens. It is failing to protect all its citizens – white and black. But in addition, it could be said to be particularly failing to protect white South Africans, and even tacitly encouraging attacks on them, by its racist remarks, constantly uttered about the “evil” whites, etc. It never loses an opportunity to berate whites, put them down, accuse them of racism, and blame all the country’s woes on them.

The South African government, predictably, reacted with outrage at the ruling in Canada. With only months to go before the 2010 Soccer World Cup to be held in South Africa, with huge numbers of tourists expected to descend on the country, publicity like this could do immense damage. South Africa has been the darling of the world’s media ever since Mandela became president in 1994, and as a result of skewered reporting and the covering up of the real truth of what is going on here, most of the world has been led to believe that South Africa is a country of inter-racial harmony, where its benign rulers preside over its wonderful “transformation” from pariah apartheid state to a shining example of democracy. And the ruling ANC would desperately like to keep up that facade. A Western country granting refugee status to a white South African sends the message to the world that SA is a dangerous place of racial persecution. How then can the present Marxist rulers claim any moral high ground over the previous “apartheid regime” they spend so much energy condemning? They dread the thought of being shown up for the racists they are. As George Orwell showed in Animal Farm, the revolutionary pigs come to resemble the ones they removed from power. In SA’s case, the present rulers are already far exceeding whatever evils were committed by the previous government.

SA Home Affairs spokesman, Ronnie Mamoepa, said the government was disgusted by the ruling, and slammed what he called the “baseless allegations against our people and our country.” He said, “His claims would have been preposterous and laughable had they not been so serious.”^vi

ANC spokesman Brian Sokutu said, “We find the claim by Huntley to have been attacked seven times by Africans because of his skin colour without any police intervention sensational and alarming.”^vii

Police Commissioner Bheki Cele said, “Criminals in South Africa… they look at what you have, rather than looking at your face.” And: “My house was broken into and some stuff was taken… and I remain black. Surely, my house was never broken into because I am black.”^viii

Joyce Tlou, senior researcher on migration and non-nationals at the South African Human Rights Commission, said, “We need to question whether the Canadian board was fully informed of the situation here in the country, because the race question is highly sensitive.” She feared it would now appear that all white South Africans were under attack. “Why did the board not seek consultation from human rights and race relations experts before taking such a decision?” she asked.

Jacob van Garderen, director of Lawyers for Human Rights, said the decision “borders on racism.” He said, “It’s a shocking verdict, which is based on untruths and serious misperceptions, that only white people are affected by crime, and that the government does nothing and silently allows the situation to continue. It’s nonsense. In order to comply [with the requirements for refugee status] under Canadian law, you must prove that you are politically persecuted, your life is in danger due to your political convictions or race, and that the government can’t or won’t do anything about the situation. That is not the case.”^ix

The South African Institute of Race Relations said: “While South Africa is a very violent society, the vast majority of the victims of violent crime are black.” It said whites are generally safer because they can afford to pay for private security. It also claimed that while a racial motive was sometimes detected in crimes, there was no “general pattern of racial attacks on white South Africans by black South Africans.”^x

Let us analyse these reactions.

The SA Home Affairs spokesman, very predictably, said the government was disgusted by the ruling, saying the allegations were baseless. The ANC government has been deeply embarrassed by the ruling, so it’s not surprising that they would react this way. But if they were honest they would have to admit the allegations are not baseless. The Canadians are not fools. They can see what is going on in SA. The multiplied thousands of violent attacks on whites in the country every single year prove beyond shadow of a doubt that the Canadian ruling was based on solid fact. Murder, rape and assault are being experienced by huge numbers of white South Africans every year. It is a dreadful reality for them, regardless of how much the government may deny it.

As for the police commissioner’s comment that criminals look at what one has rather than one’s face, this would depend on what criminals are seeking to accomplish. If they are simply looking to steal something, then yes, they would go by what someone has, not what they look like. And then it certainly is true that black South Africans are being robbed as much as whites, even more so. The police commissioner, however, gives the impression, by his words, that crime in SA is mainly about stealing from people. If only it were so! But it’s not. There are criminals who are targeting white South Africans in order to kill, rape or terrorise them, precisely because they are white. Robbery is not a motive these cases.

The researcher at the South African Human Rights Commission feared it would now appear that all white South Africans were under attack. Well, no, not all white South Africans are under attack, if by being “under attack” is meant an official declaration of war against whites, so that a civil war is raging. This is not the case – yet. But huge numbers of whites have, in fact, come under direct attack, and all of them are potential targets because of their race. And they are coming under attack, not only directly by criminals, but also indirectly by government failing to protect them, turning a blind eye and in effect taking an attitude of “they deserve it”, as well as by actually encouraging such attacks by constantly blaming all the country’s problems on those they refer to as the “previously advantaged” or the “former oppressors”. Then too, one can definitely say that there is an unofficial but deliberate campaign being conducted by blacks against certain sections of the white population, notably the white farmers and their families, who are being terrorised, brutally raped and murdered, and thus forced off their farms. Almost 2000 white farmers have now been murdered, making farming not only the most dangerous job in South Africa today,^xi but the most dangerous job on earth! For the per capita murder rate of white farmers is in fact higher than for any other group of people on earth!^xii

The reaction of the director of Lawyers for Human Rights, that the decision “borders on racism,” is ludicrous. This is always what the government and “human rights” liberals shout out whenever they get the opportunity: “It’s racism!” It’s pathetic. It’s sickening. Ultra-liberal Canada can hardly be accused of making a ruling like this based on racism! If blacks are persecuting whites, then that’s simply the fact of the matter, and there’s nothing racist about saying so. It’s a hackneyed phrase these days, but “playing the race card” still remains one of the favourite tactics of the far left whenever they have nothing else to use. He said that the verdict was based on untruths and serious misperceptions that only white people are affected by crime, and that the government does nothing and silently allows the situation to continue. “It’s nonsense,” he claimed. But is it really nonsense? Not at all. Of course it is true that whites are not the only ones affected by crime; but it’s an absolute truth that the SA government is doing almost nothing and is in fact allowing the situation to continue. They have been in power for over fifteen years now, and the crime rate has gone through the roof. Fifteen years is plenty of time for the government to have clamped down hard on criminals. But this has not been done. It is plenty of time for the government to have committed itself unequivocally to the protection of white farmers, for example. But this it has not done. Instead, it continues to lambaste them, calling them racists, etc. Huge numbers of white South Africans, after fifteen years of this, are convinced that the government most definitely is allowing the situation to continue, because it wants to drive whites out of their country. To claim that this is all “nonsense” is ludicrous. The facts speak for themselves.

He said that in order to comply with the requirements for refugee status under Canadian law, one must prove that one is politically persecuted, one’s life is in danger due to one’s political convictions or race, and that the government cannot or will not do anything about it. He said this is not the case; but is he right? In SA today, whites are certainly in danger due to their race, and the government is doing precious little about it. There is not a white South African father in the country today who does not fear for the safety of his wife and children. They cannot walk in the streets safely, they cannot play in the parks, they are in danger as they sleep in their beds at night, as they stand at an ATM, as they pull up at a traffic light.

Lastly, the comment by the South African Institute of Race Relations: “While South Africa is a very violent society, the vast majority of the victims of violent crime are black.” This is true. But one must think this through logically. There are close to fifty million people in this country, and only some four million or so are white. It stands to reason, then, that the vast majority of crime victims will be black. But that is not the point here. The point here is that black crime victims are victims because of what they might have, whereas whites are being targeted, all too often, not only for what they might have but also precisely because they are white.

And its statement that whites are generally safer because they can afford to pay for private security is in actual fact an admission that the SA government has failed to provide security for them! Why should whites have to pay for private security? The security of all citizens is the responsibility of the state! As for its claim that although a racial motive was “sometimes” detected in crimes, there was no general pattern of racial attacks on white South Africans by black South Africans, this is laughable. The white farming community has most definitely seen a pattern of racial attacks! The evidence is overwhelming. And all over the country, whites are raped and killed in racist attacks. This racial motivation has been frequently noted; it is not an occasional thing.^xiii

What, then, can be said in summary, concerning this white refugee incident?

According to the dictionary, a refugee is “one who, owing to religious persecution or political troubles, seeks refuge in a foreign country”. Based on this definition, white South Africans should be granted refugee status if they seek it. The exposure this incident is getting internationally is a very good thing. The granting of asylum by Canada to a white South African has deeply embarrassed the South African government – and this is excellent. For far too long the world has simply turned a blind eye to what has been happening to white South Africans under black Marxist rule. SA has been the darling of the world for far too long. It does not deserve its reputation as a “miracle nation”, where blacks treat whites equally and justly. There is no question whatsoever that huge numbers of whites have been the targets of violent attacks for no other reason than that they are white. If the Canadian authorities have had their eyes opened, then this is a very good thing. As the editorial from a South African paper, quoted above, put it: “Government spokespeople have been quick to accuse Canada, which also has a notably diverse society, of racism. They would do better to ask themselves what it is about the developing situation here that made the Canadians think that Huntley’s claims were worth taking seriously.” Precisely. And if this opens the eyes of other Western nations to what is going on here, then that too would be a very welcome thing, especially if it leads to these nations following Canada’s lead and granting asylum to South Africans who are being persecuted in their own country because of their race, and who might also yet be persecuted on religious grounds as well.

Pressure is now being mounted to have the Canadian authorities review the Huntley case. It would be tragic if, in the end, they are persuaded to overturn the ruling. They felt there was “clear and convincing proof of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect him”, and indeed that the evidence “showed a picture of indifference and inability or unwillingness” of the South African government to protect white South Africans from persecution by black South Africans. They were right. They should stick to that ruling, and not be browbeaten by the South African authorities into overturning it.

September 2009

Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel and lives in South Africa. He runs Bible Based Ministries. For other news articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below. If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ electronic mailing list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.

Bible Based Ministries

info@biblebasedministries.co.uk

www.biblebasedministries.co.uk

This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

Contending for the Faith Ministries

(Distributor for Bible Based Ministries)

42055 Crestland Drive

Lancaster, CA 93536

USA

ENDNOTES:

Filed under: south africa