Trump asks Mike Pompeo to look at South African land seizures and 'large scale killing of farmers'

Links:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...white-killing-apartheid-2018-8?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ompeo-look-at-south-africa-land-reform-debate
https://www.rt.com/usa/436626-trump-south-africa-land-seizure/

Now President Trump has launched an investigation into the confiscation of private property without compensation by the South African government, headed by their President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The central issue of imminent 'confiscation without compensation' in South Africa has been growing in worldwide visibility for several months, and now it has officially attracted the attention of the President of the United States.

Of overriding importance is the question -- should any government seize property owned by any of its citizens, and do so without even providing fair, just compensation?

 

Since it is convenient to excuse the original sin -- which was decades upon decades of colonialization, oppression and apartheid -- any attempts to rectify that in the slightest will be deemed unfair

In the case of the South African president -- he has a base that is pushing him towards re-appropriation of farm land -- to satisfy that base, he is proposing that the Constitution be changed to allow farm lands to be seized with ZERO compensation -- he does not have the votes in the parliament to do this; but the fact he tried is giving him some breathing room with his base.

Even if the Constitution is changed and this is allowed, it will still be tied up in appeals court before any large scale property seizing takes place -- yes, despite what you have heard, there are no farms being ripped away from white farmers with no compensation, there may be issues with farmers not getting dollar for dollar compensation, but that is the process right now.

For example, a farm owner demands he should be paid 20 million for his land -- the government offers him 2 million -- he refuses the offer, they issue an eviction order -- he appeals -- a court decides what is fair and equitable -- the court says 5 million --- the farmer still refuses -- when he gets evicted, he still gets the 5 million -- so it is hardly a case that farmers are being murdered and having their farms taken -- those are rumors started by white supremacists and it has been debunked time and time again or conflated with general crimes in South Africa where both white and black farmers are targeted -- because they are remote and away from law enforcement's ability to get there quickly.

 

By "re-appropriation"....you mean "stealing an incredibly valuable and productive commodity based on race". The KKK, and also Hitler (stole from the Jews), would be all FOR that type of policy.

I also assume that you'd be ok if, say, DETROIT, made the same law (steal stuff from whites and give it to blacks)?

I despise racism, as you can tell.

 

Keep in mind that the atrocities that Stalin, Hitler, the Inquisition leaders, and Mao did were all "LEGAL", as well.

 

Was it FAIR for the whites to steal the land at the time that they originally stole it?

 

Actually, believe it or not, the government in South Africa DOES have the right to confiscate property! I did not believe that, but I became convinced after being presented with this information by our Forum colleague @Derideo Te.

It is worth reviewing. He and I had been debating whether South Africa has the right to confiscate its citizens' property and he posted this, which I have copied and pasted from another thread verbatim (all in italics) :

"Here are relevant quotes from the South African Constitution Bill of Rights.

file:///C:/Users/RG-W7P/Downloads/Constitution%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20South%20Africa.pdf

9 Equality

(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3)

25 Property

(1) No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

(2) Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application— (a) for a public purpose or in the public interest; and (b) subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.

(3) The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including— (a) the current use of the property; (b) the history of the acquisition and use of the property; (c) the market value of the property; (d) the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and (e) the purpose of the expropriation.

(4) For the purposes of this section— (a) the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa’s natural resources; and (b) property is not limited to land.

(5) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.

(6) A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.

(7) A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.

( No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1).

(9) Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).


26 Housing

(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

(3) No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.
Those are the 3 pertinent sections from the SA Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Section 9(3) above prohibits the government from discriminating against anyone of the basis of race or color. That NEGATES your bogus allegation that land expropriation will only be targeting whites.

Section 25(2) makes it constitutional for the government to expropriate land.

Section 25(3) makes it constitutional for the government to expropriate land based upon prior history of the land and the current use of the land. In other words if it was taken from one group in the past and now lies unused and unimproved it is constitutional for it to be expropriated.

Section 25(4) makes it constitutional provides a mandate for governmental land reform.

Section 25(5) and (9) make it a REQUIREMENT for the government to pass the appropriate legislation for land reform. That is what is currently in progress.

Section 25(6) and (7) specifies that those who had land expropriated by the apartheid regime to receive either land or compensation for the loss of their land.

Section 25( grants the government the POWER to enact land reform.

Section 26(1) stipulates that ALL South Africans have a constitutional right to housing.

Section 26(2) stipulates that the government has an obligation to remediate the housing problem.

Section 26(3) is CLEARLY a PROTECTION against the government expropriating land that is being actively used as housing."

So, the South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa has the ABILITY to confiscate his citizens' property without compensation, but the towering question that looms over everything is -- IS IT RIGHT TO DO THIS?

Evidently, that is what has caught American President Trump's curiosity, too. What kind of relationship do we want to have with a country that would do this to its own citizens? Remember -- this is almost exactly what Chancellor Adolf Hitler did to Jewish Germans, with complete, legal German constitutional authority....

. "Hey, it can't be 'wrong' if it's LEGAL... right?"

 

The ends justify the means on display

 

"Since it is convenient to excuse the original sin -- which was decades upon decades of colonialization, oppression and apartheid -- any attempts to rectify that in the slightest will be deemed unfair"

In other words, if you were NOT among those who MAJORLY benefitted from the original sin -- you are **** out of luck...There is nothing the South African government can do to set things right without it looking like "stealing land and resources" based on race -- except, in the case of the original sin, it wasn't stealing, it was conquering

In the case of the people who were oppressed now regaining power, it will always be seen as stealing. Even when Mandela was tortured and beating for decades along with many others who looked like him -- he still opted to go the reconciliation route instead of vengeance.

Aint it nice how we always expect the folks who were massacred and oppressed to always have this super benevolent trait of forgiveness??

 

Stalin did this to Ukraine and caused a man made famine. South Africa will experience a very bad backlash and a hit in its economy as well.

No, governments should not be stealing land from it's citizens. Especially when it is one race stealing from another, simply because of skin color. It is the very definition of racism. Also, the whole argument of "who owned what in 300 BC" is simply stupid. Paying people to leave the land and giving them pennies on the dollar (or rand) is essentially theft. How would you like it if the city you live in came to you and said, your leaving, your $500K house is now worth $25K, bye.

I don't think so. It's almost worth going to war over. A renegade government can be as bad as a government who invades another country. Theft is theft.

 

As I have commented before, when settlers arrived there hundreds of years ago, that part of Africa was only sparsely populated, except for scattered tribal enclaves.

The settlers set up enclaves of their own, usually following societal models (European) they were accustomed to. There was no one to "pay" for the land, as it was really unowned by anyone. Various tribal territories existed over different sections of the wider area, but there was no central governmental 'authority' there or anywhere else in Sub-Saharan Africa hundreds of years ago.

Neither the Europeans, the Middle-Easterners, migrants from Northern Africa, nor the Indians (from India) stole anything! It was essentially, "wide-open" country.... Read the history.

 

Under the plan, BLACK people will be owning particular pieces of land instead of WHITE people, nothing more than that....are you somehow implying that blacks are inferior to whites!? I assume that you are NOT implying that, and I'm not accusing you of being racist, but I guess I don't understand your statement.

 

What will Trump do if he finds some of the claims true? Hopefully have America mind its own business and at worst tweet tweet tweet about it.

 

Obama just PRAISED the S.A. president....do you condemn Obama like I do for that?

 

Like I said -- when you are the one who made up the rules, it's a beautiful thing.

Those tribal savages had no right to stake any claims to the land they were on -- they didn't go before the rest of us "civilized" people and declare their right to the land they were on -- so it's not theirs...

So us civilized people took it -- sure we massacred a few of them, but in return, we brought them civilization and industry and a religion that we rely on them to use to show us forgiveness one day if God ever sees fit for those tribal savages to ever regain control of the land they were on long before us "civilized" folks came to do them a favor.

 

So flip this around. Imagine in South Africa right now if black people were being removed from their property in favor of giving it to white people. Imagine if white people passed legislation to seize all the farm land from people who were black. It's simply racism, no matter how you cut it. Passing legislation to seize land is a horrible path for South Africa to follow.

It's a big deal and you are playing this off as "nothing more than that". It's a little disturbing no matter what your race, creed or color is. I'm not sure what is more shocking, South Africa or people defending it as "no big deal."

 

We boycotted them over racism (Apartheid), so we should maybe do the same over THIS racism, as well. Or is it ok when BLACKS are racists, but not when WHITES are racists?

 

I'm surprised that the NAACP isn't fully condemning this racism....that's as bad as the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.) not condemning Allah/Mohammad for the hatefulness against women in the Islamic texts. Hypocrites, the NAACP and NOW are, it would appear, at least. Or are they just black, and women, SUPREMACISTS respectively, as it turns out?

 

I condemn racism and Obama if he is in favor of such a law.

 

Lookin out fer Whitey. These thugs'll be coming for ours next. LOL

Lets put some kids in cages and show our civ-lizashun

 

Good post.
I do agree that it's very troubling to steal land based on RACE.

By "nothing more than that" I was just pointing out that folks are saying that the ECONOMY would take a hit....what, just because it's nothing more than BLACKS OWING THE LAND INSTEAD OF WHITES (that's my point - blacks will own it instead of whites)....that sounds racist of them, one could argue?

 

Feel free to boycott SA FreedomSeeker if you truly feel this way. Me personally, I view certain proposals as corrections so there's that.

 

No, we're trying to condemn racism!!

Racist majority-race (white, in the case of America) cops unfairly harassing minority-race peoples (blacks, in the case of America) is dead wrong, and so is what is being done in South Africa!

 

So we are on the same page, actually.

 

I'm cancelling my flight to Cape Town ASAP!
Hehe, ok I'll admit that I probably don't do business with that nation (for no real reason) anyway. They seem normally pretty fine, just not now that they are being so racist.

 

Corrections????