South Africa Suid-Afrika : Convention on Civil and Political Rights / Internasionale Konvensie oor Burgerlike en Politieke Regte
CONVENTION ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
SUID-AFRIKA – SOUTH AFRICA
AFRIKANER SELF-DETERMINATION is our only option to go forward. Several years of proposals and motions later, both at the United Nations and UNPO has not led to any positive results. Where does that leave us the Afrikaners, Whites and Boers, the White Poverty, B-BBEE, crime murders and corruption? Why should Afrikaners, Whites and Boers continuously to be treated less than second hand citizens? Nobody is going to help us – we have to do it ourselves. And our people still using statistics of 2011 regarding a population of 55 million people, what about the immigrants?
AFRIKANER SELFBESKIKKING is ons enigste opsie uit hierdie kommunisme en chaos waarin ons is. Ons menseregte word geskend. Etlike jare se voorleggings en mosies indien by die Verenigde Nasies asook UNPO het nie na enige positiewe resultate gelei nie. Dit is nie om diegene wat dit wel doen, nie te respekteer wat hulle doen nie. Inteendeel bewusmaking is goed, maar die lande wat aan die Verenigde nasies behoort, is teen hierdie tyd ookal bewus wat in SA aan die gang is. Hulle is ook bewus van die miljoene immigrante wat hulle invoer in SA en saam om een tafel met die regering sit nie. Ons moet besef, hierdie lande kan ons diplomaties en met ‘n sensitiewe oor aanhoor , maar gaan vir ons niks kan doen nie. Ander lande meng nie in met ‘n ander land se huishoudelike sake nie. Net soos ons wat nie aan Frankryk, Nederland of Griekeland kan voorskryf wat om met immigrante te doen nie, kan hulle OOK niks vir ons doen nie. Wat gebeur al vanaf 2009 en waar laat dit ons Afrikaners, Blankes en Boere, die Wit Armoede, misdaad moorde en korrupsie? Hoekom moet Afrikaners, Blankes en Boere soos skuim hanteer word – minder as tweedehandse burgers. Ons neem nie deel aan die ekonomie nie, ons word uitgestoot, maar ons mag nie lewe nie. Nee, ons mag: Ons het ‘n reg tot selfbeskikking en om dit op te eis. Ons het nie nodig om onder kommunisme te staan nie.
2015 NEWS ON AFRIKANERS, WHITE AND BOERS – PLAASMOORDE
Petition personally read to European Parliament by South Africa Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) deputy Henk van de Graaf to declare murders of white South African farmers Crimes Against Humanity
Presentation to Members of the European Parliament 5 March 2015 by assistant-general-manager of the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa.
“Declare the farm murders against whites in South Africa crimes against humanity’, Van der Graaf urges the European Parliament:
“In a very violent country as is South Africa, to use words like ‘kill’, “shoot” ‘revolution’– is very dangerous and in fact inciting. Our government supports this and that is why we accuse them of a political agenda behind the murders of white South African farmers.’
5 March 2015 — by Henk van de Graaf, Assistant General Manager of Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM —
Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen
This is becoming a very dangerous year for white South African farmers and their families.
South Africa’s year 2015 once again started on a very sad note. As early as January 3rd, we had our first farmer murdered this year.
Before the end of the first month of this year we had seven more… Until today not less than eleven South African farmers have been murdered in these first months of this year.
There were a total of 40 violent farm attacks so far this year, as far as we know.
Since 1990 the number of white people murdered on farms totals 1 762 people up to March 1 2015 – out of a total of 3,465 violent attacks on our farms. All these attacks were carried out by armed black male gangs.
These attacks started in all intensity after the then-State President Mr Frederick W de Klerk announced that he was “willing to start negotiations with the ANC on a new dispensation for South Africa.”
Right from the beginning the African National Congress – who then was and now still is actually nearly fully controlled by the South African Communist Party — stated it clearly that a process of so called land reform has to be launched, even if it would mean nationalising the land. (*leaving many white farm families homeless and destitute).
Ever since, the farm attacks and farm murders did not stop. An average of 70 people are annually murdered on South African farms.
— There are currently only about 30 000 commercial farmers left in South Africa (out of the original 85,000+ commercial (white) farmers in 1994.
Being an Afrikaner farmer in South Africa is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world. Compared to the international average of 7 per 100,000 murders per year South Africa registers 31,1 per 100 000 – but, projected on specific categories it reflects 54 per 100 000 for police officers and 132,8 per 100 000 for South African farmers.
It is said that these murders are not racially motivated. But why would it be that 1 064 of those murderdered were white farmers, compared to 73 black farmers? Why is it that 440 family members of white farmers were murdered against 33 family members of black farmers? Out of the 1 762 people murdered on the farms, 1 536 were white, and 226 were black.
We are of the opinion that those murders are not just crime. Not only are the farmers murdered, but in many cases they are tortured, women are raped and the whole family, together with the children, are brutally murdered. Cases have been reported where the murderers broke into the house, especially on a Sunday morning when the farmer and his family went to church. Everything they wanted to have was put in a car and then they just waited for the family to return home. Hours of torture followed during which the women were raped, sometimes in front of the husband and
children, and then the farmer was shot in cold blood with wife and children helplessly looking on.
Not even innocent children or elderly people are left in peace. Several years ago it was head news when an entire family in the province of the Free State was killed. First the farmer was killed, than his wife and lastly their three year old little daughter, who we believed had to witness the murder of her father and mother by those strangers. In another case the body of a murdered 77 year old farmer was put in his refrigerator. Another farmer was stabbed to death with knives by a number of attackers. They then uses is own bakkie, a light commercial vehicle used on the farms, to drive several times over his dead body, just to make sure their devil’s work was well done.
The 44 year Mr Frans Pieter of Rustenburg had the opportunity to give a last farewell to his family before he was murdered after a four hour orgy of torture to himself and his wife and two other family members. We know of cases where farmers were abducted, tortured and burnt with acid, where a farmer was strangled to death while milking his cows or where a farmer’s throat was cut in cold blood. I can keep you for hours busy with lots of gruesome stories of farm murders and farm attacks – stories of farmers or their families who have been hanged on a rope in the bathroom; people who have been beaten up to such an extent that family had to identify the victims on their clothes and jewellery, because they were unrecognizable beaten to death; elderly women, some of them deep in their 80’s, who were gang raped, or who were tortured with broken bottles in their vaginas; people who were bunt with boiling water, or burnt with hot irons.
And so I can go on for hours telling you in which barbaric manner farmers are killed nearly on a daily base. Some of them are not even reported anymore in our newspapers, and very seldom any mention is made on our state controlled television.
Some of the people who survive the attacks are traumatized for the rest of their lives, or have to live with a chopped of finger, or who are blind in one or both eyes.
The economic consequences of farm killings are enormous. Research has shown that it can take up to eight years after a farmer has been killed for a farm to be restore its full food production. Sometimes when a farmer is killed in a crucial time of the farming year, it can have the result of a farm going totally bankrupt.
This has an effect on the whole rural community. On many farms the farmer built a school for the children of his and his neighbours’ workers. So when a farmer is murdered, it is not only his own family that is suffering but also the farm workers, theirs schools, the businesses in the rural community, the churches etc.
Farms are nowadays mere fortresses, where farmers are sometimes too afraid doing their work on the lands to produce food for the whole nation. Instead of investing in new farming implements, farmers have to invest in electric wiring around their
houses, and into the most modern and technology advanced alarm systems to stay ahead of the criminals.
This is one of the reasons that the commercial farmers in South Africa are on the decline. During the 1980’s there were still some 80 000 farmers in South Africa, today we only have 30 000 left. It is expected from this smaller number of farmers to produce more and more food. The South African total population is now more than 54 million, and is still increasing. For all practical purposes South Africa does not have a border any more. Illegal immigrants flow into South Africa at a rate of up to 3 000 per day, especially through our borders with Zimbabwe and Mozambique, because border control is nearly non-existent. Those illegal immigrants also demand food and water, and at the end of the day housing.
It is interesting to note that those illegal immigrants are not often linked to farm attacks. However in many instances we see that the farmers’ own farm workers are involved in farm attacks and killings. In many cases this is as a result of intimidation of political extremists or labour unions. It must be noted that the labour unions in South Africa are ruled by members of the South African Communist Party. The relation between farmers and their workers is extremely good. South Africa is a large country and the farms are also large, resulting in being far from the cities or little towns. Farmers and their workers live for generations on the same farm, helping and supporting each other. Farmers are as dependent on their workers as the workers are dependent on their employer.
Mr. Chairman, this is no ordinary crime, or ordinary murder, if murder can be called ordinary at any time. The extent of violence and torture is immense and inhumane. On a regularly base we ask government to prioritize the investigation of farm killings. Recently one of government’s officials told us that farm attacks are no longer a priority but a mere concern. When farmers call on the police for help during an attack, most of the time the response is: “our police vehicle is out of order”, or: “there is no petrol in the police vehicle”, or it is mentioned that the vehicle is out to another crime scene, only to get afterwards evidence that the said vehicle was used by a corrupt police officer, taking his family on a nice trip, or buying his household’s groceries at the shop.
We know it is impossible for our police force to protect every single farmer in the country, but farmers were always willing to help the police in fighting any form of crime in the rural areas. A system called the Commandoes was implemented during the previous century. Those commandoes consisted of volunteers from the local communities, mostly farmers but also other persons, who did crime prevention under the protection of the South African Defence Force. Those commandoes were effective in keeping law and order intact, and fulfilled a very important role, making the hand of the police stronger in attending to other crime. Not long after the ANC took over power they dismantled the commando system, promising to put another structure in place. Those promises were fragrantly broken.
Farmers are now organising in their own agricultural structures, like in the farmers’ union I am working for, the former Transvaal Agricultural Union, nowadays better known as TAU SA. Unfortunately not all the farmers are members of agricultural unions, leaving them to a great extent on their own. But farmers who organise themselves in self protecting units, do not have any protection from government as it was in the past. It has been reported that when farmers protect themselves they even get jailed for protecting their lives, families or possessions. Government is also busy disarming the population with strict and limiting legislation, aimed on the lawful gun owners. However, crime is not committed by persons with lawfully registered fire arms but by people with unlawful fire arms, most of the times Russian AK 47 rifles, or Russian Makarov pistols or arm that have been robbed especially during farm attacks. Nowadays our police force has a problem losing their own fire arms. Recently it was made public in parliament that some 15 000 police weapons just disappeared, and nobody could be held liable for those missing weapons. There is evidence that corrupt police officers sell those weapons to criminals, and there are lots of policemen who are involved in crime themselves, also in farm attacks. They get the right example to follow from their superiors. One former national police commissioner got a sentence of 15 years imprisonment for corruption and bribery, his successor was removed from office on charges of corruption (that same person is now deputy minister of agriculture…!) and the current commissioner is also lifting the eyebrows with her decisions and rumours are that she also will not stay long commissioner. Last week it reported that the small province of Gauteng has nearly 300 police officers I its ranks that have a criminal record.
TAU SA has stated clearly on several occasions that we believe farm killings is no ordinary crime. Other factors have an influence on those killings.
Firstly a climate is created against our farmers. Statements are made from time to time by our ministers and officials where they accuse farmers of certain actions, but if we try to find who the farmer of farmers were who were responsible for those said action, the minister is unable to refer us to an individual. Farmers are accused of having a bad relationship with their workers and that they do not oblige tot labour laws, or mention is made that farm workers are illegal expulsed from the farms they are living on. When confronted with the facts the minister or any other politician is not willing to give an apology to the farming community or have the correct facts being published. Unfortunately our media is not always helpful in correcting the facts, especially our state owned radio and television.
The climate that is created against our farmers started long ago with the Pan Africanist Congress’ slogan “One Settler, One bullet”. Thereafter the ANC hat a youth leader, Peter Mokaba, who had a song “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer”. His successor, Julius Malema, had a song “Kill the farmers, they are rapist”, and the country’s president Jacob Zuma’s personal song is “Bring me my machine gun”. However he stops telling whom he wants to shoot. It will certainly not be his own supporters who protect him against charges of corruption, maladministration or personal gains from doubtful weapon transactions or the government’s money that is spent on his personal home, Nkandla.
The climate against the farmers is also stimulated by the government’s land reform programs. Accusations are often made that the farmers have stolen the land, which is a historically proven lie. We never stole any land!
We believe that the demand for land probably is one of the big reasons for the farm murders. This implicates that we believe there is a political motive behind those senseless killings. The South African government adopted a land reform policy shortly after 1994. In terms of this land reform it was aimed to have 30 percent of land handed over to blacks in 2014. Persons or communities who had a claim on land currently owned by any other person or instance had to register such a claim before the end of 1998. Lots of those claims were pointed out without any substance by the governments self created land claims court. Nevertheless any now and then we see a new piece of legislation published which would be helpful in getting farmers off their land. After the publication of each new bill we experience a new wave of farm attacks and killings. In 2001 we proposed reliable statistics from an independent institution to government, in which it was pointed out that white South Africans possessed on that time, 2001, only 33 percent of the land in South Africa. The argument that whites posses the biggest part of the country, was no longer valid as far back as fourteen years ago. After 2001 the land reform program was fully implemented by government which means that far more land has been transferred to new black ownership. A new five year term of land claims was opened by government last year.
Unfortunately we have the statistics that in more than 95 percent of the cases where agricultural land was transferred, all agricultural activities came to a standstill meaning that such a farm is not into food production any more.
On the one hand government creates expectations that cannot be met by promising land and welfare. Reality has shown us where those expectations in terms of ownership have been met it did not create welfare. In fact it created even more poverty.
On the other hand government is doing nothing where a revolutionary climate is created by individuals from its own rankings, as I have mentioned earlier. On the contrary, the ANC supports this hate speech against the farmers. TAU SA laid charges of hate speech against the then leader of the ANC Youth League and current leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, Julius Malema, after he promoted the slogan: “Shoot the farmers because they are rapists”. The ANC supported Malema by making itself a party on Malema’s side in the Equality Court. The judge ruled this slogan to be hate speech, and the ANC as an organisation appealed against this ruling. This same Malema is currently rallying a campaign for a so called “economic revolution”, the nationalisation of mines as well as the occupation of land.
In a very violent country as South Africa, to use words like kill, shoot or revolution, is very dangerous and in fact inciting. Our government supports this and that is why we accuse them of a political agenda behind the farm murders.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are prepared to go further. We are on record that we have called the farm killings a part of a bigger strategy against the Afrikaner people, and we call that a genocide. Although the farm killings get more attention than other murders, we have investigators who look into the whole issue of this alleged genocide of the Afrikaner people. They believe that from 1994 up to 20 000 Afrikaners could have been murdered as victims of this genocide. Investigation in this regard is still going on.
We as a representative agricultural union want to be part of the solution against farm murders. We believe that we can help, but we need the support of government by making some small changes to some laws and regulations. However, for more than four years now we cannot even get an appointment with the Minister of Police, or the Commissioner of Police.
Ladies and gentlemen, I actually do not want to be here today. I want to be at home, supporting my farmer members to become even better farmers. I want to be part of a union who’s only goal should be to help the farmers producing food for our nation and region. But is our government does not want to listen to us, we do not have alternatives than to inform the international community about the wrongs that are going on in South Africa, and especially against our farming community.
Last November I attended the United Nations’ Human Rights Commissions forum on Minority Rights in Geneva. The theme was the violence and atrocity crimes against minorities. I gave them the same information I am presenting to you today. The reaction from the South African government was an outraging attack on the UN for permitting us to be part of that forum, and accusing us of not being part of the SA government’s nation building process. However, they did not reply with a single word on the problem of the farm attacks and murders. Are we then wrong in thinking that our government does not have the will to attend to this problem?
I believe that you know our very good neighbour, Mr Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. You are surely aware of his land grab policy since 2000, during which he chased the white farmers off their land without compensation. Even in Zimbabwe we did not see farm killings as we see it in South Africa. During the whole period of Mugabe regime, only 24 farmers were killed on their farms. Off course those 24 were 24 too much, as we believe that the 1762 in South Africa are 1762 too much.
After sketching this dark picture about what is happening in South Africa, especially in regard of the farming community, the question arises whether there is any hope, or whether there are any solutions to this enormous problem.
At TAU SA we believe there are solutions, but unfortunately solutions that are out of the hands of the farmers themselves. There are two major assets: the first is the positive nature of the South African commercial white farmers. The second is the knowledge and capability of the commercial South African farmer. It is ironically that while the South African government does not show any appreciation for the work the South African farmers as doing in the field of food security, other countries start falling over their feet to invite our farmers to get involved in farming projects in their countries. TAU SA has been involved in an agricultural rebuilding project in the Republic of Georgia, and we are also invited to be participants in similar project in African countries like Nigeria, Nu-Guinea, Angola, Tanzania, Mauritius and even in Canada. We are not prepared to export our farmers to other countries, because we need them ourselves. However we are willing to help anywhere in the world with the expertise we gathered through many years and generations of farming under difficult circumstances. South African farmers have been described as counting between the best farmers of the world. We have a very difficult climate in South Africa with extremes to every side: we have desert end semi-desert areas, in some places we experience severe droughts sometimes, like this year, sometimes we experience severe flooding. Some areas have very fertile land while other areas are known as marginal land. In spite of this all the South African farmer survives and is still able to give food to its 55 million people, and even to export surplus food production and being part of world food security. The South African farmer continues ensuring food security not only for the country, but for our region, in spite of a government who does not give any support to the farmers, who does not give them one cent in any form of subsidy, actually, a government who is busy with its own revolution, politically inspired without looking to the economical realities – a government who is doing its best do get rid of those extraordinary good farmers, even if they have to be silent spectators of our farmers being killed one by one.
What are the solutions?
For the sake of world food security our government has to be convinced of the e necessity to look after their commercial farmers and to take steps to stop those farm murders.
Perhaps the best starting point is for international organisations like the European Union and thereafter the United Nations, to declare these specific farm murders a crime against humanity. The European Unity and many other countries imposed personal sanctions on our neighbour, Mr Robert Mugabe and some of his comrades, on what he did to his nation. We ask you to come and visit us in South Africa, so that we can show you what is really going on.
Perhaps you will see the necessity to impose similar sanctions against our leaders too, because what is happening to our farmers, has a direct influence on all South Africans and to the Southern African region, in which South Africa wants to play a key role.
But for now: when you enjoy your lunch tonight, get yourself a bottle of fine South African red wine, I can recommend any Merlot or Pinotage wine, enjoy the fruitful taste of that lovely wine, just think for a moment that that fine wine has been produced by a wine farmer who has not yet been murdered, and imagine yourself that nice diner without that fruitful wine, because the farmer of that winery has become number 1763 of the farm killings statistics…
We at TAU SA have the slogan: “Have you eaten today? Thank the farmer and the farm worker! No farmer, no food, no future.” And this is applicable to every farmer any place in the world.
issued to the European Parliament in person by Henk van de Graaf, of the Transvaal Agricultural Union in South Africa.
READ MORE: censorbugbear.org/farmitracker/reports/view/3365…
BACKGROUND : CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS:
We as Afrikaners want to know what happened after 2009?
Nothing – we cannot expect from other countries to claim our rights to self-determination or work out a solution for ourselves.
On 16 November 2009 the Solidarity trade union and the Freedom Front Plus party have both submitted an extensive dossier of research documentation to the United Nations’ Forum for Minority Affairs in Geneva, Switserland which proves that the South African government was constantly undermining the rights of minorities despite provisions to uphold these in the country’s much-vaunted Constitution.
Solidarity’s research department head, adv. Johan Kruger said their delegation under the guidance of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, (UNPO) submitted the documentation during the two-day meeting in Switserland and highlighted its details during their presentation — and have also sent copies of their dossier of two public bodies in SA: the Human Rights Commission and the Commission for the Advancement and Protection of the rights of cultural-, religious- and language-communities. The full text of the Freedom Front Plus submission appears below this story.
- Submission to the United Nations Forum for Minority Affairs, Geneva Switserland by the Afrikaners’ delegations regarding the lack of minority-rights in South Africa:
Kruger: “Although these minority rights are purportedly protected under the SA Constitution, they are nothing but ‘paper-rights’, he said. “The government is neglecting to take any positive steps to physically protect these constitutional rights however, and this is one of the primary reasons why minority groups are being marginalised and alienated.’
Solidarity submits in its documents to the UN that the minorities are so small in physical numbers that they cannot obtain any kind of legal rights in the majority-democracy of South Africa .
- “As a result, effective measures should be taken to allow minority-rights representation in judicial, administrative and advisory (government) bodies as well as across the entire spectrum of the public domain,’ Kruger noted.
However — there is ‘no political will inside the SA government to genuinely safeguard and monitor the needs of the minorities, even though the government professes to do so in international forums.
- “It has even happened that South Africa has actually publicly ratified various international conventions and thus accepted international responsibility for the protection of minority rights, but fails to uphold these rights inside their own country.’
It is the Solidarity viewpoint, Kruger said, that the few public bodies which were created by their government purportedly to protect minority rights, ‘have all failed dismally in upholding their responsibilities’.
Also: Solidarity sues government in ten affirmative-action law suits: Solidariteit pak regering in tien sake oor regstellende aksie
Submission to the United Nations Forum for Minority Affairs, Geneva Switserland by the Afrikaners’ UNPO delegation regarding the lack of minority-rights in South Africa:
FORUM ON MINORITY ISSUES, 12 AND 13 NOVEMBER 2009 (UN) PALAIS DES NATIONS, GENEVA
The Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) welcomes the invitation to make a submission to the UN Forum on Minority Issues (Minority Forum, hence abbreviated as MF), which takes place on 12 and 13 November 2009.
1.2 FF Plus was formed as a political party at the dawn of the new democratic dispensation in the RSA in 1994, to accommodate the political interests of the Afrikaner community, in particular that segment which feels strongly about the maintenance of its cultural heritage and its right to self-determination.
As a political party the FF Plus affords its supporters the opportunity to demonstrate their support for its ideals, by taking part in the national, provincial and local elections as well as elections for Student Representative Councils at University campuses. As such the FF Plus is best suited to serve as a political Representative Body for the Afrikaner as a minority group in SA on all three spheres of government.
1.3 On 23 April 1994, four days before the first democratic election in the Republic of South Africa, the FF Plus entered into an Accord with the then National Party government and the ANC, committing itself to a process of dialogue with the to-be-elected democratic government. This Accord included amongst others the following terms:
Afrikaner self-determination in a Volkstaat –
1.3.1 The parties agreed to address, through a process of negotiation, the idea of Afrikaner Self-determination, including the concept of a Volkstaat (Territorial Self Determination).
1.3.2 The parties further agreed that in consideration of these matters, they shall not exclude the possibility of local and/or regional and other forms of expression of such self-determination.
1.3.3 They agreed that negotiations should be guided by the need to be consistent with and shall be governed by the requirement to pay due consideration to Constitutional Principle 34, and other provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 as amended.
1.3.4 There must be proven support for the idea of self-determination including the concept of a Volkstaat.
1.3.5 The parties agreed that a Volkstaatraad shall be established to investigate and report to the Constitutional Assembly and the Commission on Provincial Government on measures which can give effect to the idea of Afrikaner self-determination including the concept of a Volkstaat.
1.3.6 The parties further agreed that they will address all matters of concern to them through negotiations and that this shall not exclude the possibility of international mediation to help resolve such matters as may be in dispute and/or difficult to conclude.
1.4 In the elections of 1994, FF Plus succeeded in accomplishing the requirement for substantial proven support as contemplated in item 3.1.1 of the Accord.
1.5 Furthermore, the so-called Volkstaat Council was indeed established. After its submission to government was finalized, it became functus officio and dissolved in 1999. The FF Plus as well as the Volkstaat Council fully participated in the process to compile a Constitution that would replace the interim Constitution. In the period between April 1994 and 1996 the FF Plus submitted a wide range of proposals to the Constitutional Committee. These proposals were also subjected to intensive debate which was eventually concluded to be reflected in the RSA Constitution of 1996. The relevant sections which now contain our proposals are the following:
1.5.1 Section 30: Language and Culture
Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision with the Bill of Rights.
1.5.2 Section 31: Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities
(1) Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or a linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community –
(a) To enjoy their culture, practice their religion and use their language; and
(b) To form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society
(2) The rights in sub-section (1) may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any provision with the Bill of Rights
1.5.3 Section 185: Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities
(1) The primary objects of this Commission are
(a) To promote respect for the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities;
(b) to promote and develop peace, friendship, humanity, tolerance and national unity among cultural, religious and linguistic communities, on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association; and
(c) to recommend the establishment and recognition, in accordance with national legislation, of a cultural or other council or councils for a community or communities in South Africa
(2) The Commission has the power, as regulated by national legislation, necessary to achieve its primary objects, including the power to monitor, investigate, research, educate, lobby, advice and report on issues concerning the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities.
(3) The Commission may report any matter which falls within its powers and functions to the Human Rights Commission for investigation.
(4) The Commission has the additional powers and functions prescribed by National Legislation.
1.5.4 Section 235: Self Determination
The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the notion of the right to self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within the territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.
Please note that the word “minority” or the words “minority group” does not appear in the South African Constitution of 1996.
Violation of Afrikaner rights:
1.6 Being an ethnic minority – about 2 million out of a population of 50 million – the Afrikaner people are experiencing an increasing violation of its cultural, economic and political rights, the latter being under severe strain, not being properly reported in the media and with a government pretending to listen, but effectively ignoring the Afrikaner’s (and other ethnic, religious and cultural groups) right to self-determination, in a province, a state or any other territorial entity.
- Although our Constitution provides for the right to use of languages and to enjoy cultural life of one’s choice (S.30) and the enjoyment of cultural, religious and linguistic rights (S.31) and allows for the recognition of the right to self-determination (S.235) these provisions remain just mere sections in the Constitution.
- Efforts by the FF Plus (and other organs of the civil society) to have these provisions applied in practice are being stifled by the ANC dominated government.
- The future existence of the Afrikaner people, who are living, working and striving in this country since 1652, is increasingly under threat.
1.7 Under the pretext of transformation, many Afrikaners and members of minorities in South Africa are being denied admission to specialised fields of study in academic institutions and occupations (such as medicine). Please take note of the discriminatory rules and regulations proclaimed by the University of Cape Town for the admission of students from the different population groups – these admissions discriminate blatantly against the White minority. In brief these regulations require:
- Potential students applying to study a degree in medicine, must prove that they have obtained, in the last examinations of their final Secondary School year, an average total percentage as follows:
Black students to have an average of 74%, Coloured students 78%, Indian students 88% and White students91%.
Exodus from South Africa of Afrikaners:
Affirmative action is regarded as one of the main reasons for the exodus of Afrikaners from South Africa. According to reliable statistics as many as one million South Africans, mostly Afrikaners, emigrated to countries like the UK, Australia, New-Zeeland, Canada and the USA since 1994.
1.8 Name changing of places with Afrikaner-historical connections
(Pretoria, Potchefstrom, Louis Trichard etc) is being forced through at all costs. The local community of the town Louis Trichardt in the northern parts of South Africa recently had to approach the Supreme Court of Appeal at huge costs to overturn a decision by government to change the name of the town to Makhado without prior consultation. The Court upheld the appeal of the local community of Louis Trichardt.
1.9 One of the only few remaining Afrikaans medium state-controlled schools in South Africa, the Ermelo High School, was recently forced to change its language policy to that of dual-medium for more or less 100 English-speaking learners. This happened despite the fact that a number of neighboring English-medium schools is underutilized.
1.10 Disillusioned, frustrated and disappointed, the FF Plus prepared to access an international forum where it could exercise expression and enforcement of its aspirations and rights in order to contribute to the promotion of peace based on genuine mutual respect and understanding in South Africa.
1.11 In May 2008 the FF Plus was unanimously accepted as member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) based in The Hague representing 200 million people and 70 Peoples and Nations. UNPO liaises with the UN and the EU and facilitates through these organisations the attendance of members-peoples and nations- to international events. The expenses for attendance need however to be borne by members of UNPO themselves; something which up to now prevented FF Plus to utilise all the available events.
1.12 Therefore the FF Plus further comments on the indicated issues for consideration:
2. Issues for Consideration:
2.1 Participation and Discrimination
South Africa is a country which has 11 (eleven) official languages which ipso facto is an admission of the reality of eleven minority groups, de facto, however, English , for practical purposes is the dominant language.
The perception exists that the acknowledgement of eleven official languages is not sincere and just pacifies the relevant minorities. A further perception is that in a majoritarian democracy, the government sets the tune and either the other minority groups defer or are excluded from effective and meaningful participation in the political processes and government institutions. The result is that English is regarded as the “Language of Business” which forces all citizens to communicate with the government in English.
2.2 Meaningful Representation and Empowerment
Granting minimum concessions to appease demands or interests of minorities tend to create frustration within the minority. Representation of a minority should be meaningful to the extent that the minority is empowered to achieve something through such representation for itself.
2.3 Obstacles of Minorities Political Participation
The South African Constitution provides adequately for suffrage, citizenship and running for elections. The FF Plus is of the opinion that voter education is up to standard. The location of voter registration points and polling stations should be as far as possible in close proximity of local and minority community’s places of residence.
- Unsafe voting facilities for minorities: Minorities often become reluctant to participate in the polling process if registration and voting stations are not easily and safely accessible. Some feel estranged and withdraw from the process and any participation in public affairs, particularly if the majority simply overwhelms the minority by numbers.
- If the population register is used to compile the voters list and voters can vote electronically, all voters, minorities included, could be lured to vote and a more accurate result of voter’s choices could be achieved.
2.4 Impact of Different Electoral Systems
The proportional system is the only system which could accommodate minorities effectively. If minorities are geographically concentrated, the delimitation of electoral districts could be considered. Fortunately the proportional system of elections is functioning well in the Republic of South Africa. Where apathy amongst voters are experienced, it remains the duty of the Political Parties to mobilize the voters of their own communities
2.5 Possible Institutions/bodies which could Address Obstacles to Minorities Participation in Political life
A ministry of Minority Affairs could be a very applicable solution to impact positively on the issue of minority – interests, while an Ombudsman on minority interests could be a wise decision, provided however that such an Ombudsman really must act as such.
- A situation can be envisaged where two or more minorities clash with one another about something in which case the Ombudsman can fulfill a very important function. Representative institutions like Parliament, provincial legislatures and local authorities can indeed reach out to minorities to get acquainted with issues of interest in a minority community, regardless of whether such community/minority has an elected representative or not.
2.6 Role of Political Parties
The only effective way for any minority to determine its support is by means of general and or local government elections. Cultural, linguistic or religious minorities should choose or establish a political party to take part in elections and to represent that minority group on the relevant government level.
At the moment the FF Plus is the only Afrikaner Political Party that actively participates in all the elections in all 3 spheres of government in the country.
2.7 Role of Minority Groups
There are areas of minority activity where persons belonging to that minority may and do differ in its convictions and views about issues which transcend party political activities e.g. schools, churches, business associations, farming societies etcetera. If a minority wishes to maintain and develop its own cultural, religious and linguistic heritage the onus will always rest on the minority group itself. These groups therefore have to elect and develop their own leadership in order to maintain itself in a modern state.
2.8 Quotas, Reserved Seats or other Mechanisms Ensuring Representation of Minorities
These mechanisms do not exist in South Africa at the moment. To provide for these mechanisms would require major constitutional amendments which in South Africa is not feasible at all. Those minorities which do not have representation through elected representatives on national, provincial and local levels should be able to elect their own representatives amongst themselves. Fortunately the present Constitution (Section 185) provides the mechanism for the establishment of the specific Councils; minorities should follow this avenue to create a representative body if necessary. Respective governments should be responsible to assist these minorities financially and otherwise.
2.9 Cultural Autonomy and Self Governance
In spite of the good intentions contained in the relevant sections of the RSA Constitution of 1996 regarding Self Determination, very little of these have materialized since 1994. The present ANC government intends to maintain and increase its power in all spheres of life in the country.
2.10 Related Issues – media representation for minorities:
The most important matter in this regard is minority access to the media, printed and electronic. The playing field is not level once access in the media comes to play.
- Smaller parties representing minorities simply do not get an equitable financial share to fight elections.
- This explains why in the recent elections the smaller parties generally lost support. They simply do not have the financial means to compete with the stronger and greater parties and thus the interest of minorities are not properly represented and they are too small to determine the outcome of decisions in a majoritarian democracy. This often resulted in a sort of dictatorship of the majority Party.
3. Application of the Indicated Framework Themes to the three Core Elements for Discussion: a Synopsis.
3.1 Challenges and Problems facing Minorities and States
a. Lack of financial and organisational means to create and sustain effective minority organisations.
b. Tendency to withdraw from the political and social fabric of the national/provincial/local activities.
3.2 Good Practices Re: Minorities and Political Participation:
a. Study and internalize all relevant international documentation, especially those proclaimed by the United Nations regarding the Rights of Minorities; governments should ratify all these declarations.
b. Identify minorities in the nation State and acknowledge them by means of legislation/accords/agreements.
c. Start a multi-minority state negotiation process to identify pitfalls, opportunities and solutions, and establish a special permanent commission with the sole purpose of maintaining the Rights of Minorities.
d. Government should always directly consult minorities when policy matters of any sphere of government tends to negatively impact on issues important to any minority such as language policy at educational institutions, name changes, policing services and government offices.
e. Government should always be reminded that satisfied minorities contribute to the maintenance of stability in the country.
3.3 Opportunities, Initiatives and Solutions
These aspects overlap with issues raised in 3.2 above. However, agreements should be honored pacta sunt servanda. To ignore this tends to estrange a minority with unwanted consequences.
4. Ways and means to Increase Effective Participation of Minorities in Policy – and Decision Making Procedures and Institutions.
a. Nation States must commit themselves by means of a political decision to acknowledge minorities and to provide for their participation in policy and decision making.
b. Existing international protocols and agreements regarding minorities must be honoured by governments of Nation States.
c. Engage in a perpetual interaction with the minority groups; minorities must be persuaded and encouraged to form representative Non Governmental Organizations in all sphere’s of life, even if it means government’s financial support.
DR FRIK VAN HEERDEN; DR CORNè MULDER AND COL PIET UYS
COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: FREEDOM FRONT PLUS
2012: Mosie oor minderheidsdiskriminasie in SA
December 4, 2012 at 6:10pm
ONDERWERP : Genève: Mosie oor minderheidsdiskriminasie in SA
UITGEREIK DEUR : Dr. Pieter Mulder
HOEDANIGHEID : VF Plus-leier
DATUM : 4 Desember 2012
Die Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) se kongres het in Genève eenparig ’n mosie aanvaar waarin hulle hul besorgdheid oor diskriminasie in Suid-Afrika teen minderheidsgroepe uitgespreek het.
Die mosie is voorgestel en gemotiveer deur dr. Pieter Mulder, VF Plus-leier.
Die mosie het ook aanbeveel dat ’n versoek aan die VN se sekretaris-generaal gerig word om ’n feite-sending na Suid-Afrika te stuur ten einde die organisasie eerstehands te vergewis van omstandighede soos onder andere plaasmoorde in Suid-Afrika.
Dr. Mulder is tydens die kongres verkies tot lid van die presidensie (Uitvoerende Komitee) van UNPO. Die presidensie bestaan uit nege lede. As president van UNPO is mnr. Ngawang Choephel van Tibet verkies. Die nuwe vise-president is mnr. Mohamoud Daar van Somaliland. (Kyk http://www.unpo.org/article/15211)
In die UNPO-mosie is onder andere verwys na regstellende aksie wat gebruik word om op rasse gronde teen wit, bruin en Indiër individue te diskrimineer by die werksplek, toelatingsvereistes by universiteite, toekenning van tenders en diskriminasie selfs op welsynsterrein.
Hierdie aangeleenthede is ook tydens ’n ontmoeting deur dr. Mulder met mnr. Antti Korkeakivi, hoof van die VN se kantoor vir Inheemse en Minderheidsgroepe (Indigenous People and Minorities) bespreek.
Dr. Mulder is na Genève vergesel deur mnr. André Fourie, VF Plus-raadslid in Kaapstad en voorsitter van die party se Buitelandse Verhoudinge en Internasionaliseringskomitee.
Mnr. Fourie het die VN Menseregte Kommissie se Forum oor Minderheids-aangeleenthede bygewoon en die aanwesiges daar oor Suid-Afrika toegespreek.
“Dit was uiters bemoedigend om saam met ander groepe van oor die hele wêreld deel te kon wees van ‘n passievolle gespreksforum waar begrippe soos selfbeskikking, diversiteit, identiteit, etnisiteit, groeps-, gemeenskaps- en minderheidsregte in diepte bespreek word en nie as polities nie-korrek afgemaak word soos in Suid Afrika deur beide die regerende ANC en die DA gedoen word nie,” was mnr. André Fourie se opsomming van die vergaderings.
“Die Vryheidsfront Plus glo dat alle geleenthede om die posisie van minderhede in Suid Afrika internasionaal te bespreek, benut moet word,” het dr. Pieter Mulder, VF Plus-leier gesê.
DR. PIETER MULDER
T O D A Y : 5 YEARS LATER :::::: 2014 DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
A delegation of the Freedom Front Plus will be informing the international community during November 2014 about a variety of problems that minorities are experiencing in South Africa. Dr. Pieter Mulder, Leader of the FF Plus and Mr. André Fourie, chairperson of the Freedom Front Plus’ foreign affairs committee and Councillor in Cape Town, will be delivering a presentation on the 24th and 25th November in Geneva, Switzerland to the United Nations’ Human Rights Forum for Minority Rights. Dr. Pieter Mulder will thereafter on 27 and 28 November attend the presidential management of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) and bring them up to date with developments in South Africa.
Die Vryheidsfront Plus gaan die internasionale gemeenskap gedurende November 2014 in Switserland inlig oor Suid-Afrikaanse minderheidskwessies. Dr. Pieter Mulder, partyleier, en André Fourie, voorsitter van die VF+ se komitee oor buitelandse sake en Kaapstadse stadsraadslid, gaan Maandag en Dinsdag vier mosies by die Verenigde Nasies se Menseregtekommissie-forum oor minderheidsregte indien. Die vier onderwerpe wat hulle gaan opper, is: plaasmoorde; die stand van Afrikaans in onderrig; grondhervorming en regstellende aksie; en swart ekonomiese bemagtiging. Oor plaasmoorde het Fourie gesê: “In enige land waar daar 1 600 mense uit ’n spesifieke groep in 20 jaar vermoor is, is daar fout.” Hy het gesê internasionaal is die gemiddelde moordsyfer sewe uit elke 100 000 sterftes. In Suid-Afrika is dit 32 en as net die plaasgemeenskap geneem word, is dit 152.
Mulder het gesê dat Suid-Afrika begin agter raak by internasionale praktyk wat minderheidsregte betref, kwel hom. “Die probleem is as jy minderheidsregte noem, gaan gedagtes terug na apartheid,” het hy gesê. Hy het benadruk dat dit nie die doel van minderheidsregte is nie. Mulder gaan ook volgende week die Unrepresented Nations and People’s Organisation (Unpo) se vergadering bywoon. “Dit is belangrik dat jy die buiteland op die hoogte hou, ook van die negatiewe goed.”
(vervolg in 2015)
Daar was al voorheen soortgelyke afvaardigings en geleenthede op internasionale vlak wat minderhede se toekoms in Suid-Afrika aangespreek het. Plaasmoorde was al menige kere aangespreek en onder die internasionale liggame se aandag gebring. Dis prysenswaardig dat daar opvolgbesoeke plaasvind, maar dit keer altyd terug na die gemeenskap wat dit die meeste voel: Afrikaners en blankes.
Daar moet ook nie uit die oog verloor word dat daar spesifieke redes is hoekom dit noodsaaklik is vir so ‘n besoek, en dat ons omstandighede die laaste paar jaar aansienlik versleg het.
Ons wil dit weer eens beklemtoon: Dit is nooit te laat om op te staan waar menseregte en kulture vernietig word nie. Dit moet eerder as ‘n uitdaging en inspirasie gesien word om oplossings intern te vind. Ander organisasies en gemeenskappe gaan dit nie vir ons doen nie – hetsy dit ander regeringleiers is, of die plaaslike liberales en kommuniste wat juis daarop uit is om kulture te vermoor. Geen een het ‘n mandaat om namens ‘n ander volk enige besluite te neem nie.
Terloops – laat diegene wat anders wil wees en nie trots op hul kultuur, tradisies en taal nie, maar saam die swart reenboognasie van Afrika smelt in hul eie multi-kultuur-reenboog wat nerens in die wereld werk nie.
Daar moet sterk gefokus word op die Afrikaners, Blankes en Boere se kultuur wat vernietig word, neem die foute van die verlede, kyk vorentoe – hou op om klippe te gooi en mekaar te verwyt – geen dade of verwyte van en sedert 1994 gaan vir ons selfbeskikking bewerkstellig nie. Ons het regtig nie die tyd om heeltyd stil te staan nie, daar is baie werk wat wag. Selfbeskikkingstrukture gaan hulle nie vanself landwyd bou as ons dit nie gesamentlik doen nie.
REGSBANK: Die Regsbank in Suid-Afrika is uit en uit vir die regering en dien die regering om toe te sien dat regstellende aksie en swart bemagtiging uitgevoer word. Dit verarm ons Afrikaners, Boere en Blankes nog meer dat organisasies die regsbanke ophemel wat dit nie is nie. Maandelikse bydraes hiertoe bring nie juis oplossings op hierdie gebied nie. Ons moet aanvaar ons regsbank is nie “onafhanklik” nie, want die teendeel spreek vanself. Regsbanke word oor die algemeen deur die regering aangestel en die duur kostes aan hofsake regverdig nie die roete nie. Hoeveel suksesvolverhale is al sedert 1994 aangeteken? Hoeveel finansiele uitgawes was al op hierdie gebied die afgelope 20 jaar versus die sukses verhale van regstellende aksie? Hoeveel van die nie-suksesverhale van regstellende aksie en swart bemagtiging sit in arm nedersettings en plakkerskampe – baie ouers leef weerloos onder bome en kinders hang in plakkershutte rond, dae sonder kos en water.
Ons fokuspunt is by Eksterne Selfbeskikking. DIS ABSOLUUT NOODSAAKLIK: STRUKTURE
Voeg die daad by die woord en maak die daad ‘n werklikheid. Ons weet al vir 20 jaar ons regte word geskend en slegs ons kan iets daaromtrent doen. Dit kan slegs gedoen word deur middel van strukture en vanuit eie geledere, om dit werklikheid te maak. Persone van ander lande LEEF en BLY nie in Suid-Afrika nie, maar vriende is altyd welkom vir ondersteuning. GEEN internasionale regering of minderheidsgroep in Suid-Afrika het ‘n mandaat of seggenskap om namens Afrikaners en blankes of ander minderhede daardie besluit te maak nie. Dit help beslis as daar voldoende korrekte inligting deurgaan, om steun te werf om sodoende, wanneer selfbeskikking bereik word, dit van daardie lande te verkry.
Kontak ons as u nog nie deel is van ons selfbeskikking strukture nie. Ons verlang slegs u dorp/ woonarea. Baie dankie
Please contact us if you are not part of our structures regarding self-determination.
Adv. Anton Alberts from the Freedom Front Plus wrote the following article on 18 November 2014. We thank him and the Freedom Front Plus for the information:
ANC IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT ITS OBLIGATIONS IN TERMS OF THE CONVENTION ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
<<<>>>Adv. Anton Alberts van die Vryheidsfront Plus het die volgende artikel op 18 November 2014 op hul webtuiste geskryf:ANC HET NIE ERNS MET SY VERPLIGTINGE TEENOOR DIE INTERNASIONALE KONVENSIE OOR BURGERLIKE EN POLITIEKE REGTE
In nog ŉ voorbeeld van die ANC-regering se onbeholpenheid en sy minagting van minderhede, het dit aan die lig gekom dat die regering na vyftien jaar nog nie sy verpligtinge teenoor die Verenigde Nasies (VN) se Konvensie oor Burgerlike en Politieke Regte nagekom het nie, sê adv. Anton Alberts, die VF Plus se parlementêre woordvoerder oor justisie en korrektiewe dienste. Adv. Alberts sê Suid-Afrika het die verdrag op 3 Oktober 1994 onderteken en dit is op 10 Desember 1998 bekragtig soos voorgeskryf deur die land se Grondwet. Die verdrag vereis onder meer dat ŉ lidland binne een jaar nadat hy amptelik deel geword het van die verdrag – in Suid-Afrika se geval 10 Desember 1998 – ŉ verslag moet indien oor stappe wat hy geneem het om die Konvensie se voorskrifte oor politieke en burgerlike regte na te kom. Daarna moet elke vyf jaar ŉ verslag ingedien word om te rapporteer oor die vordering wat gedoen is om die voorskrifte in werking te stel en na te kom. In antwoord op geskrewe parlementêre vrae van adv. Alberts oor die aangeleentheid, het minister Mike Masutha erken dat nog geen verslag ingedien is nie. Volgens hom lê daar ŉ verslag by die departement van internasionale verhoudinge en samewerking wat dit aan die VN moet oorhandig. Dit sal eers aan die Suid-Afrikaanse publiek voorgelê word vir insae nadat die VN se komitee oor menseregte dit behandel het, lui die antwoord. Masutha erken selfs dat die regering ŉ interdepartementele komitee saamgestel het om die ‘agterstand van die verslae te fasiliteer’. Adv. Alberts sê dit is skokkend dat die ANC-regering ŉ liggaam soos die VN bloot minag en dit wys terselfdertyd dat die minderhede en hul regte in Suid-Afrika nie vir die ANC-regering belangrik is nie. “Die regering maak ŉ grap van die Konvensie. Die verskonings vir die vertraging is onaanvaarbaar en wys dat die staat bloot die Konvensie onderteken het as deel van ŉ proses om ŉ goeie beeld voor te hou en nie omdat hulle werklik daaraan wil voldoen nie. “Die ANC wil op die morele hoë grond bly sonder om enige werklike stappe te neem soos wat die Konvensie uitstip. Deel hiervan is die swak konsultasieproses met belanghebbendes in Suid-Afrika en veral met minderhede.
“Volgens die antwoord is daar met burgerlike organisasies gekonsulteer deur die Menseregte-Instituut van Suid-Afrika. Die vraag is wie is die organisasie en watter status het hierdie organisasie? Geen Afrikaners, Khoisan of bruinmense is daarheen genooi nie. “Dit is skrikwekkend dat ŉ verslag wat Suid-Afrika se minderhede direk raak aan die VN voorgelê gaan word sonder dat minderhede self insae daarin gehad het. Die VF Plus sal die aangeleentheid opvolg deur die verslag te bestudeer sodra dit beskikbaar is en sal klagte by die VN indien, indien nodig,” sê adv. Alberts.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING: INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966
Optional Protocol to the above-mentioned Covenant. Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966
The States Parties to the present Covenant, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice
and peace in the world,
Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,
Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,
Agree upon the following articles:
Article 1. 1.
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their eco
nomic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having respon sibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 2. 1.
1, Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set
forth in the present Covenant.
1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the
present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.
3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.
Article 5. 1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Article 6. 1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without
his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.
3. (a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour, (o) Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprison
ment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court.
(c) For the purpose of this paragraph the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:
(i) Any work or service, not referred to in sub-paragraph (b), normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention;
(ii) Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors;
(iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(iv) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his
liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.
(to be continued …………) (vervolg)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY:
South Africa has a vibrant multiparty political system, with 13 parties represented in the National Assembly of Parliament.
BACKGROUND ON SOUTH AFRICAN PARLIAMENT:
The National Assembly has 400 members. The number of seats that a party has in the Assembly is in proportion to the number of voters that voted for it in the elections. The South African Parliament is bound by the Constitution and must act within its limits.
The African National Congress is the majority party, with 264 of the 400 National Assembly seats. The following table shows the party composition of the National Assembly over time.
|Event||Date||ANC||DP / DA||NP / NNP||COPE||EFF||IFP||NFP||VF / VF+||UDM||ACDP||ID||Others|
|1994 election||27 April 1994||252||7||82||—||—||43||—||9||—||2||—||5|
|1999 election||2 June 1999||266||38||28||—||—||34||—||14||6||3||—||11|
|2003 floor-crossing||4 April 2003||275||46||20||—||—||31||—||3||4||7||1||13|
|2004 election||14 April 2004||279||50||7||—||—||28||—||4||9||7||7||9|
|2005 floor-crossing||15 September 2005||293||47||—||—||—||23||—||4||6||4||5||18|
|2007 floor-crossing||15 September 2007||297||47||—||—||—||23||—||4||6||4||4||15|
|2009 election||22 April 2009||264||67||—||30||—||18||—||4||4||3||4||6|
|2014 election||7 May 2014||249||89||—||3||25||10||6||4||4||3||—||7|
The party also controls eight of the country’s nine provinces, with the exception of the Western Cape, where the Democratic Alliance won the majority in the 2009 elections. The ANC also controls five of the six metropolitan municipalities. Nonetheless, South Africa’s opposition parties remain robust and vocal.
In South Africa’s second democratic general election in 1999, the African National Congress won 266 seats. They were followed by the Democratic Party with 38 seats, the Inkatha Freedom Party with 34, the New National Party with 28, and the United Democratic Movement with 14. Other smaller parties are also represented. The National Council of Provinces. Also participating in the legislative process is the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), a body created to achieve co-operative governance and participatory democracy. It is through this body that national and provincial interests are aligned in national legislation that affects the provinces. The NCOP consists of 54 permanent members and 36 special delegates, and elects its own chairperson. Each of South Africa’s nine provinces sends 10 representatives to the NCOP – six permanent members, and four special delegates headed by the provincial premier or a member of the provincial legislature designated by the premier. There is a formula to ensure that each province’s delegation includes representation by minority parties. In addition, local (municipal) government representatives may participate in the NCOP but not vote – 10 part-time members represent different categories of municipalities. The South African Local Government Association joined the NCOP in February 1998. The President and the Cabinet The President, elected by the National Assembly from among its members, is the executive Head of State and leads the Cabinet. The President may not serve more than two five-year terms in office. The Cabinet consists of the President, the Deputy President and 25 Ministers. The President appoints the Deputy President and Ministers, assigns their powers and functions, and may dismiss them. All but two Ministers must be selected from among the members of the National Assembly. The members of Cabinet are accountable individually and collectively to Parliament. Deputy Ministers are also appointed by the President from among the members of the National Assembly.
IMPORTANT NOTES AND RULES: WHAT FACTS HAVE BEEN STIPULATED IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN PARLIAMENTARY (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY’S) RULES?
WE QUOTED A FEW OF THEM:
(1) A committee must report to the Assembly on a matter referred to the committee —
(a) when the Assembly is to decide the matter in terms of these Rules, the Joint Rules, a resolution of the Assembly or legislation;
(b) if the committee has taken a decision on the matter, whether or not the Assembly is to decide the matter as contemplated in paragraph (a); or
(c) if the committee is unable to decide a matter referred to it for a report.
(2) A committee must report to the Assembly on —
(a) all other decisions taken by it, except those decisions concerning its internal business; and
(b) its activities at least once per year.
(3) A report of a committee —
(a) must be submitted to the Assembly by the chairperson or another member of the committee designated by the committee; and
(b) may request that the chairperson or another member of the committee designated by the committee introduces or explains the report in the Assembly.
(4) A committee may not submit a minority report except where provided for in these Rules.
(5) If a committee reports on a matter other than a matter mentioned in Subrule (1)(a) and is of the view that its report, or a specific matter mentioned in the report, should be considered by the Assembly, it may make a request to that effect in the report.
138. General powers
For the purposes of performing its functions a committee may, subject to the Constitution, legislation, the other provisions of these Rules and resolutions of the Assembly —
(a) summon any person to appear before it to give evidence on oath or affirmation, or to produce documents;
(b) receive petitions, representations or submissions from interested persons or institutions;
(c) conduct public hearings;
(d) permit oral evidence on petitions, representations, submissions and any other matter before the committee;
(e) determine its own procedure;
(f) meet at a venue determined by it, which may be a venue beyond the seat of Parliament;
(g) meet on any day and at any time, including —
(i) on a day which is not a working day;
(ii) on a day on which the Assembly is not sitting;
(iii) at a time when the Assembly is sitting; or
(iv) during a recess;
(h) exercise any other powers assigned to it by the Constitution, legislation, the other provisions of these Rules or resolutions of the Assembly.
152. Admission of the public
(1) Meetings of committees and subcommittees are open to the public, including the media, and the member presiding may not exclude the public, including the media, from the meeting, except when —
(a) legislation, these Rules or resolutions of the Assembly provide for the committee or subcommittee to meet in closed session; or
(b) the committee or subcommittee is considering a matter which is —
(i) of a private nature that is prejudicial to a particular person;
(ii) protected under parliamentary privilege, or for any other reason privileged in terms of the law;
(iii) confidential in terms of legislation; or
(iv) of such a nature that its confidential treatment is for any other reason reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.
(2) A decision in terms of Subrule (1) to exclude the public must be taken by the committee or subcommittee concerned, provided that the chairperson of the committee or subcommittee may at any time —
(a) before the start of the meeting Rule that the meeting must take place in closed session, but the committee or subcommittee may at any time after the start of the meeting open the meeting; or
(b) close the meeting for a decision by the committee or subcommittee whether the matter should be considered in closed session.
(3) The Speaker must —
(a) set aside places for the public in the committee rooms; and
(b) determine the entrances and routes through which the public can obtain access to these places.
(4) The Speaker may take reasonable measures —
(a) to regulate public access, including access of the media, to the committees and subcommittees;
(b) to prevent and control misconduct of the public in committee rooms; and
(c) to provide for the searching of any person, including that person’s vehicle or other property in that person’s possession, and, where appropriate, the refusal of entry to, or the removal of any person.
154. Exclusion of members of the public from meetings
The member presiding at a meeting of a committee or subcommittee may —
(a) order a member of the public to leave the meeting —
(i) when the public is excluded from a meeting in terms of Rule 152(1); or
(ii) when necessary to give effect to the measures taken under Rule 152(3); or
(b) order a person referred to in Rule 151 to leave the meeting if that person does not comply with a ruling of the presiding member.
155. Exclusion of other persons from meetings
When the public is excluded from a meeting of a committee or subcommittee in terms of Rule 152(1), the member presiding may order a staff member, a member or official of the executive or a member of Parliament who is not a member of the committee or subcommittee, also to leave the meeting.
157. Publication or disclosure of proceedings, evidence, reports, etc.
(1) All documents officially before, or emanating from, a committee or subcommittee are open to the public, including the media, but the following documents may not be published, and their contents may not be disclosed, except with the permission of the committee, or the parent committee in the case of a subcommittee, or by order of the Speaker, or by resolution of the Assembly:
(a) The proceedings of, or evidence taken by or placed before, the committee or subcommittee while the public were excluded from a meeting in terms of Rule 152(1).
(b) Any report or summary of such proceedings or evidence.
(c) Any document placed before or presented to the committee or subcommittee as a confidential document and declared by it as a confidential document.
(d) Any document —
(i) submitted or to be submitted to members of the committee or subcommittee as a confidential document by order of the chairperson of the committee or subcommittee; or
(ii) after its submission to members declared by the chairperson as a confidential document.
(2) The permission, order or resolution authorising the publication, or the disclosure of the contents, of documents mentioned in Subrule (1) may provide that specific parts of, or names mentioned in, the document may not be published or disclosed.
(3) For the purposes of Subrule (1) a document is officially before a committee or subcommittee when —
(a) the presiding member places the document, or permits the document to be placed. before the committee or subcommittee; or
(b) a person appearing before the committee or subcommittee as a witness or to make representations, presents the document to the committee or subcommittee.
(4) Subrule (1)(c) and (d) applies only to documents that —
(a) contain private information that is prejudicial to a particular person;
(b) are protected under parliamentary privilege, or for any other reason are privileged in terms of the law;
(c) are confidential in terms of legislation;
(d) are subject to a media embargo, until the embargo expires; or
(e) are of such a nature that their confidential treatment is for any other reason reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.
177. Functions and powers
The Subcommittee may —
(a) make recommendations to the Rules Committee on the
development, formulation and adoption of policy regarding the administration and management of the Assembly, including —
(iii) household services and catering;
(iv) human resource development and training;
(v) information systems and the library; and
(vi) public relations and public education;
(b) monitor and oversee the implementation of policy on the matters referred to in paragraph (a) and make recommendations in this regard to the Rules Committee; and
(c) perform any other function and exercise any other power assigned to it by the Rules Committee.
The Subcommittee on International Relations consists of –
(a) the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker;
(b) the House Chairperson designated by the Speaker;
(c) three members of the majority party in the Assembly;
(d) one member from each of the three largest minority parties in the Assembly;
(e) one member from each of two of the other minority parties in the Assembly;
(f) one member from the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs designated by the committee; and
(g) three chairpersons of Assembly committees designated by the Committee of Chairpersons.
[Rule 178 substituted, 2 Sept 1999]
[Rule 178 substituted, 2 November 2006]
203F. Public involvement
The committee must ensure public involvement in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, 2009.
[Part 9A, Rules 203A – F inserted, 22 June 2011]
DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
103. Matter of public importance
(1) A private member may request the Speaker to place a matter of public importance on the Order Paper for discussion.
(2) The member shall make the request to the Speaker before the adjournment of this House on the previous sitting day.
(3) Such a discussion shall not exceed the time allocated for it by the Speaker after consultation with the Leader of the House.
[NOTE: For application of reference of “Leader of the House”, see Rule 222 and Section 91(4) of the Constitution.]
(4) If 15 minutes before the expiration of the allocated time a member other than the responsible Minister is speaking, the presiding officer shall interrupt such member and shall ascertain from the Minister whether or not he or she wishes to reply.
(5) (a) Questions of privilege may not be discussed under this Rule.
(b) Matters already discussed by this House during the same session may not be discussed under this Rule.
BAIE BELANGRIK: DIE NKANDLA VERSLAG IS ‘N VOORBEELD HOE ‘N MEERDERHEIDSPARTY MINDERHEDE SE INSETTE IGNOREER EN VERWERP (SIEN OOK DIE REELS VAN DIE PARLEMENT HIERBO AANGEHAAL)
Die afgelope gebeure rondom die Nkandla verslag bewys weer eens watter bestuurstyl toegepas word en dat die meerderheidsparty se woord wet is. Die komitee wat aangestel was om Nkandla verder te ondersoek, nadat Adv. Madonsela sin verwerp is, het skipbreuk gely waartydens opposisiepartye uit die komitee gestap het om hul eie verslag saam te stel. Weer eens, sal die reel in die parlement moontlik verwerp word, want minderhede mag nie verslag voorle as ons dit reg interpreteer nie.
Suid-Afrika word nie demokraties regeer nie, maar diktatoriaal. Die grootste leuenpolitiek en vanuit die liberales se oogpunte, is die kastige “reenboognasie van mnr F W de Klerk en mnr Tutu, hul ondersteuners “. Die geteem dat ander minderhede, wat nie met die konsep van “reenboognasie” saamstem nie, “regs” is, is ookal holrug gery.
Van Suid-Afrika se eie minderheidsgroepe, spesifiek Afrikaners, Blankes, Bruines, Gekleurdes, Indiers, ens. word verwag om hul eie kulture, identiteite, taal en elke moontlike gebied, oorboord te gooi, ontslae te raak om saam met die res van die Afrika en elders se swart immigrante een “reenboognasie” saam te smelt.
Afrikaners en blankes in hierdie land maak deel uit van hierdie minderheidsgroepe wat geen seggenskap oor hulself het nie, nie net word hul taal en kultuur onder groot druk geplaas nie, maar daar word ook teen hulle gediskrimineer deur middel van verskeie wetgewing wat hulle uit die ekonomie hou – Swart Bemagtiging (B-BBEE, EE, AA).
Aan die liberales en diegene wat ander wat nie met julle saamstem as “regs” beskou, die volgende vraag: Hoekom word daar aan swart etniese groepe erkenning verleen, maar nie aan die ander etniese groepe nie? Dit sal beslis verder bespreek word in opvolg artikels. .
Minderhede soos die Afrikaners en blankes se regte word vertrap en eenvoudig “vermoor”.
Ons Afrikaners en blankes volke wat eksterne selfbeskikking nastreef, sien dit uit ‘n ander oogpunt. Omdat ons hierdie swart etniese groepe hul eie volk, etnisiteit, taal, tradisies, ens. erken en dit vir hulle gun, is ons verwagtinge van hulle kant dieselfde wanneer ons eksterne selfbeskikking verkry. Eksterne Selfbeskikking moet aan alle etniese groepe verleen word. Die swartes wat nie eiendom in hierdie Trustgebiede besit of kan koop nie, moet toegelaat word om eiendom hier te koop net soos elders in die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. Dit is een van die grootste redes hoekom swartes van hierdie eiendomme so afbrand, omdat hulle menseregte geskend word. Ons het ook geen probleem dat die “liberales” of die wat nie selfbeskikking nastreef nie, vermeng raak in die “reenboognasie”.
SWARTES SE MENSEREGTE WORD OOK GESKEND
Nog ‘n voorbeeld hoe blatante rassisme plaasvind, waar een etniese groep bo ‘n ander gestel word. Kortliks oor Swart Trustgebiede ( meer inligting volg binnekort)
Daar word al vanaf 1994 gepoog dat Afrikaners en blankes selfbeskikking verkry, maar tot hede word hulle pogings die wind ingeblaas en as “apartheid” beskou. Die wettige akkoorde bestaan steeds en is bindend. Selfbeskikking word internasionaal erken – dit het absoluut niks met apartheid te doen nie.
Daar is tans meer dan 11 etniese swart minderheidsgroepe in Suid-Afrika, waarvan die 11 hoofgroepe reeds op ‘n politieke en kulturele basis erkenning geniet. Hul koninklikes geniet status op nasionale en provinsiale vlakke. Hoekom nie al die etniese groepe nie?
Trustgebiede is sedert 1994 deur die A N C en ander politieke partye in die Parlement gewettig deur middel van verskeie rassistiese en diskriminerende wette, naamlik Trustwette, ens. Hierdie rassistiese wette moet geskrap word en daar behoort slegs Eksterne Selfbeskikking aan hierdie etniese swart bevolkingsgroepe verleen word, soos wat Botswana en Swaziland opereer.
Elkeen van hierdie swart etniese bevolkingsgroepe leef en woon in hul eie gebiede onder ‘n koning wat sedert 1994 ruim vergoeding ontvang (artikel volg). Hierdie Trustwette is so omskryf dat slegs hul eie gemeenskappe op daardie grond mag WOON, ander gemeenskapsgroepe mag nie hier woon en besighede bedryf nie.
Slegs EEN koning is in besit van sy Trustgrond en mag besluit of sy inwoners mag grond koop en verkoop, terwyl inwoners van die ander 10 Trustgebiede geen grond verkoop of gekoop nie, omdat die grond aan die staat behoort.
Bogenoemde sluit NIE die miljoene immigrante van Afrika en elders in, wat op ‘n daaglikse basis ons land binnestroom oor grense wat nie beman word nie.
Let wel: Geen statistieke bestaan of word gehou onder hierdie immigrante nie, aangesien daar nog nooit ‘n sensus gehou is nie. Die paar duisend wat “wettig” die land binnekom is slegs ‘n druppel in die emmer teenoor die onwettiges in di eland. Ook hierdie immigrante word apart ingeprop om op Suid-Afrikaanse grond wat miljoene hektaar beloop, te gaan plak en woon ook apart van die etniese swart groepe in die land, waarvan sommiges in “metro-state” en munisipaliteite opgeneem word, aandring op gratis dienste, skole, medies, toelaes, ens.
Die Volkstaatraad is in 1994 aangestel en hul pogings is tot datum nie afgehandel nie. In sommige gevalle is dit ook eensydig geignoreer deur die huidige regering en die Volkstaatraad is selfs eensydig deur die A N C regering geskrap. Dit wil se, omdat hulle in die meerderheid is, maak hulle soos hulle lekkerkry.
IMPORTANT NOTE: NEEM KENNIS VAN EENSYDIGE BESLUIT
>>>>> please note : in this article it was referred to “right wing Afrikaners” but remember self-determination has nothing to do with the “right wing Afrikaners”, the agreement was signed on behalf of ALL Afrikaners – read the Accord of Genl. Constand Viljoen.
Parliament tackles Volkstaat Bill
Lees volgende berig van 2001
Volkstaatraad baklei vir sy oorlewing
Kaapstad en Pretoria
TERWYL die ANC gereed maak om die doodsklok vir die omstrede Volkstaatraad te lui, het die Vryheidsfront ‘n dringende ontmoeting met die Regering oor die aangeleentheid aangevra. Die VF is erg ontstoke en sê dit is nie moontlik om die Volkstaatraad in September te ontbind nie. Dit kom nadat mnr. Vali Moosa, Minister van Provinsiale Sake en Grondwetlike Ontwikkeling, op ‘n vergadering van die parlementêre portefeuljekomitee oor staatkundige ontwikkeling aangedui het dat die Volkstaatraad in September vanjaar ontbind kan word.
Genl. Constand Viljoen, leier van die VF, sê die ANC is ‘n “onbetroubare, moraliteitlose” party. Die ontbinding van die Volkstaatraad is nie met hom bespreek nie. “Ek is verstom oor die ANC se arrogante houding. Ek is beskikaar en my deur staan oop. Hulle probeer my ignoreer en gee nie erkenning aan my bydrae tot die vreedsame oorgangsfase nie. “
Hulle probeer my diskrediteer as leier van die Vryheidsfront vir hul eie politieke doeleindes.” Viljoen sê as die suggesties om die Volkstaatraad te ontbind voortgaan, sal dit neerkom op ‘n verbreking van ‘n ooreenkoms wat hy met die ANC gesluit het.
Dr. Corné Mulder, VF-woordvoerder oor grondwetlike sake, het bevestig dat die party ‘n dringende ontmoeting met die ANC aangevra het. Hy sê die Volkstaatraad kan nie ontbind word voordat die ANC erkenning aan die ideaal van ‘n volkstaat gee nie. “Die gesprekke tussen die ANC en die VF oor ‘n volkstaat is nou by ‘n kruispad. Dit is ja of nee.”
Moosa het aan Rapport gesê daar is nooit voorsien dat die Volkstaatraad ‘n blywende liggaam sou wees nie. Sy standpunt is dat die Volkstaatraad vir die onmiddellike toekoms moet voortbestaan. Hy voorsien dat dit tot September sal wees, maar benadruk dat geen finale besluit nog geneem is nie. Hy wil eers met die VF daaroor praat. Dit is moontlik dat die voorgestelde kommissie vir taal-, godsdiens- en taalgemeenskappe sekere dele van die Volkstaatraad se werk kan oorneem. Oor ‘n onafhanklike volkstaat sê hy: “Dit is nie in dié stadium moontlik nie, gesien teen die agtergrond van die politieke werklikhede in Suid-Afrika.” Hy laat egter ‘n agterdeur oop. Dit is nie onmoontlik dat die Noordwes-korridor van die Oranjerivier tot by die Atlantiese Oseaan mettertyd tot ‘n kulturele en godsdiens-sentrum en tuiste vir Afrikaners kan ontwikkel nie. “Dit kan gebeur. Nie nou nie, maar as daar ‘n wil onder ‘n groot genoeg aantal Afrikaners is, kan dit ‘n tuiste word.” Die voorsitter van die Volkstaatraad, prof. Pikkie Robbertze, sê die raad kan nie eensydig deur die Regering afgeskaf word nie omdat dit ná ‘n ooreenkoms tussen die Regering en die Vryheidsfront tot stand gekom het. Die wet wat aan die raad beslag gegee het, bepaal dat die liggaam net ontbind kan word ná ‘n ooreenkoms tussen die President en die raad. Robbertze meen die Volkstaatraad se taak is nog nie naastenby afgehandel nie. Dit kan eers gebeur as selfbeskikking vir die Afrikaner verwesenlik is. “Daar is talle kwessies oor selfbeskikking en die Grondwet wat voortdurende ondersoek vereis.” Intussen, sê hy, doen die Volkstaatraad ook navorsing oor die ekonomiese lewensvatbaarheid van vier gebiede wat hy voorheen al uitgewys het as moontlike Afrikanergebiede van die toekoms: ‘n gebied in Mpumalanga, een in die Bosveld, die Pretoria/Centurion-gebied en die Noordwes-Kaap. Dit is nie die taak van die Volkstaatraad om voorkeur aan ‘n enkele gebied te gee as dié een wat dalk die beste tot ‘n volwaardige volkstaat kan ontwikkel nie. “Dit is nie ‘n akademiese instelling se taak om so ‘n besluit te neem nie. Dis die politici se verantwoordelikheid. Elke gebied het positiewe én negatiewe faktore.”
Terwyl sommige liberales in Suid-Afrika verkies om nie kennis te dra van die reg van elke volk tot selfbeskikking of ‘n Volkstaatraad nie, weet baie Afrikaners en blankes nie van die Volkstaatraad, nie nog minder van hul reg tot selfbeskikking nie.
Die Volkstaatraad het ontstaan na aanleiding van Generaal Constand Viljoen se Akkoord wat hy namens ALLE AFRIKANERS in 1994 onderteken het. Die Akkoord is reeds elders in ‘n vorige artikel vermeld.
In dieselfde tyd het die koning van die Zulu’s, Koning Zwelithini, ‘n soortgelyke Akkoord aangegaan om selfbeskikking te verkry. /
Tot hede en vandag, is geen selfbeskikking verkry nie en word elke selfbeskikkingsproses as “apartheid” afgemaak. Hierdie Akkoord van Genl. Constand Viljoen is in 1994 aangegaan en onderteken.
LET WEL: Die 1996 grondwet het absoluut niks met hierdie Akkoord te doen nie en kan ook nie van toepassing gemaak word op die 1994 Akkoord nie.
Selfs in die nuwe grondwet van 1996 word ook na die reg tot selfbeskikking verwys.
Ons haal gedeeltes van ‘n verslag aan, dan kan u uself vergewis wie op hierdie Volkstaatraad was (is), dalk is hulle aan u bekend. Die verslag is op die internet beskikbaar:
SECOND REPORT – SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
This report enjoys the unanimous support of the Volkstaat Council. The members are:
1. Mr Johann Wingard (Chairman)
2. Mr Dirk Viljoen (Vice-Chairman)
3. Prof Hercules Booysen
4. Mrs Anna Boshoff
5. Mr Carel Boshoff
6. Mr Flip Buys
7. Mr Duncan du Bois
8. Adv Chris de Jager (SC)
9. Dr Wally Grant
10. Dr Chris Jooste
11. Mr Mars de Kierk
12. Dr Piet Liebenberg
13. Dr Natie Luyt
14. Lt-Gen Ernest Pienaar
15. Mr Koos Reyneke
16. Prof Pikkie Robbertze
17. Comdt Douw Steyn
18. Mr Herman Vercueil
19. Mr Riaan Visagie
20. Lt-Gen Kobus Visser
…………. to be continued (verslag sal aangehaal word)
Guide to International Procedures Available in Cases of Human Rights Violations in Africa
Claiming Human Rights – in South Africa
In as far as South Africa has ratified the Optional Protocols for UN Human Rights Conventions or has accepted the Competence of the corresponding UN Treaty Bodies , the inhabitants of South Africa and their representatives are able to invoke their human rights through these bodies. All inhabitants of South Africa may turn to the UN Human Rights Committee through procedure 1503, to the Special Rapporteurs for violations of specific human rights or to ECOSOC for women’s rights violations. Since South Africa is a member state of UNESCO, its citizens may use the UNESCO procedure for human rights violations in UNESCO’s fields of mandate.
Employers’ or workers’ and certain other organizations (not individuals) of South Africa may file complaints through the ILO procedure in the cases of those conventions which South Africa has ratified. Since South Africa is an AU member, its citizens and NGOs may file complaints to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. They may also file complaints according to the EU guidelines (on Human Rights Defenders, Death Penalty and Torture) to Embassies of EU Member States and the Delegations of the European Commission. In cases of human rights violations by multinational enterprises, they may also invoke the National Contact Point in an OECD member state.
South Africa has joined the International Criminal Court, it may thus be called upon in case of severe crimes.
Thanks for reading the article.
Skryf gerus aan ons u mening of neem deel aan gesprekke op EKP firstname.lastname@example.org , en moenie vergeet om in te teken op EKP se nuusbrief nie.