"Ban property sales to whites" - government

[Sneeky]

Just when you thought you had heard it all,,,


In a shock request in Parliament, Department of Land Affairs' deputy director-general Sipho Sibanda called on Parliamentarians to implement a two-year moratorium on the sale of state land to foreigners and white people, a newspaper has reported

The Times said Sibanda told Parliament on Wednesday: "A moratorium of about two years, prohibiting the disposal of state land to foreigners, and to nationals who do not qualify for redress under the national land policies and legislation, should be put in place."
http://www.realestateweb.co.za/realestateweb/view/realestateweb/en/page310?oid=1715&sn=Detail
Now just how far can you push this :sick: 'redressing of wrongs'. Maybe white people should also not pay tax for 2 years.?

[alloytoo]

Just when you thought you had heard it all,,,


http://www.realestateweb.co.za/realestateweb/view/realestateweb/en/page310?oid=1715&sn=Detail
Now just how far can you push this :sick: 'redressing of wrongs'. Maybe white people should also not pay tax for 2 years.?

Hell yeah, if the take away our rights lets take away our money.

[Alan]

Zim 2.0

:o

[Sebs]

It's just the apartheid mentality all over again: Put racism into the statute books. If all we've done as a nation is to move from one bad system to another, we may as well have stayed where we were.

[Gothan]

Hell yeah, if the take away our rights lets take away our money.

Yip, no taxation without representation, and guess what, we are not represented

[Sebs]

Yip, no taxation without representation, and guess what, we are not represented

You can vote, can't you?

[BT6LW]

Viva le revolution...

let the ****ers keep pushing cr@p like this....

we will revolt... if we get pushed far enough

[Gothan]

You can vote, can't you?


Still not represented, the miracle of our democracy, there will never ever be an effective opposition, way too much hatred in the ruling majority

[Moederloos]

Zim 2.0 for sure.

Welcome to Africa - abandon all hope ye who enter here.

[rwenzori]

You can vote, can't you?

Yes but the Soccer Party got no seats. :(

Our representation is trivial in comparison to our taxation.

[gboy]

this wont happen, - just someone looking for attention, many reasons why this wont happen. i would not be to bothered.

[BT6LW]

and with floor crossing being allowed, the anc simply buy whatever seats they don't win

[alloytoo]

and with floor crossing being allowed, the anc simply buy whatever seats they don't win

with our money....er I mean hidden arms deal profits and the like....Shabir & Chippy know how.

[Geriatrix]

this wont happen, - just someone looking for attention, many reasons why this wont happen. i would not be to bothered.
What, like the media censorship bill that won't happen? The one thats going to prompt a constitutional change because the constitution doesn't allow it?

Or is it not going to happen like the NPA and courts won't be interfered with buy senior ANC members and, dare I say the actual president?

This year has changed my perception from slight optimism to "pack my bags and get the **** out".
Every week there's some new INSANE headline reporting a new low(or high up) in corruption, the latest race-based policies or barbaric crimes that the government is cooking up or allowing in this country.

[noxibox]

Is the headline deliberately misleading and inflammatory or is that an oversight?


a two-year moratorium on the sale of state land
Is there more to it because it doesn't sound like "ban property sales to whites"?

[Highflyer_GP]

Is the headline deliberately misleading and inflammatory or is that an oversight?


Is there more to it because it doesn't sound like "ban property sales to whites"?

I'm guessing that it's possibly old Transnet land along the railways and such. Don't know why people are complaining, unless they want to live there?

[alloytoo]

Is the headline deliberately misleading and inflammatory or is that an oversight?


Is there more to it because it doesn't sound like "ban property sales to whites"?

A two-year moratorium on the sale of state land to anyone (except as part of the formal redistribution program) would be appropriate.

"Certain Nationals?" that's discrimation.

[chiskop]

Is the headline deliberately misleading and inflammatory or is that an oversight?


:rolleyes: Take your pick.

Anyway, the Business Day reported the issue quite differently (http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A590083), if anyone's interested.

[noxibox]

Every week there's some new INSANE headline reporting a new low(or high up) in corruption, the latest race-based policies or barbaric crimes that the government is cooking up or allowing in this country.
Other, western, governments are equally corrupt, but they seem to be better at keeping it under the radar. More practice I suppose.

[Nod]

Is there really such a huge amount of state land being sold? What is this land used for once sold? If it's used for the greater good (private schools, farming, etc), do you want to prevent somebody from doing something with it? Aren't we just going to sit with a situation where this land will sit unused for 2 years, because there are no buyers? Will the price be dropped in these 2 years to encourage black buy-in?

[Sneeky]

Is the headline deliberately misleading and inflammatory or is that an oversight?


Is there more to it because it doesn't sound like "ban property sales to whites"?

No, the suggestion is to ban the sale of state land to those that dont *cough* qualify,

"A moratorium of about two years, prohibiting the disposal of state land to foreigners, and to nationals who do not qualify for redress under the national land policies and legislation, should be put in place."

What impact would this have on developers for instance?
Personally I support the moratorium regarding foreign ownership, but locals, nee man.

[Pitbull]

state land to foreigners and white people

tbh.

Who wants State own land anyway :confused:

This whole thread is a joke. Next time maybe ready what is says and understand what it says :rolleyes:

[Sneeky]

Who wants State own land anyway :confused:

the people that build all the houses and complexes i would imagine.

[Pitbull]

the people that build all the houses and complexes i would imagine.

:confused:

There is no such thing. If you're building a complex in an urban area, it is already owned by someone. Unless ofc you want to build where a park is now. Rural land is mostly owned by farmers. State owned land like mentioned above would mostly be Spoornet/Transnet properties.

[noxibox]

"Certain Nationals?" that's discrimation.
Perhaps so, but in the past state land is likely to have been sold exclusively to whites. What would concern me is whether this land would end up being sold to wealthy black people or to poorer people to spread the benefit around.

Like it or not things have to be pulled in the opposite direction. Our society was horribly skewed and it is going to take a long time to rectify, even with the measures in place. Some of those may be misguided, some may be inadequate. That may be the actual central problem, that these measures are not being adjusted as required.

[Sneeky]

:confused:

There is no such thing. If you're building a complex in an urban area, it is already owned by someone. Unless ofc you want to build where a park is now. Rural land is mostly owned by farmers. State owned land like mentioned above would mostly be Spoornet/Transnet properties.
I dont agree, all land is state land until it is transfered into pvt hands one way or anoother, you have to start somewhere.
Parastatals and listed companies do own vast tracks of land. Some of the listed companies have been selling off theirs but should say an entity like Transnet choose to do the same, certain people would be excluded from the equation completely based on race. Cant swallow it, soz.

[Geriatrix]

My response although a little to harsh( sorry guys, rough day) was because they're proposing the ban of property sale based on race.

Chiskops link made things a little clearer and it seems that sanity may prevail.

But to say that "its only state land" is, to me, a little short sighted. Once you allow one race based property law, it paves to way to other ones.

[MacNabs]

this wont happen, - just someone looking for attention, many reasons why this wont happen. i would not be to bothered.

yea right, we all wish that, Zuma for president, it wont happen... bout time south africans started opening their eyes, because it is going to happen. Todays rumors, tomorrows reality.

[lsuacner]

Seems to me that it comes down to white people having no rights. I hope the law goes through, because that will make the prices of houses go up, as there will be much fewer white developers building houses for black people or creating job opportunities related to construction or otherwise. Ah well.

I like it if the ANC screws themselves and their own supporters, takes the burden of continued oppression from the Afrikaner. <-- with sarcastic reference to people who believe Afrikaners are trying to oppress them still.

[MacNabs]

I like it if the ANC screws themselves and their own supporters, takes the burden of continued oppression from the Afrikaner. <-- with sarcastic reference to people who believe Afrikaners are trying to oppress them still.

Manto, she must be getting so much AWB support lately, she is doing them such a huge favor.

[timgaul]

I have an idea! Lets ban all Indians from owning land in the Transvaal... Oh, what? That's been done? The Transvaal doesn't exist? But this sounds like the Group Areas Act?

Blatant racism. Classic case of the abused child growing up to become the abuser...

[KillerX]

Whether or not it will be implemented is not important. The mere fact that the DEPUTY DIRECTOR of land affairs makes a statement like this just shows their true intent.

No, it wont happen soon. But give it a few years.... let them kill a few thousand more whites... drive a few thousand out the country... put a few thousand out of jobs with BEE and AA and there will be no one to stop them. Just like in Zimbabwe. Eventually, they will do as they please.

[NoADSLyet]

Whether or not it will be implemented is not important. The mere fact that the DEPUTY DIRECTOR of land affairs makes a statement like this just shows their true intent.

No, it wont happen soon. But give it a few years.... let them kill a few thousand more whites... drive a few thousand out the country... put a few thousand out of jobs with BEE and AA and there will be no one to stop them. Just like in Zimbabwe. Eventually, they will do as they please.
You forgot to mention the covert farms project!

[Dusk]

This for a country thats supposed to be a rainbow nation where color is not an issue???????
Maybe someone should put the lights back on because all i see of this rainbow is the color black.

[timgaul]

This for a country thats supposed to be a rainbow nation where color is not an issue???????
Maybe someone should put the lights back on because all i see of this rainbow is the color black.

This rainbow nation is a bit like my HP inkjet. The magenta and cyan are finished all I'm left with is yellow and black. :D

[reech]

fascists

[lion_fish]

This year has changed my perception from slight optimism to "pack my bags and get the **** out".
Every week there's some new INSANE headline reporting a new low(or high up) in corruption, the latest race-based policies or barbaric crimes that the government is cooking up or allowing in this country.

Exactly. Couldnt have said it better myself.

[sox63]

As usual the media, did not publish the entire facts.:rolleyes:

I just had a brief look at the report that forms the basis of the Department's request and it clearly states in the recomendations, that it is not a blanket prohibition, in as far as White South Africans are concerned. If the land in questions can be used for stuff like community relocations and so on, then "organs of the state" can refuse sale to said individuals.

One other thing the article does not point out is that these recomandations, are part of a whole lot more to ensure constitutional objectives in as far Land is concerned are achieved.

The link is at the bottom of the article.

[timgaul]

As usual the media, did not publish the entire facts.:rolleyes:

I just had a brief look at the report that forms the basis of the Department's request and it clearly states in the recomendations, that it is not a blanket prohibition, in as far as White South Africans are concerned. If the land in questions can be used for stuff like community relocations and so on, then "organs of the state" can refuse sale to said individuals.

One other thing the article does not point out is that these recomandations, are part of a whole lot more to ensure constitutional objectives in as far Land is concerned are achieved.

The link is at the bottom of the article.

The point made was: if you get away with this, what else can you get away with? Then its just a few short steps from blanketting everything.

[alloytoo]

As usual the media, did not publish the entire facts.:rolleyes:

I just had a brief look at the report that forms the basis of the Department's request and it clearly states in the recomendations, that it is not a blanket prohibition, in as far as White South Africans are concerned. If the land in questions can be used for stuff like community relocations and so on, then "organs of the state" can refuse sale to said individuals.

One other thing the article does not point out is that these recomandations, are part of a whole lot more to ensure constitutional objectives in as far Land is concerned are achieved.

The link is at the bottom of the article.

I do think that any criteria based on race is unconstitutional, and highly evocative. So much simpler to say that state land sales would be limited to the formalized restitution process.

[Sneeky]

Sox, it is discriminatory in the extreme and a preface for more entrenched racism.
It is the same as discrimination is ok, if it is justifiable.
Justifiable being open to many interpretations.

[sox63]

Sox, it is discriminatory in the extreme and a preface for more entrenched racism.
It is the same as discrimination is ok, if it is justifiable.
Justifiable being open to many interpretations.

Not to sound crude, but is that not what it exactly says in Constitution?

The descrimination part that is.

[Debbie]

I do think that any criteria based on race is unconstitutional.

Absolutely.

[Debbie]

Bill of Rights - chapter 2 section 9 (3):


the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on the basis of race...

[Sneeky]

Not verbatim I know, but that is what it amounts to.



9. Equality

1.

Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
2.

Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
3.

The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
4.

*1 No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
5.

Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

[Debbie]

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

Chapter 2, section 21(3):
Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in, the Republic.

[Sneeky]

read 5 Debbie.

from 9 Equality


5.

Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

[Debbie]

read 5 Debbie.

In this case it is a weak argument to fall back on the 'but redress the past' imperatives in the constitution. To specifically BAN people from buying state land because they are white is different to taking measures to advance the amount of land owned by people of other 'races'.

[Sneeky]

That clause in our constitution is open to interpretation and emotion from all sides of the fence.
It makes a mockery of 1 through to 4.

[Debbie]

That clause in our constitution is open to interpretation and emotion from all sides of the fence.
It makes a mockery of 1 through to 4.

Indeed, I agree.

In interpreting what the constitution says on seemingly conflictual clauses, the founding provisions and spirit of the constitution must be taken into consideration- hence my interpretation that banning the sale of state land to certain population groups would be unconstitutional.

[LoneGunman]

Its a nasty precedent, the Government deciding that whites can't buy a piece of property, and thinking they can simply say this, and remain 'democratic'.

Its a precedent.

Give it time, lets see which schmoozing real estate companies decide to curry favor with the Gov, and restrict their business dealings.

If it becomes useful and profitable to be able to tell the Government that you're not dealing with whites at all, watch how fast business moves in that direction.

It happened before, way back in the early stages of white Apartheid..

Furthermore, leaving 'discrimination' open to debate, is bollocks. The word itself implies unfairness to begin with. Either there's no discrimination, and a democratic society - or there is discrimination, and a racist authoritarian anti-democratic regime in power.

You can never say (as the Government is doing) that 'the end justifies the means'. History shows us over and over, what happens next, when governments and regimes use that thinking.

[sox63]

Indeed, I agree.

In interpreting what the constitution says on seemingly conflictual clauses, the founding provisions and spirit of the constitution must be taken into consideration- hence my interpretation that banning the sale of state land to certain population groups would be unconstitutional.

However, becuase of that little cluase it would not be unconstitutional. Provided the state can prove to the Con Court that the discrimination is justified.

[Debbie]

Its a nasty precedent, the Government deciding that whites can't buy a piece of property, and thinking they can simply say this, and remain 'democratic'.

Its a precedent.

Give it time, lets see which schmoozing real estate companies decide to curry favor with the Gov, and restrict their business dealings.

If it becomes useful and profitable to be able to tell the Government that you're not dealing with whites at all, watch how fast business moves in that direction.

It happened before, way back in the early stages of white Apartheid..

Deprivation of land by the State = genocidal act.

[timgaul]

In this case it is a weak argument to fall back on the 'but redress the past' imperatives in the constitution. To specifically BAN people from buying state land because they are white is different to taking measures to advance the amount of land owned by people of other 'races'.

True. If it were a case of: "you can't work as a driver because you're blind" - that is a case when discrimination is fair. This is BS.

[Debbie]

However, becuase of that little cluase it would not be unconstitutional. Provided the state can prove to the Con Court that the discrimination is justified.

'That little clause' is subservient to the spirit and founding provisions.

In any case, it simply wouldn't make economic sense to do such a thing.

[Sneeky]

We keep hearing about the 'spirit' in which this democracy came about and I agree 100% with that.
The problem is that the people that drafted this are fast becoming extinct or taking a back seat (along with the 'spirit') and a new breed take the reigns who are exploiting this clause in every sphere of life in SA under the auspices of redressing wrongs.
Sport, ownership, business, etc. jmo of course.

[sox63]

We keep hearing about the 'spirit' in which this democracy came about and I agree 100% with that.
The problem is that the people that drafted this are fast becoming extinct or taking a back seat (along with the 'spirit') and a new breed take the reigns who are exploiting this clause in every sphere of life in SA under the auspices of redressing wrongs.
Sport, ownership, business, etc. jmo of course.

So Sneeky, I'm curious, care to suggest a better way of redressing the past wrongs AND keeping EVERYONE happy at the same time?

I think we have debated the merits long enough, any suggestions of how forumites think it should be done?

[timgaul]

You can please some people all of the time; but never all of the people all of the time...

[Skeptik]

Bill of Rights - chapter 2 section 9 (3):
Huh. The constitution allows for discrimination based on race. I don't agree with it, but it does.


8 Equality
(1) Every person shall have the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law.
(2) No person shall be unfairly discriminated against, directly or indirectly, and, without derogating from the generality of this provision, on one or more of the following grounds in particular: race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or language.
(3) (a) This section shall not preclude measures designed to achieve the adequate protection and advancement of persons or groups or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination, in order to enable their full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms.
(b) Every person or community dispossessed of rights
in land before the commencement of this Constitution under any law which would have been inconsistent with subsection (2) had that subsection been in operation at the time of the dispossession, shall be entitled to claim restitution of such rights subject to and in accordance with sections 121, 122 and 123.
(4) Prima facie proof of discrimination on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) shall be presumed to be sufficient proof of unfair discrimination as contemplated in that subsection, until the contrary is established.

[Sneeky]

We have sox, and you know as well as I do that there are no easy answers.
AA BEE BBBEE EE etc are all necessary, please don't misunderstand me, but there must be a limit to how far people can push 'redressing wrongs' and justifying it as fair as an excuse for blatant racism.

[noxibox]

Democracy and discrimination are not mutually exclusive

Democracy and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive.

If the ACDP had a majority they could require that everyone become a Christian. With sufficient majority they could change the constitution to allow them to do this and allow the execution of anyone who refused. Countries that don't have a constitution are even more open to democracy being tyranny.

Democracy may in fact be a system that is least likely to result in tyranny, but it is not a guarantee against it.

[Debbie]

So Sneeky, I'm curious, care to suggest a better way of redressing the past wrongs AND keeping EVERYONE happy at the same time?

I think we have debated the merits long enough, any suggestions of how forumites think it should be done?

Real 'affirmative action' is in creating the conditions for equality-
everyone should have basic services (water lights refuse removal), enough food, decent shelter, free and good basic and secondary education. How about we work on these first before taking economically unsound steps.

If the ANC was really interested in addressing the inequality in SA, they would be going out of their way to encourage international investment/FDI, instead of scaring way investors with their criminal and constitution-defying antics. We need to grow our economy first and foremost- this will speed up transformation.

[BT6LW]

So Sneeky, I'm curious, care to suggest a better way of redressing the past wrongs AND keeping EVERYONE happy at the same time?

I think we have debated the merits long enough, any suggestions of how forumites think it should be done?

It is actually quite easy.... provide the basic services for the people (at the expense of those that can afford it atm, yes a required evil...

Then Build....

build roads, build housing, build power plants, lay cables, develop land etc... keep growing and building more.... in the process we improve infrastructure, we employ people and the economic benefit does not only flow into the pockets of a select few...

[Sneeky]

Have always maintained that there was never ever enough resources ploughed into education.
Real empowerment comes through knowledge and solid education.

[Ricard]

We have sox, and you know as well as I do that there are no easy answers.
AA BEE BBBEE EE etc are all necessary, please don't misunderstand me, but there must be a limit to how far people can push 'redressing wrongs' and justifying it as fair as an excuse for blatant racism.

I read a book on raising kids.... I think it can be applied to a 'Teenage Country' The summary was to REWARD good, and not focus and harp on BAD. The current government are focussing and highlighting the BAD, but there was lots of good history too.

If a child is constantly being told that He/She is crap and constantly has to endure the negative, then he/she will derail and you have one more social reject.

Same for the country.. BEE says "You wont get business unless the company is all black" .. could be changed to "What upliftment projects is your company participating in". It removes the entire principles of window dressing.

Its my utopian view and I doubt it will work... but being constantly put down for being a Whitey doesnt help matters.... it creates more problems than its worth.

5c

[reech]

Have always maintained that there was never ever enough resources ploughed into education.
Real empowerment comes through knowledge and solid education.

Agreed - If the govt really gave a **** about true transformation they'd be ploughing far more resources and expertise into education (including adult education).

[Debbie]

Sox- we can continue apartheid by not addressing the root causes, and countering this by giving people fish, or we can put our efforts into teaching people to fish.

[Debbie]

Agreed - If the govt really gave a **** about true transformation they'd be ploughing far more resources and expertise into education (including adult education).

Hence oprah's school, which if it is only for black people is in my opinion constitutionally 'fair discrimination'.

[reech]

Hence oprah's school, which if it is only for black people is in my opinion constitutionally 'fair discrimination'.

Don't think I agree with that though. No such thing as fair discrimination.

[mercurial]

lol this is just laughable. just when i thought i had seen it all this happens. sounds like they want the country to themselves. this is just a ridiculous ruling. absolutely insane.

[Debbie]

Don't think I agree with that though. No such thing as fair discrimination.

Probably not in principle or on an abstract, theoretical level; but in context (ie in practice) I think yes, there can be such a thing as 'fair discrimination'.

[chiskop]

Hence oprah's school, which if it is only for black people is in my opinion constitutionally 'fair discrimination'.

Luckily it is not only for black kids.

It is restricted to under-priviledged girls - not sure how fair you feel those two instances of discrimination are? :)

[sox63]

Sox- we can continue apartheid by not addressing the root causes, and countering this by giving people fish, or we can put our efforts into teaching people to fish.

Here is the thing Debbie, and the other guys.

Basic services have ben rolled out to areas where there were none available, There has been investment in education in as far as schools building, granted nowhere near enough, but it is no use building schools if there are no teachers to take up posts at them.

That takes care of the basic stuff, the thing that cuases the animosity is the redistribution of wealth/land etc, or basically having Black people play a meaningful role in the economy. Now how do we take care of that?

[NoADSLyet]

You can please some people all of the time; but never all of the people all of the time...

You mean: You can please some people all of the time; but never all of the people at any some-time

[Ricard]

That takes care of the basic stuff, the thing that cuases the animosity is the redistribution of wealth/land etc, or basically having Black people play a meaningful role in the economy. Now how do we take care of that?

Its all good... but Wealth is Generated.... not acquired.

[NoADSLyet]

So Sneeky, I'm curious, care to suggest a better way of redressing the past wrongs AND keeping EVERYONE happy at the same time?

I think we have debated the merits long enough, any suggestions of how forumites think it should be done?

You do not need to redress anything. Let the economy boom and grow an everything will be redressed. Why do you need to let everything regress to be reborn unless by redressing you mean revenge. Why make the existing middle-class poor before we can get anywhere. What a stupid fallacy!

[Moederloos]

I fail to understand how blacks cannot play a meaningful role without further handicapping of whites. Do they really need to be babied like that?

[NoADSLyet]

Have always maintained that there was never ever enough resources ploughed into education.
Real empowerment comes through knowledge and solid education.

Not in Africa, here there is attempts to "acquire" it and if not possible (for obvious reasons) then their will be attempts to steal it or else everyone fall or fail together.

[springbokkie]

Zim 2.0

:o

True :(

[NoADSLyet]

I fail to understand how blacks cannot play a meaningful role without further handicapping of whites. Do they really need to be babied like that?

Nothing not to understand. African history, Zimbawe and now South Africa is living examples of what is required. Simple they need masters, Colonialists or managers. They need America or China. Ditto!

[timgaul]

Nothing not to understand. African history, Zimbawe and now South Africa is living examples of what is required. Simple they need masters, Colonialists or managers. They need America or China. Ditto!

Thats what my grandparents always used to go on about: the yellow people are coming! Mark my words! Happy birthday, here is a Mandarin-English dictionary. :o

[sox63]

I fail to understand how blacks cannot play a meaningful role without further handicapping of whites. Do they really need to be babied like that?

Not at all. In my experiance, had there not been BEE/AA things would have just carried on they way they were. The reason I think so is everyday business with White people that I've had. People do business on the basis of few things IMO, first you can do the job, secondly they do business with people they like. I have seen if say I was struggling with an account and I hand it over to a white colleague, things start to get rolling. Is this becuase the client is racist? I don't think so, it just that he more comfortable and can communicate better with someone like him/her, and thus gets to trust them with their business.

But now becuase they have to, people start to interact and EVENTUALLY start to trust each other.

[Ricard]

Not at all. In my experiance, had there not been BEE/AA things would have just carried on they way they were. The reason I think so is everyday business with White people that I've had. People do business on the basis of few things IMO, first you can do the job, secondly they do business with people they like. I have seen if say I was struggling with an account and I hand it over to a white colleague, things start to get rolling. Is this becuase the client is racist? I don't think so, it just that he more comfortable and can communicate better with someone like him/her, and thus gets to trust them with their business.

But now becuase they have to, people start to interact and EVENTUALLY start to trust each other.

Sorry.. have to butt in here :-P

BEE and AA are different things... I think AA is a good thing, but BEE is evil. BEE does nothing to level the inequalities.... show me ONE person that has benifited from BEE that comes from humble NON political beginnings.

[Jase]

Sorry.. have to butt in here :-P

BEE and AA are different things... I think AA is a good thing, but BEE is evil. BEE does nothing to level the inequalities.... show me ONE person that has benifited from BEE that comes from humble NON political beginnings.

Have to add some humour here ... if found, would they be identified as a HUMBLE BEE? :D

[lsuacner]

To redress the mistakes of the past, care must be given not to make mistakes now. In other words, the government will look like it is taking action to uplift the community, instead it is tearing it down further. Economic principle dictates that the individual, being white, should be able to advance his own cause, which will be to the benefit of society as a whole. 1 rich white man, developing land, employs more than 13 poor black men. If 1 rich white man is refused that opportunity, 13 black men will be jobless. It is that simple.

RSA was a country rich with creative individuals, our nuclear programme was 1st class, our military, health care.. but we lost so many skilled people, in the long-term it will catch up to us. I do not see what the ANC gains in the short-term from these policies, the people will vote for them regardless of what they do, they might as well do it right and still get the votes.

btw, our nuclear program is still world class, thanks to the good people of Potchefstroom and their pebble bed reactor. What would happen if those Afrikaans scientists decide they have had enough and leave to go live a comfortable life in China?

[sox63]

Sorry.. have to butt in here :-P

BEE and AA are different things... I think AA is a good thing, but BEE is evil. BEE does nothing to level the inequalities.... show me ONE person that has benifited from BEE that comes from humble NON political beginnings.

My mother-in-law, benefited. she got a tender for cleaning services in Bloem for the municipality.

The tenders/deals we hear about in the news are not the ONLY ones being awarded, there is a lot more business out there than what we read about.

[sox63]

To redress the mistakes of the past, care must be given not to make mistakes now. In other words, the government will look like it is taking action to uplift the community, instead it is tearing it down further. Economic principle dictates that the individual, being white, should be able to advance his own cause, which will be to the benefit of society as a whole. 1 rich white man, developing land, employs more than 13 poor black men. If 1 rich white man is refused that opportunity, 13 black men will be jobless.

The BEE version to that is, 1 rich white man refused, fine, one or more black people, approach NEF, IDC or Bank to fund a loan to develop the land and employ 13 other people. With proceeds pay off the loan and there you have people that were not empowered but now have the means to go for more projects.

[McSack]

All that BEE/AA/BBBEEE do is perpetuate the view that blacks can't do anything for themselves.

[sox63]

All that BEE/AA/BBBEEE do is perpetuate the view that blacks can't do anything for themselves.

I would say all that it does it allows Black people the capital/opportunities to excel at their chosen field.

[McSack]

The BEE version to that is, 1 rich white man refused, fine, one or more black people, approach NEF, IDC or Bank to fund a loan to develop the land and employ 13 other people. With proceeds pay off the loan and there you have people that were not empowered but now have the means to go for more projects.

Actually the BEE version goes something like this:

One rich man with 20 years experience in the business and one rich man with no experience but politically connected, bid on the same contract to develop the land. The politically connected man wins the contract at a premium rate and goes on to sub the work out to the man with 20 years experience who then empoys the 13 poor men.

[Debbie]

Luckily it is not only for black kids.

It is restricted to under-priviledged girls - not sure how fair you feel those two instances of discrimination are? :)

Was an example of what would be an appropriate application of those sections of the constitution that permit discrimination in the name of redressing the past.

We have a situation in SA where we are trying to balance out the wealth, education and opportunity. The govt think equality is when things are equal in ratio- But instead of trying to uplift PDAs the govt is starting to approach transformation via depressing PANDAs- ie instead of seeking balance by raising one group of people to the level of another, they seek rebalance by depressing the more advantaged group.

[Debbie]

Here is the thing Debbie, and the other guys.

Basic services have ben rolled out to areas where there were none available, There has been investment in education in as far as schools building, granted nowhere near enough, but it is no use building schools if there are no teachers to take up posts at them.

That takes care of the basic stuff, the thing that cuases the animosity is the redistribution of wealth/land etc, or basically having Black people play a meaningful role in the economy. Now how do we take care of that?

Sox, so you're basically saying all people of all colour have the same advantages in terms of decent shelter, food, education, basic services....? The basic stuff in NOT being taken care of. If there are no teachers, then we need to create teachers.... not say 'oh, there's no teachers, lets not build schools to educate people so they can do certain jobs, let's rather just tell companies that they won't get tenders unless they employ black people'.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for affirmative action re job placement, to a certain degree.

[noxibox]

The politically connected man wins the contract at a premium rate
The person with connections always has the advantage. Nothing unique to South Africa.


All that BEE/AA/BBBEEE do is perpetuate the view that blacks can't do anything for themselves.
Affirmative action does not. It is a necessity to get traditionally white male owned and controlled businesses to let women and non-whites in and allow them opportunities.


If 1 rich white man is refused that opportunity, 13 black men will be jobless. It is that simple.
It is not that simple. Better to encourage that one rich person to take those 13 poor people, treat them as partners, develop their skills so they can go on to do the same. Unfortunately BEE is just the standard old boys club nonsense that happens everywhere.

[Ricard]

LOL ... now the problem is to get "Blacks" to respect each others rights.

The Gardening service I use employs 15 men to do the work.... and boy do they treat each other like **** .. it was so bad I can cancelled the service. The African women really put the men to shame when it comes down to being a horrible boss.

This is the opinion from many of my black friends.... they all hate black bosses. :D .. I dont know much more than that! .. I got no problem with my boss (Who is an african man)

[lsuacner]

The BEE version to that is, 1 rich white man refused, fine, one or more black people, approach NEF, IDC or Bank to fund a loan to develop the land and employ 13 other people. With proceeds pay off the loan and there you have people that were not empowered but now have the means to go for more projects.

That is still 1 white man and 13 black men out of work, instead of 14 people with paying jobs.
It is not to say that the white and black entrepreneur should be mutually exclusive to one another.

Furthermore, less competition = more expensive housing projects ect.

[PeterCH]

Is the headline deliberately misleading and inflammatory or is that an oversight?


Is there more to it because it doesn't sound like "ban property sales to whites"?

The headline has been generalised in typical journalist fashion but the proposed government plan is just as RACIST. It would be fine to try to get
more black landowners by perhaps having white buyers offer more compeling reasons to buy a piece of land where a black person is also the buyer, however to blanketly discriminate against WHITES on the basis of their
colour is RACIST. This guy is a racist and he's earning a salary paid by my taxes. Not good.