Court case could end affirmative action based on race in South Africa

xeslaro

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,881
End AA based on race? Replace that with AA based on body pigment and estrogen levels?

Whichever way AA will be nuanced, it still amounts to systemic institutionalised racism. NP in disguise, essentially.
 

BBSA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
12,433
End AA based on race? Replace that with AA based on body pigment and estrogen levels?

Whichever way AA will be nuanced, it still amounts to systemic institutionalised racism. NP in disguise, essentially.
Is is amazing how many people can see it was wrong under apartheid but are unable to do the same today.
 

wbot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
410
The end of affirmative action? In SA? Haha dream on, it will only get worse
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
21,502
As affirmative action is currently applied, it favours qualified people from designated groups to make the workplace more representative and fair.
fixed

Is is amazing how many people can see it was wrong under apartheid but are unable to do the same today.
One could argue that it's even more wrong now as it "protects" the majority from the minority.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
29,602
I know very little about this case, but Solidarity has hit government policies hard with victories in the past. How the remedy is applied, however, is another case. Reading the linked-to article in the article,


SAHRC must review affirmative action – Solidarity
Solidarity calls on SAHRC to review affirmative action after UN had rebuked SA about racial classification

15 February 2017

Trade union Solidarity today asked the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) to formally investigate black economic empowerment and affirmative action legislation. This comes after the United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) had criticised South Africa’s racial classification system in a report.
Not only did the SAHRC had to report on Solidarity's request, but their allegiance with the public interest is also now in question,

According to Solidarity Chief Executive Dr Dirk Hermann, the SAHRC acts as CERD’s agent in South Africa and the commission has to ensure that South Africa implements the requirements contained in UN resolutions and recommendations. The SAHRC has the power to investigate South Africa’s affirmative action legislation to determine whether it meets CERD’s requirements. One of CERD’s requirements is that affirmative action may not be based on race only and must also focus on an individual’s socio-economic circumstances.
This, changing or removing BEE and AA legislation, will be a blow to the public interest and to some political parties. These policies are likely to be amended and applied in other means, or unchanged because this lacks international pressure.

Not too long ago Ramaphosa introduced the Yes4Youth campaign which excluded the entire white youth populace. This was challenged and corrected, but it is still applied to only black people. To quote the terms,

https://www.yes4youth.co.za/wp-content/uploads/YESGeneralTermsandConditions30May2019.pdf (PDF) - Updated May 30th 2019.

“Youth” means an unemployed, Black person between 18 and 35 years old.
I have said it many times, we don’t live in a Constitutional Democracy. The white populace is having less protection by the day. RET, EWC, etc.

This case will be interesting, nonetheless, but it will be met with 'criticism' by the public interest, much which will be riled up by their political representatives.
 

Jopie Fourie

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
812
No ways this will happen.

The majority support it because it benefits them so nothing will happen that disturbs that balance.
100% correct. But, with a 30%+ unemployment rate, in reality AA and BEE does not benefit anyone. AA and BEE was only a pyramid scheme, which worked in the beginning for those who came in early, but is now tumbling down.

South Africans will rather all sit unemployed, with no food or money, waiting on government handouts rather than seeing a white male sitting in a higher position with more money.

They saw what AA and BEE did to the economy and large businesses the past 30 years. They prefer to ignore it and continue. This is a losing battle that will come to an end with a judgment against Solidarity in the Concourt.

Sometimes, you may just get what you ask for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ES1

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
29,602
No ways this will happen.

The majority support it because it benefits them so nothing will happen that disturbs that balance.
Ironically,

https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/EducationPubs/how-our-democracy-works.pdf (PDF)

How our democracy works

...

What is democracy? The word 'democracy' comes from the Greek word demokratia which means 'government by the people'.


Democracy is a balance between 'might' and 'right'. The state takes all the power (it has all the 'might'), but its power must be limited so that it does not abuse this power (to make sure it does 'right'). The Constitution guarantees the independence of the courts and establishes six independent institutions to protect citizens: the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the Commission for Gender Equality, the Auditor General and the Independent Electoral Commission.

Democracy is about balancing rights and responsibilities. Citizens can expect the government to do things for them like providing protection, health services, education and housing. Citizens also have responsibilities like obeying the law and paying tax to the state.

Democracy is about balancing the rights of the majority with protection for minorities.

Democracy is about achieving a greater balance in society so that there is greater equality for all over a period of time.
they want to achieve a greater balance in society by rebalancing the minorities and giving more protection to the other groups. Then they bitch about inequalities and economic downturn. This was never going to be an easy path, but they did choose the easiest, non-violent, route which caused 'more' damage to the people.

I am more curious about the SAHRC's stance on this as the case makes progress, because it seems to be only Solidarity and the de Klerk Foundation which reported on the SAHRC report. I see the SAHRC's recommendation isn't to do away with these policies, but to change it to a nuanced approach which will use socio-economic needs rather than race, ethnicity, gender and disability.

Socio-economic needs in this country... at least upskilling, which is education, will need to be taken into the equation. They can easily go with 'who' is more privileged and 'who' is less privileged in this case, you know, white males being more privileged than all others and so on.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
46,430
Is is amazing how many people can see it was wrong under apartheid but are unable to do the same today.
it was wrong then and remains wrong now

there are however fundamental differences between the two.
as a whilte male, i can still live wherever i choose, sit anywhere in a bus or train, and dont have to carry a permit to allow me to visit a friend on the other side of town
 

TysonRoux

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
5,396
If they refuse to end AA, or at least set a time limit, it would be a clear sign that there's a lack of confidence to compete on an even playing field ......ever.
 
Top