Premier blasts 'farm abuses'

antowan said:
Apartheid
Colonialism
Racism
etc

Politicians will dig up fantasies, over exagerate etc.
Click to expand...

You call Apartheid a fantasy ???.
I can assure you it was not Antowan ... millions can vouch for how it affected them.
 
Tibby, it is highly regrettable that this happened for any kids. Kids are innocent in the games adults play and the victims of their inability to compromise. The old adage of 2 wrongs don't make a right is also true though.
The blame for this cannot be laid squarely at one parties door, both parties failure to reach an amicable settlement or compromise resulted in this. Sad indeed.

Hot off the press, some more farmer human rights abuses.
Girls found chained to tree
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,9294,2-7-1442_2087634,00.html
Disgusting.
 
Last edited:
Running a school costs money, not just in teachers, but also power and water. If the government made it attractive for a farmer to host a school on his farm, I'm sure more farmers would do it.

I know of a farmer that had big problems with his foreman. Always drunk at work, skipping work, etc. He couldn't put him of his land because he have a right to stay there because of years of service. What can the farmer do now. The guy is causing problems with the other workers. Keeping them from work, sweeping them up and making groundless accusations. But, according to law, he is not allowed to evict the person. Is this fair? Would the farmer be blamed if he gets physical with this person, because of frustration and helplessness with the whole situation?
 
I also don't really see how when people no longer have a job they're still entitled to stay on the land but yeah...
 
Sneeky said:
This must be condemed in the strongest possible fashion, but I do find it very ironic that the ANC has a voice for these human rights abuses but nothing for those commited in Zimbabwe. It is shameful and provides a glimse of the racial discrimination attached to anything the ANC does.
There is no excuse for either.

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/Politics/0,9294,2-7-12_2086916,00.html
Click to expand...

No need to say more

http://www.mg.co.za/ContentImages/2561/22-mar07x.gif
 
tibby.dude said:
You call Apartheid a fantasy ???.
I can assure you it was not Antowan ... millions can vouch for how it affected them.
Click to expand...
Get over it already. Send that huge chip off to the Simba factory while your at it.
 
Nod said:
Running a school costs money, not just in teachers, but also power and water. If the government made it attractive for a farmer to host a school on his farm, I'm sure more farmers would do it.

I know of a farmer that had big problems with his foreman. Always drunk at work, skipping work, etc. He couldn't put him of his land because he have a right to stay there because of years of service. What can the farmer do now. The guy is causing problems with the other workers. Keeping them from work, sweeping them up and making groundless accusations. But, according to law, he is not allowed to evict the person. Is this fair? Would the farmer be blamed if he gets physical with this person, because of frustration and helplessness with the whole situation?
Click to expand...
Farmer=BOER. One farmer, one bullet. Necklace the BOERS. Is it all coming back to us now?
 
Syndyre said:
I also don't really see how when people no longer have a job they're still entitled to stay on the land but yeah...
Click to expand...

You need to learn more about law ... these folks are labour tenants who have worked on the land for GENERATIONS and thus have rights and are entitled by our law to a stake in it.

See Land Reform Act of 96.

To provide for security of tenure of labour tenants and those persons occupying
or using land as a result of their association with labour tenants; to provide
for the acquisition of land and rights in land by labour tenants; and to provide
for matters connected therewith.

WHEREAS the present institution of labour tenancy in South Africa is the result of racially discriminatory laws and practices which have led to the systematic breach of human rights and denial of access to land;

WHEREAS it is desirable to ensure the adequate protection of labour tenants, who are persons who were disadvantaged by unfair discrimination, in order to promote their full and equal enjoyment of human rights and freedoms;

WHEREAS it is desirable to institute measures to assist labour tenants to obtain security of tenure and ownership of land;

AND WHEREAS it is desirable to ensure that labour tenants are not further
prejudiced;
Click to expand...

See further http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/1996/a3-96.htm
 
tibby.dude said:
You need to learn more about law ... these folks are labour tenants who have worked on the land for GENERATIONS and thus have rights and are entitled by our law to a stake in it.
Click to expand...

The law does state that, but just because it's law, does not make it automatically right. All the law is doing is that farmers don't let workers live on the farm anymore, but assist them in building houses elsewhere. Which the farmer I talked about is doing. And was actually forced to do, because he had too many unproductive (retired) people living on the farm already, and was not going to build more houses on fertile land.
 
Nod said:
The law does state that, but just because it's law, does not make it automatically right. All the law is doing is that farmers don't let workers live on the farm anymore, but assist them in building houses elsewhere. Which the farmer I talked about is doing. And was actually forced to do, because he had too many unproductive (retired) people living on the farm already, and was not going to build more houses on fertile land.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, apartheid was a law, didn't make it a right law...
 
tibby.dude said:
You and the farmer need to read up some more on how our constitution actually works here.

The following clause is enshrined in our constitution under The Bill Of Rights.
Click to expand...


Expropriating private property

This means the government takes a person's land away from them. Property can be expropriated by the government if:

* the government wants to use the land for public purposes
or
* it is in the public's interest, for example, if the government needs the land for its land reform programme.

If the government takes land from a person they must pay this person for it. This is called compensation.

There are certain things to think about when a landowner and the government are deciding how much compensation to pay for the land. These are:

* the history of how the property was bought and what it was used for before
* how much the owner has improved the property
* what the property is being used for now
* the market value: what the price of the property would be if a private person or business bought it
* how much the government can pay: how much money the government has in its budget to pay for the property
* what the government wants to do with the property

http://www.paralegaladvice.org.za/docs/01_full.html
Click to expand...
OK, I've spelled out the constitution for Tibby. Hopefull, that should be the end of that argument.
==

It sounds like, historically, farm workers have got used to living a semi-parasitic existence on their employer's land.

They've taken advantage of 'free' housing etc, which they now want to formalise by demand.

The farmers, however, are now running things on a purer business and legal footing, which upsets the workers because they now don't have a 'baas' to look after their interests. It seems apartheid had it's good aspects :rolleyes: . The workers should learn the country's new rules and adapt instead of forever bleating about unfairness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X