The threat of expropriation without compensation is closer than you think

ArtyLoop

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,555
Lol, you clearly have a very limited understanding about how world politics are working.

They will not intervene.

They will simply start imposing sanctions. That's it.

They have to. They are forced by their own laws to do it. Now go ask Zimbabwe how sanctions worked out for them. Ask the millions of Zimbabweans who fled their country. Go ask CR why he has stated yesterday the world should lift their sanctions against Zim.

Same will happen here.
instead of insulting people, assume that I wasn't talking about sanctions, because they mean little to a country who is buggered anyway. I worked and lived in Zim, and saw how "sanction busting" is executed even at the man-on-the-street level. Still could get stuff there. But that's a different argument.
Intervention was meant as, intervention i.e. coming here to put a government in its place etc.. or applying pressure- think AGOA agreement
 

flippakitten

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
925
Lol, you clearly have a very limited understanding about how world politics are working.

They will not intervene.

They will simply start imposing sanctions. That's it.

Once America starts, all their allies will follow.

They have to. They are forced by their own laws to do it. Now go ask Zimbabwe how sanctions worked out for them. Ask the millions of Zimbabweans who fled their country. Go ask CR why he has stated yesterday the world should lift their sanctions against Zim.

Same will happen here.
Aren't the Sanctions only imposed on members in the Zanupf?
 

Lew Skannen

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
860
instead of insulting people, assume that I wasn't talking about sanctions, because they mean little to a country who is buggered anyway. I worked and lived in Zim, and saw how "sanction busting" is executed even at the man-on-the-street level. Still could get stuff there. But that's a different argument.
Intervention was meant as, intervention i.e. coming here to put a government in its place etc.. or applying pressure- think AGOA agreement
I do not need another argument, because I know that no country will intervene. The only solution is sanctions and it is actively enforced by America. So, assume that it what I am referring to.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
74,762
Lol, you clearly have a very limited understanding about how world politics are working.

They will not intervene.

They will simply start imposing sanctions. That's it.

Once America starts, all their allies will follow.

They have to. They are forced by their own laws to do it. Now go ask Zimbabwe how sanctions worked out for them. Ask the millions of Zimbabweans who fled their country. Go ask CR why he has stated yesterday the world should lift their sanctions against Zim.

Same will happen here.
You do understand the sanctions in Zim were targeted hey?
 

Lew Skannen

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
860
Aren't the Sanctions only imposed on members in the Zanupf?
First set of sanctions, yes. Their properties are taken abroad, bank accounts frozen and other assets seized. After that sanctions are imposed against the country itself.

The purpose of sanctions is to get the people to enforce a regime change. Pretty much the same as happened with the old SA.
 

ArtyLoop

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,555
First set of sanctions, yes. Their properties are taken abroad, bank accounts frozen and other assets seized. After that sanctions are imposed against the country itself.

The purpose of sanctions is to get the people to enforce a regime change. Pretty much the same as happened with the old SA.
And we simply laughed at them back in the 1980s.. regime change came for a different reason and via a different channel.

Mr Skannen, please go to the local shop and please get a 10m roll of kitchen foil and make yourself a hat. I don't particularly have time for keyboard warriors. Enjoy your time on my ignore list.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,238
Leaving the other stuff aside...

If the bond is tied to property, wouldn't it make sense that if you expropriate the property the bond goes with it, making Government or the future tenants responsible for said bond? (yeah yeah, perfect world)
The registered encumbrance goes with it, but not the loan itself. At least not in current law. It's the immovable property that has a registered encumbrance (the mortage bond), but the loan itself is made to a person or persons (natural or legal), not the property. That is inter alia why the new owner must apply for her own loan (and bond it) when a property is transferred - the previous owner's loan and bond do not transfer with the ownership transfer.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
74,762
So did you go and read those laws you linked to from the US then Lew, and realised that they don't say what you think they do, and make you look like a right idiot?
 
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
2,181
One thing is certain. I'm dead serious about slowly and honestly making a future for myself. If the ANC mess with it much more than they already have then they can kiss my ass.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
26,602
They can take anything now?

When was that legislation passed?
No legalisation has been passed, but the Bill is out to be commented on by the public,

https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201812/42127gon1409s.pdf (PDF)

‘‘property’’ means property as contemplated in section 25 of the Constitution;
...

25

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

‘‘court’’ means —
(a) a High Court within whose area of jurisdiction a property is situated;
(b) a Magistrate’s Court within whose area of jurisdiction a property is situated, having competent jurisdiction and designated as such in terms of paragraph
(b)(ii) in the definition of ‘court’ in section 1, read with section 9A, of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of 2000); or
(c) in the case of intangible property, the court within whose area of jurisdiction the owner of that property is ordinarily resident or has its principal place of business within the Republic;
The bill also indicates 'any property', 'any land' and 'registered right' and when they indicate land it states, 'if the property is land'. In regard to property in general, the bill is extremely vague, but we know it is property as contemplated in section 25 of the Constitution.

This Bloomberg article sums up some key aspects:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...fricans-land-seizure-is-a-question-of-justice

Key Insights:
  • Land can be taken without pay if it’s occupied or used by a labor tenant, if it’s held for purely speculative purposes, belongs to a state-owned company, where the owner has abandoned it, among others, the bill says.
  • An expropriating authority may have a right to use property temporarily if it’s urgently required for a period not exceeding 12 months.
  • The public has 60 days from today to submit written comments on the bill to the Department of Public Works.
  • The passage of the bill through parliament is separate to plans by the ruling African National Congress to change the constitution to make it easier to seize land without paying for it. Lawmakers in both chambers of parliament this month approved a lawmakers’ report that recommends the constitutional amendment. They will now establish another parliamentary committee to draft a bill needed to make the changes.
  • The ANC says the constitutional change is needed to address racially skewed ownership patterns dating back to apartheid and white minority rule. Farmers’ groups and some opposition parties say the changes will undermine property rights and deter investment.
  • The draft released today is the third version of the bill, with the first iteration released in 2008, according to Agri SA, the country’s biggest farming industry lobby group. While the proposed law provides more clarity on expropriation without compensation, which Agri SA opposes, its reach and definitions must be clarified “urgently,” it said in an emailed statement.
  • Agri SA said the definition of expropriation in the new bill is too narrow and is out of line with international trends, posing “the danger that the state can place all kinds of restrictions on ownership without compensating the owner,” it said.
The fearmongering article from the OP is taken from the process as set forth in the Expropriation Bill with some assumption thrown into it.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
26,602
In regard to expropriation of stateowned property,

Application of Act

(2) Despite the provisions of any law to the contrary, an expropriating authority may not expropriate the property of a state-owned corporation or a stateowned entity without the concurrence of the executive authority responsible for that corporation or entity.
and for scared of having their property expropriated without their consent,

(1) Despite the provisions of any law to the contrary, an expropriating authority may not expropriate property arbitrarily or for a purpose other than a public purpose or in the public interest.

(3) Subject to section 22, a power to expropriate property may not be exercised unless the expropriating authority has without success attempted to reach an agreement with the owner or the holder of an unregistered right in property for the acquisition thereof on reasonable terms.

(4) An expropriating authority may expropriate property in terms of a power conferred on such expropriating authority by or under any law of general application, provided that the exercise of those powers is in accordance with sections 5 to 27 and 31.
1 is a bit iffy because for a 'public purpose' or in the 'public interest' is incredibly vague.
 
Top