03 September 2009

White South African gets asylum in Canada

Brandon Huntley made the news this week because he managed to convince the Canadian authorities that he was being targeted by criminals because of his race. He also opened a can of worms because South Africa is meant to be the land that Nelson Mandela magically fixed with his pixie dust and his car bombs.

Brandon Huntley white South African refugee from racial persecution

Brandon Huntley, the South African refugee from racial persecution.


Brandon Huntley's refugee status


Refugee status is granted to those who meet the following United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees criteria:

A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it

Brandon Huntley's refugee status is thus granted because he feels that:

  • He is being persecuted in his own country due to his membership of a particular ethnic group.

  • The South African government is unwilling or unable to protect him.



We can determine whether the Canadian government made a proper ruling without applying political pressure. It is a simple matter of answering the following questions:
  • Do other members of Brandon Huntley's ethnic group in South Africa agree that they are being persecuted due to their race?

  • Is the South African government unwilling or unable to acknowledge that they feel this way?


The feeling of white South Africans


The majority of white South Africans feel that the government's affirmative action and BEE policies amount to persecution for the sins of Apartheid. This is judging by the main reasons given by those who are leaving the country in drones, namely the high rates of violent crime in South Africa and the government's employment policies.

65 % of the participants in a recent South African newspaper survey answered that they do believe that applying for asylum on the basis of race is justified ("Is applying for foreign citizenship on racial grounds justified?").

It is hard to determine whether these figures have a racial basis, but it is clear that the majority of those who leave the country are unhappy about the South African government's interference with the labour market and that the majority feels South Africans are justified to apply for foreign citizenship on racial grounds.

Clearly, Brandon Huntley is not alone in feeling persecuted in South Africa because of his race. It is thus not a case of determining whether or not some ethnic groups feel that they are being persecuted in South Africa. Rather, it is a matter of determining how the government is dealing with the problem of this feeling of racial persecution in South Africa.

The South African government's response


This is where things get really interesting. Recall that asylum status depends on the feeling of being persecuted and the inability of a government to respond to these feelings.

The South African government responded to the news by labelling the Canadian decision racist. Way to go, South Africa. You just legitimised Brendan Huntley's claim that your government is unable or unwilling to accept that some of your citizens feel persecuted because of their race.

The South African government is now in talks with the Canadian government to review the decision. Way to go, South Africa. You have now also shown the world that your legal system is so entwined with your political system that your politicians can attempt to overturn independent if embarrassing court rulings - even when they are from another country.

Is the refugee status justified?


What we have here now is a South African population that feels applying for asylum based on your race is justified and a government that denies them the opportunity to apply for asylum from foreign governments, going so far as to use diplomatic pressure to seek to overturn independent court rulings regarding asylum. In my opinion, the refugee status has been legitimised not by Brandon Huntley's asylum status, but by the response of our government. I think Minor Threat said it best but Slayer did it best:


Slayer's cover of Guilty of Being White. Taken completely out of context and whatever other lame excuse you may find to try and undermine its message.

Syd Kitchen is right: Africa is after all, not for sissies.

14 comments:

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Excellent Post! Just absolutely f*&*&ing excellent!

Gonna post it, sourced to you, as a blogger oped!
-----------
FYI:

WwAwR: Why we Are white Refugees:
» LETTERS: Email Letters sent to Canadian Government, Media blogged by email.
» BLOGGER OPEDS: Blogger OpEd Opinions on White Refugee Issues.
» READER OPEDS: Reader OpED White Refugee Opinions, blogged by email.
» REFERENCE: Why We Are White Refugee's:
» Null & Void Social Contract: » Race War * Crime * Corruption * Farm Murders * Rape * Genocide *

Is Black on White Crime in South Africa racially motivated?

Know any journalist who is willing to put their money where their mouth is, on their opinion? A blogger journalist is willing to put a Krugerrand (R10,000) on her opinion that black on white murder, rape and assault is racially motivated….

Any journalist willing to put thier money where their mouth is, and take the bet?

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Garg,

I been wanting to come over and hold a debate, with you on the issue; not that I think we disagree on alot. But just been hectic. Sorry.

Lara.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Hey Garg,

If this topic interests you, please deliver more of your Shakespearean Insult wisdom! ;-)

The topic is:

Does the use of the word “Kaffir” damage the white refugee mission?

Is saying “Kaffir” something that most white-guilt whites still need to discuss with their psychiatrists?

Who or What is a “Kaffir”?

Do “Kaffirs” exist?

If “Kaffirs” do exist, why is there a problem with calling a person whose behaviour fits the relevant description for the definition of “Kaffir”; a “Kaffir”?

Join the White Refugee Conversation About Race/Racism: Do “Kaffirs” Exist? Debate....

Lara

Garg the Unzola said...

Greetings
Thanks for dropping by.

1. The Shakespearian Insult monger works automatically. Refresh any page and you'll get more insults.

2. I'm all for the use of the word kaffir in whichever context. I'm also all for the seven little words of George Carlin in whichever context, as well as the terms mlungu, white dog and settlers, in whichever context. Sticks and stones.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Oh, and I did not mean your wisdom as as a 'comment' wisdom....

If the topic interests you, please write something to publish, and you can say whatever you think... no restrictions... You are welcome to do a Steve Biko, I Say What I Think...

In fact, I would be offended, if you did not say exactly what you thought... If some are offended, so be it... they can get over it...

We ain't gonna get anywhere in this country, until we can have an honest conversation about race... now that may offend allot of people.. and well.. that is what 'freedom' is about.... the opportunity to live in a country where there is no right not to be offended... ;-)

So email me, and let me know if you interested..

Lara

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

'm all for the use of the word kaffir in whichever context. I'm also all for the seven little words of George Carlin in whichever context, as well as the terms mlungu, white dog and settlers, in whichever context. Sticks and stones.

Good, I ain't got a problem with htat.... now if you are sometime interested in writing it in a bit more depth.... please let me know...

Thanks..

Garg the Unzola said...

16. Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­
1. freedom of the press and other media;
2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
4. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.


That's all there is to it, really. Freedom of expression is absolute in my mind. Even if you want to advocate hatred, propagate war or incite violence.

I might not like it when our government threatens the athletics federations of the world with war, but I support their right to express themselves like mamparas. It reveals more about their character than it reveals about their targets.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Agreed once again....

Now when you put it all together... I want to read it.. so let me know please..

Garg the Unzola said...

I'm not "putting it all together" as it will probably end up on someone else's blog again.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Garg,

The point of communication is to inform others what your opinions are.

Now granted the point of your communication may be to talk to yourself....

If so, hey no worries...

Generally most people find themselves not listened, and their opinions ignored, or considered irrelevant...

In this case, I invited you to share your opinion... now if you want to keep it to yourself, fine!

If you don't want others to be interested in your opinions, fine!

No worries.. let me know if you ever change your mind...

Garg the Unzola said...

Ok, let me be more explicit:

You stole content from my blog.

Please consult this licence:

Creative Commons Attribution Non-commmercial Non-derivative.

Non-derivative means you may not alter, transform or build upon my posts. This means you may not take my posts and reproduce them on your blog.

THIS MEANS YOU MAY NOT STEAL MY POSTS.

You may copy, distribute and transmit my posts. This means you may email them to someone, but you may not take my posts and put them on your blog.

Your blog is an abortion of trash you pick up from across the web. I do not wish my posts to appear on your blog and I do not wish to be associated with your blog or any other blog, for that matter.

Naturally, you are interested in my opinions because they are just that - my own.

Your blog does not consist of your own content.

Reproducing other people's content does not count as offering your opinion.

If this is still unclear to you, I will glady do a post on the Creative Commons licence that consists mostly of pictures.

To be perfectly clear: DON'T STEAL MY POSTS.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Make up your mind.. if you don't want the exposure of your post on the Why We Are White Refugees blog, just fucking say so...

You were fine with it before, and now you got yourself a fucking hernia...

make up your goddamn fucking mind...

Garg the Unzola said...

I was not fine with it before. I tried to tell you in a diplomatic way that you should use your own head and write your own blog. Maybe you failed to comprehend this because I did not use expletives.

Read my comments on your blog again, maybe after a refreshing cup of coffee. You will note that from the outset, I was unhappy about you stealing my posts and publishing them under the false pretense that I am somehow op-ed on your blog and hence somehow affiliated with your blog, or that I somehow consented to you using my content in a derivative way.

I am happy that you are frustrated, as all this editing you had to go through would hopefully give you an indication of what it takes to maintain your own blog. Now imagine if you weren't spoonfed the content and you had to come up with it by yourself in a grownup way. The editing is really only the icing on the cake.

Since our first correspondence, I am yet to find a single post to appear under your authorsip. In the meanwhile, you have linked to the AWB, in addition to the other kinds of pscychocrazies like PRAAG and Dan Roodt, with my blog post in there.

If you bothered to read the license as I'd asked you, you would be aware that your rights to distribute my posts do not extend to making derivatives at all, and that you may not use my content in a way that is morally reprehensible to me.

My mind was made up from the beginning. I clearly said that I was unhappy with the fact that you stole my content. I explicitly explained to you what the purpose of my licensing is, and that it is limited to emailing my posts to others - that is, distributing exact copies, with my full attribution, AND UNDER THE SAME LICENCE.

I said I would grudgingly allow my posts to appear on your blog before you started linking to the AWB, though I did make it clear to you that I do not wish to be associated with your blog. The way in which you edited both your blog and my posts subsequently makes it appear:

1. That I am op-ed on your blog. In fact, that's exactly how you portray my post on your blog: as an op-ed. This after I carefully explained to you that I do not wish to be op-ed on your blog.

2. That my blog is Harriet Tubman or that I or my blog have something to do with Harriet Tubmman. This is derivative.

3. That I had my content derived on your blog with my consent. This is not the case, as I did point out to you.

4. That I am somehow supportive of the AWB, PRAAG, Dan Roodt or your We Are White Refugees blog.

This leaves me no other choice but to ask you to remove my content from your blog. Or to put it in your terms:

DELETE MY CONTENT FROM YOUR FUCKING STEAMING PIECE OF SHIT BLOG.

Garg the Unzola said...

Thank you for doing the honourable thing and deleting my stolen content from your blog.

Private property is theft, personal property is fine

That awkward moment when reality meets your ideology. Some anarcho-communist is having a fanny wobble because informal settlers got evicted ...