Whites Only...

Quote:

---

Sep 02, 2009 04:30 AM

Canada's landmark decision to grant asylum to a white South African because he feared black persecution in his homeland is "racist" and "alarming," the South African government said yesterday.

Brandon Huntley, 31, who lives in Ottawa and spent three years as an illegal in Canada before asking for refugee status in 2008, had argued that his life and his livelihood were threatened in the African National Congress's South Africa.

Huntley demonstrated "a picture of indifference and inability or unwillingness" by South Africa to protect "white South Africans from persecution by African South Africans," William Davis, a member of the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board wrote in his decision Thursday.

The ruling ANC branded Huntley's claim that police would not intervene despite his being attacked seven times as "sensational and alarming. "Canada's reasoning for granting Huntley a refugee status can only serve to perpetuate racism," the ANC said.

Huntley's attorney, Russell Kaplan, called Davis' decision "a landmark case because as far as we know this is the first case in Canada of a white South African at risk for his life at the hands of African South Africans."

Huntley did not win refugee status because he had been attacked, said Kaplan, but because he was "at risk of persecution" in a country with an overwhelmed police and discriminatory hiring policies.

"The police just cannot cope with all of the crime that is taking place."

---

This story has created a huge uproar in South Africa.



I once spend two months in South Africa. Most was spend 'Island-hopping'. That is, going from one white area to the next. One afternoon, I decided to get a taste of Black South Africa. I took a minivan into a Black neighbourhood, and got off. I managed to get fifty meters, before two guys with knifes started slashing away at me / my clothes. Fortunately, they got to my wallet almost immediately and took off.

With my clothes slashed, holding up what was left of my pants and my nerves, I ran as fast as my tackies would carry me into an Asian shop nearby, disregarding all robots. Later, when I related the story to my girlfriend and friends, the standard reaction was 'you are an imbecile', and 'I can't believe you're not hurt / still alive'.

Before going home, I had spend much of the afternoon in the local police station. Where a poor Black woman had been trying all afternoon to get somebody, anybody, to make a report of her rape.

Shame. It's such a beautiful country.

Father called Uncle Kip in Jo.Berg yesterday and was told whites can now get into Canada by seeking asylum there. Apparently, the Canadian government recognises that whites are subject to racial discrimination and in danger in South Africa.

Country -> Toilet.:thumbsdown:

Edit: Oops, I read your commentary but somehow missed the article. Sorry.

Well you can't say the canadians don't have point there...

It isn't Canada that is being racist.

Isn't Durban or Johannesburg the most dangerous city of the world? The beach in Durban had submachine-gun armed policemen patrolling every few meters plus a few on quads driving around.
We were told not to leave the tourist area as only death await outside, taxi drivers shooting eachother over passengers etc.

Yes, beautiful country, real shame.

I think the violence and police indifference is regardless of colour...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think the violence and police indifference is regardless of colour...

---

Indeed.

South Africa is far from anything special. South Africa is a very standard version of a corrupt, poor state with a HUGE class difference between the rich and the poor.

And as in any other case, that leads to violence. Lots of it.

The apartheid period is really quite minor by now, even though they certainly set an example in showing their countrymen how to really screw people over, in every imaginable way....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The apartheid period is really quite minor by now [[.]

---

S.A. has been a virtual slave colony for at least one hundred years. There is no way that this period can now be 'closed' just because whites would love that. It reminds me of the self-forgiving attitude displayed by quite a few Germans and Japanese after WWII: let bygones be bygones, water under the bridge eh?

Hell no. Township life has always been short, violent and often hopeless. Now that the townships are no longer behind barbed wire, whites are victims just like blacks used to be (and still are) Are we supposed to think the country has suddenly gone to the dogs?

Huntley's attorney, Russell Kaplan, called Davis' decision "a landmark case because as far as we know this is the first case in Canada of a white South African at risk for his life at the hands of African South Africans."

I can't believe I am reading this. Is this from the Onion?

I wonder why Canada would recognize whites as a threatened minority in South Africa. Most victims of crime in S.A. are black. Doesn't that make blacks a threatened majority? Of course not.

I have been there, I have gone outside the tourist areas, in have slept in Cape Town townships and talked to glue-sniffing youth gangs after dark. They didn't cut me up (or anyone who was with me) because I went there with black or coloured 'friends' (in S.A. the difference is socially and politically important) and behaved the right way. There are some basic rules you should stick to in the townships. Act like you know what you're doing. Wear sunglasses, wear a suit and move as if you're loaded. Always act like you've known the area or neighbourhood for years and have been friends with locals for a long time. Don't hide your wealth like a Dutch granny on holiday in Ghana. Flash that gold watch because it shows you have rich friends. Rich friends = power. And bring loads of extra pants. I crapped mine constantly whilst I was there...

Anyway, crime in S.A. doesn't look at skin, unless in areas that have been segregated according to skin colour in the first place. Hence the importance of having 'friends' of the right colour with you.

I abhor the ANC government for its heavy-handed, undemocratic, wasteful and often plain stupid approach to issues and its failure to meet its promises or to even try and meet them. But in this case I think they are right and Canada's decision is racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Before going home, I had spend much of the afternoon in the local police station. Where a poor Black woman had been trying all afternoon to get somebody, anybody, to make a report of her rape.

---

There you go. She was raped because she was a woman, you were hit because you were a stranger who drove his van, his wallet, his watch and his sorry little :daisy: into a township. Had you been black, you'd have been cut up just as well.

The part of South Africa where I was most of the time was quite different, blacks and whites lived together, there was no violence, everybody was welcomed and respected and when I couldn't sleep one night I wandered around alone and nothing happened to me, race or skin colour wasn't even an issue there as far as I could tell. :2thumbsup:

In other news Canada denies a Canadian citizen is theirs. I bet you can guess her skin colour.

Quote:

---

In other news Canada denies a Canadian citizen is theirs.

---

Thats different , lucky she had kids though otherwise the dna sample couldn't have been matched

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The part of South Africa where I was most of the time was quite different, blacks and whites lived together, there was no violence, everybody was welcomed and respected and when I couldn't sleep one night I wandered around alone and nothing happened to me, race or skin colour wasn't even an issue there as far as I could tell. :2thumbsup:

---

Murder, rape and robbery are totally out of control in major cities and many rural areas as wel. It's not an anti-white thing at al. I've been as far north as Lebowakhomo where almost no whites live. Even so, each and every house had the usual fortifications, dogs, armed neighbourhood guards, warning signs. And after dark the streets were deserted. What was once a lively rural village had become a ghost town.

Rule number one on the road is: don't stop. On our way back, following the long-winding road between the 'koppies' in total darkness, we hit a cow. We didn't look back or inquire, we just burned more rubber to get away as fast as possible. Many black and white farmers have shotguns and are willing to use them on the slightest excuse. Witnesses are not an issue..

Well, I was basically here. ~;)

As Adrian says. The crime, violence and desperation that were once just the preserve of the blacks are now shared out equally.

So did Canada offer this same status to millions of blacks who where walloiwng under apartheid? Oh they didn't.

People say how far we come in race relations and I don't really see it. People like to pay lip service to equality but when push comes to shove they really can't be bothered.

Do I think Canada is being racist? Maybe, maybe not, but I guarntee you that this case stood out among the millions of other Africans yearning to be free hell it stood out agianst the thousands of Africans with comparable education. All becuase he was a bit paler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So did Canada offer this same status to millions of blacks who where walloiwng under apartheid? Oh they didn't.

People say how far we come in race relations and I don't really see it. People like to pay lip service to equality but when push comes to shove they really can't be bothered.

Do I think Canada is being racist? Maybe, maybe not, but I guarntee you that this case stood out among the millions of other Africans yearning to be free hell it stood out agianst the thousands of Africans with comparable education. All becuase he was a bit paler.

---

Indeed! You think South Africa is bad? I give you Somalia. You can say the police in South Africa are as indifferent as you want, Somalia doesn't have any of them.

And yet we want nothing more than to get "those leeching somalians" out of our countries, as quickly and dehumanizing as possible...

And this guy gets to stay? Shameful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So did Canada offer this same status to millions of blacks who where walloiwng under apartheid? Oh they didn't.

People say how far we come in race relations and I don't really see it. People like to pay lip service to equality but when push comes to shove they really can't be bothered.

Do I think Canada is being racist? Maybe, maybe not, but I guarntee you that this case stood out among the millions of other Africans yearning to be free hell it stood out agianst the thousands of Africans with comparable education. All becuase he was a bit paler.

---

The contention is that he is prejudiced against because of his race, certainly many whites do feel this.

The Conservative government of Canada is appealing the decision of the refugee board to the courts.

Heh. Considering Canada itself has practiced apartheid for the past few hundred years (some argue it still does), I wouldn't be, in any way, surprised at the the possibility of hidden racism in this decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Heh. Considering Canada itself has practiced apartheid for the past few hundred years (some argue it still does), I wouldn't be, in any way, surprised at the the possibility of hidden racism in this decision.

---

That is very debatable, and indeed I recall some fairly fearsome debates on the subject from when I studied it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

That is very debatable, and indeed I recall some fairly fearsome debates on the subject from when I studied it.

---

For simplicity's sake, I'll use my own area as an example, with a few key dates.

1874 - the signing of Treaty 4 started; the First Nation peoples were then herded onto their respective reserve lands. Over time, they would be denied the right to leave their respective reserves unless given written permission by a white Indian Agent.

Despite the treaty, Canada would continually, over the years, steal reserve land. Almost half of a certain Blackfoot reserve was sold to settlers, for example. And when a Blood First Nation refused to sell its land, Canada cut back its funding on that particular nation until they bled white and gave in to the sale. Today, most of these reserves have been rightfully described as having third world country living conditions; a strange thing to hear in one of the most industrialized and developed countries in the world.

1947 - First Nation and Inuit peoples finally granted formal citizenship.

1960 - Finally allowed to vote at Federal elections.

1960's - Residential Schools begin to be closed. First Nation children attending these schools were not allowed to speak their own language or practice their own beliefs. Physical and sexual abuse were notoriously common, and with very poor healthcare, tuberculosis was deadly (with mortality rates as high as 69%). Cultural genocide, anyone? It's a shame so many First Nation peoples today speak only English and know almost nothing about their own culture.

1985 - First Nation women who married non-native men were given the right to retain treaty status upon the marriage. Previously, this was not so; the woman would lose treaty status, as would her children from the marriage.


I don't know what else to say, bro. We weren't even allowed to vote at federal elections until 1960, and were actually, by law, forced to remain on our reserves, too. All of this sounds like strange mixture of apartheid, forced assimilation, and cultural genocide to me.

It certainly left its mark, too. Check out what wikipedia says of contemporary First Nation peoples:

Quote:

---

First Nations peoples face a number of problems to greater degree than Canadians overall. They have higher unemployment, rates of crime and incarceration, substance abuse, health problems, lower levels of education and poverty. Suicide rates are more than twice the sex-specific rate and three times the age-specific rates of non-Aboriginal Canadians.

Life expectancy at birth is significantly lower for First Nations babies than for babies in the Canadian population as a whole. As of 2001, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada estimates First Nations life expectancy to be 8.1 years shorter for males and 5.5 years shorter for females.

---

Not to try to be funny, but changing Cultures is not always a bad thing. I am glad the tradition of Morris Dancing has died off here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

For simplicity's sake, I'll use my own area as an example, with a few key dates.

1874 - the signing of Treaty 4 started; the First Nation peoples were then herded onto their respective reserve lands. Over time, they would be denied the right to leave their respective reserves unless given written permission by a white Indian Agent.

Despite the treaty, Canada would continually, over the years, steal reserve land. Almost half of a certain Blackfoot reserve was sold to settlers, for example. And when a Blood First Nation refused to sell its land, Canada cut back its funding on that particular nation until they bled white and gave in to the sale. Today, most of these reserves have been rightfully described as having third world country living conditions; a strange thing to hear in one of the most industrialized and developed countries in the world.

1947 - First Nation and Inuit peoples finally granted formal citizenship.

1960 - Finally allowed to vote at Federal elections.

1960's - Residential Schools begin to be closed. First Nation children attending these schools were not allowed to speak their own language or practice their own beliefs. Physical and sexual abuse were notoriously common, and with very poor healthcare, tuberculosis was deadly (with mortality rates as high as 69%). Cultural genocide, anyone? It's a shame so many First Nation peoples today speak only English and know almost nothing about their own culture.

1985 - First Nation women who married non-native men were given the right to retain treaty status upon the marriage. Previously, this was not so; the woman would lose treaty status, as would her children from the marriage.


I don't know what else to say, bro. We weren't even allowed to vote at federal elections until 1960, and were actually, by law, forced to remain on our reserves, too. All of this sounds like strange mixture of apartheid, forced assimilation, and cultural genocide to me.

It certainly left its mark, too. Check out what wikipedia says of contemporary First Nation peoples:

---

Terrible yes, but one must note the effort to assimilate the native populations (as evidenced by the loss of treaty status for women upon marriage). This is looks far more like cultural assimilation than aparteid. The effort of the one is to unite the "native" and colonial population by subsuming the former into the latter. You may not like it, and rightly so, but the ultimate aim is equality. The sole aim of Aparteid is to keep the population under-heel as slaves.

Aparteid usually results from the fear of a vastly more numerous native population, while assimilation is attempted when the native population is much smaller than the colonial one.

Quote:

---

Terrible yes, but one must note the effort to assimilate the native populations (as evidenced by the loss of treaty status for women upon marriage). This is looks far more like cultural assimilation than aparteid. The effort of the one is to unite the "native" and colonial population by subsuming the former into the latter. You may not like it, and rightly so, but the ultimate aim is equality. The sole aim of Aparteid is to keep the population under-heel as slaves.

Aparteid usually results from the fear of a vastly more numerous native population, while assimilation is attempted when the native population is much smaller than the colonial one.

---

What? You're suggesting that the only options for an indigenous population are to either "assimilate" or stay in the ghetto? And this is good? Why? A culture that has grown up in situ just has to f@£%$ off out of the way because the new overlords say so, like assimilation is some sort of concession? 'We've kicked you off your own land, outlawed your language, and destroyed your cultural integrity, but we're willing to let you into our world as servants, welfare recipients and the occasional tokens, so just be grateful for the scraps we throw to you.'???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

What? You're suggesting that the only options for an indigenous population are to either "assimilate" or stay in the ghetto? And this is good? Why? A culture that has grown up in situ just has to f@£%$ off out of the way because the new overlords say so, like assimilation is some sort of concession? 'We've kicked you off your own land, outlawed your language, and destroyed your cultural integrity, but we're willing to let you into our world as servants, welfare recipients and the occasional tokens, so just be grateful for the scraps we throw to you.'???

---

Save your moral outrage. I began with "Terrible yes" for a reason. Like it or not, assimilation was attempted in the belief it was for the benefit of the "native" population. That is radically different than Apartied. Also, as I said, the effort of assimilation is not to keep the native population as, "servants, welfare recipients and the occasional tokens", quite the opposite.

I shall quote an Academic, when talking about the Roman Empire, "I do not have to like the cultures I study". The point is relevant here, I do not have to like assimilation to recognise that the aim is at least more benevolant than Apartied. For one thing, Assimilation policies assume that the population to be assimilated is not by nature inferior, merely by culture. Apartied simply assumes the population under subjugation are no better than wild animals.

I don't support either policy, both are racist, but that doesn't change the fact that one is much worse and much more racist.

Quite agree that both are racist policies, but not sure you can quantify the degree. They're both policies designed to subjugate native cultures and populations and reserve power and wealth for the colonial population. The difference is purely practical, as you hinted at, and is driven more by the relative size of the populations than any great ideological differences - smaller populations can be swamped, but larger ones, to be politically neutered, must be isolated.

Even where 'assimilation' is attempted it's on the basis that the indigenous people give up their culture in order to join - and even then can still be excluded into marginal positions. Poverty, social exclusion, crime, substance abuse and the like tend to cluster together regardless of the ethnicity.

As to the OP, I think this case undermines the asylum system, and the main racist in the picture is probably Huntley. I agree with pretty much everything Adrian II has said .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Quite agree that both are racist policies, but not sure you can quantify the degree. They're both policies designed to subjugate native cultures and populations and reserve power and wealth for the colonial population. The difference is purely practical, as you hinted at, and is driven more by the relative size of the populations than any great ideological differences - smaller populations can be swamped, but larger ones, to be politically neutered, must be isolated.

Even where 'assimilation' is attempted it's on the basis that the indigenous people give up their culture in order to join - and even then can still be excluded into marginal positions. Poverty, social exclusion, crime, substance abuse and the like tend to cluster together regardless of the ethnicity.

As to the OP, I think this case undermines the asylum system, and the main racist in the picture is probably Huntley. I agree with pretty much everything Adrian II has said .

---

I disagree, leaving aside cultural relativism (a philosophy I'm not convinced of) the intended aim of assimilation is to make the lives of the natives better in the long run. British cultural assimilation was based on the Roman concept, but they had the additional problem that the native populaton looked very different than the immigrants.

Assimilation isn't really about "subjugating" people, it's about the belief in cultural superiority. If you look at the places it has worked, such as England when the Anglo-Saxons arrived, you can see that A: it took 250-300 years and, B: the two populations looked fairly simlar to begin with.

Apartied, on the other hand, never works because it depends on deprivation.

Witness again, England when the Normans took over. Slaughtering the native aristocracy and taking ownership of all the land and religious institutions, the cutlure was able to remain distinct for 300 years, after which it was completely subsumed into the Anglo-Saxon one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The contention is that he is prejudiced against because of his race, certainly many whites do feel this.

---

Just like the millions of blacks before '94. It's a bit rich Cananda is now all of a sudden interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Just like the millions of blacks before '94. It's a bit rich Cananda is now all of a sudden interested.

---

It is. It really is.