The Case for Apartheid 2.0

Note:
Please note all the factual definitions have been taken from one source (Wikipedia) and as such are published in grey. My comments are published in green.

Firstly lets deal with the meaning of apartheid and what constitutes the crime of apartheid.

According to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court it established the crime of apartheid as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." It lists such crimes as murder, enslavement, deprivation of physical liberty, forced relocation, sexual violence and collective persecution.

I'm going to attempt to show in the context of present day South Africa how Apartheid (2.0) is still in existence today (against whites). It's going to be a long article so I suggest you sit down with a cup of tea/coffee a Klippies & Coke or whatever takes your fancy.

Crimes Against Humanity
As defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

Human Dignity
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Oppression
The definition of Oppression is: 1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. 2. an act or instance of oppressing. 3. the state of being oppressed. 4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.Social oppression has in recent times been an epiphenomenon of various types of social dysfunction, whereby discrimination against an identified group is stimulated, encouraged and reinforced by way of promoting antagonism towards the Other. The term itself is derived, in a direct experiential sense, from the sensation of being pushed or lifted up by a greatly superior force.

Racial Group
The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics. The most widely used human racial categories are based on salient traits (especially skin color cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.

Murder
Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide

Liberty
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will

Forced Relocation
Population transfer is the movement of a large group of people from one region to another by state policy or international authority, most frequently on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Banishment or exile is a similar process, but is forcibly applied to individuals and groups. Often the affected population is transferred by force to a distant region, perhaps not suited to their way of life, causing them substantial harm. In addition, the loss of all immovable property and, when forced, the loss of substantial amounts of movable property, is implied.

Sexual Violence
Sexual violence occurs throughout the world, although in most countries there has been little research conducted on the problem. Due to the private nature of sexual violence, estimating the extent of the problem is difficult. Research in South Africa and Tanzania suggests that nearly one in four women may experience sexual violence by an intimate partner, and up to one-third of adolescent girls report their first sexual experience as being forced.
Sexual violence is defined as:
any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.
Forms and contexts of sexual violence:
A wide range of sexually violent acts can take place in different circumstances and settings. These include, for example:

• Rape by strangers;
• rape within marriage or dating relationships;
• systematic "war rape" during armed conflict;
• unwanted sexual advances or sexual harassment, including demanding sex in return for favors;
• sexual abuse of mentally or physically disabled people;
• sexual abuse of children;
• forced marriage or cohabitation, including the marriage of children;
• denial of the right to use contraception or to adopt other measures to protect against sexually transmitted diseases;
• forced abortion;
• violent acts against sexual integrity, including genital mutilation and obligatory inspections for virginity
• forced prostitution and trafficking of people for the purpose of sexual exploitation

Collective Persecution
Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. Historically, occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by resistance movements (e.g. destroying whole towns and villages where attacks have taken place).

It is my belief that the government of South Africa is complicit in the current crimes against humanity. Humanity in this case is my culture, white South African. How is the government complicit I hear you ask? Well if you don't follow events closely in South Africa then I'll excuse you, for now anyway. The current government has in effect turned a blind eye to crime, whether it is intentional or not is not the point. I happen to believe (as do a great deal many) that it is intentional, and as such is defined as a crime against humanity.

Please refer back to the above "attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority." In this case there is a wide practice of atrocities and the government indeed does condone, or at the bare minimum tolerates them.

This is clearly evident, in so much as they haven't done anything constructive to stem the tide of crime. In fact since the current government has been in control crime has increased. One only has to read one or two bits from the list: murder, rape, torture and racial or religious persecution. One only has to pop on over to the SAPS (South African Police Service) website and peruse through the crime statistics to know things are really bad. There has been some controversy as of late, it appears that the SAPS figures cannot be trusted entirely since it's been found that station commanders are throwing dockets away or downgrading some crimes. There are plenty of sources on the net for these statistics, the figures vary however they are all pretty scary.

When I talk about crime I am only referring to crime against the white South African, however it is very difficult to distinguish from the official figures which numbers are black and which numbers are white. Anecdotal evidence, news reports, eye witness accounts all point to a very large problem in South Africa where the white cultural group have become easy targets.

Examining the stats for murder in South Africa is a very scary exercise indeed, since 1994 there have been many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths. For now let's only concentrate on farm murders. There's a link on this blog that if you have never heard of will shock you I'm sure, since 1994 there have been some 3000 murders of white farmers and their families. For the most part these murders have been very savage, and there have been instances of rape, torture and needless violence.

This is South Africa's silent genocide. No one group of people has had to endure this savagery, and brutality more than them. These farmers traditionally are Afrikaaners, and I believe as others do that they are being singled out for "special treatment" by the criminals. Whether or not these criminals are part of a secret group of people endorsed by the government or are just black people singling out white people for punishment is not the point. The point is, it is black on white violence. Murder with racial motives. One of the very things that defines the crime of apartheid.

Oppression of white South Africans again is very evident a few examples:
AA/BEE: these policies are enforced by the government of South Africa to "right the wrongs of the past". In layman's terms black people are being given preferential treatment when it comes to employment, regardless of whether they are able to do the job or not. This has been the downfall of many a company and will be the downfall of many a company in the future. Considering that it's been 15 years since white sponsored apartheid ended a lot of people entering the current job market will be white South Africans who had nothing whatsoever to do with Apartheid 1.0, surely this is oppression of a racial group by another racial group.
Tax Payers: In South Africa, a good proportion of white South Africans are law abiding tax payers. Tax payers are funding government, para-statal companies (which incidentally are black run, either via AA/BEE or through nepotism and are failing miserably. Cue ESKOM, TELKOM, SABC, SAA. These companies are all channels for self enrichment for the governing classes (ie: Blacks). These once world class companies are now nothing more than feeding troughs for the gravy train passengers.

Tax payers money is going towards a multitude of things too, housing for the unemployed, free electricity and water for the unemployed, arms, funds for inauguration parties etc, etc ad infinitum. Pretty soon these white tax paying citizens will be no more, having been forced out of employment, will they be looked after as well as the current "disadvantaged"? Hazarding a guess I'd say no. So much for all men being equal and brotherhood (As per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!) More importantly it is the oppression of one racial group over another, yet another factor that defines apartheid.

The government's failure to stem the tide of crime has also led to oppression of a vast majority of white South Africans, many thousands of families are living in what can only be classed as self imposed imprisonment. Drive through previous white residential areas and you can see this first hand. Six foot walls, sprinkled with a dash of barbed wire/electrified fencing, infra-red beam protected gardens and homes, windows and doors protected by burglar bars and security fencing, automatic gates, the list goes on. A vast number of whites also carry/own fire-arms contrary to the black governments attempts to dis-arm the general public. These people's liberty has been taken away for fear of attack or far, far worse.

The subject of forced relocation for me is a touchy one. To most people my justification for forced relocation is at worst sketchy and at best a very valid point in proving that white South Africans are indeed being persecuted via a new form of Apartheid. In the "Bad Old Days" forced relocation involved shipping groups of black people to areas defined by the government. The governmnent tried to group these people by tribal affiliation in these respective areas. The government even gave them a choice to declare these homelands independent. Where else in the world have you ever heard of a government offering different ethnicities the chance to declare independence? And then to be criticised by the first world for doing so? In those days if the blacks had chosen independence/autonomy they would be way better off today than they actually are. However according to the ICC this forced relocation was illegal and morally wrong.

Which brings me to my point (finally I hear you say). Since 1994 over a million South Africans, for the large part white South Africans have emigrated to other first world countries, fleeing crime, fleeing the oppression of AA/BEE or to broaden their horizons. The latter I believe is more the exception than the rule. The government's failure or disinterest in fighting crime has resulted in one ethnic group being oppressed, and as a result found pastures greener.In fact they have left these white South Africans no other choice but to move to another country proving that it is indeed a forced relocation. Another notch on the bedpost towards Apartheid 2.0. There are many people in South Africa that will not have the opportunity to emigrate, and I dread to think what their future holds. It is up to us expats to help them out (This will be the topic for another post in the near future).

The last point in my claim that white South Africans are suffering under Apartheid 2.0 is an emotive and controversial one, sexual violence. South Africa is the one of the rape/sexually violent capitals of the world with one in four (maybe more since not all crimes are reported and the mere fact that some "dockets get lost") women is the victim of a sexual attack. Yes I know you're going to say but the vast majority of these crimes are inflicted on non-white South Africans, however that doesn't detract from the fact that a whole load of white women are victims too! Blacks by nature are a violent culture (See the rest of Africa for proof) so rape and sexual violence is the norm for them, however it is not the norm for whites.

The fact that there are so many attacks on women actually hides the fact that white women are being singled out, the statistics clouded by the sheer volume of the problem. As commonly decent men we are appalled that the women of our culture are victims, of course we are, however we should also be appalled that if some statistics are to be believed one in four men is also sexually violent (There are of course cases where white men are guilty as sin). In other words our women are being victimised and are as such being victimised on the account of their skin colour. The men however are also being oppressed/victimised by unwillingly being part of a statistic that is frankly disgusting. We are being tarred with the same brush as the black savages. Two points to further my case for proving that Apartheid 2.0 is a real living, breathing thing.

I have as yet never seen or heard of a white man raping a black woman, no doubt there are some cases (psychologically damaged liberals no doubt), likewise there are cases of white men raping white women, there's no denying that. Each culture has it's rotten apples, there is no doubt about that. I am not one of those rotten apples and nor are the majority of white men.

So there in one big lump is my case, or proof if you will that Apartheid still by legal definition exists in South Africa today. What can we do about it? I'm not sure, but I will discuss that in a future post. Apartheid 1.0 was beaten by relatively non-violent means, and I believe so can Apartheid 2.0, however at what cost?