Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
South Africa has been on a slow slide towards Mugabe-ism for a decade or more. But if they take the land of the Boers simply to sever the white population's link to the country, it will amount to declaring war. I don't know that modern day Boers are as knobby as they used to be.

The fact that it requires a constitutional change tells you that the 'deal' struck between the whites and the blacks is being broken. It's not politically correct to say so, no doubt, but it seems clear that if this is the outcome, it is because the black politicians are looking for people to victimize.



whats being proposed does sound very similar to what Mugabee did in Zimbabwe , which from what I read was a failure in creating any sort of rural black prosperity . and in fact many of the once white farms now sit empty or aren't being used properly , as rural areas deal with drought and other issues


the big red flag for me here centres around " property rights " if someone owns property and has legal title to it , don't they legally have a right to that property . how can someone come along and say that's not really yours and it belongs to someone else ?

clearly if they proceed with this plan it will eventually go to the supreme court of south Africa I'd imagine and then they'd have to decide if the boers/whites have legal title to the land or not
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:

the big red flag for me here centres around " property rights " if someone owns property and has legal title to it , don't they legally have a right to that property . how can someone come along and say that's not really yours and it belongs to someone else ?


How did they 'get' that property ? Their legal rights cannot override someone elses legal right to land they once possessed.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:

the big red flag for me here centres around " property rights " if someone owns property and has legal title to it , don't they legally have a right to that property . how can someone come along and say that's not really yours and it belongs to someone else ?


How did they 'get' that property ? Their legal rights cannot override someone elses legal right to land they once possessed.



but when were talking land someone else once possessed ? over 100 or 200 years ago , that is pretty tough to prove that one's former relatives actually lived on the land

we've had similar cases in Canada , where natives file large land claims for huge amounts of land they once lived on but new people have since built homes and use the land

these farms still have legal rights for the land and homes they have built on them , are you saying they don't really own there own homes ? that someone else who might of lived there 100's of years ago is the real owner ?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:


but when were talking land someone else once possessed ? over 100 or 200 years ago , that is pretty tough to prove that one's former relatives actually lived on the land
Much like Canada, I doubt it is all that hard to prove most of any claim.
Quote:
we've had similar cases in Canada , where natives file large land claims for huge amounts of land they once lived on but new people have since built homes and use the land

these farms still have legal rights for the land and homes they have built on them , are you saying they don't really own there own homes ? that someone else who might of lived there 100's of years ago is the real owner ?

The idea is the fruit of the poisonous tree . If the land was stolen, re-registered or from other illegal means then yes, they may 'own' the house but the land is not theirs and they are in effect squatting on the land.

All this means is..."ok, take the house, you have three days or it is all mine.

I believe, but an a tad unsure, that all chattels, possessions and whatnot found on the land becomes property of the rightful owner upon granting of a ruling.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:


but when were talking land someone else once possessed ? over 100 or 200 years ago , that is pretty tough to prove that one's former relatives actually lived on the land
Much like Canada, I doubt it is all that hard to prove most of any claim.
Quote:
we've had similar cases in Canada , where natives file large land claims for huge amounts of land they once lived on but new people have since built homes and use the land

these farms still have legal rights for the land and homes they have built on them , are you saying they don't really own there own homes ? that someone else who might of lived there 100's of years ago is the real owner ?

The idea is the fruit of the poisonous tree . If the land was stolen, re-registered or from other illegal means then yes, they may 'own' the house but the land is not theirs and they are in effect squatting on the land.

All this means is..."ok, take the house, you have three days or it is all mine.

I believe, but an a tad unsure, that all chattels, possessions and whatnot found on the land becomes property of the rightful owner upon granting of a ruling.


you obviously don't own any property or have family that owns farmland , clearly if you did you'd see this issue much differently

but native land claims in Canada aren't that hard to prove as they know certain native groups lived in certain regions

all of south Africa would of been originally black at some point before the british and dutch arrived and settled in that region . but considering the amount of time that has past and fact these farmers now legally own this land under modern laws

I don't really see the justification or claim to the lands , a lot of these lands were likely of little value before the settlers turned them into successful farms and its there long term commitment to the lands that has made there farms successful

and its also clearly reverse racism , the only reason there targeting these farms is cause there white owned , if they were black owned they'd be leaving them alone
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4151
Reputation: 238.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:

the big red flag for me here centres around " property rights " if someone owns property and has legal title to it , don't they legally have a right to that property . how can someone come along and say that's not really yours and it belongs to someone else ?


How did they 'get' that property ? Their legal rights cannot override someone elses legal right to land they once possessed.


Huh? It doesn't? Right, how did the Six Nations get their tribal lands? They certainly weren't reluctant to beat the shit out of anyone who wanted to put up a fight. And maybe eat them afterwards.

The difference with private property as a "right" is that the state guarantees individual owners a certain set of rights of ownership, including the right to buy or sell his/her property as they see fit. Even the Queen, if she decides she needs some private property, must indemnify the owner. And when they say 'the Queen'. they mean the government.

TC would have us believe that the title of your house was dependent on how you got your money. Does that apply to the Gooderhams? The Bronfmans?

Or is it one of these new 'human rights' thingies that somehow get into our courts without ever bothering with Parliament?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:


you obviously don't own any property or have family that owns farmland , clearly if you did you'd see this issue much differently

I see . Hmmm....

Well, I own a house in the west of downtown Toronto. No issues there as far as I can see.

I own a cottage in Muskoka. There was a concern a number of years ago as 'some' nearby areas where experiencing Native claims. They cottagers were not being allowed to pass through to the cottage.

So it made me sit and think. Thankfully, it appears there is a good long history of title for my property and we are good to go.

Not to mention my job entails being thorough on who has title to land and property so I guess your suggestion that I " obviously don't own any property " is really rather humorous.
Quote:

but native land claims in Canada aren't that hard to prove as they know certain native groups lived in certain regions

Ya think? If it were easy perhaps one of our Govt's would have settled and paid up.
Quote:

.. . but considering the amount of time that has past and fact these farmers now legally own this land under modern laws

And again, irrelevant as we both know. If the property had been taken without compensation then that needs to be corrected.
Quote:

I don't really see the justification or claim to the lands , a lot of these lands were likely of little value before the settlers turned them into successful farms and its there long term commitment to the lands that has made there farms successful

So....the worlds art houses , the Swiss Banks etc. should not give the Jews back the stolen artifacts, money, land, Gold, Jewellry ? You know, the people who stole those items did...hang on, need to get it right....they made " long term commitment ' to those artifacts and money. No way they should give it back. Right ?

I figured you for a more rational thinker.

Whether or not the farms are successful is irrelevant now. It is however why people will fight tooth and nail.
Quote:

and its also clearly reverse racism , the only reason there targeting these farms is cause there white owned , if they were black owned they'd be leaving them alone

Well, for one there is no such thing as reverse racism.
Secondly, it matters not about black or white.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:


The difference with private property as a "right" is that the state guarantees individual owners a certain set of rights of ownership, including the right to buy or sell his/her property as they see fit.

..and if one can prove they never ceded the land , or prove nefarious dealings in the past and at the same time refute title, well, guess what, the govt's courts will overturn that property right and award it to the proper person.
Quote:

TC would have us believe that the title of your house was dependent on how you got your money. Does that apply to the Gooderhams? The Bronfmans?

I havent a clue what you are talking about.

How you got your money?

Umm.....yea that one needs some work.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
RCO wrote:


you obviously don't own any property or have family that owns farmland , clearly if you did you'd see this issue much differently

I see . Hmmm....

Well, I own a house in the west of downtown Toronto. No issues there as far as I can see.

I own a cottage in Muskoka. There was a concern a number of years ago as 'some' nearby areas where experiencing Native claims. They cottagers were not being allowed to pass through to the cottage.

So it made me sit and think. Thankfully, it appears there is a good long history of title for my property and we are good to go.

Not to mention my job entails being thorough on who has title to land and property so I guess your suggestion that I " obviously don't own any property " is really rather humorous.
Quote:

but native land claims in Canada aren't that hard to prove as they know certain native groups lived in certain regions

Ya think? If it were easy perhaps one of our Govt's would have settled and paid up.
Quote:

.. . but considering the amount of time that has past and fact these farmers now legally own this land under modern laws

And again, irrelevant as we both know. If the property had been taken without compensation then that needs to be corrected.
Quote:

I don't really see the justification or claim to the lands , a lot of these lands were likely of little value before the settlers turned them into successful farms and its there long term commitment to the lands that has made there farms successful

So....the worlds art houses , the Swiss Banks etc. should not give the Jews back the stolen artifacts, money, land, Gold, Jewellry ? You know, the people who stole those items did...hang on, need to get it right....they made " long term commitment ' to those artifacts and money. No way they should give it back. Right ?

I figured you for a more rational thinker.

Whether or not the farms are successful is irrelevant now. It is however why people will fight tooth and nail.
Quote:

and its also clearly reverse racism , the only reason there targeting these farms is cause there white owned , if they were black owned they'd be leaving them alone

Well, for one there is no such thing as reverse racism.
Secondly, it matters not about black or white.



well maybe I shouldn't of made assumptions , as you own property maybe this make more sense from a different perspective

if you owned an investment property in South Africa and the government said they were going to take it away and not provide any financial compensation cause you were not black would you be willing to give it to them ? in the name of social justice ?


how can you not say this is reverse racism , we have a black led government , a corrupt one at that , saying there going to take away the land from the white farmers and not even provide a cent of financial compensation for there lifetime of work and investment on the property

this is by far one of the most racist policies I have ever seen come out of a so called modern era government , clearly its racist cause it only targets white farmers
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( a court has blocked radical opposition leader Malema from encouraging "land grabs " he was actually telling his followers to take land if they liked it and owners white )


South African court bars Malema from inciting land grabs

with News Agencies
 7 hours ago

South Africa


South Africa’s firebrand political leader,Julius Malema, has been barred from inciting illegal land grabs by the High Court in Pretoria .

The court granted a request filed by lobby groups to prevent Malema from encouraging land invasions. The leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) Party has previously called for land occupation in South Africa, a call supported by his party.

The party says its policy on land restitution is to correct the imbalance of ownership created by apartheid with expropriation of land without compensation.

The governing African National Congress (ANC) also supports land expropriation but with compensation.

Land ownership in South Africa is an emotive issue where most of it remains in white hands 23 years after the end apartheid.

In February last year, the main house of parliament took a first step towards enabling the state make compulsory purchases of land to redress racial disparities in land ownership.


http://www.africanews.com/2017.....and-grabs/
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

South African President Calls For White- Owned Land Confiscation Without Compensation

South African President Jacob Zuma (Photo Courtesy: Getty Images)



Following closely on the heels of its neighbour Zimbabwe, South Africa may take to confiscating white-owned land without compensation. South African President Jacob Zuma, called for an altering of law to facilitate the confiscation of land owned by Caucasians in the country.

Calling particularly the black parties in parliament to unite in pursuit of the amendment of the constitution to this order, Zuma said that the move would be preceded by a “pre-colonial land audit of land use and occupation patterns”.

His proposal was backed by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Economic Freedom Fighter, who The Telegraph reports has been travelling across South Africa propagating the expropriation of white owned land without compensation. “People of South Africa, where you see a beautiful land, take it, it belongs to you,” he said in support of the proposal, adding that the move will “unite black people in South Africa.”

The proposal caused outrage among the Afrikaans speaking groups. Andries Breytenbach, chairman of the Boer Afrikaner Volksraad,responding to the Zuma’s remarks said, “If this starts, it will turn into a racial war which we want to prevent,” calling for urgent mediation between the Afrikaans and the government

https://swarajyamag.com/insta/south-african-president-calls-for-white-owned-land-confiscation-without-compensation
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The sad extinction of the South African white Afrikaner

07 March 2017, 12:26


The drums of Land expropriation in South Africa are beating louder. Recently, we saw the ANC and the EFF kissing and making things right because on the land issue, they are not at loggerheads. Jacob Zuma went as far as proposing that the constitution of the republic be amended to allow for the expropriation of land. This is the same constitution that he violated and obdurately refused to step down. The constitution is applicable to a few individuals but for the top echelons like Zuma, it does not have any bearing. That is not the crux of this article.

In this land melee, it is the white Afrikaner whose existence is threatened. Like the white Zimbabwean in the 90’s, the white Afrikaner faces extinction in the growing insanity of envy and obsession with the past. When the economic arteries of a certain race are blocked, their existence is compromised. Take away a man’s slice of bread and you have taken away his existence. The economic avenues for the white Afrikaner have been shut and the few remaining are going to be hermetically shut with the impending Land expropriation. The chants of consensus from the masses on the land expropriation are a harbinger of the atrocities that are about to befall the Afrikaner race. The white Afrikaners undeniably own vast tracts of land but the land is in good use as South Africa boasts of a stable and bountiful agricultural sector. From the farming itself to the distribution, the sector creates millions of jobs. The whole sector hangs in limbo as they are feeling the land expropriation heat. I have known the Afrikaner as the race that is thick skinned but a thick skin also melts under extreme heat.

The Employment Equity (EE) legislation went full force in 2014 with the government threatening non-compliant companies with hefty penalties. The law states that employment opportunities must be given as a priority to people from designated groups. The designated groups racially constitute of Africans, Indians and Coloureds. The fulcrum of this law is that White males and females benefited during the apartheid era and they should not be afforded employment opportunities before people from designated groups- another testimony of ongoing economic slaughter of the white Afrikaner. In the business sector, the trouble faithfully follows the white Afrikaner as Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) compliance hinders their entrepreneurial zeal. A business that is not compliant with the BBEEE will be lucky to land a tender or even open its doors to the public. Again, people from designated groups form key elements of the BBBEE which include Ownership, Management Control, Skills Development, Enterprise and Supplier development and Socio-Economic development. BBBEE certification and EE legislation is a double edged sword that slits the white Afrikaner.

On the social scene, the white Afrikaner is facing extinction as his language has been a subject of student protests. The University of Stellenbosch heralded the boycotting of Afrikaans as a medium of learning in many universities. In a country like South Africa with over 9 official languages, the tension should not escalate to a protest level unless there is deep hatred for a certain language. Yes, Afrikaans was forced on many non-Afrikaans speakers and it was a concern. The concern was blown and flames of hatred were alight as Afrikaans was threatened with a ban in many institutions. The students not only protested against the language policy, they protested against a race with most in the extreme of wanting a complete ban of Afrikaans- the language of the oppressor as it was termed. It is not anyone’s fault that Afrikaner academics wrote their books and published them. As such there are lectures that will be given in Afrikaans for Afrikaans speaking students, just like there are lectures in English for English speaking students. Our Sepedi, Sotho, Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele, Swati, Venda and Tsonga speaking academics should aspire to write books in their mother tongues like the Afrikaner did. The incompetence of our own academics is transmogrified into a hatred for the Afrikaans language which is the problem as opposed to Afrikaans as a language being a problem. No language is frowned upon in South Africa more than Afrikaans-again the white Afrikaner looks as his language is demonized and disintegrated from society.

South Africa has seen an exodus of white Afrikaners who are feeling less and less welcome in the country. A former boss of mine packed his life away and moved to Australia. I know of a very good white Afrikaner friend who moved to Germany. They said the same thing which is that being white is not a racial and economic disadvantage in such countries. The economic assassination endorsed by EE and BBBEE is enough to instruct the white Afrikaner to depart. Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand offered the white Zimbabweans refuge and citizenship during the madness of land invasions in Zimbabwe. That was the death of a race. With the white Afrikaner facing the same peril, they will move to more accepting countries and leave a country where they are detested for being white.

I am no black sellout, neither am I a white apologist but any law that is aimed at destroying the livelihood of a certain race is a shame and it should be shunned. Apartheid came and went as such EE and BBEEE laws should have a duration. It cannot be fair on any race to receive retribution for crimes committed in historical epochs that they did not live in. The white Afrikaner faces the same fate as the white Zimbabwean - he was helplessly blamed, demonised, attacked, brutalised and driven into extinction by a black majority.

So it goes.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24.....r-20170307
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6283
Reputation: 229.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

End of the white man in Africa? The murder of a legendary safari guide in Kenya is but the latest outrage as tribes armed with AK-47s grab white farmers' land - and politicians across the continent turn a blind eye

•Father-of-two Tristan Voorspuy was shot dead in the region of Laikipia in Kenya
•Farm staff lost contact with the Guards veteran while he was riding on horseback
•Mr Voorspuy was murdered as he inspected lodges that had been set on fire
•In Laikipia tribesman are invading white-owned ranches and terrorizing owners

By Max Hastings For The Daily Mail

Published: 23:14 GMT, 7 March 2017 | Updated: 23:30 GMT, 7 March 2017


Just a few years back, Kenya’s Laikipia plateau was paradise.

Many times my wife and I have ridden out on horseback at sunrise among elephants and giraffe, buck, warthog and the occasional leopard, marvelling that such wild beauty still exists on earth.

No longer, however.

For many months now, Laikipia’s cattle farms and game ranches, many of them white-owned, have been invaded and overrun by armed tribesmen brandishing automatic rifles, burning buildings and terrorising owners as they claim grazing rights for their own cattle.

On Sunday, this scourge reached a new climax: the famous safari guide, farmer and former British Army officer, Tristan Voorspuy, was shot out of his saddle and killed as he inspected lodges on his estate that had been torched in an arson attack.


British born Father-of-two Tristan Voorspuy was shot dead in the region of Laikipia in Kenya

His death has sent a tremor of shock and outrage through white Kenya and its tourist industry, comparable with that in 2011 when Somali pirates struck at the country’s once-idyllic coast, kidnapping or killing several tourists.

For more than half a century since its independence in 1963, Kenya was considered a bastion of peace and stability amid the turmoil in much of Africa.

Yet in recent years, a plague of violence has spread, fuelled by land hunger among an exploding population, South Sudanese warlords, rhino-poachers and an increasingly corrupt Nairobi government.

Add to this an inflow of AK-47 automatic rifles, passed down from war-torn Somalia, which have fallen into the hands of thousands of north Kenyan tribesmen.

The Laikipia plateau is home to a band of mostly white farmers, left in possession of their land by successive Kenyan governments because it is relatively poor in quality. They ranch cattle, and, until recently, harboured a wonderful array of wild animals.

Fenced conservancies such as Mugie, Borana and Lewa, where Prince William and Prince Harry often stay, provide havens for rare species including Grevy’s zebra, white rhino and, above all, black rhino, which live under armed guard.


Mr Voorspuy was a South African-born British army veteran and was brave and tough in the way white settlers in Africa have always needed to be


Kenya’s Laikipia plateau is home to an array of beautiful wild animals from elephants and giraffe to the occasional leopard

But wire and wardens are no protection against the recent mass invasions by nomads hell-bent on seizing pasturage, indifferent to life or property, least of all that which is owned by whites.

They claim that drought is forcing them to seek new land for their cattle. The farmers suspect a political motive. In an election year when killers and poachers have votes, the government is doing little to restore order.

A month or so back, I received an anguished email from a farmer friend whose ranch we used to rent, telling of a guard shot dead at Mugie, of wholesale rustling and occupations. A Kenya farm website chronicles experiences of families who live in daily fear.

‘19 cows and 21 calves stolen yesterday in broad daylight,’ runs one extract, ‘well co-ordinated and planned which was trying to draw George [the farmer] and 5 officers into an ambush . . . Day 9 two of our staff beaten by a gang of 4 Samburu [a local tribe], one carrying an AK . . . Jamie Roberts came by plane to try to help . . . one shot fired at plane . . . There seems no end, and no political will to stop the slaughter of our national wildlife assets and also the destruction of private property.’


The murder of 60-year-old Mr Voorspuy will horrify every white in East Africa and the thousands of tourists who visited his 24,000 acre Sosian Game Ranch


Mr Voorspuy was killed when he went out to investigate fires started at lodges on his ranch

The game, glory of East Africa and jewel of the tourist industry, is being massacred for food, ivory and rhino horn. And the plains where such visitors as ourselves gazed upon a wealth of great animals, are today almost barren.

The gossip in Nairobi is that President Kenyatta cares not about tourists, only about power and bribes.

Yet as my wife says: ‘Who will go there, if there is no longer anything to marvel at?’

The murder of 60-year-old Tristan Voorspuy will horrify every white in East Africa and the thousands of tourists who took holidays with him and his wife Cindy at the 24,000 acre Sosian Game Ranch he co-owned.

South African born, for a time a Guards officer, he kept alive the old White Mischief tradition — both the good bits and bad. He rode hard and fast, partied likewise, and relished his remarkable power to seduce pretty women.

He was brave and tough in the way white settlers in Africa have always needed to be. If he had been more cautious — for instance, about riding out alone to investigate the damage to his lodges — he might be alive today. But men like Voorspuy know only one way to do things — and it does not involve backing away from danger.



Mr Voorspuy was known for riding hard and fast and relished his remarkable power to seduce pretty women


The tribesmen who murdered Tristan Voorspuy saw not a farmer whose life had been spent in Africa, but instead just a rich, white interloper on a horse who challenged them on land they demand to claim as their own


Pictured: The three lodges burned by armed tribesman who invaded Mr Voorspuy's Sosian Ranch in Laikipia

More than a dozen deaths in the region in recent months have been linked to tribesmen seeking new grazing for their herds, and following the death of Voorspuy, some 379 arrests have been reported.

What is happening in Kenya follows the grim pattern set in Zimbabwe by the monstrous Robert Mugabe, 93-year-old tyrant and mass murderer. Mugabe’s regime has evicted the white farming community and allowed a wilderness to replace some of the richest agriculture in Africa.

Now in South Africa, President Jacob Zuma is threatening the same policy, seeking to assuage the demands of an exploding population by appeasing land-grabbers, and appearing indifferent to the increasingly frequent murders of white landowners.

Zuma announced last week that his government is to conduct a ‘pre-colonial land audit’, to legitimise confiscation of property without compensation. One of his political opponents says: ‘He’s gone rogue on land reform.’


More than a dozen deaths in Laikipia in recent months have been linked to tribesmen seeking new grazing for their herds (Pictured, police arrive at Mr Voorspuy's Sosian ranch, following his murder)

Zuma says his purpose is to ‘reverse this historical injustice’ — the fact that 80 per cent of the country’s land remains in white ownership, while a quarter of the population is unemployed.

Like Mugabe a generation ago, South Africa’s leader seeks to whip up popular fervour for political advantage, when incompetence and corruption threaten to deprive him of power.

I have believed for years, through long experience of Africa, that the white man is doomed to be squeezed out of the continent — or, at least out of property ownership.

In 1994, when majority rule came to South Africa, I wrote from Cape Town that I did not believe the mere right to vote would satisfy the black population: they yearned also for the whites’ homes, cars, swimming pools, and would not rest until they got those things.

As for Kenya, my wife Penny and I have spent some of the happiest months of our lives on Laikipia, never tiring of such magic moments as the day we met a lioness while riding together.

‘I hope it’s not hungry,’ she said warily.


Like Mugabe a generation ago, South Africa’s leader Jacob Zuma seeks to whip up popular fervour for political advantage

‘Don’t be silly,’ I replied, perhaps with more conviction than I felt.

We and the beast stared motionless at each other for 30 seconds, at a distance of 30 yards, before it turned and loped away into the bush, leaving a memory that will never fade.

But that moment will not be repeated, and we tremble for the livelihoods of thousands of people, white and black alike, who are now threatened by an estimated 10,000 armed tribesmen, driving 135,000 cattle before them.

Law and order is a rare and precarious commodity. Few African governments acknowledge that without justice and the enforcement of property rights, no economy or society can prosper. Loyalty to tribe and family persistently trump rulers’ commitment to the welfare of their nations.

The tribesmen who murdered Tristan Voorspuy saw not a farmer whose life had been spent in Africa, and who provided employment for scores of local people, but instead just a rich, white interloper on a horse who challenged them on land they demand to claim as their own.

It is heartbreaking to see Kenya threatened with a descent into darkness.

Yet unless its government shows the will and means to restore peace to Laikipia, which means expelling this murderous throng of invaders by force of arms, the nation’s future stands at risk, and its priceless wild heritage faces the prospect of near-extinction.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z4agmxc4UM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:

if you owned an investment property in South Africa and the government said they were going to take it away and not provide any financial compensation cause you were not black would you be willing to give it to them ? in the name of social justice ?

I may not have any choice really. Happy, probably not but thats not to say the others are wrong or right.,\
If it can be shown that land was stolen then it has to go back and be damned with the rest. It is the only way apart from compensation from the govt to those slighted (the blacks)

Look, it does suck but it is the only way to do things. You have a prized old Camaro stolen (this happen3ed in Cali by the way) ay back in 1977. Worth..?...not much really.

But now....worth a fortune. Car was re-registered a number of times and no one saw it on the stolen list. Each subsequent owner thought he had clear title, afterall the Cali DMV gave him a n ownership.....right?

Jump ahead to last year, car is worth up to a $100, 000 and then is discovered to be stolen. Cops seize the car, call the original owner and its theirs now.

Right or wrong? Same thing there.
Quote:

how can you not say this is reverse racism ,

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

Theres racism...period. saying 'reverse' is saying only whites commit racism. We know that isnt true.
Quote:

we have a black led government , a corrupt one at that , saying there going to take away the land from the white farmers and not even provide a cent of financial compensation for there lifetime of work and investment on the property

this is by far one of the most racist policies I have ever seen come out of a so called modern era government , clearly its racist cause it only targets white farmers

I dont mean to belittle anyone here, but I think you need to read up on S. Afr and everything thats gone on there in the past 100 years.

Blacks were treated horribly, worse than most anyone else. Murdering a black would get you a cup of coffee from the local barista.
The cops? They more than anyone would kill blacks for shits and giggles so there'd be no worries on your part for killing some black dude.

Again though, the salient part is that the courts will have to deal with it and that wont be easy.
Is there racist policies coming from the black run govt? Yes. The tide has turned. But the issue of land stolen or not, of compensation or not, has to be bourne out in a court.

I can tell you who will win in the end. The chinese, they are already taking over large swaths of Africa and sadly they dont give a shit about anyone. They will kill beat and force workers into a shallow grave as a cost of business.
These are huge farms...as in HUGE. They build a fence, man their people with guns and enforce their own laws. These places are so large their own planes can come and go to re-supply.

So, best learn their history to understand. I am no expert, but a very close friend of mine works in Africa as a security consultant and he sees it everyday up close. He criss crosses Africa , alone w $1000US as his 'weapon' to plan out aid runs.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4151
Reputation: 238.8
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Bugs wrote:


The difference with private property as a "right" is that the state guarantees individual owners a certain set of rights of ownership, including the right to buy or sell his/her property as they see fit.

..and if one can prove they never ceded the land , or prove nefarious dealings in the past and at the same time refute title, well, guess what, the govt's courts will overturn that property right and award it to the proper person.
Quote:

TC would have us believe that the title of your house was dependent on how you got your money. Does that apply to the Gooderhams? The Bronfmans?

I havent a clue what you are talking about.

How you got your money?

Umm.....yea that one needs some work.


What TC shows us here is how our institutions are being undercut by the Courts. Fifty years ago, this wouldn't have been possible in Canada.

Quote:
In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is a way that real estate may be owned in common law countries, and is the highest possible ownership interest that can be held in real property. Allodial title is reserved to governments under a civil law structure. The rights of the fee simple owner are limited by government powers of taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited further by certain encumbrances or conditions in the deed, such as, for example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversion int st in the grantor if the condition fails; this is a fee simple conditional.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple


TC is telling us that it can be reversed depending on how you got the property. Think about it ... those good Canadians who bought houses in a town called Caledonia were actually the final bag-holders for swindles that the Queen -- that would be Queen Victoria -- perpetrated when she sold the lands on the banks of the Grand River to developers back before Canada was a nation. It turns out that she didn't have the right to do that ... and now those people's titles to their homes isn't worth a shit.

Is that the kind of country we're living in? TC says it is, and that may be the view of oru civil service. Think on that, folks.'

If TC is right, then in principle, Victoria swindled the whole nation. All our real estate documents, for example, assume in fee simplle property. The banking system assumes that the properties they finance yield in fee simple control over the asset. Is that what TC means to tell us, or is it that the Courts are changing the law behind our backs, without telling us?

How do you think they'll let us know?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


South African pres seeks power to expropriate white land

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB