Racism is racism is racism ...

[ChrisNG53]

Please decide which of the following statements are true as regards South Africa: -

a) human beings are categorized according to ethnicity under AA laws and BEE protocols;
b) with Whites excluded from jobs and contracts as a matter of course;
c) with Blacks included as of right;
d) and with Coloureds/Indians/Chinese to be included only if they first claim and prove that they are Black;
e) the effect of this is that rights and privileges are being accorded on the basis of race, ethnicity and colour;
f) this was the paradigm approach of the apartheid culture and system;
g) this culture is racist;
h) racism is evil;
i) and racism begets more evil.

Never mind which you may want to bake it, all of the above statements are true. We have racism. We have adopted it, believe in it, nurture it, sustain it, and propagate it … despite its evil nature.

I wish I am wrong. I will be greatly relieved if someone can prove me wrong. I don’t think I am. Discussions I have had with very good people, and some brilliant minds, have faltered right here … when the above statements have to be admitted one by one.
The answer often proffered, and it is the only possible answer, is that by some tortuous process of intellectualized alchemy, it is all OK because it is packaged as AA and BEE. When I point out that you can’t play the “Black” card to resolve a complaint about obsession with “Blackness” – silence … and lots of “well you see …” and then lots of gobledigook, spin and emotive ramblings.

I have also heard some pretty important people, including a high profile judge, say it is “justified” in the cause of transformation. This is no different to saying “the end justifies the means”. So should you should pin me to a medal if I expose a plot to bomb Soccer City and kill 80, 000 people … sure.
Do you still award me the medal if I obtained the info by torturing the informants?

The “justification” argument simply doesn’t wash, both philosophically and in jurisprudence. The “means” always needs to be as “inviolate” as the “objective”.

Now if I am right … and pray God I am not, the implications are quite horrendous. These include the fact that the whole nation is “delusional” for imagining that something that is plainly evil is good. It also includes the fact that a whole bunch of important people and institutions, such as the Human Rights Commission, are conniving and colluding at systemic evil.

And just to put the “justification” argument to bed. It is simple enough to devise a criteria under which AA is applied on the basis of subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage. Since Blacks are the majority in this category they would still be the primary beneficiaries. However the model would not be racist.

Now will someone explain, in language that has the simplicity of truth, that what is set out above is false.

[Justloadit]

To me any form of favoritism that includes race or colour as a directive is racist.

When will BEE be thrown out as it is pure racism - which in fact is even against the ANC preachings.

[desA]

It gets interesting when I tell locals that they can stick their BEE claptrap. Fact is, they can also stick the rest as well.

SA is now worse in the racism stakes than it was under apartheid. Only difficulty is that 'they' will battle to launch the country into the high-tech arena with almost no decent local high-tech talent left in the country. This is the fruit of 'their' racist policy.

'They' will only realise the severity of things, when their new taskmasters - the Chinese - really take control of the economy. Little that 'they' can do after that.

[Dave A]

It is simple enough to devise a criteria under which AA is applied on the basis of subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage. Since Blacks are the majority in this category they would still be the primary beneficiaries. However the model would not be racist.

That's the really sad part - it would work as well if not better, at least when it comes to BBBEE.

But (and it's a big but) - Where this particular "non-racial" qualification concept falls flat on its face is when it comes to getting into the "big money" league. Normally that takes track record and/or having the capital to play with.

Of late I've wondered whether we got this racially aligned policy that has done little to aid broad based transformation from narrow mindedness, or whether it was deliberate - ie. broad based transformation wasn't the primary objective.

[tec0]

To my limited and somewhat uneducated mind, I would imagine that AA and BBBEE are “preferred” and not a law “I stand to be corrected”. However large organisations enforce it as a law with no exceptions. So I don’t think it is about race at all. It is about attitude.

Have a look at our constitution, if any company discriminate against you on Race, Religion or Gender then you have the right to bring this matter to court. I personally cannot understand why political parties are so hesitant. Write to the political party that you support give them the documentation that you have and allow them to contact the UN and ask for an international court hearing.

It is simple if the constitution gives acceptation and you as a citizen are not an equal anymore, then the UN must react for its existence it to keep peace and create and sustain equality.

International law
United Nations
United Nations South Africa

[Butch Hannan]

There is one thing that we all seem to forget and that is the word "tribalism" A great majority of our population fall under this simple word. A very well educated black engineer friend of mine said to me and to quote him "Butch you had better believe that tribalism is very alive and well in South Africa". This can be seen in some of the appointments made by President Zuma. Is Beke Cele really the best man for the job.
I believe that South African society has to a large degree been conditioned to the fact that only white people can be racists.
The black people suffer from an inferiority complex caused by wallowing in a quagmire of self pity. Until they get over this state of "entitlement" I cannot ever see things improving. By and large they still do not see themselves as equals in spite of the constitution which tells them that they are.

[tec0]

9.Equality

1. Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

2. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

3. The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

4. No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

5. Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

Please note number five {5} “Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.” Now who do you think is on the receiving end of this?


Meaning of Discrimination as defined by Dictionary:

–noun

1. an act or instance of discriminating.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

[Chrisjan B]

Please note number five {5} “Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.” Now who do you think is on the receiving end of this?

Not me.....

And I am disadvantaged... as I am disabled - hard of hearing, but my wife say only if it suits me!
I don't want anything from these people anyway...

[tec0]

Agreed, it is true that there are many unfair systems “that are deemed fair because the powers that be so wills it. I say go on, live work “if you can find it” and do whatever is possible within the limitations.

Eventually there will be a realisation and with it change.

[Justloadit]

5. Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

That is where the loop hole is. Who decides when it is fair or not?

So one will never win a legal case. A very carefully worded clause which makes AA and BBBEE legal.

[tec0]

Well, you can challenge this problem legally as it is your right to do so. I would recommend that you do research on the subject before saying or claiming anything. A good place to start is here; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as stated by the UN

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 7;

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

[ChrisNG53]

Racism is racism is racism ...

I have little doubt that if the whole AA and BEE models were challenged they would be either struck down or receive a sever mauling by the Constitutional Court.
Whatever may have been "imagined" when the model were configured, actual experience has proved beyond any doubt that they are racist.
Beverley Tatham, a renowned Black expert on the subject, states that "if you want to establish racism just see who is benefiting ... and who is not ."
On this test we find that Blacks benefit whether or not they are actually disadvantaged.
This occurs under AA and BEE.
Under BEE the benefits are just "fabulous".
By no stretch of the imagination, or anything else, can this be classified as "fair" discrimination. It is a no brainer.
If it is not fair it is unconstitutional.
It would be also quite easy to augment the challenge by mapping out the other insidious effects we now have = "all are equal but Blacks are more equal"
For instance - what do Sonia and Mathew Booth tell their children about what and who they are? If they stick with truth their children are automatically excluded from jobs and contracts ...i.e, are second class citizens.
A system that coerces children to deny or under value their own father's ethnicity is quite obviously inherently evil ... and therefore unconstitutional.

[tec0]

I really don’t get it; do you honestly think ALL people think that way?

I don’t, I would simply say you are not getting the full picture. At this moment labour brokers are controlling ALL work in my aria, they don’t care about colour, and they don’t care about labour laws and unions and equality.

All they want is cheap labour so that they can take there “half” of all the people that work’s money, and I really cannot justify why we have labour brokers because they are singlehandedly destroying any and every job culture that we worked to get.

Laws both National and International exist so that you can be protected. But I don’t see people using those laws. No I see a lot of posts all over the internet of angry people screaming about this and that. Hoping that others will stand up and do the deed.

It is called laziness! You are interested in getting people angry, hoping that they will cause change.

Change start by writing a letter to your political party. To do things legally and correctly!!! Then your political party is responsible to create awareness and they must bring it to the attention of all the other parties involved and the UN. Only then can the UN call for a formal hearing and investigation and only then can problems be solved.

But it is so much work contacting your friends and family by e-mail asking them to start writing letters to our political parties via e-mail. It is so much work to call your political party and ask who is responsible for what and how the systems work. It is so horribly difficult for you to do anything and there is no shortage of excuses.

See you must take the first step, yes it will take time, and yes there will be difficulties. But again, why must you do anything at all?

[Dave A]

But I don’t see people using those laws. No I see a lot of posts all over the internet of angry people screaming about this and that. Hoping that others will stand up and do the deed.

Are you surprised people don't trust the legal system to do the job anymore? And at a reasonable price? Zuma, Shaik, a slew of very expensive drunk driving defences paid for by rates and taxes despite the fact that they were lost causes pretty much from the outset. Fighting for justice through the legal system has become affordable only to multi-millionaires and people with access to public money.

But it is so much work contacting your friends and family by e-mail asking them to start writing letters...

Those angry people are giving voice to their frustration. If they can't afford the legal costs of pursuing justice, at least they're raising public awareness of the issues they face.

...to our political parties via e-mail. It is so much work to call your political party and ask who is responsible for what and how the systems work.

They're politicians - do you expect an honest answer? At best they'll tell you what you want to hear and remind you to vote for them at the next election.

If they were honest, and depending on which political party you're calling, the truthful answers would be either "I'm responsible - don't you dare stuff up my gravy train ride" or "I don't have the power to change a single damn thing just at the moment."

[tec0]

Yes our law system is... “I rather not finish this sentence” But international laws is something else or so we hope. See in the end it is about getting a voice, if enough people use the proper “but difficult system” Then we might get lucky and the UN will take an active interest.

But if people just continue to criticise and only point to their frustrations then basically we are deflecting interest and things will not change. We must point out the facts and only the facts. Nobody listens to an angry mob they just shoot teargas at the mob and write them off as extremist.

But if you push your concerns forward using the proper systems and factual concerns then the chances improve somewhat.