Thursday, 27 February 2014

Could Voting Have Avoided The ANC's Land Grabbing Legislation?

Judging by comments to my previous article "Should we or should we not vote... and why?", apparently, it is not necessary to vote, but one has to ask, had everyone voted, for whichever political party other than the ANC in order to reduce the ANC's majority in parliament to the least number of seats needed for a party to rule, would these pieces of legislation still have been passed?

Of course it does not change the fact that we have two ANC's in parliament, being the ANC and the ANC disguised as the DA. It also does not change the fact that, soon, we'll also have the EFF, the militant (bad-cop) wing of the ANC entering parliament, which will of course make things even more difficult to control.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." (Winston Churchill) and in the meantime the liberal denialist appeasers are panicking, because now their sins are starting to catch up with them personally. The crocodile is hungry and they are next on the menu.

The following articles will show how liberals shoot themselves in the foot. SA Taxpayers, which include liberals, will be forced to pay the ANC Regime for grabbing private property from South African citizens. This is what the Denialist Appeasers, like the DA, supported.

It begs the question, how anyone could, after having read this, even consider voting for the DA.

The following are just some of the most important parts taken from a number of articles, the links of which can be found at the end of each article.

Property rights no longer safe in SA - Anton Alberts
Institute for Race Relations agrees with FF Plus that no property in South Africa is safe any longer

The time has come for South Africans to see the ominous reality of a carefully planned ANC strategy to, using apparent legal methods, gain sole ownership of all property in South Africa, without paying any compensation, Adv. Anton Alberts, the parliamentary spokesperson on trade and industry for the Freedom Front Plus, says.

Adv. Alberts had already at the end of last year, with the publication of the Promotion and Protection of Investors Bill in the Government Gazette, seriously warned of the dangers attached to the Bill.

"The Institute for Race Relations is now confirming our interpretation. Especially when read with the proposed legislation which aims to re-open land claims, no property is safe. The FF Plus last year warned against this and said it is critical and there are concerns for sound reasons.

To read the full article click HERE

Politicsweb - The ANC govt's plan for expropriation on the sly

The Investment Bill opens the door to expropriation without compensation - A new Expropriation Bill by another name.

Media coverage of the Promotion and Protection of In- vestment Bill of 2013 (the Investment Bill) has focused on its role in replacing South Africa's bilateral investment treaties with various European states. Representatives of these countries have broken their usual diplomatic silence to warn against the reduced protection it gives investors from their states. However, the true significance of the Bill goes very much beyond this.

The Investment Bill is, in fact, a new expropriation measure that will apply to all property owners in South Africa, both local and foreign. It is also likely to result in many people receiving zero compensation on the loss of their property, provided the State takes this, not as owner, but rather as ‘custodian' for the disadvantaged. In combination with the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill of 2013, it could see property of many kinds taken by the State as ‘custodian' for land claim- ants and without any compensation to its former owners. Yet most commentary on the Investment Bill has overlooked this risk, helping to lull all property owners into a false sense of security.

Under the Investment Bill, the rights of domestic property owners will be much reduced. The current Expropriation Act of 1975 gives them the right to full compensation on expropriation, which must include not only the market value of their properties but also compensatory damages for consequential loss. The Act also guarantees them immediate payment of 80% of the compensation due, with interest on the outstanding balance.

Under the Investment Bill, by contrast, expropriated owners will receive less than market value and will have no right to damages for consequential loss. They will also have to wait for the State to make payment in what it regards as ‘a timely manner'.

However, the real danger in the Investment Bill is not that domestic property owners will be confined to ‘just and equitable' compensation falling somewhat short of market value - but that they will receive no compensation at all.

The Bill's reference to ‘investors' is also misleading, for it suggests that the new law will apply solely to companies and other commercial enterprises. In fact, the Investment Bill will apply to everyone, including ‘natural persons' and ‘regardless of nationality'.

Any black or white South African who owns a home, a car, or unit trusts is vulnerable to the Investment Bill's provisions. So, too, are enterprises of every size and in every sector of the economy, from mining to agriculture, banking, manufacturing, and services.

To read the full article click HERE

Land Reform Bill Passed Against Political Ruckus

The Bill that will see the land restitution process being re-opened has been passed following a heated and emotional debate in the National Assembly.

The Bill, which will see the land restitution process being re-opened, was passed following a heated and emotional debate in the National Assembly on Tuesday.

The Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill sets a new deadline for land claims to December 31 2018.

The previous deadline was December 31 1998.

The Democratic Alliance attempted to introduce additional amendments to the Bill, but was outvoted by the ANC majority.

ANC's View

"land restitution is a programme for social justice and as a programme for social justice it is endless." "Let us not be greedy. Let us share this land among those who work it." - ANC's Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti

Freedom Front Plus' View

Freedom Front Plus MP Pieter Groenewald accused both the DA and ANC of playing political football with the land issue ahead of the May 7 elections.

The party is against any opening of another land claims window.

"It threatens property security in South Africa. Land is a serious, emotional issue. It's a pity that the ANC and DA are playing games about it to get votes," Groenewald said.

"Do not use voters as cannon fodder to promote your own agendas," he charged.

DA's View

The DA accused the FF Plus of choosing which parts of the constitution it chose to support.

The constitution makes provision for both the protection of property rights and the restitution of land to those who were dispossessed during apartheid rule.

"The Freedom Front Plus must be living with their heads in the sand if they don't realise land is a burning issue in this country," said DA MP Kevin Mileham.

"These amendments are designed to strengthen the process ... to ensure the process is orderly, fair and transparent."

To read the full article click HERE

JACOB DLAMINI: Was Natives Land Act SA's original political sin?

When the Union of SA was formed in 1910, whites made up 20% of the population. Africans made up 70%. But whites controlled 90% of the land. The 1913 Natives Land Act was one of the first laws enacted by the union government and its underlying principle was the promotion of territorial segregation. However, the act also provided exemptions for Africans who wanted to buy land outside of the scheduled native areas. Feinberg and Horn say these exemptions effectively allowed Africans to nullify the land act.

The exemptions were not easy to get. Applicants had to satisfy strict criteria and rules laid down by the Native Affairs Department. They had to undergo evaluation, submit to interviews and agree to asset audits and official visits. These were intended to verify that African applicants did in fact have the means to buy the land they wanted and that the asking price was fair. The motivation for the tests was that government provided the bonds for some of the purchases.

So, between 1913 and 1936, for example, Africans bought about 3200 farms and lots outside of native areas. What's more, the 1913 act was not retroactive, meaning that Africans who already owned land outside of the native reserves could not have it taken away from them. Feinberg and Horn say that between 1913 and 1924, under the governments of Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, there were 302 exemptions granted, amounting to 35% of the total. Between 1924 and 1936, when JB Hertzog was in power, there were 565 exemptions granted, amounting to 65% of the total.

Of the Africans who applied for exemptions, 22% were individuals, 20% small groups, and 11% big groups. So-called tribes made up the biggest buyers. These were often communities that clubbed together, pooled their resources and had themselves declared a tribe by the government for the purposes of buying land. On 19 June 1913 Africans either owned or had held in trust for them 591 rural land units in the Transvaal. About 43% of these units were outside the native areas. By 1936 they owned 934 units and 63% of these were outside the native reserves. Whites were sellers in most instances and of the 288 white sellers Feinberg and Horn identified, only 32 were women. Africans rarely sold land.

To read the full article click HERE

Further reading
South Africa: Facts on Native Land Act of 1913
The Natives' Land Act: Ten historical quotes

Landless blacks are victims of state fraud

Land owned by the government is, by implication, defined as "white"; land supposedly redistributed to blacks has been nationalised rather than redistributed; land said to belong to blacks is seldom unambiguously theirs; the proportion of land supposedly to be redistributed is measured by area instead of what really matters, value; supposedly redistributed land is agricultural rather than what most people want, urban; ending the willing buyer, willing seller system will discriminate in favour of some whites against others — those who are undercompensated will have some wealth stolen, while those left alone will be arbitrarily favoured.

Even if all "white" land is expropriated, blacks will own none of it. The 30% target will never be met because it will all belong to the government and blacks will not, as the Freedom Charter envisaged, own land "in their own name" so that "private enterprise will boom and flourish as never before", as Nelson Mandela put it.

How much of the land acquired by the government is redistributed is unknown and seemingly unknowable. Most blacks remain subservient surrogates on government land or hold land under restrictive titles. The 30% target has been surpassed if land is defined as "black" when owned by the government, acquired privately or owned through companies and institutions with substantial black ownership. The illusion that whites own more land than they do flows from defining as "white" land not registered in a black individual’s name in a deeds registry. By that definition, the government is still presumed "white", as it was under apartheid.

To read the full article click HERE

SAIRR Press Release: DA/ANC support for the Restitution Bill risks disaster on a par with Britain’s scorched earth policy during the Boer War

Two pieces of pending legislation could together result in the expropriation of commercial farming operations with zero compensation.
The first is the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill of 2013 (the Restitution Bill), which will open up a new five-year window for the lodging of land claims. Some 379 000 new land claims are likely to be submitted and could cost the State about R179bn to settle, according to the Government’s regulatory impact analysis. Yet in the 2013/14 financial year, the restitution budget was roughly R3bn. How, then, is the State to find the money to settle all these claims?
The answer could lie in the so-called Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill of 2013. This suggests that expropriated property owners will be entitled to ‘just and equitable’ compensation, but the Bill also contains a weasel clause stating that it is not ‘an act of expropriation’ if the State takes property, not as owner, but as custodian for others.
Where the State takes as ‘custodian’ – as the Constitutional Court has already ruled in a case involving mining rights – the deprivation of property from an existing owner is not matched by the acquisition of that property by the State. This means that there is no expropriation – and no right to any compensation.
Under the Investment Bill, the Government could thus pass legislation (modelled on mining law) providing that all agricultural land, farm equipment, and livestock vest in the State as the custodian of the nation’s land resources – and inviting black South Africans, in particular, to apply to the relevant department for the right to use a portion of these assets for a specified period.
In these circumstances, commercial farmers would be deprived of their property, but the State would acquire it as custodian rather than as owner. Hence, there would be no ‘act of expropriation’ under the Investment Bill and no compensation would be payable.

Source : SAIRR

Downlowd the full document
Press Release - FC DA ANC support for Restitution Bill risks disaster on par with ...17 February 2014.pdf  -  PDF document, 419Kb

Further reading - Be afraid: The Expropriation Bill is back - SAIRR

SA will face famine if genocidal Land Restitution Bill is enacted warns SA Institute of Race Relations

The South African Institute of Race Relations strongly condemns the ruling ANC and the opposition DA parties for supporting the Land Restitution Bill:

Most of the successful farming operations being targeted by the ANC belongs to the Boer-Afrikaner people.
Only a handful of the original 80,000 commercial 'white' farmers from 1994 still produce food by 2014.
"In fact South Africa has become a net importer of food because of the ANC's genocidal laws disowning Afrikaner farmers.
"This legislation is deliberately aimed at disempowerIng the Boer-Afrikaner community - and it will not only have a disastrous effect on this vulnerable community, but is seriously jeopardising food-security of all 53-million South Africans.
"South Africa is now well on its way of turning into its poverty-stricken neighbour Zimbabwe which is annually, including right now, experiencing severe food shortages.
International aid agencies refer to the zimbabwean conditions as a famine.


Re-opening of land claims will destabilise commercial agriculture - Pieter Mulder
FF+ leader says parties which support this legislation are putting SA's food security at risk

Due to the possibility of land claims, the majority of farmers are not expanding their agricultural activities at the moment.

Millions of hectares of fertile agricultural land are lying unused in the former home lands as communal land. As well as are large sections of state land. An important priority of government should be to look for solutions as to how this land can be transferred to private black farmers. Where 70% of all South Africans will be living in cities in the near future, it is important that this land should start to produce food on a commercial basis. At present it is mainly being used for subsistence farming.

The FF Plus is the only party which will be voting against this amendment bill which is threatening food security and the economy.

To read the full article click HERE

Time to axe land reform fixations and waste
Business Day, 28 October 2013.

In his fortnightly column in Business Day, the Institute's CEO, John Kane-Berman, argues that the government should stop wasting money on land reform because it will not fix the wrongs of the land acts.

One of the things Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan could chop in cutting back on government profligacy is the "massive" audit that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform wants to conduct to classify landownership according to race. Better still, he should stop the department from wasting any more money on the failed and fanciful policy of land reform.

The policy rests on several fallacies. One is that whites "stole" the land. Among those who have recently stated this is Stone Sizani, chairman of the parliamentary portfolio committee on rural development and land reform. The Transvaal Agricultural Union has rightly rejected the accusation.

The land acts did of course impose apartheid on landownership, but this does not mean that white farmers (or anyone else) who bought their land actually stole it.

Moreover, as several scholars, among them WM McMillan, Lawrence Schlemmer, and Hermann Giliomee, have pointed out, the land acts also protected land in the homelands from being snapped up by whites.

A second fallacy is that there is huge black demand for land to farm. Nobody has produced evidence of this. Such evidence as there is suggests the opposite. The minister of rural development and land reform, Gugile Nkwinti, admits that 92% of some 77 000 potential beneficiaries of land restitution chose financial compensation instead.

"We thought everybody, when they got a chance to get land, would jump at it," he said. But they had become urbanised and "de-culturised" and preferred to earn wages. Yet he and his department seem to disapprove of this. They contend that land claimants should opt for land, not money. Some African National Congress (ANC) MPs even complain about land claim beneficiaries who lease their land back to white farmers.

To read the full article click HERE

Land claims to cost taxpayers up to R179bn

The billions of rands needed each year for the next 15 years to settle new land claims will come from taxpayers, Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said on Wednesday.

"It will be funded through the fiscus," he told members of Parliament's rural development and land reform portfolio committee.

"Treasury has actually underscored the fact that this is a government programme. It does not require a stand-alone budget. It requires a normal budget," he said.

Earlier, the committee heard that an estimated 397 000 valid land claims might be lodged when the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill, which aims to extend the cut-off date for lodging a claim for restitution, is enacted.

Chief land claims commissioner Nomfundo Gobodo told MPs: "It may cost R129bn to R179bn to settle these claims, if settled within a 15-year period."

This is equivalent to between R8.6bn and R11.9bn a year.

To read the full article click HERE

No comments:

Post a Comment