- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 26,719
- Reaction score
- 6,278
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Peter Dutton’s department blocked a white South African farmer’s asylum bid because its evidence showed “the vast majority of crimes against whites are not racially motivated”. The man told the immigration department he was the victim of a serious attack at his home in 1998, where his wife and another five people were murdered, and he was left with serious injuries. The claim was corroborated by media reporting.
In a second case, a delegate for Dutton rejected an asylum bid by a white South African woman after the woman asked for Australia’s protection, who claimed her and her son would be targeted in South Africa “because they are ethnically white South Africans”. Dutton’s delegate argued there was no evidence to support her claims of racial persecution.
If she returns to South Africa, she has stated she will be subject to harm as a single, white female and her son will be subject to harm because he is white and as a child he may be the victim of child rape.
While living in South Africa, she was the victim of a home invasion where the thieves drove over her in the car they stole from her father, dragging her along as she was stuck under the car.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...locked-white-south-african-farmers-asylum-bid
1504620 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4343 (15 August 2016)
Some facts about life in South Africa-
•There were 19,000 murders in South Africa last year, more than in the United States, which has a population size 6 times as big as South Africa.
•1 in 3 women living in South Africa will be raped in their lifetime.
• HIV rates amongst South Africans are so high, that many women and children who survive being raped there are at enormous risk of being infected with the disease by their rapist.
------------------------
Australia granted 12,000 visas to Syrians due to extreme violence in their home country. Australia is a great country with only 24 million people. They should help white South Africans who need to get out of a hellish country.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/20...ricas-rape-problem-will-shock-you_a_23192126/
Absolutely.
Did Australia grant asylum to black South Africans during apartheid?
No. So they shouldn't grant asylum to white South Africans.
White South Africans still have an economic and social advantage oved black South Africans, so it's a silly question.
1) Did they apply?
2) How do you propose to change that?
Did Australia grant asylum to black South Africans during apartheid? No. So they shouldn't grant asylum to white South Africans.
White South Africans still have an economic and social advantage oved black South Africans, so it's a silly question.
Some facts about life in South Africa-
•There were 19,000 murders in South Africa last year, more than in the United States, which has a population size 6 times as big as South Africa.
•1 in 3 women living in South Africa will be raped in their lifetime.
• HIV rates amongst South Africans are so high, that many women and children who survive being raped there are at enormous risk of being infected with the disease by their rapist.
------------------------
Australia granted 12,000 visas to Syrians due to extreme violence in their home country. Australia is a great country with only 24 million people. They should help white South Africans who need to get out of a hellish country.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/20...ricas-rape-problem-will-shock-you_a_23192126/
1) I doubt they were allowed to apply, and even if they were, they didn't have the financial means to leave.
2) I don't know, but talking about asylum for the people who are in the financially and socially dominant position is silly.
Nations can change their policies, but now, Australia is granting asylum to Syrians who are in fear of violence, so they should also grant asylum to white from South Africa who are in the same danger of violence.
What happened yesterday is over. The whites dying in South Africa today should not be arbitrarily left to die because Australia did not have a policy of taking in blacks there during Apartheid. And, keep in mind that it was difficult to determine who was the victim and who was the perpetrator during Apartheid, since the vast majority of blacks were killed by other blacks. It not like they were an identifiable or at-risk group. Today, a race (whites) is actually being targeted due to the color of their skin. That's a huge difference, there.
Are you seriously questioning who was the victim in Apartheid South Africa? Go to hell.
Did Australia grant asylum to black South Africans during apartheid? No. So they shouldn't grant asylum to white South Africans.
White South Africans still have an economic and social advantage oved black South Africans, so it's a silly question.
I don't recall that a maximum annual income of the victim's racial peers being a prerequisite for a humanitarian act. If Australia has a policy of giving refuge to persons displaced by systemic social violence, a growing number of South Africans are eligible.
Of course, Australia has a right to limit the number of refugees in the interests of economic and social costs, and to give special consideration to those whose language, culture, and abilities are more compatible to Australia. Given that very few South African's have applied, it would seem wrong-headed to turn fleeing and increasingly persecuted whites down.
On the other hand, I am sure American sanctuary states like California would welcome them, no?
Are you seriously questioning who was the victim in Apartheid South Africa? Go to hell.
Nations can change their policies, but now, Australia is granting asylum to Syrians who are in fear of violence, so they should also grant asylum to white from South Africa who are in the same danger of violence.
What happened yesterday is over. The whites dying in South Africa today should not be arbitrarily left to die because Australia did not have a policy of taking in blacks there during Apartheid. And, keep in mind that it was difficult to determine who was the victim and who was the perpetrator during Apartheid, since the vast majority of blacks were killed by other blacks. It not like they were an identifiable or at-risk group. Today, a race (whites) is actually being targeted due to the color of their skin. That's a huge difference, there.
No, it was very easy to tell who was responsible, because the goverment was literally running death squads like these “lovely” folks :roll:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...death-squads-to-be-set-free-10014836.html?amp
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging
No one said whites were not at fault, I simply stated that more than 90% of the blacks killed under Apartheid were killed by other blacks. Of course, whites were also at fault.
The whites were the ones who created the entire situation in the first place. They brutally oppressed any non white South Africans
That's a "brains" vs "brawn" type argument, and while (at that time) whites were definitely in control, the death toll would have been much, much lower had blacks not taken part in killing other blacks. They were manipulated you will say, and that is correct, but the caste-like system had been in place in SA for centuries -- not just decades. It went waaaaaaay back.
We should also keep in mind that whites were the ones who sought to end it -- F. W. de Klerk -- being the most influential.
We can all look back and say apartheid was wrong.
That does not, however, make the killing of whites now, right. That, too, is wrong, and white migrants seeking asylum should be treated (by a specific nation) the same as non-white migrants seeking asylum.
That's my position. I only brought up the fact that the majority of blacks were killed by other blacks because the poster was taking the stand that the whites being targeted now shouldn't qualify for asylum. That's a nutty notion.
Arguable at best, given that the apartheid goverment sponsored sociopaths who routinely committed atrocities, set up puppet “homelands” which calling “slums” would be an improvement, and generally got up to all sorts of nasty ****.
No, actually, before the arrival of the colonial British power the Zulus still had more than enough strength to keep the Boers on “their land” and act as a deterrent to keep them from getting too nasty. Once they were in charge with no one to check their power well, that’s when you saw the real start of apartheid.
Except for the fact that people like the OP have been the ones shrieking about how Syrian refugees are all secret terrorists. The irony of people evoking something they have been vehemently against to justify taking in people who, while certainly not in the best situation, are objectively far better off than the Syrians are is really quite telling.
If one thinks that those who are being literally gassed by their own government shouldn’t be taken in, why should anyone indulge their opinion on people who, again, are objectively far safer?
I'm pretty sure the topic is about allowing BOTH to claim asylum -- in Australia. And, keep in mind that international law does not define who is or is not a legitimate refugee by the type of violence they're subjected to, i.e., fear of gassing isn't any different from fear of rape and murder.
Asylum is granted on an individual basis. For example 50 refugees could come from one country, while only 1 came from a different country, but all 51 are to be treated on a fair and equal basis.
Do you have some sort of problem with that?
1) I doubt they were allowed to apply, and even if they were, they didn't have the financial means to leave.
2) I don't know, but talking about asylum for the people who are in the financially and socially dominant position is silly.
Uh.... yes, I do have a problem with people throwing out every excuse in the book to justify not taking in people who are being gassed and bombed yet are all to eager to throw open the door when it’s isolated farms getting hit by bandits.
No. The moronic idea that higher crime rates in home country A (compared to those in richer target country B) should become the basis for granting asylum would allow a huge portion of the world's population to choose to emigrate to (by seeking asylum in) lower crime rate (and better economic opportunity) nations.
That same logic (disparate crime rates?) would allow mass migrations (via asylum seekers) from high crime nations (or specific areas/cities within them?) to many other nations in the world. For example, much of Central America has far higher crime rates than the US or Australia do.
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?