printIn my forthcoming book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa, I wrote the following:
To Canada—not to the US—is owed the distinction of granting refugee status to the first white South African victim of hate crimes. Thirty-one-year old Brandon Huntley of Cape Town had survived several run-of-the-mill assaults which saw him savagely stabbed and sworn at by his African assailants for being a “white dog” and a “settler.” The cruel and craven ANC protested Canada’s show of mercy. The idea that Africans would “persecute” Huntley was racist in itself, South Africa’s ruling Solons announced. Huntley has certainly been luckier than thousands of his countrymen, whose numbers continue to dwindle.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a Canadian Federal Court overturned the Immigration and Refugee Board’s decision to grant refugee status to Huntley:
The Federal Court of Canada overturned the refugee status granted to a white South African who said that he faced persecution, discrimination and possibly death because of his race if he returned home. The decision, which was released on Wednesday, ordered a new hearing by the Immigration and Refugee Board for the South African, Brandon Huntley. His initial success with the board was controversial in Canada, and the South African government filed a formal protest. The court acknowledged that violence and crime were widespread in South Africa, but it found that Mr. Huntley did not demonstrate that previous attacks against him were racially motivated.
Indeed, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) found for Huntley. Certainly no citizen of Canada objected to granting this poor man asylum. Yet the Minister Of Citizenship And Immigration chose to exercise his powers to set the RPD’s decision aside. He denies that this decision was made pursuant to political pressure from the ANC, although he does concede the following:
The government of South Africa did not like the RPD Decision and asked the government of Canada to have it appealed to the Federal Court.
One of the listed errors in judgment the Court has leveled at the RPD is the equation of “random acts of violence and criminality with persecution due to the Respondent’s race.” The Court asserts that “the black majority in South Africa is at least equally victimized by criminals.” This is incorrect. Again: Into the Cannibal’s Pot provides the statistical evidence to the contrary.
I refute most of the stock, fatuous “arguments” the Canadian Federal Court advances against this brute fact: the white minority is indeed targeted disproportionately to its numbers in the population.
The same goes for the rest of the Court’s case against granting refugee status to Brandon Huntley. For instance, the idea that BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) doesn’t marginalize whites in the workforce is nonsense on stilts. I excerpt and analyze the statute itself, and quote a wide range of experts, including Americans who love the ANC (and live at the Wall Street Journal).
It is clear to me that Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa might have helped Huntley and his lawyer to make their case. It still could:
THIS COURT HAS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that “The application for judicial review is allowed. The Decision is set aside and the matter is returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted RPD.”
The Minister denies that he has come under political pressure from the ANC, concerned with its image abroad. Fine. But why bring the power of the Canadian state against one man who has suffered so—even if you think he hasn’t suffered sufficiently?
My father, Rabbi Ben Isaacson, used to say that G-d is full of mercy, which is why there is so little left in the world. Yes, like many Jews, Dad always questioned, and wrestled with, G-d.
I contend that people, being irrational beings, are in the habit of misplacing compassion.
UPDATE: From the Federal Court Decision discussed here, it transpires that the Court, having been petitioned by Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, ruled to set aside the Refugee Board’s finding for Huntley. A good section of the Honorable Mr. Justice Russell’s ruling, handed down on November 24, 2010, is devoted to the “alleged chilling and coercive attempts by the South African authorities to assert political and diplomatic pressure to subvert the rule of law in Canada.”
Justice Russell states at once that “the government of South Africa did not like the [Refugee Board’s] Decision and asked the government of Canada to have it appealed to the Federal Court,” and that, around the same time, “the Minister decided to proceed with judicial review.” Oddly enough, Justice Russell, presiding over the Federal Court, found no connection between the ANC’s strong-arming tactics and the Canadian government’s decision to succumb.
Of course there was pressure from the ANC government, but Huntley dug his own grave when he chose to shout from the rooftops his refugee status (even boasting to the media that “I am a celebrity now”). Under the circumstances the Canadian government had little choice but to take the action it did or find itself deluged by South African asylum seekers jumping at the chance to get into a country they wouldn’t otherwise have a prayer of getting into.
And by the way, some Canadians did indeed object to the granting of asylum to Huntley, who, judging by comments from people in his home town, is a bit of a chancer.
Let me say that I’m most sympathetic to the genuine plight of white South Africans, but in this case a proper sense of perspective is called for; Huntley blundered and now he is paying the price.
I do not know that man is so much irrational as modern man is disproportionately represented by his ethos.
If the people and government of South Africa loath Mr. Huntley as much as they say, one would think they’d be glad to be rid of the man. Why in the world would they pull strings to bring him back? Don’t they have more pressing problems to address than the ongoing harassment of a nobody? How can people be so vengeful, petty, and stupid? [Easily.]
Don’t have time to go over the whole court ruling but this little tidbit in the ruling is illustrative:
“[13] The RPD then considered the documentary evidence presented, including Daily Sun article by Africa Ka Mahamba entitled “‘Taking from whites is not a crime in SA,’” which reported that a leader of a Pretoria-based youth organization had condoned stealing from white people in the suburbs because “[t]he whites have stolen from us since 6 April 1652” and [t]aking from whites is not a crime because you repossess what belongs to you.”
[14] Ms. Kaplan also provided the RPD with accounts of incidents about other people who had experienced psychological and physical damage as a result of attacks by black South Africans.”
I guess all refugees are equal but some refugees are more equal than others! [ Animal Farm ]
“The Whites have stolen from us since 6 April 1652.” Precisely what is it that the Whites have stolen from the locals?
Also, I’m reminded of those German Jews prior to WWII who got a chance to leave and no country would take them.