S. A. Whites Fight For Survival
(Note: This is a partial re-post of White Genocide of South Africa (linked below).
The battle-lines are being drawn in South Africa.
With 1 million Afrikaners now totally destitute and homeless, only because of the ANC regime’s deliberate barring this small minority access to any part of the job-sector and disowning their food-producing farms by a plethora of anti-white laws, the Afrikaners, the ‘white tribe of Africa’, are now battening down the hatches and preparing themselves for what they see as the final onslaught against their very survival rights on the African continent. They now have to fight back – there’s no longer any other choice: their backs are against the sea — and most Afrikaners, born and bred in southern Africa for many generations, have no other place to flee to, they say.
Also see our picture gallery (updated daily) of the great many recently murdered and traumatised white people in South Africa from feral gang attacks: Forty armed attacks are now carried out against families inside their well-protected homes in SA….. EVERY day:
Other events also show that Afrikaners especially, have every reason to worry 
that a genocide might well be brewing against them: in the townships, a worrying new trend is also developing: the growing strength of crime war-lords and gigantic taxi-associations which are increasingly replacing the outgunned, underfinanced and increasingly terrified SA police as the only defenders against the many feral-youth crime gangs terrorising the residents with their AK47s and their Uzi machineguns. The SA police force is unable to combat this mounting tsunami of violence, gang-rape and mindless murders. -Source-
ALSO READ:
Deadly Occupation – S.A. Farming
White Genocide in South Africa
- Create an email alert for elliot lake blogurl:http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/
- Add a blog search gadget for elliot lake blogurl:http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/ to your Google homepage
- Subscribe to a blog search feed for elliot lake blogurl:http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/ in Google Reader New!
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_4.gif)
As an ex-South African, this is very worrying. White South African Afrikaners built South Africa up. They survived not only forging into a new world (the Great Trek), but also survived the British Boer Wars. They are an industrious, God fearing people who don’t deserve what is happening to them. The only thing they did wrong was to give segregation a name – Apartheid. For this they have been continually vilified and now suffer under the sub-human ANC government. The ANC are destroying not only the Afrikaners but their own Africans. They rape and pillage from the country. Where the Afrikaners used the resource money to build the country, the ANC steal and enrich themselves. Africans are now living in worse poverty than ever before and their life expectancy has plummetted. But, don’t tell the liberal neo-cons that protested for this to happen. We knew what would happen – after all, we lived in Africa and not in the ivory towers of overseas. Now we flee our country in droves, taking our skills and assets with us to start again – the new Great Trek. And all the while, the Afrikaners are being exterminated to the silence of the rest of the world.
Apologies for delayed comment approval — an unexpected stay in the hospital.
WHITE South African man loses bid to stay in Canada (October 9 2011 at 08:55pm):
http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/sa-man-loses-bid-to-stay-in-canada-1.1153375
EXCERPT:
“In 2009 Huntley successfully argued to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board that as a white man, he was being targeted by black criminals in South Africa. He claimed he had been robbed at least seven times in racially-motivated attacks.
Canada’s Immigration Minister Jason Kenney took the matter to the federal court for review. The court agreed the board had been wrong.
The federal court described Huntley’s appeal as “totally unmeritorious”. It dismissed his claims that Kenney acted because of “diplomatic pressure”.”
I found Huntley’s case (“WHITE South African man loses bid to stay in Canada”, above) in the Federal Court database: Date: 2010-11-24; Docket: IMM-4423-09; Citation: 2010 FC 1175, and here’s the judgment, delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc1175/2010fc1175.html
This appears to be the judge in the case, unless there’s another Justice Russell who’s no longer aboard: The Honourable James Russell, born in County Durham, England; educated at University of Wales (B.A.), University of Saskatchewan (M.A.), Dalhousie University (Ph.D.), and Cambridge University (M.A.). Here’s the bio:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Russell
Now, as to Justice Russell’s ruling:
At paragraph 49, Justice Russell cites 4 grounds raised by the Minister (Jason Kenney) seeking to reverse the Refugee Protection Board which had granted asylum to Huntley. Notably, Kenney says at item [c] of 49:
[the RPD erred by] “Equating random acts of violence and criminality with persecution due to the Respondent’s race”.
In the next section, under heading “State Protection”, Justice Russell continues:
“State Protection
[50] The onus was on the Respondent in this instance [Huntley] to provide clear and convincing evidence that the government of South Africa is unable or unwilling to protect him. However, in the RPD’s reasons, there is no reference to, or consideration of, the Respondent’s burden in this regard.
[51] The Respondent admits that he never reported any of the alleged attacks to the authorities. While the RPD acknowledged that the Respondent did not seek state protection, it failed to consider properly the impact of the Respondent’s failure to seek protection on his onus to rebut the presumption of state protection.
[52] Moreover, the Respondent’s claim that he did not report any of the alleged attacks because in other instances such reports “got lost in the system” is unsupported by evidence. The Applicant submits that the RPD erred in simply accepting that the majority of police in South Africa are black and are not interested in protecting whites. Indeed, this finding is flawed for a number of reasons.
[53] First, the two initial attacks faced by the Respondent occurred in 1991 and 1992 when apartheid was still occurring in South Africa. As such, the police and other security services were controlled by the apartheid state whose main goal was to protect the privileged position of the white minority and suppress the black majority of the population. There was no evidence before the RPD on which it could reasonably conclude that the police powers in South Africa at this time would not have been interested in protecting a white person who had allegedly been assaulted by black people. Consequently, the Respondent’s failure to report the first attacks on him in 1991 and 1992 should have been considered by the RPD in its analysis of state protection.
[54] Moreover, the Respondent’s contention that the South African police are not interested in protecting whites does not withstand scrutiny, since the Respondent stated that his family had reported a robbery in 2005. According to the Respondent’s testimony, the police both responded to and investigated this complaint. The failure to lay charges is not evidence of a lack of state protection. As noted in Zhuravlvev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 4 F.C. 3, [2000] F.C.J. No. 507 (T.D.), “[a]ll policing activity is bound to encounter failures, particularly in a democratic state. Even in Canada, random acts of vandalism or violence seldom yield convictions” (paragraph 19).
[55] The complaint of the Respondent’s own family to the police and the ensuing investigation undermine the Respondent’s claim – and the RPD’s finding – that the South African police are not concerned with the protection of white South Africans. Despite the fact that the police were responsive when his family sought police protection, the Respondent failed to report any of the attacks he faced. The Applicant submits that this failure is inconsistent with the Respondent’s onus as set out in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1.
[56] Furthermore, the RPD’s Decision seems to suggest that if a claimant is not the same ethnicity as the members of the law enforcement service then the duty to seek state protection is relaxed or lessened, even where no credible evidence of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect has been shown. According to the Applicant, this view is unsupported by international law or Canadian jurisprudence; it rests largely on the Board’s flawed assessment of the country conditions.”
About 250 paragraphs later, Justice Russell concludes as follows:
“The application for judicial review is allowed. The Decision is set aside and the matter is returned for reconsideration by a differently constituted RPD in accordance with my reasons”.
KM’s Comment: the fact is, even in a meritorious case, you must be careful to satisfy the evidentiary and procedural requirements; the legal provisions, rules of law, rules of court. The court cannot find in your favour just on the basis of sympathy. In any event, if Huntley does go to the Supreme Court, all these assertions of the Minister and of Mr. Justice Russell may be rebutted. The higher court could find that Justice Russell “erred”, just as Russell found the RPD “erred”, and the Supreme Court could reinstate the determination of the refugee board. Have to wait and see what ends up being said.
http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/canada-accepts-white-s-a-refugee/
There’s no doubt the Huntley inquiry is a test case being used against any White South African having the temerity of applying for refugee status in Canada. Politicians’ hands on both sides of the Atlantic are written all over this inquiry.
If the courts had spent one-tenth of their judicial time refuting evidence presented to them from the OTHER 700,000 “refugees” from 3rd world countries over the past twenty years, the Canadian court system would be wrapped up in litigation for a century.
But having the rare White asylum-seeking minority living in a White minority world (8%) is somehow given special priority treatment.
In contrast, 490 Sri Lankans are allowed to dock their old freighter in Vancouver and the “refugee” red carpet is promptly rolled out for them. And, that maritime “invasion” doesn’t include the other 30,000 uninvited “refugees” who arrived by different transportation modes in 2010.
Today’s Canada can be compared to a “sinking lifeboat” lacking a qualified helmsman sitting at the stern to guide us away from the rocky shoreline ahead.
Pingback: South African Killing Fields « ELLIOT LAKE News & Views
Pingback: A Message For America « ELLIOT LAKE News & Views
Pingback: The “UNlucky” Country – Australia « ELLIOT LAKE News & Views
Pingback: The “Real” South Africa | ELLIOT LAKE News