1. Title page i

2. Contents ii

3. A Qualification iii

4. Preface iv

5. Human Rights Watch - An Overview vi

6. The Authors - Their abridged CV’s viii

7. The Agrarian Response:

7.1 Remarks on "Acknowledgement" - page unnumbered 1

7.2 Comments on "Summary" - pages 1 - 10 2

7.3 Comments on "Background" - pages 18 - 29 5

7.4 Comments on "Land Reform since 1994" - pages 30 - 46 10

7.5 Comments on "The response of farm-owners

to Government reform" - pages 46 - 52 13

7.6 Comments on "Conditions on farms today - pages 52 - 62 14

7.7 A perspective on "Assaults against farmers" - pages 63 - 84 16

    1. A realistic reply concerning "The abuse by the

Commandos, Private Security and

vigilante groups" - pages 84 - 101 18

7.9 "Violence accompanying eviction" - the truths - pages 102 - 117 19

8.0 Facts concerning "Gender aspects of violence" - pages 118 - 128 21

    1. "Assaults against farmworkers advocates"

a reply - pages 129 - 137 21

8.2 "Farm attacks" - a discussion - pages 138 - 157 22

8.3 "The State response to violence on farms" -

additional information - pages 158 - 217 27

    1. Remarks on the case study

"The Greater Ixopo area" - pages 218 - 230 29



The document, "Unequal Protection: The State response to violent crime on South African Farms," compiled and distributed by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) during August 2001, which has as focus the so-called atrocities witnessed by the agrarian population within South Africa, is regarded as being biased.


The book-in-hand has been compiled in an effort to address the blatant bias thus encountered. It therefore stands to reason that to comprehend the contents of this document, continual reference will have to be made to it.


PREFACE - [Dr C J Kruger]

The document "Unequal Protection - The State response to violent crime on South African farms" which was published by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) during 2001 and distributed under the banner and auspices of Bronwen Manby, the Deputy Director of HRW - Africa Division, warrants the following observations and remarks:


The Afrikaans-speaking Whites in South Africa are to be regarded as native to South Africa - similar as to the fact that the white Australians, the white New Zealanders and the white Americans are native to their countries, namely Australia, New Zealand and America respectively. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


The demographic distribution of South Africa’s population was formalised by means of a process of colonisation. This process of colonisation was initiated by the southbound movement of the Black immigrants to a void South African, not Azanian (1) countryside, during the 1400’s. In a slow glazier movement the Venda remained in the immediate vicinity of the Trans-Limpopo area. The Sotho on the other hand moved into the void plateau area of Central South Africa and the Nguni congregated and travelled along the eastern seaboard where, in circa 1770, contact was made with the native white Afrikaans-speaking farmers.


The white colonising immigrants came to South Africa in 1652, established themselves and emigrated to the northern interior of South Africa, settling in the same fashion as the black settlers did further to the north.


A fact, which is usually and very conveniently forgotten is that in 1653 the very first white native to South Africa, albeit that he descended from Dutch parents, was born on African soil. Thus, the inference that white Afrikaans-speaking Africans are being labelled as colonists and settlers is a truism, and this is just as valid concerning the Black, Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Venda, Shangaan and Tswana-speaking Blacks. We all are but tribes within the South African population picture.


With regard to the acquisition of land within the South African milieu, the said document shows a lack of objectivity. It would be worthwhile to engage in an intensive research exercise concerning South Africa’s geopolitical and historical development. Shocking will be the revelation the investigator will encounter regarding the genocide which was rampant during the 19th century amongst the black peoples as well as the cannibalism and barbarism which will become apparent and which was part and parcel of the cultural composition of the black peoples.


  1. Azania was the coastal area stretching from Mogadishu (Somalia) to Sofala (Mozambique) along the eastern seaboard of Africa. This name was coined by the Arab traders who plied the North Indian Ocean, between India, the present Arabian countries and the eastern seaboard of Africa.

A specific example will suffice. When on 5 August 1865 a White retaliative force under command of Commandant Louw Wepener was in pursuit of a Black Sotho thieving party in the vicinity of Thaba Bosiu, of which the members had stolen livestock from White farms, made contact, a fierce confrontation ensued. Both parties were in possession of rifles. Commandant Wepener was eventually killed and the Afrikaners withdrew. Moshesh, the Sotho leader, later paramount chief of Basutoland (presently Lesotho), ordered that his warriors should, by means of an excision, prepare the heart of Wepener for barbeque, and that all his captains should have a portion of the heart as a meal. Moshesh was culturally convinced that this portion of Wepener, who was seen and regarded as an inspired soldier, would psychologically improve the Sotho warrior’s soldiering ability.


That the White natives in South Africa also acted brutally on members of the opposite race is not negated, BUT never was willful cannibalism practiced.


Concerning the general idea that the Whites obtained land by subjucating Blacks by means of rifle power is not totally correct (2). The many cessions which were conceded to by both Black and White negotiators are conveniently ignored. It will be enlightening and beneficial to the reader to engage in an academic research exercise at the National Archives in Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein, Lydenburg and Pretoria. (Even more so to the Authors of the said document, if they had taken the time off to study the historical facts).


Safe sanctuary was the conviction of the majority of White natives and this was extended to compatriot Black natives during the turbulent genocide years of the 19th century. Specifically were these safe havens the order of the day in the previous Eastern Transvaal (= Mpumalanga) and Western Transvaal (= Northwest Province). These safe havens constituted protective localities in which the "hunted" black families found shelter from Silikaat’s impi’s, in the West, and Sekhukuni and Mswati’s hordes in the east, not even to mention the murderous actions of Shaka in KwaZulu-Natal.


Since the altering of the ideological conviction of the South African government in 1994, which by the way is in tune with the humanistic orientation of the Human Rights Watch, the latter which started surfacing in 1989, when the "Democratic Revolution" was unleashed upon the world’s governments, the white section, and then the Afrikaans-speaking white section of the demography in South Africa, started being politically chastised.


2. A very lucrative armstrade was in operation between the "outlanders" (= buitelanders), predominantly from the British Isles, who as opportunists came to South Africa, and the local black tribes. Something to be regarded as a copy-cat exercise from the North American plains where rifles were bartered to Indians in the same fashion. Within the South African scenario however, it was the acquired rifles by the Zulu which gave rise to and sustained the Zulu uprising amongst themselves in the Natal Midlands in, circa 1860.


A possible answer for this chastising, also a justification for the present-day authorities’ behaviour, is the fact that


  • the white Afrikaans-speaking Africans have a predominant Christian outlook on life; this implies that


  • personal privileges and not human rights are regarded as a Divine gift which again thrives on personal responsibilities.


  • Human rights, per se, is seen as a failure to appreciate Divine supremity and places man onto the same level as God.


In conclusion, it is suggested that when taking cognisance of the mentioned book’s contents the following subjacent and unpoliticised truths, relating to rural life in South Africa, is to be acknowledged for the influence it actually exerted an South African society, namely


  • the unbiased and unpoliticised historical genesis of South Africa’s demography;


  • the geopolitical influence exerted by the contesting "tribes within South Africa;" and


  • the fact that colour (= race) is not in essence the issue, but rather the modern-day politics, as generated by different ideologies.




The opening statement of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) viz:


"(they) conduct regular, systematic investigations of human rights abuses in some seventy countries around the world" (page unnumbered), is immediately countered with the following corporate statement viz: "to demand a right is to respond with an attitude of RESPONSIBILITY." An example: A right to work is to be supported by the responsibility to act according to specific duties. If not, the so-called right to work is withdrawn by the employer. Question: Has such a person, not performing according to the work agreement, now been abused?


"HRW, a movement which began in 1978, and then known as the Helsinki Watch," requires a brief geopolitical review. Finland, with Helsinki as its capital, borders onto Russia. Finland up till 1917 was a part of the Russian Empire. In 1939 the Russians invaded Finland; an action that was not countered by Germany due to a Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, which ultimately resulted in the occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, where Soviet garrisons were established, and Finland became a buffer zone for Russia, protecting the north-western part of the Soviet-Union as well as the Soviet harbour of Murmansk. During the occupation of Finland from 1939 until 1941 by the Soviets, the Russians, true to their psychological warfare techniques, exploited the Finns to such an extent that a local resistance was formed by the Finnish population. However, during 1941 the Finns sided with the Germans, thus offending the Russians, but in 1944 with the imminent defeat of Germany on the cards, the Finns again signed a Treaty with the Soviets.


Although Finland was never actually occupied by either Germany or Russia, the population was subject to severe inhumane treatment. This resistance to inhumane treatment encouraged a worldwide endeavour to offer support when and where, according to them, inhumane treatment to members of the specie homo sapiens, were noticed. The presence of Finland’s present President, Martti Ahtisaari, the leader of the fact-finding mission to Namibia to investigate the so-called atrocities which were indulged in by the South African Government during their governance of the C-mandated South-West Africa, prior to that country’s independence in 1990, is to be viewed in the light of the aforementioned.


Unfortunately, it seems as if the resistance by the Finns to inhumane and mutilating actions by the Germans during wartime, are now being projected onto everyday life situations in South Africa. The South African population, especially the Afrikaans-speaking white natives, being of Germanic stock, and thus according to international society aligned to the German people, and then specifically to the Nazi regime of 1925 - 1945 and all their atrocities, is presently unjustly chastised.


Conveniently the black South Africans, and their period of genocide during 1820 - 1838, are never really assessed for who and what they culturally represent. Ethnic animosity is presently, just as salient within their interpersonal relationships, as it was ages ago.


If human rights are now considered, the following considerations are to be conscious of:







In summary, the HRW as a movement denounces man’s PRIVILEGE and by proclaiming his/her rights, thus indirectly denounces Christianity. The HRW Movement is founded on the ideology of Humanism which in turn is supported by a mental make-up or mindset aligned to revolutionary behavioural patterns.



1. Another important aspect which assisted the present Government to assume the executive office in South Africa, was the so-called DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION of 1989. This was the fourth major International Revolution, the other revolutionary movements were:



The DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION (1989) proclaimed HUMAN RIGHTS as theme. Supportive international actions for this Revolution were:



Supportive national actions for this Revolution were:





As a professional soldier, his entire military career of 42 years was intrinsically connected with war, violence and negotiations. These experiences were both in and outside South African borders. As an official, the endeavour was always to allow the truth to underscore (operational) decisions, be it in conflict situations, turmoil or at the discussion table. This was the driving force which gave rise to the quest of becoming non-prejudiced and unbiased in decision-making. The following course qualifications offered the basis for being just that:


SA Army College : Urban Terrorism

Rural Terrorism

Functional promotional courses

SA Defence College : Revolution and Revolutionary Warfare

Government’s Institution for Training : Various courses in Strategy

University of Wits (Business School) : "Society in Conflict"

UNISA : BA (Geography / Psychology)

BA (Hons) (Psychology)


Potchefstroom University for C H E : BA (Hons) (Geography)

MA (Geopolitics)

Rand Afrikaans University : D Litt et Phil (Strategy)

- - o O o - - -


A student of Labour Relations, Management and the principals of private property, with a career in this field spanning 20 years. Has been an employee of organised agriculture, TAU, since February 1996, as Manager: Labour and Property Rights.

(University of Pretoria) :
Labour Relations, Personnel & Marketing Management
(UNISA - SBL) : Industrial Relations, Industrial Communication, Communications Management, Time Management, Collective Bargaining, Media Relations and Trade Union Dynamics and

(Tell Academy) : Interrogation Techniques.

Employed as Area Organizer in April 1984 (SA Iron, Steel and Allied Industries Union) until January 1996. Resigned as General Manager: (Organization, Personnel, Collective Bargaining, Disputes Management & Technical Issues)

Secretary: Industrial Council for Grain Co-operatives, from 1992 until the appointment of the first General Manager in 1994.

Secretary: SA Confederation of Labour (SACOL) - August 1991 - January 1993

Initiated, organized and co-ordinated the International Conference on Property Rights in South Africa in March 1999 on behalf of the TAU and Agricultural Employers Organisation (AEO), and co-ordinated research, compilation and publication of both books," Property Rights in South Africa" and "Eiendomsreg in Suid-Afrika," which resulted from the International Conference.




As a professional soldier, his entire military career of 42 years was intrinsically connected with war, violence and negotiations. These experiences were both in and outside South African borders. As an official, the endeavour was always to allow the truth to underscore (operational) decisions, be it in conflict situations, turmoil or at the discussion table. This was the driving force which gave rise to the quest of becoming non-prejudiced and unbiased in decision-making. The following course qualifications offered the basis for being just that:


SA Army College : Urban Terrorism

Rural Terrorism

Functional promotional courses

SA Defence College : Revolution and Revolutionary Warfare

Government’s Institution for Training : Various courses in Strategy

University of Wits (Business School) : "Society in Conflict"

UNISA : BA (Geography / Psychology)

BA (Hons) (Psychology)


Potchefstroom University for C H E : BA (Hons) (Geography)

MA (Geopolitics)

Rand Afrikaans University : D Litt et Phil (Strategy)

- - o O o - - -


A student of Labour Relations, Management and the principals of private property, with a career in this field spanning 20 years. Has been an employee of organised agriculture, TAU, since February 1996, as Manager: Labour and Property Rights.

Studied: (University of Pretoria) : Labour Relations, Personeel & Marketing Management.

UNISA - SBL : Industrial Relations, Industrial Communication, Communications Management, Time Management, Collective Bargaining, Media Relations,and Trade Union Dynamics and Administration.

(Tell Academy) : Interrogation Techniques.

Employed as Area Organizer in April 1984 (SA Iron, Steel and Allied Industries Union) until January 1996. Resigned as General Manager: (Organization, Personnel, Collective Bargaining, Disputes Management & Technical Issues)

Secretary: Industrial Council for Grain Co-operatives, from 1992 until the appointment of the first General Manager in 1994.

Secretary: SA Confederation of Labour (SACOL) - August 1991 - January 1993

Initiated, organized and co-ordinated the International Conference on Property Rights in South Africa in March 1999 on behalf of the TAU and Agricultural Employers Organisation (AEO), and co-ordinated research, compilation and publication of both books," Property Rights in South Africa" and "Eiendomsreg in Suid-Afrika," which resulted from the International Conference.





Bronwen Manby, Senior Researcher in Africa for HRW and author of the publication under discussion, is the only contact between the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) and HRW (Human Rights Watch), therefore, any comments made will be directed against her interpretation of information in the said publication and is not personal.


Manby’s reference to "collaboration and able assistance" by the National Land Committee (NLC), and "NLC was central to devising and implementation of the research and completion of the report," speaks for itself, as any informed person in South Africa is acquainted with the strategy and actions, including its animosity towards Caucasian farmers by the NLC.


Further, particular thanks is directed toward Marc Wegerif of Nkuzi Development Association, also highly regarded within NLC circles, confirms the starting-point of the so-called research. Nkuzi is no stranger to the agricultural industry, both its aspirations, modus operandi and goals. The other NGO’s mentioned hardly needs introduction either.


The September 2000 workshop referred to, was not transparent or open and it is suspected that only the NGO’s (valuable insights) mentioned above, were involved. This confirms the biased approach by the HRW (Manby) and their collaborators.


Finally, the Ford Foundation and Netherlands Organisation for International Development Corporation (NOVIB), should and shall be informed of the true facts, as opposed to Manby’s researchers, which is nothing less than common racism and war-mongering. Their envisaged goals, as points of discussion, are invited to be addressed in person with the TAU.


7.2 COMMENTS ON SUMMARY (pages 1 - 10) - [Dr C J Kruger]


Crime, violent or non-violent (page 1), in any society being composed out of a variety of people, especially then also of ethnic differences, is, was and will always be, a political issue. Rumania, Chilé and Brazil are examples.


The orchestration of farm attacks in South Africa must primarily be evaluated in the ambit of the occupation of South Africa by both the black colonists since 1400 and white settlers since 1652.


"The new vulnerability of a group relatively protected from crime during the Apartheid Era" (page 1), is a nonsensical far-fetched, but internationally acceptable statement. Questions and counter-statements are the following:









"The rural protection plan was presented as a comprehensive initiative aimed at addressing the concerns of all residents of commercial farming …" (page 2).


The mere fact that, since 1994, a concerted effort by the authorities was made to bring "calm to the rural" areas of South Africa emphasises the liquidity of feelings between Black and White on the farms. Mark you, as was stated already, this state of affairs came to the fore after 1994, and specifically from 1996. This was the year when the so-called "African Renaissance" (also spelled "Renascence"), was launched. The reader is to familiarise him/herself with the intrinsic meaning of the concept, so as not to be influenced by the author of this document.


From this personal elucidation, even to the least informed reader with reference to the concept "CULTURE," it will be clear that ethnic animosity amongst the Blacks and Whites, are being rekindled. Specific reference is made to the silent attitude of the present South African Government, concerning the masacre of White farmers in Zimbabwe on their, the White native Zimbabwean farmer’s land. Not openly denouncing these barbaric political actions in Zimbabwe, borders on condoning the Zimbabwean Government’s aligned murderers, which in turn possesses the question: Is ethnic genocide, Black and White, not being rekindled on African soil? WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS (in this context) OF THE WHITE NATIVES TO AFRICA?


An example mentioned concerning the so-called "serious abuses" in South Africa against farm-workers, by members of the Wakkerstroom Commando has to be re-evaluated within the ambit of the following:








Concluding this reasoning, the so-called "serious abuses" of employees (farm-workers) must be seen as a response by the farmer due to the neglect of responsibility by the employee. Within the present-day financial milieu many farmers (both Black and White) face financial ruin which is a direct result of the lower productivity exerted by employees due to their linkage and outcry of "HUMAN RIGHTS."


Murders on farm-workers (page 2) as a correlation to farm murders is a nonsensical statement due to the fact that:




That the occurrence of rape by White farmers may occur (why does the author not verify this accusation instead of only sowing the seed of suspicion and thus FOSTERING AND ENHANCING THE FEELING OF RACISM!) - what about the rape cases amongst the Blacks themselves? The reader is to be conscious of the fact that the Blackman is allowed by virtue of their culture to practise sexual intercourse prior to his marriage. Point in case, few people are conscious of the fact that Shaka, the Zulu king, was an illigitimate child. Much is still to be said!


The statement that assaults on (Black) farm-workers are done by (White) members of society "largely with impunity" (page 3), is a severe statement and accusation! On the one hand international society should take note of the impotence of the Judicial society within South Africa which is administered by a Black Minister and cadre. On the other hand, assaults of Blacks on Blacks are never reflected. Cases where the victim is white viz cases where the victim is black are brought to a comparison on page 3 (bottom). If, and when, hate and racism is fomented, specifically practised by Whites in South Africa, [something the international society has burdened the Whites in South Africa with since after the Second World War (1945)], it is done with this statement.


Understanding the above statement is to understand the demographic make-up of South Africa. The Whites are individualistic and they, similar to the Whites in Europe, are resolute when embarking on a venture, be this venture a legal, social or financial action. The Blacks, however, are communally inclined and far easier attuned to contentment. For instance, the reader should regard and compare the countries on the African continent and their development where White governance was implemented to those African States where Black Governments were in office.


The comments reflected on pages 4 to 6, are typical to the actions of foreigners, embarking on an investigative exercise in a country of which very little of its history and make-up is known. Only by virtue of recent and modern information the investigator identifies the problem, makes a diagnosis and formulates a prognosis. Within the realm of the true sciences this is the avenue to follow.


In the social sciences, however, allowances must always be made for the influence and inputs of all the ramifications of science, especially in a country where not only ethnicity is noticeable, but also where the society is composed out of cultural diversities. Refer in this instance to Brazil, Canada, Chilé and Pakistan.


"Since 1994, the ANC-led Government has taken important steps to reverse the existing racial inequalities …" (page 8).


This statement is valid because, since coming to power, the ANC Government under the auspices and with the support of the international society, embarked on an endeavour to negate the documented history of South Africa. This history was written by English, German, Swedish and Afrikaans-speaking historians and evangelists, and favours neither the White nor the Black members of the present demography in this country. It only stated findings.


This is due to the fact that the Black colonists when arriving on South African soil in the 15th century, were illiterate. (Please do not reminise about the Blacks (= Bantu) being on South African soil since the dawn of time. Man, as a member of the specie homo erectus and later of the specie homo sapiens, was present on South African soil, but then also, South Africa was still part of Gondwanaland). With the contact with the White colonists the Black colonists were coached into becoming literate. Prior to this, the Blackman’s history was saved for the descendants by means of "FOLKLORE." Need one elaborate on the accruement which takes place during this process of information conveyance?


By becoming ignorant to the documented proof of the past, the present-day (2002) Government has a free hand to wave the wand of change, legally speaking, in their favour. Following from this, as well as the "African Renaissance" endeavour, the feeling of animosity amongst the population has never, ever been so tangible as at present. The country has also never been so POLARISED as at present.


Everybody screams, moans and groans about APARTHEID (even APARTHATE as it is called in Britain), but do these people really understand the essence and ground rules of SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT (= Apartheid)?


Intrinsically, this political process was aimed at allowing each race group in South Africa to develop true to their own cultural heritage. Something the Basques are fighting for in Spain, the Irish are campaigning for in Northern Ireland, as well as the French and English in Quebec, Canada. This list may be extended awesomely, but the crux of the idea has been conveyed.


Much is still to be said about the process of Separate Development, but the Afrikaner will always remain a member of the Germanic race and unfortunately will have to carry the unjust and unwanted burden of the cruelties of the Nazis during the Second World War.


It is to be mentioned, however, that academically, Separate Development is the answer for any society being composed out of different races and people with variant ethnic alliances.


It is ludicrous to take note of utterances such as: Rape is a legacy of Apartheid; Aids is a legacy of Apartheid and the ill-treatment of women is a legacy of Apartheid!!!


Separate Development was in the process of coming to fruition, but then the ANC and other militant forums supported by the international society, caused it to flop. How and why is simply due to the following:




In conclusion, the summary of the book "Unequal Protection" representing the contents of the said book, is to be evaluated with the mind being conscious of the following:




Concerning the RECOMMENDATIONS (page 11), apart from emphasizing Human Rights and not Human PRIVILEGES, a tremendous step is taken in the direction of promoting GLOBILISATION.


7.3 COMMENTS ON BACKGROUND (pages 18 - 29) - [Dr C J Kruger]


Page 18’s quote: "Colonial conquest and disposition" are exactly what had happened ever since the Black colonists from Central Africa crossed the Limpopo River in circa 1400.


By quoting from excerpts of the Voortrekker Charter, written by the Trek leader, Piet Retief, which was published in 1837 in the Grahamstown Journal, the true character of the Trekker families will hopefully shed new light on the all too familiar accusation of Black land alienation by the Whites.


Article 6: "We solemly declare that we quit this country (the Eastern Cape where border clashes between the Xhosa and White farmers were rampant - Ed) with a desire to enjoy a quieter life than we have hereto far done. We will not molest any people (= "Volk"), nor deprive them of the smallest property; but if attacked, we shall consider ourselves fully justified in defending our persons and effects, to the utmost of our ability, against any enemy."


Article 10: "We are now quiting the fruitful land of our birth in which we have suffered enormous losses and continual vexation, and are entering a wild and dangerous territory…"

The intentions are very obvious - the Trekkers craved for a peaceful existence void of the continual murder raids which were executed by the "uncivilised" Black glazier etching southward along the eastern seaboard of South Africa.


Page 18’s quote: "Cheap labour…" is what transpired due to the genocide which was enacted by King Mswati of the Swazi people, Shaka of the Zulu, Mzilikazi of the Ndebele, Sekhukhuni I of the Pedi and Moshes of the Sotho people. This undeclared war was, and still is, referred to as the mfecane/defiqane, although presently liberal-minded academicians want to contest its, the undeclared war’s, existence.


During the genocide era, 1820 - 1840/2, the Trekkers were in the process of establishing themselves in the hinterland of South Africa which, for that matter was void of any permanently settled people. The reason: the ravaging, murderous masses of (Black) soldiers were in the process of establishing a power base for their respective leaders. This is how Swaziland, Lesotho, Botswana and Sekhukuniland were demarcated. Any person who were encountered by these bloodthirsty soldiers were either killed or compelled to flee.


During 1839 - 1842, the Trekkers were present in the Black "war zones" with properties which were duly demarcated and registered by means of a "Burgerraad" (= Citizen Council) Treaty, the Trekker’s highest authority. The presence of the Trekkers (= Boere) in the Black "war zones," offered a sanctury to the Black families as colleague natives of the South African soil. (Native, is to be understood, does not refer to Black or White, but only to people being aboriginal by birth to a specific country). In exchange for the safe haven which was offered, the native Blacks offered their services to the native Whites. Eventually, due to the higher rate of progeneration amongst the Blacks, their numbers increased markedly compared to the Whites.


Page 18’s quote: " - systematic exploitation, and of segregation, apartheid and White supremacy …"

Concerning "systematic exploitation."

Question: Define and explain "exploitation void and divorced from personalised mindset and personalised "want."


South Africa’s political milieu is, unfortunately for the country, shaped, distributed, propagated and desseminated by scholars usually liberal in orientation within the social sciences field of study, who have, in the majority of cases, never lived on a farm, experienced the true farm life and related hardships to everyday life for both the owner (Black or White) and the worker.


It is also markedly of interest to note that most of the documents referred to as references were written after 1994. Everybody, with the slightest intellect is surely cognisant of the change in ideology that had transpired in 1994 in South Africa. In a nutshell: Free enterprise and individualism coupled to capitalism was sacraficed for a socialised form of government within the realm of Communalism. Within this new mind of communalism "exploitation" and manipulation of the masses, as opposed to "distribution" of responsibilities based on abilities, is incorrectly understood.


Relating to "… segregation and apartheid …," the following:


Enoch Powel, the British MP of the 1960’s, was vehemently opposed to the influx of Jamaicans into Britain. WHY? He wanted to ensure the British, the survival of the British way of life (= culture), i.e. segregation. Nothing is ever said, or published about the policy of segregation as it is enforced in Australia toward the Aboriginees, the New Zealanders toward the Maori’s and the American, Canadians and Chileens toward the Indians. Concerning Apartheid (= Separate Development), one should only take note of what is happening in Northern Ireland, Spain, Canada (Quebec), Kosovo, Georgia (Russia), Korea (North and South), as well as the Middle East (Israelis and Palestinians). The hope is expressed that Apartheid for what it is and was, remains the only answer for a country which is composed out of a heterogenous ethnic composition. Separate Development has one basic truth element, and this is the survival of a people’s (= "Volk") culture. It is worthwhile to note and be cognisant of the following:



The falsity of "White supremacy" is to be comprehended within the frame of reference pertaining to "mens" (race) and "Volk" (people).

A clash of cultures have always been present within the South African society. Never ever, whilst each race was allowed its own "place in the sun" have personal animosity and polarisation been so obvious as at present. The answer to this phenomenon must be sought in the political process which has been enacted since 1989/1990, when



The above two aspects were, and possibly still are, regarded as the rehabilitation of society after "Apartheid." This is ludicrous!!!

South Africa is currently in the process of infra-structure decline and social degeneration, that is, from a First World standard country to a Third World standard country.


Page 18’s quote: "… created a society in which 60 000 capitalist farmers own 12 times as much land as over 14 million rural poor." The concept "capitalist" has already been explained within the South African society. The 14 million rural poor must be viewed according to the following background:

The traditional land areas in which the Blacks established themselves during the 1850 - 1870’s, were the far Northern Province (previously Northern Transvaal), Zululand bound in the south by the Tugela River and in the north by the Portuguese border of Mozambique, the Eastern Cape (=Transkei), bound by the Umzimvubu River in the north and the Kei River in the south. In these land areas, historically no White farmer family settled due to the fact that the Black settlers have already settled there.


In these geographical areas the Blacks busied themselves with the tilling of land, which was predominantly in a self-subsistence fashion which could not support the respective families. Communalism and socialism, true to the Black person’s culture and tradition was, and still is, prevalent.


The White farmer, with an individualistic and capitalist outlook in life established themselves outside these Black traditional land areas.


Question: Where is the heart of the South African commercial farming centred?


With the realisation that the rural Black communities are stagnating and becoming a liability for the Government, the previous White-led Government, circa 1968 - 1972, formulated a policy called "Border Industries." This initiative was completely jeopardised by the then exiled ANC movement. The reason, inter alia, was that with the masses not congregated in the urban areas, a noticeable power base could not have been established. The international society, where the exiled ANC operated from, supported the ANC’s effort to jeopardise the "Border Industry" concept.


The 14 million rural poor, are rural and poor due to the following:




Question: Why are they poor? Elucidate personally.


Owning 12 times as much land. This may only be attributed to the fact that the White farmer, being individualistic and capitalistically inclined, as opposed to the Black farmer who is social and communistically inclined, have, due to mechanisation and improved farming practices



Page 18’s quote: "… untenable allocation of land and rights to land."


Within a socialist/communist society land is allocated by the State. Up and until 1994, South Africa was a capitalist society. If the country is changing to socialism, where acquired land is to be redistributed:






Page 19: The influence of the Black genocide, a tool for the dispersal of people is conveniently not addressed whilst the White people are not referred to as, irrespective the fact that they were born on the African continent, indigenous or natives. Land was not acquired by force of arms only, transactions and cessions of land by means of negotiations, were the main method by which land was acquired by the Trekkers.


White settlement along the eastern seaboard was more or less simultaneous with the settlement of the Xhosa settlers to the north of the Keiskama River (not the Kei River).


It is not true that the Boer Republics were established through the "permission" of the various chiefs. This is utter nonsense!!! The Free State was void of chiefdoms, except for Chief Marokko at ThabaNchu. The Transvaal areas which constituted the ZAR were in no way whatsoever overlapping the traditional land of the chiefdoms of the Pedi in the east, that of the Kgalagadi in the west or that of the Swazi to the south-east and was bordering onto Zululand in the south.


The so-called Wars of Conquest executed by the Boers is a misconception. The conflicts which ensued were due to raids by the Blacks, residing in their traditional land areas (homelands), and executed onto the neighbouring Boer farms. This constituted the basic reason why there were nine Border Clashes along the Keiskamma border area between the militant Xhosa tribes and the farming communities of the Free Burgers (= Boer farmers), the First which started in 1779 and the Ninth, or last Border Clash, in 1852. For 73 years the militant Xhosa transgressed the demarcated border to rob and maim the estates of the Free Burgers. These turbulent times were the focal point that gave rise to the Great Trek in 1837. The "reserves" referred to were predominantly a creation of the British, and was an imitation of the system of incarceration practised by the British in India, Hong Kong and Australia.


"A small portion of land in the Free State, was left under African control." There was only one Black settlement at ThabaNchu, the rest of the countryside was void of permanent Black settlers. To the south-west, and bordering onto the Orange (= Gariep) River, a community of Griquas resided. The concept "African control" imply "Black control." All utilisation of this concept reflects the one-sided and prejudiced mindset of the author. All Americans are Americans, irrespective from whence they came. Why is a difference to be made in South Africa!!!


The concept "Kaffir farming" requires clarification. The concept is derived from the Arabic rootform "KAFHUR" meaning PAGAN. This concept was coined with the landing of Bartholomew Diaz in circa 1480 on the West Coast of South Africa. In 1652 it was utilised to refer to the KHOI (Hottentot) as well as the SAN (Boesman) in contrast with the Hollander’s religious practices.


With the coming of the French Huguenots in 1688, a people who fled Europe on the strength of the religious Calvinistic convictions, the word Kaffir came into everyday use to distinguish between Black and White. A concept which was coined with a religious connection, eventually became politicised.


These small holders and their method of farming, predominantly by the utilisation of obsolete farming instruments, but true to the Blackman’s traits, as is described on page 10, have never supplied towns with crops in a lucrative fashion. At most, it established an informal market along the arteries leading into settlement areas. That this could be a growing economic challenge to White producers is just as ludicrous to state that a fly droning around your ear will cause deafness - at most the fly will cause annoyance!


How, after the creation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, the White farmer brought pressure onto Black producers so that the latter would be employed by the White farmer, is a statement lacking credibility.


The statement that the "native policy" of 1910 was formulated inter alia to "benefit farmers by ending independent African (= Black) agricultural production" is a bit far-fetched. The majority of White farms had been destroyed by the British (1899 - 1902) whilst the legislation was an enactment of the British rulers of South Africa.


Concerning the race classification on page 24, it is noted with interest that the people of mixed blood (= races) are referred to as "INDUNA." This is a misnomer seeing that Induna refers to a "headman" within the Black society. If an Induna of true cultural heritage is implied to be a person of mixed heritage, is to utter a "war-cry." This clearly illustrates the lack of knowledge concerning South Africa’s demographic make-up.


The footnote on page 25, classifying an Indian within the South African society as "Black," is again not only proof of the lack of understanding anthropology, but also an insult to the Indian. Referring to a person of mixed racial heritage as Black is also a very crude insult! A challenge: Call Rian Cloete, the Afrikaans-speaking TV Announcer "Black," although he is a "Coloured," will inflict a serious insult onto the person.


When using the concept "African" to denote those citizens who are of African descent, is to be philosophied about.


Is George W Bush of Irish descent(?) not an American in the same vein as Chief Sitting Bull in Arizona? Why then are Whites in South Africa not referred to as Africans!!! The Whites, and then the Afrikaans-speaking Whites are nothing other than a people (= Volk) similar to the Venda, Xhosa and Griqua peoples. The difference being language and ethnicity.


The large scale (not always forced) removals were always done with the offer of additional land - something which is seldom, if ever, mentioned. Nobody were removed, forcibly or otherwise, without being compensated with a corresponding area of land. These stretches of land was usually obtained from White land-owners, voluntarily or in many cases by means of intimidation by the State.


The quote: "… in the interest of the health and safety of the public generally" on page 25, need no explanation or verification, if the reader reminds himself of how the squatter areas in Africa, in totality, threatens man’s existence. The hospitals in Kalafong, Soweto, Tembisa and Vosloorus area are a health risk in itself. These instances have to be compared with the previously known Baragwanath Hospital which was the largest Hospital on African soil and which used to cater extensively to Black people. This Hospital was a product of the previous "White" Government.


Touching onto the aspect of the Group Areas Act, where White and Black (and for that matter also Indian and Coloureds) lived in "seclusion" from other race groups, requires a few thoughts.


Brixton and Fulham in London, Haarlem in New York and Lower Amsterdam in the Netherlands are typical examples of areas where people, true to cultural similarities chose to live together. This is nothing else than places where the concept of "a group area" is practised. Why does nobody chastise England, the USA and Netherlands in the same fashion as South Africa is being chastised? It is to be comprehended that the human activity of "voluntary selection," when it comes to people grouping together, is based on similarities in language, disposition, beliefs AND RACE.


The reason: South Africa anticipated the outcome of a racially mixed neighbourhood, and introduced a law to prevent what London, New York and Amsterdam authorities are presently faced with.


In practice: The reader should only visit the town of Livingston in Zambia or Lower Dallas in Texas, or the suburbs in Mayfair, Brixton, New Doornfontein, Turffontein and Newlands in Johannesburg, South Africa, to note the decline and disrepair the area and buildings are identified with since "people of all races" are allowed to reside next to each other, and after the conservative residents, irrespective of race, extracted themselves from the area of delapidation and deterioration.


Referring to the ID documents, which had to be carried by Blacks. By the way, Whites are also burdened with identity documents! When moving into a Black area, the Police was obliged to enquire, in terms of legislation, as to the reason why the White person was in that specific area.


When the Black person’s ID was designated for a specific vocation in an area other than his/her area of domicile, a prohibition on employment was enforced outside that of the designated vocation. Let your mind wonder to China, the Soviet Union and Cuba - these countries adhered to the same principles as South Africa and in many cases still do!


The description of the eviction of farm-workers or labour tenants is in totality not a completely true reflection. The abolishment of the labour tenant system is to be understood from the viewpoint of the landowner. Essentially it may be characterised as follows:






No farm-owner will, or can afford his productive land area to be utilised by people simply residing on the ground.


Concerning the write-up of the establishment of the Bantu Homelands requires the reader to engage in a less politically biased and internationally influenced read-up. The result will be an objective mindset.

Eversince 1994 a complete change within the agricultural environment of South Africa emerged. Essentially this new situation may be reduced to the following:





The quote on page 30, namely "The land shall be divided amongst those who till it," being a section of the Freedom Charter of the ANC, is nothing else than a declaration of Communalism (Black African Socialism), as opposed to Capitalism. The latter being the one ideology which was instrumental in developing South Africa as the economic giant on the African continent.


7.4 COMMENTS ON LAND REFORM SINCE 1994 (Pages 30 - 46) - [Mr J Loggenberg]


The first paragraph refers to the negotiated transition of 1994, which according to the authors, has resulted in the Freedom Charter not being honoured. This is false, as the Constitution of South Africa compels Government to address this, as it is a process. It seems as if the authors would have welcomed a speedier route, not necessarily via legislation, therefore something similar to Zimbabwe would probably have been more suitable.


The demographic make-up of South Africa is different to Zimbabwe, and if the Zimbabwean route was ever launched, South Africa would probably be destroyed by civil war, as is the case with the rest of this beautiful continent.


How the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) is drawn into the fray is not clear, as it has nothing to do with the land redistribution and has not been utilised at all. The BCEA governs remuneration and conditions of employment only. It is nevertheless true that farm-workers are governed by the same legislation now, whilst legislation such as ESTA (Extension of the Security of Tenure Act) simply focuses on commercial farms. Surely that should be seen as discriminatory. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is loudly silent on that! Why are commercial farms targeted? Why not also rural land, in the hands of parastatals and/or the mining companies?


The fact is that the arguments allowed in terms of the report regarding restitution and the Labour Tenants Act, is skewed, because it is based on a total distortion of historically recorded facts. What was once a hand of friendship and catalyses against the murder and extermination of peoples, has been turned against the farmer. Again HRW is silent! Is it possible that race or ethnicity is a factor? One wonders!


Secure Tenure (page 33)

As is clear from this comment, no acknowledgement whatsoever is given to the fact that many young people move away from the farms on which they grew up, to seek employment in towns and cities, only to return later to establish themselves and their dependants on the farm. Neither is it even mentioned that people living and working in urban areas, send their offspring back to farms to be raised there by their elders. Why would this be an option if the living conditions on farms were as bad as made out by the HRW in its reports?


With reference to page 34 (ref 35), the HRW allows a major omission of alteration. Referring to the documents by Donna Hornby. Firstly, her heading is in fact a veiled threat, as it in fact reads: "All we need is a peace of land." ("PEACE" INSTEAD OF "PIECE" AS MADE OUT BY THE HRW!).

Secondly, the Report was actually dated March 1998 and not 1988, as reflected in the HRW. This alters the message conveyed, seeing that after the 27th of April 1994, new land legislation was enacted in South Africa and the Zimbabwean situation had already started to deteriorate. This clearly created a climate of forced removals of "Whites," something more suitable to Manby’s agenda.


It was against this background, including the complete NLC Report of March 1998 to the previous Minister of Land Affairs, Derek Hanekom, where South African agriculture is compared in detail with the "ideal" situation in countries such as Cuba, Philippines, Chilé, Mexico, Egypt, Malaysia, Peru and strangely enough Zimbabwe. It does not require a brilliant mind to determine the actual level of destruction of the agricultural industries and economies of those countries due to failed land reform programmes. NLC stated by implication that this was what they intended for South Africa. TAU viewed the destruction as foremost and therefore held an International Conference of Property Rights in South Africa on 17 and 18 March 1999, 12 months after the Report.


A book published after the Conference in 1999, of which a copy was personally handed to Bronwen Manby, is not even mentioned. Fact is that all the dangers, including the poverty resulting from these ideologically driven processes, are highlighted. The HRW chose to ignore this, raising a question mark at their goals. Its biased and racist approach can only lead to a second Zimbabwe, but with a difference:




Again, facts regarding the application of legislation, and the issues arising from it, are negated on page 35 (ref 45). Both Court cases regarding ESTA and the right to bury deceased persons on agricultural land, were led by TAU. The following facts need to be considered if an objective view is required:




In the cases of "Bührmann vs Nkosi" and others, the applicant in favour of buriel with the assistance of the Department of Land Affairs, appealed against the High Court’s decision. This appeal was unsuccessful on September 5, 2001, and the verdict upheld the previous decision in favour of the TAU. It seems as if the authors of the Report, thus HRW employees experiences difficultyies with the judicial system in South Africa. Surely, the farmer as a businessman and employer, cannot be held ransom to that!


It is important to note that irrespective of an extremely modern constitution, ESTA, for example, has been proven to be anti-White, therefore racist and biased, and unconstitutional by Court. The authors and researchers preferred to ignore this.


Labour Rights (page 42)

In terms of the Employment Equity Act, it is defined that no employer may "unfairly" discriminate on a comprehensive list of grounds as correctly assessed by the HRW Report. The same Act nevertheless defines its focus group to be advantaged, as comprehensively covering all, except White males, thus implying that discrimination against them to be "fair" discrimination. Obviously this should be contrary to the so-called modern constitution. HRW Report again chooses to ignore this, thereby condoning it. TAU does not believe that to be the official stance of HRW. Why is it allowed to go through without contesting it?


Regarding maternity leave, HRW Report fails in informing the reader that its application regarding women farm-workers are identical to that applicable to any women in any other industry. Through this failure, it creates the impression of discrimination against farm-workers, which is completely false and irresponsible.


The conclusions made by the HRW Report on page 49 (ref 97) are totally false. "Landbou Weekblad," the Afrikaans version of Farmers Weekly is not an Agri SA magazine as suggested by the HRW, but rather an independent agricultural magazine available in all major bookstores.


It is true, as correctly recorded in the HRW Report (page 50), that farmers are experiencing major difficulties with the fact that security of tenure legislation (ESTA) focuses solely on agricultural land. In no other industry, would company housing, even if it was utilised for decades, become a permanent right, i.e. ISCOR, the Steel Manufacturing Industry, ESKOM, or Mining Industry.

The question arises: "Why the focus on agriculture?"

Farmers experience this specific act as vindictive, biased and discriminating and compel them to rather employ labour that is not resident on the farm.



(Page 46 - 52) - [Dr C J Kruger)


The comparison of the changes which commercial farms and farm-workers and residents had to make and adjust to, is unbalanced. On the one hand is the farmer (irrespective colour) who is the "generator" of the "breadbasket" for Africa, not only South Africa. On the other hand one finds the "passenger" in life, the socialised, eager to accept, and even always "awaiting" member of society, again, not race specific. The latter is in a process of being politically "manhandled" in order for the political party effecting the manhandling, to assure its political support, and thus ensuring the geopolitical power base. In the same instance, the "breadbasket" is being depleted.


Zimbabwe, and other African countries, such as Ethiopia and Somalia, governed by a Black ethnic elite, are typical examples of countries where for the sake of so-called human rights a specific country’s economical, social and infrastructure are sacrificed, only in order for the United Nations to move in and offer HUMANITARIAN assistance.


Statement: If people’s RESPONSIBILITIES toward life are being emphasised and not the so-called socialist- (= communalistically) based HUMAN RIGHTS, many HUMANITARIAN world problems would be allayed. If man’s PRIVILEGES in life, few or many as the case may be, are emphasised, responsibilities will automatically surface.


The statement " … the protection of state security forces and the use of state violence to check challenges to White control of the land has been exchanged for a government commitment to land distribution and laws protecting farm residents …" (page 46) is the statement which will ensure



With regard to "the protection of White control." Any resident of South Africa, not being enticed by the post-modernist liberalism, and not being a fleeting visiting academician having answers to all the socially-based problems of the country, should feel offended by such a statement aimed at the international society concerning South Africa. This is a statement which not only engenders hate and animosity amongst South Africans, but also amongst members of the already "hateful" and rejecting international society.


For edification: Prior to 1990 farm murders, farm attacks and evictions from farms were not heard of. Possibly offshoot instances did occur, but these were the exception, not the rule!


A discussion concerning the political make-up, regarding the pre-1990 era is something which should be engaged in, but with an objective and unbiased mental mindset.




The answer to the question posed by the TAU and reflected on page 47 is to be understood given the following pointers:




Unfortunately, the rest of the information contained on pages 47 to 52 is nothing else than a discussion of South African politics and how, according to the HRW an acceptable solution for the country’s intrinsic problems are to be achieved. With reference to the international arena, does the human rights violations in Kosova, Albania, Nepal and not to mention Equador and Peru, where loss of life amounts to thousands, not warrant the HRW’s urgent attention. South Africa have always sorted out its own challenges, without the assistance of international aid right from the First Anglo Dutch War (1880 - 1881) to the Second Anglo Dutch War (1899 - 1902). These Wars may for the sake of international cognisance be classified as the first Wars of Independence on the African soil, conducted by an aboriginal people, the Afrikaners, against the threat of an international Powerhouse, the British.



[Mr J Loggenberg]


Regarding the living conditions on farms today (page 55), it needs to be noted that the majority of farms have farm schools and private land for the benefit of the children of farm-workers. An agreement (pro forma) was negotiated by the TAU with Government in 1999/2000, but due to the extremely poor state of the Department of Education’s administration, approximately 90% of the agreements signed by farmers have to date, not been signed or honoured by this Department. TAU holds the proof of this.


The fact that medical assistance is distant from farms, thus the employment site, is true. Nevertheless, this is common everywhere in the world. Surely farmers should not be blamed for this!


The context of the report regarding women on farms, borders an incitement. No mention is made that legislation requires all employees to be treated equally. If this is not the case, in practise it means that there is a problem in enforcing legislation. Rather than highlighting that, this document continuously creates the impression that employers are biased towards women, which only culminates in tension between the employer and employee. The most disturbing part of this section of the Report are the final two paragraphs regarding time-off due to pregnancy. The impression is created that employers within the agricultural industry are ruthless slave-drivers. It is this sort of reporting which has culminated into farm attacks and murders, or alternatively a Zimbabwean situation. Is this the aim of the researchers and authors of the HRW Report and do the sponsors condone such a stance? With all workers being equally protected by uniform legislation, this once again seems a perception regarding law enforcement. HRW nevertheless, prefers to ride the bandwagon, seemingly for its own agenda. Its comments are thus not regarded as being constructive at all.


Children (page 60)


The issues of child labour and farm schools (pages 60 and 61), are blatantly distorted and mostly false! There is no proof that farm children are malnourished. Generally speaking, these children have access to more fresh fruit, vegetables, milk and meat than most children in urban areas, especially those in Government initiated informal settlements. Earlier in the Report (page 35), specific reference is made to usage rights to land and also payment in kind for services rendered, including rations on a monthly basis. If this was the case, with the resultant poverty, eventually resulting in malnourished children, how is the situation of "remaining on the land, but at the same time refusing employment" (as per page 50), explained? It seems uncomprehendable that any parent, employed and residing in the city, would send his child or children to a farm where this is the de facto situation. Equally, children residing in tribal area have a much smaller variety of products to choose from. Again, this seems to be a fashion to get at the employer, the farmer, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.


Regarding farm schools, it is clear that the author of this section has never seen the Act and is acting on information obtained from some mis-informed source. Firstly, the agreements negotiated by TAU, which were signed by the land-owners and forwarded to the Department of Education is far more than the figures quoted. Copies of these documents are available at the TAU. Secondly, the Department’s failure to finalise the mentioned "farm school agreements" is possibly the reason why the correct "figures" are not available. Thirdly, the majority of these agreements require a minimal subsidy of R1.00 to R5.00 per scholar per annum, which surely is within the means of the Department.


Finally, according to the Statutes, the land-owner cannot close a school, only the Minister may. The TAU experiences a blatant distortion of facts and can only speculate at present as to the reason for it.


Foreign Migrants (page 61)


Again, the attempt to establish a specific perception is extremely poor and vindictive toward the land-owner.


Historically, during the "struggle period" prior to 1994, the present Government (ANC/SACP/COSATU) initiated an urban settlement movement away from the rural areas and towards informal settlements, as part of their "struggle". This policy created a vacuum which was filled by starving and threatened people from bordering countries.


Since 1994, farmers have experienced severe problems in the recruitment of South African labour, even with the assistance of the Department of Labour. So much so, that an interim agreement was reached between the TAU and the Departments of Labour and Foreign Affairs, allowing Zimbabweans to obtain work-permits, instead of being deported.


Presently, on most farms both local and foreign labour is employed, and then at the same rate of pay. If this was not the case, the illegal employees, already illegal within the boundaries of South Africa, would simply migrate further inland and toward the south.


This gave rise to employment agreements issued by the Department of Labour. A case in hand is the Northern Province with the Zimbabwean labourers. Safe havens fot illegal immigrants exist throughout South Africa. Soweto and Johannesburg render sufficient proof. A visit to the Department of Home Affairs the would have sufficed. HRW decided to ignore this!


In many cases illegal immigrants arrested are deported, only to return to the same farm within days of being deported. Surely this does not confirm the findings of the HRW researchers. This fact is common knowledge to all South Africans. The opinion(s) of foreigners, such as the author of this section in theReport, is dismissed for what it is worth, the lack of substantiated research.


Substantiating the above statement, people are not forced to migrate from Zimbabwe to South Africa for employment. Poverty and political chastening in their countries of origin are the root causes.


In conclusion, it should be noted that many examples and disputes are documented, where the real problem is the lack of consensus between the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Labour on a modus operandi concerning illegal immigrants.


If the situation was as biased as suggested by the HRW, why would any sane person leave the safety of his/her home and family to come to South Africa for employment (on a farm)? HRW does not even attempt to compare or answer these very logic questions.


Many Zimbabwean immigrants have been in South Africa for decades and have fathered families on both sides of the border.

The attempt to vilificate the South African farmer is simply unprofessional as a social scientist, and irresponsible. Any informed reader is able to detect the HRW bias against South African Whites



[Mr J Loggenberg]


The first two paragraphs of this section (page 63), again clearly illustrates the value of the so-called research, as it is admittedly not based on a single shred of evidence or statistics, but rather clearly on the perceptions of biased individuals, obviously from the same NGO disposition. Considering other allegations investigated by the South African Police Service (SAPS), it is extremely clear that any such actions will enjoy the attention of the SAPS. Sowing the seeds of distrust against the SAPS, is a poor attempt at manipulation of the poor and illiterate and urgently needs to be condemned. It is the same SAPS which is to protect the people of South Africa, thus an irresponsible act by the HRW, which could only injure the defenceless rural people who are constantly referred to in the document.


The 1991 Report (page 64) by Eugene Roelofse, was totally discredited at the Rural Safety and Security National Conference of 23 to 25 October 2001, facilitated by the SAPS and United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UNODCCP), and it should be rejected outright. Again, accepting this totally unsubstantiated "Report" as fact indicates the status and level of the so-called research and therefore also the report by HRW. The allegations of "cover-ups, perjury, non-submission of hospital records to Courts" made against the SAPS "and downright frauds by District Surgeons, enable many accused to escape justice," indicates the scientific neutrality of the author of this Report, especially if no evidence or substantiated proof is offered. SAPS will simultaneously address these poorly manufactured rubbish in their own right. The TAU will support the SAPS in taking these warmongers to task.


The same arguments used against the KWANALU Report should be applied to this section, in particular the HRW Report. This Report is surely not based on a comprehensive study of fact obtained through research, as is clearly illustrated with reference to the article in the Canadian Journal of South African Studies.


TAU still maintains that numerous requests to all levels of authority, to identify abuse and report it to organised agriculture, where structures exist for action and/or discipline against members, have led to nothing. TAU is on record in the HRW Report and elsewhere, that, perpetrators should be charged in terms of the judicial system and if found guilty, to be punished accordingly.


It is strange that only the negative aspects are highlighted, but the many positive issues are hardly mentioned. This obviously creates the impression that all farmers at one stage or another are guilty. Again the aims and goals of the so-called researchers need to be questioned and whether these aims and goals are shared by the HRW and its sponsors. A clear statement by the latter should clear the air.


According to the Report, many cases of assaults, executed by farmers, never reaches the courts. Similarly, TAU can state that many cases of incitement, by amongst others, Government Officials and NGO’s, or even threats by farm-workers, directed at their employers (= the farmer) are negated. These are mainly due to cover ups by Government Officials.


Reference to the Greytown area in KwaZulu-Natal Province (page 68), needs also to be regarded in context. If the so-called researchers even attempted to interview the Greytown farmers, they would have found that the vast majority have experienced attempted murders, farm attacks and murders. This obviously has resulted in relations being extremely tense between farm-owners and farm-workers. In most cases, the perpetrators utilise the most barbaric methods of intimidation, torment and torture against farmers whilst not being current farm employees. In most cases the perpatrators are not even locals. This could easily have been determined if the "researchers" interviewed SAPS officials or public prosecutors.


The HRW Report admits that the "research was not statistically based." If this is the case, the contents of this section should not have been classified as research. These interviews are obviously questionable, if not conducted in a scientific manner. It is therefore clear that the stories were never verified and/or confirmed, but nevertheless classified as truths. What is the value of financial expenditure on a Report, based on unsubstantiated evidence? Surely, the funds could rather have been spent on economically viable projects to create employment and wealth. The sponsors of this Report, and HRW are guilty of incitement and racism if they do not address the lies and hidden agendas of the "researchers" and authors of this report.


The clearest examples of the attempts by the HRW and their researchers to discredit white farmers, appear on page 70 and the following pages. TAU will not attempt to address each incident in detail, as it would be a waste of valuable time. We, however, wish to identify facts concerning a few cases to establish a background against which the rest of the Report should be evaluated.








The Commando is an extension of the SANDF, and the SANDF, with its headquarters in Pretoria, is in overall command of all the "official" Commando Units in South Africa. To mention that the "local farmers are in control of a Commando" (page 86) is a falsity. That the local farmers may constitute the largest number of members of a Commando may be true, but even then the official functioning of a Commando is sanctioned by Government authority.


That a Commando had evicted a farm labourer (page 86), is just as nonsensical as to state that the SA Navy has annexed St Helena Island. Both these mentioned actions could not have been executed with prior official, governmental sanction and knowledge.


Very ludicrous, even laughable annecdotes concerning the actions of the so-called Commando members, are noticeable by the intelligent, mindful reader. Instances are:




Question: Would the "new" Government (since 1994) really have acted in such a way when it comes to the degradation of the Black farm-workers by White farm-owners, and possibly "Commando members?"


The assault on Sipho Dlamini described on page 92, might have occurred, BUT were they members of the local Commando or just members of society? This society, Piet Retief area in which Wakkerstroom is a local community, is presently under tremendous social and political "strain," which may be reduced to the increased demands of the Blacks on land. According to them, the Blacks, have been alienated from them. Too easily is forgotten the Treaties and Cedes which were negotiated between the Afrikaners, Swazi and Zulu during 1856 to 1869.


The statement that, after the visit of the Minister of Defence to the Headquarters of Group 12 at Ermelo, the HQ to which the said Command reports, all Commando animosity within society ceased is accepted with a feeling of relief, BUT verification of the statement is not offered. The statement is only made!


The described occurrences concerning "abuse by private security" (companies) (pages 94 - 99), is to be evaluated along the same trend as the above - a prejudiced biased reflection, aiming to jeopardise social relationships in the South African rural society. That malpractices do occur in society is not negated, but the HUMANE actions/activities within society, including those by the SAPS and SANDF, does not receive any attention whatsoever. This is a travesty.


With regard to Vigilante groups: Mapogo a Mathamaga (= colours of the leopard) (pages 99 - 101), is a necessity in bringing the Black person’s perception of punishment into consideration. Within the communalistic Black African culture, the severity of the offence will dictate the punishment.

What this HRW Report is portraying is on the one hand an offence incurred by Blacks, but the accompanying Black’s traditional punishment to be meted out, is to be replaced/substituted by a White man’s humanistic interpretation for the punishment.


It is to be remembered that cultures differ and not even HRW will succeed in fusing these differences in totality.


South Africa’s problem, call it a challenge, is the clash of cultures and no international workgroup will alleviate this problem/challenge. The South African populace (White, Black, Coloured and Indian) will have to address this challenge, themselves.



[Mr J Loggenberg]


This whole section seems to be the contribution (concoction?) for which the NKUZI Development Association receives so much credit. (Refer to "Acknowledgements").


Why NKUZI, which has been involved in numerous cases and having all the relevant information available from Court orders, still deem it necessary to exclude valuable segments of evidence from their submission to the HRW Report, is uncomprehendable. Everything reported is based on verbal accounts and thus open to individual interpretation.


If everything which is reported is true, NKUZI for one, should be able to return people back to the farms from which they were evicted. No mention whatsoever is made of the different cultural values attached to the land in question, i.e. communalism vs individualism.


In the first paragraph it is clear that these values are submitted in a biased fashion, i.e. "There is no reason why I should leave. I will die here. This is my father’s place and as an elder son I have inherited it" (page 102). NKUZI and the HRW researchers make no effort in pointing out to whom the land belongs legally, as accepted by Government’s Deeds Office, or whether this person had any legal ownership of the land in question.


Individualistic perceptions and values are determined by the purchasing powers (call it Capitalism), whilst the communalistic perception rely simply on the lapse of time (call it Socialism). In the latter case, the fashion in which these rights were obtained, i.e. "the how and why," are simply ignored.


If the latter is the case to be excepted by the HRW, their sponsors and supporters, it would mean that white Australians and white Americans have NO rights to land, and the Spanish conquestors in South America also have no rights to property. TAU challenges HRW to make this view/opinion internationally public!


With reference to page 104, the same may again be deduced from the verbal contributions made by a women resident on a farm near Estcourt, KwaZulu-Natal. Much mention is made of "our fields." Again the old stance of ancestry is elevated to something above legal acquisition of land in: "I was born there and the farm has been there eversince I was born" (page 104).


No where else, in any other industry does company housing, i.e. whether it be the place of the individual’s birth, become a right to accommodation and permanency. Why are the agricultural industry, thus commercial farmers assessed differently? Why do these values only apply to Black people? There are numerous examples of Whites holding property rights to land historically as far back as 1860, which rights are now being disputed. We would advise the HRW’s British reporters and researchers to visit the archives in Britain and research the documented history of Africa. References to that fact can be found elsewhere in this document as researched by Dr C J Kruger.


Simply based on the information tabled by NKUZI, it is clear that, if these facts are true, serious transgressions in terms of ESTA apply and should be taken to a Court of Law for elucidation.


Cutting off the water supply is defined as an eviction. NKUZI nevertheless prefers to ride on the emotions and have made considerable contribution to ruining sound relations, whenever they became involved.


TAU will admit that there are cases where attention is urgently required, but opposes the manner in which NKUZI, and the HRW Report creates the impression that all Black people are victims and Whites are cruel, selfish farmers. The fact of the matter is that ESTA has been established, in a Court of Law, as racist legislation (Ref. C v d Merwe vs ABSA 2000).


Mrs Chrissie van der Merwe, a former resident on a farm in the Cullinan area (north-east of Pretoria), farmed their land with her husband and children for many years. When her son died, and her husband who could not accept the death of his son, committed suicide, the aged white lady’s trouble started. She discovered that the estate was in serious financial trouble. Eventually, she was evicted by ABSA, one of the largest banking groups in South Africa. She had nowhere to go and no alternative accommodation was offered. This decision was upheld in the Appeal Court. TAU was the only support available to her. Why does only certain values and circumstances apply to Whites, while a different set of values apply for Blacks? This, on the one hand constitutes a mockery of the Constitution of South Africa and on the other hand to the so-called dream of unity. Is this what NKUZI and the HRW reporters support, and towards what end?


Reference to the "Joe Slovo" squatter camp (page 112), does not mention the illegal Zimbabwean refugees residing there. Neither is mention made of the "absent farmer," who, as a matter of fact, is a German citizen living abroad, and who has given full power of attorney to South African neighbouring farmers. Neither does it mention the continuous involvement of the Gauteng Legislature in this specific respect. It also does not mention the criminality initiated from this informal settlement. The number of farm attacks and murders on legal land-owners in this area does not feature at all!!! This is an extremely volatile area, where the Courts were continually involved, and where negotiations and public meetings have been part of a long process.


Does the HRW sponsors support this? They are in fact funding it, but are they well informed? Do they know who they are supporting? Do they know the truth? TAU will see to it that they hear the truth!!!


The Maswiri "Boerdery" (= Farms) (page 114)


NKUZI has neglected in every version of their contribution to the HRW, to yield the complete picture. The following is but one example: No mention is made, even that of NKUZI’s own guilt, of trespassing on private property. They have not even mentioned that they were responsible for much of the hardship of the people on whose behalf they claim to act. The version of the SAPS (page 115) is correct. There is sufficient proof of this and the Court actually determined that many of the people arrested were illegal. NKUZI confirms this with "those arrested include people who were in no way connected with the farm or the interdict." NKUZI refrained from mentioning that the problem was initiated by a registered Trade Union, who took their members out on an illegal strike action. NKUZI is well aware of this and TAU is in possession of correspondence by senior officials of NKUZI admitting to this.


Why does NKUZI not mention the initial number of people involved, in comparison to the eventual number involved in the dispute? NKUZI has been involved in this specific case for years and are nowhere nearer to a solution now than at the time of becoming involved! This at the cost of poor, Black farm-workers who approached them for assistance. The investigation referred to on page 116 was thorough and proper, irrespective of NKUZI’s challenge.


NGO’s like NKUZI would and could easily be labelled war-mongers, using the poor and illiterate as cannon fodder. Even the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) found that the arrests were lawful. NKUZI, thus also challenges the finding of the SAHRC!!!






(pages 118 - 128) - [Mr J Loggenberg)


TAU supports the stance: "Innocent until tried and found guilty beyond doubt" Proof is of the essence when allegations as serious as those reflected in this chapter of the HRW Report are made. TAU will nevertheless not deny, nor admit that these allegations have merit. An investigation is obviously necessary. For once the allegations are not simply based on race, as many "foremen" and "farm-workers" are not necessarily white. In fact, the majority in both cases are not white.


It nevertheless has to be noted that a farmer, as the employer and landowner cannot be involved in allegations of domestic violence amongst farm-workers, therefore neither be held responsible for domestic quarrels.


Unfortunately, the presentations and accusations presented, have not been followed up, neither by HRW or the relevant NGO’s. Again, these atrocities are left pending and open to speculation, thus influencing individual perceptions.


TAU must reiterate that this cannot be seen as anything else but tall stories, until the accusations are verified and criminal charges laid, and the guilty, if there are any, are identified beyond doubt. The fact is that those allegations could, and probably would, lead to further deterioration of relations and even an increase in farm attacks and murders. If this happens, let it be on the conscience of those responsible, being the HRW Report and its sponsors and supporters. They will simultaneously have to accept the consequences when taken to task. HRW has done well in identifying sources and so-called researchers.


Rape, of which much is said in the HRW Report, is a serious social problem not limited to farms, as any informed South African will testify. South Africa has even been labled the rape capital of the world. Nevertheless, the HRW Report simply focuses on farms. The whole tendency should be seen against the background of the holistic scene, including child rape, even babies, due to the myths regarding HIV/Aids.



(pages 129 - 137) - [Mr J Loggenberg]


The TAU shall not respond in detail to the allegations made by the so-called advocates, and we have numerous documented examples regarding the arrogance and vindictiveness of Government Officials and NGO’s representatives toward the TAU and White farmers.


The fact of the matter is that if you play with fire, you may get burnt!


These individuals, the so-called advocates or so-called legal representatives, are well acquainted with the level of emotion involved with their activities and even use of emotion for their own benefit and purposes. They thrive on it, and if it does not exist, they create and initiate it. Obviously, with the sort of reporting reflected in the HRW Report, these advocates should be questioned, investigated, interrogated and charged. They may not have in actual fact committed a murder, but are positively involved in creating the necessary climate. TAU is, and has always been, very clear on this subject.


8.2 "FARM ATTACKS" : A DISCUSSION (pages 138 - 157) - [Dr C J Kruger]


A "violent crime" (page 139) is the HRW’s preferred concept to depict or refer to an attack on a commercial farm. It is true, an attack on a farm is a crime, and this crime might be violent or non-violent. Why the concept "farm attack," depicting the specific area within society where the transgression and offence has occurred is to be substituted with "violent crime," is incomprehensible. Is a specific psychological agenda subjacent to this substitution? Possible answer: A farm attack is the issue with reference to the Black’s quest for land, a violent crime does not identify the quest for land issue and thus negates the barbaric conduct of the predominantly Black aggressors against the legal White land-owners. Zimbabwe sould serve as an example for HRW.


The very last sentence of the first paragraph on page 140 offers the following:




With regard to violent crime: The majority of victims of violent crimes are Black, BUT these crimes are usually dispensed by Black family members within the Black domestic environment, i.e. Black on Black. This has nothing to do with farm attacks, but classified as a violent crime paints a very disturbing picture which is then spread and propagated internationally. Of course, everything to the detriment of the White, oppresive (sic) farmer.




The definition proposed by the SA Police Service to identify "attacks on farms and smallholdings" (page 140) supports the notion that domestic squables do not qualify as a farm attack, but only as a "crime," i.e. criminal offence.


A case in hand which will support this statement is the following: In Mpumalanga on a farm, a Black child was bound to a tree for several weeks (Newscast: TV2, 5th March 2002). No write-up in local papers was offered concerning this inhuman action of a Black person on a Black child. Conversely, when a White farmer acted against his Black worker, by penalising the latter in respect of a salary deduction, the severety of this action is trumpeted right into the government chambers of the international Governments. Boldly the definition also highlights "grievances or racist concerns" as a component which is to be considered when a farm attack is investigated. Of consequence is it to note that



are respectively occurrences and attitudes which emerged in 1989/1990. The reader is to be cognisant of the political importance of these dates within the South African ideological and political environment.


An intellectual discussion (page 141), is offered as to what constitutes a farm and what constitutes a smallholding. The issue at hand is the increasing attacks on residents on rural properties. Everybody is conversant with the concepts "rural" and "urban." An attack or murder on a farm or smallholding remains an attack or murder.


The second reason as to why statistics for attacks (page 141) are problematic is due to racial issues. Of interest, and true to Black African tradition, intra-racial (Black on Black) offences are seldomly reported whilst offences of White on Black and Black on White (inter-racial) are religiously reported. The racial aspect is in the process of polarising the South African society as never before.


The statement: "Many White farm-owners are living in fear" (page 143), is a very valid statement.


Ask the reason: Why? The answer, within a geopolitical framework, seems to be the following: The international society, especially Europe, live with an immense feeling of guilt toward the atrocities executed during their colonial reign to the natives of Africa, predominantly Black, and in South Africa, Black and White.


At this stage, note has to be taken of the following:




The post colonial Governments in Europe saw it fit to support the Black masses in order to clear their conscience. Attitudes toward South Africa, with the largest number of indigenous White natives who still maintained contact and connections with the First World, also had to change. The winds of change of Harold McMillan had to be enacted right up to Cape Agulhas.


The coming to power in South Africa in 1994 of the Black elites who were during the onslaught on South Africa, trained and coached in Europe, provided, according to European leaders, a more congenial political environment toward them. The so-called freedom-fighters, who as terrorists and insurgents, acted against the previous (White) Government, were, for international notification categorised as follows:





The scenario is presently in the process of altering and may be explained as follows: The fighters/insurgents are ageing and are disappearing from the scene. The exiles are in the process of filling the lucrative positions whilst the homers are still the pawns which are being utilised to assert the geopolitical power base of the new Government.


During the March 2002 Commonwealth Conference in Australia the opposite was proved. All the Black African leaders constituted an united forum "not to act unilaterally" against Robert Mugabe. South Africa, and Africa, have become non-aligned. Concealed within this awakening of the revival of Black Consciousness is the rejection or non-acceptance of all that is not culturally allied to the Black African. This resulted in a process of polarisation between races which eventually will unleash ethnic conflicts. To be remembered is that the White African is not only racially different to the Blacks, but also ethnically. Is it to be understood why farmers "plough with their firearm" within arm’s length?


4. Black Politics in South Africa since 1945, by Tom Lodge. Ravan Press (Pty) Ltd., South Africa.

The motives for "Attacks on farms and smallholdings" (page 144)


The first paragraph enforces the statement which is formulated and contained in the Freedom Charter of the ANC and eloquently reflected on page 30 of the book "Unequal Protection."

Again, within the socialistic backdrop of Black politics, as opposed by the capitalist backdrop of individualism, it is understandable that a clash of interpretation relating to "those who till the land" is possible. It is stated, unequivocally, that the land issue in South Africa, if not political in nature, it definitely, since 1994, has a political undertone. The mere fact that a Police Officer "cannot find a shred of evidence to prove" the political dispositioning within the land claim issues, is an acceptable answer which must be offered by a political-neutral employee of the State.


The contradiction of the TAU’s statement that farm attacks are "planned and organised" (page 145) by the statement that farm attacker’s modus operandi is "extreme amateurish" is actively challenged.


Facts are that since 1 April 1994 till 30 June 2000 : 630 APLA and 1639 MK (total 2269) SANDF members have been discharged due to AWOL (absent without leave), and termination of service whilst large numbers of R-4 and R-5 rifles and Star 9 mm pistols and SANDF weapons, have disappeared. These previous members, ex-terrorists, are still within the frame of mind that they are engaged in a liberation war.


With reference to the slogans of the PAC and ANC members, inter alia identifiable Cabinet Ministers, the concept "settler" has to be explained:


A settler is a person who has uprooted himself from his traditional place (land) of origin and established himself in a new environment. The difference between a settler and a colonist is simply that a colonist does not relinguish his ties with his land of birth whilst a settler severs all ties with his land of birth and establishes himself anew.


The Black Africans and White Africans are both settlers who previously were colonists to South Africa. The British, however, remained colonists throughout.


The quotation of a statement made by a member of the Northern Natal Commando (page 146) that the farm attacks are orchestrated and that the attacks are condoned by the present-day Government must be seen in the light of the following:






The concept "land-hungry" (page 148), relating presently to the Black people is very interesting when reference is made to the historical statement which was made by Nathan that "LAND-HUNGER was not the driving force in the saga of the GREAT TREK" (5). The prime reason why the Voortrekkers (= Boere or White African natives) left the eastern seaboard, where the aggressive Xhosa and White farmers merged along the banks of the Keiskama River was, as it is epitomised in the following articles of the Voortrekker Manifesto (Ibed):


"Article 3: We complain of the continual system of plunder which we have ever endured from the Kaffirs (= Pagans) and the Coloured classes" (6).


"Article 10: We are now quitting the fruitful land of our birth in which we have suffered enormous losses and continual vexation" (in search of peace and stability - Ed) (7).


The extract of the letter on page 148, viz: "We as the youth of the people who were evicted from there from 1879 …" is a typical example of the mindset of the Black youth. To understand the mindset of the present-day Black, one has to understand the following: Eversince the late 1960’s and early 1970’s the Black masses were the "spear" of the ANC and PAC against the Government. The youth, being very volatile, and due to the fact that the Government acted against the insurgents who were agitating and organising the local population (= the homers), were easily influenced to counter the Government’s actions. This is how it came that the slogan "Liberation before education" was coined and hallowed as something sacred. This slogan and the accompanying behaviour of the Black youth gave rise to another concept which was coined, believe it, in Britain, namely: "The lost generation!"


Resulting from the aforementioned, the youth and present-day young Black people between the ages of 15 and 28 years of age, have nothing to offer society other than aggression. A realistic question is of course: "Who is accountable for this situation?" The answer is definitely: "The ANC/PAC" insurgents.


5. The Voortrekkers in South Africa, 1937, page 16, published by Gordon and Gotch Ltd., London.

6. It is to be understood that the Xhosa Blacks fused with the Herero (Khoi) who were of lighter pigmentation.

7. The present-day Zimbabwe and the exclamation the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Zimbabwe), Mr Didymus Mutasa, made during a TV-screened interview (SABC TV2, 5th March 2002), namely: "When the Europeans (= British, i.e. Livingston and Rhodes) came to our land, they gave us Blacks the Bible and took our land. We are now willing to give them their Bibles back and take our land back again." Noteworthy is it that the native Whites (= Boere) were not "pre-occupied," with missionary tasks. The true, and inspired missionaries were the British, Scotts and Germans. Thus, what is applicable to Zimbabwe is not ipso facto applicable to South Africa.


Of interest would be to be informed where the farm (page 148), which is addressed in the brief is situated. If the land is to the south-west of the Buffalo River (= Buffelsrivier) and south of the Tugela River, then, in accordance with a Cession Treaty between Dingaan and Piet Retief on 6th February 1838, prior to the voluptuous murder of Piet Retief and his party members, this land was ceded to the Voortrekkers (native White Africans), (Nathan, page 220). If this is the case, relating to the ownership of the land, it only proves to show how documented history is presently being ignored by the present Black youth (and elders), and then to their own benefit.


The creation of expectations by the Government’s Land Reform Policy (page 149), is a truism. This truism is the trigger for specific behavioural patterns. Imagine the Basques in North-Western Spain being offered Self-Government by the Central Government of Spain, only to have this concession repealed again. Expectations which were created will surely engender aggressive behaviour toward Central Government which will ultimately result in homicide.


The difference flowing from this example and the South African situation is the following:


In Spain the Central Government repealed the concession, thus dampening a falsely created expectation, whilst in South Africa the Government created a true expectation and actively encourages the expectation. In the South African scenario the White farmer as the LAWFUL owner, constitutes an impediment to the realisation of the created expectation of the land for the Black and he/she must be extracted from the equation. The quote that "farmers mistreat their labour and pay too little, so they (the Government) don’t care too much" (page 149), is pregnant with political insinuation.


Statement: A Government can only be a Government when the people support the Government. In the South African scenario where the mass of the population is dissatisfied with



the present Government, by means of manipulation of masses, by offering state housing schemes, 6 Kilo litre water and a certain amount of electricity free of charge, has a very sound power base. Why is such a power-base to be upset by officially squashing problems and creating a power-base (= population) which is prone and used to be unsatisfied.


The statement by an employee of the Department of Land Affairs is unequivocally challenged to qualify the statement that "the taking of the land was done by the gun" (page 149). In contrast, the gun of the White farmer was used to offer sanctuary and a peaceful life during the time of the Black genocide of 1820 to 1850, which was initiated by Shaka (Nguni), Mswati (Swazi), Zilikaats (Nguni), Sekhukuni (Pedi) and others.


The various derogative statements (page 150) concerning the cruel fashion in which White farmers treat their farm-workers is again to be evaluated within the broader political spectrum. That a difference does exist between Black and White cultures, although both are part of the respective "pigmented" natives of South Africa, is a fact. For instance, the White natives do not have their lives being influenced by an adherence to their primogenitor or ancestor’s spirits in the same fashion as the Black natives. Thus, culturally a rather vivid difference exists between Black and White and this cultural difference is being regarded as categorising the one racial group as being inferior or superior to the other. In India, where the CAST-system is in existence as well as in Germany where the (Turkish) "gastarbeiters" are encountered, the same categorising effect is found.


Eversince the concept "Human Rights" (page 150) replaced "Human Privileges and Human Responsibilities," not only productivity, but also the total decay in human relationships, were sacrificed. As was stated by the Sociologist, Sorokin:


"In certain respects all people are alike - we are homo sapiens;

In certain respects some people are alike - some are men and some women;

In no respect are people alike - every person is bestowed with his/her own talents!"

The latter makes the difference between human rights and human privileges!


Mention of the concept "Third Force" (page 150), requires our attention. Such a Force does not exist and is only utilised to win public opinion. The statement that ex-Koevoet and ex-Special Force members guard White farmsteads is nothing else than the utilisation of qualified and trained personnel. After the ANC Government, politically and by means of international pressure won the "Bush War" (1976 - 1989), qualified men (= soldiers) became unemployed. Something the Americans are familiar with and which had occurred after the Korean and Vietnamese Wars. Employment was and still is the "everyday ticket" to a plate of food and accommodation!


That a statement such as: "There is no substantive evidence for a co-ordinated campaign of intimidation to drive Whites off the land" (page 151), is formulated proves only one thing, and that is, academicians are easily mislead. Also, statistics can prove ANYTHING, depending what is wanted to be proved.


The main motive for violent crimes (= farm attacks) as being criminal in nature is challenged. These so-called crimes have a dual basis, namely political and criminal. This is the conviction of members of society who were victims and survived the onslaught. Farm attacks, having a dual base, is brought in comparison with the concept Racism. The latter also has a dual base, namely a political base, which is detrimental within any society, as well as an anthropolitical base, which to every person is sanctity.


Question: Who is not anthropologically proud of being what he or she is?


The reason and specified motives as to why farm attacks or then violent crimes, are committed by perpetrators (pages 152 - 156), are valid. However, the qualifying remarks offering substance, and thus clarity, as to the question WHY these occurrences were there, sometimes lack background. What is meant with the preceeding sentence is that the holistic background of both the Black and White natives in South Africa is to be evaluated, and only then the crucial question as to WHY the demographic situation in South Africa is as it seems, will become clear.


The deliberation concerning the concepts "Farm Attacks" and "Violent Crime" (pages 156 - 157), is nothing else than one concerning interpretation. The White farmers, who were targets during the terror campaign of the ANC (1960 - 1990) and the roaming (terror) bandits. Farmers have been subjected to thievery and bodily harm and even today regard an onslaught on the farm as an attack. A mugging in Central New York is also referred to as an attack. A crime on the other hand usually pertains to an act of thievery where people are not involved. The lifting of the art treasures from the Louvre Museum in Paris, France, may be regarded as a crime. It seems as though when a human being is present during a criminal act, the act is referred to as a violent crime. This suits the image of the present Government who is still wanting to try and escape the effigy of a terrorist organisation, and this tends to disqualify the political neutral statements of the last two sentences on page 157.



ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - (pages 158 - 217) - [Mr J Loggenberg]


The acceptance of Constitutional and International Law obligations is the basis on which Governments must act when adhering to its primary task, namely to establish and maintain a safe and secure environment for all its citizens.


Government has failed dismally in establishing a safe and secure environment for all its citizens, as is clear from reports issued by the Minister of Safety and Security. So much so, that these reports were actually embargoed by the Minister himself.


Although this failure of the South African Goverment is clearly illustrated when comparing South Africa to the rest of the developed world, it is even more obvious when considering the impact of crime on rural South Africa.


TAU had done its own monitoring based on officially available statistics and has the following convictions:


1. The restructuring of the SAPS and the SANDF along racial lines is to reflect the total demography of South Africa.


2. The subsequent loss of expertise (experience and training) is due to the application of affirmative action.


3. The down-sizing in the SANDF, is due to the lack of funds.


4. Incompetence, especially in the lower ranks of both SAPS and SANDF, is prevalent.


5. Allocation of funds by Government for emotional issues, rather than for empowerment of the Security Forces, has created the ideal climate and situation for crime, including international syndicates, to abuse the South African economy and peoples for their own gain.


The inabilities of investigatory teams within the SAPS, has actually also jeopardised the judicial system. It is virtually impossible for any prosecutor to prove guilt, if the investigation is poorly executed. This whole process has led to a situation where crime is not deterred.


At the same time, along with the Bill of Rights, the rights of detainees and convicted criminals are highlighted. The constant elevation of these rights have led to perceptions amongst the masses that:


1. the right of these detainees and convicts are more important to the authorities than that of the everyday person; and that


2. crime pays; and also that


3. due to the so-called "freedom struggle" and the inhumane actions by the previous regimes, having a criminal record is not viewed negatively, but rather as a status symbol.


This and the inability of the Security Forces has been conducive to an increase in criminal activities. The number of plans initiated by Government since 1994 and which have either not been visibly implemented or not implemented at all, has in fact acted as confirmation of these perceptions amongst South Africans at grass root level.


One such example is the Rural Protection Plan of 1998. The fact is: Condemning criminal activity is meaningless, if it cannot be supported by a strong action, including an effective Judicial System. The escalation of farm attacks and murders annually since the Rural Safety Summit initiated by Nelson Mandela has undermined confidence in the SAPS, especially in the rural areas.


Coordinating structures, headed by the NOCOC (8), is the only form of relative success, but is unfortunately blindfolded and impeded due to inputs only the Government has control over.


Rural Police Stations has become the focus of mirth, due to their lack of transportation and even more seriously, in many cases, total illiteracy of SAPS officials. Most of these stations are totally under-staffed, due to a moratorium on recruitment.


Given the situation of insecurity in rural areas (farms) and the lack of support from the SAPS, farming communities have been compelled to take responsibility for their own safety and security. This include the Farmwatch and Commando System, which utilise the participation of both farm-workers and farmers.


The Commandos have been the constant target of both criminal and unfortunately also Government Officials and NGO’s, due to its origins back to the Anglo Boer War (1899 - 1901). It has been the target of especially anti-Afrikaner sentiments, probably due to the successes against the British Forces during those Wars of Independence in 1860 and 1899 - 1901. Today, in many cases, the Commando is the only collective system with any success in the rural areas, irrespective the negativity regarding it. The reason is that being an extension of the SANDF, it is mostly well-disciplined and cooperates successfully with the SAPS and SANDF. Its successes may be attributed to the fact that it consists of locals and they are well acquainted with the area of operation. The Commando’s most prominent critique are lodged by NGO’s. TAU is strongly of the opinion that this is due to the fact that the Commandos are a difficult hurdle to cross, is an alternative collective movement in the area and has been responsible for several NGO’s being totally discredited and who have disappeared from the scene, for instance FRRP in the Wakkerstroom area. NKUZI Development Association have also had similar experiences in the Northern Province and makes no secret of its animosity against Commando Units.


When scrutinising this particular section of HRW Report, and also the section regarding farm attacks (page 138), one cannot help but feel astonished for the lack of fairness in reporting.


8. The Committee (NOCOC) forms part of a structure, the National Crime Prevention System (NCPS), which was formed by the post 1994 Government. In essence it is a copy of the pre-1994 structure which was known as the "Joint Management System (JMS). The NCPS is constituted as follows:




The latter (NOCOC) is supported by



The HRW Report has failed to illustrate clearly and truthfully the brutality and torment during a typical farm attack, as opposed to the explicit detail given to cases involving black victims. So much effort and time has been spent documenting the unsubstantiated stories of these black victims whilst the atrocities against white victims are not given the opportunity of the same explicite detail, which are documented in Court records and photo footage. All of which has been made available to the HRW. TAU personally supplied Bronwen Manby with the photo’s, but strangely enough, these have not been published. Photo’s of farm dwellings seem to have made more important impact for purposes of this Report. The Government, Security Forces and farmers are regularly highlighted as negligent and careless when blacks are involved!


The HRW Report, their "researchers," authors and unfortunately also the sponsors, who have most probably contributed substantially with a clear concern for the "wrongs" being committed, has succeeded in one matter only and that is to offer a biased review concerning the South African farming community. They have surely not succeeded in solving a single problem. In fact, they have managed to elevate the elements of hatred, racism and mutual distrust. They have probably managed to nudge South Africa further on the Africa route, as they have done elsewhere and that is closer to retaliation and possible civil war!


The HRW Report has not managed to strengthen the hands of the Security Forces or the Government. They have not managed to spare farm-owners the risk of attacks and/or murders. Neither have they managed to improve the quality of life of farm-workers, including women. They have not stopped a single rape or created a single job opportunity. They have in fact told Black people that White farmers need to be taught a lesson. They have told White South Africans that there are organisations purporting to support Blacks and that Whites will have to react. They have seriously damaged the image of White farm-owners who are the very people giving jobs to approximately 600 000 workers with 2,5 million dependents, who actually provide food and fibre for the only relatively peaceful and successful country on the continent of Africa.


The question is: What is the aim or goal of the HRW? Why this hatred? Why the attempts to destroy this so-called new democracy? One of only a few in Africa? WHY? Is Africa to be re-colonised in future? By whom?



(pages 218 - 230) - [Dr C J Kruger]


The aspects which were addressed in this case study are



By bringing the widely internationally acclaimed book of Alan Patan into contention, namely "Cry the Beloved Country," in which the previous Government is openly held accountable for all the injustices the Blacks in South Africa had to endure, possibly is to influence the reader favourably and set the psychological scene concerning the so-called present-day injustices the HRW wants to present.


For general consumption the following statement made by the 71 year old widow of Alan Paton, prior to her permanent emigration to Britain in 1998, is offered: "Racial tension has never been so severe as at present" (SABC News, 29th November 1998). Although no reason is given as to why present-day racial tension is so vivid, the answer must be sought in the unrealistic claims the "unqualified" make in respect of the created "wants" which were cultivated by the Human Rights Movement. The only component within the economic sector of South Africa which is detrimentally influenced is productivity.


However, with reference to the historical development of the Ixopo area as a "European corridor between the Natives," (within this context, the concept "European" refers to a White person, and "Native" to a Black person), in the lower KwaZulu-Natal province, the following investigative document initiated and sanctioned by the "Crown-linked" Union of South Africa Government (1910 - 1924), void of Afrikaners, is presented.


Very few people are cognisant of the fact that up till 1924, the Union of South Africa, although Gen Louis Botha was the Prime Minister, this country was imperialistically aligned to the Crown. On the 7th of December 1912, Gen Hertzog resigned as the Minister of Native Affairs (= Naturelle Sake), due to the fact that the fashion in which the imperialistically aligned Botha Government, steered the development of Native (= Black) settlement, was not acceptable to Hertzog. Of interest is it to note that 1912 was also the year in which the ANC saw its birth. During 1914, Gen J B M Hertzog was the facilitator in bringing to life the Nationalist Party (NP) with the Credo "Suid-Afrika Eerste" (South Africa Foremost). When in 1924 the NP came to power, the 1911 Native’s Land Bill, promulgated by the Botha Government, along imperial requirements, was an inheritance.




This is an official "Report of the Griqualand-East Land Commission" executed in the 1920’s, concerning the "report of the VACANT Land’s Commission: Griqualand-East," in which the allocation of land in Matatiele, the Location of the Map(t)anas, Baphuti Location, Basuto and Fingo from Basutoland, Musps Location, and vacant land adjoining the Drakensberg are discussed (9).




In view of the local circumstances, it is strongly urged that even the gain to the Natives themselves would be negligible and entirely problematical, for the following reasons:


  1. The report is to be found in the Archives of Pietermaritzburg. A copy is in the possession of the author.



out of the land itself.






To conclude our reference to the special case of the district of Matatiele, it must be pointed out that in 1881, this district already contributed its quota of land for Native locations. In that year Queen’s Mercy Reserve was allocated to the tribes of Chief Moshesh, and Sibi’s Location to the tribes under the latter chief.


The Administration of that period very wisely left European buffer areas to separate the tribes from each other, a policy which proved fully justified even as late as 1917, when local disturbances occurred among the Natives, necessitating the rushing up of troops to quell the unrest. The Ongeluksnek buffer at that time notably proved its value from a strategical point of view. It must also be emphasised that the recommendations of the two former Commissions, known as the Beaumont and Scully Commissions, appear to have been made without due regard to the public interests, without proper investigation or local knowledge, as neither of these Commissions consulted the views of the local inhabitants, and they do not even appear to have inspected the Drakensberg block of farms.


At the time of the Beaumont and Scully Commissions the Government and the Nation were not alive to the devastating effects of soil erosion, and the importance of conserving the vegetation at the headwalls of our river systems.

It is therefore submitted that, had these considerations been taken into account by the Commissions referred to above, they would never have recommended the inclusion of the Drakensberg block of farms in released areas. The European farmers of East-Griqualand now realise the effects of soil erosion in the formation of dongas, thus reducing the water level over large areas, and the effects of "sheet erosion" caused by wind and rain, under conditions created by over-stocking and primitive methods of agriculture. Numerous farmers have accordingly now embarked upon anti-soil erosion measures to combat this evil."


This delegation therefore strongly emphasises that these two European districts are justly entitled to claim at least a wide European corridor to provide them with access to Natal:


1. The district of Umzimkulu is situated within the mist belt. Its climate is therefore cold, misty, and generally unsuitable for the cultivation of cereals. Large portions of it are consequently definitely unsuitable for Native occupation. The amount of grain brought in by Natives for sale to local traders is, indeed, quite negligible.


2. It is contended that more Natives are now in European employment in the areas proposed to be expropriated than would be the case if the European farms were in Native occupation. At the present time the farmers in the Umzimkulu District support over 4 000 Natives.


3. The Umzimkulu District has a regular and abundant rainfall, which renders it eminently suitable for the development of the dairy industry if left in the hands of Europeans.


On account of its rainfall, the district is capable of producing exotic pastures for milk and beef production on an economic basis, in competition with the rest of the Union at world prices. If surrendered to Natives these possibilities would not be realised.


Once the stigma of being a released area is removed an influx of European settlers into the district can be expected. The owners of large farms are already contemplating the sub-division of their holdings for more intensive development. This process of sub-division has, indeed, already begun, and is a significant indication of the development that is taking place in the district. All of which would be checked if it were handed to Natives.


4. The Sneezewood Glengarry area, which is one of the most highly developed portions of the district, has established one of the best co-operative Cheese Factories in the Union. This Factory has competed successfully at various Dairy Shows in the Union and overseas.


The Sneezewood area forms a complete block of some 45 European-owned farms, abutting on the European district of Mount Currie, and constitutes a watershed on the Zuurberg Mountains.


Although the Natives have had the opportunity to acquire land in the area for 20 years, they have not done so. On the contrary, Native land has been acquired by Europeans and there are now only two Native-owned farms in this area.


The facilities of this area for the export of beef are exceptional. This district is served by four lines of railway to the recently erected Cold Storage and Chilling Plant at Durban, which is within a relatively short distance from this area.


A further factor which makes for the future development of the area is the fact that it will be traversed by the national road from Umtata to Pietermaritzburg over a distance of 30 miles. The proposed expenditure on this national road would, however, be economically wasted if the district was segregated for Native occupation.


UMZIMKULU DISTRICT (with Ixopo to the north-east)


This delegation wholeheartedly supports the protest against the virtual extinction of the Umzimkulu District as a White area:


The effects of this measure would be:










With reference to the opening paragraph of this section, it should be clear that







In conclusion; the hope is expressed that