South Africa seizing white owned farms

[MonteRCMS]

Man set to be first to have farm seized in South Africa calls it theft

Johan Steenkamp, 67, who co-owns a £10million farm in Limpopo, has been ordered to hand over his land, following a ten-year battle to stop the government buying it for a tenth of its value.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Johan Steenkamp, 67, who co-owns a £10million hunting farm in Limpopo, has been ordered to hand over his land, following a ten-year battle to stop the government buying it for a tenth of its value.

 

[Victoria33]

Thanks to the posters who posted information, the expropriation phase seems to be just beginning from the stories. They are still a gray area.

2 farms have been targetted, I don’t think any have been officially expropriated yet.

It is apparent too, that the owners have recourse to the law before finalization.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

tomarin:

And two wrongs don’t make a right.

Restitution is not a wrong.

If the land is being returned to the family that owned it, that might be restitution. If it is being taken by the government, it’s tyranny.

So far it has been the former. And in most cases compensation is paid to the white farmers.

Is the compensation commensurate with the value added, in other words, fair market?

 

[niceatheist]

Indeed. It’s the one reason that during the Reconstruction era, former slave owners were paid for the loss of slaves. As a strict point of justice, it was obviously unfair, but the plan was to ease social tensions after the 13th Amendment was implemented. Seizure of white farms in africa has a pretty grim history, and while I understand that you can make an argument for it, if you actually feel that land redistribution is an act of such merit that it should be implemented, then compensation and appeal systems should be put in place.

 

[JonNC]

Forced relocation and forcing people out of the political process is pretty bad but I wouldn’t call it brutal.

I would…

 

[Victoria33]

Until they amend this constitution, I see little change.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So far it has been the former. And in most cases compensation is paid to the white farmers.

I’m not seeing article where expropriation has already occurred.

I am referring to the long-standing land buy-back policy the government has had in place. It was not expropriation, but it did result in a return of some lands to the natives.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Victoria33:

I’m not seeing article where expropriation has already occurred.

South Africa farm seizures BEGIN: Chaos as first expropriation of white-owned farms starts | World | News | Express.co.uk

You will notice that this is about a proposal. It has not occurred yet.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

tomarin:

And two wrongs don’t make a right.

Restitution is not a wrong.

If the land is being returned to the family that owned it, that might be restitution. If it is being taken by the government, it’s tyranny.

So far it has been the former. And in most cases compensation is paid to the white farmers.

Is the compensation commensurate with the value added, in other words, fair market?

We could ask the same question about the terms under which the whites first acquired the land they now call “their own.” But it is a matter of debate as to what the fair market value of the land is.

 

[JonNC]

We could ask the same question about the terms under which the whites first acquired the land they now call “their own.”

We could, and that could be taken into account, but to the extent that the current owners have made improvements, they should be compensated at fair market value.

But it is a matter of debate as to what the fair market value of the land is.

That can be determined: what the seller is willing to sell it for and a buyer is willing to pay, all without government interference

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Maybe the fair market value of the improvements only - not the whole property. The compensation is not offered as fair market value. It is offered to reduce trouble, as compared to no compensation at all.

 

[JonNC]

Maybe the fair market value of the improvements only - not the whole property. The compensation is not offered as fair market value. It is offered to reduce trouble, as compared to no compensation at all.

Hence the problem with the government’s action in the first place. If government is going to confiscate property in a racist way such as this, there is probably going to be trouble.

 

[Maxirad]

Check this out:

Apartheid-era propaganda fueled Trump’s tweet on South African farms

An important debate over land reform taking place in South Africa has been muddied by groups trying to push their own ideologies.

qz.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Maybe the fair market value of the improvements only - not the whole property. The compensation is not offered as fair market value. It is offered to reduce trouble, as compared to no compensation at all.

Hence the problem with the government’s action in the first place. If government is going to confiscate property in a racist way such as this, there is probably going to be trouble.

It is not always possible to eliminate all trouble when retrieving stolen property, but giving the descendants of those thieves some compensation is an effort to at least mitigate the trouble.

 

[JonNC]

It is not always possible to eliminate all trouble when retrieving stolen property, but giving the descendants of those thieves some compensation is an effort to at least mitigate the trouble.

Saying they are thieves assumes facts not in evidence. But either way, if it is to return the land to the original owners that’s one thing. If it is taken by the government, that’s another.
One can see South Africa going down the road of Zimbabwe, and that’s a sad prospect for all South Africans.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is not always possible to eliminate all trouble when retrieving stolen property, but giving the descendants of those thieves some compensation is an effort to at least mitigate the trouble.

Saying they are thieves assumes facts not in evidence.

Most people around the world consider the evidence sufficient that:

1. Blacks own only 4% of farms and agricultural holdings, despite being 80% of the population.
2. This was the result of discriminatory laws such as the 1913 Native Land Act that formalized discriminatory rules on buying and leasing land and racial segregation in land ownership.
3. This is after more than two decades of (slow) land redistribution that was agreed to in principle by different segments of South African society, including politicians, academics, lawyers and civil society.

So, yeah, the evidence is in.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

It is not always possible to eliminate all trouble when retrieving stolen property, but giving the descendants of those thieves some compensation is an effort to at least mitigate the trouble.

Saying they are thieves assumes facts not in evidence.

Most people around the world consider the evidence sufficient that:

1. Blacks own only 4% of farms and agricultural holdings, despite being 80% of the population.
2. This was the result of discriminatory laws such as the 1913 Native Land Act that formalized discriminatory rules on buying and leasing land and racial segregation in land ownership.
3. This is after more than two decades of (slow) land redistribution that was agreed to in principle by different segments of South African society, including politicians, academics, lawyers and civil society.

So, yeah, the evidence is in.

What kind of due process has taken place? I suspect few if any of the farmers on the land were around in 1913.
There seems to be growing problem of people exercising a presumption of guilt. That’s always been the case in the rest most of the rest of the world. It isn’t supposed to be the case here.
Clearly, the Apartheid system was evil. Clearly, what has happened in Zimbabwe is evil. I pray that the evil doesn’t continue in South Africa.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

It is not always possible to eliminate all trouble when retrieving stolen property, but giving the descendants of those thieves some compensation is an effort to at least mitigate the trouble.

Saying they are thieves assumes facts not in evidence.

Most people around the world consider the evidence sufficient that:

1. Blacks own only 4% of farms and agricultural holdings, despite being 80% of the population.
2. This was the result of discriminatory laws such as the 1913 Native Land Act that formalized discriminatory rules on buying and leasing land and racial segregation in land ownership.
3. This is after more than two decades of (slow) land redistribution that was agreed to in principle by different segments of South African society, including politicians, academics, lawyers and civil society.

So, yeah, the evidence is in.

What kind of due process has taken place?

Our concept of American due process does not apply in South Africa. The government of South Africa is probably convinced they have done their version of due process.

I suspect few if any of the farmers on the land were around in 1913.

Perhaps not, but they continue to benefit by holding land that was acquired from the black by that unjust act. The continuing extreme inequality is evidence of a continuing injustice.

There seems to be growing problem of people exercising a presumption of guilt.

It is universally understood now that the whites who gained their advantage by taking the best land from the natives were guilty of an injustice. There is not much of a presumption needed to see that.

That’s always been the case in the rest most of the rest of the world. It isn’t supposed to be the case here.
Clearly, the Apartheid system was evil. Clearly, what has happened in Zimbabwe is evil. I pray that the evil doesn’t continue in South Africa.

Then you should be happy that the evil is being undone.

 

[Theo520]

Indeed. It’s the one reason that during the Reconstruction era, former slave owners were paid for the loss of slaves. As a strict point of justice, it was obviously unfair, but the plan was to ease social tensions after the 13th Amendment was implemented. Seizure of white farms in africa has a pretty grim history, and while I understand that you can make an argument for it, if you actually feel that land redistribution is an act of such merit that it should be implemented, then compensation and appeal systems should be put in place.

Land redistribution for the sake of creating opportunity is a policy that stands on it’s own two feet. When done right, it’s worked well in many countries. Yes, the distributed land must be paid for.

 

[JonNC]

Our concept of American due process does not apply in South Africa.

One reason why Justice Ginsburg was so horribly wrong.

Perhaps not, but they continue to benefit by holding land that was acquired from the black by that unjust act. The continuing extreme inequality is evidence of a continuing injustice.

That’s a different argument than “they are thieves “, and one I do not dispute.

It is universally understood now that the whites who gained their advantage by taking the best land from the natives were guilty of an injustice. There is not much of a presumption needed to see that.

And by and large those people are dead.

Then you should be happy that the evil is being undone.

Indeed I am. I just think it should be done justly. Injustice is not cured by injustice. Expropriation without compensation commensurate with the value added is unjust. Expropriation without the land being returned to the descendants of the specific people it was taken from is unjust.