Afrikaners in stand off with the SA Government for independence. The Afrikaner People represented by their elected People Council (Volksraad) had filed a complaint to the Humans Rights Commission(HRC) regarding the refusal of the ANC government to meet with the council for their independence and freedom. This is a process that is required to be followed under International Law. The HRC responded with a very weak and dismissive reply. Below you will find the Volksraads final but powerful response to the HRC. 11 October 2013 To: The Provincial Manager (Chantal Kisoon): South African Human Rights D. Titus (Commissioner) RE: COMPLAINT BY THE BOERE- AFRIKANERVOLKSRAAD AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE CABINET OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA We refer to your letter dated 29th August 2013 regarding the abovementioned complaint and wish to record the following: 1. We regret to be informed that (even after many months during which you had the op- portunity to investigate this matter): “No comprehensive assessment on the substan- tive merits was engaged...” as you put it on page 2 of your said letter. Considering the rest of the content, it is clear with respect that you indeed did not assess the merits of this matter comprehensively. 2.We further record that your summary of our complaint (starting on page 2 of your said letter) is faulty from the outset: 2.1. We are not the “Afrikaner Boere Volk” – we are the Volksraad; a body elected by the volk in furtherance of our campaign for national freedom. 2.2. We do not “lead our constituents to secure their right to self-determina- tion as per the provisions of the SA Constitution and the United Nations Charter”. We do not have to “secure” the right to self-determination of our constituents – we have to lead them towards a practical embodiment of such right; and the SA Constitution and UN Charter are but two sources (legally binding on the Government of this country) proclaiming that right. Many other (equally legally binding) covenants and sources exist in this regard which we also invoke — most notably the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, agreed to by the United Na- tions and ratified by the South Afri- can Government. 3. We furthermore record that the sources of International Law which you consulted in this matter (as listed in footnote 1 on page 3 of your letter) are incomplete and also not entirely relevant. (For example - you make no mention of the International Court of Justice’s important decision in Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403. Nor do you refer to many of the sources cited in the document titled The Boere-Afrikaner Peoples Right to Self-de- termination which was handed to Commis- sioner Titus by Mr. Breytenbach during the meeting between the Volksraad and your Commission on 13th May 2013). Also, apart from being outdated in some respects, the factual basis on which the Quebec-decision had been taken, is very different from the scenario we find ourselves in. (To cite but one example: Members of the Quebec- community are regularly voted Prime Min- isters of Canada — something which is unimaginable in our situation). 4. We completely reject your finding that “...the Commission was unable to establish a prima facie violation of the right to self- determination on the complaint as submitted to it”. Such a conclusion simply CAN NOT be reached by any bona fide forum assess- ing this matter in terms of any objective, scientific process. This country might prac- tise democracy in theory BUT it is common knowledge that the ethnic group which our constituents form part of (the Boer-Afri- kaner people) can not and does not exer- cise any effective influence upon either the compilation of Government in this country, nor on Government-policy. We are being ruled at pleasure and random by peoples from very different ethnic-cultural commu- nities; who constantly enact laws — for nearly the past two decades already — which severely prejudice our norm- and value system and religious beliefs; jeopard- ise our labour-market opportunities; reduce our tertiary educational-opportunities on a racist basis; destroy many of our business- and entrepreneurial opportunities; destroy our cultural heritage; etc. etc. etc. FURTHERMORE, the current Government continues certain Apartheid-measures whenever Blacks continue to benefit there from (like STILL reserving land-ownership in the former “homelands” or so-called “Bantustans” for Black tribes; without any reciprocal gesture towards our people). The above mentioned measures and conditions have caused the white population of South Africa, of which the Afrikaner people form the major part, to decline with 3,6% over the past ten years whereas the growth of South Africas Black population during the same period has been 16,5%, of the Col- oured population 13,7%, and of the Asian population 14,6%. Consequently, your finding in this regard — in spite of these conditions (which are common knowledge in this country) — constitutes an outrageous and shameful outcome. 5. The interpretation you seem to attach to Section 235 of the Constitution (namely, that the people who voted for us should be constituting “the South African people as a whole”) contradicts the principles of appli- cable legal subjects like “Interpretation of Statutes” and “Administrative Law”; it furthermore defies the very object with which this Section was incorporated in the Con- stitution; and finally it demonstrates a lack O of knowledge and understanding regarding the historical events which led up to the in- clusion of this piece of legislation in the current Constitution.  6. As to your remarks concerning the “issues of origin, history and claim to land”: 6.1. We doubt that a comprehensive analysis in this regard (which might comprise many volumes) would be necessary at this point; seeing that you rejected our complaint in any case. Concerning the question of our “unique separateness as a group”, it is interesting to note that this issue does not pose any problem to the ANC when chanting “Kill the Boer”. (This, incidentally, is not peculiar to “youth leader” Malema which had been re- cently expelled from the ANC – he was actively supported by the ANC in the relevant court-case; and the said words in any event are also being chanted by the President of this country - we have footage of this). 6.2. Concerning our claim to land, again we do not see the point of going into elaborations, seeing that you already rejected our claim. Suffice to confirm that our forefathers developed this country long before any Whites set foot on Australian- or New Zealand soil; in many instances concluding peaceful land-negotiations with Black leaders (such treaties being the basis of the independent Republics they founded in the northern Free State, parts of Natal, the Eastern Transvaal, and parts of North-Western Trans- vaal, to name but a few). 7. In the premises, and also in view of the fact that you referred us to alternative forums, we will pursue alternative avenues and not lodge an internal appeal with your Commission. Yours sincerely, A.E. Breytenbach Chairman Final letter to the Presidency of the Republic of South Africa. 25 October 2013 To: The Presidency of the Republic of South Africa (Legal & Executive Services) Attention: Adv. S. Sigodi Madam, THE BOER-AFRIKANER VOLKSRAAD (“PEOPLES ASSEMBLY”) AND ITS CLAIM FOR SELF-DETERMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE BOER-AFRIKANER PEOPLE 1. The previous letter from this writer to yourself regarding the above-mentioned matter, dated 27 September 2013 and served in person at your Union Buildings-offices on the same day, has reference. 2. We note that, since the aforesaid letter had been served, almost another month went by without a reply. 3. Please note that this writer has consequently been instructed by the Volksraad as follows: 4. Should the request of the Volksraad as con- tained in Paragraph 3.4 of my aforesaid letter not be complied with (i.e., should no such discussion be arranged between a Government-delegation and the Volksraad) on or before the 31st of December 2013, then the conclusion will be justifiably drawn that Government is unwilling to address the is- sue of Boer-Afrikaner self-determination with the Volksraad. 5. Furthermore, writer is instructed to notify you that, in such case, this issue will forth- with be referred to – inter alia - the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, being a breach of Government’s obligations in terms of – inter alia – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966. 6. Should Government on the other hand decide to comply with the aforesaid request,my following instructions are brought to your attention: 1.1. The discussion is not to be scheduled for any Sunday; nor for the 15th- or 16th of December, nor for the 25th of December. 1.2. The discussion must be mutually accepted as the beginning of a process to implement the Boer-Afrikaner people’s right to self-determination; must not be combined with any other issue; and should be conducted on behalf of Gov- ernment by negotiators authorised to take applicable decisions. Your reply hereto, on an urgent basis, would be appreciated. STUDENTE-KATEGORIE Ellari Snyders (Universiteit Noord-Wes) Yours sincerely
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 08:58:22 +0000