White Refugees from Third World Barbarism: The Case of South Africa, Part 1

The Battle of Jus Sanguinis (Right-of-Blood) River Campaign

Jus Sanguinis is a legal term that refers to Right of Blood citizenship, to preserve a nation’s cultural and ethnic homogeneity; as opposed to Jus Soli, which refers to Right of Soil citizenship. The Jus Sanguinis Campaign was a group of South Africans who have researched their genealogical history back to their original European progenitors; they are petitioning their relevant EU progenitor nations for redress.

On October 31 2010 the Jus Sanguinis Campaign submitted its “Boer Volkstaat or Jus Sanguinis Right-of-Return to Europe Petition and Briefing Paper” to the progenitor nations of Netherlands, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Switzerland, and subsequently to the NATO Chiefs of Defence. 160 EU politicians, academics, legal experts and military officials were petitioned for:

[A] International Political and Legal Recognition for a Boer-Volkstaat in South Africa; or in the absence thereof;

[B] The enactment of Jus Sanguinis Right-of-Return legislation by the relevant Progenitor EU Nations to provide EU citizenship for African White Refugees.

On 5 January 2011 the office of the President of the Swiss Council of States requested that the Petition and Briefing Paper be submitted to the Swiss Parliament in hardcopy with original signatures. On 11 March 2011 hardcopy petitions were delivered to all five progenitor nations heads of state and the NATO Military Committee. The Swiss Petition is being investigated by the Swiss Parliament’s Committee of Legal Affairs. We are currently drawing up an application to the EU Court of Human Rights, which, if successful, will result in them ordering the other Progenitor nations to impartially investigate the petitions arguments and evidence and provide a written response to the petitioners.

Here follows a brief overview introduction to the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and Briefing Paper.

White South African Refugees

On 27 August 2009 the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) granted Canadian Refugee Status  to White South African Brandon Huntley. The IRB ruling found that Huntley “was a victim [of persecution] because of his race rather than a victim of criminality, who presented clear and convincing proof of state and security forces’ inability or unwillingness to protect him.” The ruling was made in accordance with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) definition of a refugee:

A person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who is, … owing to such fear, … unwilling to return to it.

Most Whites in South Africa Feel Persecuted

In early September 2009, four mainstream newspapers in South Africa did surveys on the Huntley issue, revealing that 74% of White citizens felt that they were being persecuted in South Africa for reasons of their race (Beeld: 83%; Die Burger: 62%; IOL: 65% and Rapport: 87%).

By 2009 over 600 South African Whites were refugees in foreign countries (170 in Germany, 111 in USA, 46 in Ireland, 33 in Canada, 24 in the UK, 18 in France and 15 in Australia), because they had a well founded fear of being persecuted in South Africa, for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

The South African goverment did not dispute any of the 600 refugee’s justifications for their refugee status with the relevant governments, limiting their challenge to the claims made by Brandon Huntley.

The ANC responded to the IRB’s ruling concerning Huntley by refusing to enquire into the details of his grievances. Instead they vilified Huntley for making the claim and showed overt hostility to him and the IRB by applying diplomatic pressure on the Canadian Government in an attempt to overturn the ruling.

The Jus Sanguinis Campaign submit that the South African government’s vitriolic response to the IRB’s ‘White refugee’ ruling is the final proof of the IRB’s ruling! The South African government completely ignored the racial basis of crime in South Africa. For example, Huntley claims that he was the victim of seven attempted robberies, including three stabbings, all at the hands of Blacks and during which he was called a “white dog” and “settler.”

Human Rights and Refugee Agencies Are often Hostile to White Refugees

The Canadian Government — petrified of the ANC’s ‘racism’ accusations — appealed the IRB decision before the Canadian Federal Court. On 24 November 2010 Judge James Russell confirmed Huntley’s persecution fears by the SA government. But, he questioned the legitimacy of Huntley’s ‘refugee’ status by claiming there was a lack of ‘objective evidence’ concerning ‘white refugees’ from ‘credible and trustworthy sources’ such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (para 59, 67). He referred Huntley back to the IRB for a new hearing.

Genocide Watch, run by Dr. Gregory Stanton, a former U.S. State Department official, recently stated their intentions to raise Boers from stage five (Polarization) to six (Preparation) of the eight stages of Genocide. Despite this, international anti-Apartheid agencies and UN human rights organisations effectively endorse the ANC’s persecution of White South Africans, because they refuse to enquire into any evidence submitted to them on the subject. Other bodies and individuals actively hostile to White South African refugees include: the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE); Prof. Dennis Alland, a former UNHCR Official and Member of ECRE and the European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA); and Prince Albert II of Monaco.

Jus Sanguinis argue that anti-Apartheid movement organisations who covered up reports of the ANC’s torture camps for its own ANC dissenters at places such as Camp Quatro, Angola (see below), are incapable of impartiality on issues that put the ANC in a bad light, and should not be considered credible sources on the issue of African White Refugees.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement: Most Successful Stalinist Popular Front

Paul Trewhela was a former journalist working for newspapers such as the Rand Daily Mail. He was a member of the ANC and SACP and is now an anti-Stalinist socialist historian of the ANC in exile. In Mutinies in the Liberation Armies: Inside Quadro (Searchlight South Africa 2(1): July 1990, 30-35), Trewhela describes the anti-Apartheid movement as “the most successful popular front lobby for Stalinism anywhere in the world.”

The first-hand testimony by former combatants of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) about the ANC prison regime … are an event in South African history. Never before has such concentrated factual evidence been presented about the inner nature of the ANC and its eminence grise, the South African Communist Party.

If people wish to understand the operation of the ANC/SACP, they must look here. This is the view behind the proscenium arch, behind the scenery, where the machinery that runs the whole show is revealed in its actual workings.

The ANC/SACP did a very good job in preventing public knowledge of its secret history from emerging. … Those who survived the Gulag system of the ANC/SACP did so knowing that to reveal what they had been through meant re-arrest, renewed tortures and in all probability, death. They had to sign a form committing them to silence..

This regime of terror, extending beyond the gates of the ANC/SACP ‘Buchenwald’ of Quadro, was a necessary element in the total practice of repression and deception which made the Anti-Apartheid Movement the most successful Popular Front lobby for Stalinism anywhere in the world.

In its 30 years’ existence, the AAM put international collaborative organisations of the period of the Spanish Civil War and of the Stalin-Roosevelt-Churchill alliance to shame. Extending to the press, the churches, the bourgeois political parties, the trade unions and the radical, even the ‘trotskyist’ left, the AAM has been an outstanding success for Stalinism… Vital to its success has been a practice of open and covert censorship now blown wide open… The ANC’s prisoners were its necessary sacrificial-victims.

Mwezi Twala was an ANC dissenter who was sent to the ANC’s re-education torture Camp Quatro, without ever being charged with any crime or given any trial. In his book Mbokodo: Inside MK: Mwezi Twala – A Soldier’s Story (see also here), he describes the exiled ANC’s use of political terror:

I became aware of these developments by word of mouth, but I was to discover later on, by personal experience, the terror of Quatro, to name but one death camp. People were removed from amongst us — taken to Quatro or Camp 13 — and disappeared forever without reason. Many of them were slaughtered by one means or another and their ultimate destination was a shallow grave. We heard rumours of execution by being buried alive, amongst many other techniques beyond civilized imagination. The purge created great fear amongst all of us, to the point where the smallest criticism, such as of badly prepared food, was seriously reconsidered by every individual, for one could never be certain that a ‘best friend’ would keep his mouth shut.

Our own security people became exceedingly arrogant, to the point where an innocent slip of the tongue or even a simple gesture could land you in a torture cell at Quatro. Security men of the lowest rank and intelligence — fourteen to eighteen year olds — became our masters, with the power of life or death in their hands. They acted on a mood with impunity. (pp. 49–50)

… Oliver Tambo visited Pango [Camp] at the height of the terror. The path from the entrance to the admin building was lined — like a scene from ‘Spartacus’ — with men, bloodied and filthy, hanging from trees. When his entourage arrived at admin, where I was officer on duty, Tambo’s chief of staff told us that there would be a meeting at ‘the stage’ (a clearing in the jungle… where we held meetings and discussions). Runners were sent out to notify everyone in the vicinity. On his way to the stage [Oliver Tambo] again passed the men tied to the trees. Being officer on duty, I could not attend the meeting, but my deputy went. After a while I saw guards come up from the stage, release the prisoners and take them to the meeting. There, my deputy told me, instead of objecting to their treatment, as I had hoped, Tambo berated them for their dissident behaviour and appeared to approve when Andrew Masondo declared that on the president’s next visit they would be in shallow graves behind the stage. The prisoners were returned to their trees … where the president [Oliver Tambo] passed the unfortunate men without a glance on his way out, and they hung there for another three months — followed by three months hard labour. (pp. 51–52)

As a result of his activism against the ANC’s political terror campaigns, Twala was sent to Camp Quatro:

The death rate grew to horrific proportions, some by suicide but mostly by murder. Others went insane under the constant stress or from everlasting pain. From time to time prisoners were removed from our cells and we forced ourselves to believe that they were being transferred: we preferred to look on the bright side because we could not handle the psychological devastation of facing probable reality. … No-one knows how many people were slaughtered at Quatro and the other camps, not even the ANC leaders. The use of MK names and Quatro names added to the confusion of keeping track of who was dead or alive: I heard one bizarre case where due to a confusion in code names a prisoner being tortured confessed to having murdered himself. Another confessed to murdering cadres who were subsequently found alive. Many of the guards (and prisoners) were young teenagers and were not particularly responsible people. The youngest prisoner at Quatro was a ten year old boy named Inzindlebe … [there] because he was an ‘enemy agent’. (p. 90)

It would be ideologically corrupt or naive to believe that international human rights organisations which censored and covered up the ANC’s appalling human rights record at Camp Quatro in Angola would expose the ANC’s persecution of White Europeans, even less so pro-Apartheid Boers.

The Anti-Apartheid Propaganda Lie of the ‘Crime of Apartheid’

Mwezi Twala concludes his description of the ANC torture camps by comparing the treatment he received from the ANC to the Apartheid government’s treatment of ANC rebels:

I meditated on the journey I had taken in order to be a soldier, to do my bit to free my people from the yoke of apartheid. All I had achieved was to be subjected to another kind of repression, imprisonment, and torture. If I had stayed in the Republic, fighting my own war against the Regime, I would have achieved far more in a week than I had over the past fifteen years in Angola, Mozambique and Zambia under the communist ANC leadership. Also in the event of being apprehended by the South African authorities, I would have faced a proper judicial trial and been sentenced to a prison term. (p. 100)

Prison would have consisted of a clean bed and blanket, and decent clothes would have been issued. Reasonable hot meals would have been provided. Clean hygienic cells with running water on tap, a civilized toilet facility and shower cubicles. Added to this would have been an acceptable prison work ethic and a small but welcome income, enough to allow me the luxury of buying cigarettes and toothpaste. I might have had the opportunity to study, as Nelson Mandela did, almost any subject, with access to the prison library. I would also have received medical care for injuries and illness, plus spiritual comfort from a prison chaplain of a denomination of my choice. In no way would I have been misused, beaten and tortured at the whim of a spiteful revenge-driven warden. (p.100)

Had the South African [Apartheid] goverment treated me half as badly as the ANC, it would have been deserved to some degree, as I had broken South African laws. In the case of the ANC, there was no such rationale. It was virtually impossible to find a detainee who had committed a clearly defined crime against the system, because there was no system. I concluded that the policies of the ANC leadership were based on personal ambition and fear. (p. 100)

In 1962 Liberia and Ethiopia brought charges against South Africa for allegedly practising the ‘crime of apartheid’ in South West Africa[1]. The South African government delivered a written presentation of 3000 pages, called 15 expert witnesses who testified that fifty countries practised a form of apartheid — separate development — between groups, classes or races. Forty of these were members of the UN at the time, including Ethiopia and Liberia. The petitioners refused to appear in person to testify and be cross examined, even though South Africa offered to pay all their expenses. The Apartheid Government was found not guilty of practicing the ‘crime of apartheid’ in Namibia.

It was specified in Article 22 of the Covenant that the “best method of giving practical effect to [the] principle” that the “well-being and development” of those peoples in former enemy colonies “not yet able to stand by themselves” . . . was that “the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations . . . who are willing to accept it”.[2]

Despite this, ten years to the day of the ICJ ruling, the UN issued their Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,[3] calling Apartheid a ‘crime against humanity’. No Apartheid official was ever convicted of the ‘crime of apartheid’; yet these international ‘human rights’ organisations continue to refer to Apartheid as a ‘crime against humanity’.

Go to Part 2.


[1] 1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Application Instituting Proceedings, 4 November 1960

[2] 1964-01-10: ICJ: Ibid (www.icj-cij.org): Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 18 July 1966

[3] Dugard, John: Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Professor of International Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Leiden

39 replies

Comments are closed.