“Boere-Afrikaner Volksraad” skryf Suid Afrika af as Afrikanerland.
Hierdie “BOERE-AFRIKANER VOLKSRAAD”, wat beslis níé die gedeelte van die Afrikanervolk wat lede van die AVP is en daarby ingesluit alle Afrikaners wat die standpunt handhaaf dat Suid Afrika die Afrikanervolk se land is, verteenwoordig nie, het reeds slegs met die aanvaarding van die beginsel om te onderhandel (met wie ookal), oor di e Afrikaner se eiendomlike,Afrikanerland prysgegee!
In die onderstaande samesprekings met die Swart, Kommunistiese meerderheidsregime vir ‘n volkstaatjie, iewers waar dit die Swartes behaag en so groot as wat hulle bereid is om af te staan, in ruil vir ons Godgegewe erfenis, is die regmatige aanspraak van die Afrikanervolk op Suid Afrika deur hulle prys gegee en in beginsel die reg van die Swart volke op ons vaderland daarmee erken. Daarna was van meet af deur die ANC duidelik gemaak dat geen diskriminasie van welke aard ookal voortaan in Suid Afrika geduld sal word nie. Nie omdat dit vir hulle ‘n morele kwessie was nie, maar bloot om toegang te hê tot dit wat die Afrikanervolk opgebou het. Dit is dan ook so in die Afrikanervyandige grondwet vasgelê wat sal geld waar en indien die “Boere Afrikaner Volksraad” ookal so ‘n grondjie afgebedel kan kry.
In die ganse geskiedenis van die Afrikanervolk was daar nog nooit so ‘n openlike kapitulasie van sogenaamde “regse” Afrikaners teenoor enige van ons vyande nie en verteenwoordig dit ‘n uiterste laagtepunt in ons vryheidstryd, ongeag al die onsinnige argumente daarvoor. Hierdie is niks minder as die kulminasie van die deurlopende en onderduimse ondergrawing van die voormalige HNP leiers se beleid en beginselstandpunte wat die breuk in die Nasionale Party onder die leiding van Vorster, Botha en de Klerk regverdig het. Die onsinnigheid van “ons doen ten minste iets om net êrens weer ‘n vastrapplekkie te kry waarvandaan ons weer die land kan oorneem”, spreek van politieke bankrotskap en gebrek aan moed en verlies van geloof. Die AVP distansieer hom uitdruklik van hierdie versaking van beginsel!
Veral gesien vanuit die vaste beginselgrondslag onder leiding van mnre. Jaap en Willie Marais van die Herstigte Nasionale Party, (nou Beweging), dat daar nie met jou vyand onderhandel word oor wat regmatig aan jou behoort nie, dat hierdie land óns land is, is die leier en betrokke lede van die HNP(B), wat nou ook aan die leiding van die “Volksraad” staan, uiters bedenklik. Hoe verskil dit van die volkstaatsamesweerders se geknoei sedert 1994? Moet daar dan nou geglo word dat dit regverdigbaar is dat indien jy aan twee organisasies verbonde is, jy twee teenstrydige beginselstandpunte kan of mag handhaaf?
SAMESPREKINGS BOERE-AFRIKANER VOLKSRAAD MET ANC REGIME (Verslag van die BAV)
Verteenwoordigers van die Boere-Afrikaner Volksraad (BAV) het gister, 28 Augustus 2014, met Adjunk-president Cyril Ramaphosa samesprekings by die Uniegebou in Pretoria gevoer oor die toekoms van Arikaners. Die volgende media verklaring is nou deur die BAV uitgereik: “Ons het geen negatiwiteit oor die beginsel van selfbeskikking vir die Boere-Afrikanervolk ervaar tydens die gesprek nie. Die byna twee en ‘n half uur lange gesprek het openhartig en in goeie gees verloop. Dit was hoofsaaklik ‘n informatiewe gesprek. Opbouende vrae oor veral die uiteindelike formaat van ‘n Afrikaner-volksrepubliek is deur die regeringsafvaardiging gestel, en kon almal positief beantwoord word. Daar is ooreengekom dat daar nog baie gesprek met mekaar nodig is. Die Regeringsafvaardiging sal pres. Zuma op hoogte stel, en sy kommentaar sal in ‘n opvolggesprek bespreek word. Mnr. Ramaphosa het bepaalde operasionele voorstelle aan die afvaardiging van die Boere-Afrikanervolksraad gemaak, wat eers aan die volle Volksraad gerapporteer sal word om te oorweeg binne sy strategiese beplanning. Intussen het die Volksraad die onderneming gegee om ook ander Afrikanergroepe wat selfbeskikking nastreef, sal nader met die oog daarop om die proses meer inklusief te maak sodat die regering uiteindelik slegs met ‘n enkele forum gesprek hoef te voer.” Inmiddels het ‘n regeringswoordvoerder Ronnie Mamoepa na afloop van die vergadering gesê Ramaphosa het tydens die samesprekings opnuut die belangrikheid van die Handves van Menseregte in die Grondwet bevestig, in besonder die regte van alle burgers om hulle kultuur, geloof en taal in ‘n verenigde demokratiese staat uit te oefen. Ramaphosa het ook gesê die regering is daartoe verbind om meer duidelike beleidsrigtings aan die sakesektor te verskaf, terwyl hy daaraan werk om beleggersvertroue in die land te verstewig. (Beklemtoning myne)
OM DIE VOLKSTAATPERSPEKTIEF DUIDELIK TE HOU, DIE REGIME SE ANTWOORD ( EERS IN 2015)
Office of the State Attorney
Private Bag X 91 Salu Building
PRETORIA Ground Floor
0001 316 Thabo Sehume
c/o Thabo Sehume & Franci Baard Streets
Tel: (Switchboard): (012) 309 1500
(Direct Line): (012) 309 1635
(Secretary): (012) 309 1502
Fax/Faks: (012) 309 1601/02
Enquires: MT MATUBATUBA My Ref: 2795/2014/Z74/MM
Messrs Paul Kruger Attorney
P O BOX 71214
RE: BOERE- AFRIKANER VOLKSRAAD/ PRESIDENT OF THE RSA/MINISTER OF JUSTICE & CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT CASE NO: 32656/14
1.The above matter and your letters dated 10 September 2014 and 13 January 2015 refer. We apologise for the delay in responding to your September letter. Be assured that our client considers the issues your client raises with the utmost seriousness.
2.We confirm that a report on the meeting of 28 August 2014 was given to the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Zuma, in his capacity as Head of the National Executive. The Deputy President of Republic of South Africa, Mr Ramaphosa (the Acting President as he then was), indicated during the said meeting that your client’s quest for self-determination has a number of dimensions, namely, political, constitutional, religious, economic and social. As such, it cannot be a matter to be unilaterally decided upon by the Presidency.
3.By your own admission this quest is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 235 of the Constitution, which reads –
“The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.” (Emphasis added)
4.It must be noted that the adoption of section 235 of the Constitution was the result of numerous engagements at a political level. The section furthermore expressly provides that national legislation is the means through which a community such as your client’s can achieve self-determination.
5.The President and the rest of the National Executive subscribe to the foundational values in the Constitution, namely, that the Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms; non-racialism and non-sexism; supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law; universal adult suffrage, a common voters’ roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness. (Section 1).
6.Furthermore, the National Executive (including the President), are committed to upholding, defending and respecting the right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination as manifested in the Constitution. Moreover, they regard it as their responsibility to uphold, defend and respect all the rights that are enshrined in the Constitution, including, but not limited to, the right of freedom of association (section 18), the political rights of citizens (section 19), the right of everyone to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice (section 30, subject to the limitation stated therein), and the rights of cultural, religious and linguistic communities (section 31, subject to the limitation referred to therein).
7.As stated above, the Constitution, as a permissive rather that an obligatory provision, does not preclude the recognition of the right of self- determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.
8. The President welcomes the opportunity to engage with your client on the concerns of its members. However, he seeks to ensure that any debates and contemplated action on the issue of self-determination take place within the framework of the constitution and the various options open to your client as set out therein. (My beklemtoning)
FOR: STATE ATTORNEY
In 2008 in ‘n artikel waarin dr. Wingard kritiek lewer oor uitlatings van Mike Smith, kom daar enkele interressante politieke uitsprake van dr. Wingard voor. Omdat dit verband hou met die volkstaatgedagte oftewel selfbeskikking, haal ek aan uit die internet: http://globalpolitician.com/24433-south-africa-zuma-afrikaners-boer. Jacob Zuma and the Afrikaners
Johann Wingard - 4/5/2008
* Afrikaners do not want their own homeland. They want to live anywhere in their beautiful country where they can make a decent living. They resent white supremacists like Smith to tell them that they should fight for something they cannot get.
* Homeland talk is divisive. Everybody wants the homeland to be in his own backyard. It is clear he has never had to address a meeting of Afrikaners on that issue.
* A white homeland in South Africa is a constitutional impossibility, as the constitution guarantees the free movement of every citizen everywhere in South Africa. How do you keep millions of black job seekers out of a small white country? High walls, machine guns and a thousand kilometers of trenches is no longer an option.
* Smith seems to think that a good fight is all that is needed for independence. It has never happened in Africa, in spite of hundreds of bitter civil wars. But he propagates that formula, which has failed everywhere else in Africa.
* Driven by the need for political stability to foster economic progress, the international community will come down like a ton of bricks on any cultural group who opts for war before all the available legal international channels have been explored. Why should Afrikaners be treated differently?
How do I know these things?
From 1994 to 1997 inclusive, I spend nearly four years of my life investigating viable alternatives to the problem of self-determination for the Afrikaners. As chairman of the Volkstaat Council and supported by twenty of the best brains in the business, we listened to evidence and pleas from hundreds of Afrikaner communities in large and small towns.
In the end my personal conclusions were very clear: Afrikaners were not ready to serve under a black government. It was not a racial thing; it was a civilization thing; African versus western civilization, African versus Afrikaner values, traditions, culture and priorities. That is why they want a say over their own affairs, schools and culture.
I concluded that a geographic separation could only be implemented with force. Forcing Afrikaners to move to the homeland and forcing non-Afrikaners out of the designated area. Could such hogwash ever work? That is exactly why apartheid did not work -- apartheid tried to force people apart and force other people together.
The concept of minority rights as implemented by the European Union seemed to be the only viable strategy, where minority nationalities enjoy sufficient self-determination that they would prefer to stay where they are and contribute towards making the country a successful state. They would enjoy their own constitutional structures, which are respected and protected by the state.
That brings me to Mike Smith's other hobby horse: Jacob Zuma, the President of the ANC party. It is clear that Smith does not know Mr. Zuma; that he has never met him. I met him first in 1994 and have kept contact with him since. We still meet from time to time. Nelson Mandela called himself a South African. Thabo Mbeki called himself an African. Jacob Zuma confesses that he is a Zulu when he goes to bed at night.
What does it all mean?
It means that Jacob Zuma has the sensitivity to listen to others, unlike most African leaders we know. He is sensitive to minorities and their quest for self determination. He has the emotional intelligence that cements all the different factions of the ANC together. He is generally regarded as the person most instrumental in achieving the peace that is now enjoyed by the people of KZN. In October 1998 he was honored with the Nelson Mandela Award for Outstanding Leadership in Washington DC, USA. Zuma is the man who brokered peace in war torn Burundi and Ruanda. The Angolans respect Zuma, not Mbeki.
During my recent visit to him he said: "The President of this country is not the person who would be steering the economy of the country. He has hundreds of PhD's to do that. His job is to maintain peace and stability between people of all races and cultural communities. I believe that I have demonstrated that I can do that." And I concur. Nobody I know can do that job better than Jacob Zuma.
Under Thabo Mbeki we have witnessed the birth of the new black elite. Transformation, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing in the labour market, has become the buzz word to promote poorly qualified incumbents to senior positions at all levels of society. But the very poor have become poorer and crime has elevated the country to the unenviable spot of the most violent country on the planet. Read Jacob Zuma's pronouncements on these issues.
Smith also scorns Zuma as an illiterate. Wrong again. Jacob Zuma has graduated from the "University of Robben Island", that island jail where Nelson Mandela spent a quarter of his life. Zuma was an inmate from 1963 to 1973 and was privileged to study economics, politics and associated disciplines with other philosophers who were interned with him. He received several honorary doctorates, including: --Received an Honorary Doctorate of Literature from the University of Fort Hare (2001) --Received an Honorary Doctorate of Administration from the University of Zululand (2001) --Received an Honorary Doctorate of Philosophy from Medical University of Southern Africa (2001).
These honorary degrees do not make him a literate man, but illustrate how true academics in his civilization rate him as a man. Understanding the man and knowing a little more about the Afrikaners, it is easy to grasp why Jacob Zuma would want to hear what the white trade unions like Solidarity and organizations like Afriforum have to say. Leaders before him did not even bother to see them, let alone hear them.
Unlike popular believe, the President does not make the policies of the day. Those are formulated by the structures of a government dominated by the ANC. What the President does do is to set the level of sensitivity in formulating and implementing those policies. The scene is set for a reversal of the cultural tensions set by Mbeki's infamous "Two Nations" speech, when he said that South Africa has two nations, a rich white one and a poor black one. The degree of polarization that followed is hard to imagine for an outsider. Zuma wishes to change all of that.
Perhaps the above thoughts would ameliorate Mike Smith's vitriolic rhetoric with a more balanced perspective. At another time I will elaborate on the criminal charges against Jacob Zuma. (Aldus dr. Wingard. Beklemtoning is myne) ( Dr Wingard is an energy consultant and retired industrialist, who chaired the Statutory Volkstaat Council from 1994 to 1996.) (My beklemtoning)