WHITE SA REFUGEE

[CHIMO]

Last week, a man named Brandon Huntley was granted refugee status in Canada. At his hearing, the thirty-one-year-old described how he'd endured seven attacks in his home country of South Africa -- including three stabbings -- and how he'd been unable to find a job, all because of the colour of his skin.

Since then, the South African government has criticized the Canadian ruling, saying that it "can only serve to perpetuate racism."

Oh... and I missed one pertinent fact: Brandon Huntley is white.

Brian Sokutu is a spokesperson for the African National Congress. We reached him in Johannesburg.
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/latestshow.html

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/asithappens/20090902-aih-1.wmv

[Spazito]

1. Geez, was just reading the statements from William Davis....

the refugee board memeber who granted this, it's appalling:

"The refugee board member, William Davis, ruled that South Africa had failed to protect its white citizens from robberies and muggings, which he described as the “persecution” of whites by “African South Africans.”

Mr. Davis said in his ruling that Mr. Huntley would “stand out like a sore thumb” in any part of South Africa because of his colour. He said Mr. Huntley had given “convincing proof” of the government's “inability or unwillingness to protect him.” He added that Mr. Huntley would be unable to find a job in South Africa because of affirmative action in favour of blacks."

All I can say is "GEEZ!"


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/south-africans-refugee-case-causes-backlash-against-racist-canada/article1272553/

[CHIMO]

2. Canada's asylum fiasco

Canadians are rolling their eyes at the latest oddity to emerge from their confused, clogged immigration system: a white South African admitted as a refugee because he claimed he was being persecuted by black people.

His lawyer says the case sets a precedent, which it well might, although it's difficult to pin down exactly what it is. Brandon Huntley, a 31-year-old lawn sprinkler salesman who came to Canada on a work visa in 2006 and stayed illegally, told the Immigration and Refugee Board that he had been mugged and stabbed seven times by black people in his home country. He didn't report the attacks to the "untrustworthy" police.

A Canadian refugee board member agreed that Huntley deserved asylum, saying he would "stand out like a sore thumb" in South Africa because of his skin colour and would be unable to find a job because of affirmative action favouring black people. (The official unemployment rate for South African white people is in fact 4.6% compared to 27.9% for black people.)

Unemployment has been soaring in Canada, and Harper's refusal to relax strict rules on unemployment insurance benefits may well be the campaign issue that finishes him off. There are plenty of unemployed Canadians who would be happy to sell lawn sprinklers – sorry, snow shovels – this winter. That Huntley gets that opportunity is the kind of thing that makes some Canadians reveal their mean side, as website comments are making explicit, with the decision being seen by some of those preparing to vote as bitingly unfair. This poorly reasoned ruling could not have come at a worse time for Harper. It crystallises the injustice of hard times, and it may cost him dear.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/03/white-south-african-canada-asylum

Boy. Harper is going to be kicking a lot of chairs around now!

[Spazito]

3. LOL! Yep, a fiasco like this is the last thing Harper needs given we may...

soon be into an election campaign. Given his deep roots to the Reform party, I am wondering if his sympathies would not lie with this man but it's not an issue he would want raised right now.

[BolivarianHero]

4. Whites do not face systematic discrimination in South Africa...

Yes there are problems with high crime; Whites are more likely to be affluent and therefore more likely to be targeted by criminals. Conversely, wealthy Black people are more likely to be targeted by these sorts of acts than are working and middle class Whites.

I hope this is overturned, because allowing people from privileged classes to acquire refugee status because they are more likely to be victimized by crime sets a horrible, disgustingly elitist precedent.

[Walrus21101]

5. "White" refugee

Apparently the person in question isn't white according to some other thread. Not that that is really an issue, though everyone appears to want to focus on that point. I am not sure of all the facts of the case, but it seems as if everyone, including the Canadian Government, is running off at the mouth over the issue without knowing the facts of the case. It seems as if everyone is condemning this immigration tribunal as 'racist' even, as if it is a personal affront. Why is such a decision so controversial? Aren't South Africans allowed protection under the law that other people are, in Canada and elsewhere?

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. What 'other thread'?

I can point to his own lawyer's words:

Russell Kaplan, Brandon Huntley's Canadian lawyer, says there is evidence which supports his claim.

"Every incident that was reviewed - not only of Brandon's, but in the witnesses and different family members of the witnesses and friends and people that they knew of - there's the big question throughout: Was this just an act of criminality or was there racial motivation as part of it?" he said.

"Every single time, there was evidence that they were not just victims of criminality, there was a racial component in the incident."
...
"If you were a white South African and you applied for a particular position, or at least this is the testimony, this is the evidence that Brandon was submitting, that you wouldn't be able to get a job, purely because of the colour of your skin," said Mr Kaplan.

"The way the Canadian tribunal looked at that is they say... the BEE, as they call it, is discriminatory in nature and according to the United Nations handbook, if a discrimination is in a field of you earning your livelihood, then it becomes persecution.

"So this was evidence, according to the tribunal, that Brandon was in fact persecuted. It wasn't just because of the stabbings."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/13/2684260.htm

So the focus on race comes from Huntley himself.

[Walrus21101]

7. The 'other thread' I refer to

is the primary US DU thread, where endless debate over this issue has been churned out, much of it irrelevant to the case, much speculation, and so on. Obviously the case is based on Huntley's claim of racism, but I am interested in why this case is surprising, given that 25% of the so-called white population has emigrated. Do a search on some other refugee group and you will find no other individual singled out for persecution. The fact that the case is (laughably) 'sub judice' is apparently ignored, the facts of the case are no longer an issue, all that is talked about is a so-called white person has made a plea for refugee status, and what a hornet's nest has been stirred up. You don't find this odd?

[Posteritatis]

8. I find it annoying and a little depressing, but sadly not odd. (nt)

[Blue_Tires]

9. once again...

it's not the fact that he's emigrating under some normal circumstance and trying to get citizenship through regular channels, it's the fact that he did it under a laughably shaky political asylum claim that for whatever reason the refugee hearing board approved...

and what you and the refugee board don't realize is the earth-shattering precedent that could be set with this ruling to let pretty much everyone who claims discrimination and a dangerous crime rate (to say nothing of the fact that it cheapens the people who really do need political asylum)...

[Walrus21101]

10. once again, what?

The argument is specious, a refugee claim is in a different category to an immigration application, as I understand it. There are no upper limits (or quotas) applied to refugees. Granting someone refugee status does not keep other valid refugees out.

As to the validity of the claim, I fail to understand why you are more qualified to judge the merits of this case than a refugee board? And 'earth-shattering precedent'? Come on, pull the other one, there have apparently been about 40 claims world-wide in the 16 years since the ANC has been in power in South Africa. The upper limit of such cases are unlikely to be more than a few hundred. Apparently about a million of the category of people concerned have emigrated from that country in that time, so clearly most who can leave and who need to, do emigrate if they are able. Presumably this person is not able. Most refugees are not able, and are presumably desperate. I assume this person is as well. Refugees throw themselves on the good-will of the countries they apply to, they do not claim they would meet immigration requirements. They ask for mercy. It is a humiliating condition to be in, and presumably is a last resort.

The merits of his case are a different matter. These need to be more closely examined than a few throw-away lines on a web-site. Hopefully, not everyone has made up their minds before examining the facts. By using the phrase 'laughably shaky political asylum claim' it would appear that you have made up your mind. You are entitled to your opinion, but it's the Canadian Government's opinion I'm really interested in. If they rule against him, without carefully considering the merits of the case, then they have set a really 'earth-shattering precedent': firstly, they don't trust their refugee board, and most importantly, they 'trust in the track record' of an ANC regime whatever it does. This would mean you can't be a white South African (whatever that means) and be a refugee. In my opinion this would be dangerous. But we shall see what happens.