Court halts farm seizures: Africa: News: News24

I lived in the beautiful country of namibia a few years ago. It is true that it is a very arid land, comprising of two deserts, the Namib and the Kalahari. There the little famr land there is is of great imporantce.

Already then there was plans to take all land away from people who areforgeiners, and do not live on their farms. It now seems the court is not happy with this. It will be very imporatant to see whter the government will adher to the court descision.

This question needs a answer, as it is 3 important countries in hte region strugglingwith it.

AH

__________________
"A man is not defeated by his opponents but by himself."
"Not Wilson, but humanity failed at Paris."

Jan Smuts

I would believe that the issue could be resolved by compensating absentee landowners if the government wishes to acquire the land for the residents.

Of course this would not apply to those that actually live there and own the land.

They already started buying farms from white foreign owners, but just last week the court has ruled in favor of a German couple losing their farm to the government. The court ruled that Government taking away the farm at a very low cost was unconstitutional.

They should never Buy land back from Europeans who murdered then stole
the land from the original African inhabitants.It does not make any sense
what the Namiban Government is doing.The land must be confiscated from
the White German,British, and Dutch, murderous thieves, and they the Europeans must have their bank accounts and property confiscated and or given to the indigenous Black Namibians.The White Namibians must pay reparations to all Blacks in Namibia.Mugabe in Zimbabwe had the right idea, confiscate all white land,
and redistribute the land to the indigenous Black citizens.Africans must wake up, and take back their land once and for all!!.Why would you reward or make payments to criminals who stole murdered and raped,the Whites in Namibia,South Africa, and Zimbabwe are all decendents of Criminal minded land thieves,
they must not expect any payments from indigenous Blacks.The idea to pay Whites for stolen land sounds insane.!!

Two wrongs does not make a right. The current landowners have not murdered anyone.

__________________

The current land owners inherited Land
that was stolen from Blacks.They inherited stolen ill gotten land caltex.
Which null and voids any ownerships rights that they claim.!!

Two things disco p much of the land was not stoelm, there was eiother no one living on it, or it was legaly bought from the tribes.

Second, you mention Zimbabwe as an example, uhm, yeah, have you read what happend to that country after land seizures? Have you heard of the incredible hunger and poverty that now exists there. If anything, Zim is a great example for why we should not take away land.

AH

__________________
"A man is not defeated by his opponents but by himself."
"Not Wilson, but humanity failed at Paris."

Jan Smuts

Yes, the White South Africans always claim that "there was no one living on the land they claimed".But many black tribal leaders say to that statement,the tribes who owned the land where in engaged in seasonal tribal migration.Given the false impression that no one had claim to the land.The land had still been claimed by Black tribes.Do the historical research.

Oh, I did, no worries there. It was the effect of the Mzilikatze, a huge war by the Zulu'sand Matebele who drove the people of the land, so that when the Voortrekkers arrived, they founddwestroyed villages (This is also the view of a book Iam now reading, written by Sol Plaatjies, first leader of the ANC!)

But I am glad to see you attack the one of my 3 points were there is some leeway. I would love to know your view on the other two, namely that much of the land was bought, and that a land seizure is disasterous, as seen in Zim.

AH

__________________
"A man is not defeated by his opponents but by himself."
"Not Wilson, but humanity failed at Paris."

Jan Smuts

Property rights are sacred. The fact is the current owners own the land, and have every right to it. Stealing the land from them would be an abomination. Justifying an abomination by a possible past offense creates a downward spiral. That is the logic of a blood feud.

They did not steal any land, they either bought it, or had it passed down. They have committed no offenses against anyone else, and thus deserve no punishment. Since when are men responsible for the sins of their fathers? You don't know how they came about the land, it could have been bought, or legally obtained by many other means. Stealing the land without just compensation is an act of war.

__________________