American Renaissance

Equality Courts Mark Sa's Slide into 3rd World Marxism

Arthur Kemp

Formally named ‘Equality Courts’, set up to specifically prosecute only Whites for ‘racism’ have been created in South Africa under a new “promotion of equality” law which presumes that an accused White person is automatically guilty until they prove otherwise.

In a revealing insight into the Marxian Third World minds behind the ‘Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act’, the law specifically forbids Whites from lodging complaints about anti-White discrimination with the new Equality Courts, and makes provision for the revocation of business licences, financial punishment and even imprisonment of Whites upon conviction.

And the crime does not even have to be overt: merely suggesting that there are racial differences in ability qualifies as grounds to be charged under the act.

All this may sound like a fantasy to an outsider — but the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act is very real, as are the equally real Equality Courts. Already, the first Equality Court decision has been handed down — financially punishing a homosexual nightclub in Cape Town which refused to admit an Indian person to its premises.(1)

The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Act 4 of 2000, was only set into motion at the beginning of 2004, as it took the Third World civil service over three years to create the Equality Court infrastructure, despite 47 such courts having been formally launched in July 2003.(2)

According to the law’s preamble, its purpose is: “The consolidation of democracy in our country requires the eradication of social and economic inequalities, especially those that are systemic in nature, which were generated in our history by colonialism, apartheid and patriarchy, and which brought pain and suffering to the great majority of our people.”(3)

Chapter 2 of the law forbids what it coyly calls “unfair discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age or health” (The last provision refers to AIDS by name)(4). The very use of the phrase “unfair discrimination” of course implies that there is such a thing as “fair discrimination.”

The potentially puzzled reader does not have long to wait to find out what exactly constitutes “fair discrimination” based on race: Chapter 3, section 14 (1) makes it very clear:

“14. (1) It is not unfair discrimination to take measures designed to protect or advance persons or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination or the members of such groups or categories of persons.”(5)

The ‘persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination’ are of course non-Whites, who, according to the act’s preamble, are the victims of “colonialism” and “apartheid” — a handy catch all which goes back nearly 400 years.

What this provision actually says is that current discrimination in favour of non-Whites at the expense of Whites is “fair”, as opposed to the other way round, which is “unfair”.

The practical effect of this provision is that any anti-White discrimination is not an offence under the act, whereas any example of Whites discriminating against non-Whites is a criminal offence, punishable by law.

And it does not stop there. If a White person or institution is accused by any random non-White of “discrimination”, the law specifically states that the accused is guilty until proven otherwise. Chapter 3, section 13 (1) contains this gem of anti-White hate:

“13 (1) If the complainant makes out a prima facie case of discrimination-

(a) the respondent must prove, on the facts before the court, that the discrimination did not take place as alleged: or

(b) the respondent must prove that the conduct is not based on one or more of the prohibited grounds.” (6)

So the scenario is as follows:

* Whites cannot complain about anti-White racism; and

* If they are accused by any non-White of racism in any form (with the definitions of what constitutes hate speech, discriminatory practices being so wide as to include anything from the workplace, education, health services, housing, goods and services to sports and insurance services etc. etc.) then the White accused is automatically guilty, with the burden of proof upon themselves to disprove the allegations.

The ANC government has been surprisingly explicit in explaining the reason for this shifting of the burden of proof. Addressing a conference on racism, ANC education minister Kadar Asmal explained it this way:

“The point is that it alleviates the risk of placing an unrealistic burden of proof on the victim,” Asmal said, adding that the state was willing to provide legal aid to those taking their grievances to equality courts.(7)

In the ANC’s own words then, the non-White accuser is relieved of an “unrealistic burden of proof” in substantiating the charges against a White person or institution. The non-White accuser therefore does not even have to produce any hard evidence supporting the accusation against the White!

Chapter 4 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act formally creates the Equality Courts, naming them as such. Obviously unaware of the grotesque, Orwellian “1994” connotation of a title such as an “Equality Court” the act states:

“CHAPTER 4 — EQUALITY COURTS

Equality courts and presiding officers

16. (1) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to section 3 l-

(a) every magistrate’s court and every High Court is an equality court for the area of its jurisdiction.” (8)

The bizarre nature of the Equality Courts and their potential effect has not gone unnoticed. Luanne Grant, executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa, remarked in that body’s official commentary on the law that “What is not acceptable to the American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa is the fact that Chapter 3, Section 45 (Burden of Proof), would appear to be in direct contravention of the same Constitution which this Bill is intended to complement.” (9)

Grant continued: “This section clearly indicates that at the commencement of any proposed equality court proceedings, a respondent would be presumed guilty until such time as the respondent could subsequently prove innocence. For such issues to rest upon the defendant, not the claimant, (including the difficulties of such matters as quantitative descriptions of unfairness and unreasonability), are in contravention of the norm. . . . The possibilities of “opportunistic” claims against business would seem inherent in terms of the current wording.”(10)

Grant said that the law “allow(s) a particularly bad signal to emerge as far as an equitable business-trading climate for our members is concerned,” adding that the provision in the law which allows Equality Courts to revoke business licences is, “in business terms, a capital sentence, akin to a “death sentence”. (11)

The ANC government however likened the law to the Reconstruction program implemented in the American South at the end of the US Civil War: Education minister Kadar Asmal explained it this way: “We have the political will and democratic mandate to launch an African reconstruction as far-reaching as, but also more enduring than, the American Reconstruction after the nineteenth century Civil War, which relapsed into American apartheid.”(12)

“The act ensures that no area of governance escapes the priorities of reconstruction and the move away from racial discrimination,” Asmal said, adding that the primary purpose of the law was to “put(ting) on our political institutions and culture the stamp of the continuing needs of the black oppressed.”(13)

If any person was seeking further evidence of where South Africa is headed, they need look no further.

Sources:

(1) CT club red-faced over racism, News24.com, 11/02/2004 https://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1482103,00.html

(2) Govt launches equality courts, 11 July 2003, https://www.southafrica.info/women/justice-courts.htm

(3) Preamble, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, SA Government Gazette, 9 Feb. 2000 https://www.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf

(4) Chapter 2, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, SA Government Gazette, 9 Feb. 2000 https://www.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf

(5, 6 ) Chapter 3, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, SA Government Gazette, 9 Feb. 2000 https://www.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf

(7) South Africa ushers in controversial equality law, CNN, September 1, 2000, https://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/09/01/racism.safrica.reut/

(8) Chapter 4, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, SA Government Gazette, 9 Feb. 2000 https://www.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf

(9, 10, 11) American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa, Submission to the Ad Hoc Joint Committee of Parliament on the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Bill, https://www.pmg.org.za/equality/AmCham.htm

(12, 13) South Africa ushers in controversial equality law, CNN, September 1, 2000, https://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/09/01/racism.safrica.reut/