Michael Smith
1st November 2009, 10:56
Brandon Huntley and the Colour of Crime
Ask any South African about the country´s crime problem, and they´ll ring off a list of brothers, sisters, friends and uncles, stabbed, hijacked or shot. A few short weeks ago, some of my family were held at gunpoint in their own security complex style home in suburban Johannesburg—complete with razor wire. Unfortunately their story is all to common in South Africa, and the nation´s familiarity with violent crime has developed its own farcical national-identity for a country still plagued by a legacy of institutionalized violence and racism. Equality, it seems, is often found at the barrel end of a gun.
Crime, by virtue of the country´s black majority, falls heavily on this (also the country´s poorest) demographic—a group victim to one of the twenty-first century´s more notable acts of barbarism. While crime is not a black only phenomenon, most South Africans acknowledge that black South Africans bear the brunt of violent crime. Which is why I was so surprised to hear the story of Brandon Huntley, the white South African refugee. Being a white South African myself, I have never considered myself a refugee even though my family has been a victim of violent crime. Huntley brought his refugee claim before the Canadian Immigration Board claiming he had been a victim of racial attacks—around 7 in total. The board—whose job description, it seems, would be to stay informed of international social and political issues—showed an astounding ignorance regarding the realities of post-apartheid South Africa. William Davis—chair of the board—declared that Huntley would ¨stick out like a sore thumb due to his colour in any part of the country.¨ Mr. Davis´s knowledge of basic colonial history seems to be lacking.
While Brandon Huntley was sticking out like a sore thumb in cosmopolitan, multicultural Cape Town, he claims he was attacked multiple times by assailants who uttered racial slurs. While multiple attacks for racial reasons seems improbable even in a country as divided as South Africa, the crux of the matter is that Huntley failed to report any of the attacks. With lack of any circumstantial evidence, the immigration board declared that Huntley´s ¨fear of persecution by African South Africans¨ is justified, and ¨he is a victim of race rather than a victim of criminality.¨ As an aside, the use of the term ¨African South Africans¨ is yet another indication of the hopelessly muddled political ignorance and PC ideology that dominates Canadian bureaucracy. While I cannot speak for all South Africans, many white, black and coloured people consider themselves African, myself included.
As African National Congress deputy of Foreign Affairs Minister Sue van Der Merwe said, the board´s decision shows ¨a lack of familiarization with the realities of South African society.¨ The decision to grant refugee protection is usually based upon systemic oppression or discrimination faced by the claimant. While South Africa´s white population is, no doubt, subject to violent crime few would argue that this crime is racially motivated. If anything South Africans across the racial spectrum would argue that the blame for out-of-control crime rates rests squarely on the shoulders of the ruling ANC government. The floundering administration of past-president Mbeki cared more about international attention and business dealings than grappling with crime and a failing public infrastructure. While the bombastic left-rhetoric of Zuma is yet to produce any profound changes. If anything, worker dissatisfaction has risen under Zuma, with massive public sector strikes in the last few months. Mr. Huntley´s case is a perfect example of the ANC hiding behind their moral curtain and crying international racism instead of pledging to do something about crime and unemployment. The jerking of knees—both to the left and right—extends from Ottawa to Pretoria.
Nevertheless Huntley´s case raises serious questions regarding the refugee review process in Canada. By showing an abysmal knowledge of South African society and politics, and accepting unreported claims as fact, the board has shown their inadequacy in dealing with refugee claims. Why was the board so willing and eager to denounce South Africa and accept Huntley´s claims and not those of US soldiers seeking asylum in Canada?
An understanding of South African history is the basis for solving this case. As Barney Mtombothi, editor of South Africa´s Financial Times, rightly argues: ¨What a shame we did not apply for refugee status in Canada during the apartheid years.¨ Mr Huntley has caused a great disgrace to his country and compatriots; and his government to its citizens by failing to protect them. The Canadian Immigration Board should be equally criticized for acting absurdly to the point of colonial protectionism. What will clear the air is a full investigation by the South African government into Mr. Huntley´s claims and a schooling in South African history for the crew of the immigration board.
Ask any South African about the country´s crime problem, and they´ll ring off a list of brothers, sisters, friends and uncles, stabbed, hijacked or shot. A few short weeks ago, some of my family were held at gunpoint in their own security complex style home in suburban Johannesburg—complete with razor wire. Unfortunately their story is all to common in South Africa, and the nation´s familiarity with violent crime has developed its own farcical national-identity for a country still plagued by a legacy of institutionalized violence and racism. Equality, it seems, is often found at the barrel end of a gun.
Crime, by virtue of the country´s black majority, falls heavily on this (also the country´s poorest) demographic—a group victim to one of the twenty-first century´s more notable acts of barbarism. While crime is not a black only phenomenon, most South Africans acknowledge that black South Africans bear the brunt of violent crime. Which is why I was so surprised to hear the story of Brandon Huntley, the white South African refugee. Being a white South African myself, I have never considered myself a refugee even though my family has been a victim of violent crime. Huntley brought his refugee claim before the Canadian Immigration Board claiming he had been a victim of racial attacks—around 7 in total. The board—whose job description, it seems, would be to stay informed of international social and political issues—showed an astounding ignorance regarding the realities of post-apartheid South Africa. William Davis—chair of the board—declared that Huntley would ¨stick out like a sore thumb due to his colour in any part of the country.¨ Mr. Davis´s knowledge of basic colonial history seems to be lacking.
While Brandon Huntley was sticking out like a sore thumb in cosmopolitan, multicultural Cape Town, he claims he was attacked multiple times by assailants who uttered racial slurs. While multiple attacks for racial reasons seems improbable even in a country as divided as South Africa, the crux of the matter is that Huntley failed to report any of the attacks. With lack of any circumstantial evidence, the immigration board declared that Huntley´s ¨fear of persecution by African South Africans¨ is justified, and ¨he is a victim of race rather than a victim of criminality.¨ As an aside, the use of the term ¨African South Africans¨ is yet another indication of the hopelessly muddled political ignorance and PC ideology that dominates Canadian bureaucracy. While I cannot speak for all South Africans, many white, black and coloured people consider themselves African, myself included.
As African National Congress deputy of Foreign Affairs Minister Sue van Der Merwe said, the board´s decision shows ¨a lack of familiarization with the realities of South African society.¨ The decision to grant refugee protection is usually based upon systemic oppression or discrimination faced by the claimant. While South Africa´s white population is, no doubt, subject to violent crime few would argue that this crime is racially motivated. If anything South Africans across the racial spectrum would argue that the blame for out-of-control crime rates rests squarely on the shoulders of the ruling ANC government. The floundering administration of past-president Mbeki cared more about international attention and business dealings than grappling with crime and a failing public infrastructure. While the bombastic left-rhetoric of Zuma is yet to produce any profound changes. If anything, worker dissatisfaction has risen under Zuma, with massive public sector strikes in the last few months. Mr. Huntley´s case is a perfect example of the ANC hiding behind their moral curtain and crying international racism instead of pledging to do something about crime and unemployment. The jerking of knees—both to the left and right—extends from Ottawa to Pretoria.
Nevertheless Huntley´s case raises serious questions regarding the refugee review process in Canada. By showing an abysmal knowledge of South African society and politics, and accepting unreported claims as fact, the board has shown their inadequacy in dealing with refugee claims. Why was the board so willing and eager to denounce South Africa and accept Huntley´s claims and not those of US soldiers seeking asylum in Canada?
An understanding of South African history is the basis for solving this case. As Barney Mtombothi, editor of South Africa´s Financial Times, rightly argues: ¨What a shame we did not apply for refugee status in Canada during the apartheid years.¨ Mr Huntley has caused a great disgrace to his country and compatriots; and his government to its citizens by failing to protect them. The Canadian Immigration Board should be equally criticized for acting absurdly to the point of colonial protectionism. What will clear the air is a full investigation by the South African government into Mr. Huntley´s claims and a schooling in South African history for the crew of the immigration board.