The right-wingers' hidden agenda for SA
The global right, including AfriForum, is networking to push for radical political shifts in South Africa, despite democratic resistance.
White conservatives – some get upset if you call them right-wingers, even if their politics verges on neo-Nazism – are on a high around the world, following the election of Donald Trump.
Just as the US president has promised to 'Make America Great Again' so, too, have other right-leaning groups around the world been emboldened to accelerate their fightback against the perceived ills visited upon Western civilisation in general and white people in particular.
These range from 'woke' changes to culture and education and the ravages of legal and illegal immigration from countries whose people are slightly darker in hue.
And, around the world, the right has been flexing its muscles through networking – both on social media and in person – which has seen organisations like the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gaining massively in influence.
CPAC has its roots in America but has achieved major success in Europe in the past few years.
ALSO READ: Afrikaner 'refugees' continue to arrive in US on commercial flights – reports
Across that continent, right-wingers have been coming into the mainstream, increasingly winning elections, as Europeans feel their countries are being overwhelmed by foreign people and foreign cultures.
A dedicated devotee of CPAC is AfriForum leader Ernst Roets who, along with others from South Africa, has been lobbying in both Europe and with Trump to bring about serious political change in South Africa.
Make no mistake – the issue of alleged persecution of whites, a fire lit by Roets and others, is a sideshow when compared with AfriForum's goal, which – as repeatedly stated by Roets – is to bring about 'decentralisation' and 'self-government' for communities.
That ideal has never been tested at the ballot box and, indeed, white voters have turned their backs on the idea of a 'Volkstaat'.
However, global conservative muscle will undoubtedly be applied to SA to move the country towards change, no matter what the majority may say.
NOW READ: Ramaphosa not condemning 'Kill the Boer' smacks of 'double standards', AfriForum says
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Words that wound — ‘Kill the Boer' is legal, but not wise for a fragile South Africa
In March 2025, South Africa's Constitutional Court upheld a contentious ruling that the slogan 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' a liberation-era chant, does not constitute hate speech under South African law. This judgment followed an appeal by AfriForum against a previous judgment. The civil rights organisation argued that the slogan incited violence and hatred, particularly against white South Africans and especially farmers. The court found, however, that the phrase, when understood in its historical and political context, did not meet the legal threshold of hate speech. That said, it is argued here that while the slogan may be constitutionally protected, its deliberate use in contemporary political settings is not merely provocative, it is profoundly unwise. In a society still grappling with the legacies of apartheid, endemic inequality and fragile race relations, words carry weight far beyond their legal definitions. It is within this context that the South Africa Social Cohesion Index (Sasci), developed by the Inclusive Society Institute, has drawn timely attention to a worrying decline in societal cohesion by providing critical insights into why the continued use of divisive slogans serve only to jeopardise the country's progress toward unity and social stability. The Constitutional Court's reasoning The Constitutional Court's dismissal of the appeal by AfriForum was grounded in legal and historical nuance. The justices concurred with the 2022 Equality Court ruling that the chant should not be taken literally but as a symbolic relic of the anti-apartheid struggle. It was not, they emphasised, a call to actual violence against individuals or groups. There was also insufficient evidence linking the use of the slogan to specific acts of harm or incitement, which is a requirement for speech to be classified as hate speech under South African law. This decision reaffirmed the robust commitment of the South African judiciary to freedom of expression, one of the bedrock rights enshrined in the post-apartheid Constitution. It recognises that a democratic society must allow space for emotional, political and even uncomfortable speech. But freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from consequence. Social cohesion under strain According to the 2024 Sasci, South Africa is treading a narrow ridge between cohesion and fragmentation. The index, which measures solidarity, fairness, trust, identity, civic participation and respect for institutions, paints a picture of partial resilience and underlying volatility. Solidarity sits at 61.3, indicating moderate willingness to care for others regardless of identity, but still vulnerable to racial and economic fault lines; Perception of Fairness, however, is a weak point, at 42.7, reflecting widespread public sentiment that South Africa's socioeconomic systems remain unjust; Intergroup Trust is alarmingly low – just 41% of black and white South Africans express some trust in one another; and Identification, that is, the sense of belonging to a shared national identity, is strong at 72.2, and is the glue that is holding the nation together. But this is susceptible to erosion under divisive rhetoric. These findings underscore a society still recovering from historical trauma, where the social glue is thin and brittle. Therefore, it is in this context that the use of a slogan such as 'Kill the Boer' must be evaluated, not in a courtroom, but in the court of public morality and nation-building. The political weaponisation of memory Chants such as 'Kill the Boer' are more than mere slogans. They are symbolic vessels, carrying the memory of past struggles, but also the potential to stir contemporary fears. So, with this in mind, it follows that the historical justification of the chant, which is rooted in anti-apartheid resistance, does not automatically make its current use, politically or socially, justifiable. In today's South Africa, invoking such slogans, especially during political rallies or in highly charged public platforms, is often a calculated act. It is a way of stoking populist sentiment, galvanising political bases and appealing to historical loyalties. But this comes at a steep cost: the polarisation of society, the re-traumatisation of communities and the erosion of hard-won intergroup solidarity. The Trump factor and global amplification The domestic controversy over 'Kill the Boer' took on international significance during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House in May 2025. In a meeting with US President Donald Trump, the slogan once again found itself at the centre of a geopolitical flashpoint. Trump, resurrecting claims he first made in 2018, alleged that white South African farmers were the targets of a 'genocide'. He presented images purporting to show images of murdered white farmers. President Ramaphosa firmly rejected Trump's assertions, defending South Africa's constitutional land reform process and reaffirming the courts' dismissal of the 'white genocide' narrative. Yet, the damage had been done because Trump's global platform amplified fringe narratives and served to validate domestic fear-based politics within South Africa. This episode demonstrates how international rhetoric can dangerously reinforce internal social divisions, skew the global perception of South Africa's challenges and undermine the legitimacy of its reconciliation and land reform processes. Why legal speech can still be harmful Even if the courts are correct in finding that 'Kill the Boer' does not legally constitute hate speech, it is crucial to understand that legality does not equate to wisdom, unity or responsibility. In a country with such deep wounds, where race, land, identity and violence intersect in volatile ways, rhetoric matters. When political figures or public activists invoke this chant in the present day, they must consider: The historical trauma it reactivates for many white South Africans; The fear it induces among farming communities; The backlash it sparks from domestic and international actors; and Most importantly, the distrust and division it fuels between already polarised communities. Words, especially in political arenas, do not exist in a vacuum. They shape social perception, inform behaviour and influence whether people feel safe, respected and included. What leadership requires Leadership in a democratic society does not simply involve defending rights; it involves exercising them responsibly. South Africa's path forward depends not only on constitutional fidelity, but on a moral and social imagination capable of transcending inherited grievances. Political leaders and public influencers must ask: Does this speech unify or divide? Does it heal or harm? The question is no longer about what is legal, but what is nation-building. This is by no means a call for censorship. It is a call for ethical and moral restraint and for choosing reconciliation over rhetoric. And for choosing unity over provocation. It is possible to honour the past without weaponising it. It is possible to demand justice without alienating communities. It is possible to seek equity without amplifying enmity. Conclusion: The test of nationhood South Africa's journey from apartheid to democracy is often lauded as a global symbol of reconciliation. But symbols can become brittle. The Sasci's data tell us that the social cement is cracking and the slogan controversy is one fault line among many. If left unaddressed, such fissures can widen into fractures. The Constitutional Court has spoken on what the law allows. Now the burden falls to civil society, political leaders and ordinary citizens to determine what wisdom, justice and reconciliation demand. In a country where speech has the power to harm or to heal, the future will not be built by shouting into wounds, but by speaking into hope. DM
eNCA
7 hours ago
- eNCA
Paris seeks personhood status for River Seine
French authorities want to give legal rights to the River Seine to better defend the world-famous waterway in court and protect its fragile ecosystem, part of a global movement to grant legal personhood to nature. In a resolution adopted on Wednesday, the Paris City Council called on parliament to pass a law granting the Seine legal personhood to enable "an independent guardian authority to defend its rights in court". "The Seine must be able to defend itself, as a subject of law and not as an object, because it will always be under attack," said Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo. Conservationists have backed granting fragile ecosystems such as rivers and mountains basic legal rights to better protect them. In a world first, New Zealand in 2017 recognised the Whanganui River revered by Indigenous people as a living entity, with legislation combining Western legal precedent and Maori beliefs. In 2022, Spain granted personhood status to the Mar Menor, one of Europe's largest saltwater lagoons, to give its threatened ecosystem better protection. The Paris Council based its decision on the conclusions of a citizens' convention on the future of the Seine held between March and May. Fifty citizens chosen at random proposed granting the Seine fundamental rights such as "the right to exist, to flow and to regenerate". The Seine must be considered an ecosystem that "no one can claim ownership of", where the preservation of life must "take precedence over everything", the convention concluded. It also noted "positive" change, with the Seine now home to around 40 species of fish, compared to only four in 1970. French authorities spent $1.5 billion ahead of the 2024 Olympics to clean up the Seine, the 777-kilometre river that flows through Paris past the Louvre, Notre Dame cathedral and other iconic landmarks. AFP | Anne-Christine POUJOULAT However, it is threatened by pollution, rising water temperatures and the use of pesticides in agriculture. The opening of the river to the public for swimming this summer could present "additional risks", warned the convention. Fulfilling a key legacy promise from the Paris Games, authorities are to allow the public to swim from July 5 at three points in the Seine, which is now deemed safe for a dip.
eNCA
7 hours ago
- eNCA
Zelensky says Russian ceasefire memorandum is an 'ultimatum'
President Volodymyr Zelensky said Wednesday Russia had handed Ukraine a series of old ultimatums at peace talks in Istanbul this week, calling instead for a meeting with Vladimir Putin to break the impasse. More than three years into Russia's grinding invasion, which has cost tens of thousands of lives, the two sides have opened direct talks searching for a way to end what has become Europe's largest conflict since World War II. The fighting has pitted Kyiv and its Western allies against the Kremlin, whose demands have made clear it is seeking little short of capitulation from Ukraine. At a second round of negotiations on Monday, the two sides swapped documents with their terms for a ceasefire and agreed a large-scale prisoner exchange, which could go forward this weekend. But Zelensky blasted Russia's demands and cast doubt on whether the talks in their current format would achieve anything. "It is, after all, an ultimatum from the Russian side to us," Zelensky told reporters of the Russian demands. Moscow's demands included Ukraine fully pulling out of four regions -- Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia -- that Russia claims to have annexed but does not have full control over. The Ukrainian leader said it was "pointless" to hold further talks with Russian delegates at their current rank -- who he previously dismissed as "empty heads" -- since they could not agree a ceasefire. He instead renewed his call for a sit-down with Russian counterpart Putin and US President Donald Trump. - 'Any day' - "We are ready for such a meeting any day," Zelensky said, adding he was proposing a ceasefire be put in place before any such summit, which would also include Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The White House said earlier this week that Trump was "open" to meeting after the two sides failed to make headway towards a ceasefire. But speaking in Moscow shortly after Zelensky, Putin immediately dismissed the idea of direct talks and rejected the call for an unconditional ceasefire. "Why reward them by giving them a break from the combat, which will be used to pump the regime with Western arms, to continue their forced mobilisation and to prepare different terrorist acts," Putin said at a televised meeting. "Who negotiates with those who place their bets on terror?" he added. The only concrete agreement to come out of the talks has been a series of large-scale prisoner exchanges. AFP | Tetiana DZHAFAROVA Zelensky said the sides were planning to exchange 500 POWs this weekend. In Moscow, lead Russian negotiator Vladimir Medinsky confirmed in comments to Putin that the exchange would take place on Saturday, Sunday or Monday. Russia's invasion has left swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed, with millions forced to flee their homes in Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. Despite both Zelensky and Putin appearing to question whether progress was possible, Russia's foreign minister praised the Istanbul talks. "I think it is important and useful," Sergei Lavrov told Putin. "Both rounds, as we know, have yielded concrete results," he said, referring to the POW swaps. - Kyiv urges more sanctions - Ukrainian troops have been suffering months of setbacks on the battlefield as Russian forces steadily advance across key sectors of the sprawling front line. Russia's army said it had captured another village in Ukraine's Sumy border region, the latest in a string of gains as it seeks to establish what it calls a "buffer zone" inside Ukrainian territory. Zelensky urged Kyiv's military backers to ramp up support in a bid to pressure Russia towards peace. "We must not allow Russia to blur reality or mislead the world. Moscow must be forced into diplomacy," Zelensky said in a video message at a NATO meeting. The call comes as the United States has stepped back from its support under Trump, pushing instead for a quick end to the fighting and starting a rapprochement with Putin. Kyiv has however sought to gain assurances of continued support from the White House. On Wednesday, senior Zelensky aide Andriy Yermak met US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington. "We discussed the situation on the front line and the need to strengthen support for Ukraine in the field of air defence," Yermak said, adding he had urged more US sanctions on Russia.
