Afrikaner 'refugee': 'I left a 5 bedroom house behind'
This week, 49 white South Africans arrived in America under President Donald Trump's resettlement programme.
Kleinhaus – who owns a granite mining company in Limpopo – has also made headlines over his past antiSemitic social media posts.
Speaking to the BBC, Charl Kleinhaus spoke about leaving his life in South Africa.
He also responded to allegations by the public that Afrikaner 'refugees' were 'opportunistic'.
He said: 'I had to leave a five-bedroom house which I will now lose, my car, my dogs, and my mother behind. I didnt come here for fun. But my children are safe'.
He added, 'If you are white, you are wrong in South Africa. I had nothing to do with Apartheid – nothing, nothing, nothing!
'People must think we are taking advantage of this. We are coming here to make a contribution to the country'.
During the interview, Kleinhaus claimed that as an Afrikaner businessman, he had received 'threatening' messages from his community in Limpopo. He also claimed that his equipment had been destroyed and that police could not assist him. ANTI-SEMITIC POSTS
Charl Kleinhaus also touched on the backlash that has made headlines for making antiSemitic comments on social media.
In 2023, the Afrikaner 'refugee' posted on X (formerly Twitter): 'Jews are untrustworthy and a dangerous group.'
Kleinhaus claimed that he had 'copied and pasted' the comments from another X account.
He added that at the time he was also in hospital 'on morphine'.
On the X platform, Charl Kleinhaus's interview caused a stir, given the backlash to Afrikaner 'refugees' arriving in the US.
@igorm365: 'If living in a five-bedroom house is real persecution, what is living in a shack then?'
@Cthulhucachoo: 'What kind of man leaves his mother behind in an active genocide zone? She gave birth to you, and this is how you repay her?'
@Mamhayise123: 'Bro doesn't afford bond anymore. He decided to run'.
@CrutiFi: 'Why is Elon Musk leaving his father in a country with a white genocide?'
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 .
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
20 minutes ago
- IOL News
Time for liberation movements to rebuild trust, rethink strategy
Liberation movement leaders at the summit hosted by the African National Congress on July 25-27 in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng. Image: ANC/X Dr. Reneva Fourie Many South Africans failed to appreciate the relevance of the Liberation Movements Summit, held in Johannesburg from 25 to 28 July. In an era marked by widespread public disappointment and growing criticism, the very premise of such a gathering appeared, they argued, outdated if not entirely obsolete. Movements such as South Africa's ANC, Mozambique's FRELIMO, Namibia's SWAPO, Angola's MPLA and others are not conventional political parties. Their legitimacy was not conferred solely through elections. It was earned through generations of collective resistance, sacrifice and clarity of purpose in the face of colonialism and apartheid. They were forged in the trenches of anti-colonial struggle and shaped by the convictions of those who believed in dignity, equality and justice. However, in the years since the dawn of democracy, these once-powerful connections to the people have frayed. The post-liberation period has, for many citizens, become associated less with freedom and opportunity, and more with corruption, inequality and governance failures. In the wake of immense sacrifice and hard-won liberation, the urgent and deeply complex question confronting Southern Africa's former liberation movements is whether they have eroded their moral authority through complacency, self-enrichment and detachment from the aspirations of the people. The Liberation Movement Summit sought to confront these realities directly. It did not offer a platform for nostalgic celebration but one for critical reflection and collaborative renewal. Its central assertion was that historical legitimacy cannot excuse present failures. Rather, it is only through meaningful action, grounded in principle and delivered with urgency, that these movements can continue to play a relevant role in shaping their societies. The summit occurred within an increasingly unstable global environment. The declining coherence of the neoliberal project, further unravelling through the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine and destabilisation across West Asia, has disrupted many of the ideological assumptions that underpinned global governance for the past three decades. Added to this is the rise of narrow nationalism, a retreat into bilateralism and the erosion of respect for international law, particularly by powerful Western states. This evolving landscape has profound implications for the continent. African states face increased vulnerability to external manipulation, regime-change agendas and exploitative economic arrangements. The summit, therefore, was necessary to provide a space for shared analysis, introspection and strategic coordination to enhance sovereignty and to assert a united voice in shaping a more just and inclusive global order. However, it was not only external pressures that required attention. Internally, liberation movements face complex democratic terrains that demand new forms of engagement. Factors such as declining electoral support, shifting generational political identities, and the enduring impact of structural inequality, poverty, unemployment and insecurity required thoughtful responses. The situation in Sudan was referenced as a painful example of how internal contradictions, if unresolved, can be exploited by external actors and descend into devastating conflict. It served as a reminder that liberation is not a singular event, but an ongoing process that requires vigilance, renewal and integrity. The summit's focus on democratic sustainability, effective governance, economic transformation and international solidarity was not incidental. It signalled a clear understanding that liberation must be understood as a living project. One of the central issues raised was the growing gap between political rhetoric and implementation. Widespread dissatisfaction does not stem from a lack of vision. It stems from the failure to translate that vision into material change. Inadequate socio-economic development, deteriorating public services, and perceptions of systemic corruption have undermined the legitimacy of former liberation parties. Where liberation once promised dignity, many now experience marginalisation. Discontent is particularly acute among young people and women. These are not marginal constituencies. They were at the centre of liberation struggles and remain central to any democratic renewal. Yet they are often excluded from decision-making spaces. The summit emphasised that genuine empowerment must move beyond rhetoric. It requires shifts in institutional culture, the opening up of leadership opportunities and policy frameworks that respond to the realities and capabilities of young people and women. The summit also reaffirmed the enduring relevance of international solidarity. While formal colonialism has ended, other forms of domination persist through financial dependence, extractive corporate practices and systemic inequality in global institutions. Collective resistance remains necessary. Regional cooperation is essential not only for economic development but for protecting sovereignty and pursuing peace on the continent's terms. By revisiting the principle of Pan-Africanism and anchoring itself within a broader vision of progressive internationalism, the summit resisted the idea that liberation movements are simply relics of a past era. It positioned them as political institutions still capable of shaping the future, provided they act with courage, humility and commitment to the people they claim to serve. In this sense, the summit was not a retreat into history. It was an attempt to reframe the liberation narrative to meet current realities. It outlined a multidimensional approach, encompassing accountability in governance, inclusivity in political participation, innovation in economic policy, and coherence in international engagement. The chosen theme, 'Defending the liberation gains, advancing integrated socio-economic development, strengthening solidarity for a better Africa', was both affirmation and provocation. It affirmed the commitments that guided the anti-colonial struggle, while insisting that the defence of those gains cannot rely on slogans. It must be evidenced in action. The political renewal required is not superficial. It cannot be achieved through new slogans or minor adjustments. It requires deep institutional reform, alignment with democratic values and a reconnection to the needs and aspirations of the people. If this does not occur, these movements risk losing not only electoral support but also their historical legitimacy. Even so, the summit offered a timely opportunity to regroup and recommit. It provided a forum to rethink strategy, rebuild trust and begin crafting a credible future. If these movements can confront their shortcomings with honesty, implement their commitments with discipline and listen to their people with sincerity, they may yet remain relevant in the evolving story of African freedom. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
20 minutes ago
- IOL News
Operation Dudula under fire for campaign to ban foreign children from public schools in 2026
Operation Dudula vows to block undocumented foreign children from public schools, prioritising South African children first, citing constitutional resource limits. Legal foreign children will only be admitted after all locals are enrolled. Image: Tumi Pakkies/Independent Newspapers Operation Dudula's organisational leader, Zandile Dabula, has announced that the organisation will launch a campaign at the end of December 2025, continuing into the first week of January 2026, aimed at preventing foreign children, particularly those without legal documentation, from enrolling in public schools in South Africa. But Equal Education (EE) and the Equal Education Law Centre (EELC) are pushing back calling the proposed campaign a violation of South Africa's Constitution and a precedent setting High Court ruling. The issue of foreign nationals in South Africa, particularly undocumented migrants, has been contentious and ongoing, sparking public debates, protests, and policy discussions for years. Concerns over access to limited resources such as housing, healthcare, and education have fueled tensions between local communities and foreign nationals. According to Dabula, members of Operation Dudula will be stationed at schools to enforce the policy. 'No foreign child will be attending school in a public school,' she said. 'They can rather take them to private schools, we don't care, but public schools are going to be reserved for South African children only.' When asked whether the campaign targets all foreign children or only those without legal documentation, Dabula said, 'I'm talking about illegal foreigners who will definitely not be accepted, but those who claim to be legal. We have Home Affairs, bogus Home Affairs, and we've seen a lot of them. You also know about these bogus Home Affairs.' She emphasised that all foreign nationals would need to be thoroughly vetted, including the legal status of their parents. 'They must be checked, thoroughly checked, because how did they come to this country? Are their parents documented?' Speaking to IOL News, Equal Education (EE) and the Equal Education Law Centre (EELC) sharply criticised Operation Dudula's campaign as unlawful, unconstitutional, and deeply harmful to children. 'South Africa has a long history of dispossession, unequal resources for our communities, and unequal laws. Thirty years since the dawn of democracy, we remember this history because many of those living in South Africa still look forward to service delivery that gives our families access to basic resources such as health, education, and adequate housing. The poor access to these resources can mostly be attributed to poor government planning, corruption, wasteful expenditure, and poor political will.' 'Children should never be collateral damage of the failures of those in power.' EE and EELC highlighted the protections guaranteed to all children, saying: 'The Constitution of South Africa, in Section 29(1)(a) and Section 9, gives everyone an equal right to basic education and prohibits discrimination against any child in accessing this right. No child may be excluded from attending a public school, regardless of their documentation status or nationality. This was confirmed in the Department of Basic Education Circular 1 of 2020, a response to the judgment of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Centre for Child Law & Others v Minister of Basic Education and Others ,which restated the obligation of Provincial Education Departments and schools to admit all learners, and undocumented learners in particular.' EE and EELC said denying any learner access to school perpetuates inequality and undermines democratic values. Denying children access to their right to education can be very traumatising. 'Any interference with the enjoyment of the right to equal education will constitute a grave constitutional violation and is condemned by Equal Education and the Equal Education Law Centre in the strongest terms. ''All learners in South Africa are entitled to an education, and we must make sure that this right is protected and upheld to build the equitable society envisioned by our democracy.' Further condemning the campaign, Section27 said: 'Operation Dudula's campaign is unlawful and unconstitutional. Children must be protected, and all state departments and individuals have a constitutional obligation to act in the best interests of children.' Section27 referenced Centre for Child Law v Minister of Basic Education (Phakamisa judgment), in which the court confirmed that all children, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to education under Section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution. 'Our courts have held that all children, despite their immigration status, are entitled to basic education,' Section27 said. 'The court in the Phakamisa judgment interrogated the constitutionality of a circular by the Eastern Cape Department of Basic Education, which provided that undocumented learners would not be enrolled at schools. The High Court found that such a circular infringed learners' rights and was not in the best interests of the child.' The South African Schools Act (SASA), as amended by the Basic Education Law Amendment Act 32 of 2024, now codifies this legal protection. Section 5(1A) of SASA mandates that undocumented learners must be allowed admission into schools and may provide an affidavit containing the learner's details. In addition, Section 3(7) of SASA outlines legal consequences for those who interfere with schooling: 'If any person unlawfully or intentionally disrupts or hinders educational activities, they are guilty of an offence and liable, on conviction, to a fine or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both.' 'Operation Dudula's campaign to prevent undocumented learners from being enrolled at schools or entering school grounds is intentional, and the disruption of school activities is an infringement of the right to basic education in terms of Section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution and the South African Schools Act,' said Section27. [email protected] Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. IOL News
IOL News
20 minutes ago
- IOL News
‘It's our death sentence': SA couple pleads to stay in Australia amid safety fears
Charné-Lee Gunning, 31, and Ivan Strauss, 37, are facing an anxious wait in Western Sydney, Australia, as their application for protection visas hangs in the balance. Image: / Screengrab Charné-Lee Gunning, 31, and Ivan Strauss, 37, are facing an anxious wait in Western Sydney, Australia, as their application for protection visas hangs in the balance. The South African couple claim they face a "death sentence" if they are forced to return to South Africa. Gunning and Strauss arrived in Australia on visitor visas in December 2018 after fleeing South Africa due to fears of racial violence. Now, seven years later, they are pleading with the federal government not to deport them, alleging that their lives would be at risk if they were to return to their home country. According to them, they would be targeted for being white. Gunning stated that returning would be "our death sentence, especially with what's going on in South Africa at the moment. It has gotten a lot worse since we left". The couple revealed they had been victims of crimes from an early age into their adulthood. They note that this contrasts with Australia, where they can drive with windows open. Gunning added: "The nightmares are still there, but I have a sense of safety here that I've never had before". Despite their protection visa application being initially denied, they have appealed and are currently awaiting a decision from the Administrative Review Tribunal. If their appeal is rejected, they would have only five weeks to leave Australia. The couple say they are willing to relocate anywhere in Australia, even to the most remote places, to remain in the country. The couple's case followed months after former US President Donald Trump fast-tracked visas for white South African farmers, claiming they were victims of "genocide". This claim was rejected by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who stated that "People who do get killed, unfortunately through criminal activity, are not only white people, majority of them are black people". This case brings Australia into the spotlight of whether the country should adopt a similar stance to the US and consider white South Africans as refugees from violence. Shadow Immigration Minister Paul Scarr has emphasised that asylum and humanitarian visa applications should be assessed equally, regardless of the applicant's origin. A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs declined to comment on individual cases due to privacy reasons. TikTok user Edlin (edlin1344) shared the couple's plight on the social media platform, igniting a heated debate online, drawing comments of mockery while others acknowledged the crime rate. Many comments expressed strong scepticism and denial of the couple's claims. Some also accused the couple of dishonesty, suggesting they should be upfront about simply wanting to stay in Australia for "great career opportunities" rather than "acting like you are hunted". Others speculated they might be "running away from their debts". The claim of a "death sentence" was often met with disbelief or mockery. While many disputed the extreme nature of the couple's fears, some acknowledged high crime rates in South Africa, but reminded the internet community that it as a universal issue or one disproportionately affecting poorer communities. IOL NEWS
