It would be a pity indeed if the participants' postings, on this thread, degenerated into a argument relying solely on the basis of nationality, race or social status. If this is to be the case, then I would suggest that all should brush up on their history and see what it may have to offer. We would only have to look at the historical background of Canada or other countries to see some very disturbing facts. We could for instance look into Canada's original gold mining laws and see how discriminatory they were.
The very fact that we are all able to post on this thread would in itself be an acknowledgement of our own privilege. That there is some cash to spare for investment would also be an admission thereof. Canada, which has one of the highest standards of living in the world, can be classified as privileged if you compare it with most other nations. It really is a matter of birth.
No one should presume to know any of the participants' individual circumstances in which they live, and those that do, flirt into territories that they may be not so familiar with. You would expose your argument to attacks which you will not be able to defend, whichever side you may represent.
I have no objection to a good fight, with a bit of slanging here or there, but lets keep to the business at hand.
There are a multitude of green papers, white papers etc from many different disciplines which are being presented to the SA Parliament. These are discussion documents or proposals. There will be some changes with regards to laws affecting mineral rights but nationalisation will not be part of it. In the very unlikely event that mineral rights are nationalised, this would of course mean that the rights which SUF hold, will revert back to the state. Individual rights will then also be automatically affected and the economy will collapse. We already know how sensitive the world stock markets are to this intrusion by the state. There might be some stricter controls for foreign or domestic mining companies, an additional tax etc, but that would be about it. SA does not have a strong manufacturing base so it relies heavily on the export of minerals and agricultural goods. If these exports are in any way disturbed then the economy will be negatively affected. The SA Government is committed to free market principles and this is their official policy.
Annexation of mineral rights is not the same as expropriation. There are laws which govern this, and will no doubt be tested in the constitutional court. Too many people bandy this word around as if it were an everyday occurrence. This is by far not the case. SUF would do well to research this avenue closely, before following this route.
The heirs have already won. |
