Excerpts from Judge James Russell's 24 November Ruling, says that for the "South African authorities to attack the RPD's Decision as "racist" and as a threat to the relationship between Canada and South Africa suggests an intolerance to criticism from one of its own citizens and an attitude that no white person should be allowed to claim he or she has been racially targeted even when repeatedly attacked by black criminals."
“ If the evidence before the RPD in this case is anything to go by, then the people of South Africa are living through an extremely dangerous and difficult time in the history of their country. The evidence reveals that crime is widespread and endemic against South Africans of all races and that racial and ethnic tensions continue to plague the country in the post-apartheid era. Many people have found the situation intolerable and have left. Many of those who have stayed, and who can afford it, have adopted a siege mentality, living in protected enclaves and/or in heavily secured and monitored houses.
 Given the evidence of endemic, and often horrendous, crime in South Africa that has been presented in this case, it surely cannot be a surprise to anyone that a South African such as the Respondent might conclude that he is the victim of violence directed against white South Africans and that the South African authorities are either unwilling or unable to protect him. Whatever conclusions the Court may come to regarding the RPD's Decision in this case, the Respondent's attempts to secure refugee status are, at least, understandable.
The evidence is clear that he has been repeatedly attacked and stabbed by black assailants in South Africa. It is not, therefore, obviously delusional that he might have formed the impression that his attackers were motivated by the colour of his skin. For the South African authorities to attack the RPD's Decision as "racist" and as a threat to the relationship between Canada and South Africa suggests an intolerance to criticism from one of its own citizens and an attitude that no white person should be allowed to claim he or she has been racially targeted even when repeatedly attacked by black criminals.”
But of course we know in South Africa that our goverment ministers can't be bothered to read judgements or complaints or in fact anything! They are all knowing; why bother reading anything! So, clearly the Minister of Foreign Affairs is clueless about what Judge Russell had to say about South Africa; she just read the media BS verbal diarhhea; if that!.
Nor does she -- or her Canadian counterpart -- appear to be remotely aware that Kenney ain't got himself some Africanized pair of cahones, and he been telling Judge Russell many porkie's, such as that his motivations for filing the application for review weren't that he was petrified of being called the 'r' word! He ain't told the Judge that he's using the Canadian Attorney General's Office to play some politically motivated legal butt-f**king of Brandon Huntley, so the Minister can continue to be a proudly practicing 'Kill Whitey! Its the Right Thing to Do' Black Power buddy.
So along comes Nkosana Zuma, and spills the beans: Thanks Mr. Kenney for being an Anti-Apartheid Movement petrified whitey hypocrit, and screwing one of our white citizens (all us liberals just know how pleasureable it is to but-f**k whitey), and giving him a good royal political show-trial legal gang-rape. And what a good job you did of bullshitting the -- blind as a bat to racially motivated crime -- Judge, that your political motivations weren't 'buttf**king whitey'! He believed the crap you wrote! Jolly good show, the ANC are most happy that the ANC/Canada "buttf**king whitey' bilateral agenda is back on schedule!
Little does the Judge know that -- Kenney is aware that -- there is currently a White Refugee Amicus before the SA Constitutional Court, which provides evidence of over 140 SA elite, who endorse the legal and political persecution of white refugees in SA; and the SA media are massively censoring it!
Nkosazana Zuma welcomes review of Brandon Huntley decision
Home affairs minister says Canadian govt's decision is testimony to strong bilateral relations
Home Affairs: Minister of Foreign Affairs
21 October 2009
Minister Zuma welcomes review of decision to grant Brandon Huntley Asylum
Cape Town: Home Affairs Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma today Wednesday, 21 October 2009, welcomed the decision by the Canadian immigration authorities to review the decision to grant Brandon Huntley asylum following claims of discrimination in South Africa (see report).
Minister of Home Affairs Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma said, "The South African government welcomes and supports the recommendation by Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to the Federal Court to review the immigration and refugee board's decision to grant Huntley refugee status based on his race."
"The government appreciates the finding by the Canadian government that Huntley's claims were not supported by credible evidence," continued Minister Dlamini Zuma.
"This decision bears testimony to the strong bilateral political relations between our two countries. The South African government will await the results of the review process," concluded Minister Dlamini Zuma.
Statement issued by the Department of Home Affairs, October 21 2009
» » » » [Politicsweb]
Judge calls for rehearing of South African's successful refugee claim
Norma Greenaway, Postmedia News
24 November 2010
OTTAWA — A Federal Court judge has ordered a re-hearing of a white South African's successful refugee claim after finding the original ruling by the Immigration and Refugee Board "seriously flawed."
The order by Judge James Russell was a major victory for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who had asked the court to review the board's "perverse" decision to grant Brandon Huntley refugee status on the grounds he would be persecuted again if forced back to South Africa because he is white.
In his ruling Wednesday, Russell said Hundley's case should be heard again in front of a different immigration and refugee board.
South Africa's top diplomat in Canada cheered Russell's order. "Our government is very, very happy with the decision," said Anesh Maistry, the country's acting high commissioner in Ottawa.
Maistry said South Africa was adamant the board's original August 2009 decision must be revisited because it "misrepresents the facts on the ground in South Africa" by agreeing the attacks described by Huntley were racially motivated.
Huntley, who lives in Ottawa, was not available for comment, but his lawyer Rocco Galati questioned the prospect of Huntley receiving a fair hearing, given Kenney's position on Huntley's application and his control over appointments and reappointments to the refugee board.
In the court ruling, Russell said there is "little objective evidence" to support a conclusion that Huntley was attacked because of his skin colour.
The Federal Court of Canada judge also said William Davis, the one-man refugee board who heard the case, erred by not conducting an independent, objective and thorough review of the state of racial relations in South Africa before issuing his ruling.
Huntley, a former carnival worker, told immigration officials he was attacked six or seven times by black South Africans and that those beatings left him with scars on his stomach, right eye, right side of the body and hands.
Hundley, now in his 30s, acknowledged he didn't report the beatings to police. His lawyers argued the pattern of abuse means he would be a target of racially motivated persecution if he was forced to return to South Africa.
In granting him refugee status, Davis found that Huntley had a justified fear of persecution from black South Africans. He also agreed Hundley would "stick out like a sore thumb" in predominantly black South Africa.
Davis' ruling provoked outrage in South Africa. The African National Congress, the party, under Nelson Mandela, that liberated the country from apartheid, said the ruling was "racist" and alarming.
In Ottawa, Abraham Sokhaya Nkomo, the South African high commissioner to Canada at the time, warned the ruling would harm relations between South Africa and Canada if allowed to stand.
Russell flatly rejected arguments by Hundley's lawyers that the case was politically tainted because the government of South Africa put pressure on the Harper government to challenge the original ruling.
"There is no evidence to support a finding that political or diplomatic pressure or interference prompted or caused the minister to seek judicial review (of the refugee board's ruling)," Russell wrote.
He characterized the government's push for a re-hearing as nothing more than the minister wanting a "seriously flawed (board) decision reviewed."
Sensitive to the charges of political interference, Kenney did not comment personally on the ruling. He left it to a department official to react.
"We are pleased that the Federal Court accepted our argument that there were errors in the original IRB determination," department spokeswoman Kelli Fraser said in a written statement.
Russell also rejected Huntley's arguments the case has now become so politicized that he would not be able to get a fair hearing.
"In my view, the respondent (Huntley) is simply attempting to immunize his case against judicial review and re-hearing," Russell wrote. "He cannot become a Convention refugee by default and by mere assertion of partiality or institutional bias on the part of the (board)."
» » » » [Windsor Star]