RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/your_time_is_up_white_people_south_african_parliament_targets_next_march_for_land_expropriation.html

The South African parliament approved a motion that would set up an ad-hoc committee to recommend procedures on how land expropriation without compensation would work. Earlier, the parliament had approved the constitutional changes that would give the government power to take land from white farmers without paying for it.

IOL:

The motion was adopted with 183 votes in favour and 77 against. There were no abstentions.

Opposition parties had objected vehemently, with the Freedom Front Plus’s Anton Alberts reiterating the party’s threat that land expropriation would lead to instability.

“When the blood flows it will be on your hands,” Alberts said in the direction of the ANC benches.

The Congress of the People’s Deirdre Carter urged voters to go to the polls to “stop the ANC, stop the EFF, the only way you can do it”.

Themba Godi, from the African People’s Convention, backed the ANC and Economic Freedom Fighters’ support for the motion and an amendment, saying those who opposed land reform were, in fact, supporting the oppression of African people.

“Land must be nationalised and socialised for the benefit of the people, especially the working class and women …. those who oppose want the perpetuation of wrongs of past.”

Tell me if you think this expropriation scheme is going to go peacefully:

Star:

But there were heated scenes in the House when politicians clashed over the plans.

According to local reports, Economic Freedom Fighters MP Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi argued land grabs must go ahead as she declared: “Your time is up, white people”.

This came as the IFP MP Mkhuleko Hlengwa said the plans undermine South Africa’s position as a democratic state.

According to the Daily Maverick, he said: “To achieve real and effective land reform is (possible) under the existing Constitution, not your (ANC) populist agenda.

“You should be ashamed of yourself.”

https://pjmedia.com/trending/belgiums-government-in-crisis-over-un-migration-pact/

The government of Belgium Prime Minister Charles Michel was rocked by the withdrawal of a major coalition partner over Michel’s intent to sign the UN migration pact.

The pact was negotiated by 180 countries and is due to be signed on Monday. But at least six EU countries will refuse to sign the accord, which was given the green light last summer.

What happened in the interim is a classic case of political leaders getting out too far in front of the people. While the nations signed off on the pact, many have been having second thoughts as the rise of nationalist parties has put a damper on the signing ceremony.

In Belgium, Michel faced a revolt by the nationalist N-VA, the largest party in parliament. When Michel refused to accede to their demand he not sign the treaty, N-VA cabinet ministers quit. Michel says he will continue governing with a minority, but his power will be severely curtailed.

Reuters:

Michel had secured a large parliamentary majority last week in favour of maintaining Belgium’s support of the United Nations text, which since it was agreed by all U.N. states bar the United States in July has run into criticism from European politicians who say it could increase immigration to Europe.

The N-VA faces electoral losses in its Dutch-speaking region to the harder-right, anti-immigration Vlaams Belang. Its leader Bart De Wever, the mayor of Belgium’s second city Antwerp, had issued Michel an ultimatum that it would quit the government if he signed the non-binding U.N. declaration.

A crisis cabinet meeting on Saturday night was cut short when two N-VA ministers, Interior Minister Jan Jambon and Migration Minister Theo Francken, walked out.

Michel said he would replace N-VA ministers with lower-ranked state secretaries and maintain a minority coalition involving his French-speaking liberal MR and two Flemish parties, the centre-right CD&V and Open VLD.

At least six EU states — mostly in formerly Communist eastern Europe — have already shunned the accord to regulate the treatment of migrants worldwide, a sign of how the bloc has turned increasingly restrictive on accepting refugees and migrants alike since a 2015 spike in arrivals.

Why all this trouble over a non-binding, toothless pact?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13398/un-global-compact-withdrawal

The EU has been paying particularly North African governments for years to keep migrants away from the European continent. The effort seems to have yielded few results in terms of stopping migration to Europe.

The UN Global Compact stipulates that, “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should not receive “public funding or material support.”

Already, it is clear what this stipulation means in practice. The UN recently banned the Canadian outlet Rebel Media from attending the Conference for the Adoption of the UN Global Migration Compact. When Rebel Media asked for an explanation, they were told that the UN, “reserves the right to deny or withdraw accreditation of journalists from media organizations whose activities run counter to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or who abuse the privileges so extended or put the accreditation to improper use or act in a way not consistent with the principles of the Organization. The decisions are final”.

This form of totalitarian behavior on the part of the UN should encourage more states that still value democracy, immediately to back out of the Compact.

The ongoing and bitter dispute between the EU and its Eastern European member states — countries such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic — that have refused to take in migrants as part of the EU’s quota system, might be approaching some sort of compromise. In an internal document circulated to EU interior ministers in Brussels in early December, Reuters reported, EU member states that refuse to host migrants in their countries could be exempted from doing so, if instead they show “alternative measures of solidarity.” According to diplomats, these “alternative measures” are apparently EU code for “paying into the EU budget or paying toward development projects in Africa”.

“The document,” Reuters noted, “said the European Union would need a proper mechanism to avoid a situation in which all EU governments opted to pay their way out of any hosting responsibilities and would set an eight-year period for any arrangements”.