This suppression has been growing to the extent that certain groups and the media have been targeting prominent human rights activists like Steve Hofmeyr, Sunette Bridges, Dr. Dan Roodt and others, discrediting and ridiculing them.
Off course while the South African media has always praised overseas singers and artists for their human rights efforts, typically the same media has been demonising local singers and artists for their human rights activism. This has always been the case and is standard procedure for the South African media.
How this is done is best summarised as follows:
"Negative publicity are quickly reported on with the extent and seriousness of the issue white-washed to be quickly ignored for further scrutiny and buried in the cemetery of Consequenter. Think of Obama’s Fast & Furious scandal or Benghazi or the IRS scandal or…or…or…Think of how various reports by the Public Protector on DA controlled municipalities are swept under the rug and made out as less than what they actually are.In the latest, most publicised attack on Steve Hofmeyr, initiated by the new kid on the block, Africa Check, the media went out of their way to discredit and ridicule Steve Hofmeyr as much as possible. (See "Related Articles")
Criticism and detractors of the person [in the case of South Africa, the ANC government] is dealt with quickly, harshly and in the most vicious manner often resulting in character assassination, threats and personal insult. There are many examples of this available today – MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and CNN’s Piers Morgan are masters at the above when any criticism is levelled at Barack Obama’s Administration with the racism card being played often as an ad hominem audi alteram partum. The UK Media and UK Government’s treatment of the EDL, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer whom are all anti-Islamisation of Western Society. In South Africa we have Naspers’ media arm Media24 who has appointed themselves as the guardians of what may and may not be said by independent thinkers and Conservatives about Mandela, the ANC and the DA. They often employ the services of ideological hit-men or groupings such as AfricaCheck – which is funded by George Soros’ Soros Foundations – Max du Preez, Leopoldt Scholtz and Tim du Plessis with a sprinkling of lesser opinionadas covering the rear guard. Naspers very often censors the opinions of counter-thinking individuals skirting the SA Press Code, International Council for Press and Broadcasting and the right to free speech entrenched in the SA Constitution." - The Cult Personality & Idolatry
Throughout the article Africa Check tried to ridicule Steve Hofmeyr with immature assertions like "non-experts to support some form of race-based conspiracy theory", "a race-crime mythology", accusing him of making "sweeping statements" and so forth, which certainly is not becoming of an organisation hoping to earn respect as "fact-check" experts .
So Who is Africa Check?
Trust is earned through the test of time, not through marketing and self-acclaim. Africa Check has, by their own admission, only been in existence for short while, yet they proclaim themselves trustworthy beyond reproach?
Africa Check proclaims themselves "a non-partisan organisation that exists to fact-check claims made in the public arena, impartially and fairly, and publish the results."
As can be seen from their page "How we are funded", Africa Check is funded by exclusively liberal sources, most of which also supported the ANC pre-1994. They are also funded by none other than the Open Society Foundation for South Africa (See the members of the Board) founded by the infamous George Soros (For more information on Soros, see "Further Reading")
While our human rights activists in question are self-funded and independent, Africa Check cannot claim the same. Africa Check has to remain politically correct in accordance with the prescribed agenda and bound by the guidelines of their sponsors, such as George Soros, the Vienna based International Press Institute and WITS Journalism. If Africa Check is considered as being "non-partisan" then surely the Cosatu and State-owned Independent News and Media SA should also be considered "non-partisan".
Africa Check is dependent upon its liberal sponsors for their salaries and very existence.
"non-partisan"? and "impartial"?
Being sponsored, and particularly being exclusively sponsored by leftist-liberal sponsors, Africa Check is not in any position to proclaim themselves "non-partisan", "impartial", independent or objective. Who, but they themselves, appointed Africa Check the experts to"fact-check" others anyway?
Africa Check proclaims: "We seek, over time, to check all sides in any debate and we base our reports on fact not opinion." Yet, in the case of Steve Hofmeyr, we find no evidence of checking "all sides in any debate", we find rather a direct insulting attack on the credibility and integrity of Mr Hofmeyr.
As put in one of the comments to Africa Check's article: "I think this website could be an important tool for civil society in Africa. To do that, however, it needs to establish its credibility. The only way it will achieve that is if it sticks to cold, empirical facts. It seems that most of the content is being supplied by journalists who are trained to find a story. As a result, the pieces posted on here have emotive, newspaper-ish headlines like “Why Steve Hofmeyr is Wrong” and contain paragraphs of journalistic waffle that is unnecessary for the purpose of verifying the fact and ultimately winds up expressing an opinion." - By John
09:42 | 25 June 2013
The truth is that South Africa really does need a non-partisan, impartial, unbiased organisation that could "fact-check". Had Africa Check been sponsored by Republicans from the US and by conservative groups and organisations, the SA media would have laughed them off, but because they all tend to be leftist liberal, this makes the liberal sponsored Africa Check "respectable." Such an organisation should be above reproach, not be answerable to anyone, not be "politically correct" and not be "owned" by financial sponsors from only either the left or the right. It should consist of representatives from all sides, not just the left as is the case with Africa Check.
Now while Africa Check has a right to their biased opinion that dares to ask "Where does Hofmeyr get his information?", should we then not also be allowed to ask ...
Where does Africa Check get their information?
Africa Check says "The interpretation of data on “farm attacks” is problematic as it relies on old police data and current, self-reported data collected and submitted by the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa (TAUSA).", but where do they get their data from?
Crime statistics in South Africa are obtained primarily from two sources, the SA Police and Statistics SA. All analysis published by other sources are based on the figures supplied by the SA Police and Stats SA.
The question is, how trustworthy are the SA Police and Stats SA?
SA Police data, particularly new and current data, is so incomplete and unreliable that private individuals like Sunette Bridges, Adriana Stuijt, community forums like Farmitrackerand organisations like the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa (TAUSA), took it upon themselves, using their own time and resources, to try and gather information on attacks and murders from the limited number of reports in the media and from the families of victims. Conservative as their collected data may be, it is still jarring.
(Please note that in their attempts to hide and deny the murders on whites, liberals and the media have been using their contacts and resources to close down the Facebook pages, blogs and websites of people like Sunette Bridges and Adriana Stuijt, which list the names and circumstances relating to white murder victims.)
At least "McCafferty acknowledged himself." "several significant flaws in the presentation and interpretation of data", while Africa Check, in spite of all of the above, declares themselves flawless and beyond reproach with the statement that "All the independent security and research experts we consulted for this report agreed that current murder figures provided by the South Africa Police Service (SAPS) should be considered accurate."
Africa Check has "trouble with apartheid-era data"(?) based on their own assumptions, while it is quite obvious that the crime statistics they chose and presented as "accurate"according to their experts, are completely and utterly untrustworthy and not worth the paper it was written on, which in itself wipes Africa Check's article from the table in its entirety and destroys their own credibility without any outside help.
Rather than quoting many available examples, the following two quotes should suffice for showing just how untrustworthy Stats SA are (See "Further Reading" for many more examples):
By 2008 the total death figure had increased to 592 073. I did not bother to check any further. A 57 percent increase in deaths, while "Population growth could account for approximately 10% of this increase." and no one questions this? So what then are our population and our murder figures really? What are the causes of the ever increasing number of deaths in the country?
It is disappointing that an organisation that could have made a difference would attack Steve Hofmeyr and deny the murders on South Africans based on such untrustworthy data.
Africa Check had themselves reported that "Census 2011: StatsSA failed the open data test". They also reported that "SA police face R14 billion in civil lawsuits, not R7 billion as reported".
As a result Africa Check cannot claim ignorance about the untrustworthy state of South African crime statistics and yet, while 83% of South Africans believe that the SA police is corrupt, Africa Check found it appropriate to use their untrustworthy statistics to deny the murders of South Africans.
While independent crime experts refer to the the SA Polce crime statics as “farcical” and publicly state that “Some murders are listed and others are not.", Africa Check finds it appropriate to use those very same statistics to deny the murders of South Africans.
By knowingly using untrustworthy data for the basis of their denial about the true state of murders in South Africa, Africa Check failed in their claim that they are "a non-partisan organisation that exists to fact-check claims made in the public arena, impartially and fairly,"
Based on the above, clearly showing that the SA Police and Stats SA's data are completely untrustworthy, Africa Check's article must therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
Who’s claims about white murders really are grossly incorrect?
Obviously, based on the above, this article does not deserve any further attention, but we need to set the record straight and particularly on the ridiculous claim that only 6,498 whites have been murdered since 1994 and that whites supposedly account for only 1.8% of murders in South Africa.
Before we continue it is important to note that, notwithstanding the corruption in Stats SA, in their defence and in defence of statisticians generally, it must be pointed out that they are only able to work with the information and data they receive. Stats SA can only analyse that which is before them and they are therefore stuck with a "garbage-in-garbage-out" situation for which they cannot be blamed. The same applies to statisticians generally.
Africa Check on the other hand states that "All the independent security and research experts we consulted for this report agreed that current murder figures provided by the South Africa Police Service (SAPS) should be considered accurate.", which means that they do not deserve any defence. Are we to accept this data as accurate, because Africa Check and their experts, say so?
Africa Check goes on to use one part of one sentence from the entire section on Safety of youth, which spans some three pages in Chapter 12, Building safer communities, of the National Development Plan.
They strengthen their false assertion that only 6,498 (1.8%) whites have been murdered since 1994 by stating as "fact" that "The current murder rate of white South Africans is also equivalent to, or lower than, murder rates for whites recorded between 1979 and 1991."
What Africa Check omits to mention is that further down in the same NDP report it is stated that "The majority of the victims whose race could be established were Africans followed by coloureds and whites." Please note "whose race could be established".
The SA Police's dockets are so incomplete that out of a tiny sample of only 1378 murder dockets, the race of nine victims could not be established. It could therefore be possible that those nine victims were white, which would already have taken the percentage of whites murdered up to 2,5%, from 1.8%.
In a further six cases the gender was unknown and in 173 cases the age of the victim (some of which they could perhaps be excused for) was unknown, which means that the SA Police would have had to charge someone for murder, while not even knowing the age, the gender or race of a particular victim? No wonder we have a pathetic murder conviction rate of only some 10%.
Africa check quotes from the NDP, without referencing the original study, because while the NDP document references the "Mid-year population estimates: 2009", it also does not reference the original study from which this information was supposedly obtained.
Africa Check has obviously never seen the original study.
Africa Check has no clue as to:
Had the SA Police actually done their work, there would have been no need for a "sample analysis" of this kind, because all the information calculated from the mere 1378 dockets would have been readily available in detail and would have been made available with each publication of crime figures. Unfortunately the SA Police dockets are too incomplete to do this, which forces statisticians into drawing samples to try and get some idea of the crime situation in South Africa.
I consulted a senior lecturer in Statistics at one of our local universities to check the maths and particularly the probabilities of the farcical conclusions arrived at in the Africa Check article, but then realised I was a wasting his time, because based on the information already provided thus far, the maths in the Africa Check document is comparable to Ma and Pa Kettle's Maths and that each and every single statement in their article must be dismissed as rubbish.
South Africa's criminal justice data
As can be seen from the following quotes, South Africa's criminal justice data is in such shambles that it is virtually impossible to make any sense of it.
- Crime conviction rates in SA (10.6% - 2006)
- Conviction rate for murder 12.6% - Kohler Barnard (2007/08 SAPS Annual Report)
- Crime statistics – ‘It’s not safe here’ - 22 September 2012
- Expert: Low rate of murder convictions in South Africa (less than 10% - 2013)
Murder statistics are influenced by convictions. Each time a case against a person charged with murder is dismissed or changed to a lesser conviction such a culpable homicide, it affects the murder statistics. Cases take years to complete, while murdered statistics are published in the meantime, albeit six months late on average and only once a year.
Please be reminded that at no stage does Africa Check admit that they were basing their denial on untrustworthy, let alone completely “farcical” crime statistics. While Africa Check has the audacity to accuse Steve Hofmeyr of making "several sweeping statements about South Africa’s murder rate" it should be clear by now that the entire Africa Check article is nothing other than a compilation of "several sweeping statements".
Misclassification of Deaths
Misclassification of death has a serious direct impact upon the accuracy of statistics relating to cause of death. To demonstrate just how worthless South African data really is, I wish to presented the following unrelated, yet excellent example:
While the media is singing the praise of the SA government's claims that South Africa is winning the battle against HIV/AIDS and how fewer and fewer people have been dying from HIV/AIDS in this country, the results of a truly a groundbreaking study published by the World Health Organisation in February 2011 confirmed, "the substantial misclassification of HIV/AIDS deaths in South Africa’s vital registration system reported in the literature." It then validates this statement with the following shocking revelation "While audits of death records in selected areas in 2003–2004 have shown that 53–73% of HIV/AIDS deaths do not explicitly record HIV/AIDS as the underlying cause of death, this study suggests that during 1996–2006 as many as 94% of all HIV/AIDS deaths in the country were being misclassified" - Exposing misclassified HIV/AIDS deaths in South Africa Published online: 17 February 2011
South Africa has also seen a 400 per cent increase in TB cases over the past 15 years, and more than 70 per cent of patients are co-infected with HIV. - Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) programme in Khayelitsha
And yes you read correctly, "94% [NINETY FOUR PERCENT] of all HIV/AIDS deaths in the country were being misclassified." But why could this be?
Obviously, where an ostensible victory over HIV/AIDS could secure more donations, a perceived futility could see major universal donation fatigue.
The NPD document from which Africa Check selected only part of one sentence upon which to build their denial states that "it is clear that more attention should be given to the causal factors of homicides.", but is this possible if the causes of death are not recorded correctly?
South Africa's top 10 causes of death, according to Stats SA 2008 were:
1st place - Ill-defined and unknown causes: 80 515 (13,6%)
5th place - Other external causes of accidental injury: 33 983 (5,7%)
Garbage codes in mortality data are those codes which do not signify an underlying cause of death. The underlying cause of death means; "the disease or injury that started the sequence of events leading directly to death or the circumstances of the accident or violence that produced the fatal injury."
In 2008 a total of 592 073 deaths were recorded in South Africa. Almost one third, 29.5% or 174 872, of the total number of deaths were recorded as garbage categories.
But what about the misclassification of external cause of deaths (e.g. hunting accident orinterpersonal violence) due to injury (e.g. gunshot wound on the head)?
A 2012 document published by Statistics South Africa states that "Currently, the circumstances (manner, external cause and intent) of almost half of the injury deaths in South Africa are unknown."
To be more specific "in 47% of injuries the specific external cause is unknown", external cause being "hunting accident or interpersonal violence"
Once again you read it correctly. In 47.1%, almost half, of all injury deaths the external cause is unknown. - Cause of Death Certification: A guide for completing the Notice of Death/Stillbirth (DHA-1663), Pali Lehohla, Statistician-General, Statistics South Africa, 2012
And yet Africa Check says "All the independent security and research experts we consulted for this report agreed that current murder figures provided by the South Africa Police Service (SAPS) should be considered accurate."?
From the above it should be quite obvious that South Africa's murder figures are grossly incorrect and grossly understated.
Based on the above, Africa Check's ridiculous assertion that only 6,498 whites have been murdered and that whites supposedly account for only 1.8% of murders in South Africa must be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.
White Murders at the hands of Blacks
In a politically correct attempt to deny that whites are being murdered by blacks in South Africa, Africa Check asserts that "Even if the proportion of “outsider” crime was doubled for white homicide victims, this would still fall drastically short of the “77.3%” of white murders that Hofmeyr appears to claim are at the hands of black perpetrators."
Firstly, I could not find any evidence of any study ever conducted where SA Police dockets of white murder victims were sampled to determine the race of their murderers in an attempt to disprove that whites are being murdered mostly by blacks.
Secondly, Africa Check used the SAPS annual report 2011/2012, which we have already shown to be farcical and virtually worthless.
Thirdly, in an attempt to strengthen their misleading assertion, Africa Check then goes on to state that "The 2012 Victims of Crime Survey confirmed this assertion", while it is clearly stated on page 61 of the said survey, under the heading "10.11 Reliability of the survey estimates", that;
"in the research for my book I uncovered data according to which, at 76.6 percent of the population, blacks committed 76.4 percent of “intimate femicides” (defined as “the killing of a female person by an intimate partner”). And they committed 68.3 percent of “non-intimate femicides”: “the killing of a woman by someone other than an intimate partner.”- Blade runner killing and the media blackout
Whites have proven woefully inadequate to the task of filling their pro-rata crime quotas (page 38). At less than nine percent of the population and dwindling, the corresponding numbers for white South Africans were 3.9 and 2.6 percent respectively.
With respect to incarceration rates, whites "underperformed" again. According to the South African Department of Correctional Services, 113,773 criminals had been sentenced as of June 2008, of whom only 2,190 were white.[Notwithstanding the fact that whites account for 8.9% of the total population]Whites make up only 1.9 percent of the number of sentenced criminals.
Weighing in with 90,013 sentenced individuals — approximately 79.1 percent of the total number of criminals sentenced — blacks more than filled their per-population crime allotment."
- Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa - Ilana Mercer
Ridiculously, Africa Check denies that whites are being murdered mostly by blacks. So Who is doing the Killing then? Are they perhaps trying to create the perception that whites are behind the committing of these xenophobic killings? That whites are being murdered by whites, while we can barely calculate the number of whites convicted for murder each year?
Is Africa Check also trying to suggest that whites are committing the corrective rapes on lesbians, that whites are raping babies in an attempt to cure themselves of HIV/AIDS? Or is Africa Check trying to suggest that whites are committing the rapes and therefore rapists have a 99% chance of getting away with their crimes?
Given the above we have to conclude that Africa Check's misleading politically correct assertion that whites are not being murdered mostly by blacks, must be dismissed.
Drugs and Crime in South Africa
Notwithstanding the fact that 'SA has lost the war on drugs' evidenced by at least a 600% increase in drug abuse over the last ten years (which continues to rise year-on-year) and the clear link between substance abuse and crime, including murder and assault, miraculously South Africa still claims an annual decrease in crime over the same period. If this was possible, let alone true, then South Africa should patent their formula and sell it to security agencies in all other countries of the world.
The forgotten victims of attacks that the media choose to ignore
Six out of seven people shot with a handgun survive. Only 5% survive gunshot wounds to the head, with only 3% achieving a good quality of life afterwards. An ex-colleague of my son'sentire family was wiped out by what the media continues to call "robbers". Three black gunmen fired 14 shots at their bodies. His brother died within a week of taking six bullets during the brutal armed assault and his mother died within one month from three bullets during the armed attack, while his father survived the three gunshot wounds, only to die from complications more than seven months later. The son's girlfriend survived a gunshot injury to her leg.
We usually only hear of the armed assault victims who died at the scene or during the initial hospital stay. In cases such as the father who died seven months later, it is seldom classified as murder or death due to gunshot injury. In most cases the cause of death would be misclassified, not indicating murder or even due to gunshot injury.
More than this, while most patients survive (do not immediately die from) gunshot wounds most will eventually die from their gunshot wounds to the torso, pelvis, neck and head, many months or even many years later. A person is never the same after a gunshot wound and they are usually in and out of hospital for the rest of their lives.
While many patients do not die soon after attacks with guns, knives, pangas (machetes) and other dangerous objects, they are often left paralysed, end up as vegetables, mentally and emotionally unstable, blind, deaf, left without a leg or arm, many even committing suicide later on. Many victims are so injured and so maimed for life that they might as well be considered dead, because they have no quality of life afterwards.
The best example of this must be Foresaken Hero Cherise Cox - Shot Policewoman Cast Aside By Metro Police who battled without quality of life until her death almost ten years after having been shot during an armed robbery committed by four black gunmen of the “Shezi gang”. Of course this is not the kind of story that would draw any kind or interest from Africa Check and their kind, but to us mere average white South Africans these cases actually matter. While Africa Check makes it their business to deny the murdering of whites, we make it our business to make the world aware of it.
There are many more attacks than victims dying from those attacks and while the media is doing their utmost best to deny the murder figures, they ignore these assault victims completely. The South African criminal justice data is in such shambles that virtually 100% of the victims who die later on fall through the cracks.
Just with regards to farm attacks alone, Treurgrond describes the attacks on at least 5 818 direct victims over the period 1990 to 2012.
As a matter of interest, one article claimed that between 77% (house) and 87% (business) of all robberies are armed robberies and that guns are the cause of death in more than half of all murders. If we were to deduct the comparatively small number of murders committed by owners of legally licensed firearms and and killings committed by the SA Police, which are also legally owned firearms, we find that the vast, vast majority of all armed assaults are committed with illegal firearms, a problem that is yet to be addressed in any meaningful way in this country.
From the above it should be quite obvious that Africa Check and their experts' ridiculous assertion, based on part of one sentence extracted from an entire unreferenced document, that only 6,498 whites have been murdered since 1994 and that whites supposedly account for only 1.8% of murders in South Africa must be dismissed entirely.
Apartheid era data
As for Africa Check's section under the heading "The trouble with apartheid-era data" it is not even worthy of comment. The entire section contains no facts, only assumptions, pure conjecture without any evidence and sweeping statement like "it is probable that....black homicides was understated in official reports" and "the data is simply not reliable enough to make any accurate findings", while their own entire article is based on farcical data.
They state that "Since 1990, race has not been listed as a category in official death records." yet they are denying the white murder figures based on these very statistics?
They then shoot themselves in the foot by adding that "This deliberate omission may have been intended to avoid exactly the kind of issue raised by Hofmeyr’s claims; the interpretation of raw data by non-experts to support some form of race-based conspiracy theory. In reality, however, the absence of such information has effectively perpetuated a race-crime mythology in South Africa."
They are thereby admitting that prior to 1990, before FW de Klerk arrived on the scene, deaths were in fact classified by race, while at the same time attempting to sweep it under the carpet with the sweeping assumption, without any supporting evidence that "it is probable that....black homicides was understated in official reports" . Africa Check may also be suggesting that the interpretation of raw data by their "experts" based on untrustworthy farcical statistics to support denial of race-based murders would be more acceptable.
At the same time Africa Check tries to create the impression that the "Apartheid Government" tried to hide black deaths by no longer listing "race as a category in official death records.", while this is exactly the reason why the current SA government, the SA Police, Africa Check and the liberal media have been avoiding race classification of crime in South Africa since 1994. Why has Africa Check not complained about this very trend being perpetuated since 1994? The non-racial classification of deaths did not start in 1990 under the "Apartheid Government" and end in 1994 under the so-called democratic ANC, it became much worse after 1994, because they have been trying to hide the murdering of whites under this government's rule.
While Steve Hofmeyr was discussing murders, Africa Check chose to draw no distinction between deaths due to political violence in South Africa before 1994 and actual murders. In their attempt to demonise pre-1994 South Africa in an effort to make the New South Africa under the ANC look good, they conveniently forgot to mention the 7000 political deaths between 1948 and 1989, 30 abductions, 38 disappearances and another 150 internal assassinations, the total of 73 deaths in detention recorded by the HRC as deaths while in the hands of the security police, the 37 who died while in custody of the uniformed police under politically-related circumstances, the 14,000 deaths and 22,000 casualties that occurred between 1990-1994 in South Africa due to political violence (mostly black-on-black), which NelsonMandela.org states as 12,000 deaths without mentioning that it was black-on-black political violence.
They also omit the fact that 90% of the deaths were attributed to vigilante-style activity (Black on Black) as the two political parties engaged in a series of attacks and counter-attacks in villages, tribes, and cities. 600 deaths were the direct cause of South African police intervention and 173 deaths were believed to be acts of state-sponsored assassinations.
The 1976 riots where the number of people who died is usually given as 176 with unconfirmed estimates up to 700 and Sharpville figures were also part of the murder figures used to obscure the comparison between the old and the new South Africa.
Africa Check is trying to deny the farm murders without any evidence whatsoever. Africa Check has never conducted any research into farm murders. All they have is one ten-year-old SA Police committee inquiry into farm attacks dating back to 2003 and the figures produced by the Transvaal Agricultural Union of South Africa (TAUSA).
Africa Check goes on to contradict themselves by quoting the TAUSA’s figures which clearly show that only 13.5% of the total number of people murdered on farms between 1990 and 2012 were black. The rest were white.
The only figures we have are contained in the book Treurgrond which, while considered the most comprehensive and most accurate database of South African farm murders to date, is as admitted by the publishers as being a very conservative representation of the reality at best, because this database was compiled from reports on farm murders in the media and information obtained from farmers who are members of the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAUSA) only. This huge task was undertaken, because the SA Police is incapable of doing so and Africa Check is too scared to even try, for fear of what they may find.
Africa Check ends off with the sweeping statement, without any evidence to the contrary, that "Hofmeyr’s statement that a white farmer is murdered every five days is therefore also incorrect. The claim would only be true if he included all farm attack victims of all races."This proves that Africa Check did not even bother to consult with TAUSA to learn that they had in fact done this in the meantime, which provided even more damning evidence showing how white farmers are being killed like flies.
In the book "Bloedsusters" written by Eileen de Jager en Roelien Schutte who run a country-wide crime clean-up service, the authors conclude from personal on site experience that farm murders are far more brutal than other murders. They also stated that they have observed a marked increase in the brutality during farm attacks.
Based on the fact that Africa Check has no research to back up their denial of white farm murder figures their conclusions must be dismissed
"Denialism and political correctness are both tacit approval and the single most important perpetuators of the murders, rapes, violent crime and corruption in South Africa. By denying that we have a rape problem, a murder problem, a high-jacking and juvenile delinquency problem we are actually stating that we have no problem." - How Liberals' Denialism Bred A Culture of Entitlement Among SA Blacks
It is obvious that the SA Police, Africa Check and other news media have much to hide about what is truly happening in the New South Africa under the ANC.
Denialism is so pervasive in the liberal media that they have lost all sense of morality.
While the killing of rhinos is an important issue, it enjoys a hundred time more exposure than the murdering and raping of hundreds of thousands of human beings in South Africa. While we often see articles about the rhino killings on the front pages of newspapers we very seldom, if ever, see any articles on the almost half a million murders under ANC rule since 1994 making the news.
Africa Check, in their anxiousness to deny the murdering of whites uses the already downward manipulated figure of 361 015 people murdered in South Africa without even flinching an eyelid, not sparing a moment to focus any attention on it.
Had this been any other country, there would have been a constant outcry from the media, the churches, human rights groups, opposition parties and NGOs, but not in South Africa. Here they choose to rather deny it than draw any attention to it.
But, If foreigners knew the truth, would South Africa still have secured 87 business conferences worth R2.6 billion between 2013 and 2017?
In any other country the media would have lashed out at their government about the scandalous state of crime, the murder and rapes as well as the inaccuracy of statistical data, but not in South Africa. Here the media and the various groups prefer using the sad state of crime statistics to assist them in protecting the false angelic image of the ANC, its leaders and the New South Africa that the very media helped to create.
So serious is the situation in South Africa that media houses should have crime, murder and rape counters running on their home pages, to draw attention and pressure the government into action.
Instead, the media is using their demonisation of activists fighting for their own people as a means to draw attention away from the murders and rapes generally. The media is not only denying the xenophobic murdering of whites, they are using their denial of it to also deny the murders of all South Africans at the same time by trying to find ways and means to further downscale the already diluted murder, rape and crime figures.
Because there is an outcry from one particular race group (particularly being the whites) making the world aware of the dangerous nature of the situation by crying out for help to stop the xenophobic murdering of their own people, their family and their friends, the media considers it their duty to jump to the defence of their beloved government by using untrustworthy crime statistics to deny the murders generally.
In South Africa the media sees themselves as the officially appointed protectors of the false angelic image of the ruling party that the media had created for them.
Conclusion - Africa Check's claims are grossly incorrect
Barbara Holtman, leader of research into crime and violence at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) said. “But in reality, we will know when we are getting safer. Not because the crime statistics tell us, but because it will become acceptable to walk alone at night, or because we worry less about our children when they are not with us, or when we are confident to use public transport.” - A society still driven by fear
Given the obvious discrepancies between claims of reducing crime figures, drastically increasing drug abuse and trafficking, the gross misclassification of causes of deaths, the inexplicable increasing number of annual recorded deaths, totally unreconcilable criminal justice data, ludicrous crime statistics and SA Police corruption, which includes unrecorded post-mortem reports and allegations of police negligence and manipulation of crime figures, all Africa Check's statements suggesting a declining, lesser or lower post-1994 murder rate, including "the [murder] rate had fallen", "The murder rate has continued to decline", "it is lower than the murder rate documented in 1970 under apartheid.", and including their statement that "Both McCafferty and Hofmeyr’s claims about murder number discrepancies must therefore be dismissed.", "Hofmeyr’s claims are incorrect and grossly exaggerated the level of killings.", the heading "Conclusion – Hofmeyr’s claims are grossly incorrect" and their closing paragraph MUST ALL THEREFORE BE DISMISSED.
In their over-anxiousness to demonise, discredit and ridicule Steve Hofmeyr, Africa Check actually discredited and ridiculed themselves, thereby showing that Africa Check must be disregarded and dismissed as a possible source of trustworthy information.
Given the above we have to conclude that Steve Hofmeyr was right, whites are being murdered like flies in South Africa. At the same time, blacks, coloureds and Indians are being murdered like flies in South Africa too, while there is no outcry from the media, only denial.
White, black, coloured, Indian, male and female, newborns, babies, toddlers, teenagers, adolescent, adults and old people are being raped like flies in South Africa, while there is no outcry from the media, only denial.