The Constitutional Court has refused to hear AfriForum’s appeal of the ruling that “Kill the Boer” is protected speech rather than hate speech.

In the two-sentence statement released by the court, the appeal was not rejected on the basis of any representations by either party, nor on procedural grounds, but on a purely prejudicial basis: "The Constitutional Court has considered the application for leave to appeal. It has concluded that the application should be dismissed as it bears no reasonable prospects of success."

Advocate Willie Spies summarised the situation in a post on X: “Shocking ruling by the ConCourt. No hearing. No written arguments considered. The EFF didn't even bother to oppose the application but the court in its wisdom ruled in favour of the hate chant "Kill the Boer" in a one pager.”

Martin van Staden completed the observation with his own: “The Court just took a sledgehammer to its own credibility. One of the first things law students are taught is that the courts need to be careful about not closing doors to peacefully/legally settling disputes (because the alternative is... well, spicy). This bench forgot that.”

The courts have now tacitly declared the intention to make rulings on an obviously arbitrary and racial basis, and the law now insists on clear and unambiguous enforcement of lèse-majesté for the black race. While it defies common sense that an obviously genocidal warcry should be considered a mere act of nostalgia, the act of refusing a hearing amid the contentious conditions we now find ourselves in presents a dilemma.

The President recently told Afrikaners reaching out to the United States for support that they should try the South African courts first. Well, now that excuse is gone. Afrikaners and other minorities are now on their own, facing a massively expanded state machinery that will shortly have near-plenary power to interfere in the lives of any citizen.

With a racially discriminatory legal corpus and civil service, a permanent black-nationalist supermajority in the legislature (ANC+EFF+MK still equal 65%), an intransigent presidency, and now a court system increasingly staffed with ideological radicals indifferent to abuse or systemic risks of social fission, there is no branch of government that can be considered to treat minorities as full citizens.

The DA have shown themselves toothless and indifferent, and are guided by a strategist intent on not just appeasement but collaboration and active support and perpetuation of the present system.

The United States is solely concerned with South African foreign policy, and have very few levers to use to change the present state of affairs. While they could theoretically find utility in assisting Western Cape secession, minorities in the interior will have to fight for themselves. Those dreaming of refugee status will find themselves limited by logistical and financial challenges, which mean that at most, 15% of the white population will be able to take advantage by my estimate.

AfriForum and Solidariteit, who have been hesitant and risk averse regarding tangible acquisition of autonomous power, will now have to decide whether they are to remain a progressive force (in the sense of moving forward, not leftward), or stagnate.

Political movements, much like sharks, cannot afford to stop swimming or they sink, and eventually die.

We may well complain about the present state of affairs, but complaints are now officially invalid. The notion that this direction of change will reverse is absurd - the ruling party has accelerated its programme, the younger generation is more radical and intolerant than their elders, and the white community is smaller and less toothy than ever.

But there is simply not enough time to replace the Solidariteit movement for what they are - they are effectively the only safeguard for minority rights in the country. Only the Afrikaners, for a variety of reasons, have the capacity to organise as a community and avoid infiltration and subversion.

But they have been extremely hesitant to take new forms of action. The marginal replacement of state functions and the appeal of laws through the courts now needs to be supplemented by a massive gear shift towards tangible and localised acquisition of power and control.

I have outlined several of their options here, none of which are violent, but which provide the tools necessary to oppose state violence and oppressive behaviour in the future, a necessary prerequisite when the political programme has become clear and unambiguous, and its delivery has become inevitable.

I am sure that, given a concerted focus, the chaps at the head office will be able to come up with some form of solution. But they will need to act quickly if they are to pre-empt the fiscal cliff, which will almost certainly accelerate stochastic violence and land seizure.

‍