The article literally says South Africa bans Starlink due to the race of the owner. As his race does not meet South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) regulations:
Starlink, the satellite internet service operated by Musk’s SpaceX, has been unable to enter the South African market due to the country’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) regulations. These laws require that companies providing communication services be at least 30% owned by historically disadvantaged groups to receive an operating license.
Equality
8. (1) Every person shall have the right to equality before the law
and
to equal protection of the law.
(2) No person shall be unfairly discriminated against, directly or
indirectly, and, without derogating from the generality of this
provision,
on one or more of the following grounds in particular: race, gender, sex,
ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability,
religion, conscience, belief, culture or language.
(3) (a) This section shall not preclude measures designed to achieve
the adequate protection and advancement of persons or groups or
categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination, in
order to enable their full and equal enjoyment of all rights and
freedoms.
(b) Every person or community dispossessed of rights in land before
the
commencement of this Constitution under any law which would have
been inconsistent with subsection (2) had that subsection been in
operation at the time of the dispossession, shall be entitled to
claim restitution of such rights subject to and in accordance
with
sections 121, 122 and 123.
(4) Prima facie proof of discrimination on any of the grounds
specified
in subsection (2) shall be presumed to be sufficient proof of unfair
discrimination as contemplated in that subsection, until the contrary is
established.
“Black Economic Empowerment” does not mean “no whites”. It means “blacks need to be part of the economy”. BLM does not mean “white lives do not matter”. It means “blacks shouldn’t be dying”. Feminism does not mean “women should be held above men”. It means “women should be treated equally”.
The only thing excluding Musk: he isn’t part of a marginalized group. He’s a billionaire. He isn’t marginalized.
So he can still own it as a white man so long as he allows 30% to be owned by someone black, Cape Malay, Indian, San, KhoiKhoi or ‘coloured’, or indeed many people fitting any of those.
Not because he “isn’t black”.
Lots of countries have rules about local ownership; eg in Thailand businesses and properties have to be 51% owned by a Thai person. Of course the difference here is that for centuries the rules were increasingly enforced to treat certain races as foreigners, to the point of quite literally trying to declare parts of itself independent ie foreign. This creates a weird scenario after the fall of apartheid that is definitely uncomfortable to read but how do you undo centuries of this with carrot instead of stick when it’s people like Musk and Peter Thiel?
Under current conditions Starlink cannot exist in South Africa. If we change a single variable, Musk’s race to black, then Starlink can exist in South Africa (it would be >30% owned by a black person).
Sure. We can also change a single variable and have him sell 30% of it. And now he can be an apartheid nepo-baby and still run a telecommunications company in the nation his father helped to devastate.
We can also change a single variable and have him sell 30% of it.
And if he sells 30% of it to people of ‘the wrong race’, South Africa still won’t allow in the company. The critical variable is the race of the owner(s); South Africa is demonstrably discriminating based on race.
As it turns out, just declaring everything fine now doesn’t actually address the disparities of wealth and power when you have had much worse laws in place for much longer.
Happy St Patrick’s Day! In Ireland we burned the mansion houses of English landlords after independence. I’m not going to judge non-white South Africans for enforcing a fucking minority shareholder policy.
They aren’t. He’s lying.
https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/starlink-is-not-allowed-to-operate-in-south-africa-because-im-not-black-elon-musk/wrz3chh?op=1
The article literally says South Africa bans Starlink due to the race of the owner. As his race does not meet South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) regulations:
The regulation states:
Source: https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1993-200.pdf
“Black Economic Empowerment” does not mean “no whites”. It means “blacks need to be part of the economy”. BLM does not mean “white lives do not matter”. It means “blacks shouldn’t be dying”. Feminism does not mean “women should be held above men”. It means “women should be treated equally”.
The only thing excluding Musk: he isn’t part of a marginalized group. He’s a billionaire. He isn’t marginalized.
So he can still own it as a white man so long as he allows 30% to be owned by someone black, Cape Malay, Indian, San, KhoiKhoi or ‘coloured’, or indeed many people fitting any of those.
Not because he “isn’t black”.
Lots of countries have rules about local ownership; eg in Thailand businesses and properties have to be 51% owned by a Thai person. Of course the difference here is that for centuries the rules were increasingly enforced to treat certain races as foreigners, to the point of quite literally trying to declare parts of itself independent ie foreign. This creates a weird scenario after the fall of apartheid that is definitely uncomfortable to read but how do you undo centuries of this with carrot instead of stick when it’s people like Musk and Peter Thiel?
Under current conditions Starlink cannot exist in South Africa. If we change a single variable, Musk’s race to black, then Starlink can exist in South Africa (it would be >30% owned by a black person).
South Africa is discriminating based on race.
Sure. We can also change a single variable and have him sell 30% of it. And now he can be an apartheid nepo-baby and still run a telecommunications company in the nation his father helped to devastate.
What’s your point?
And if he sells 30% of it to people of ‘the wrong race’, South Africa still won’t allow in the company. The critical variable is the race of the owner(s); South Africa is demonstrably discriminating based on race.
Yes? I acknowledged that in my original comment.
As it turns out, just declaring everything fine now doesn’t actually address the disparities of wealth and power when you have had much worse laws in place for much longer.
Happy St Patrick’s Day! In Ireland we burned the mansion houses of English landlords after independence. I’m not going to judge non-white South Africans for enforcing a fucking minority shareholder policy.