Social Segregation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOCIAL SEGREGATION SOCIAL SEGREGATION Policy In February 1989 a spokesman for the minister of law and order announced that police had been ordered not to arrest people who contravened the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953. He said that police headquarters had issued a directive to all divisional commissioners, stipulating that police were not to arrest those contravening the act but to investigate any alleged offence and refer it to the local senior state prosecutor. He added, 'Because the arrest of someone is not regarded lightly by the South African Police, tangible proof must exist that the suspect has in fact committed the offence." In May 1989 the minister of constitutional development and planning, Mr Chris R ' is, said t.hat . e goe'mment was commi.ed ito '%x1A aad equal amenities for all communities on a non-discriminatory basis. Where amenities cannot be duplicated, they must be shared in an orderly fashion. This implies that all communities should be able to make use of such amenities in a civilised and well- ordered way'. Mr Heunis said that he had received a number of requests from industrialists and businessmen for the repeal of the act, as a result of 'difficulties' in towns where Conservative Party-controlled local authorities had reintroduced segregation (see 1988/89 Survey p28). He believed, however, that the repeal of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act was unacceptable. He reiterated that the government would not 'at this stage' proceed with legislation to prevent the CP from reintroducing petty apartheid.2 In an address to the federal congress of the National Party (NP) in Pretoria in June 1989 the minister of home affairs and of communications, Mr Stoffel Botha, reiterated the government's policy regarding public amenities, which remained identical to the policy outlined in February 1988 (see 1988/89 Survey p26), ie some public amenities would be shared by all races, but 'certain population groups had a need for their own amenities'. As in previous years, in 1989 all the parties in the houses of Delegates and Representatives, and the Progressive Federal Party (PFP) and later, the Democratic Party (DP), called on the government to repeal the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. In January 1989 Mr Harry Schwarz MP (PFP) submitted a private member's bill to repeal the act. The bill was rejected by the joint committee on private members' bills.4 In May 1989 Mr Desmond Lockey MP (Labour Party) said at a joint sitting of Parliament that the LP had 'got nowhere in four years of negotiation' and in its attempts to have the act repealed. He claimed that, 'retrospectively, the CP has made the biggest contribution to the abolition of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. They have caused the SOCIAL SEGREGATION government great embarrassment... Now that there is a Boksburg, they want to amend the act in such a way that Boksburg cannot put up any more notice-boards. However, apartheid can remain alive and well in Vereeniging, in the Johannesburg bus service and in the city centre of Pretoria'. He called on the government to abolish the act.5 The chairman of the House of Delegates, Mr Ebrahim Abramjee, said in July 1989 that petty apartheid was damaging the country's image abroad. He condemned the refusal of the Pretoria City Council earlier in the same month to allow blacks to join organised tours of the Rietvlei Dam and Riebeeck Nature Reserve near the city. Mr Abramjee called on the government to issue directives to local authorities for the repeal of discriminatory measures.6 There were also calls from businessmen for the repeal of the act. The chairman of the Johannesburg Central Business District Association, Mr Nigel Mandy, said in April 1989 that the government's condemnation of the reintroduction of petty apartheid in Boksburg (east Rand) and Carletonville (west Rand) 'clearly indicates that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act should be repealed'. The president of the Association of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of South Africa (ASSOCOM), Mr Sydney Matus, said in May 1989 that ASSOCOM regretted that the repeal of the act had not been undertaken during the current parliamentary session, 'in view of the economic damage that is being experienced in towns like Boksburg and Carletonville. ASSOCOM considers that the government has underestimated the harm these developments have caused economically and to South Africa's image overseas'.7 In an address to the President's Council in November 1989 the state president, Mr F W de Klerk, said that the government had decided to repeal the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act 'as soon as possible. It should, however, be done with careful consideration of the implications of such a step. There are a few sensitive areas, where the institution of fitting measures will be necessary when the act is repealed. The government will shortly enter into discussions, both on a parliamentary level and with other interest groups, before deciding on such measures'.8 At the same time Mr De Klerk appealed to local authorities to open all remaining segregated beaches to all races with immediate effect. 'In so far as ordinances or local bylaws may exist that are in conflict with the decision, the relevant authorities are requested to act in the spirit of this decision,' he said., Mr De Klerk's speech was welcomed by all the parties represented in Parliament, with the exception of the CP. The information officer of the CP, Mr Koos van der Merwe, said that the repeal of the act would be 'the beginning of the end of separate white community life and will lead to increased swamping of whites by people of colour in white areas'. A spokesman for the DP said that the repeal of the act would be another step in the 'inexorable crumbling of race-based policies in South Africa'. However, the DP felt 'concerned' about Mr De Klerk's reference to 'fitting measures' to replace the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. FACILITIES Mr De Klerk's decision was also welcomed by a wide range of businessmen and by foreign governments. ASSOCOM said in a statement that it was an important step in creating a positive climate for reconciliation and negotiation in the country. The prime minister of the United Kingdom, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, 'warmly welcomed' Mr De Klerk's announcement.10 On 2 February 1990 Mr De Klerk said in his opening address to Parliament that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act would be repealed in the present parliamentary session." Facilities Attitudes to shared facilities In April 1989 the acting head of the Department of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Natal, Mr Michael Sutcliffe, published the results of a survey of attitudes towards~sLgregationof facilities. The survey, which was undertaken in the central business district of Durban, involved a sample of 500 people of all races over 15 years of age. For the purposes of the survey the responses of Indian and coloured people were pooled. Some 78% of African respondents, 87% of coloured and Indian respondents, and 67% of white respondents felt that all facilities should be integrated. The proportions of the sample disapproving of integrated facilities were: Africans, 14%; coloured and Indian people, 3%; and whites, 8%. The survey also found that integrated beach facilities in Durban were seen as 'good' by 63% of Africans, 55% of Indians and coloured people, and 45% of whites. Some 10% of the African respondents, 23% of the Indians and coloured people, and 27% of whites considered integrated beach facilities to be 'bad'. However, 10% of Africans, 23% of Indians and coloured people, and 27% of whites refused to answer this question, or answered 'don't know'. White and African women were generally more conservative in their responses to the survey than white and African men. Younger whites were also generally more conservative in their attitudes regarding the sharing of facilities than older whites.12 Hotels and restaurants In April 1989, in renewing a licence for the Gold Lake Chinese Restaurant near Boksburg Lake, the Conservative Party-controlled town council of Boksburg (east Rand) ruled that the restaurant would be reserved for whites. (Previously it had been open to all races.) The leader of the National Party (NP) caucus in the council, Mr Chris Smith, said that many of the patrons of the Gold Lake Chinese Restaurant were Chinese, and since they were regarded as 'non-white' in terms of the law, they SOCIAL SEGREGATION would be excluded from dining at the establishment. He believed that the council had made the ruling because it wished to reserve the grounds around the lake for whites. Mr Smith described the decision as 'immoral'. The chief whip of the CP in the council, Mr T J Ferreira, denied that there had been a decision to bar Chinese people from the restaurant and he claimed that newspaper reports about the council's ruling were 'unfair, biased and viciously slanderous'. He said that Chinese people could continue to patronise the restaurant because they were regarded as 'honorary whites'. He threatened to take action against newspapers which had suggested otherwise.13 The new proprietors of the restaurant at the Voortrekker Monument (Pretoria) decided in July 1989 to open it to all races. Mr Willie Olivier, who was the previous owner of the restaurant and who had run it for ten years, was reported to have been a member of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, a right-wing organisation. In 1984 he had refused entry to the restaurant to five African schoolchildren and in 1986 three coloured students from the University of Stellenbosch had been barred from it.