• BombOmOm
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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:

        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.

        • The Octonaut
          link
          fedilink
          38
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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?

          • BombOmOm
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -8
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            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.

            • The Octonaut
              link
              fedilink
              52 days ago

              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?

              • BombOmOm
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 days ago

                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.

                • The Octonaut
                  link
                  fedilink
                  42 days ago

                  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.

        • @Xuderis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          13
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          The regulation states:

          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.

          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.

  • OneMeaningManyNames
    link
    fedilink
    English
    62 days ago

    People playing fast and loose with the terms “discrimination” and “racism” really grind my gears. We are talking about centuries of fucking crimes against humanity, and some sad little fuckers have the nerve to conflate reparations with the very crimes that were committed.

  • @Tm12@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    593 days ago

    Perhaps he could learn the difference between not being black and being a total piece of shit.

  • @latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    222 days ago

    I don’t even know why I bother with this train of though at this point, but I just can’t figure out if he seriously believes the shit he’s spouting, or if he’s just playing up the shock value like an edgelord. I mean, it’s clear he’s way dumber than he thinks himself to be, but I can’t get the nuance in it…

    • BombOmOm
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 days ago

      or if he’s just playing up the shock value like an edgelord

      Nothing shocking about it, South Africa discriminates based on race.

      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.

      • @Schmoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        12
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        If you’re going to do business with someone it’s completely reasonable that they set their own terms. Elon Musk does not have the right to force his business on a country that does not want to do business with him, no matter the reason. South Africa’s BEE regulations are intended to re-balance the scales after decades of brutal apartheid and oppression. People like Elon Musk notice the loss of privileges they once enjoyed and interpret it as an infringement on their rights equivalent to or worse than historically oppressed (because disadvantaged does not do justice to what they suffered) groups.

        And let’s be very clear, if he wants to do business in South Africa he should comply with the regulations and grant a 30% ownership stake to historically oppressed groups. He is not compelled to do so just as South Africa is not compelled to grant him a license.