In the year of the centenary anniversary of the infamous 1913 Land Act, which excluded the black population from ownership of 87 per cent of the country, land rights and land distribution remain contested issues in South Africa. After the end of apartheid, white commercial farmers owned almost 70 per cent of the agricultural land and leased an additional 19 per cent. The African National Congress (ANC) promised the redistribution of 30 per cent of white-owned agricultural land and the restitution of land lost due to discriminatory legislation by 1999. The policy put in place worked on the basis of a 'willing seller, willing buyer' (WSWB) principle, but white land-owners were reluctant to sell to the state. The government's aim of redistributing 30 per cent of farmland by 1999 failed, with less than a third of this target reached. Nonetheless, the South African government resisted calls for expropriation without compensation, and instead replaced WSWB with expropriation through 'just and equitable' compensation, as is sanctioned by the South African Constitution.

On 23 May 2013, the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill was published for public comment. The bill gives those who missed out on the last land claims bill in 1998 the opportunity to file for compensation. The bill applies to everyone who was dispossessed after June 1913 due to ethnic discrimination, provided they were not paid 'just or equitable' compensation. Contrary to the 2011 land reform green paper, the new bill includes an exception for the Khoi and San communities, who were dispossessed before the 1913 cut-off. The importance of this was emphasized by the rural development and land reform minister, Gugile Nkwinti, who stated that 'the Khoi and San people were the first lines of defending the land when the country was invaded by colonialists'. He also claimed that their exclusion from the land claim process had not been deliberate, but 'systemic'. The National Assembly passed the bill in February 2014.

With regard to hate speech, South Africa witnessed both positive and negative developments in 2013. In September the South African government announced plans to introduce a draft policy framework on combating hate crimes and hate speech, following concerns about a rise in hate crimes in South Africa. Up to this point, South African law did not provide specifically for hate crime offences. This is partly due to an approach of treating crimes simply as criminal offences, regardless of the intentions behind them. During discussions around the draft policy framework, the Hate Crimes Working Group, along with other civil society organizations, noted that it had identified 450 hate crimes in five provinces since 2005, including 150 incidents against foreign nationals.

White South Africans, particularly farmers, have stated that violent attacks against them are motivated by ethnicity. Following the erosion of their privilege, white South Africans from the Afrikaaner community feel vulnerable, both as whites and as a linguistic group. Indeed, there has been an increase in poverty among some white South Africans, including Afrikaaners, which is visible for example in the emergence of white slums. However, this change is obscured by the fact that – on average – white South African households still benefit from an annual income six times higher than that of black households in the country.

Sexual violence in general is an issue that affects many women in South Africa. This includes the practice of 'thwala' bride abductions, a deliberate misinterpretation of tribal customs in which Zulu women in remote areas are abducted, raped and forced into marriages in exchange for cattle given to their families. Often authorities dismiss complaints as they consider it a cultural practice or a domestic issue. In April 2013, Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini openly spoke out against violence against women in the KwaZulu-Natal province and urged other traditional leaders to do the same and encourage cooperation with the police.

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.