A white South African who had overstayed his work visa in Canada applied for refugee status, claiming that if he returned to South Africa, black South Africans would “persecute” him. He was granted refugee status by an immigration board tribunal in Ottawa last week. According to media reports, the tribunal chair ruled that there was “clear and convincing proof of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect him” and added, “I find that the claimant would stand out like a ‘sore thumb’ due to his color in any part of the country.” This is taken seriously.

The problem is that poor black South Africans make up the majority of violent crime victims. Will Canada grant them refugee status, too?

As for the second point, that white people “stand out” in South Africa, this claim is so nonsensical that it hardly warrants comment.

The claimant, Brandon Huntley, also told the tribunal: “There’s a hatred of what we did to them, and it’s all about the color of your skin.” I must have missed a race riot or any retributive violence against whites in the 15 years since the end of Apartheid. Instead, poor black South Africans have turned against other black South Africans (immigrants, neighbors) and largely hold the state and ruling party—both majority black—responsible for their struggles.

This is the kind of rhetoric peddled on blogs by a section of expatriate white South Africans. That it was taken seriously by a Canadian court is mind-boggling.

What is also odd is that, from reports of the case, violent crime, which, as I said already, affects black people disproportionally, is defined as a race war against whites.

This is all surreal, yet some in and outside South Africa will defend this.

In another case, a family of white South African applicants claimed there was too much sun in South Africa when they applied to live in Canada. They won their case.