Sexual Violence and Xenophobia: The Silent Scream
CHARLENE MAY AND MANDIVAVARIRA MUDARIKWA
The South African Immigration Act broadly defines the word ‘foreigner’ to describe non-nationals. In this chapter, the words ‘foreigner’ and ‘migrant’ will be used interchangeably to refer to non-nationals, regardless of their immigration status.1
The May 2008 xenophobic attacks started in Alexandra, Diepsloot and Tembisa, and soon spread to other communities throughout South Africa. Between 11 May and 14 June an estimated 62 deaths, hundreds of injuries and the displacement of more than 100,000 foreigners nationally had been reported.2 Although the victims of the attacks included both South African citizens and foreign nationals, the violence revealed the presence of powerful xenophobic sentiment that remains to this day. While estimates are available to account for the deaths, injuries, displacements and rand value of property damage or loss, there is a dearth of information about victims of sexual violence.
Prior to 2008, xenophobic attacks on foreigners were isolated and random at best, while the 2008 attacks were sustained and the scale of violence incomparable.3 Nevertheless, the attacks exposed many of the tensions that exist in the country.
While the perpetrators of the 2008 xenophobic attacks did not discriminate on the basis of gender, the vulnerabilities of migrant women are often overlooked. The prevalence of violence in South Africa, particularly gender-based sexual violence, is well documented and researched. Legislation has been passed to further protect complainants and to combat the high incidence of sexual offences. However, the prevalence of sexual violence in the domain of the 2008 xenophobic attacks remains, largely, undocumented.
Xenophobia and sexual violence are often thought to be separate and distinct. However, in South Africa there is a significant overlap between the criminal dimension of sexual violence and xenophobia. The challenges faced by migrant women have been described as a ‘double jeopardy’.4 As both foreign and female, migrant women are at a key intersection of two groups that are particularly vulnerable to violence, exploitation and abuse. It is at the intersection of xenophobia and sexual violence that foreign women are left vulnerable, with little or no intervention from significant role players.
WHAT IS XENOPHOBIA?
The word ‘xenophobia’ originates from the Greek words for foreign (xenos) and fear (phobos).5 Literally translated it is the ‘hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers’. Bronwyn Harris argues that xenophobia is characterised by a negative attitude towards ‘foreigners, a dislike, a fear, or hatred’.6 While there is no legal definition of xenophobia in South Africa, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) defines it as the, ‘deep dislike of non-nationals by nationals of a recipient state’.7 Describing xenophobia, Lesley Wexler states that:
‘Such hatred manifests itself in the misguided fears that migrants drive up crime, disrupt cohesive communities, and use valuable government resources without making positive contributions in return. Once citizens see immigrants as outsiders in the relevant community, it becomes much easier to dehumanize them and treat them poorly. Similarly, many at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder view migrants as threats to their livelihoods because migrants take dirty, dangerous, or degrading jobs, often at lower pay than what citizens demand.’
According to Wexler, xenophobia goes beyond disliking migrants and takes it a step further by engaging in the dehumanising treatment of migrants because of the economic or social threats they are perceived to be.
CAUSES OF XENOPHOBIA
The possible causes of xenophobic attitudes and behaviour have been alluded to and are numerous, complex and go beyond the ambit of this chapter. However, a brief consideration of some of the opinions may provide some useful context.
Similarly, in South Africa, xenophobic sentiment manifests itself in political rhetoric, the media and in public attitudes. In each of these forums, specific groups of foreigners are targeted, revealing unmistakable negative attitudes toward foreign nationals. Although many organisations have made recommendations on measures that can be taken to avoid xenophobic violence in the future, the risk of further xenophobic violence remains a sad reality for many foreigners. Most of the suggestions made require interventions that the government has, so far, been either reluctant or slow to implement.
Some researchers have theorised that xenophobia can be understood in the context of limited resources such as housing, education, health care and employment. As provided in the description of xenophobia by Lesley Wexler, foreigners are ‘scapegoats’ for social ills and personal frustrations.8 Xenophobia is, therefore, caused by poor service delivery in the form of jobs, housing and limited social benefits that citizens feel entitled to, but find themselves unable to access. One of the most common examples of this is the role that economic opportunities play through the interaction between locals and migrants in the spaza shop phenomenon.
Others argue that the isolation experienced by South Africans during apartheid and the post-democratic transition that has led to the opening up of the South African borders, is a possible explanation for xenophobia. Here, violence against foreigners in South Africa is traced back to the months immediately following the country’s ﬁrst democratic elections. In December 1994, news reports detailed the destruction of foreign-owned property in Alexandra by armed South African youths who demanded that foreigners be removed from the area.9 This view does not suggest that xenophobia did not exist prior to 1994, but simply suggests that the return of South Africa into the global economy has exposed it to more interaction with the outside world than before. It is this exposure that has led to more migrant interaction with locals that has possibly resulted in xenophobic tension.
Some academics argue that xenophobia, all over the world, is a symptom of poor intercultural communication.10 The argument here is that people will always be suspicious of the unfamiliar and unknown. The absence of cultural tools to deal with or embrace differences will lead to hostility and it is at this point that xenophobia manifests. Many scholars argue that no one theory provides an answer but recognise that xenophobia, as a phenomenon, is complex and multifaceted.
Whatever the causes of xenophobia in South Africa are, it is clear that all these theories could apply and play a role in helping us understand why xenophobic attacks occur. The importance of understanding the possible causes of xenophobia rests in our ability to identify it and to prevent its occurrence or to effectively deal with it when it occurs.
HOW DOES XENOPHOBIA PRESENT IN SOUTH AFRICA?
Since the advent of democracy in South Africa in 1994, xenophobia has become more prevalent in politics, news media and in the general attitudes of the South African public. What is characteristic about the presentation of xenophobia in South Africa is the ease with which the negative attitudes transform into, ‘intense tension and violence by South Africans towards immigrants’.11 Acts of violence are, therefore, one of the main features of xenophobia in South Africa.
What is also interesting to note about xenophobia in South Africa is the distinct racial element. Not all foreigners are victims of negative attitudes and violent acts, but immigrants from the African continent appear to be the main targets of xenophobic sentiment and attacks. The xenophobic attitudes prevalent in South Africa reveal a level of racism or ethnic bias. Migrants from Europe and North America are received favourably, as are those from Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. Mozambicans and Zimbabweans are welcomed less favourably, and Angolans, Somalis, Nigerians and Congolese appear to be the least welcome.12
This racial element could be attributed to geographical proximity. Most xenophobic attacks have occurred in townships or informal settlements where people live in close proximity. African migrants are more likely to live and work with locals than non-African migrants. They are also more likely to belong to the same social class, leading to the perception that locals and foreigners will fight for limited resources. What is evident from research is that when analysing xenophobia, there is a considerable disconnect between perception and reality. As with any fear, most attitudes emanate from a wrong or biased perception of the feared/disliked thing or person rather than from a real or rational experience.
The 2006 South African Migration Project’s (SAMP) Xenophobia Survey (2006 SAMP survey) found that, compared to citizens of other countries worldwide, South Africans are among the least open to outsiders and desire the greatest restrictions on immigration.13 Interestingly, popular attitudes of intolerance towards immigrants have also created a unique national unity. South Africans share similar sentiments on the issue of immigration regardless of their race, level of education or income bracket. According to the 2006 SAMP survey, the proportion of people favouring immigration for the purposes of employment rose from twelve per cent in 1999 to 23 per cent in 2006. The survey also found that the proportion of those who wanted a total ban on immigration increased from 25 per cent in 1999 to 35 per cent in 2006. In 2006, 84 per cent of South Africans felt that too many foreign nationals are permitted into the country.14 Furthermore, 74 per cent supported a policy of deporting anyone who is not contributing to South Africa’s economy.15 When it comes to immigrants’ rights, an overwhelming 85 per cent believed that unauthorised migrants should have no rights to freedom of speech or movement. At least 60 per cent feel that they should not enjoy police protection or access to services.16 But when it comes to refugee protection, the survey found that South Africans are divided – 47 per cent support refugee protection, while 30 per cent oppose it. Additionally, only 30 per cent support permitting refugees to work.17
The 2006 SAMP survey notes that South Africans generally continue to consider foreign nationals as a threat to their social and economic wellbeing. The proportion of people who believed that foreign nationals undeservedly consume resources grew from eight per cent in 1999 to 67 per cent in 2006. The proportion that associated migrants with crime grew from 45 per cent to 67 per cent in 2006. In addition, the 2006 SAMP survey found that nearly half (49 per cent) of people believed that migrants bring disease into the country.18
The veracity of the belief that foreigners are guilty of criminal activity and usurping employment from local citizens has been frequently called into question. A 1998 survey of 70 immigrant entrepreneurs in inner-city Johannesburg found that each migrant employed between two and four people, at least half of whom were South African. These interviews also revealed that these entrepreneurs reinvested most of their profits back into South Africa.19 In addition, the 2006 SAMP survey, for example, found that African migrants do not take jobs away from South Africans, but instead make a valuable contribution to the South African economy.
Violence against women in South Africa has been described as ‘endemic’.20 The high incidences of sexual violence and the prevalence of sexual offences, in particular, are of grave concern.21 To the extent that one is unable to provide an accurate comparison between countries when it comes to statistics, it becomes imperative to consider local perceptions.
The absence of reports on crimes against women during the xenophobic attacks raises some questions. To some extent it is not surprising that media reports of sexual violence during xenophobic attacks are close to non-existent. The very nature of sexual violation is that victims are reluctant to discuss their experiences in private, let alone in the public domain of the media.
The causes of sexual violence are difficult to identify and fall within the ambit of multidisciplinary studies such as psychology and criminology. One factor that has been said to contribute to sexual violence, is the pattern of female exploitation and patriarchy that extends back to colonial South Africa and which was reinforced during apartheid. Women in pre-colonial southern Africa did not wield extensive political power, but they held considerable influence over some decision making because of their productive and reproductive roles in society.22 During colonisation by the Dutch and the British, and later under apartheid, the imposition of gendered hierarchies strengthened long-standing patriarchal structures and diminished what power and influence women previously held. Domineering Afrikaner masculinity was perpetuated and enforced by the white minority government through policies and laws that further oppressed women.23 Rape was used as a weapon by the apartheid government: when tensions would flare, women were raped as a means of subduing resistance, asserting control, and ensuring obedience and conformity to the era’s racial norms.24
Apart from the physical trauma that sexual violence caused, gender-based violence was an effective weapon of psychological torture and control. Women’s family members, particularly their children, were also threatened if they did not obey the government’s order. Sexual humiliation was also a common tactic used by police to harass and humiliate women while they were menstruating – security forces are known to have denied women access to sanitary pads as a means of ridicule.25 The sexuality and modesty of African women was and is still seen, culturally, as something that must be preserved and kept private. Public sexual humiliation as a means of coercion was therefore particularly effective.
Since the end of apartheid, gender-based and sexual violence has assumed various forms. Rather than being used as a state-mandated force of coercion, it is now seen as a reactive or defensive response to shifting gender roles, the attempt by feminist and gender organisations at reordering civil society, and the overall political advancement of women.26 As sexual violence was used by the apartheid government to punish and coerce, contemporary violence can be seen as serving a similar purpose. For instance, the sexual assault of lesbians or what is often referred to as ‘corrective’ rape, serves as a punishment for the failure of lesbian women to conform to western-imposed hetero-normative gender roles.27 Also, it is not uncommon to read of men infected with HIV and AIDS who have sex with or rape young women or virgins believing that such acts will cure them of the virus.28
The government has pledged to prioritise sexual and gender-based violence29, but in the face of the evidence that sexual assaults have actually not decreased substantially, it appears that this pledge has not been followed up by action. One explanation for the lack of an effective government response to gender-based and sexual violence is that such crimes are perceived to be ‘women’s’ or ‘private’ issues that are the concern of feminist and women’s groups within civil society30. There continues to be a gap between the equality rhetoric, the enacted legislation and the realities of everyday life of women all over the country, who remain vulnerable to sexual violence.
SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND XENOPHOBIA
Given the backdrop of a violent society in which sexual assaults against women are endemic, it is not mere assumption to argue that foreign women are victims, as much as local woman are. The South African Police Service (SAPS) does not segregate the data it provides to the public according to the nationality of victims. Because of their gender and their foreign-ness, migrant women remain at a key intersection of two groups that are particularly vulnerable to violence, exploitation and abuse.31 This vulnerability was exploited not only in the May 2008 xenophobic attacks, but before, and it continues to this day. Although migrant women in South Africa have proven their resilience in the face of their vulnerability, the South African government needs to take appropriate steps to alleviate the threats they face as victims of sexual violence during xenophobic attacks.
Xenophobia and sexual violence are often considered separate and distinct. Violence against women is generally perceived as criminal, domestic and private in nature, while xenophobic violence is considered political and motivated by the dynamics of exclusion and inclusion, access to resources and nationalistic identities. In South Africa, the line between the two is becoming increasingly blurred. We recognise that in some cases, incidents of rape are apolitical or purely criminal in nature – an effect of gender structures within society rather than of xenophobia32 Rape is often used as a tool to punish and humiliate women of different nationalities and ethnic groups. Women have historically been viewed as property owned by men, and because that ownership is considered fouled through the act of rape, the abuse of women becomes a political tool.33
In practice it may be difficult to differentiate between rape perpetrated due to an atmosphere of violence, rape motivated by xenophobia or assault perpetrated opportunistically. Research into this has not been conducted and perpetrators have not been interviewed to determine their motivation. The lack of reporting is greatly exacerbated in the context of migrant women. Not only are these women foreigners in a country where the police are associated with corruption, intimidation and xenophobia, but they are living in a society where victims of sexual violence frequently suffer secondary victimisation at the hands of those tasked with assisting them. This victimisation is made worse when the victim’s immigration status is suspect and could be questioned by the officials she reports the crime to. These factors contribute to the creation of a foundation of fear that has likely deterred many migrant women from reporting rapes.
While it is difficult to ascertain the exact reasons why xenophobia disproportionately affects migrant women, two contributory factors are critical to, at least, a superficial understanding of the underlying issues. Research indicates that women and children often fall prey to xenophobic violence because they are central to the settlement process.34 Women are the traditional caregivers and bear the bulk of the responsibility of clothing, feeding and, to some extent, providing shelter for their families. A host population may view migrant men as being transitory because they are only present for the purposes of employment or better economic circumstances, and are therefore not necessarily a permanent resident. Women and children denote a more permanent move and the laying down of roots in the new country. The settlement of family units can be read as an indication that the male earner does not intend to leave as he is prospering to the point of being able to bring his family to the host country. It is this element of perceived prosperity that may be greater than that of the host community that becomes a source of tension, and woman and children may bear the brunt of this conflict.
Secondly, xenophobia against migrant women has, to a large extent, been attributed to competition for resources, particularly over housing and employment opportunities, between migrants and locals. A study conducted by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) found that the tension extended beyond mere resources, to the very nature of many migrant women. The CSVR noted that migrant women’s entrepreneurial spirit, independence from government assistance and their drive to improve their quality of life evokes envy and dislike from South African nationals. These same characteristics exposed migrant women to xenophobia when they try to make a life for themselves in South Africa through employment, starting their own businesses or educating themselves and their children.35
REPORTED SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THE XENOPHOBIC ATTACKS OF 2008
Migrant women in townships were disproportionately affected by the May 2008 xenophobic attacks. Not only were their homes burnt and looted, but they suffered physical injuries due to beatings and rape. Attacking a woman’s home has far-reaching symbolism and implications, as the home is considered a place of safety and security.36 Threats of sexual violence were used to force migrant women and their families to flee their homes. For example, a woman in Gauteng was threatened: ‘If you do not leave by tomorrow you will be raped37.’
The true scope of the number and impact of sexual violations during the 2008 violence is impossible to verify for the same reasons that general sexual violence statistics remain elusive. These reasons include underreporting due to fear of arrest and/or deportation, the lack of trust in police and health care providers, the low level of awareness of the value of seeking swift medical assistance, the stigma associated with the acknowledgement of violence, the lack of information on how to report crimes, and the lack of standardised reporting procedures38. A woman in the Boksburg internal displacement site in Gauteng said that, ‘women are afraid to report cases of sexual violence because they are afraid of being deported.39’ Another female migrant in the Western Cape stated that foreigners cannot rely on the police to solve their problems and that police often tell them to go back to where they came from.
Young migrant girls in the Western Cape reported that they would not report sexual violence due to fear of losing their dignity40. The preservation of one’s dignity with regard to sex is critical. Rape dehumanises victims, leaving them with intense feelings of personal and communal shame. As a result of the violent act perpetrated against a woman, and because of her status within a largely patriarchal society, a woman’s self-value diminishes after she has been sexually assaulted. She risks being ostracised and identified with the stigma of being a rape victim. The victim also runs the very real risk of being abandoned by her husband or partner. The ostracism and abandonment only compound her vulnerability, as she remains in a foreign country and reliant on the support of family and fellow immigrants who are in South Africa with her.
Overwhelmingly, the women who have consulted with the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) have come to South Africa to join their husbands who are already settled. These women could be in relationships that have undergone problems and, more often than not, they are financially reliant on their husbands and male counterparts. The LRC assists about 20 refugee couples per month with joinder applications in respect of refugee status in terms of the Refugees Act 199841. Many immigrant women are, therefore, not only economically dependent on male partners, but for many of them, their very status in the country is dependent on their partners or family members. During interviews at the Blue Waters Camp, women expressed fear of informing their spouses that they had been raped, fearing that they would be abandoned, left destitute and without legal status in a foreign country. Xenophobic violence and attitudes experienced by migrant women in South Africa augments the trauma that many of these women have faced in their country of origin, trauma that may have motivated their move to South Africa and their claim for asylum.42
A rapid inter-agency assessment of gender-based violence shows that women and girls were victims of threatened, attempted and actual sexual assault during the 2008 xenophobic attacks. Investigations by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Population Fund confirmed the results of the assessment through both first-hand and anecdotal reports from the Western Cape and Gauteng provinces.43
Dee Smythe of the University of Cape Town’s Law, Race and Gender Research Unit44, reports on women’s accounts of reporting rapes during the attacks. One victim reported that the police had refused to help her and said that they do not assist ‘kwere kwere’ (a derogatory term for African immigrants). They then told her to report the incident to the police in her home country, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The victim did not receive a medical examination, post-exposure prophylaxis to reduce her risk of contracting HIV, the morning-after pill, or legal support of any kind45. Other female migrants reported sexual assaults in supporting affidavits in the Blue Waters46 case, where the LRC represented occupiers of the safety site. One Khayelitsha resident from Somalia reported being raped several times prior to the 2008 xenophobic violence. She said that, ‘as a Somali woman, I could not report the rape to the police because we believe rape is a humiliating act which should not be publicised.’ However, the victim obtained medical attention and fortunately tested negative for HIV and AIDS. When the xenophobic attacks broke out in 2008, she was again raped and her family members were beaten.47
Another refugee from the DRC and living in Kraaifontein revealed that one of her daughters had been raped prior to the 2008 attacks. Although the family reported the incident to the local police station, threats from local community members forced them to drop the charges and relocate. During the 2008 violence her two daughters were sexually assaulted. When she reported one of the incidents to the police and camp management, they told her that the suspect was only sixteen years old and thus too young to be prosecuted. No further legal action was taken and her daughters never received medical attention or counselling of any kind.48 In this instance, she had reported the crime, the perpetrator was known and identified, but the police and prosecution did not follow through with the case. As a foreigner she did not question the police on whether their advice was indeed correct and simply assumed that there was no further legal remedies available.
A third female migrant from the DRC living in Philippi was raped by two men during the 2008 attacks. When she reported the rape at the police station, the police told her that she could not make a report since she could not identify the two men who raped her. No docket was opened by the police and no investigation was conducted. Although the police advised her to go to a clinic in Khayelitsha for testing, she felt it was too dangerous to go to another township while reports of foreigners being attacked in townships persisted. She remained untested, even in the safety camp, until November 2008 when she finally attended counselling services offered by a local civil society organisation that had come to the safety site.
Studies conducted by the CSVR before, during and after the May 2008 violence found that migrant women viewed the 2008 violence as a magnified example of the sexual violence that they consider to be an unavoidable aspect of their daily lives.49 However, it is not only migrant women who are vulnerable to xenophobic violence. Black South African men have long accused foreigners of, ‘taking our women’. Given that sexual violence has long been a means of punishing and controlling women, rape is used against South African women to control and limit their ability to choose foreign men over South African men. During the integration visits after the 2008 attacks, the UNHCR compiled a report noting some of these comments, but the report formed part of the integration exercise and was never published. Consequently, South African women who marry or are in relationships with foreign men are also vulnerable to being ostracised from their communities or families and are vulnerable to xenophobic sexual violence.50
In this instance, rape reinforces the patriarchal view of women. If a woman steps outside the bounds of acceptable sexual behaviour she is punished through the act of rape so that she will conform to what her community requires of her. This form of ‘corrective’ rape perpetuates the notion that women are property and incapable of making independent decisions. Under such circumstances the question becomes one of assessing what government is doing to protect migrant and local women and whether the state bears such a responsibility. We argue that the Constitution demands such a responsibility.
‘Fear’ is at the core of the definition of a refugee51, and those who come to South Africa seeking protection continue to live in fear owing to threats emanating from government and private parties. The South African Refugees Act grants refugee status to any person who shows a, ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his or her race, tribe, religion, nationality, political opinion’. Because of their status, immigrants are vulnerable to attacks, abuses and violations of their basic human rights over and above the abuses that locals endure.52
Migrant women are ‘ill-equipped’ to defend themselves or assert their rights because they are often undocumented or consider their refugee or asylum status as unsecure, making them reluctant to follow through with reporting incidents. In addition, the fact that certain offences are not per se criminalised makes it even more challenging to report such incidents. Women, being more vulnerable to sexual violence, bear the brunt of the violence. Domestic and international law establish that South Africa has an affirmative duty to both respect and ensure the physical security of migrant women and refugees under their jurisdiction. As demonstrated, this obligation extends beyond the State refraining from violent acts and beyond creating laws that prohibit violence. The State is obliged to proactively engage the public, taking all reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure the fundamental rights of migrant women are upheld. Most importantly, the State must set the standard, showing, by example, that refugees and migrant women are to be treated with dignity and respect.
- The status of foreign nationals is governed either by the Immigration Act or the Refugees Act 130 of 1998.
- SAHRC Report on the SAHRC Investigation into issues of Rule of Law, Justice and impunity arising out of the 2008 Public Violence against Non-Nationals (2010) 21.
- G Friebel, JM Gallego and M Mendola Xenophobia attacks, migration intentions and networks: Evidence from South Africa J Popul Econ (2013) 26 555–591.
- R Sigworth (Fuller) Double Jeopardy: Women Migrants and Refugees in South Africa (2009).
- J Crush The Perfect Storm: The Realities of Xenophobia in Contemporary South Africa (2008) at 15.
- B Harris ‘Xenophobia: A Pathology of a new South Africa?’ in Hook D and Eagles G (eds) Psychopathology and Social Prejudice (2002) at 169–184.
- South African Human Rights Commission, Braamfontein Statement on Xenophobia, 15 October 2008.
- L Wexler Human Rights Impact: An Immigration Case Study (2008) at 22 Geo Immigration LJ 285.
- Ibid (note 3) 21.
- H Solomon ‘Xenophobia in South Africa: Origins, Trajectory and Recommendations’ presentation at the University of Pretoria.
- Harris at 170.
- J Crush The Perfect Storm: The Realities of Xenophobia in Contemporary South Africa (2008) at 30.
- Crush at 21.
- Crush at 24.
- Valji at 3.
- Crush at 26.
- Crush at 29.
- N Valji Creating the Nation: The Rise of Violent Xenophobia in the new South Africa at 16.
- F Boonzaier and C de La Rey ‘He’s a Man, and I’m a Woman’: Cultural Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity in South African Women’s Narrative of Violence’ vol. 9 no. 8 at 1003–1029.
- Rape Crises Cape Town Trust Rape in South Africa: The Soul City Research Report (February 2003).
- H Britton Organising Against Gender Violence in South Africa (2006) at 32, Journal of Southern African Studies 148.
- Britton at 145–163.
- Britton at 145.
- Britton at 150.
- Britton at 149.
- State Report which lists the key elements of 2009–2011 National Strategic Plan, one of which is specifically focused on women’s rights at page 120.
- State Report at 147
- R Sigworth, C Ngwane and A Pino The Gendered Nature of Xenophobia in South Africa (2008) Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation 8.
- R Sigworth Double Jeopardy: Foreign and Female (May 2012) at 2. [\note]. However, as Fuller argues, violence against women is a central part of the xenophobic violence in South Africa and contains both political and criminal dimensions.[note]R Fuller Double Jeopardy: Women Migrants and Refugees in South Africa (2009) at 7–8.
- R Fuller at 7.
- R Fuller at 8.
- R Sigworth, C Ngwane and A Pino The Gendered Nature of Xenophobia in South Africa (2008) at 35.
- R Sigworth Double Jeopardy at 1.
- M Marsh Inter Agency Assessment at 12.
- M Marsh at 3.
- M Marsh at 12.
- M Marsh at 12–13.
- Section 3(c) of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998.
- R Sigworth above at 4–5; Marsh above at 3.
- M Marsh above at 3.
- P Luhanga IOL News ‘Some displaced female immigrants were raped’ 13 June 2008.
- City of Cape Town v All those adult males and females whose names are set out in in Annexure ‘hs1’ to affidavit and who reside at Bluewaters Site B and C, Lukannon Drive, Strandfontein Western Cape and Others (5083/09)  ZAWCHC 32 (24 February 2010.
- Blue Waters pleadings at 10.
- Blue Waters at 11.
- R Sigworth at 1.
- Sigworth at 4.
- UN Refugee Convention Article 1(A)(2) and section 3 of the Refugees Act.
- Wexler above at 290–291.