1887

oa Litnet Akademies : 'n Joernaal vir die Geesteswetenskappe, Natuurwetenskappe, Regte en Godsdienswetenskappe - Riglyne om die reg op gelykheid toe te pas : regte

 

Abstract

In 1997 het die konstitusionele hof in riglyne geformuleer vir die toepassing van die reg op gelykheid in die Grondwet. Die doel met hierdie artikel is om na 15 jaar weer hierdie riglyne te bekyk en om aanpassings voor te stel. Riglyne moet sover moontlik deur almal verstaan word en moet deeglik inskakel met al die ander bepalings van die handves van regte, insluitend die algemene bepalings wat reël wie deur die regte beskerm word, wie daardeur gebind word en wat hulle pligte is, en hoe nienakoming van die pligte regverdig kan word aan die hand van die beperkingsbepalings. Gemeet hieraan het die -riglyne sekere gebreke. Dit is uiters moeilik om die -riglyne te verstaan en toe te pas. Verder is dit nie goed met die algemene bepalings van die handves geïntegreer nie. Daar word voorgestel dat die reg op gelykheid aan die hand van die volgende vrae toegepas word:


1. Word die klaer regstreeks of onregstreeks anders as ander mense behandel deur die reël of optrede wat ondersoek word?
2. Indien dit wel die geval is, waarop kom die differensiasie neer? Is dit:
  • onbillike diskriminasie (dit is differensiasie wat die klaer se menswaardigheid aantas of 'n soortgelyke ernstige gevolg het); of
  • gewone differensiasie wat alle differensiasie is wat nie neerkom op onbillike diskriminasie nie; of
  • differensiasie wat in verband staan met regstellende optrede (dit is stappe om mense te beskerm en te ontwikkel wat benadeel is deur onbillike diskriminasie)?
3. Kan die differensiasie geregverdig word aan die hand van die algemene beperkingsbepaling, of waar van toepassing, aan die hand van die bepalings oor regstellende aksie in artikel 9(2)? Die maatstawwe vir die regverdiging van onbillike diskriminasie is baie streng; vir ander differensiasies in beginsel baie ligter; en in die geval van regstellende optrede word die standaard in artikel 9(2) beskryf.


In 1997 the constitutional court in formulated guidelines for the application of the right to equality in the Constitution. The purpose of this article is to review the guidelines after 15 years and to propose certain adaptations.
Guidelines to apply a right must, as far as possible, be formulated in such a way that they are both readily understandable and well integrated with the other provisions of the bill of rights, including the general provisions which contain general rules on who the people and institutions are who benefit from a right, who the people and institutions are who are bound by the rights and what their duties in respect of the rights are, and how non-compliance with the duties may be justified in terms of limitation clauses. Measured against these requirements the guidelines are deficient in certain respects. It is very difficult to understand and apply the guidelines. The guidelines are also not well integrated with the general provisions of the bill of rights: considerations relating to the requirements for the limitation of the right in section 9(1) are considered to form part of the definition of the right; an incomprehensible distinction is made between "discrimination" and "unfair discrimination"; limitation considerations have been taken into account to such an extent in defining unfair discrimination that the usefulness of applying the general limitation clause has been questioned, etcetera. However, the essence of the court's views on the meaning of "unfair discrimination", namely that "unfair" applies to differentiation that impairs human dignity or that has a similar serious consequence, is sound and should be retained. The test underlines the offensiveness of unfair discrimination and the ethos of a bill of rights founded on human dignity. It also provides a clear basis for the distinction between the first phase of a bill of rights inquiry, during which the factual infringement of a right is determined and the second phase, during which justification for the infringement within the framework of the general limitation clause is investigated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/litnet/9/2/EJC125899
2012-08-01
2016-12-08
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error