Quote of the week

As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
26 April 2007

A little less certainty

A reader argues that my position on affirmative action is fundamentally flawed, because my assumption is that there can be no fair and objective criteria of merit that can apply to both “white” and “black”. So one just has to choose which group one should discriminate in favour of.

I do indeed believe that there can be no absolute objective criteria according to which we can decide who are best qualified for a position. For some jobs one can get closer to that (flying a Boeing, say) than in others, but an objective standard does not exist. Pretending that there are such objective criteria merely helps to hide the prejudices of the powerful behind a façade of neutrality.

If we are striving for fairness, it requires, first, that we take into account the larger political, economic and historical context in which we make judgments about what is fair or not. This will inevitably require us to take note of past discrimination and racial injustice and to accept that such injustices must be addressed in some way or another. Second, it requires us to question anew the prevailing “norms and standards” and to ask anew what characteristics will best suit a specific job and who will contribute most to the well-being of an institution. This can only be done well, if we accept that different voices do not necessarily lead to a lowering of standards.

A little less certainty about things and a bit more critical reflection might help us to think about all the invisible criteria which have always helped to advantage the interests of the in-groups and exclude those who did not fit in.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest