Quote of the week
It is clear that no legitimate objective is advanced by excluding domestic workers from COIDA. If anything, their exclusion has a significant stigmatising effect which entrenches patterns of disadvantage based on race, sex and gender…. In considering those who are most vulnerable or most in need, a court should take cognisance of those who fall at the intersection of compounded vulnerabilities due to intersecting oppression based on race, sex, gender, class and other grounds. To allow this form of state-sanctioned inequity goes against the values of our newly constituted society namely human dignity, the achievement of equality and ubuntu. To exclude this category of individuals from the social security scheme established by COIDA is manifestly unreasonable.
Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Labour and Others (CCT306/19) [2020] ZACC 24 (19 November 2020)
Con Court life a drag?
I got hold of the invite below to a party organised by some of the Clerks at the Court. The party was organised in response to the practice in Umlazi, where woman are being forbidden (and in one case stripped naked) from wearing trousers and also in response to the recent murders of lesbian women in Soweto and elsewhere.
Pity some of the (male) judges are not attending as well. Wearing a dress might just help some of the male judges to embrace their (as yet underdeveloped) empathetic side.
