Quote of the week

An ‘important purpose of section 34 [of the Constitution] is to guarantee the protection of the judicial process to persons who have disputes that can be resolved by law’ and that the right of access to court is ‘foundational to the stability of an orderly society. It ensures the peaceful, regulated and institutionalised mechanisms to resolve disputes, without resorting to self-help. The right of access to court is a bulwark against vigilantism, and the chaos and anarchy which it causes. Construed in this context of the rule of law and the principle against self-help in particular, access to court is indeed of cardinal importance’.The right guaranteed s34 would be rendered meaningless if court orders could be ignored with impunity:the underlying purposes of the right — and particularly that of avoidance of self-help — would be undermined if litigants could decide which orders they wished to obey and which they wished to ignore.

Plasket AJ
Victoria Park Ratepayers' Association v Greyvenouw CC and others (511/03) [2003] ZAECHC 19 (11 April 2003)
19 May 2010

Debate invitation: “The Constitution does not reflect the moral views of the majority”

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ADEQUATELY REFLECT THE MORAL VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY

PROPOSITION SPEAKER ONE: EUSEBIUS MCKAISER SPEAKER TWO: AUBREY MATSHIQI

OPPOSITION SPEAKER ONE: NICK FERREIRA SPEAKER TWO: MAZIBUKO JARA

– Eusebius McKaiser is a political commentator, columnist & associate at the Centre for the Study of Democracy; studied and taught philosophy & formerly ranked one of the top 20 debaters in the world.

– Nick Ferreira is an overqualified lawyer: Oxford PHD in philosophy (Rhodes scholar) and Unisa LLB; currently a law clerk to Justice Edwin Cameron & formerly a World Debate Championship semi- finalist.

– Aubrey Matshiqi is a senior researcher at the Centre for Policy Studies and a weekly columnist for Business Day; one of the top political analysts and media commentators in SA today.

– Mazibuko Jara is Senior Researcher: Law, Race and Gender Research Unit, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town and a PhD Candidate: Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape

THE DEBATE: The majority of South Africans are morally conservative. Any poll on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or spanking kids shows this to be the case. And yet the constitution and constitutional court judgments are very liberal. On moral and social issues, there is therefore a giant gap between the values enshrined in the constitution and what most of us think, feel and believe. In this debate we ask whether or not the constitution adequately reflects the moral views of the majority. Does it? Do come along, be entertained and engage!

WHEN? 31st MAY 2010

TIME? 530pm for 6pm

WHERE? GIBS BUSINESS SCHOOL, MELVILLE RD, ILLOVO, JHB

MODERATOR: Joe Roussous (Wits Debate Union)

RSVP: KATIE MCNALLY ( mcnallyk@gibs.co.za )

Drinks and snacks served afterwards

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