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)
20 May 2012

How to respond to art (hint: not with threats of censorship)

Canadian politicians seem to be slightly more mature about being depicted in a work of art with their private parts hanging out. The large oil on canvas painting, which Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not pose for, by Kingston, Ont.,-based artist Margaret Sutherland shows the prime minister reclining on a chaise lounge wearing nothing but a subtle smile, surrounded by people in suits, whose faces can’t be seen. A dog rests at his feet as a woman in business attire offers him what looks like a Tim Hortons cup on a silver platter.

As reported rather tongue in cheek by the Canadian press, the piece appeared to draw out the art critic in many Canadians. “This is just too funny – think she painted him a bit skinny – he should really be wearing his vest,” Myrtle Graham posted on Facebook.”This made my day. Nude Stephen Harper is ART,” tweeted Denise Balkissoon.

Other’s weren’t as amused: “Oh dear lord: may have to pluck eyes out now,” tweeted Paula Schuck. “I don’t know whether to laugh or be horrified,” added Kelsey Rolfe.

The Prime Minister’s Office also took to Twitter to voice a reaction to the piece. “On the Sutherland painting: we’re not impressed. Everyone knows the PM is a cat person,” tweeted Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall, referring to the canine on the canvas.

Others on Parliament Hill took a similar tongue-in-cheek approach.”This is one case where I think we really do need a Conservative cover-up,” said Liberal MP Scott Brison. “I guess you could say in this painting it’s quite obvious that the Prime Minister has very little to hide.”

So far no one has threatened to obtain an urgent interdict to have the painting removed or destroyed. Not even cat lovers.

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