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)
25 March 2011

Primedia response to Bill of Responsibilities

Karl Gostner from Primedia writes:

Dear Professor De Vos

As discussed with you I was distressed, angered and insulted to read your article “What a load of dangerous nonsense”. In your article you argue that the Bill of Responsibilities (and Lead SA) “suggests that it is perfectly fine to discriminate against gay men, lesbians and other sexual minorities”. You base this on the fact that one document on the Lead SA site (www.leadsa.co.za) omitted to include sexual orientation under the right to equality. You state in your article that this was a ‘deliberate and quite glaring omission’ and go on to argue that ‘In effect these institutions and the Lead SA campaign are endorsing the widespread hatred and homophobia that are also prevalent amongst school children’.

The facts of the matter are dramatically different. Yes, one document on the website omitted to include sexual orientation under the right to equality (it has since been corrected and we’ve apologised unreservedly for the omission). However in two other documents on the site it was included. Surely one out of three should’ve been enough for you to pause and wonder whether a mistake had been made? Then there is the small fact of tens if not hundreds of thousands of copies of the Bill of Responsibilities that were distributed through the Independent Group of Newspapers that include sexual orientation under the right to equality. The sheer volume of Lead SA material in the public domain that include the point that one’s responsibility to ensuring the right to equality means a responsibility not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation should be more than enough evidence that the one instance of omission was exactly that – an omission, no more no less. Despite this bulk of material you took the one instance, failed to contact anyone at any of our stations (people with whom you have a relationship) and ask for clarity on that one instance. Instead you chose to write an inflammatory piece stating that a well-intentioned campaign is endorsing ‘hatred’.

The basics of research and of journalism expect that you did more than you did before you wrote your piece. You failed to do this. You got it wrong. There was no deliberate omission. There was one mistake among thousands of instances that got it right. Lead SA and Primedia Broadcasting are proud supporters of our Bill of Rights and all the rights enshrined therein. We believe strongly that we all have a responsibility to support it and to make it more than a document, but to make it lived practice.

I hope that you find my response sufficient to withdraw your piece and to apologise for your conclusions.

Yours sincerely,

Karl

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