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.
A reader gets a bit hot under the collar about my post earlier this week on Fred Khumalo and men wearing dresses. She wants to know:
why so many gay men feel the need to not just ‘wear a dress’, but go to enormous lengths to resemble parodies of ageing hookers and then make spectacles of themselves in street parades. Ridiculous wigs, bucketfuls of ghastly makeup, falsies hanging out of tarty frocks, and the highest possible heels. It appears to me that this is how they see women, and – as a woman myself – I’m offended.
Before dealing with the substantive issue, it is important to point out that there are far fewer gay men who dress up as women than people who watch TV or read the newspapers might think. When the members of the media report on gay pride parades or other gay events, they will usually pick out the men in dresses and will interview them and splash their picture on the front page of the paper because that is what will sell the newspaper.
A person who attends a gay pride march or the gay and lesbian film festival for the first time would be surprised at how shockingly “normal” and boring most people look. But as a recent report shows, the lives of gay men, lesbians, transgender and intersex individuals are still far too often sensationalized by an essentially homophobic media.
In any case, it should not matter whether men dress up in drag because drag is in essence liberating – not oppressive. It might well be that some men who dress up as women are misogynist, but that does not seem to me to be close the essence of what drag is about.
The kind of drag that is now associated with gay culture is in essence political in nature. Drag queens rose up in
Those drag queens in
Drag is by its very nature exaggerated because it draws attention to the basic ridiculousness of the sex/gender system. This system is based on the notion that because men has penises they must wear pants, play rugby, drink beer, watch rugby and then hit or stab each other. Women have breasts, wear dresses and make-up, drink Shirley Temples’, watch ballet and talk about their husbands and their new kitchen appliances. Drag is not sending women up – it is sending up the patriarchal-imposed gender system.
At the same time, drag in its less obviously political incarnation is also about fun and about celebrating fabulousness – the fabulousness associated with the great powerful, headstrong, tempestuous but talented women of the stage and screen: woman like Judie Garland, Maria Callas, Barbara Sreissand and Miriam Makeba.
Now, I would be the first to admit that not many men who dress up in drag would justify their dressing up in such a political way, but one only has to spend a little bit of time with drag queens to know that they do not take anything seriously and they make fun of everything. They send up, ridicule, and poke fun of themselves and others in a way that subverts stereotypes and send up the status quo.
For a woman to take offence at this would probably be something hilarious that drag queens would love to make fun of.BACK TO TOP