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.
Maybe I am missing something, but I really cannot understand why everyone is gaaning aan about claims on a Blog by a purported sex worker that he had sex with some vaguely well known South Africans like Simon Grindrod.
Why are they all so upset? Why do they say this is the most dreadful defamation and slander imaginable? Is it perhaps because of ingrained societal homophobia, or is it because they harbour puritanical prejudices against prostitutes?
I eagerly read through these supposed confessions, looking for the “slanderous and defamatory” statements that Patricia de Lille spoke about earlier this week. What I found was relatively funny descriptions – in rather formal Afrikaans – of how the purported sex worker provided sexual gratification to several minor South African male celebrities.
Now, we know that it cannot be defamatory to allege that a man is homosexual or that he has had a sexual experience with another man. Our Constitution now guarantees equality for all and the
While some men might be deeply offended by allegations that they had sex with another man, this would say more about their own sexual insecurities and homophobia (yes, Mr Grindrod, I am referring to you too) than about any alleged defamation. I cannot imagine that Patricia de Lille or Simon Grindrod would have gotten all upset if the Blog had said that Grindrod was black, so why would it be upsetting to be called a homosexual.
Of course, those who think this is a terrible slander will say that the defamation really comes from the allegation that the men had sex with a male prostitute – that they paid for the sex. Now, it might be embarrassing to have to admit that one has paid for sexual gratification because it suggests that one has not been otherwise successful in securing a longed for happy ending or two, but that is surely not defamatory.
The best shot would be to argue that these statements are defamatory because sex work is illegal. But until the new Sexual Offences Act comes into operation, it is really only the actions of the sex worker that is criminalized. Some judges of the CC think the client can also be prosecuted, but this has never ever happened in
What is wrong with having sex with a sex worker? It is time efficient, contributes to the economy and keep men off the streets. It can also be less abusive and exploitative than many a marriage.
It seems to me Patricia and Simon were really so upset because they were horrified that people would think Simon is gay and that he is so ugly or unlikable that he could not even get a date on a Saturday night. Or maybe they have deep-seated prejudices against marginalised and vulnerable sex workers – exactly the kind of people politicians are always said to want to help.
Either way, the so called slander seems to me not in the initial statements by the sex worker, but in the responses to those statements by Patricia and others. They seem not to have realized this, but through their actions, they have really exposed themselves as thin-skinned, how shall I put it, well, bigots.BACK TO TOP