Browsing FS Centre for Human Rights Law by Issue Date
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Item Open AccessThe constitutional imperatives for the development of artisanal and small-scale mining in South Africa(University of the Free State, 2020-01) Ndlazi, Sikelela; Pretorius, Jan L.; Gerber, Leonardus J.Since 1994, the South African artisanal and small-scale mining (“ASM”) sector has been a demarcation for the promotion of the economic participation of previously disadvantaged South Africans within the country’s broader economy. Various domestic policy documents refer to the ASM sector as one deserving of development and adequate regulation. However, to date, the sector still exists and functions on the fringes of the law. This fact has allowed for the under-development of the sector to persist and, out of such under-development, adverse ramifications, including the environmental degradation associated with illegal ASM, its occupational health and safety concerns and the acrimonious relationship between ASM and large-scale mining (“LSM”). It is such negative consequences of ASM that continue to thrive at the expense of the socio-economic and community-development potential of the sector. In light of the above, this study seeks to explore the theoretical framework upon which the development of the sector ought to be based. Such a developmental basis consists of the constitutional, legislative, domestic and international policy framework. Further, under the over-arching theme of constitutionally-responsible development of the South African ASM sector, recommendations are to be made to guide the manner in which the necessary development of the ASM sector ought to take shape. Item Open AccessServices provision is also the rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, intersex, and queer people(University of the Free State, 2022) Shabangu, Athalia Phindile; Kamga, Gerard E. K.There is a need for shelters for LGBTIQ+ people whose rights are violated either at home or those who are victims of crime in general. There are LGBTIQ+ people in all nine provinces of South Africa, but only one dedicated shelter provides services for them. The researcher assumes that there is discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people in terms of shelter services provision. Some of the LGBTIQ+ people get discriminated against and stigmatized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. As such, they do not fully enjoy their universal human rights. Other LGBTIQ+ people are victimized in their homes, schools, and communities, which leads to them being vulnerable and needing safe spaces such as shelters for accommodation. According to the Department of Social Development,1 a shelter is a residential facility providing short-term intervention in a crisis situation. Shelters are expected to provide critical services to those undergoing high levels of trauma, including a safe place to stay and psycho-social support.2 The availability of shelter services is the human right of any LGBTIQ+ person. Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person globally, from birth until death. According to PEPUDA,3 failure to reasonably accommodate LGBTIQ+ people, or any other vulnerable groups, amount to unfair discrimination and inequality on, amongst others, the ground of gender. Globally, regional and national instruments throughout the world deal with discrimination, which is a human rights issue. These instruments include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The Bill of Rights makes provision for the protection of the rights of every South African. This research intended to investigate shelters in Pretoria and the surrounding area that accommodates LGBTIQ+ people. Item Open AccessTo remain(University of the Free State, 2022) Mhlanga, Lindani; Brand, J. F. D.An undeniable inroad made into the regulation of property ownership has been the requirement that evictions may only take place with the permission of a court of law. In the South African context, this requirement has been further augmented by the “just and equitable” measure. This means that not only are evictions only allowed on the basis of a court order, and but also only to the extent that a court has exercised a “just and equitable” discretion. The exercise of the just and equitable discretion has resulted in three distinct types of eviction orders. The first of these orders are those instances in which the courts grant an eviction application and then suspend the order, enabling unlawful occupiers to continue living on the land/property while the State looks for alternative land to resettle the occupiers. The second, are instances in which a court grants an eviction but, for whatever reason, enforcement becomes impracticable, resulting in unlawful occupants remaining on private property that belongs to someone else. The third type of orders are those instances where a court denies an eviction application, enabling unlawful occupiers to indefinitely remain on land that belongs to someone else. In this thesis I look into the fact of remaining as a consequence of the third type of order. The effect of the court decision not to grant the eviction order results in the practical situation of the unlawful occupier remaining on such land. The unlawful occupier remains on land belonging to another notwithstanding the fact there is no countervailing right to do so. While the intervention to bring evictions under the ambit of justness and equitability more so in an unequal and deprived society such as South Africa is laudable, the failure of the courts to address the legality and tenure security posed by the eviction order not to evict despite unlawfulness of occupation having been established negates the good intention. In this regard, I contend that hesitancy to address the legitimacy and tenure security of this identified fact of remaining has to do with the structure and approach to the law, which supports indifference and detachment. This indifference and detachment minimise the law's (constricted) inherent capacity to remedy the asserted problem of tenure insecurity.