Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBenson, I. T.
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-18
dc.date.available2015-08-18T14:09:56Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationBenson, I. T. (2014). What divides, what joins and who decides? Diversity, the common good and limited law. Journal for Juridical Science, 39(1), 97-114.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn2415-0517 (online)
dc.identifier.issn0258-252X (print)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11660/914
dc.description.abstractEnglish: It is commonplace to hear politics and law extol the importance of "pluralism" and "diversity". In addition to difference, however, and less discussed, but certainly important, is the notion of "the common good". Law, for its part, tends to mediate between what is different and what should be shared. How law is understood in relation to diversity and difference and how we understand the limits of law is also central to how a diverse society is protected and advanced. Dominance and control, on the one hand, and the privatization and marginalization of diverse beliefs, on the other, threaten the appropriate, but limited places for public involvement of diverse communities. Is it appropriate to draw a line between belief and conduct as a means of achieving public homogeneity? This article examines the meaning of pluralism, diversity, the common good, the relationship between belief and conduct and the role and limits of the law and politics in relation to personal and associational freedom.en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAfrikaans: 'n Mens hoor dikwels hoe die politiek en die reg die belangrikheid van "pluralisme" en "diversiteit" prys. Bo en behalwe verskil, en minder onder bespreking, maar beslis belangrik, is egter die gedagte van "die algemene welsyn". Op sy beurt is die reg geneig om as mediator op te tree tussen wat verskil en wat gedeel behoort te word. Hoe die reg in verhouding tot diversiteit en verskil verstaan word, en hoe ons die beperkinge van die reg verstaan, staan sentraal tot hoe 'n diverse samelewing beskerm en bevorder word. Dominansie en beheer aan die een kant, en die privatisering van marginalisering van diverse oortuigings aan die ander kant, bedreig die toepaslike, maar beperkte ruimtes vir openbare betrokkenheid van diverse gemeenskappe. Is dit gepas om 'n streep te trek tussen oortuiging en optrede as 'n wyse om openbare homogeniteit te bereik? Hierdie artikel ondersoek die betekenis van pluralisme, diversiteit, die algemene welsyn, die verhouding tussen oortuiging en optrede, en die rol en beperkinge van die reg en politiek in verhouding tot persoonlike en geassosieerde vryheid.
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherFaculty of Law, University of the Free Stateen_ZA
dc.titleWhat divides, what joins and who decides? Diversity, the common good and limited lawen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
dc.description.versionPublisher's versionen_ZA
dc.rights.holderFaculty of Law, University of the Free Stateen_ZA


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record