Disabled people constitute a historically disadvantaged and marginalized group that experiences discrimination in the workplace among other socio-economic sectors. In this thesis, my focus is on searching for an inclusive type of equality that could inform the interpretation and application the equality clause in the South African Constitution. My aim is neither to arrive at a mathematically constructed abstract type of equality, nor to produce a blueprint of equality that puts finality on the debate on equality. Rather, it is to engage with equality discursively with a view to contributing towards an ongoing development of a juridical as well as philosophical path for constructing the normative architecture of a type of equality that is more responsive to the equality needs of disabled people. The spotlight is on developing a type of equality that is normatively inclusive and transformative as to be capable of sufficiently meeting the quest for political, and more crucially, economic recognition of disabled people. I use a repertoire of analytical techniques to explore and appraise the inclusiveness and responsiveness of contemporary approaches to equality. At a more general level, the discourse employs comparative analysis. However, whilst comparative analysis in this thesis includes comparing and contrasting the equality jurisprudence of different jurisdictions, and in this instance, comparing and contrasting South Africa with Canada and the United States, it is, nonetheless, a relatively small part of my comparative discourse. It is not the primary sense in which the thesis develops a comparative discourse. The greater part of my discourse employs a comparative approach to mean comparing and contrasting the underpinning moral compasses of formal equality and substantive equality with a view to revealing the capacities of each type of equality to be responsive to the equality aspirations of disabled people. Over and above comparative analysis, I use, in the main, the historicity of apartheid, the social model of disability, and feminist theory and practices as analytical techniques for interrogating the responsiveness of notions of formal equality and substantive equality. From insights drawn mainly from the social model of disability and feminism, I construct disability method as a syncretic and legal method for interrogating the normative sufficiency of equality laws and praxis. Disability method is the studyâs principal interpretive method for ensuring that the appraisal of pertinent laws, policies or practices is always conscious of the status of disabled people as a disadvantaged and vulnerable historical community, and the imperative of transforming erstwhile culturally, and even more crucially, economically oppressive norms. I contend throughout the study that law does not carry inherently neutral values that, as a matter of course, allow for searching for alternative paradigms of equality. Ultimately, it is the social construction of disability that holds the key to interrogating equality norms in a serious manner and not merely restating what the legislature and the judiciary proclaim about disability and equality. In this sense, by way of clarifying the methodological and philosophical orientation of this study, it bears stressing that the analytical approach that it adopts differs markedly from conventional legal discourses that only use an âinternal critiqueâ, as it were, to critically evaluate legal norms by using norms derived from law in order to determine whether the law is living up to the standards which it professes to hold and whether the justice promised by those standards is being dispensed evenly across all social groups. Though âinternal critiqueâ is part of how some of the arguments in this study are framed, it is only a small part. The greater part of my equality discourse derives from external critique. It derives from appraising the law using ethical or social values that are external to the law but which I argue ought to shape the law. Using disability method, and drawing from the thesis of a heterogeneous civic public sphere, I situate the normative ethical framework for substantive equality within a type of participatory democracy in which equality is constructed dialogically and not unilaterally or hegemonically. I treat equality as a component of democratic ethics that result not from a given centre but from an egalitarian dialogue between disabled people and enabled people. I argue for inclusive heterogeneous equality as the operative equality template for eradicating disablism in an imagined participatory democracy in which respect for pluralism and the eradication of dominance and subordination among social groups are core foundational ethics.

Not available

No description available.

Accompanying early seventeenth-century Europe were challenges related to the limitation of political power, civic participation in public affairs and the attainment of the public interest. Absolute rule and the absence of the individual as well as of the collective in political activity required urgent attention. The republican quest towards a much-needed rearrangement of the guardians and executors of political power as well as a more inclusive role to be played by the individual and the collective was accompanied by a view on the law as something beyond merely law enforced by the governing authorities. At the time, England and Scotland served as a scholarly hub where constitutionalism was vigorously addressed. The seventeenth-century Scottish theorist Samuel Rutherford contributed towards the formulation of a constitutional model not only suited to the context of his time but which also has overlapping value for contemporary theories on constitutionalism. Rutherford accomplishes this with special emphasis firstly on an understanding of the concept of republicanism, an understanding that was coupled with a rich legacy spanning many centuries and including Ancient Hebrew, Classical Greek and Roman, Patristic, Medieval, Canonist and Scholastic thinking. Secondly, Rutherford argues for the importance of the Rule of Law idea, together with the idea of the covenant. The encompassing framework within which a constitutional model was to be sought was against the background of the view that the law transcends the laws applied by the civil authorities, mere positivism and pragmatism. Rutherford reiterates the Ciceronian idea that the law is something more than Niccolá½¹ Machiavelli and Jean Bodinâs command of the ruler. Thirdly, Rutherfordâs constitutionalist thinking also includes valuable insights pertaining to the protection and maintenance of religion and of the conscience. This Rutherford does in reaction to the oppression of religion by the authorities and a more enlightened development in seventeenth-century Britain by which the emphasis was placed on the âinner lightâ within man, and which was supported by influential theorists such as Grotius, John Milton and John Locke. Emanating from this study are also enduring insights related to constitutionalism such as the importance of social contractarianism; the centrality and superiority of natural or moral law; the mutual relationship between rights and duties; every individualâs participation and duty towards a common good, which transcends mere self-interest; the rulerâs accountability primarily before the moral law; the office of the ruling power and its universalist and immutable normative substance; and activism against physical and psychological oppression.

The theories of truth and the marketplace of ideas, of democracy, and of human dignity underlie the constitutional protection of freedom of expression and simultaneously set boundaries with regard to such protection. The value of expression in terms of these theories firstly determines the scope of protection afforded to particular forms and incidences of expression. There exists an inherent tension in the appeal of each of the values and interests that is involved. Freedom of expression is central to the development of human personality, but may also harm inherent human dignity. The response to discriminatory expression may eventually promote equality. Free expression may be instrumental to the increase in knowledge and to the maintenance of democracy, but may also discourage target groups from participating in the marketing of ideas and in the democratic process. Secondly, the extent to which a discriminatory statement or expressive conduct serves the values and interests of knowledge, democracy and dignity is a relevant consideration in the context of proportionality analyses. It determines the weight to be assigned to the right to freedom of expression relative to other rights or interests that are involved. The Constitution, in terms of section 16(2)(c), categorically excludes, from constitutional protection, âadvocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harmâ. âHate speechâ on these grounds constitutes a proven threat to constitutional democracy. Expression of this nature should be criminalised. Circumstances may exist where âhate speechâ on other grounds poses a similar threat and should likewise be criminalised. Current atrocities in South Africa related to homosexuality and nationality constitute such circumstances. This approach is in accordance with South Africaâs obligations in terms of international agreements. Section 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act categorically prohibits a narrowly defined field of expression, including expression under section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution. The prohibition does not criminalise expression and does not apply to bona fide engagement in expression stipulated in terms of section 16(1) of the Constitution. Within the limited field that remains, it prohibits expression related to any prohibited ground that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful, harmful, or to incite harm or promote or propagate hatred. The prohibition will be constitutional if it can be accepted that the expression will, in all given circumstances, constitute or promote unfair discrimination. Considerations in the South African context of the values that inform the protection as well as the restriction of expression, and of international obligations, lead to a positive conclusion in this respect. Of essential importance is the fact that the prohibition does not stifle debate about issues, even if statements relevant to the debate offend people with reference to their group identity. Section 6 of the Act prohibits unfair discrimination, subject to a fairness analysis. It is often not possible to determine whether the effect of discriminatory expression in the broad societal context is indeed detrimental. In the media context, the unequal balance of power in given circumstances reinforces the risk that inequality will be promoted. In the determination of fairness, care should be taken not to restrict expression without sufficient context-related indications of disadvantage. At the same time, the obligation to prohibit unfair discrimination, and the categorical restriction in terms of section 10, may not be disregarded. In the light of section 192 of the Constitution, these considerations are particularly significant with respect to broadcasting. The present broadcasting codes lack the necessary related guidelines and should be amended accordingly.

None

Thesis (LL. M.)--University of Toronto, 2004. / Adviser: Kent Roach.

Thesis (M.A.)--Youngstown State University, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 100-107).

Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Rostock.