Newsletter No. 17 2011

Annual Helen Suzman Memorial Lecture he Kaplan Centre was established 22 November 2011, in 1980 under the terms of a gift to Tthe University of Cape Town by In association with the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and Research the Kaplan Kushlick Foundation and is named in honour of the parents of Mendel at UCT, the Gordon Institute of Business Science, and the Friedrich and Robert Kaplan. Naumann Foundation for Liberty The Centre, the only one of its kind in South , seeks to stimulate and Extract from address by Kate O’Regan. promote the whole field of Jewish studies Judge of the Constitutional Court (1994-2009) and research at the University with a special focus on the South African Jewish Community. The Centre is multi- A Forum for reason: Reflections on the role disciplinary in scope and encourages the and work of the Constitutional Court participation of scholars in a range of fields including history, political science, education, sociology, comparative literature and the broad spectrum of Hebrew and Judaic studies. The Centre is engaged in both research and teaching and functions as a co- ordinating unit in the university. Its resources are used to invite distinguished scholars to teach Jewish-content courses within established University depart- ments, to initiate and sponsor research projects, and to strengthen the univer- sity’s library holding of books, micro- films and archival sources. These research materials are made available to members of the University and to accredited visitors from the wider academic community. The Centre awards a limited number of undergraduate and graduate scholarships as well as a limited number of research grants. The Centre has a publications programme which brings out monographs and occasional papers. Lectures symposia l-r Judges , Kate O’Regan, Edwin Cameron and and conferences are arranged under the auspices of the Centre. In some cases aving looked briefly at the issue raised in the speeches of the these are organised with the University’s Department of Adult Education and Extra role and work of the Court, I President that I referred to at the Mural Studies, thereby serving the wider Ham going to turn now to outset and one that has given rise to community. consider more closely the role of the controversy in recent years. Court in relation to policy-making, an “Policy” and the Constitution GOVERNING BODY The Constitution does not define “policy,” although it does stipulate Chair: Mr Henning Snyman that “the development and Director: Prof Milton Shain implementation of national policy” is Management Committee: a task for the executive (Section Jeffrey BagraimRichard Mendelsohn Valerie Abratt 85(2) (b) of the Constitution). The Louis Blond Eliot Osrin Tony Leiman Shorter OED gives a useful definition LesterHoffman Robert Kaplan Jeremy Wanderer John Simon Jacquie Greenberg Romi Kaplan Continued on following page Continued from page 1 our jurisprudence as the principle of misunderstood of the three legality, is based on the rule of – a requirements I am describing this of policy as “a course of action founding principle in our democracy. evening. It is not onerous, for it adopted and pursued by a The rule of law, at its most requires only that there be some government.” This is, I think, the straightforward, means that power nexus or link between the purpose sense in which the President used the must be exercised in accordance with sought to be achieved by the relevant word “policy” in the two speeches the Constitution and the law. Its action or legislation and the terms of referred to above. implication is that legislation must be the legislation or character of the The Constitution does not define passed in accordance with the conduct. It perhaps might be called “policy” probably because policy is provisions of the Constitution and the “some rhyme or reason” rule. As not a distinct legal category. Different powers exercised by the President or long as there is some rhyme or reason legal tools can be used to implement government ministers must be to what the legislature or executive “policy.” So policy may be conferred upon them by the seeks to do, it will probably pass the encapsulated in legislation, or Constitution or legislation. rationality test. through regulations made in terms of The first question then is whether The first case dealing with this legislation, or it may take the form of the tool selected to pursue a policy is principle illustrates the point. In the executive instructions to bureaucrats authorised by law and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers case, or it may be pursued through the Constitution. An example of a recent (Cited above n 27) new legislation conduct of officials. These different case where the conduct of the regulating the manufacture, sale and tools have different constitutional President was held not to meet this possession of medicines for human and legal implications. Time does not requirement was the case of Justice and animal use had been enacted by permit me fully to elaborate these Alliance of v President, Parliament and brought into force by different consequences. At a general RSA (which I have mentioned the President. But when it was level, all policy, however pursued, earlier). (Cited above n 30) This case brought into force, the necessary must comply with the three concerned the purported extension of regulations that would make the Act constitutional constraints that I have Chief Justice Ngcobo’s term of effective had not yet been made and already mentioned: the requirements office. The Court held that section the result was that the newAct, which of legality and rationality, and 8(1) of the Judges Remuneration and had repealed the old Act, was almost compliance with the Bill of Rights. Conditions of Employment Act (Act completely ineffective. The case Where policy is pursued through the 47 of 2001) that purported to confer a therefore challenged the President’s tool of what is called “administrative power upon the President to request a decision to bring the Act into force. action” in the Constitution, there are Chief Justice who has become The Court found that “the decision to additional requirements of eligible for discharge from active bring theAct into force, the necessary procedural fairness and service to continue to perform active regulations that would make the Act reasonableness. The two questions – service as Chief Justice of South effective had not yet been made and what constitutes administrative Africa “for a period determined by the result was that the newAct, which action? and what does procedural the President”. The Constitutional had repealed the old Act, was almost fairness and reasonableness require? Court concluded that “… section 8(a) completely ineffective. The case – are questions beyond the scope of violates the principle of judicial therefore challenged the President’s my address today. independence. This kind of open- decision to bring the Act into force. The first constraint: ended discretion may raise a The Court found that “the decision to Legality and the Rule of Law reasonable apprehension or bring the Act into force before the The first constraint on the perception that the independence of regulatory framework was in place, implementation of policy is that all the Chief Justice and by corollary the viewed objectively, is explicable only government conduct must have a judiciary may be undermined by on the grounds of error” (Id at para legal foundation: in the Constitution external interference from the 68). or in legislation. As the executive. The truth may be different, Accordingly, the court concluded Constitutional Court formulated this but it matters not. What matters is that that “[t]he President’s decision to principle in an early case: “it is the judiciary is seen to be free from bring theAct into operation … cannot central to the conception of our external interference” (Id at para 68). be found to be objectively rational on constitutional order that the The consequence of this conclusion any basis whatsoever. The fact that Legislature and Executive in every was that both the legislation and the the President mistakenly believed sphere are constrained by the President’s decision to extend the that it was appropriate to bring the principle that they may exercise no term of office of the Chief Justice, Act into force, and acted in good faith power and perform no function were held to be invalid. in doing so, does not put the matter beyond that conferred upon them by beyond the reach of the Court’s law (See Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd The second constraint: powers of review” (Id at para 89). and Others v Greater Johannesburg rationality or the “some rhyme The Court described the Transitional Metropolitan Council or reason” rule requirement of rationality as “a and Others 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) at The second requirement, that of minimum threshold requirement para 58). This principle, referred to in rationality is, perhaps, the most applicable to exercise of all public

2 power by members of the executive reason test” and is not tightened to Professor Dieter Grimm, a respected and other functionaries” (Id at para require a closer connection between former member of the German 90) but emphasised that the standard the government purpose and the Constitutional Court in relation to the of rationality does not permit courts legislation or action in question. German Constitution are of equal to substitute their opinions as to what Setting a tighter test for rationality application to ours: would be appropriate for that of the might well constitute an unwarranted “From the beginning, limitations of government. Given the requirement intrusion into the legitimate fundamental rights were regarded as that any link between the decision or constitutional space accorded to the normal, because all rights and legislation and the underlying legislature and the executive. freedoms can collide or can be purpose, the Court noted that “[a] misused. Harmonization of colliding decision that is objectively irrational The third constraint: the Bill of rights and prevention of abuses of is likely to be made only rarely …” Rights liberty are normal tasks of the This “no rhyme or reason” test does All governmental policy, whether legislature. The function of not significantly impair the ability of implemented through legislation, constitutional guarantees of rights is the government to perform its executive or presidential action or not to make limitations as difficult as necessary tasks. It does not permit a administrative law may not infringe possible but to require special court to interfere with a decision of the rights entrenched in the Bill of justifications for limitations that the government simply because it Rights. The legislature and executive make them compatible with the disagrees with it or considers that as well as the courts are all bearers of general principles of individual government acted in appropriately. obligations under the Bill of Rights, autonomy and ” (See Dieter Instead, the Court has on several which means that they must respect, Grimm “Proportionality in Canadian occasions emphasised that it “should protect and fulfil the rights in the Bill and German Constitutional be slow to impose obligations upon of Rights. In a real sense, it is the Jurisprudence” (2007) 57 University government which will inhibit its provisions of the Bill of Rights that of Toronto LJ 383 at 391) ability to make and implement policy most sharply constrain the conduct of Accordingly, a challenge to effectively … As a young democracy government, including the process of legislation based on a right in chapter facing immense challenges of policy-making. 2 follows a two-stage process and a transformation, we cannot deny the Yet the rights in the Bill of Rights court, when considering a importance of the need to ensure the are not absolute constraints. Under constitutional challenge to ability of the Executive to act our constitutional order, rights are not legislation, asks two questions: the efficiently and promptly” (Premier, “trump cards” that always take first is does the legislation limit a Mpumalanga and Another v precedence over other concerns. Our right entrenched in the Bill of Rights? Executive Committee, Association of constitutional order recognises that Should the court decide that the state-aided schools, Eastern there will be times when one right in legislation does indeed limit a right, Transvaal 1999 (2) SA 91 (CC) at the Bill of Rights will be in tension the next question that arises is para 41; Masetlha v President of the with another, or where important whether the limitation is “reasonable RSA and another 2006 (1) SA 566 public interests may require the and justifiable in an open and (CC0 at para 77). limitation of rights. In this regard our democratic society based on human It is important that the test of Constitution is similar to the German dignity, equality and freedom”? rationality remains a “no rhyme or Constitution. The remarks of (Section 36(1) of the Constitution). This affords the executive defending the constitutionality of legislation an opportunity both to lead evidence and present argument as to why the legislation is not unconstitutional. How does the Court decide whether an infringement will nevertheless pass the test of justification? It considers whether the reason given by the government for limiting the right is sufficiently important to outweigh the impact it causes in limiting the right. This is essentially a proportionality analysis. The approach was summarised in an early decision of the Court as follows: “In sum, therefore, the Court places the purpose, effect and importance of the infringing legislation on one side

Francis Antonie (HSF) and Milton Shain (Kaplan Centre) Continued on page 6

3 Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and the Parkes Institute for Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton The Archive and Jewish Migration: From Antiquity to the Present 11-13 April 2011 – All Africa House

‘TheArchive and Jewish Migration: FromAntiquity to the lacked knowledge about the Jewish Archive and Present’ was the fifth biennial international conference migration. organised jointly by the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies ‘The Archive and Jewish Migration: From Antiquity to and the Parkes Institute for Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, the Present’represented the first attempt to fill that gap and University of Southampton. Co-ordinated by Milton the call for papers was intentionally interdisciplinary, Shain, Tony Kushner, James Jordan and Sarah Pearce, the inviting a wide range of perspectives drawing on ancient conference emerged from four previous collaborative through modern traditions. The eventual programme of 25 projects and associated conferences at UCT: ‘Port Jews papers was drawn therefore from scholars working across and Jewish Communities in Cosmopolitan Maritime a range of disciplines and locations, with delegates Trading Centres’(2003), ‘Place and Displacement’(2005), travelling from Europe, Israel,Australia, New Zealand and ‘Jewish Journeys’ (2007) and ‘Jewish Migration and the the USA, as well as from South Africa. Organised across Family’(2009). three days, the proceedings were split into nine sessions that were structured thematically, addressing questions of These earlier conferences had been organised as an memory, texts, institutions, politics, families and archives. important element of examining relations between Jews This ensured cohesion across a chronologically and and non-Jews in port cities from 1650-1914, moving in geographically diverse set of papers. The range and focus from the concept of Port Jews in the seventeenth and strength of the papers was particularly impressive, moving eighteenth centuries through to the wider applicability of from traditional historical description, examining issues of this concept across broader chronologies, including the belonging and belongings, shapes of memory, textual importance of place and identity in relation to migration interpretation, politics and the archive, the movement of more generally in the Jewish experience. During the archives, and the family archive. course of these discussions it had become apparent that we In addition to the nine sessions, conference participants were taken to see Solms Delta Wine Estate where they enjoyed a historic walk and visited the Museum van de Caab. Visits were also arranged to the South African Jewish Museum. The conference was another highly successful example of collaboration between the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies and the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton.

Shirli Gilbert, Romi Kaplan, James Jordan, Susanne Rutland and Francis Rowley

4 Maura Hametz, Francis Rowley, Phillip I. Ackerman- Lieberman and Jennifer Michaels Michael John and Jonathan Goldstein

Henriette Mondry and Ruth Leiserowitz

Haim Sperber, Susanne Rutland, Hilda Nissimi and Jennifer Michaels

Shirli Gilbert and Esther Saraga

Romi Kaplan, Veronica Belling and Jonathan Goldstein

5 Annual Helen Suzman Memorial Lecture continued from page 3

of the scales and the nature and effect leadership given by government rests This aspect of the Constitution has of the infringement caused by the on the cogency of the case offered in required the Court on several legislation on the other. The more defence of its decisions, not the fear occasions to assess policy adopted by substantial the inroad into inspired by the force at its command. the government. In the seminal early fundamental rights, the more The new order must be a community case, Government of the RSA and persuasive the grounds of built on persuasion, not coercion” Others v Grootboom and Others, justification must be” (S v Bhulwana (id). Nowhere in our constitutional 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) the Court held 1996 (1) SA464 (CC) at para 14). order is the insistence on justification that the government’s housing policy The process of limitations analysis more visible than in the jurisprudence was in breach of the obligations therefore permits the Court to of rights. Our Constitution asks imposed upon government by section consider the reasons proffered by government to justify what 26 of the Constitution in that it failed government for the legislation under limitations they wish to impose on to “provide for any form of relief to attack. In so doing, it affords a rights, and empowers the courts to those desperately in need of access to government an opportunity to set out consider whether those justifications housing” (Id at para 95) and ordered its reasons for the limitation to are convincing. the government to amend its program persuade the Court, and the broader But it is not only relation to “to provide relief for people who society, of the legitimacy of both its justification that the Court gives have no access to land, no roof over purpose and method. The function of scope for flexibility to government. their heads, and who are living in the Court when determining Our Constitution, unlike many intolerable conditions or crisis challenges to legislation based on the others, protects not only civil and situations” (Id at para 99 (para 2(b) of Bill of Rights is thus twofold: most political rights, but also social and the Order made by the Court). obviously, it serves as the guardian of economic rights. In understanding Similarly, in the Treatment Action fundamental rights; less obviously, the meaning of rights, the key Campaign case, (Minister of Health but as importantly, it serves to create a question for lawyers is the parameters and Others v Treatment Action forum for public debate about the of the obligations imposed by the Campaign and Others (No 2) 2002 reasons for the exercise of power. right. So, if I have a right of access to (5) SA 721 (CC) the Court held that This role carries with it a conception health care, against whom do I have the policy of the government of democracy which requires the that right, and what must that person whereby Nevirapine would be exercise of public power to be do in relation to my right? he most administered to pregnant mothers accountable. difficult jurisprudential aspect of living with HIV at only two clinics Thus government may enact social and economic rights is per province was in breach of section legislation to pursue a policy it has 27 of the Bill of Rights, and adopted even if the legislation will determining the extent of the positive obligation they impose upon specifically the positive obligation limit rights. But if it chooses to do so, imposed upon government by that government must consider whether government to act to achieve the 33 realisation of the right. A full provision to take reasonable steps the purpose and scope of the within its available resources to provision that limits rights is consideration of this question is beyond the scope of my remarks progressively achieve the right of reasonable and justifiable in the light access to health care. The policy was today. A brief outline of the Court’s of the invasion of the right. That is a not formulated in legislation, but had approach is all that is possible. question that should be considered been adopted by the Department of both by the Minister introducing the The Constitutional Court has held Health, despite the fact that legislation, and by Parliament during that, at least in relation to the rights Boehringer Ingelheim, the the parliamentary process. entrenched in section 26 and 27 of the manufacturers of Nevirapine, had The role of the Courts is thus not to Constitution, the scope of offered Nevirapine to the government thwart or frustrate the democratic government’s positive obligation to free of charge for a period of two arms of government, but is rather to take steps to achieve the realisation of years; and despite the fact that the hold them accountable for the manner the rights of access to housing, health World Health Organisation had in which they exercise public power. care and sufficient food and water, issued guidelines stipulating that In Etienne Mureinik’s celebrated amongst others, is delineated by Nevirapine was an appropriate formulation: our new constitutional matching provisions in the intervention to prevent mother to order establishes a “culture of Constitution which state that “the child transmission of HIV, and so justification” Etienne Mureinik “A state must take reasonable legislative should be administered without Bridge to Where? Introducing the and other measures, within its limitation. The Court held that in the interim Bill of Rights” (1994) 10 SA available resources, progressively to circumstances the policy adopted by Journal on 31–48at achieve the realisation” of these government was not a reasonable 32) and “must lead to a culture of rights (See sections 26(2) and 27(2) policy and 35 stipulated that the justification – a culture in which of the Constitution). The question in policy should be expanded to include every exercise of power is expected such cases, therefore, is whether the all clinics in all provinces where to be justified; in which the government has acted reasonably. adequate counselling and testing

6 facilities existed for the social and economic rights are an impossible standard of perfection” administration of Nevirapine. The reasonable. Government must (Id at para 160). Court concluded, however, by noting disclose to the Court “what it has The effect of this approach is that that government would be free to done to formulate the policy, its the courts do not take over the task of introduce a different policy to reduce investigation and research, the making policy but they do require theriskofmothertochild alternatives considered and the government to account to citizens for transmission of HIV “if equally reasons why the option underlying its policy decisions in the field of appropriate or better methods the policy was selected” (See social and economic rights. The become available to it for the Mazibuko and Others v City of process of accounting for decisions in prevention of mother-to-child Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) the field should improve the quality transmission of HIV” (Id at para 135, SA 1 (CC) at para 161). This of decision-making without para 4 of the Court’s order). approach permits citizens to hold the improperly restricting the choices In sum, the approach of the Court democratic arms of government to available to government. has been to require government to account through litigation, but does Full text available at: explain why its policies in the field of not require government “to be held to http://www.hsf.org.za

Visiting Fellow Visiting Professor

Veteran Journalist Benjamin Pogrund was Visiting Fellow at the Centre. A prize winning journalist and Tony Kushner (Marcus Sieff Professor of the History of former deputy editor of theRand Daily Mail, Pogrund Jewish/non Jewish Relations, University of began a project on the question of Israel as anApartheid Southampton). Professor Kushner taught in the course: State. Living in Israel today Pogrund brings to bear a Antisemitism. A History, in the Department of unique perspective on a vexed problem. Historical Studies.

Kaplan7 Centre events for 2011

The Archive and Jewish Migration: 10.30-11.00 TEA Cairo Geniza, c970 to c1170, mobility From Antiquity to the Present 11.00-12.30 Session 2: Shapes of of the Jews of the Mediterranean: Some 11 - 13 April 2011 – All Africa House Memory Reflections on the work of S. D. Goitein Day 1: Monday 11 April 2011 Chair: Jonathan Goldstein Phillip I. Ackerman-Lieberman (Vanderbilt University) 9.00-10.30 Session 1: Belonging and Henrietta Mondry (University of The Geniza and the Islamic Belongings Canterbury, NZ) ‘Commercial Revolution’ Smell and memory as Jewish archives: Chair: Tony Kushner Katy Beinart (UCL) the case of Russian Jewish intellectuals Paul Weinberg and Romi Kaplan Reading between the lines: artistic (University of Cape Town) Ruth Leiserowitz (Free University of approaches to the family archive Berlin) ‘“Home” is where the Heart is’: 15.00-15.30 TEA Examples of the family album and home Family archive in the suitcase movie digital project, Jewish Studies, Tamara Kohn, (The Jewish Theological 15.30-17.00 Session 4: Institutions UCT Seminary of America) and Archives Joachim Schlör (University of Maurycy Minkowski Re-contextualized Chair: Hilda Nissimi Southampton) 12.30-13.30 LUNCH Jennifer E. Michaels (Grinnell College, The Suitcase as a Means of Transport Iowa) and Storage 13.30-15.00 Session 3: Interpreting Restoring and Utilizing the Past: The Texts and Archives Esther Saraga (Open University – Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum retired) Chair: Michael John Personal letters – to keep. John Simon (Independent Scholar) Continued on following page

7 Kaplan Centre events for 2011 (continued)

Haim Sperber (Western Galilee spaces after the fall of : the Remembering through the Eye of the College) case of the South African Jewish Lens Israeli Archives as Agents of Memory in Diaspora 13.00-13.30 Conclusion and Closing an Immigrant society 13.15 – Depart for Solms Delta Wine Comments James Jordan and Danielle Lockwood Estate in Franschoek (Social History 13.30 LUNCH (University of Southampton) Tour and wine tasting) Ronald Harwood and the BBC’s Written Public lecture Archives: The Individual in the Day 3: Wednesday 13 April 2011 Institution Tony Kushner (Marcus Sieff 9.00-10.00 Session 7: Families and Professor of the History of Jewish/ 17.15 Communities non Jewish Relations, University of Depart for South African Jewish Chair: Milton Shain Southampton), Exodus 1947: Museum and Cafe Riteve for opening Judith Szapor (McGill University, Memory and Forgetting, 8.00 pm dinner. The occasion will allow us to Montreal) Monday 4th April Auditorium mark the publication of previous Family Historian in Transit: The Case SAJM conference volumes Of The Two Polanyi Archives Jonathan Goldstein (University of Place and Displacement in Jewish Maura Hametz (Old Dominion West Georgia) Secular, Jewish, History and Culture and Jewish Filipino, and Zionist: The Jews of Journeys: From Philo to Hip Hop. University, Norfolk VA) Harvard Man, American Dough Boy, Manila in Historical Perspective Day 2: Tuesday 12 April 2011 Mississippi Jew: The Papers of Samuel 8.00 pm Wednesday 13th April Auditorium SAJM 9.00-11.00 Session 5: Moving People, Leyens Switzer in Virginia In association with the S A Jewish Moving Archives 10.00-11.00 Session 8: South African Board of Deputies (Cape Council), Chair: Shirli Gilbert Archives What good can South Africa and Lisa M. Leff (American University, Chair: Nicholas Evans Israel do for each other? Panel Washington DC) Veronica Belling (University of Cape Discussion Prof Milton Shain Zosa Szajkowski and the Transfer of Town) (Chair)Prof David Newman (Ben French Jewish Archives to the US, The Making of a South African Jewish Gurion University of the Negev) 1940-1961 Activist: Ray Alexander Simons’ Yiddish Benjamin Pogrund (Visiting Jonathan Goldstein (University of West Diary, Latvia, 1927. Fellow, Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies)Rhoda Kadalie (Human Georgia) Shirli Gilbert (University of Rights Activist) Johnny Copelyn The Lazar Epstein (1886-1979) Archive Southampton) (Former ANC MP; CEO, Johnnic in YIVO: Its Usefulness to Historians of Letters from the Racial State: A Holdings Limited ) Thursday, 25 China, Poland, and The Holocaust German-Jewish Refugee in South Africa August, Suzanne Rutland (University of 11.00-11.30 TEA Auditorium, 88 Hatfield Street, Sydney) Gardens A Forgotten Story: The Archives of the 11.30-13.00 Session 9: Postwar ‘Joint’ and Australian Survivor Archives Faculty Seminar Migration Chair: James Jordan Tony Kushner Marcus Sieff Hilda Nissimi (Bar-Ilan University) Tony Kushner (University of Professor of the History of Jewish/ Archival/Museal Space and Identity Southampton) and Aimee Bunting non Jewish Relations (University of Politics: The Mashhadis as Test Case (Godolphin and Latymer School) Southampton) and Aimee Bunting for Immigrant Identity in Israel Constructing a Jewish Archive after (Godolphin and Latymer School) 11.00-11.30 TEA forced migration: the case of Holocaust Wandering Lonely Jews in the Survivor Children English Countryside: Holocaust 11.30-13.00 Session 6: Politics and Michael John (University of Linz) survivors in post-war Britain the Archive Dislocation, Trauma and Forgetting: 3.00 pm Thursday 7th April Beit Chair: Joachim Schlör Central Europe 1945-1950 Midrash Kaplan Centre Filipa Ribeiro da Silva (University of Frances Williams (University of Eva Hoffman Renowned author and Hull) Edinburgh) scholar, After such Knowledge: the The Portuguese Inquisition and the aftermath of the Holocaust Amsterdam’s Notarial Contracts: two 3.00 pm Thursday 11th August Beit forgotten archives for the study of This Newsletter is published by Midrash Kaplan Centre the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies Jewish Migration History and Research, University of Cape Professor Giorgio Israel Tom Hammond (University of Hull) Town. (Department of Mathematics, The challenges of utilizing private and Editor: Janine Blumberg University of Rome “La Sapienza”) public archival collections – the case of Tel. (021) 650-3062 Theories of race and antisemitic Jewish Anti-Trafficking NGOs in Hull Fax. (021) 650-5151 policies in Italy under the fascist www.KaplanCentre.uct.ac.za and Southampton regime Printed by: 3.00 pm Wednesday 5 October, Nick Evans (University of Hull) Campus Copy & Print Beit Midrash Utilising private archives in public

8