DOCSLIB.ORG

Advancing Equality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ADVANCING EQUALITY ADVANCING In a world where attacks on the basic human rights and equal PUBLIC AFFAIRS worth of all people are escalating, Advancing Equality reminds us of the critical role of constitutions in protecting equal rights. An- ADVANCING alyzing the constitutions of all 193 United Nations countries, this book traces fifty years of change in constitution drafting and ex- amines how stronger protections against discrimination, along- EQUALITY side core social and economic rights, can transform lives. Looking across gender, race and ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity, disability, social class, and migration status, the How Constitutional authors reveal whose rights are increasingly guaranteed in con- stitutions, identify which nations and groups lag behind, and share Rights Can Make inspiring stories of activism and powerful court cases from around the globe. Advancing Equality serves as a comprehensive call to a Difference action for anyone who cares about their country’s future. “Advancing Equality shows how far we have come around the Worldwide world in protecting human rights, but also how far we still have to Foreword by Dikgang Moseneke, go. Working together and taking action, we can make sure every- former Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa one’s rights, particularly the most discriminated against and mar- ginalized, are protected in every constitution and enforced by law and societal change to realize true equality and a better world.” Make a Difference Worldwide a Difference Make How Constitutional Rights Can ANTONIA KIRKLAND, Global Lead, Legal Equality and Access to Justice, at Equality Now JODY HEYMANN is an elected member of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, Director of the WORLD Policy Analysis Center, and Distinguished Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and of Health Policy and Management at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. ALETA SPRAGUE is Se- nior Legal Analyst at the WORLD Policy Analysis Center and an attorney whose career has focused on advancing public policies and laws that address inequality. AMY RAUB is Principal Research Analyst at the WORLD Policy Analysis Center and an economist HEYMANN with over a decade of experience working on discrimination and SPRAGUE inequality. RAUB UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS www.ucpress.edu | www.luminosoa.org A free ebook version of this title is available through Luminos, University of California Press’s Open Access publishing program for monographs. JODY HEYMANN Visit www.luminosoa.org to learn more. Cover illustration: A young South African girl from the Xhosa tribe works on her studies and jokes ALETA SPRAGUE with her friends in a classroom in the Transkei region of rural South Africa. © epicurean/gettyimages AMY RAUB Luminos is the Open Access monograph publishing program from UC Press. Luminos provides a framework for preserving and reinvigorating monograph publishing for the future and increases the reach and visibility of important scholarly work. Titles published in the UC Press Luminos model are published with the same high standards for selection, peer review, production, and marketing as those in our traditional program. www.luminosoa.org Advancing Equality The publisher and the University of California Press Foundation gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Anne G. Lipow Endowment Fund in Social Justice and Human Rights. Advancing Equality How Constitutional Rights Can Make a Difference Worldwide Jody Heymann, Aleta Sprague, and Amy Raub Foreword by Dikgang Moseneke UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS University of California Press Oakland, California © 2020 by Jody Heymann, Aleta Sprague, and Amy Raub This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND license. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses. Suggested citation: Heymann, J., Sprague, A. and Raub, A. Advancing Equality: How Constitutional Rights Can Make a Difference Worldwide. Oakland: University of California Press, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/ luminos.81 Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-0-520-30963-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-520-97387-9 (ebook) 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To our children and yours “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of free- dom, justice and peace in the world.” —universal declaration of human rights (1948), preamble Contents List of Illustrations xi Foreword by Dikgang Moseneke xv 1. The Urgency of Advancing Equality 1 Part One: Equal Rights and Nondiscrimination 2. Historic Exclusion and Persisting Inequalities: Advancing Equal Rights on the Basis of Race and Ethnicity 19 3. Why Addressing Gender Is Foundational 45 4. One in Thirty: Protecting Fundamental Rights for the World’s Migrants and Refugees 71 5. Negotiating the Balance of Religious Freedom and Equal Rights 97 6. Moving Forward in the Face of Backlash: Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 128 7. From Nondiscrimination to Full Inclusion: Guaranteeing the Equal Rights of People with Disabilities 151 8. Ensuring Rights and Full Participation Regardless of Social and Economic Position 178 x Contents Part Two: Social and Economic Rights That Are Fundamental to Equality 9. The Right to Education: A Foundation for Equal Opportunities 199 10. The Right to Health: From Treatment and Care to Creating the Conditions for a Healthy Life 225 11. How Far Has the World Come? 251 12. Each of Us, All of Us: Taking Action to Strengthen Rights Globally 272 Acknowledgments 285 Appendix: Methods 291 Glossary 299 Notes 301 Index 375 List of Illustrations MAPS 1. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination across race/ethnicity? 23 2. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination across language? 25 3. Does the constitution explicitly provide for the right to education in their own language for linguistic minorities? 26 4. Does the constitution explicitly allow for affirmative measures to advance equal opportunities across race/ethnicity? 43 5. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination across sex and/or gender? 50 6. Does the constitution explicitly protect women’s right to equality in marriage in all aspects including entering, exiting, and within marriage? 55 7. Does the constitution explicitly protect noncitizens’ general right to educa- tion or specific right to primary education? 77 8. Does the constitution take an explicit approach to protecting noncitizens’ right to equality at work or decent working conditions? 81 9. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee an approach to noncitizens’ right to health? 86 xi xii List of Illustrations 10. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination for noncitizens? 89 11. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee noncitizens’ right to freedom of movement? 92 12. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination across religion? 106 13. Does the constitution take an explicit approach to protecting freedom of religion? 109 14. Does the constitution explicitly protect freedom to not believe in religion? 109 15. Does the constitution explicitly protect freedom of religion from infringing on the rights of others? 111 16. What is the constitutional role of religion in countries where the state is affiliated or under the jurisdictional control of a specific religion? 113 17. How do countries that identify in their constitution as secular treat religion? 119 18. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination across sexual orientation and gender identity? 134 19. What is the constitutional status of same-sex marriage? 135 20. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination for persons with disabilities? 157 21. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee the right to education for children with disabilities? 159 22. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee the right to work for adults with disabilities? 159 23. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee the right to health for persons with disabilities? 161 24. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equality or nondiscrimination across socioeconomic status? 183 25. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee some aspect of citizens’ right to education? 210 26. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to secondary education? 210 27. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to higher education? 210 28. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to free primary education? 214 List of Illustrations xiii 29. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to free secondary education? 214 30. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to free higher education? 214 31. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee equal opportunities or nondiscrimination in education? 217 32. Does the constitution explicitly provide for compulsory education? 218 33. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee an approach to the right to health? 232 34. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to public health? 233 35. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to a healthy environment? 234 36. Does the constitution explicitly guarantee citizens’ right to medical care? 235 FIGURES 1. Explicit constitutional guarantee of equality or nondiscrimination
Recommended publications
  • Constitutional Authority and Its Limitations: the Politics of Sexuality in South Africa

    Constitutional Authority and Its Limitations: the Politics of Sexuality in South Africa

    South Africa Constitutional Authority and its Limitations: The Politics of Sexuality in South Africa Belinda Beresford Helen Schneider Robert Sember Vagner Almeida “While the newly enfranchised have much to gain by supporting their government, they also have much to lose.” Adebe Zegeye (2001) A history of the future: Constitutional rights South Africa’s Constitutional Court is housed in an architecturally innovative complex on Constitution Hill, a 100-acre site in central Johannesburg. The site is adjacent to Hillbrow, a neighborhood of high-rise apartment buildings into which are crowded thousands of mi- grants from across the country and the continent. This is one of the country’s most densely populated, cosmopolitan and severely blighted urban areas. From its position atop Constitu- tion Hill, the Court offers views of Hillbrow’s high-rises and the distant northern suburbs where the established white elite and increasing numbers of newly affluent non-white South Africans live. Thus, while the light-filled, colorful and contemporary Constitutional Court buildings reflect the progressive and optimistic vision of post-apartheid South Africa the lo- cation is a reminder of the deeply entrenched inequalities that continue to define the rights of the majority of people in the country and the continent. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ITS LIMITATIONS: THE POLITICS OF SEXUALITY IN SOUTH AFRICA 197 From the late 1800s to 1983 Constitution Hill was the location of Johannesburg’s central prison, the remains of which now lie in the shadow of the new court buildings. Former prison buildings include a fort built by the Boers (descendents of Dutch settlers) in the late 1800s to defend themselves against the thousands of men and women who arrived following the discovery of the area’s expansive gold deposits.
  • Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth

    Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth

    Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites © Human Rights Consortium, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NCND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN 978-1-912250-13-4 (2018 PDF edition) DOI 10.14296/518.9781912250134 Institute of Commonwealth Studies School of Advanced Study University of London Senate House Malet Street London WC1E 7HU Cover image: Activists at Pride in Entebbe, Uganda, August 2012. Photo © D. David Robinson 2013. Photo originally published in The Advocate (8 August 2012) with approval of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG). Approval renewed here from SMUG and FARUG, and PRIDE founder Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera. Published with direct informed consent of the main pictured activist. Contents Abbreviations vii Contributors xi 1 Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity in the Commonwealth: from history and law to developing activism and transnational dialogues 1 Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites 2
  • Vriend V. Alberta, Supreme Court of Canada

    Vriend V. Alberta, Supreme Court of Canada

    Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 Delwin Vriend, Gala-Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton, Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignité for Gay Catholics and Supporters Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta and Her Majesty’s Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta Respondents and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), the Foundation for Equal Families, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Bar Association -- Alberta Branch, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), the Canadian AIDS Society, the Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association Interveners Indexed as: Vriend v. Alberta File No.: 25285. 1997: November 4; 1998: April 2. - 2 - Present: Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,* Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Practice -- Standing -- Charter challenge -- Teacher’s employment at college terminated because of his homosexuality -- Provincial human rights legislation not including sexual orientation as prohibited ground of discrimination -- Whether appellants have standing to challenge legislative provisions other than those relating to employment -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15(1) -- Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A.
  • Appointments to South Africa's Constitutional Court Since 1994

    Appointments to South Africa's Constitutional Court Since 1994

    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 15 July 2015 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Johnson, Rachel E. (2014) 'Women as a sign of the new? Appointments to the South Africa's Constitutional Court since 1994.', Politics gender., 10 (4). pp. 595-621. Further information on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X14000439 Publisher's copyright statement: c Copyright The Women and Politics Research Section of the American 2014. This paper has been published in a revised form, subsequent to editorial input by Cambridge University Press in 'Politics gender' (10: 4 (2014) 595-621) http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=PAG Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Rachel E. Johnson, Politics & Gender, Vol. 10, Issue 4 (2014), pp 595-621. Women as a Sign of the New? Appointments to South Africa’s Constitutional Court since 1994.
  • Xenophobic Acts and Speech Toward Migrants in Australia

    Xenophobic Acts and Speech Toward Migrants in Australia

    Xenophobic Acts and Speech toward Migrants in Australia Issues Paper, 15 October, 2015 ABOUT THE AUTHOR The UNSW Human Rights Clinic works to systemically advance the rights of temporary migrants and asylum seekers in Asia and Australia. Under intensive faculty supervision, clinic students work as legal advisers and advocates with individual clients, NGOs, governments and inter-governmental institutions globally. Bridging theory and practice, students learn the skills and responsibilities of human rights lawyering. For further information on the clinic and its publications, see http://www.law.unsw.edu. au/current-students/law-action/clinics/human-rights-clinic. The Issues Paper was written by: Ann Emmanuel, Student, Human Rights Clinic, UNSW Law Will de Waal, Student, Human Rights Clinic, UNSW Law Bassina Farbenblum, Co-Director, Human Rights Clinic, UNSW Law Jennifer Whelan, Co-Director, Human Rights Clinic, UNSW Law Design and layout by Marjorie Fox-Owens. This Issues Paper should be cited as: UNSW Human Rights Clinic, Xenophobic Acts and Speech Toward Migrants in Australia: Issues Paper, 15 October, 2015. Preface This issues paper was originally prepared as a briefing paper for the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, François Crépeau. The Special Rapporteur had planned a two-week visit to Australia from 27 September to 9 October 2015 to gather information about the situation of migrants and asylum seekers in Australia and neighbouring detention centres.1 The visit was postponed due to the ‘lack of full cooperation from the Government regarding protection concerns and access to detention centres’.2 The paper provides an overview of xenophobic acts towards migrants in Australia, laws prohibiting racial discrimination and vilification and programs initiated in Australia to address hate speech.
  • The National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Anothe

    The National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Anothe

    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 11/98 THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR GAY AND LESBIAN EQUALITY First Applicant THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Second Applicant versus THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE First Respondent THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Second Respondent THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE WITWATERSRAND Third Respondent Heard on : 27 August 1998 Decided on : 9 October 1998 JUDGMENT ACKERMANN J: Introduction [1] This matter concerns the confirmation of a declaration of constitutional invalidity of - (a) section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957; (b) the inclusion of sodomy as an item in Schedule 1 of the Criminal SACHS J Procedure Act, 1977 (“Schedule 1 of the CPA”); and (c) the inclusion of sodomy as an item in the schedule to the Security Officers Act, 1987 (“the Security Officers Act Schedule”); made by Heher J in the Witwatersrand High Court on 8 May 1998.1 These declarations were made and referred to this Court for confirmation under section 172(2)(a) of the 1996 Constitution.2 [2] The full order made by Heher J reads as follows: “1. It is declared that the common-law offence of sodomy is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. 2. It is declared that the common-law offence of commission of an unnatural sexual act is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 to the extent that it criminalises acts committed by a man or between men which, if committed by a woman or between women or between a man and a woman, would not constitute an offence.
  • The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project

    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project

    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project STEVE McDONALD Interviewed by: Dan Whitman Initial Interview Date: August 17, 2011 Copyright 2018 ADST TABLE OF CONTENTS Education MA, South African Policy Studies, University of London 1975 Joined Foreign Service 1975 Washington, DC 1975 Desk Officer for Portuguese African Colonies Pretoria, South Africa 1976-1979 Political Officer -- Black Affairs Retired from the Foreign Service 1980 Professor at Drury College in Missouri 1980-1982 Consultant, Ford Foundation’s Study 1980-1982 “South Africa: Time Running Out” Head of U.S. South Africa Leadership Exchange Program 1982-1987 Managed South Africa Policy Forum at the Aspen Institute 1987-1992 Worked for African American Institute 1992-2002 Consultant for the Wilson Center 2002-2008 Consulting Director at Wilson Center 2009-2013 INTERVIEW Q: Here we go. This is Dan Whitman interviewing Steve McDonald at the Wilson Center in downtown Washington. It is August 17. Steve McDonald, you are about to correct me the head of the Africa section… McDONALD: Well the head of the Africa program and the project on leadership and building state capacity at the Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars. 1 Q: That is easy for you to say. Thank you for getting that on the record, and it will be in the transcript. In the Wilson Center many would say the prime research center on the East Coast. McDONALD: I think it is true. It is a think tank a research and academic body that has approximately 150 fellows annually from all over the world looking at policy issues.
  • AG3368-M48-001-Jpeg.Pdf

    AG3368-M48-001-Jpeg.Pdf

    Zanele Majola Constitutional Court Oral History Project 24th January 2012 Int This is an interview with Zanele Majola, and it’s the 24th of January 2012. Zanele, thank you so much for agreeing to participate in the Constitutional Court Oral History Project, we really appreciate it. ZM It’s a pleasure. I’m happy to be here. Int Zanele, I wondered if we could talk about early childhood, where you were born, a bit about family background, and what are some of your experiences of growing up in South Africa when you did? ZM Alright. I was born in Durban and grew up in a township called KwaMakhutha. I was the last child of four siblings and I grew up with my mom, who is divorced, and we were sort of protected from stuff that was happening at the time. I was born in 1979. I remember very little actually about, for example what the Constitutional Court now represents, about apartheid, because you were basically growing up, going to school, back home, and my mother wasn’t very much of a political attuned person. I think it was only later on when we were witnessing toyi-toying in the late eighties, and houses being petrol bombed, that you started being aware of what was happening. I don’t know how much of it you want to know but it was only when I was in my early teens that I started becoming aware of things. I was fortunate…I don’t know whether fortunate is the right word: My elder sister went to school with Griffiths and Victoria Mxenge’s son, so when Victoria was killed we knew and we knew why it had happened.
  • House of Commons Official Report Parliamentary

    House of Commons Official Report Parliamentary

    Thursday Volume 664 26 September 2019 No. 343 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 26 September 2019 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 843 26 SEPTEMBER 2019 Speaker’s Statement 844 there will be an urgent question later today on the House of Commons matter to which I have just referred, and that will be an opportunity for colleagues to say what they think. This is something of concern across the House. It is Thursday 26 September 2019 not a party political matter and, certainly as far as I am concerned, it should not be in any way, at any time, to any degree a matter for partisan point scoring. It is The House met at half-past Nine o’clock about something bigger than an individual, an individual party or an individual political or ideological viewpoint. Let us treat of it on that basis. In the meantime, may I just ask colleagues—that is all I am doing and all I can PRAYERS do as your representative in the Chair—please to lower the decibel level and to try to treat each other as opponents, not as enemies? [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s Statement Mr Speaker: Order. I genuinely am not convinced, but I will take one point of order if the hon. Gentleman Mr Speaker: Before we get under way with today’s insists.
  • The Shifting Attitudes of Australian Evangelicals Towards Race in the 1960S

    The Shifting Attitudes of Australian Evangelicals Towards Race in the 1960S

    The shifting attitudes of Australian evangelicals towards race in the 1960s Phil Rademaker Australian attitudes to race and racial discrimination were changing in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Commonwealth Government’s policies of restrictive immigration (known as the ‘White Australia’ policy) had enjoyed strong support as the majority of Australians believed the country was destined to be, in the words of Prime Minister John Curtin in 1939, ‘forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race.’1 Yet the Second World War stoked fears of being overrun by Asian masses and this prompted a relaxation of the policy to enable non-British Europeans to become citizens.2 While this change was motivated by racist fears, over the next decade as former British colonies declared their independence and as the world reflected upon the actions of Nazi Germany, many in Australia started questioning Australia’s racial policy. In 1963, Hubert Opperman replaced Alexander Downer (Sr) as minister for immigration, signalling a shift in the Liberal party, and by 1965 Gough Whitlam had convinced the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to remove its support for White Australia. Yet, as historian Judith Brett notes, there was still significant support for the policy among older ALP members and voters, and among much of the Coalition.3 Paul Strangio likewise observes a division in Australia regarding the question of race. On the one hand, Prime Minister Harold Holt saw humanitarian
  • The Life Esidimeni Tragedy in South Africa Ebenezer Durojaye and Daphine Kabagambe Agaba

    The Life Esidimeni Tragedy in South Africa Ebenezer Durojaye and Daphine Kabagambe Agaba

    HHr Health and Human Rights Journal perspective HHR_final_logo_alone.indd 1 10/19/15 10:53 AM Contribution of the Health Ombud to Accountability: The Life Esidimeni Tragedy in South Africa ebenezer durojaye and daphine kabagambe agaba Introduction Between October 2015 and June 2016, 1,711 people were relocated from mental health facilities operated by long-term provider Life Esidimeni in the South African province of Gauteng to alternative facilities managed by multiple nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The result of the change in providers, and the manner in which the transfers were managed, became a tragedy that culminated in the death of 144 mental health care patients and the exposure of 1,418 others to torture, trauma, and poor health outcomes.1 The state was unable to ascertain the whereabouts of a further 44 patients. The tragedy began in October 2015, when the then member of the Executive Council for health in the populous Gauteng province, which includes Johannesburg and Pretoria, announced the termination of a 40-year contract between the Department of Health and Life Esidimeni for the provision of mental health services.2 The NGO facilities to which the patients were transferred were ill prepared and ill equipped for the influx of patients.3 The tragedy drew further public attention in September 2016, when, responding to a question raised in Parliament, the member of the Executive Council for health said that about 36 former residents of Life Esidimeni had died under mysterious circumstances following their transfers. South
  • Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium

    Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium

    Court File No: 26858 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: LITTLE SISTERS BOOK AND ART EMPORIUM B.C. CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION JAMES EATON DEVA AND GUY ALLEN BRUCE SMYTHE Appellants (Plaintiffs) and MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Respondents (Defendants) ______________________________ APPELLANT'S FACTUM ______________________________ PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The principal business of the Appellant, Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium ("Little Sisters") is the sale of books and magazines most of which are written by and for gay men and lesbians. Most of the books and magazines sold by Little Sisters are published in the United States and imported into Canada by Little Sisters. The Appellant, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has demonstrated a longstanding, genuine and continuing concern for the rights of disadvantaged groups or individuals in Canada and has likewise opposed censorship of allegedly obscene books and magazines. Amended Statement of Claim, paras. 6, 7 & 2. Appellants' Record ("AR") Vol. I, pp. 37, 36. 2. From about 1985 and from time to time to the trial, hundreds of books and magazines that Little Sisters has purchased and sought to import into Canada have been detained, prohibited and/or destroyed by customs officials pursuant to the Customs Legislation on the grounds that the books and magazines were "obscene". Amended Statement of Claim, para. 8. AR Vol. I, pp. 37-38. 3. This case concerns the constitutionality of Tariff Code 9956(a) of Schedule VII (now Tariff Item 9899.00.00) and s.