Hate speech as a limitation to freedom of expression
- Authors: Botha, Joanna Catherine
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Freedom of speech -- South Africa , Hate speech -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/9054 , vital:26460
- Description: Hate speech in South Africa creates a tension between the right to freedom of expression and the rights to human dignity and equality. The challenge is to achieve a balance between these competing rights in the context of the divisive past and the transformative constitutional ideal, in which reconciliation and respect for group difference are promoted. Freedom of expression, an individual right, must be construed in light of its underlying values, but regard must also be given to communitarian interests. The constitutional standard draws the initial line. The advocacy of hatred on four grounds and which constitutes incitement to cause harm is not constitutionally protected speech. Such speech undermines nation building, causes acrimony, and is not tolerated in the egalitarian society envisaged by the Constitution. The thesis formulates a principled legislative hate speech framework for South Africa at both human rights and criminal levels within the parameters of the constitutional mandate, as guided by the standard for hate speech restrictions in international law, and the Canadian regulatory model. An essential premise is that regulation requires a multi-faceted balancing enquiry. A holistic approach is proposed where factors such as respect for the dignity of the victims, autonomy for speakers, listeners and the wider community; the causal link between hate speech and hatred in a community; and the desire to achieve a diverse and harmonious society; amongst others, are considered. Failure to regulate hate speech constructively endorses hatemongers and promotes damaging speech at the expense of vulnerable groups. Regulation ensures that law sets the normative benchmark, affirms the protection of vulnerable groups within the social fabric and upholds social cohesion, inclusiveness and the equal citizenship of all individuals in society. The thesis contains a proposal for the enactment of legislation creating a self-standing hate speech crime for the advocacy of extreme hatred, shaped in accordance with international requirements and comparative foreign law, and structured in light of the distinction between hate crime and hate speech. The existing legal framework is unable to provide consistent and fitting redress for the severe harm caused by such speech, namely the fostering of an environment in which the stigmatisation of groups is promoted, their exclusion from society justified and intervention is needed to remedy the escalated levels of hatred and violence between different groups in society. PEPUDA, a remedial statute aimed at promoting transformation and substantive equality, is valuable, but its speech prohibitions are broad and imprecise. Consequently, their effectiveness is compromised and their constitutionality questioned. The thesis proposes recommendations for amendments to sections 7(a), 10(1) and 12 of PEPUDA. The aim is to ensure compliance with the international standard and to foster the optimal regulation of hate speech and other forms of damaging speech, including derogatory racial epithets, which undermine human dignity and equality and threaten national unity. It is intended for the two systems to complement one another and to create a legal framework aimed at addressing hate speech constructively and in context, promoting tolerance, respect for difference, reconciliation and transformation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Botha, Joanna Catherine
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Freedom of speech -- South Africa , Hate speech -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10948/9054 , vital:26460
- Description: Hate speech in South Africa creates a tension between the right to freedom of expression and the rights to human dignity and equality. The challenge is to achieve a balance between these competing rights in the context of the divisive past and the transformative constitutional ideal, in which reconciliation and respect for group difference are promoted. Freedom of expression, an individual right, must be construed in light of its underlying values, but regard must also be given to communitarian interests. The constitutional standard draws the initial line. The advocacy of hatred on four grounds and which constitutes incitement to cause harm is not constitutionally protected speech. Such speech undermines nation building, causes acrimony, and is not tolerated in the egalitarian society envisaged by the Constitution. The thesis formulates a principled legislative hate speech framework for South Africa at both human rights and criminal levels within the parameters of the constitutional mandate, as guided by the standard for hate speech restrictions in international law, and the Canadian regulatory model. An essential premise is that regulation requires a multi-faceted balancing enquiry. A holistic approach is proposed where factors such as respect for the dignity of the victims, autonomy for speakers, listeners and the wider community; the causal link between hate speech and hatred in a community; and the desire to achieve a diverse and harmonious society; amongst others, are considered. Failure to regulate hate speech constructively endorses hatemongers and promotes damaging speech at the expense of vulnerable groups. Regulation ensures that law sets the normative benchmark, affirms the protection of vulnerable groups within the social fabric and upholds social cohesion, inclusiveness and the equal citizenship of all individuals in society. The thesis contains a proposal for the enactment of legislation creating a self-standing hate speech crime for the advocacy of extreme hatred, shaped in accordance with international requirements and comparative foreign law, and structured in light of the distinction between hate crime and hate speech. The existing legal framework is unable to provide consistent and fitting redress for the severe harm caused by such speech, namely the fostering of an environment in which the stigmatisation of groups is promoted, their exclusion from society justified and intervention is needed to remedy the escalated levels of hatred and violence between different groups in society. PEPUDA, a remedial statute aimed at promoting transformation and substantive equality, is valuable, but its speech prohibitions are broad and imprecise. Consequently, their effectiveness is compromised and their constitutionality questioned. The thesis proposes recommendations for amendments to sections 7(a), 10(1) and 12 of PEPUDA. The aim is to ensure compliance with the international standard and to foster the optimal regulation of hate speech and other forms of damaging speech, including derogatory racial epithets, which undermine human dignity and equality and threaten national unity. It is intended for the two systems to complement one another and to create a legal framework aimed at addressing hate speech constructively and in context, promoting tolerance, respect for difference, reconciliation and transformation.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2016
Emergency law: judicial control of executive power under the states of emergency in South Africa
- Authors: Grogan, John
- Date: 1989
- Subjects: War and emergency legislation -- South Africa , Internal security -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa , Executive power -- South Africa , Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3674 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003189 , War and emergency legislation -- South Africa , Internal security -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa , Executive power -- South Africa , Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa
- Description: This work examines the legal effects of a declaration of a state of emergency under the Public Safety Act 3 of 1953 and the exercise of legislative and administrative powers pursuant thereto. The general basis of judicial control over executive action and the various devices used to limit or oust the court's jurisdiction are set out and explained. Against this background, the courts' performance of their supervisory role under the special circumstances of emergency rule is critically surveyed and assessed. The legal issues raised by the exercise of emergency powers is examined at the various levels of their deployment: first, the declaration of a state of emergency; second, the making of emergency regulations; third, their execution by means of administrative action, including detention, banning, censorship and the use of force. The major cases concerning emergency issues, both reported and unreported, are analysed in their appropriate contexts, and an overview provided of the effects of emergency regulations and orders on such freedoms as South Africans enjoy under the 'ordinary' law. Finally, an attempt is made to assess how these decisions have affected the prospect of judicial review of executive action, both in the emergency context and in the field of administrative law generally. The conclusion is that, however far the Appellate Division may appear to have gone towards eliminating the role of the law in the emergency regime, grounds remain for the courts to exercise a more vigorous supervisory role should they choose to do so in future.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1989
- Authors: Grogan, John
- Date: 1989
- Subjects: War and emergency legislation -- South Africa , Internal security -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa , Executive power -- South Africa , Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , PhD
- Identifier: vital:3674 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003189 , War and emergency legislation -- South Africa , Internal security -- South Africa , Civil rights -- South Africa , Executive power -- South Africa , Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa
- Description: This work examines the legal effects of a declaration of a state of emergency under the Public Safety Act 3 of 1953 and the exercise of legislative and administrative powers pursuant thereto. The general basis of judicial control over executive action and the various devices used to limit or oust the court's jurisdiction are set out and explained. Against this background, the courts' performance of their supervisory role under the special circumstances of emergency rule is critically surveyed and assessed. The legal issues raised by the exercise of emergency powers is examined at the various levels of their deployment: first, the declaration of a state of emergency; second, the making of emergency regulations; third, their execution by means of administrative action, including detention, banning, censorship and the use of force. The major cases concerning emergency issues, both reported and unreported, are analysed in their appropriate contexts, and an overview provided of the effects of emergency regulations and orders on such freedoms as South Africans enjoy under the 'ordinary' law. Finally, an attempt is made to assess how these decisions have affected the prospect of judicial review of executive action, both in the emergency context and in the field of administrative law generally. The conclusion is that, however far the Appellate Division may appear to have gone towards eliminating the role of the law in the emergency regime, grounds remain for the courts to exercise a more vigorous supervisory role should they choose to do so in future.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 1989
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »