Human rights.

Human rights are described by the Constitution as the cornerstone of democracy in South
Africa. It is contained in Chapter two of the 1996 constitution and contains 33 sections. Human rights are
the rights everyone has because they are human beings. It cannot be created by the government. They
are the basic rights that the government must protect. We have these rights regardless of our age, our
race, our six, etc.. The Constitution protects them and therefore it makes them part of the highest law.

That person can use them in court to protect him or herself. It is very hard for anyone to take away your
human rights. Examples of human rights include equality before the law, human dignity, life, privacy,
religion, belief or opinion. The right to expression. The right to environment. The right to healthcare, food
and water. Education and the rights of children. Equality. All people are equal, equal does not mean that
we are all the same.

Each of us is different and special in our own way. But we have common qualities that make us all
humans. Therefore, each of us should be treated with respect and dignity and treat others the same.
There must be no discrimination in the Employment Equity Act. A distinction is being made between
direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination refers to when you treat other people different
because of who they are. For example, even though a job does not require it, it is stated that only males
can apply.

Indirect discrimination is when you use certain criteria which may appear at face value to be fair, but they
unfairly exclude certain groups. For example, an airline advertises forced cabin attendants, but the cabin
attendants must be under one point six metres and under 60 kilograms. This means that even if a person
can do a job, he or she is not the right weight or length South African case. Law in this regard is with
regard to South African Airways versus Mr. Hoffmann, Mr. Hoffman was a prospective employee of the
South African Airways, and he alleged that the South African Airways employment practices were
unconstitutional. He had been refused employment as an airline cabin attendant after compulsory medical
examinations found him to be HIV positive. He argued that the South African Airways is futile to employ
him, violated his constitutional right to equality, human dignity and fair labor practices. The South African
Airways argued that its employment policy required of them to exclude from employment as cabin
attendants all persons who are found to be HIV positive.

They maintained that in the course of employment, cabin attendance must be vaccinated against yellow
fever and that HIV positive people may react negatively to this vaccine and may not take it. They
therefore argued that they could contract yellow fever and other opportunistic diseases, which could later
be transmitted to others. They also argued that the life expectancy of people who are HIV positive was
too short to warrant the costs of training them. The High Court dismissed this lawsuit, finding that the
South African.

It was employment practice was based on the considerations of medical necessity, safety and operational
procedure. And they also ruled that if they were compelled to hire people living with HIV as cabin
attendants, it would be seriously this advantage against its competitors. Mr. Hoffmann then appealed this
decision of the high court to the Constitutional Court, where the Constitutional Court found out that people
with HIV as one of the most disadvantaged groups in society deserve special protection from low.
Equality, equality refers to that all people are equal.

But equality does not mean we are all the same. Each of us is different and special in our own way. But
we have common qualities that make us all humans. Therefore, each of us should be treated with respect
and dignity and treat others the same. They must be no discrimination. In Employment Equity Act, the
distinction is being made between direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination refers to when
you treat people different because of who they are. For example, even though a job does not require it, it
is stated that only males can apply.

Indirect discrimination refers to when you use certain criteria which may appear at face value. To be fair,
they unfairly exclude certain groups. For example, an airline advertises for capital attendance. That must
be under one point six metre and under 60 kilograms. This means that even if a person can do a job, he
or she is not the right weight or the right length. A South African case law in this regard was the case
between Mr. Hoffman versus the South African Airways.

Mr. Hoffman was a prospective employee of the South African Airways at he alleged that South African
Airways employment practices were unconstitutional. He had been refused employment as an airline
cabin attendant after compulsory medical examinations found him to be HIV positive. He argued that the
South African it was his refusal to employ he violated his constitutional right of equality, human dignity
and fair labor practices. The South African Airways, on the other hand, argued that its employment
policies required them to exclude from employment as cabin attendants all persons who are found to be
HIV positive.

They maintained that in the course of employment cabinet, things must be vaccinated against yellow
fever and that HIV positive people may react negatively to this vaccine and may not take it. They also
argued that they could contract yellow fever and other opportunistic diseases, which could later be
transmitted to other people. The company also argued that the life expectancy of people who are HIV
positive was too short to warrant the cost of training them. The high court then dismissed the lawsuit,
finding that the South African Airways, as the employment practice was based on copyright
considerations of medical necessity, safety and operational procedure.

It also ruled that if the South African Airways was compelled to hire people living with HIV as cabin
attendants, it would be seriously disadvantaged against its competitors. Mr. Hoffman then appealed this
decision of the High Court to the Constitutional Court with a constitutional court, then ruled in favor of Mr.
Hoffmann and said that people with HIV is one of the most disadvantaged groups in society and therefore
deserve special protection from the group. Is very important to take note that constitutional rights and
freedoms are not absolute.

They can be limited to proving conflict with other rights or general interests. They have boundaries set by
the rights of others and by important social concerns such as public order or safety. For example, the
freedom of movement of persons may interfere with the protection of the state security in certain
circumstances. Health. For example, a person who suffers from a potentially fatal and contagious disease
may have his right of freedom of movement restricted through isolation or quarantine in order to protect
other people against the risk of contagion.

This is just as we now have with the Covid-19 pandemic and then also democratic values. When the
constitutional court considers the legitimacy of the limitation of a right, there are five aspects they use to
help them to decide. Namely, as set out in the limitation clause or Section 36 of the Constitution, which
sets out specific criteria for the justification of restrictions of the rights in the Bill of Rights. This section
then says that the rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only with that limitation is reasonable and
justifiable bill in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Taking
into account all relevant factors, which includes in the first place the nature of the right, the importance of
the purpose of the limitation, the nature and extant of the limitation, the relation between limitation and its
purpose and less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. Here again we can example of the Covid-19
pandemic restrictions that the government has to put in place in order to protect all the people of South
Africa and to make sure the disease does not spread.

The reason for limiting a right need to be exceptional strong, as you can see from the previous slide the
South African Constitution permits the limitation of rights by law, but the limitation must be justifiable. In
other words, it must serve a purpose and most people will regard as compellingly important. A limitation
or a restriction on a right will not be justifiable unless there’s a good reason for thinking that the restriction
will achieve the purpose it is destinated to achieve and that there’s no reality available way, in which the
purpose can be achieved without restricting rights.

The binding effects of human rights is that any person whether that person is a natural or a juristic person
for instant a company or bearers of human rights. So, anyone who is bearer of human rights when there’s
been an infringement on those rights can approach the Court. Section 38 states that anyone action in
their own interest can approach the Court. Anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in
own name. Anyone acting as member of, or in interest of, a group or class of persons •Anyone acting in
public interest. Association acting in interest of members. All of them can approach a Court. Section 34
says everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law to be
decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent tribunal or
forum and this definitely going to happen after the Covid-19 pandemic, where a lot of people will feel that
there’s been infringements on their rights as in the Constitution and they definitely approach a Court.