Regulations for lockdown 3.1 indicated that the Minister of Health will give an indication on what constitutes "vigorous exercise". This still hasn't happened. This post is sweating the small stuff, by relying on the principle that laws must be clear, for us to follow it.
What happens if the law of the indigenous people are asserted in a country that for so long disregarded it, but now has a Constitution that gives full recognition to it? How does one reconcile laws whose normative basis seem to just not be compatible?
This was part of the issue in the South African Human Rights Commission case, delivered last week. The City of Cape Town argued that the structures the demolished were unoccupied, and as such do not fall under the provisions of PIE. Being unoccupied, there was nobody to evict. The applicants, however, argued that those evicted have been living in the structures (in other words, it was occupied), and therefore they are entitled to the protection of section 26 of the Constitution.
En dis ook waar die dans, soos die wawiel dans, baie simbolies raak. Dit maak die sirkel toe na binne. Dit is eksklusief. Dit is staties bewegend, om en om en om die as van die Afrikaner identiteit en mag.
Does the State of Disaster end by midnight tonight? There seems to be confusion on social media about 15th of August and the end of the State of Disaster. Despite some people stating that today marks the end of the “lockdown", all indications are that the State of Disaster will be extended and that we … Continue reading Why we will probably be in a State of Disaster for a while
Covid is also bringing about new challenges with regards to lawmaking. This is an article that I wrote a couple of months ago about how laws are made. The directives pose unique challenges, and I had so much fun writing this.
What do we do if we don't agree with rules or laws? Do we follow them? Or do we break them? And is it ok?