Gender equality by on PreziCreateExploreLearn & supportGet startedLog inPricingGet startedLog inMy PrezisExploreLearn & supportProductCompanyCareersSupportCommunityContactAppsEnglishEspañol한국어日本語DeutschPortuguêsFrançaisMagyarItaliano×Houston, we have a problem!Oops. A firewall is blocking access to Prezi content. Check out this article to learn more or contact your system administrator.
No, thanksConnect with FacebookGender equality
Report abuseTranscript of Gender equalityHistoryIngevolge die gemeenregtelike oppergesag van maritale mag, het 'n man beheer gehad oor elke aspek van sy vrou se lewe. Alhoewel die gemeenregtelike reël in 1984 herroep is, was huweliksverkragting wettig tot 1993 (Wet op Voorkoming van Gesinsgeweld 133 van 1993). In terms of the common law rule of marital power, the husband had control over every aspect of his wife’s life. This rule was retrenched in 1984 but marital rape remained legal until 1993 (Prevention of Family Violence Act 133 of 1993). Legislative reform:Nou het ons die vooruitstrewende Wet op Gesinsgeweld 116 van 1998 (WGG). Alhoewel die Wet swyg oor die rol van die gesondheidsorgsektor, is dit nietemin vooruitstrewend aangesien dit ’n uitgebreide omskrywing van "huishoudelike geweld" bevat en ’n wye verskeidenheid van verhoudings erken. WEGH 120 van 1998; WKODBVSNow we have the progressive Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 (DVA) which contains a broad definition of “domestic violence” and recognises a wide range of relationships. RCMA 120 of 1998; CTPADie Grondwet verbied diskriminasie op grond van geslagtelikheid en geslag.Die term "geslagtelikheid" verwys na sosiale konstruksies van gedragsnorme wat as geskik vir vrouens en mans beskou word.Gender equality definition...Gender....Historical developments within women’s rightsIn 1912, het die Appèlafdeling beslis dat vroue nie in die definisie van 'n "persoon" ingesluit is nie en dus nie toegelaat kon word as prokureurs nie – Incorporated Law Society v Wookey 1912 AD 623. MAAR, in 1923, het die "Women’s Legal Practitioners Act" hierdie posisie verander.In 1930; reg om te stem uiteindelik uitgebrei na vrouens, (slegs wit vrouens). In 1912, the Appellate division found that women did not fall within the definition of a “person” = could not be admitted as attorneys – Incorporated Law Society v Wookey 1912 AD 623. BUT, the Women’s Legal Practitioners Act changed this in 1923. The advent of the Constitution-Met die inwerkingtreding van die finale Grondwet, wat buidende en progressiewe regte vir vrouens verskans, was daar uitgebreide regshervorming.Belangrike grondwetlike regte vir vroue:Gelykheid (a 9); menswaardigheid (a 10); lewe (a 11) en vryheid en sekerheid van die persoon (12) waarby inbegrepe is die reg om (c) vry te wees van alle vorme van geweld van hetsy openbare hetsy private oorsprong.See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads#sthash.ZKdRkvKf.dpufGenuine Google searches reveal the widespread prevalence of sexism and discrimination againstwomen. Based on searched dated 9 March 2013.Genuine Google searches reveal the widespread prevalence of sexism and discrimination against women. Based on searches dated 9 March, 2013 See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads#sthash.ZKdRkvKf.dpufDie globale statistieke oor die misbruik van meisies is skokkend: dit blyk dat daar meer meisies oor die afgelope vyftig jare vermoor is, juis omdat hulle mesies is; as mans in al die oorloë van die twintigste eeu. Meer meisies is in 'n enkele dekade in hierdie alledaagse "gendercide" vermoor, as al die mense wat in die volksmoorde van die twintigste eeu vermoor is.Global statistics about the abuse of girls are shocking; it appears that "more girls have been killed in the last fifty years precisely because they were girls, than men were killed in all the battles of the twentieth century. More girls are killed in this routine 'genderecide; in any one decade than people were slaughtered in all the genocidces of the twentieth century.N Kristoff & S Wudunn "Half the Sky: how to change the world"Gender equality1 Definisie/Definition4 But... There is still a problemGender = social constructions ofnorms of behaviour that are considered appropriate for men and women.Global scope of the problemGeslagsgebaseerde geweld (GGG) vermoor en vermink net soveel vroue tussen die ouderdomme van 15 en 40 jaar as kanker. Dit blyk dat GGG 'n krities gesondheidskwessie is en dus aan die reg om toegang tot gesondheidsorgdienste to hê gekoppel is.GBV kills and disables as many women between the ages of 15 and 40 as cancer. GBV= health crisis. Women who have been raped are at risk of unwanted pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Over a third of them develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Men who have been raped have a long term increased risk of acquiring HIV and are at risk of alcohol abuse, depression and suicide.2 HistoryInternational law developments= CEDAW BOR for women.Discussion Group:Vergelyk artikel 9 van die Grondwet met artikels 1-5 van die Konvensie vir die Uitwissing van Alle Vorme van Diskriminasie teen Vroue (1979) / Compare section 9 of the Constitution to articles 1-5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979). JurisprudenceBerei ŉ bondige saakbespreking oor die meerderheidsuitspraak voor ( S v Jordan). U saakbespreking moet op die feite, die meerderheid van die Hof se ontleding van die maatskaplike konteks, asook die meerderheid se ontleding van die impak van die relevante wetgewing op sekswerkers, fokus. /Prepare a concise case discussion focusing on the majority judgment. Your case discussion must focus on the facts of the case, the majority of the Court’s analysis of the social context, as well as the majority’s analysis of the impact of the relevant legislation on sex workers. (Ngcobo Paras 8-20)3 Positiewe ontwikkelinge5...Scope of the problem...Vroue is meer geneig as mans om in armoede te leef / Ekonomies: Vroue doen 60% van die wêreld se werk en produseer 50% van die voedsel, maar verdien slegs 10% van die inkomste en besit net 1% van die eiendom.Women are more likely than men to live in poverty. Women perform 60% of the world’s work and produce 50% of the food, yet they earn only 10% of the income and own just 1% of the property.Ekonomiese, maatskaplike en kulturele regte het 'n besondere betekenis vir vrouens, want as 'n groep word vrouens buite verhouding deur armoede en maatskaplike en kulturele marginalisering beïnvloed. Vroue se armoede is 'n sentrale manifestasie en direkte gevolg van vroue se mindere maatskaplike, ekonomiese en politieke mag. Economic, social and cultural rights have a particular significance for women because as a group, women are disproportionately affected by poverty and by social and cultural marginalization. Women’s poverty is a central manifestation, and a direct result of women’s lesser social, economic and political power.Cathi Albertyn “Substantive equality and transformation in South Africa” (2007) 23 SAJHR 253-276 Substantiewe gelykheid het vier belangrike aspekte / Substantive equality has four important aspects:(a) die historiese en huidige sosiale konteks van 'n spesifieke groep / historical and current social context of a specific group; (b) die impak van 'n spesifieke wet op hierdie betrokke groep / the impact of a specific legal provision on that specific group; (c) positiewe en realistiese erkenning van verskille; en / positive and realistic recognition of difference; and(d) transformerende waardes van grondwetlike regte – uiteindelik restitusie / transformative values of constitutional rights – ultimately restitution (sections 9(2) and 9(3)).“Being responsible for children makes it more difficult for women to compete in the labour market and is one of the causes of the deep inequalities experienced by women in employment...It is unlikely that we will achieve a more egalitarian society until responsibilities for child rearing are more equally shared.” President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo 1997 4 SA 1 (CC); 1997 6 BCLR (CC) para 38Die geslag loongaping bly van kritiese belang in Suid-Afrika teen 33,5%, terwyl regoor die wêreld die gemiddeld 22,4% isIn S v Jordan is artikel 20(1)(a) van die Wet op Seksuele Misdrywe 23 van 1957, wat die verkoop van seks "deur enige persoon” kriminaliseer uitdaag, maar nie die aankoop van seks nie. Die uitdaging was dat die wetgewing slegs een kant van die transaksie kriminaliseer: die sekswerker en nie die kliënt nie. Dit is dus indirekte diskriminasie, want die meerderheid sekswerkers is in werklikheid vroulik. Ten spyte van dit, het die meerderheid van die Konstitusionele Hof beslis dat artikel 20(1)(a) nie diskriminerend teenoor vroue is nie. Regter Ngcobo: "Die artikel is duidelik van toepassing op manlike sekswerkers sowel as vroulike sekswerkers. Die artikel is dus geslags-neutraal.” (para 9)In S v Jordan section 20(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 was challenged, which criminalised the selling of sex “by any person” but not the buying of sex. The challenge was that the legislation criminalised only one side of the transaction: the sex worker and not the client. This is therefore indirect discrimination, as most sex workers are in fact female. However, the majority of the Constitutional Court held that section 20(1)(a) was not discriminatory towards women. Justice Ngcobo: “The section clearly applies to male sex workers as well as female sex workers. The section is therefore gender-neutral.” (para 9) S v Jordan:Volks v RobinsonIn Volks NO v Robinson moes die Hof die grondwetlikheid van die Wet op Onderhoud van Langslewende Gades 27 van 1990 bepaal. Die Wet is onder die soeklig geplaas vir sy uitsluiting van lewensvennote in saamwoonverhoudings. Die applikant beweer dat dit onbillike diskriminasie behels op grond van huwelikstaat en geslag.Konteks en impak: Die gebrek aan die wetlike beskerming van saamwoonverhoudings en mans se vermoë om geweld te gebruik, het effektief die ondergeskiktheid en wesenlike onsekerheid wat deur baie arm Suid-Afrikaanse vrouens ervaar word, verskans.In Volks NO v Robinson the Court had to determine the constitutionality of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 for its exclusion of partners in co-habiting relationships. The applicant claimed that it discriminated unfairly on the basis of marital status and gender.Context and impact: The lack of legal protection of cohabitation and men’s ability to use violence, has effectively entrenched the subordination and material insecurity experienced by many poor South African women.Berei ŉ bondige saakbespreking oor die minderheidsuitspraak voor. U saakbespreking moet op die feite, die minderheid van die Hof se ontleding van die maatskaplike konteks, asook die minderheid se ontleding van die impak van die relevante wetgewing op sekswerkers, fokus. /Prepare a concise case discussion focusing on the minority judgment. Your case discussion must focus on the facts of the case, the minority of the Court’s analysis of the social context, as well as the minority’s analysis of the impact of the relevant legislation on sex workers.ConclusionTen spyte van die ontwikkeling van die geregtelike handhawing van die reg op gelykheid, bly daar duidelike wetsgrense wat gebruiklike idees oor die samelewing, vroue, gesin, huwelik en seksualiteit onderhou / Despite the development of the judicial enforcement of the right to equality, there remain “clear legal boundaries that sustain conventional ideas on society, women, family, marriage and sexuality”.Discussion group 4:Berei ŉ bondige saakbespreking voor. U saakbespreking moet op die feite van die saak, asook die meerderheid van die Hof se ontleding van die toets vir onbillike diskriminasie, fokus. Beoordeel kortliks hoe die Hof die maatskaplik konteks van die klaer, asook die impak van die versuim om saamwoonverhoudings te beskerm, ondersoek het / Prepare a concise case discussion. Your case discussion must focus on the facts of the case, as well as the majority of the Court’s analysis of the test for unfair discrimination. Briefly critique how the Court examined the social context of the complainant, as well as the impact of the failure to protect cohabitants.Cathi Albertyn- Substantive equalityS v Jordan :Hierdie verklaring deur Ngcobo is heeltemal verwyderd van die maatskaplike werklikheid (konteks) waarbinne die wet funksioneer, aangesien die meerderheid van sekswerkers vroulik is en hierdie vrouens die swaarder las van die kriminalisering van sekswerk dra / This statement is truly disconnected from the social reality (context) within which the law is operating in that the majority of sex workers are female and that these women disproportionately bear the burden of criminalising sex work.Sv JordanDiscussion group 2Discussion group 3Why did the majority say that it is NOT unfair DiscriminationSekswerkers is herhaaldelike oortreeders; kliënt nie noodwending nie/ Sex workers are repeat offenders [para 10]Ander misdrywe word op 'n soortgelyke wyse hantier (soos dwelmhandel)/ Other crimes are handled in a similar manner (such as drug dealing).In die gemenereg, is die kliënt 'n socius criminus en pleeg ook 'n misdryf kragtens artikel 18 van die Wet op Oproerige Byeenkomste/ Under common law the client is a socius criminus and also commits an offence under section 18 of the Riotous Assemblies Act [para11].Die stigma wat heg aan sekswerkers heg nie aan hulle op grond van hul geslag nie, maar op grond van die handeling waarin hulle betrokke raak/ The stigma that attaches to sex workers attaches to them not by virtue of their gender, but by virtue of the conduct they engage in (individualistic idea of choice and autonomy).Nie 'n enkele geval van die ​​vervolging van 'n kliënt is sedert 1988 onder die aandag van die hof gebring nie. / Not a single case of a prosecution of a customer since 1988 [para 42].Daar is verskeie redes waarom die wetgewer kan kies om nie sekswerk te kriminaliseer nie: dit voorkom nie voldoende sekswerk nie; die kriminalisering van sekswerk kan die sekswerker eerder 'n slagoffer as 'n misdadiger maak; daar is 'n behoefte om sekswerk te reguleer om eerder die sosiale skade daarvan te beperk as om dit te verbied / There are many reasons why the legislature may choose not to criminalise sex work: it doesn’t adequately deter sex work; criminalisation may render the sex worker more a victim than a criminal; there is a need to regulate sex work to limit its social harm[para 45].Die bewyse dui daarop dat baie vroue na sekswerk draai as gevolg van ernstige finansiële nood. Hulle gebruik hul inkomste om hul gesinne te ondersteun en vir hul kinders se kos en opvoeding te betaal / Many women turn to sex work because of dire financial need; use their earnings to support their families [para 68]Why did the minority say that it IS unfair discrimination?In 1979, CEDAW) was adopted. International BOR for women; hailed for its progressive recognition of both substantive equality and justiciable socio-economic rights. Article 1 “Any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, human rights in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”Article 2 ; states must pursue by all appropriate means + without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women. Article 5 States must: “Modify social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and all other practices based on the idea of the inferiority/superiority of either of the sexes.CEDAWHuishoudelike geweld: In Suid-Afrika word 'n vrou elke 8 uur deur haar intieme vennoot vermoor/ Domestic violence: In South Africa a woman is murdered every 8 hours by her intimate partner.Verkragting: 66387 verkragtings is in 2013 by die Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens aangemeld. Die Mediese Navorsingsraad beraam egter dat slegs 1/20 verkragtings werklik aangemeld word/ Rape: 66387 rapes were reported to the South African Police Services in 2013. The Medical Research Council estimates that only 1/20 rapes is actually reported.GBV= Health crisisAangesien huwelikstatus ingesluit is as 'n gelyste grond ingevolge artikel 9(3), was die meerderheid bereid om te aanvaar dat dit onbellike diskriminasie daarstel. Uiteindelik egter, het die meerderheid gevind dat omdat die huwelik 'n belangrike maatskaplike instelling is, wat as die basis van ons samelewing dien, is dit nie onbilik om te onderskei tussen persone wat getroud is en persone wat nie getroud is nie./As marital status is a listed ground (s9(3), the majority was prepared to accept that it was presumed unfair discriminaiton. Ultimately however, the majority found that because marriage is a vital social institution, serving as the basis of our society, it was not unfair to distinguish between those who were married and those who were not. (paras 52-54)Volks v RobinsonVolks v Robinson...JordanDie Hof het sy goedkeuring geheg aan 'n liberale opvatting van keuse as vry en onbeperkte / The Court adopted a liberal conception of choice as free and unconstrained. Meerderheidsuitspraak / Majority judgment:“Marriage is a matter of choice. Marriage is a manifestation of that choice and more importantly, the acceptance of the consequences of a marriage.” [para 93]Hierdie liberale opvatting van keuse versuim om die maatskaplike konteks en verskille tussen mans en vroue te erken, asook hoe hulle verhoudings benader / This liberal conception of choice fails to recognise the social context and differences between men and women and how they approach relationships.Volks...Writing assignmentOp 'n stuk papier, skryf jou naam, van en studentenommer neer / On a piece of paper write your name surname and student number.Skryf die vier beginsels van substantiewe gelykheid neer/ Write down the four principles of substantive equality.Differensiasie: Onderskei die wet tussen mense/groepe? Is daar 'n legitieme regeringsoogmerk? Is daar ŉ rasionele verband tussen die oogmerk en die differensiasie? Diskriminasie: Differensiasie op gelyste gronde = geag diskriminasie. Ongelyste grond: Is daardie grond gebaseer op eienskappe of karaktertrekke wat die potensiaal het om mense se menswaardigheid te skend of hulle in ŉ soortgelyke ernstige manier te benadeel?Onbillik diskriminasie: Diskriminasie op 'n gelyste grond = outomaties onbillik. Het die diskriminasie nadeel verskans?Maar indien bevind word dat die diskriminasie wel onbillik is, is dit nog moontlik vir die Staat om die voorskrif/beleid/praktyk ingevolge art 36 te probeer regverdigDifferentiation: Does the law differentiate between people/groups? Is there a legitimate purpose, rationally connected to this differentiation?Discrimination: Differentiation on listed ground = presumed discrimination. If not listed, is the differentiation based on a characteristic capable of impairing the human dignity of the claimant?Unfair discrimination: If listed ground, presumed unfair. If unlisted, does the discrimination entrench existing disadvantage? But if it is found that the discrimination is unfair, still possible for State to try and justify the provision/policy/practice in terms of s 36Test for unfair discriminationFull transcriptMore presentations by
Gender equalityUntitled PreziUntitled Prezi