Constitutional Development
Since 4 February 1997, when the Constitution of South Africa took effect, it has been amended by some 19 Acts of Parliament.
   Cognizance must be taken of the propensity of government to apply the Constitution to its favour and to the detriment of the majority of the people, including people from all cultural backgrounds.
   In an effort to avoid such prejudicial application of the very thing that is meant to eliminate prejudice (the Constitution), it is important that the intentions of the rights and restrictions bequeathed by the Constitution be carefully reviewed and amended where necessary.
   This will make it easier to administer a fair and peaceful dispensation.
   To this end, the SABP believes that the following representative amendments will provide an indication of the type of changes needed:
   Section 9(2) of the Constitution of SA reads:
Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
   This needs to be changed to read:
Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken, provided that such measures are strictly controlled for abuse and the favouring of a select few and are geared towards assisting all disadvantaged people.
   Another crucial aspect of Human Rights is based on the universal principle of give-and-take, and it is this:
   For every Right one is given, one must assume a Responsibility; and that if one abrogates one's Responsibility, one must not expect to retain one's Right.
   For example Section 11 of the Constitution reads:
Everyone has the right to life.
   We believe this should be amended to read:
Everyone has the right to life. Similarly, everyone has the responsibility to allow others to live. If a person removes another's right to life, they forfeit their right as well.
   Why should one person's right to life be protected (the killer) while the other's is not (the victim)? One person's life is surely not more important than another's? Therefore allowing the killer to live is not fair and is not reasonable.
   Section 12(2) of the Constitution reads:
Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right: (a) to make decisions concerning reproduction;
   This right is so broad that it infringes on others rights to privacy, uncrowded living space, adequate education, health services, etc, when reproduction leads to so many children that the governmental system cannot provide or ensure all of the above-named rights. Rather section 12(2) should give a realistic and reasonable limitation on permissible reproduction numbers so that everybody's rights are as much as possible equally preserved.
   Section 21(3) of the Constitution reads:
Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in the Republic.
   This has obvious implications to the infringement of others' rights, and should rather read:
Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in the Republic, provided that the citizen has sufficient resources to do this in an orderly and proper manner; arbitrary erection of temporary shelters on improperly serviced property not belonging to or rented by a citizen is the infringement of another person's rights, and will not be allowed.
   Section 22 of the Constitution reads:
Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely. The practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law.
   If business can be regulated by law, why does the current version of the Constitution not reserve the right of government to legally regulate reproduction and relocation? Is it because more reproduction (people) means more party supporters and more squatters mean the ability to influence the number of supporters (and votes) in a particular area? This is careless and bigoted law-making.
   The right to strike is a legal right and not a fundamental right, and as such has been and should be limited by governments around the world from time to time.
   The right to strike (Section 23(2)c of the Constitution) can and has been inordinately abused by unions in the past, leading to irretrievable losses of trade and jobs.
   Accordingly, it is submitted that this right no longer be open-ended, but that it be limited by law and that workers be compelled to rather use collective bargaining and similar constructive mechanisms.