August 2014 September 2014
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

Subscribe to Newsletter

Fraudline

Spill The Beans

Interventions PDF Print E-mail
Interventions
  1. Two laws (Black Administration Act and Intestate law of Succession Act) explained briefly hereunder should be declared unconstitutional.
  2. Further that Intestate Succession Act must apply to Blacks living under Customary law. Click here for the commission’s statement on the Bhe Case.. CGE is acted as friend of the court (amicus curiae). The case was initially heard in the Cape of Good Hope High Court.
  3. The Bannatyne Case no. CCT 18/02. The respondent was ordered by the high court to pay maintenance to the applicant and their two young children. The CGE intervened in this regard.
  4. The Jordan Case no. CCT 31/02. The proceedings of this case concern the constitutional validity of sections 2,3 and 20(1) of the Sexual offence Act 23 of 1957.
  5. Umlazi Trouser case inciden
  6. Shayamoya cane field killings Click here for the commission’s statement


  7. Ama tshezi chieftancy struggle Click here for the commission’s statement


  8. Position on Pensionable Age Matter. This matter has been rendered Moot by the Finance Minister’s Budget for 2008. This matter was heard by the Pretoria High Court on 11 and 12 September 2007. We are still awaiting Judgment. This matter concerns a constitutional challenge of the provisions of Section 10 of the Social Assistance Act 13 of 2004 (“the Act”) and Regulation 2(2) of the regulations made in terms of Section 32 of the Act, published in the Government Gazette No. 27316 of 2 February 2005 (“the Regulation”). The matter raises important constitution issues concerning the rights of both women and men between the ages of 60 and 64 who receive, or should be entitled to receive, old age pension grants in terms of the Act.The purpose of social security is to assist people, who cannot afford to support themselves, and therefore the appropriate deciding factor should not be based on gender but rather on who qualifies in economic terms.

    It is acknowledged that women are economically, politically and socially more vulnerable than men and allowing that category of men who do not economically afford to support themselves will not in any manner affect the wellbeing of women. More women would still qualify if the age threshold is removed and economic affordability is used as a threshold. CGE as a gender sensitive institution supports the argument brought forth by the two amicii organizations (CALS and CLC) that the differentiation is irrational and clearly against the constitutional commitment of providing social security to people who cannot economically provide for themselves as envisaged by s27 (1) of the Constitution. The CGE is monitoring this matter as envisaged by s11 of the CGE because it was not possible to join as amicus due to the Rules of Court.
  9. Shilubane Chieftaincy matter Click here for the commission’s statement
  10. Z Mpanza v Sibusiso Cele - CGE-KZN initiated this matter before the Equality court Umlazi. In this matter, applicant was stripped off her pants and subsequently had her family house burnt down on allegations of her defying a ban on women wearing pants at Umlazi’s T- section. This ban undermines equality between men and women and as a result had an impact of offending applicant’s right to human dignity. Applicant sought relief in the following:  a declaratory order that the ban be removed and prohibited from being practiced as it unfairly discriminates against women on the basis of gender in terms of Promotion of Equality ND Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA),2000; payment of damages in respect of dignity, pain and suffering, emotional and psychological suffering, further and or alternative relief. The matter was set down for the 9th to 11th April 2008.
  11. Z Mpanza v Sibusiso Cele - CGE-KZN initiated this matter before the Equality court Umlazi. In this matter, applicant was stripped off her pants and subsequently had her family house burnt down on allegations of her defying a ban on women wearing pants at Umlazi’s T- section. This ban undermines equality between men and women and as a result had an impact of offending applicant’s right to human dignity. Applicant sought relief in the following:  a declaratory order that the ban be removed and prohibited from being practiced as it unfairly discriminates against women on the basis of gender in terms of Promotion of Equality ND Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA),2000; payment of damages in respect of dignity, pain and suffering, emotional and psychological suffering, further and or alternative relief. The matter was set down for the 9th to 11th April 2008.      

 

Listing of all Submissions

 

 
Developed by Cosmic Link | Copyright © 2008, Commission for Gender Equality | All rights reserved
porno deutsch porno gratis porno gratis porno porno porno gratuit porno deutsche pornofilme gratis porno porno casino bonus no deposit bonus